Well, Drudge isn’t always right, but he also isn’t always wrong, so this siren is at least worth a mention:
CLAIM: FILTHY FOLEY ONLINE MESSAGES WERE PAGE PRANK GONE AWRY
**World Exclusive**
**Must Credit the DRUDGE REPORT**According to two people close to former congressional page Jordan Edmund, the now famous lurid AOL Instant Message exchanges that led to the resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal… Developing…
It seems rather implausible to me that Foley would have resigned if he wasn’t guilty. At worst, I’m guessing this is a case of “fake but accurate” (i.e., Foley really did have a history of inappropriate contact with underage pages, but the particular IMs in question were a “prank” making fun of that history). But that’s pure speculation on my part. Anyway, we link, you deride. Let the flame-war begin continue!
UPDATE: More:
According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, goaded Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of political operatives favorable to Democrats. This source, an ally of Edmund, also adamantly proclaims that the former page is not a homosexual. The prank scenario was confirmed by a second associate of Edmund.
Now, wait just a minute. “Goaded” him into typing the comments? What the heck does that mean? Was Foley in on the “prank”? Or was he “goaded” only in the sense that these pages were getting him to type “embarrassing” pederastic comments that reflect his true nature? If the latter, this is almost a non-story. It might have some bearing on the thoroughness of ABC’s investigation, but not on the depravity of Foley’s conduct. This is not a court of law, so “entrapment” is not a defense. If Foley was telling teenage pages that they make him horny, and he meant it (as opposed to merely goofing around as some sort of “prank” that he was “in on”), then he’s a sick man, regardless of whether those pages egged him on. (And if he was merely goofing around, then he’s criminally stupid and should have resigned for that reason alone.)
UPDATE 2: Drudge adds: “The prank scenario only applies to the Edmund IM sessions and does not necessarily apply to any other exchanges between the former congressman and others.”
|
Categories: Elections & Politics (U.S.)
|
October 5th, 2006 at 3:05:29 pm
God damn Drudge pwns. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
October 5th, 2006 at 3:16:30 pm
I call for the entire goverments resignation on my desk by sundown, we the people have spoken….
Were taking back Our Country!!!
America…One for All, All for One!!!
October 5th, 2006 at 3:23:45 pm
I would put WAY more stock in this if, like Brendan said, Foley had not resigned. Or even said he was innocent.
But do keep in mind that initially, he didn’t want to run for re-election anyways. So he may have simply decided to leave quickly, if not quietly.
Still, I find this highly implausible, but certainly interesting.
October 5th, 2006 at 3:33:28 pm
All this is is cover for the guys on the other side not to come off as gay. It doesn’t mean that Foley wasn’t trying to get some 16-year-old to suck his dick.
October 5th, 2006 at 3:43:18 pm
A&A is as artful as he is insightful.
October 5th, 2006 at 3:47:23 pm
yes…foley is a bad guy…but if this new information is true, it creates the new story that this is all about political dirty tricks..
both sides have skeletons..people know it…
the whole thing makes both sides look really really bad…
this is just one pt for R”s who are still way behind on this one
October 5th, 2006 at 3:51:34 pm
I agree that it would have no impact on the reprehensibility of Foley’s coduct. It might, however, be relevant to what, if anything, the rest of the House leadership should have done. If the report is true, (a big if, of course) it could be quite helpful to Hastert and the House leadership: first, it would explain, in a quite logical way, why Hastert et al didn’t know about the IMs; and second, if the IMS were “induced” by the page, it might well mean that Foley had never previously engaged in such outrageous behavior before, which would make more credible Hastert’s claim that all he knew about was e-mails which, while improper, didn’t necessarily require precipitous action on anyone’s part
October 5th, 2006 at 3:56:53 pm
Hm.
I’m with Brendan Loy and Glenn Reynolds: the “prank” interpretation of the Foley scandal doesn’t really explain everything. And if it were pure prank—that is, Foley was in on it, and just screwing around—would he have resigned? Unless, …
October 5th, 2006 at 4:03:54 pm
It seems to me when Foley’s Chief of Staff went to the Speaker of the House two years ago and said his boss was hitting on teens that it should be enough to get Hastert’s attention, regardless of whether or not Hastert knew about the IMs.
