Mark Foley

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

You must have been around during Monicagate. There was at least as much moral outrage by the GOP as there is now by the democrats.

That is my point. But the left defended Clinton, and the right is not defending Foley.

Whether they defended him or not, it's a hell of a lot worse that the Republicans protected Foley when they had an inkling of what he was doing.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Whether they defended him or not, it's a hell of a lot worse that the Republicans protected Foley when they had an inkling of what he was doing.

I think in the end, we'll find individuals on both sides protected Foley. And specifically for political reasons - though different reasons. And I find that equally crappy and they should be kicked out. I wonder, though, how many actual congressmen truly fit in this category vs their staff members. And for that member, of those Congressmen truly guilty, how many won't be found out anyway.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Whether they defended him or not, it's a hell of a lot worse that the Republicans protected Foley when they had an inkling of what he was doing.

I think in the end, we'll find individuals on both sides protected Foley. And specifically for political reasons - though different reasons. And I find that equally crappy and they should be kicked out. I wonder, though, how many actual congressmen truly fit in this category vs their staff members. And for that member, of those Congressmen truly guilty, how many won't be found out anyway.

What amuses me is Hastert this morning saying that if any of HIS staff was involved in a coverup, THEY (but certainly not HE) should lose their jobs. What a hero.

[mnealtx 0]

Absolutely right, counselor... just as YOU should be disbarred if one of your paralegals misbilled their hours.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 2]

I realize I didn't make my point clearly.
I was saying mainly that if the staff of the Speaker of the House not only knew about the Foley problems but affirmatively covered them up, it's hard to believe that the Speaker was so out of the loop that he knew nothing about that. Not inconceivable, I suppose, just hard to believe. Personally, I suspect he's hiding behind his staff. We'll know in a couple of weeks whether the electorate finds him hard to believe, too.

By the way, I AM responsible for the conduct of my staff. I have secretaries who make calls and type documents, and paralegals who prepare their own level of work product, too; but in the end, I'm responsible for reviewing all of their work to make sure it's done right, since it goes out over my name, not theirs. I'm also responsible for reviewing my associates' and paralegals' bills before they go out to the client. If a client inquires about a billing entry, or a judge or opposing attorney has a problem with something that goes out with our letterhead, I'm the one who takes the flak for it; I've never yet met the judge who will accept the excuse "Sorry, my paralegal screwed up" from an attorney. The voters should give Hastert and other Congressmen no more leeway than a judge would give to me.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The voters should give Hastert and other Congressmen no more leeway than a judge would give to me.

Agreed... I'm looking forward to finding out who from the DNC was shopping the emails around last year, and the results of getting Pelosi and Emanuel on the stand...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,080]

>The only thing is, he didn't lie under oath about it. The then current
>definition of sexual relations did not include a BJ, hence he did not lie
>about it either.

Yep, and Michele and Dorbie have both defended Foley to some degree right here. Right wing pundits have claimed that the victims were to blame for this, and Foley was just duped. Does that mean "the right is defending Foley?"

[Michele 1]

Quote

Michele and Dorbie have both defended Foley

I did?

If so, I miswrote...inasmuch as wondering if, in reality, there was a crime committed. I never said it was palatable, or desireable, nor something I would want my child exposed to...but I wondered if there was a crime. Because if sending salacious pms and emails to someone is indeed a crime, then I'm a criminal too....

To me, that's not defending. Rather, that's curious as to if there's a crime that has been committed. Said nothing about what I think of Foley (as far as I can recall; certainly not anything "positive"), but rather simply questioned if there was an actual crime that occurred.

So if asking if a crime was actually committed is defending someone, then there are lots of people all over the place who are "defending" Foley...and defending criminals of all ilk and manner from coast to coast.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[billvon 3,080]

>but I wondered if there was a crime. Because if sending salacious
> pms and emails to someone is indeed a crime, then I'm a criminal
> too....

That's fine. However, saying that he may be innocent, and comparing his sending obscene IM's to teenage pages to your activity of sending emails to friends of yours - is defending him by the standards right-wingers use when referring to defenses of Clinton. (i.e. "yeah he lied under oath, so censure him and move on" is apparently defending Clinton.)

Personally, I don't know what ages the various pages were when he sent the IM's/emails, and am content to let the DA make a call on what crimes (if any) he should be charged with.

[Trent 0]

Quote

Personally, I don't know what ages the various pages were when he sent the IM's/emails, and am content to let the DA make a call on what crimes (if any) he should be charged with.

So would you correct someone who is screaming that he's a child molester or a pedophile by saying that none of that has been proven and we don't have enough information to spout particularly harmful things like that? Or would you be content to let it go on since you happen to fall on the opposite side of the political party system? Then, if you did choose to just smirk and let it happen... would you (incorrectly) label people who want "innocent until proven guilty" to stand as "defenders of the pedophile"? Would you then reference actions from others years ago, who you don't agree with anyway, as an excuse for your behavior?

Oh, hello again!

[Michele 1]

Quote

Personally, I don't know what ages the various pages were when he sent the IM's/emails, and am content to let the DA make a call on what crimes (if any) he should be charged with.

That's all I've ever said/intimated...so I guess that means you're defending him, too.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[billvon 3,080]

>So would you correct someone who is screaming that he's a child
>molester or a pedophile by saying that none of that has been proven and
>we don't have enough information to spout particularly harmful things like
>that?

