About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Media uncritically reported Hastert's defense that Foley emails GOP leaders saw were only "over friendly"

October 02, 2006 7:24 pm ET

SUMMARY: In reporting on the scandal surrounding former Rep. Mark Foley, a number of media outlets have reported simply that the House Republican leadership claims to have been aware only of "over friendly" emails Foley sent in 2005, without noting that House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert appeared to have made no effort to determine the actual content of the emails -- including one in which Foley wrote of an underage male page: "[H]es [sic] in really great shape."

8 Comments

In reporting on the scandal surrounding former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), who abruptly resigned from Congress on September 29 amid allegations that he sent sexually explicit emails and instant messages to underage former congressional pages, a number of media outlets have reported simply that the House Republican leadership claims to have been aware only of "over friendly" emails Foley sent in 2005. None of these outlets noted, however, that, at all opportunities, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's (R-IL) office appeared to have made no effort to determine the actual content of the emails -- including one in which Foley wrote of an underage male page: "[H]es [sic] in really great shape."

The government watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, posted the emails Foley sent to a 16-year-old former page in 2005 on its website, including this one mentioned above:

I just emailed will ... hes [sic] such a nice guy ... acts much older than his age ... and hes [sic] in really great shape ... I am [sic] just finished riding my bike on a 25 mile journey now heading to the gym ... whats [sic] school like for you this year?

In late 2005, Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA) learned of the series of emails exchanged between Foley and a page Alexander had sponsored. The page forwarded the emails to Alexander's office and strung the word "sick" together 13 times in describing them. Alexander's chief of staff then reportedly contacted House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's (R-IL) office about the emails, describing them as "over friendly." Hastert's office reportedly directed Alexander's office to contact the House clerk about the matter. There is no indication that Hastert's office inquired as to the content of the emails.

Then-House clerk Jeff Trandahl and Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), chairman of the House Page Board, were approached by Alexander's office about Foley's emails. According to a September 30 St. Louis Post-Dispatch article, both men read the actual emails: "Although there was nothing sexually suggestive in the emails, Shimkus and Trandal [sic] agreed: 'That was enough for us to approach Mark,' Shimkus recalled [in] an interview Saturday." This version of events contradicts that of Hastert's office. According to a September 30 press release from Hastert's office:

The Clerk asked to see the text of the email. Congressman Alexander's office declined citing the fact that the family wished to maintain as much privacy as possible and simply wanted the contact to stop. The Clerk asked if the email exchange was of a sexual nature and was assured it was not. Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff characterized the email exchange as over-friendly.

The Clerk then contacted Congressman Shimkus, the Chairman of the Page Board to request an immediate meeting. It appears he also notified [Ted] Van Der Meid [Hastert's chief counsel] that he had received the complaint and was taking action.

In a September 30 statement, Rep. Thomas Reynolds (R-NY), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, indicated that he asked to see the content of the emails after Alexander approached him in the spring of 2006, but was denied by Alexander, who, according to Reynolds, "told me that the parents didn't want the matter pursued." Reynolds claimed he told Hastert of the conversation he had with Alexander regarding Foley's emails (Hastert's office has claimed that Hastert does not recall this conversation, but "has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynold's recollection.").

House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) also reportedly acknowledged telling Hastert about Foley's emails in the spring of 2006, though he later changed his story, saying he could not remember whether he contacted Hastert.

Regardless, Hastert has given no indication that he or his office sought to learn the actual contents of Foley's emails and to determine whether or not they were simply "over friendly," despite the fact that the matter was reportedly brought before his office as many as three different times. Indeed, Hastert's letter to the Justice Department asking for a federal investigation into the affair describes just one email: "This email was determined to be 'over friendly' by Representative Alexander's office but was not sexual in nature."

Nevertheless, several media outlets have simply repeated Hastert's "over friendly" excuse for not investigating the matter. In an October 1 article, The New York Times reported that "Congressional Republican leaders said the messages, which an Alexander aide described to them as 'overfriendly,' were much less explicit than the others that came to light," and noted simply that Foley, in his emails, "asked about the well-being of the boy." Though the Times noted that Alexander's former page described the emails as "sick," the Times has yet to note Foley's "really great shape" email. According to the Times article:

Aides to the speaker and other Congressional Republican leaders said the messages, which an Alexander aide described to them as ''overfriendly,'' were much less explicit than the others that came to light after ABC News first disclosed the e-mail correspondence with Mr. Alexander's page. The aides said Mr. Alexander's office, at the request of the page's family, did not show them copies of the messages. In those messages, sent after Hurricane Katrina, Mr. Foley asked about the well-being of the boy, a Monroe, La., resident. He wrote: ''How are you weathering the hurricane ... are you safe ... send me a pic of you as well.'' The page sent the note to a former colleague, describing it as ''sick.''

In another message, Mr. Foley wrote, ''What do you want for your birthday coming up ... what stuff do you like to do.''

The e-mail exchanges that came to light after the first news reports were far more graphic. When he was confronted about them on Friday, Mr. Foley resigned. Republican leaders said they had not known about the other e-mail correspondence.

Similarly, the Associated Press reported on October 2 that Hastert said Foley's emails "were not viewed as 'sexual in nature' ":

Hastert acknowledged that his staff had been made aware of concerns about what they termed "over-friendly" e-mails Foley had sent to the teenager -- including one requesting his picture -- in the fall of 2005, and that they referred the matter to the House clerk.

But Hastert said those e-mails were not viewed as "sexual in nature" and that he was not aware of "a different set of communications which were sexually explicit ... which Mr. Foley reportedly sent another former page or pages."

