On Hardball, DeLay falsely claimed GOP "demanded that [Foley] resign from Congress"
SUMMARY: Discussing whether Sen. Larry Craig will resign
following his guilty plea for misdemeanor disorderly conduct, Tom DeLay falsely
claimed that Mark Foley "resigned from Congress because the Republicans
demanded that he resign from Congress," when sexually explicit Internet
messages he had sent to former congressional pages became public. In fact,
Dennis Hastert stated in October 2006 that "Foley resigned almost
immediately upon the outbreak of this information, and so we really didn't have
a chance to ask him to resign."
On the August 30 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews did not challenge former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's (R-TX) assertion that former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) "resigned from Congress because the Republicans demanded that he resign from Congress." In fact, as Media Matters for America noted, ABC News chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross, who broke the story, reported on September 29, 2006, that Foley resigned "hours after ABC News questioned him about sexually explicit internet messages with current and former congressional pages under the age of 18." And during an October 2, 2006, press conference, then-House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) stated that "Foley resigned almost immediately upon the outbreak of this information, and so we really didn't have a chance to ask him to resign," as Media Matters also noted. Furthermore, while a House Ethics Committee report on the scandal found no evidence that Hastert or other members of the Republican leadership knew about the sexually explicit instant messages that Foley allegedly sent to pages, the committee did find that "the weight of the evidence supports the conclusion that Speaker Hastert was told, at least in passing, about the emails [Foley had sent to a former page] by both Majority Leader [John] Boehner [R-OH] and Rep. [Tom] Reynolds [R-NY] in spring 2006," several months before Foley resigned.
From Hastert's press conference:
Q: Could you clarify, sir, whether the leadership asked Foley to resign and also I believe you did go -- you left on Friday. Did you have an event in your district?
HASTERT: I think Foley resigned almost immediately upon the outbreak of this information, and so we really didn't have a chance to ask him to resign, and I left at the very end of the session, almost, before the very last vote.
During his interview, while referring to the Foley scandal, DeLay also asserted that "a leftist group called CREW [Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington] held onto it [evidence of Foley's email communications to House pages] for over a year before they pulled the trigger on the day of adjournment." In fact, as Media Matters has noted, in a review of the handling of the Foley case, the Justice Department Office of the Inspector General (OIG) found that the Justice Department and the FBI "inaccurately suggested" that actions by CREW "were the cause of the FBI's decision not to investigate the emails."
Further, in a January 23 article, The Washington Post reported that CREW "notified the FBI within days of obtaining the electronic communications":
The FBI should have acted last summer to protect underage congressional pages after it was given "troubling" electronic messages sent by then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.), according to a report released yesterday.
The review by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine also found that FBI and Justice officials misled the news media last fall when they asserted that an activist group that first provided the FBI with Foley's messages had not been cooperative and had withheld vital information from investigators.
In fact, Fine's report found that the group -- Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility [sic] in Washington, or CREW -- had notified the FBI within days of obtaining the electronic communications in July. But the FBI never asked for additional information from the group and never sought to interview the former page in Louisiana who received the messages from Foley, the report said.
Later in the program, while discussing reports that Sen. Larry Craig (R-IL) will be forced to resign following his guilty plea for misdemeanor disorderly conduct, Matthews asserted: "The truth of the matter is, Republicans are generally culturally conservative, the people who vote Republican, especially from the part of the country that Larry Craig comes from." He then asked Townhall.com columnist Amanda Carpenter: "Do you have a sense, Amanda, that they will begin a drumbeat here to make it happen?" Carpenter, suggesting that the Republican Party was responsible for removing Foley, replied: "Yeah, absolutely. I mean, this is something -- it's a terrible thing to come out like this and it's even worse that he's lying about it, if that's the case. You know, it's time to stand their ground. Just like they got rid of Mark Foley, they're going to have to get rid of Larry Craig."
From the August 30 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
DeLAY: What happened to Mark Foley? The day that we found about it -- by the way, a leftist group called CREW held onto it for over a year before they pulled the trigger on the day of adjournment --
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
DeLAY: -- on Mark Foley -- that very day, he resigned from Congress because the Republicans demanded that he resign from Congress.
MATTHEWS: Right.
[...]
MATTHEWS: The truth of the matter is, Republicans are generally culturally conservative, the people who vote Republican, especially from the part of the country that Larry Craig comes from. Do you have a sense, Amanda, that they will begin a drumbeat here to make it happen?
CARPENTER: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, this is something -- it's a terrible thing to come out like this and it's even worse that he's lying about it, if that's the case. You know, it's time to stand their ground. Just like they got rid of Mark Foley, they're going to have to get rid of Larry Craig.
Because when we look for answers on morality and justice, we look to Tom Delay.
It's pretty clear to me that Republicans are pushing Craig under the bus because a) they want to have his Republican Governor replace him with someone more electable, and b) he's gay or bisexual.
Tom Delay, biggest sack of crap in the U.S. of A.. Greasy is as greasy does.
