I think this is an interesting story though one that would ordinarily not grasp too much of my attention.  It's interesting of course because of the reactions from Democrats and Republicans, homosexuals and heterosexuals, those who supported Clinton or Barney Frank and those who think hitting on young subordinates is a no-no.  Wanna talk about it?

Susan 

1983 Congressional page sex scandal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The 1983 Congressional page sex scandal was a political scandal in the United States involving members of the United States House of Representatives.

On July 14, 1983 the House Ethics Committee concluded that Rep. Dan Crane (R-Ill.) and Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Mass.) had engaged in sexual relationships with minors, specifically 17-year-old congressional pages. In Crane's case, it was a 1980 relationship with a female page and in Studds's case, it was a 1973 relationship with a male page. Both representatives immediately pleaded guilty to the charges and the committee decided to simply reprimand the two.

However, Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) demanded their expulsion. On July 20, 1983 the House voted for censure, the first time that censure had been imposed for sexual misconduct. Crane, who tearfully apologized for his transgression, lost his bid for reelection in 1984. Studds, however, refused to apologize (even calling a press conference with the former page, in which both stated that they were consenting adults at the time of the relationship and that it was therefore not the business of others to censure them for their private relationship), and he continued to be reelected until his retirement in 1996.[1]

 

 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Another take on this older scandal and why the Republican was not re-elected but the Democrat was:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Well, it's October, so -- surprise! The most politically explosive writing to hit Washington last week wasn't what's in Bob Woodward's pages. It was those alleged e-mails between Mark Foley and at least a couple of congressional pages and what the House Republican leadership did or didn't do back last fall.

If you want one clue about the political fallout from all this, you can look back more than 20 years ago.

In 1983, the House Ethics Committee revealed that two House members had been sexually involved with pages: liberal Massachusetts Democrat Gerry Studds and conservative Illinois Republican Daniel Crane. Crane was involved with a female, Studds a male; both pages were over the legal age of consent. Both Studds and Crane were censured by the House, but their responses -- and their political fates -- were very different.

Crane was repentant; tearfully apologized to his wife and family, asked for forgiveness.

As the rules require, he stood in the well of the House to receive his censure and faced his colleagues.

By contrast, Studds was unrepentant. He said the relationship was legal and consensual, talked about the difficulties of being a gay man in America, and when the House censured him, he turned his back on his colleagues, as if to reject their censure.

The next year, Crane, who had been an outspoken advocate of "family values," was soundly defeated by voters in his conservative district. Studds was re-elected handily, and served in the House for more than a dozen years, until his retirement.

What's the relevance? Well, consider the role of social conservatives, like those who attended the recent Family Research Council gathering in Washington. They fill the ranks of GOP turnout operations at election time. Some, like James Dobson of "Focus on the Family," have already expressed disappointment in how Republicans have treated their priorities, like gay marriage and abortion.

As the earlier scandal shows, such conservatives are particularly likely to punish sexual misbehavior. And if they conclude that top Republican leaders did not pursue such behavior when they learned of it, the political consequences -- diminished enthusiasm, lower turnouts -- could be severe.

The specifics of this issue are entangled in dispute: Were the earlier, alleged sexually explicit communications leaked with a political agenda in mind? Did the leadership see only the less explicit communications? (Watch a timeline of when the House leadership knew about Foley's e-mail -- 2:05 )

But the campaign season does not deal well with subtleties. If this story ends up convincing social conservatives that the Republican Party has let them down, a lot of the calculations about what will happen in November go right out the window.

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"

ther's no doubt in my mind that the release of this information wasn't political just days before one of the hottest elections in recent US history that could determine who will control the Congress. Which begs the question - who gave the press this information and how long were THEY (or he/she) sitting on it, and what crimes were potentially committed in holding onto it until the right opportune time.

However, that doesn't excuse the GOP leadership from sitting on this for a couple of years knowing full well the potentially illegal ramifications of it -- if they knew the full extent of what was going on (which is questionable). If Hastert sat on this, he should resign, and any other GOP member who knew of a potential crime that might've been committed.

Let's see if this playbook happens...and if it does then we'll know that the release of this info was 100% policital, and not in an effort "to protect the innocent chidlren."

Jordan .

From Fox News (who it now appears knew about the less contoversial e-mails):

Meanwhile, Florida newspapers — who were leaked copies of the e-mail with the Louisiana boy last year — defended their decision not to run stories. Both The St. Petersburg Times and The Miami Herald were given copies of the e-mail, as were other news organizations, including Fox News.

"Our decision at the time was ... that because the language was not sexually explicit and was subject to interpretation, from innocuous to 'sick,' as the page characterized it, to be cautious," said Tom Fiedler, executive editor of the Herald. "Given the potentially devastating impact that a false suggestion of pedophilia could have on anyone, not to mention a congressman known to be gay, and lacking any corroborating information, we chose not to do a story."