The AP, however, had previously noted that Hastert described one of the pages as being "in great shape." From a September 30 AP article: " 'he's such a nice guy,' Foley wrote about the other boy. 'acts much older than his age ... and hes [sic] in really great shape ... i am [sic] just finished riding my bike on a 25 mile journey now heading to the gym ... whats [sic] school like for you this year?' "

On the October 2 broadcast of NBC's Today, correspondent Mike Taibbi reported that the House Republican leadership did not know "about any overtly sexual messages":

TAIBBI: At least five Republican house members did know ahead of time, some nearly a year ago, about e-mails described as "over-friendly" that Foley sent a 16-year-old male page, though not about any overtly sexual messages.

USA Today reported on October 2:

Hastert has acknowledged that his aides were made aware of concerns about what they called "over-friendly" e-mails -- including one requesting the boy's picture -- in fall 2005, and that they referred the matter to the House clerk.

But Hastert has said that those e-mails were not viewed as "sexual in nature" and that he was not aware of "a different set of communications which were sexually explicit ... which Mr. Foley reportedly sent another page."

As the weblog Think Progress noted, even conservative pundit Bay Buchanan, appearing on the October 2 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, said: "I know one thing: that e-mail they call an 'overly friendly e-mail' -- that had predator stamped all over it."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by progmulg (October 02, 2006 10:53 pm ET)
         

      I read on the abc website that once they reported Foley's 2005 emails that came to light, they got several more reports from pages, including the most explicit ones we've been hearing about.

      The kids also reported that Foley was known to be a weirdo in this way, and that pages had warned each other about him. So...don't you think the tiniest half-witted investigation back in late 2005 would have netted this information? YES. But did these guys (Hastert, et al.) really want to know any real information that might harm one of their precious house seats? Ahh,,,priorities. So much for the party of family values.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (October 03, 2006 12:11 am ET)
         

      is my favorite phrase of the month.

      Can we refer to those envelopes full of anthrax as just "overly-unfriendly" letters?

      Can I dodge a paternity suit on the basis of an "overly-friendly" hug?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by fantagor (October 03, 2006 10:14 am ET)
         

      Is a dog that insists on sniffing your crotch for a hour. A fifty-something congressman making sexual advances to minors is overly CREEPY and overly ILLEGAL.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by olivelawyers (October 03, 2006 10:33 am ET)
         

      Seems to me the problem facing the Republican leadership is one of ignoring context. The email quoted above could well have been explained away or led to the explosion that finally erupted. If a meaningful inquiry had resulted in learning that Foley knew the page well, both were fitness buffs, and he kept photos of friends and acquaintences of all sexes and ages, then so what? The context issue was that of the "sick" to the 13th power annotation. Doesn't that demand a meaningful interview of the page who used the label to find out why he used the word, and what was going on around the relatively innocuous text of the message itself? Doesn't that demand a next step of interviewing other pages to see if any of them was aware of a context that would have explained why one of them viewed the situation as "sick?" Doesn't it require bringing Foley in and saying, "look is there something there that if it gets out is going to bring us all down?" And all this on the heels of what a similar scandal did to the Catholic Church...neither brains nor common sense has never been a prerequisite for public office or even leadership in either party. I still wish the Democratic party leadership would stay away from the "corruption" issue that the FBI and the corporate press will ultimately bite their collective butts over. Byrd got drawn in on one issue already, and even Murtha may be made to look bad with enough introspection. That domed building is really one of opaque glass.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Cheerful curmudgeon (October 03, 2006 2:17 pm ET)
         

      Representative Foley, one of the hundreds of representatives, may be a wierdo, and may have been "over-friendly" and been trying to send a message "in between the lines," but to act like this is a Republican problem is LUDICROUS. That's like saying the Democrats have a problem with race because R. Byrd was a KKK grandwizard or that Commies have problems with alcohol because Ted Kennedy stayed hammered for most of the 70's and 80's, or Libertarians have greasy hair because Pat Buchanan does. All Arabs are thrill seekers because Ali Adin charmed a cobra.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by bittermarv (October 03, 2006 3:16 pm ET)
           

        No one (of note) is saying that all Republicans are pedophiles.

        The question is, why didn't the Republican leadership do anything about this guy a long time ago? More and more evidence is coming to light that Hastert and others KNEW this guy was preying on the pages. And yet they did nothing. Why? Undoubtedly because it would have hurt the party politically.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by kensp (October 03, 2006 2:40 pm ET)
         

      Wrong. Foley's actions may not be a Republican problem, but the cover up by the Republican leadership is most definitely a Republican problem. Hastert should resign yesterday. Ever hour that he doesn't do so is a new outrage.

      This fits into the same narrative as Delay, Abramoff and pre-war intelligence. The Republicans leadership is incapable or unwilling to provide any effective oversight of members of their own party, whether they be in the whitehouse or Congress.

      Even worse is the reaction of the Republican spin machine. From Brit Hume dredging up 30 year old "Democrat" scandals of limited relevance to the insufferable Drudge blaming the victims, they have been revealed as morally bankrupt propagandists only interested in protecting their own. I have never agreed with anything Bay Buchanan said before but I have to pay her tribute as one of the few Repub talking heads willing to put the public interest ahead of party interest for once. Her example makes Hume, Drudge, Coulter and Hannity all the more appalling.

      You cannot credibly blame the cover up on Clinton, gays, the Democrats (who were in no position to cover anything up), Chavez, Michael Moore, Al Franken or anyone but the current Republican leadership. Deal with it.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by ultrasanktpauli (October 04, 2006 1:29 am ET)
         

      To this, I saw the cover of Oreilly's book 'Culture Warrior' in the bookstore. If you look at the cover photo, it looks like that old guy is about to get 'over friendly'.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.