WARNING - some posts you are about to read defend Republican scumbaggery. The discussion is rated SD (scum defense). The stars of this scumbaggery are Rino dude and (I can't really be a) Proud Conservative.
Right On Julia:
RepubliCan'ts are so defensive and embarrassed about this trend. They had to take quick action for damage control.
They didn't just place Craig under the bus! What they did was tie him up, shut his mouth, place him on the street and they Hit Him with the bus.
HIT AND RUN!
Running away and praying this story will go away fast. To add insult to injury Craig has decided to stay for a while and fight. His comrades want him to leave yesterday.
Footnote From Sam:
Tommy Delay is the Scum of this Earth. So the Fox Propaganda Channel will probably hire him as a trusted Commentator.
I'm embarrassed to admit Delay is from my home state of Texas.
Hey Sam, happy Labor Day to you. I live in TX as well. Did you get a robo call today from Pat Somerall telling you to go to txvoice.com? It was unbeleivable, especailly when I tried to write them a letter.
I agree. The only reason Delay should be on Tv discussing issues of ethics and morality is for irony. Nothing else.
By the way, someone should take Delay to see Lucy in Houston. Then tell him he isn't nearly as smart as he thinks and he really doesn't know much about anything.
And what was Delay convicted of again?
He was reprimanded three times by the ethics comittee. Thats all that happened to Frank.
Oh, so to be unethical, you have to have been convicted of something.
Always cracks me up to see where regressives draw that line.
...and when they are convicted, they are commuted or pardoned...
No where did I state that Delay had been convicted of anything. Your reply is dishonest. But Delay was repeatedly admonished concerning his ethics by the House. The only reason to have Delay on TV to talk about ethics and morality is for the sake of irony. Your post, on the other hand, was clearly meant to be dishonest. Typical and not terribly surprising.
Why would you post such a patently dishonest response? Falsley suggesting something that was not in my original post? Hmmm...
I think we all already know.
Tom Delay was indicted for violating Texas campaign finance laws whcih is pretty hard to do since we have almost no laws except one, not taking corporate monies. He laundered money. Ronnie Earle is gonna get him for good reason. Why again do you defend scum?
That must've been the secret "Let's Fire Mark Foley" meeting no one heard about. Those Republicans sure are sneaky.
Can one of you intrepid investigative reporter-types do a favor for me? In 2006, Tom Delay resigned from congress and declared himself a resident of Virginia so that his name would be taken off of the ballot in his home district in Texas. Turns out that didn't work. A judge declared that his name should remain on the ballot.
So, my question is, since Tom Delay resigned from congress and declared himself a resident of Virginia, did he pay Virginia income tax for the year? Virginia tax law gives an exemption to congressmen, but Delay had resigned before he declared himself a resident. How do I go about finding if he filed the right forms and paid his fair, legal share of taxes to Virginia?
"on the outbreak of that information"
--that they'd known about for years.
He's not fooling anybody.
But Matthews invites him on the show and lets him lie.
Knew about it! Hell, they covered it up!
Right Logic - Good Post But ....
With the Democrats it's a short list of blunders and with the Republicans, well their list requires a library of books, particularly as we are experiencing in this time period.
I'm exaggerating of course. But I enjoyed it and Republicans earned it.
This idea that the Republicans are somehow more conciencious about removing corrupt members is just flat out wrong. Delay would be a perfect example didn't they change the ethics rules so he could stick around back then. I guess they will keep up this drum beat until it suddenly becomes a "fact" and all the media will mention it when reporting the story. Basically sometimes they try to act quick and sometimes they don't same for the democrats and more often then not it is for strategic reasons about retaining power or winning elections. I don't think either party can really claim the moral high ground on the issue.
Not ONLY did they change the rules and makeup of the comittee to protect him they also took OFF two republicans who had voted for reprimands and replaced them with Delay sychophants.
Hi Solon, I remeber when it was all going on...I couldn't believe that they were being so blatant about the way they were changing the rules to allow for a lower standard of ethics just to keep one guy around.
I know, I think the GOP has their shame gene surgically removed at birth
So-Long,
This posting goes back to the Media Matters (Very Little) story relating to the differences in ethical cleansing between conservatives and the democrat party. It certainly bears noting that not one democrat has been ousted by left supporters for ANY type of ethical failing.....
Jim Wright, Dan Rostankowski, Tom Foley, just to name a few. Of course you must know that the voters of each district or each state determine who should represent them. It's not for you or me or anyone else to decide except those voters as to who should and does represent those voters. Dont you think it's pretty pathetic that the "Right" keeps bringing up Gerry Studs and Barney frank in this conversation. Ill bet 99% of the nation doesn't remember who the hell Gerry studs was, plus the dude is dead. That's digging deep.
Fleetwood,
You guys make this all to easy. Look at the 'uproar' for cleasing the democrat party showed when their leaders had failings.
Check these stories out from none other than that right winged NY Times.