October 5th, 2006 at 4:17:33 pm
I think “goaded” means that he was lured by the intern. Foley didn’t get where he was by being naive about the intentions of his subjects. He probably thought he was IMing with young, homosexuals and believed that his identity would be kept confidential as would (he thought)the other person.
Nontheless, he’s still a pervert.
October 5th, 2006 at 4:19:50 pm
it seems obvious that the prank was on foley…we all think its so cut and dried but i’m saying in foley’s mind who knows what he remembered…who knows if there was actual contacts between him and pages..
he had to quit no matter what he had done and the semantics and nuances of his actions arent meaningful anymore
in other words, him quitting isnt proof of anything..although if i had to bet…..i wouldnt bet against it
as far as what hastert/gop/dems knew and when they knew it,, puhleeze…they are all sitting on so many skeletons its not funny…both sides have gay/crossdressed/bondage/underage/drunks/druggies etc etc etc among them and they all keep quiet..they should all be ashamed..i’m no expert but isnt there a dem from the eighties who actually admitted sex with teenage boy and he stayed in congress!!!!
foley had to go and should probably go to jail, but this is all about politics now…the hit was made on gop and its bad…but if it turns out this was clearly dirty tricks watch the fun
October 5th, 2006 at 4:20:54 pm
ACK !
I don’t know if this would be better or worse …
And, yes, I can see it as plausible that teenagers with too much time on their hands cold say to each other “He’s gay; he seems to like you;let’s see how he responds to this IM from you !” - and then lead him on for a while … after all, it’s only IMs, it’s not like it’s doing anything gay, now, is it ?
Was that what has happened here ? Dunno …
Foley resigned - that seems to speak to a guilty conscience … we’ll find out, eventually, I bet !
October 5th, 2006 at 4:40:22 pm
hold on a sec. this sounds like a little sleight of hand on the medias part. We have emails
sent that Hastert looked at, which didn’t amount to much. Then we have IM’s which were
suddenly released, which now appear to have been a prank.
But as has been earlier reported the page in question playing the prank may in fact have
been 18 and was a former page. In other words, this may have been a correspondence between
Foley and a former page who was now of age. And Foley may have resigned simply because of
the witch hunt that was about to ensue that would reveal his gayness, or because, while it
wasn’t pedophilia or molestation it still would look bad for him because it would show he
was both gay and engaging in graphic talk with an 18 year old former page.
We NEED to know now whether the page who got the emails is the same page who got the IM and
whether the former page who said it was a prank did this on his own time or as a page, and
the media looks more and more like they tried for an october surprise here.
Not to suggest that Foley shouldn’t still have resigned. But if Hastert is looking at emails
send by one page and this other former page is having a laugh by speaking provocatively to
Foley then Hastert may not have ever known about the second correspondence and may be in fact
completely unrelated to the former issue. Which is why the media has to provide clarity.
We need to know when the page who’s IM’s were released was in fact a page and when the IM’s occured.
Because I’ve seen a cached page from google that shows that the page in question was a page
from 2001 to 2002 and the IM’s were in 2003, when he was already gone from the program.
Is there a crime to have a congressman IM an 18 year old and have cybersex if that person is no
longer in the page program?
October 5th, 2006 at 4:44:30 pm
Why is this starting to look more and more like yet another Rove-a-dope coming to fruition ?
October 5th, 2006 at 5:24:08 pm
Question: How did they get records of AIM’s sent? And are emails kept on record somewhere?
October 5th, 2006 at 5:26:48 pm
“Goaded”, as in Foley is a 52 year old lecher and boy-monger, who couldn’t keep his mind off his crotch when a young boy-man, not gay but knowing about Foley’s reputation, fished Foley like something out of Hemingway’s Islands in the Stream.
Get it?
October 5th, 2006 at 5:39:40 pm
Weird. However, never underestimate how low the fifth-column left will stoop. They have no concept of proportionality or hypocrisy.
Here is more on the leftist mind. Quite funny.
