October 02, 2006
The facts of the disgrace of Mark Foley, who was a Republican member of the House from a Florida district until he resigned last week, constitute a disgrace for every Republican member of Congress. Red flags emerged in late 2005, perhaps even earlier, in suggestive and wholly inappropriate e-mail messages to underage congressional pages. His aberrant, predatory -- and possibly criminal -- behavior was an open secret among the pages who were his prey. The evidence was strong enough long enough ago that the speaker should have relieved Mr. Foley of his committee responsibilities contingent on a full investigation to learn what had taken place, whether any laws had been violated and what action, up to and including prosecution, were warranted by the facts. This never happened.
I'm sorry -- the initial emails were not sufficient to take any such actions. Indeed, media outlests that had them found them to be insufficient to even write stories about them. Rather than blame those who found the emails "overly friendly" until the disgusting IMs came out last week, I think it is more important to find out who has had the clearly inappropriate IMs and why they were held back from the authorities untim now. After all, some of them date back a couple of years, which means that they, not the Speaker or any other member of the leadership team, endangered every page.
By the way, what did the initial FBI inquiry into the initial batch of emails conclude last summer?
An FBI official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing, said the field office concluded that the e-mails "did not rise to the level of criminal activity." The bureau announced Sunday that it would begin a preliminary investigation into Foley's more explicit electronic exchanges with teenagers.
In other words, the FBI concurred with the judgement made by Hastert and others (including members of the media who had the emails but chose not to run them) -- there was nothing in the emails that needed to be pursued. So what you had with the original batch of materials was a unanimous conclusion by the House Leadership, the FBI, and the press that there simply was not anything in the emails that rose to the level of misconduct.
The release of the IMs changes that.
Unfortunately, it may be a while before the results of the investigation of this matter come out. Let's behave like rational adults and wait for those results rather than engaging in hysterical recriminations over a couple of emails (absent the IMs) that seem less like a sexual predator seeking a victim and more like a responsible adult expressing concern about a young man whose family had just survived one of our nation's biggest natural disasters.
Posted by: Greg at
10:39 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 521 words, total size 3 kb.
I have been repeatedly perplexed by your logic. I honestly don't understand your argument that because the FBI didn't do anything about the e-mails, it was understandable that Hastert and the House leadership didn't do anything about them either. It is as if you are arguing that the right thing for the House leadership to do is predicated upon what the FBI did. I see no morality in that.
It appears that you are defending Hastert's lack of action by saying that the FBI didn't think the e-mails were actionable. Now that the Justice Department has determined that the FBI *should have* acted on the e-mails alone, does this change your opinion as to whether or not Hastert's decision to take no action on the emails was an appropriate decision? If the standard of proper behavior is what the FBI thinks, you would now have to say that Hastert was wrong. If you still think Hastert's inaction was correct, please clarify the standard you are using.
FWIW, my standard of behavior is one based on Judeo-Christian morality. Hastert was wrong to let Foley continue without accountability after the emails became known to the House leadership. The FBI's position is irrelevant to my moral standard.
Posted by: Greg in TX22 at Tue Jan 23 16:15:47 2007 (taDA9)
Only in the context of the IMs, which Democrats held back for political purposes, do I find them to be truly troubling.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Jan 24 10:31:16 2007 (o3XZi)
That doesn't explain why you supported your statement by saying the FBI "concurred" with Hastert's judgement. Do you now believe that the FBI's concurrence is irrelevant? If so, why did you bring it up at all? Is the FBI wrong to admit it should have followed up on the emails alone?
Don't get me wrong. If your position is that it doesn't matter what the FBI did or did not do, I agree wholeheartedly. But in your original post, it seems you were arguing that Hastert's lack of action was the right thing to do because the FBI didn't act, either. Only now, the FBI admits it was wrong. Hastert has yet to do that. I honestly believe I'm giving your post a fair interpretation, and you have yet to address it. I'm trying to find a logical set of principles in what you wrote.
FWIW, I think Foley's pursuit of pages was reprehensible. The e-mails were textbook cases of predatory behavior. Hastert should have acted on the emails alone.
Posted by: Greg in TX22 at Wed Feb 28 15:36:09 2007 (0+l41)
Now the question is, who held back the IMs until it was politically advantageous to release them -- thereby endangering kids for almost a year.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Feb 28 22:56:14 2007 (DYCXj)
21 queries taking 0.0086 seconds, 33 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.