Regarding Jim Wright:
It took TWO YEARS for him to loose his speakership from when the book deals and speaking engagement pay scandals came on the seen. It was also interesting to see in the interim how he was 'criticized' for speaking in the USSR about how fine a government they had and later how it was intimated that he passed on military secrets to the Sandanistas who were 're-educating' their populace to the wonders of communism. Take a look if you dare!
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40711FE355F0C778EDDA00894DF484D81
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0711FF3E5E0C7A8DDDAC0894D0484D81
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0715FC3A590C778CDDAF0894D1484D81
Dan Rostenkowski: Poor Dan, he was really treated as a pariah by his party. During campaigns AFTER his INDICTEMENT, none other than President Bill Clinton and others went to Chicago on his behalf. He didn't resign during the years after his shenanighans, he was voted out and replaced by a republican. The first one elected there in like 70 years. So much for cleaning your own house!
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/dan_rostenkowski/index.html?offset=80&&&
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE6D71E30F933A25751C0A963958260&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fR%2fRostenkowski%2c%20Dan
And Tom Foley had no scandals other that getting dumped by a republican during the 'de-Foley-ate congress' during the 1994 election sweep.
Thanks again for making this easy! Again, any other tries to show how democrats are concerned about ethical behavior in their leaders?
These Republican perverts are so lewd and disgusting.
Wow. You compared a Democratic lecture fee 'scandal' to a Republican pervert cruising stinky stalls for sodomy. You are taking a wide stance but your argument is in the toilet
G.O.P. Grand Old Pottty
Wow, 1994! Did you and Sherman use the way back machine to find that info?
Your side are the biggest hypocrites of all. Your side ran on morality, and when y'all found out your officials had none y'all just whistled dixie. It took the press to make your team live up to your so called morality.
Proud MORON. Yeah we make it so easy you have to go back to the 70's and 80's to find something. The 70's scandals were bad. I thought so at the time and have no intention of defending them. Meanwhile Foley was KNOWN about for six years and the GOP put him in charge of a policy for protecting children from predators. Your ignorance notwithstanding Foley was recently. And YOUR party kept him around PROTECTING HIM. No censure no reprimand just protection. They changed the ethics comittee to not only keep Delay around but so he could CONTINUE his ethical lapses. Keep trying to peddle this stupidity, it wont wash. Did the voters turn Cunningham out? It took two years to get him into prison AFTER the scandals became known did the GOP do anything? NO, he served until he WENT TO PRISON. Not even a good try. Tell us about the Teapot Dome scandal while giving us your ancient history lesson.
Lost another debate Solon? Have to resort to your usual personal attacks even when unprovoked?
Nice personal attack Rino. You sure got him. Funny to have a name like Rino and talk about being provoked. Isn't there something about you charging into camps to stomp out fires? Funny stuff. Anyway, keep up the good work.
So pointing out someone's unprovoked personal attack is now a personal attack? Only in the world of liberalism.
Why again are you defending scum? Only in the world of cons.
Another American,
The attack was not unprovoked. Look at proud conservative's screed again.
Ah yes, the World of Liberalism. You thought it was just an episode of Star Trek but it's real! Yes, we prance around in tiny white loincloths and giggle like little girls. Except for the little girls of course who are all getting butch hair cuts and being instructed in the ways of testicle kicking. Which is why we have this secret agenda to force real men like Rino into the Program. You see we're all so tired of watching MASH reruns and having our testicles kicked that we need some new sacks around to absorb the blows. Too bad for us that AM talk radio guys figured out the Program and warned Rino and his pals. (Ouch! Holy God that hurts!) Damn these girls are good. Anyway, we'll get you soon once Obergrupenfurer Hillary assumes the Throne. It's all very complicated but I'm sure Rino can explain the rest.
Unprovoked? Did he change my nick in a demeaning way? MAN you are so stupid. You never and I mean NEVER know what you are talking about its as if you just post random thoughts without any connection to the reality based universe whatsoever. Just because I wax the floor with you every time we argue you just LOOK for some lame reason to PRETEND it really isnt happening. Grow up
Sorry, but you're the one who needs to grow up. You need to stop using 4th grade terms like Moron. It's obvious to anyone that you only use personal attacks when you're getting beat in a debate, which is pretty much every day. You've never mopped the floor with me or anybody else. If you had any debating skills at all you wouldn't resort to your usual baseless attacks.
AA
Um, it's not obvious to me that Solon only uses personal attacks when losing a debate. Yes, I don't like personal attacks, and posters do often resort to them, but the debate (if you want to call it that) hadn't even started, so I don't think Solon lost. Solon called proud conservative a moron because proud conservative was being a jerk in his post. It was absolutely dripping with contempt and condescension.