October 5th, 2006 at 6:07:19 pm
Is there a crime to have a congressman IM an 18 year old and have cybersex if that person is no
longer in the page program?
jr565, it might not be illegal but it is certainly very inappropriate. A man who was chair of the committee for protecting children, who has spent a lot of time and effort passing laws to crack down on “sickos”, using his own words, and who is a member of a party who purports to live to a higher standard and would never publicly support 52 year old men praying on 18 year olds, should not engage in that type of behavior. There is no way to excuse the predatory behavior and hassrament of a a 52 year old Congressman even if it is technically legal. In Foley’s case it would be blatantly hypocritical.
October 5th, 2006 at 6:08:49 pm
It seems to me when Foley’s Chief of Staff went to the Speaker of the House two years ago and said his boss was hitting on teens that it should be enough to get Hastert’s attention, regardless of whether or not Hastert knew about the IMs.
I fully agree with Angrier, and like I said in the other post on this subject, I am sure Hastert et al could have and should have effectively dealt with this threat and political liability early on.
October 5th, 2006 at 6:09:53 pm
Right off, Bea. Right off. You go, girl.
October 5th, 2006 at 6:53:48 pm
Weird. However, never underestimate how low the fifth-column left will stoop. They have no concept of proportionality or hypocrisy.
It never ceases to amuse me how the far-right loyalists first reaction to anything that their party heroes does wrong is to some how try and shift the focus to the media and/or the Democrats. Truly truly pathetic.
Be a man (or woman) and own up to the fact that this is 100% Foley’s fault. Not the media. Not the Democrats. Foley. And if it turns out to be true that Hastert protected him, then its the leaderships fault too. The GOP leadership.
Quite trying to bring in pointless partisan distractions unless they have ACTUAL relavence to the situation at hand. Its transparent and its pathetic. Now if you had evidence or reason to believe that a Democrat told the page to do this, or a Democrat told the page to sit on this information until it would be convenient for him, then absolutely, criticize away. But quit bringing up Clinton or Kennedy or others as some sort of excuse for how this isn’t a bad thing. Regardless of what any Democrat does now or in the past THIS IS WRONG. That would be true if it were the parties reversed too.
On the other hand, if you really really want to compare the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal to this scandal, then i suppose that means you favor launching a multi-million dollar investigation into the GOP right? Yeah, thought not. Its ok when your guy does it, but not the other guy right? Pathetic, truly pathetic.
October 5th, 2006 at 6:57:02 pm
There has got to be a diaper shortage in D.C. This story has been out for a week and, much to their surprise, every conservative in history has still not been erased from existence.
If the Republican’s year had happened to the Democrats, only Connecticut, Washington, Hawaii, and California would have sent Democrats to Congress.
October 5th, 2006 at 6:57:36 pm
This page is doing some serious CYA. The kids that are pages are generally the most intelligent of their peers and typically cutthroat in their attempts to get into Harvard or on the good side of the Pols for references and future work. To say you were so naive that you thought it was a funny idea is ridiculous. These kids are more computer savvy than that.
October 5th, 2006 at 7:08:17 pm
David K wrote:
Regardless of what any Democrat does now or in the past THIS IS WRONG. That would be true if it were the parties reversed too.
On the other hand, if you really really want to compare the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal to this scandal, then i suppose that means you favor launching a multi-million dollar investigation into the GOP right? Yeah, thought not. Its ok when your guy does it, but not the other guy right? Pathetic, truly pathetic.
I would compare it more to the Studds case. Here was a cognressman who had actual sex not just diirty IM’s with an underage page. And he was censured, he didn’t even have to resign. When he was censured he turned his back on those censuring him and ignored them. He got standing ovations for his stance and when he left he said that it was a private matter and was noones’ business. Oh, and he then got reelected for 5 or 6 more terms in Massachusets.
Foley hasn’t been accused of actual sex, resigned as soon as this came to light (as well he should) and there is questions as to whether the page Foley spoke with was actually older than the page Stubbs f*cked.
The moral of the story I guess is that Massachusets liberals who voted for this guy over and over and over after heis censure had no problem with a pedophile in congress.