He's not a child molester; nothing I have seen indicates he is. I don't know if he's a pedophile; his activities certainly indicate he _might_ be, but that's what we have police investigators for. I'm content to let a jury decide whether or not he really is. I suggest republicans do the same.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

That's fine. However, saying that he may be innocent, and comparing his sending obscene IM's to teenage pages to your activity of sending emails to friends of yours - is defending him by the standards right-wingers use when referring to defenses of Clinton. (i.e. "yeah he lied under oath, so censure him and move on" is apparently defending Clinton.)

Thats one person you made a claim about and was wrong.

And asking if what Foley did was legal or not is not the same as defending him. We don't know if he did anything illegal, and the left wants his head. We know Clinton lied and the left defended him by saying it was no big deal.

Both have valid points, but I find some deal of humor in how the left's outrage is dependent on what party the guy is from.

[billvon 3,080]

>Thats one person you made a claim about and was wrong.

If that's true, then everyone who claims "the left defended Clinton" is just as wrong.

[Trent 0]

Quote

I don't know if he's a pedophile; his activities certainly indicate he _might_ be, but that's what we have police investigators for. I'm content to let a jury decide whether or not he really is. I suggest republicans do the same.

Exactly, so it IS dishonest to say that people who are considering him innocent UNTIL he's proven guilty are defending him, right? Is it defending him to ask questions about the circumstances of the whole ordeal?

Honestly... there's more people prematurely calling for his scalp than there could even be considered to be "defending" him... and that's based only on these allegations so far. You know what's going on. Don't be dishonest.

Oh, hello again!

[NCclimber 0]

I don't care what Armitage said or who Fitzgerald cleared...






Karl Rove was directly involved in the intentional and malicious outing of Valerie Plame!

Just look at the facts, people!!!!!

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

I don't know if he's a pedophile; his activities certainly indicate he _might_ be, but that's what we have police investigators for. I'm content to let a jury decide whether or not he really is. I suggest republicans do the same.

Exactly, so it IS dishonest to say that people who are considering him innocent UNTIL he's proven guilty are defending him, right? Is it defending him to ask questions about the circumstances of the whole ordeal?

.

Well, using that criterion, Clinton and OJ Simpson are also innocent so I guess we should all quit saying anything bad about them.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Honestly... there's more people prematurely calling for his scalp than there could even be considered to be "defending" him... and that's based only on these allegations so far.

As true as this seems, I don't care which side has 'more' of the two hypocritical positions. They should both stop.

I'd like the comments "Let the DA handle this now that Foley has resigned (add in gratuitous random political dig)" to just evolve to the same without the paranthetical. Seems we have other worries.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,080]

>so it IS dishonest to say that people who are considering him
> innocent UNTIL he's proven guilty are defending him, right?

He is legally innocent, and will remain so until a judge/jury decides otherwise. That's not to say he's not a very slimy guy for sending IM's to teenagers.

Look at it this way. Michael Jackson is legally innocent of any charges of child molestation. You can say that and still not want that guy anywhere near your kids, ever, because he's a creep.

I suspect you understand this, as do most republicans (and democrats, for that matter.) And a republican could claim "guilty until proven innocent!" until the cows come home - and they still woudln't send their 16 year old kid to work in his office.

>Is it defending him to ask questions about the circumstances of the
>whole ordeal?

Nope. But it is defending someone to say "he didn't do anything worse than what I have done."

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Well, using that criterion, Clinton and OJ Simpson are also innocent so I guess we should all quit saying anything bad about them.

"not guilty" <> "innocent"

I can't believe you are defending those two guys. That and BV defending Michael Jackson.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

Well, using that criterion, Clinton and OJ Simpson are also innocent so I guess we should all quit saying anything bad about them.

"not guilty" <> "innocent"

I can't believe you are defending those two guys. That and BV defending Michael Jackson.

Well, anyone that likes BJs is defending Hitler.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

Whether they defended him or not, it's a hell of a lot worse that the Republicans protected Foley when they had an inkling of what he was doing.

I think in the end, we'll find individuals on both sides protected Foley. And specifically for political reasons - though different reasons.

You know I keep hearing that rumor but as far as I've seen, there hasn't been a single allegation that a specific Democrat had foreknowledge of what Foley was doing. That in contrast to quite a number of specific allegations on the Republican side.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

You know I keep hearing that rumor but as far as I've seen, there hasn't been a single allegation that a specific Democrat had foreknowledge of what Foley was doing. That in contrast to quite a number of specific allegations on the Republican side.

You mean like where Hastert's STAFF was notified that Foley was sending innapropriate emails?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

You know I keep hearing that rumor but as far as I've seen, there hasn't been a single allegation that a specific Democrat had foreknowledge of what Foley was doing. That in contrast to quite a number of specific allegations on the Republican side.

You mean like where Hastert's STAFF was notified that Foley was sending innapropriate emails?

You sit there and tell me with a straight face you think Hastert was kept in the dark about Foley all this time. These guys, hardly representatives of the left-wing conspiracy, think he knew or at the very least he should have known.

Quote

House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once. Either he was grossly negligent for not taking the red flags fully into account and ordering a swift investigation, for not even remembering the order of events leading up to last week's revelations -- or he deliberately looked the other way in hopes that a brewing scandal would simply blow away.

One of the great things conservatives always had going for themselves was there insistence that responsibility should be taken, not shifted. Making the staff into the scapegoat here can only hurt the Republican position.

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

You know I keep hearing that rumor but as far as I've seen, there hasn't been a single allegation that a specific Democrat had foreknowledge of what Foley was doing. That in contrast to quite a number of specific allegations on the Republican side.

You mean like where Hastert's STAFF was notified that Foley was sending innapropriate emails?

Uh-oh, we've reached the "grasping at straws" stage now.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.