Delusional as always. Of course I mop the floor with you, just like all the other liberals here do. All you ever do is make the same baseless assertions you have been programed with by whatever screechmonkey you listened to recently and we have heard it all before. Since you are incapable of higher brain function or thinking for yourself your repititious BS is as easy to swat away as a fruitfly. Typically you WISH it werent so and this causes you to SAY it isnt in the vain hope you saying it will make it true. You apparantly will never stop trying to bring Tinkerbell back to life. DID PC alter my nick in a way that ridicules it or didnt he? As usual you want to just DEFINE the attacks on me as not being attacks and then my legitimate attacks as unprovoked. It is a losing tactic. You do KNOW that others here can go and look for themselves right? You do KNOW that NO ONE here is going to take YOUR word for it. You can keep trying to convince us the sky is pink but we can see it for ourselves. Your delusions only define YOUR little world not OUR reality. It was NOT an unprovoked attack you NEVER win debates and all your wishes wont change either of those very obvious realities. It is sad that you dont GET how absolutly easy you are.
Personally, I like to see a mix of personal "attacks" and quality debate points. Particularly when someone makes as many asinine, drunken points as Rino, and doesn't really respond to anything anyone else writes. It makes the arguments both enlightening and entertaining.
>>later how it was intimated that he passed on military secrets to the Sandanistas who were 're-educating' their populace to the wonders of communism. Take a look if you dare!
So Wright was a spy according to you. Your links only lead to the archives of the NY Times. I am not going to pay 15 dollars to read them, but I really doubt Wright was every convicted of being a spy. Anyone can intimate something about someone else, but it doesn't make it true.
Your take on the Sandanistas is incorrect. They were elected to power in what American Watch (I believe) called a very fair election. They were elected to government, but the US tried to overthrow them in a war condemned by human rights groups and which cost 10,000 Nicaraguans their lives.
Have to admit, ProudConservative, it's a great post. Had to go back a long ways, but that's cool.
I guess it helps when you have some Republican getting arrested, indicted, outed, resigning, or whatever just about every week, huh?
Lost - agree with your sentiment totally. Your last point is a key one in this respect, that the Dems aren't the ones running around all the time claiming they have the "moral high ground" on stuff like this yet it seems like the Republicans make a habit of it.
That's what sickens me the most about this, not to mention Delay is amongst the lowest form of slime to me..
Spin, The Republican's are in the unique position of claiming they are the party of moral authority. It sets them up every time to be labeled hypocrits when these issues arise. I think they set themselves up for these falls by claiming to have some ownership on values and morals...I don't know anyone who can lay claim to that ownership.
Right Logic - Good Post But ....
With the Democrats it's a short list and with the Republicans, well their list requires a library of books.
I'm exaggerating of course. But I enjoyed it and Republicans deserved it.
Hi Mr. Lost Logic:
- Good Post But ....
With the Democrats it's a short list and with the Republicans, well their list requires a library of books. I'm exaggerating of course. But I enjoyed it and I for one believe Republicans earned it.
- SamsComputer / Monday September 3, 2007 10:57:57 AM EST
Sorry LostLogic;
I tried to respond to your earlier post but it kept showing up here in the wrong place.
Must be a technical glitch going on here. Anyway - Happy Labor Day!
Sam I Am
"Throwing under the bus" is an apt description of what's going on here.
Question - Is it a violation of senate ethics to be guilty of a misdemeanor? (seeing as that's what Craig has done)
I may get the beat down for this but I don't think Craig should resign, unless pressured by his constituents.
Larry should stay in his Senate seat if he he promises to stay away from toilet seats.
Can't you see what Craig is trying to teach us? How many times to these guys have to prove that forcing gays into the closet increases the risk of anti-social behavior before...well...they themselves believe it? I think if we could just get about 90% of the Republican party into some really good therapy we might have a chance to turn this ship around.
Question - Is it a violation of senate ethics to be guilty of a misdemeanor? (seeing as that's what Craig has done)
There's a lot of parallels between what Craig did and what Vitter did. Vitter may have gone a bit further in paying for his compansionship. It's not clear that Craig was pursing sex for payment.
Was Vitter asked to resign? Why... nooo! Gee, I wonder why. Must have something to do with his ethics, right? Brrrzt. Nope, it has more to do with the fact that Lousiana's governor, who would choose Vitter's replacement, is one of those evil, unethical Democrats.
(Pursing? Pursuing. Grrr.)
EXACTY!
Vitter was actually guilty of engaging in prostution, and adultry on SEVERAL occassions . . . Larry was just guilty of ASKING for sex . . . like in the Clinton attacks the key is Republican support of CAPITALISM . . . if you get it for "free" it's wrong, if you pay it's business . . .
The legal issues are a lessor item. The singular issue for the GOP about him is his sexual identity. By having a Republican relacement, the LT. Governor I hear, the political balance is maintained.
The population in Craig's district will probably continue to support conservatives, who possibly, hate themselves as they continue to legislate against their own sexual identites.
Eweston, I think this does hurt the support for republican candidates. From all reports the ability to turn out the evangelical and "morals/values" voters gave them their victory. If that voting block does not feel the drive they felt previosly because they realize in the values/morals department they are a flop then they stay home and don't vote in such large numbers. Of course the media will continue to label the Republicans the family values party no matter how warped they are in reality because apparently it has been said so many times it is now "fact" in the eyes of the media.