October 5th, 2006 at 7:29:52 pm
jr565, while i can’t speak for the Studds case, the difference i see so far is that his was consensual (he didn’t rape the page?) and while i think he should have been thrown out for abuse of power, in Foley’s case it was harrasment, and also was covered up. Was the Studds case covered up? No, according to what i can find on it it was not. And while again i find his behavior repugnant, you failed to mention that a Republican senator was ALSO implicated in the same scandal and also only receieved censure.
October 5th, 2006 at 7:31:09 pm
jr565 - don’t exaggerate … pedophile is after pre-puberty kids … ephebophile is after post-pubescent kids … ex-Congressman Studds apparently liked ‘em at or a little over the age of consent …
Ex-Congressman Foley seems not to have gotten past the exchange of Emails and IMs - apparently with the same level of maturity of young men that ex-Congressman Studds ‘knew intimately’ …
Bea - what ex-Congressman Foley seems to have been caught doing is a variation on harassment, not molestation … and certainly NOT pedophilia …
Perhaps, instead of resigning, ex-Congressman Foley should simply have switched his party, from Republican to Democrat, and all would have again been well ?
October 5th, 2006 at 7:35:37 pm
Bea wrote:
jr565, it might not be illegal but it is certainly very inappropriate. A man who was chair of the committee for protecting children, who has spent a lot of time and effort passing laws to crack down on “sickos�, using his own words, and who is a member of a party who purports to live to a higher standard and would never publicly support 52 year old men praying on 18 year olds, should not engage in that type of behavior. There is no way to excuse the predatory behavior and hassrament of a a 52 year old Congressman even if it is technically legal. In Foley’s case it would be blatantly hypocritical.
Who says what he did was in any way appropriate? there aren’t any conservatives saying they defend foley or think he was in the right or should somehow not get booted from congress. Conservatives would feel that even if the page were 18 and thus it were legal and considered consensual it would still be wrong because its an abuse of power for a senator or a president (ahem) to boink the interns, or pages or to proposition the interns or pages. What they are objecting to is the hypocricy of the dems and the left who suddenly grew a moral conscience and are trying to smear all conservatives as covering for pedophiles.
Wrong. As mentioned, when Studds got caught he was defiant. He turned his back on those who were censuring him and said it was noones business even though he actually had sex with an unerage page. His argument was that it was consensual and was his own business. When clinton got caught he lied about it and then everyone on the left said it was private and consensual so who’s to blame.
Have you read some of the IM’s in question. The page is giving his penis size and the says “LOL” as though it was a joke. If we’re gong to make the argument like the left did with clinton and with Studds for example, then the only issue at hand is not whether Foley is hitting on the interns but whether it was consensual and whether they were of age. LOL sounds consensual, and 16 is the age of consent. So therefore what’s YOUR beef? We’ve already establisehd that most conservatives would say that the mere fact that foley is hitting on pages whether its consensual or not is the issue. Glad that youre on the same page, but where were the dems when they used the exact same reasoning to overlook Clinton getting bj’s from Monica etc etc etc.
The other thing conservatives object to is being accuesed of a cover up. Do we even know if the page who sent the emails is the same one who sent the IM’s and whether the pages were even stilll in the page program when FOley started hitting on them? Becuase I’ve seen at least two accounts now from pages who said that Foley IM’ed them after tehy left the program and then started trying to hit on them. Do any of the news accounts give any clarification as to when these IM’s were done, and whether Hastert or anyone else sawy these IM’s or whether Foley was even hitting on the pages while they were pages?
Because Hastert might have seen an email that wasn’t very damning at all and simply been in the dark about waht Foley was doing with pages. The exclusion by the media of actual details regarding facts about these IM’s and when they were sent and conflating them with the emails that Hastert did see and respond to is either sloppy reporting or an attempt to bring down the speaker for political purposes. And most conservatives reject that idea.
