Comments Posted By flounder
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 13 Comments
OY WHAT A MESS! FOLEY COVERUP AND THE GAMBIT THAT EXPOSED IT
I liked your theories better when you were linking to the wrong website. Classic. And as for what CREW had, why don't you just read their website:
On July 21, 2006 CREW received a set of emails, allegedly from Rep. Foley to a former House page, which it sent to the FBI later that day. The emails, posted at www.citizensforethics.org, asked the page, who had recently left the Hill, his age, how school was going and what he wanted for his birthday. Rep. Foley also requested the boy’s photograph.
“As a former prosecutor who handled sex crimes in the District of Columbia, the emails set off alarm bells. Grown men simply do not send emails requesting photographs to teenagers over whom they have had some degree of authority,†Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW wrote today.
It appears only now, at the instigation of the House of Representatives leadership’s request, that the FBI has begun a preliminary investigation into former Rep. Foley’s conduct. Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert sent a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales requesting an investigation into Rep. Foley’s actions as well as who knew about Rep. Foley’s conduct, when they knew it and why they did not forward that information to law enforcement authorities.
Sloan stated today, “Since the FBI has known about Rep. Foley’s emails since July, the question arises: Did the administration help to cover up Rep. Foley’s conduct and leave a potential sexual predator on the loose? Was the administration more concerned with protecting a powerful ally in Congress than with protecting children?â€
Doesn't sound like they had the IM's. And why are they a left-wing group? Are responsibility and ethics a liberal bias? They're probably you biggest ally in trying to bring down Murtha, "soul and conscience of the military."
Comment Posted By flounder On 2.10.2006 @ 11:21
THE WEBSITE THAT STARTED IT ALL - STRANGE BUT TRUE
Are you saying that the warnings that republican pages should stay away from Foley in 2001 were based on a mildly creepy e-mail from 2005 (actually two I believe, one of which I will call the great body e-mail)? Because you are implying that the e-mails from 2005 are the only data points that House Republican leadership and overseers of the page program had to go on when confronting Foley with them. And from what I can ascertain is that the same people who had red flags in 2001 are largely the same actors involved in 2005.
Comment Posted By flounder On 2.10.2006 @ 00:29
And what I am asking is if they have at least 4 or five years of circumstancial evidence that Foley is a perv who likes young boys it might be worth doing something more than taking his word that it was all due to a hurricane. Oh, and Foley assured them that he just wanted a picture because he kept a file of all the pages he thought might want a reference someday, do you suppose they ever thought to ask to see the file and make him support his excuse?
And really, you guys are out chasing around Jason Leopold while Bob Woodward is out there telling the American public that tricky old John Murtha is the "soul and concience of the military." While you guys are trying to do an end around on a sex predator case and try to prove something or other, there is a couple dudes out there that need to be swiftboated. You took your eye off the ball!
Comment Posted By flounder On 1.10.2006 @ 22:44
Republicans were warning kids away from Foley since 2001 because he is "over friendly," to pages even though there are no hurricanes involved as far as I can tell. Same situation comes up in 2005, same cast of Republican overseers are notified, yet "over friendly" is waved off as owing to a hurricane. Matter is ignored. Are we clear on those pieces of information? When does a history of being "over friendly," one that dates back to at least 2001, become of a sexual nature?
Comment Posted By flounder On 1.10.2006 @ 22:23
I'm not conflating anything. Hastert described the e-mails as "overly friendly" but not "of a sexual nature." I've seen enough dirty old men in my day that I don't really know that there is any difference between the two. You've watched that Dateline show. Is there any difference? Could you diagram it?
Comment Posted By flounder On 1.10.2006 @ 21:24
While were at it , could you help me with how the fact that Republican sponsored pages were warned of Foley since 2001, while Democratic pages were left to their own devices (as reported by ABC News) is the fault of CREW, the meanie media, or Jason Leopold? And if IM's were fake do you really believe that FOley wouldn't be denying the crap out them by now? Other than that, all your conspiracy theories are great.
Comment Posted By flounder On 1.10.2006 @ 21:09
Could you please explain how CREW forwarding the e-mails to the FBI and waiting to have their authenticity confirmed fits into your narrative about them sitting on them to pop them before the election? And while you are at it, how about somebody explaining to me what the difference is between "over friendly" and "of a sexual nature" is when it comes to old men hanging out with young boys? Hastert seems to think there is some big difference but it isn't obvious to me.
Comment Posted By flounder On 1.10.2006 @ 20:56
FOLEY MATTER PROVES REPUBLICANS SUPPORT PERVERTS
Republicans know about Foley in 2001, tell Republican pages to stay away from him and watch out for him being "over friendly". Note that no hurricanes appear to be involved. Rep. Shimkus, knowing Foley has a prediliction to be "over friendly," still goes on C-Span in 2002 telling us from there that Foley spends a lot of time with the kids and takes them out for one on one dinners. Fast forward to early this year, Republican leaders get word Foley is still pulling his "over friendly" routine and kids are describing it as "sick, sick, sick." Regardless of prior history, "over friendly" is passed off as happening due to a hurricane. Should the e-mails have been passed off this way? And since it is obvious that somebody has been shopping these around for at least a few months (and CREW was trying to get the FBI involved before it could/and so it would verify auhenticity) it seems hard to characterize this as an "October surpise." Besides, I thought Rove had already promised the fundies a big October surprise and I think he would be angry at you trying to use his term to describe actions by Democrats.
Comment Posted By flounder On 1.10.2006 @ 21:56
C'mon, no one has explained to me what the difference between "over friendly" and "of a sexual nature" is when it comes to old men chatting up young boys. Merovign, you sound like just the sort of word parser who could explain this to me.
Comment Posted By flounder On 1.10.2006 @ 20:05
Oh boy, it sure is gonna be hard to keep claiming CREW sat on the e-mails and let a sex predator keep running around in order to play October suprise:
The e-mails were posted Friday on the Web site of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington after ABC News reported their existence.
Naomi Seligman, a spokeswoman for CREW, said the group also sent a letter to the FBI after it received the e-mails. CREW did not post their copies of the e-mail until ABC News reported them, instead waiting for the investigation.
What now? Blame the FBI?
Comment Posted By flounder On 1.10.2006 @ 17:35