Within 24 hours of the news that Larry Craig was cruising stinky stalls for sex in the mens room, the GOP spinmeisters were declaring that it wouldn't hurt the party. Yeah right. That spin is about as truthful and meaningful as Larry Craig's wide stance spin.
Spin doesn't work anymore. Oh what new tricks can the Repugnicants invent now to deceive America? Where is Bush's Brain when you need 'im?
Depends LL, there is a returning Democratic contender in the district. I hope he gives Drew Westen's book a though read and follows its advice as well as he is able. An able campaign from the gut can be a wonderful thing.
The media situation strikes me right now as the tail of the dog. MMfA reports on the other parts of the dog on occasion but they seem to keep out of sight usually. What supports and moves that tail is important.
Well the craziness has begun (more so)
some Conservative organizations are calling for the mass purging of any gay (open (hahahaha) or closeted) republicans currently in office. They want the party to remove any they feel commit sin, (ignoring of course divorce, adultery, eating shell fish, and the wearing of mixed fibers). Link
If they purge the Republican party of perverted warmongering hypocrites there won't be any Republicans left.
Hmmm... we may be onto something here...
Foley should have been asked to resign, but not because he was gay, but because he was harrassing teenagers.
Foley should be ashamed of being a hypocrite. Other Republicans should be ashamed of being party to his actions and doing nothing to prevent him from continuing those actions. Foley should not have been ashamed of his homosexuality. He should have been ashamed of his choice to go after young men.
The Republicans didn't ask him to resign. He got out of Dodge so that he wouldn't have to face the music.
Senator Larry Craig didn't want to face the music either. That's why when he was caught, he said "No" to the cop. If he wasn't doing anything wrong, he would have said "what are you doing, cop?", instead he whined because he'd gotten caught. He didn't want to face the music, even thought he'd been caught red-handed trying to solicit anonymous sex. Sex in the stall of a bathroom is an offense to the rest of us who don't want to see or hear or know about people having sex in a bathroom, and we don't want people asking us if we want to have sex in a public bathroom either. That's why the cops were there. No one has the right to have sex in public.
Craig didn't want to face the music, so even though he got caught red-handed, he wouldn't admit it to the cop. He didn't want to face the music, so he opted to cop a plea because he thought it would go away, and he wouldn't have to face the music. When the arrest came to light, he still didn't want to face the music.
The Republicans don't want to face the music either. I don't think that what Craig did was something for which he has to resign. Sexual misconduct should get him in hot water with his wife, not with us. A misdemeanor guilty plea should require censure, not resignation. The Republicans don't want to face the music and live with their choices to demonize homosexuality.
They're here. They're queer. Get over it.
Poor, poor sonny...
The bleat goes on, the bleat goes on,
little sheeps keep bleating out the rage,
La de da de de, la de da de da
Moral outrage charged the ranks, uh huh
Turns out that the right lacks them, uh huh
perv sex will bring out the beast, uh huh
prostitutes though no big thing, uh huh
Chorus
Federal crime brings not a bleat, uh huh
Gays and Lesbians are the real red meat, uh huh
Cheney's daughter though not a peep, uh huh
Vitter puts the right to sleep, uh huh
Chorus
Right wingers sit and reminisce
about Bill and Monica's little tryst
But Newt didn't even draw a gasp of air
Hypocracy is the right's illegal affair!
Chorus
I hear the music Snoopy, a goodun.
Media Matters is getting good at using small technicalities like this. They'll get on you if you pronounce a syllable wrong. This is just another example of Media Matters getting all upset over a technicality. The fact is that the Republicans take care of their bad members and make them resign and the Democrats re-elect their ethically challenged members. The difference couldn't be more clear.
What in the world are you talking about?
First, the "democrats" don't elect anyone, the constiuents do. Silly you.
Also, the GOP shielded Foley, and others in the past when they were in power, and hey, that's OK, just keep making stuff up RINO to fit your perception of what actually really happened in the days of yore.
For the record, I don't think Craig should resign based on his conviction on a misdemeanor charge, but apparently, the republicans don't want people who cruise for sex in their presence, unless of course, it's with a woman, then it's OK and high fives in the cloak room.
I dont care how it turns out either.
You mean like Foley, er, no wait. Um, Delay. No, not him either. Gingrich? Nope. Vitter? Nope. Hmm, I seem to be having a hard time coming up with the name of just one republican that the party immediately excoriated and tossed out when evidence of immoral behavior and/or crime was exposed. Perhaps you can help?
Um, Craig? Have you missed how the Republican establishment basically forced him to resign? And the Republicans that you mentioned were never convicted of anything other than Foley, and Foley resigned before the GOP had a chance to force him to resign.
After how many months again? He's just another example of republicans waiting until the press catches on before they all of a sudden grow a set of moral values. Try again, I'm sure there's someone out there that the republicans purged before it became a full blown scandal.
Oh, and the GOP sure took their sweet time on Foley, didn't they?