As soon as it was known Foley was hitting on pages he was forced out. Conservatives haven’t covered for FOley or said it was aprivate matter or because a page was 18 it was consensual. That’s the dems argument. But we shouldnt’ throwo people overbaord simply because political operatives are doing a hatchet job or becuase there’s a demagogic witch hunt going ont
October 5th, 2006 at 7:40:39 pm
Dave K wrote: while i can’t speak for the Studds case, the difference i see so far is that his was consensual (he didn’t rape the page?) and while i think he should have been thrown out for abuse of power, in Foley’s case it was harrasment.
Another difference is that in Studds case he had actual sex. In Foley’s case he didn’t. Now as to consent. We have an instance of a page complaining about some emails that they didnt’ like. Is that the same page that is giving his penis size in an IM and then LOLing? I don’t see too many IM’s out now where the Page in question is saying “no no no foley, stop harrasing me”. They’re all conversations with people who seem to be going along with it. And in the case of the page who was outed he was 18. In fact all pages have to be 16 to be pages, and since 16 is the age of consent in DC if we take your tact then arent’ they all fair game?
October 5th, 2006 at 8:01:59 pm
Alasdair, I have NOT ONCE acused Foley of pedophilia. I already addressed this in another post.
October 5th, 2006 at 8:03:16 pm
The longer Hastert and members of the fringe Right like Drudge try to pin this on Democrats, the more it will appear in the eyes of average Americans that Hastert and the Republican Leadership are giving a tacit endorsement of Foley’s behavior.
Middle America has a low tolerance for the kind of behavior demonstrated by Foley - as seen by the popularity of the Dateline Predator series - and I highly doubt they will buy any kind of nuanced argument or defense from Hastert and company. Even worse for Republicans, the Religious Right must be sitting in their homes right now wondering why Hastert is defending a possible child predator.
October 5th, 2006 at 8:05:02 pm
“Ex-Congressman Foley seems not to have gotten past the exchange of Emails and IMs - apparently with the same level of maturity of young men that ex-Congressman Studds ‘knew intimately’”
Alasdair-
That is a hell of an assumption on your part. Do you really think after 11 years of tossing the hook out into the page pool Foley didn’t get a bite now and then? Just wait.
October 5th, 2006 at 8:16:16 pm
jr565, I don’t know who you are and you don’t konw who I am, but let me just point out hat I am a Republican and I am in more than one occasion been refered to as a conservative. Just want to make that clear because it seems some people have been reading my commets as an attack from the left, when it is clear to anyone who knows me I am not really on the left. I know conservatives and Republicans are disgusted with Foley. What I am addressing is my concerns with conservatines who bring up Democratic behavior and how Democrats should not be bitching, because, uhm, I am not a Democrat bitching. I am a Republican bitching. You point out that you are addrssing the hypocrisy of Democrats for all of a sudden growing a conscience (something I agree with in general).What I am addressing the obtuseness of some Republicans not realizing that many of the arguments for decrying Democratic ypocrisy reek of hypocrisy and apologetic bullshit. You might not mean to apologize for the leadership and Foley, but every time you say, hey, the Dems did it and did it worse, what’s the big deal, you make the republican party look like shit, because all of a sudden we want to be juidged by the lower standard we always say be live above. Also, I am not accusing Hastert or the ledership of a cover up. I am accusing them of beig inept and incapable of dealing with this situation, and I amaccusing them of mishandling and miscalculating how big of a liability Foley was politically. I do not think Hastert was ok with Foley’s predatory behavior, but, I think he was not thorough enough and forceful enough. I expect the leadership to be able to coerce whatever actions it needs necessary for the members, because that is what we have leadership for. If the leadership is too weak or to obtuse to see political liability then they are too inept to be in charge. Now, you can diagree with me, but do not mischaracterize what I am saying.
October 5th, 2006 at 8:19:43 pm
*I meant to say, I expect the leadership to be able to coerce whatever actions it deems necessary for the members, because that is what we have leadership for.
October 5th, 2006 at 8:21:50 pm
If you are actually interested in why I am upset at the leadership and not just in dismissing my commets as a witch hunt fromt he left, read the posts on the other Foley thread were I ellaborate extensively on why I think what I think. If you decide not to go read my posts, then just stop mischaracterizing what I am saying and dismissing me as a Dem. Thanks.