The Mark Foley scandal, which broke in late September 2006, centers on soliciting e-mails and sexually explicit instant messages sent by Mark Foley, a Republican Congressman from Florida, to teenaged boys who had formerly served as congressional pages.[1][2] The scandal has grown to encompass the response of Republican congressional leaders to previous complaints about Foley's contacts with the pages and inconsistencies in the leaders' public statements.[3][4][5][6][7] There are also allegations that a second Republican Congressman, Jim Kolbe, had improper conduct with at least two youths, a 16-year old page and a recently graduated page.[8][9]
The questionable conversations, which took place between 1995[10][11][12] and 2005, are under investigation by the FBI and Florida officials for possible criminal violations. The House Ethics Committee is investigating the response of the House Republican leadership and their staff to earlier warnings of Foley's conduct.[13]
Ten years is sure a long time to wait...
Ten years is sure a long time to wait...
Not if you think your cover-up is working.
Sure Rino like they made Foley resign. WAIT they protected him for SIX years and though they KNEW about his proclivities they gave him the CHAIRMANSHIP of the exploited childrens comittee. I love the way they made Delay resign. WAIT they CHANGED the ethics comittee to protect him. No, once again you show you NEVER know what you are talking about.
They only knew about the tame emails he sent the kid asking him what he got for his birthday and for pictures and stuff like that. They didn't know about the explicit stuff that was found out later. The original emails weren't explicit and weren't really even objectionable. And Delay was never convicted of anything, and he'll likely be cleared of all charges in the end. It was a witch hunt by partisan Democrats from the very beginning.
"It was a witch hunt by partisan Democrats from the very beginning." Rino Dude
Uh, Rino, Ronnie Earle is gonna get Tom Delay for violating Texas campaign laws because Tom Delay did violate Texas campaign laws. He is a money launderer and scumbag. You have no clue what you are talking about.
Poor, poor Tom...
DeLay publicly denied the charges, saying that the actions of Earle, a Democrat, have partisan motivations. After DeLay moved to dismiss all charges, trial judge Pat Priest dismissed one count of the indictment, which alleged conspiracy to violate election law. However, Judge Priest denied DeLay's motion to dismiss the more serious charges of money laundering and conspiracy to engage in money laundering, and the prosecution is proceeding on those charges.
Wow, a republican judge chose not to dismiss the more serious charges? Will wonders never cease?
Yes, Rino defends a scum bag like Tom Delay and Dennis Hastert who knew all about the likes of Foley for years. Why he defends scum, I just wish I knew.
Julia, I'll show you why. Watch this...
Hey Rino, how's it feel having your dumpling pumped full of custard again? You sure are a glutton for punishment!
He's apparently a glutton for comtemptable Republican shenigans. I guess he's gettin' his sweet fill.
Maybe "getting his dumpling filled with custard" is his thing. He is a Republican, you know?
What kind of scumbag would defend the conduct of Mark Foley? Oh my God
>>They only knew about the tame emails he sent the kid asking him what he got for his birthday and for pictures and stuff like that.
Provide a link to back this up. My understanding was that the Repubs knew there was an ethical problem 6 years ago.
They knew there was a problem they were WARNING pages about him. However my understanding is that even though the page he sent them to described them as sick, they were vague and not explicit.
Yeah keep dreaming about Delay. Partisan witch hunt of a man with THREE ethics reprimands. What did the GOP do about it? Change the rules and makeup of the comitte so he could keep on being unethical and not be held accountable.
Pages were being WARNED about Foley by Republicans in 2001. So dont even TRY to tell me the GOP didnt know there was a problem there.
They only knew about the tame emails he sent the kid asking him what he got for his birthday and for pictures and stuff like that.
So why did Republicans tell Foley to stay away from the pages, and told others to keep Foley away from the pages?
If you're not seeing a problem here, Rino, maybe we need to keep you away from the pages, too.
So why did Republicans tell Foley to stay away from the pages, and told others to keep Foley away from the pages?
If you're not seeing a problem here, Rino, maybe we need to keep you away from the pages, too.
-bittermarv
----------------------------------------
ROFLMAO
Best Crushing Blow Award 2007
That's because Delay hasn't gone to trial yet.
You do know that Ronnie Earle is a republican right? And the judge in the Delay case is a, yes, republican. You do know that Ronnie Earle's record, shows him to go after people based on breaking the law, not what party they belong to. When Delay goes to trial, he'll be convicted I'm pretty sure of that. And, even if it was a partisan witch hunt (which it wasn't), then I couldn't think of anyone who deserves such karma to come back and bite him in the arse as Delay, since he DID actually lead a very and highly partisan witch hunt. You do remember that guy, Bill Clinton and what Delay and his cohorts tried to do to him right? You know, Clinton, never convicted of any broken laws, and things like that. Now if THAT'S not partisan, I don't know what is.
>>The fact is that the Republicans take care of their bad members and make them resign and the Democrats re-elect their ethically challenged members. The difference couldn't be more clear.
Whenever anyone starts a sentence with the phrase "the fact is" you can almost guarantee no facts are coming.
I hear you, Funnypants. I'm at the point where I just skip over the posts by the usual suspects, but occasionally read them for laughs, or to see if they've developed any new or more sophisticated propaganda tactics.
RinoHunter and AnotherAmerican are both very partial to the bit you pointed out. (And although AA, who likes to be called Deputy Barney Fife, recently implied that he is Rino, RH denies that he's AA. strange). "The fact is" has a few variations;
"We all know..."
"Everybody knows..."
"It's a documented fact..."
"There is no debate..."
All of these, of course, usually backed up with nothing, occasionally a link to FreeRepublic, outdated sources or an item that has absolutely nothing to do with the intended point.
My favorite part is the post-debunking ignoring of same debunking, and manly declaration of victory and floor-mopping. Good stuff!
Was RhinHunter "The Truth Detector"?
Because Truth Detractor crashed and burned and then suddenly RH showed up with the same song and dance.
I used to enjoy calling him (The Truth Detector-NOT)
Somebody said in another post that RINO and AA are the same. It could be there is another ID as well. These guys all sound the same.
The fact is that the Republicans take care of their bad members and make them resign Rino
Rino honey I getting tired of posting reminders of how well Republican take care of their "problems". When was Denny and the rest of the Republicans aware that Foley was gay and when was he "asked" to leave? WHEN HE WAS CAUGHT!
How long has the Republican party been aware of Craig? According the Joe Scarborough as far back as 1982. Why is he leaving? BECAUSE HE WAS CAUGHT!
Republicans take care of their "bad members" when they are caught otherwise they pretend to not know. As long as they can retain power (Vitter still there) they will look the other way. Don't try to make the Republican party something that they are not.
Republicans take care of their "bad members" when they are caught otherwise they pretend to not know.
Like hell they pretend not to know. They actively work to cover it up!
Marv, so true, so true.
"Rino honey" LOLOLOLOL
Yes, I thought that was very cute as well. :-0)
So-Long, Snoop-dawg, Fleetwood, libs et al.,
First, sorry for having a little fun with your names. They were just meant to be plays on words, not filthy, not hate-filled, just for a little fun. My sincere apologies, but with advance warning, I probably won't stop. I like keeping those in the democrat party (oops, there's another one) hopping mad. So keep feeling free to attack the moniker of proudconservative in any fashion you find acceptable. I'll just sit back, smoke a cigar and wait for the brilliant wit to follow.
Secondly, my indepth, (it wasn't really hard to do an archive search and I chose NY Times so as to avoid the accusation of media bias) search was intended to show the truth about the stalwarts of the democrat party being under seige following disclosure of ethical/legal lapses. It fact, those three mentioned were defended and campaigned for by democrat leaders for YEARS. The left hates it when research devestates their notions of reality but research here proves my point. Don't say we are hypocrites when we actually expect our political leaders to do what we feel is correct behavior and diminish them when they don't.
By the way, I think there were two NY Times articles about requests for inquiries into his dealings with the Sandanistas by the Justice Departmant/House ethics but were never persued. He did however, give great praise to the Soviet and Nicaraguian communists in numerous speeches.
My original question has never been answered. Have democrats EVER forced the issues of unethical/illegal activities to demand resignations from their political leaders?
I also now have another question that may or may not be answered, what offence would the democrats and democrat party say was unexcusable anyway? (Besides supporting anything the 'smells' of right sided thinking?
Still waiting......
My, such arrogance to assume we hate being exposed etc. etc. Again, and this is the last time I say it, al you've done is dredge up scandals from years ago in an attempt to say democrats of today aren't any better. We don't really have to prove that because the current list of scandals (and party involved) speaks for itself. The only Democrat involved in any scandal right now is Jefferson and we've made it loud and clear that we don't want him. Ironically, most of his support has come from Republicans, why is that?
Oh, I can't speak for others here, but a) it doesn't bother me if you have a little fun with my name - it's just a moniker so have fun if that's what gets you off. Personally I don't do it to others, but that's just me.
No need to make fun of proud conservative's name. There isn't anything to be proud about these days. I just feel sorry for ya'll. And the reason you didn't get an answer to your question is clear. You were deflecting the argument about Delay, you were asking us to prove a negative. Now you and Rino go do good things in the world instead of defending scumbaggery.
Snoope' (french version)
I wasn't digging up old stuff, it was simply the best attempt you provided in terms of the democrat party cleaning its own house. If you would like to talk about other recent or not so recent democrat foibles and the left's response I'd love to. I was just responding to a question poised to me.
By the way, if $90,000 in 'cold' cash and numerous other questionable ethics does not rise to the 'get out of office now' test, how much money and patterns of bribery/graft is necessary to actually get the guy out of his office? Do I hear $100000, $200000 and is that before or after taxes?