October 5th, 2006 at 9:13:50 pm
There is no way to excuse the predatory behavior and hassrament of a a 52 year old Congressman even if it is technically legal.
Is it really “predatory” if the teen instigated it with the intention of fucking around with Foley? There are very few saints in this world who, if lonely and single and had a hot young thing IMing them dirty things, would turn that down. I know women think it is okay to lead men on for the hell of it, but come on.
I am accusing them of beig inept and incapable of dealing with this situation, and I amaccusing them of mishandling and miscalculating how big of a liability Foley was politically.
There was never anything to hit Foley with, that’s why Hastert never did anything. And Foley may have been a political liability, but on what basis do you move against him? If parties could so easily remove their elected officials that were considered potential liabilities, B-1 Bob wouldn’t have spent nearly two decades in the House of Representatives.
October 5th, 2006 at 9:30:16 pm
Yes, Andrew, it is predatory even if the teen likes it or instigates it. Foley was not kidding around, he was acting out on his desires and fantasies for young boys, and he was acting like a sexual predator. That the teens were instigating some of the IMs only shows that a) the teens probably knew Foley was an easy target for the prank because they already knew he was a predator, and b) that some of these teens were not threatened by Foley’s predatory behavior. But, it does nothing to clear Foley of his predatory behavior, and does not mean that there is not a page out there who has not been at the end of unsolicited advances from Foley. Foley might not be guilty of breaking a law, but he is absolutely guilty of predator behavior. See, it is his state of mind and actions, and not those of the teen, that determine wether he is a predator or not. Foley thought he was chatting with a teen page. That is what matters.
I am willing to believe there was nothing, at first glance or after a cursory “investigation”, that would give Hastert enough to hit Foley with. HOWEVER, I am sure that if Hastert had dug further, scratched below the surface, something would have come up to give him more to stand on. Why do I think so? Because FOley has been in Congress for a while and because allegations of his predatory behavior now go back to the late 90s. I am not accusing Hastert or the rest of the leadership of a cover up. I am accusing them of not looking deep enough, probably because they were afraid of what they were going to find and what they would have to do to dela with it.
October 5th, 2006 at 9:44:41 pm
“Goaded” means the former page dangled carrots in his IM and Foley saw them as phalic symbols. What is offered is in the eye of the beholder regardles of what the provider had in mind. Foley’s reaction is typical of gays who over-react to insignificant alarms, running scared to private hospitals for protection from imagined authorities hot on their tails. Foley’s too-quick confessions are all you need to know.
He should have never run for public office.
October 5th, 2006 at 9:53:19 pm
I just want to point out, once again, that the problem is not that Foley is gay, but that he is a secual predator. Josh qualified his statement about gays by refering to “gays who overreact..” so I am, not addressing Josh’s comment in particular, but the stereotype held by many that gay men are sexual predators or any more prone than the next heterosexual guy to be a predator.
October 5th, 2006 at 10:54:54 pm
Re: Studds and Crane scandal
you failed to mention that a Republican senator was ALSO implicated in the same scandal and also only receieved censure.
This is true. But Crane’s acts were heterosexual, so not strictly comparable. However the Republicans refused to re-elect Crane (he lost his next primary) while the Democrats not only re-elected Studds five times, the Democratic leadership gave him a committee chairmanship.
October 6th, 2006 at 6:53:25 am
Funny, you missed posting how Drudge blamed the kids. Audio was on Crooks and Liars.
October 6th, 2006 at 6:55:28 am
And by the way, can’t we be clear that the guy has resigned because he ADMITS he’s at fault and did some of the things that he’s being accused of?
What’s with the total bullshit exscuse that it was all just a “prank” now?
October 6th, 2006 at 8:30:31 am
Seems like Drudge and Limbaugh are on exactly the same page. Now, dear readers, tell me, does this help or hurt Drudge’s claim?
Limbaugh blames the Page: “Let’s egg this guy on”
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/05/limbaugh-blames-the-page-lets-egg-this-guy-on/
October 6th, 2006 at 12:13:44 pm
Eveyone knows a 52-year-old member of Congress is too naive and innocent not to be manipulated by powerful, educated and experienced 16-year-old boys.