Proud Moron. Jefferson was ASKED to resign and stripped of his comittee chairmanship. Legally there isnt anything else Congress can do short of a criminal indictment. Nice try attempting to pretend bringing up Studds and Frank from the 80's isnt dredging up old dirty laundry. Just one more example of your disconnect with reality
This is funny. So now you decide to stop your trash talk and actually use argumentation, and your argument falls flat on its face. You would not have had to use insult in your last post if you had an argument. But your argument basically amounted to two breeches of ethics made in the past and having little relevancy on the current congress; and not really addressing the way the Republicans tolerate Folley, Ney, and Vitter, you thought you could pad your argument with lots of invective and hope no one would notice.
We weren't fooled.
Now your current argument is weak. You claim you weren't bringing up old stuff, except that is exactly what you were doing. What could you possible mean when you brought up Wright and his replacement, and then claiming that you weren't brining up the past? Do you have an alternative definition of the past we are not aware of?
Then you claim you would love to bring up current foibles, suggesting you have tons of examples. But Mr. detective, who was so specific in his earlier posts regarding Wright, even linking to NY Times articles, suddenly goes cold on us, and can't bring any specifics. That is because you don't have any, except to bring up Jefferson, who was actually stripped of his committed and asked to resign. That kind of disproves your example, doesn't it?
So, your example being disproven, you once again resort to a little sarcasm to try to push your argument across, bringing up the amount found in Jefferson's house to to try to make a dramatic point. The problem is, as Solon points out, that the Democratic party did exactly what you accused them of not doing, dealing with ethics problems within their own party.
Proud, I'm sure you're going to really be proud if you have the ba**s to read this. Here are 34 scandal from the first 4 years of Juniors Presidency.
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/01/18/scandal/index0.html
Translation: I'll continue to be a big jerk here and use inflamatory rhetoric in the place of argumentation; I won't really answer the point of the thread but continue to deflect the issue; and oh, yes, could you please answer my questions, even though I'm not really trying to argue here, but just acting like a troll?
Sorry, but when you think you have a real argument instead of innuendo and confusing the past with the present, you probably wouldn't need the insults. When you have a real argument, let us know and we'll respond.
Proud Moron, just having some fun with your name, I guarantee I wont stop. You ReNAMBLAcans protect your own until it LOOKS bad. Ney wasnt asked to step down HE WENT TO PRISON. Delay wasnt asked to step down. They changed the ethics comittee to protect him while he kept up his unethical behavior. There were calls for Studds to resign, as there were back in the day for Adam Clayton Powell to resign. However short of criminality, what CAN be done by Congressmen is limited and that IS done. Studds and Frank, who by the way brought his dealings to the ethics comitte himself, were reprimanded. It is then up to the PEOPLE as it should be. Which republican has asked Bush to resign for lying us into a war? Seems pretty unethical to me. You ReNAMBLAcans are such hypocrites. You just dont accept your party's unethical behavior until like Cunninham, Ney, and Abramoff they are carted off to jail. Keep talking about the 70's and 80's. Back to the present its YOU guys going to prison for the corruption and Jefferson WAS asked to resign and stripped of his comittee chairmanship. Foley was KEPT on his comittee about child exploitation LONG after YOUR party KNEW he was a danger to children. Just because your partisan blinders wont allow you to see the reality of your beloved ReNAMBLAcan party doesnt mean WE cant see it.
Shamed Conservative,
You cannot equate an old honorarium case with a Dirty Old Conservative in the Mens Room case. Your argument stinks.
Hey-ru,
My argument stands because it relates to how differently we apply standards to our leaders. Again, what if anything can a democrat do to loose favor with the party and democrat followers?
No it doesnt did you guys force Ney to resign? His wrongdoing was evident for at least a couple of years, NO he WENT TO PRISON. What about Cunningham? No HE WENT TO PRISON. What about Delay? No you changed the rules to protect him. Sure you had Foley resign SIX YEARS after the ReNAMBLAcans knew he was enough of a problem that they were warning pages about him and he KEPT his comittee chairmanship about EXPLOITED CHILDREN. You dont HAVE a point, you have partisan delusions.
I'm quite surprised you want to keep making that claim that republicans somehow apply standards and hold their own to task. It's been shown over and over again that republicans have not done so. Vitter is still in, because he comes from a state with a democratic governor so no surprise that republicans won't hold him to task. I'd be happy to discuss the dem side with you, but you haven't proven that you can discuss this reasonably because of your "we're different because we have higher standards than you" attitude.
Snoopy, you sweet thang. This (I can't really be a ) proud conservative is in deep denial. I don't blame him. His party is rotten from the top on down. He doesn't want to face it. He's in one of the stages of grief.
Vitter, Ney, Cunningham, Folly.
What can you possibly be talking about when you claim you have proven your argument?
Do you really believed you have proven anything besides that you are mistaken in your belief that insults and invective are the same thing as argumentation?
"Again, what if anything can a democrat do to loose favor with the party and democrat followers?"
Have $90,000 of bribes in a freezer. Vote for things that we don't agree with. That's the big one.