Hastert called on any person who was aware of the 2003 instant messages to speak to law enforcement authorities. He said no Republican leader in Congress was aware of those exchanges until Friday, when ABC News reported it had questioned Foley about them.

A watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), said it had obtained copies of Foley's e-mails to the 16-year-old former page in late July and immediately gave them to the FBI.

"They (the e-mails) should have raised a red flag over at the FBI," said Melanie Sloan, the group's executive director and a former prosecutor specializing in sex crimes. The group on Monday asked the Justice Department's inspector general to investigate why Foley's e-mails were not pursued.

Asked about the preliminary inquiry under way at the FBI into Foley's actions, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told reporters Monday afternoon, "We're just beginning to look at it right now. I haven't received a report."

The Justice Department sent Hastert a brief letter that said the FBI "is conducting a preliminary investigation into this matter and will work closely with the department's prosecutors to determine whether any violations of federal law have occurred."

I wonder what other news organizations knew?  Why wouldn't the MSM who is clearly (so I'm told) out for the Republicans have run the story back then?  Lot's of facts to come out here still, lot's of organizations who could be affected.

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"

Oh man, if I were a gossip the stuff I could tell you about Jeff Greenfield (CNN 'senior' analyst). But that wouldn't be like me, so I'll leave it to your imaginations. But if the behavior of journalists were as 'meaningful' to the public as that of politicians, I might feel compelled to spill for the betterment of all. Goes to his credibility, ya know. Or else it doesn't.

I think Foley's behavior was despicable even if all there was to it were emails and the I.M.s that I heard today. One of our local radio shows did an interpretive reading of the instant messages. Juvenile and sordid crap -- hitting on teenage boys! Is it logical to assume he has acted out on his Big Lust with some of these boys? Would it be better -- acceptable -- if he waited until their 18th birthdays? Or like the guy from Massachusetts who waited until the page was 17 and it was 'consensual?'

The biggest surprise to me today was reading about more than a few of the repulsive congressmen from the recent past such as the one who was caught exposing himself at the Iwo Jimo memorial in what I assume is a customary method of saying "hi, stranger" in the gay hustler community! Geez! Get a grip! Well, I guess he did have a grip. Oddly, this location is well known for gay hustling kinda like the public bathrooms across the street from the Beverly Hills Hotel where George Michael dropped his drawers. Shortly after being caught with his pants down by the bronze soldiers raising the flag, this same guy was caught performing oral sex on a male employee of the Library of Congress. For crying out loud, is there no sense of propriety among these guys?! Quel classless!

Every last detail of this story will unravel over time. Whoever released the mlessages and emails will be revealed. All the messages will be released so we can go 'ewwwwwww, yech!' The young man/men will 'expose' themselves on Larry King and Oprah. Wouldn't be surprised if Foley committed suicide either. Or will he simply emerge from his rehab (gawd, these places are so lame!) and write a stupid book like the newly out-of-the-closet resigned-in-disgrace governor from New Jersey has just done.

Isn't it just a sad sad story that a young man or a young woman with dreamy idealism cannot go to our nation's capital to serve as an intern or a page without being propositioned by those who are running the country. So creepy and jaded.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

If any of you teens are reading this, do not click on THIS LINK!!!! This is NOT for children. READER DISCRETION IS STRONGLY ADVISED. Just go back to playing Grand Theft Auto or something and don't read the transcripts from Foley to the teenage page, aka "stud."

Ewwwwwwwww, I've just guessed what Maf54 might stand for if not Mark A. Foley!

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

One month out from the 2006 elections, the word is in the air -- the Republicans will lose the House. The ripple effect of the Foley scandal may have shifted the loyalty of enough of the leaning right fence-sitters to curtains now.

Hastert had a chance to be convincing enough of the yesterday as he made the media rounds but I was unconvinced. Hastert told us that all he knew about were emails with non-sexual content that asked a former page, "Did you make it through Hurricane Katrina alright" and that he then told Foley to "knock off the overly friendly contact with pages."  I felt overtly lied to by Hastert. Why in the world would any intervention be necessary under those circumstances?  To the credit of Hastert, anyone who comes up with a lie as lame as this, is most likely not a habitual liar.

Never having been a fan of the Dennis Hastert, a man who makes Harry Reid look downright charismatic, I'm now in the Speaker's "thumbs down" camp. He's finished. And with him the others who may have carefully shielded Hastert from the actual material in a "you don't wanna know" plausible deniability move.

If the Republicans lose the House over this camel back-breaking straw, so be it. Madame Speaker Nancy Pelosi?

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

The political fallout of Foley wasn't aimed at Democrats and only somewhat to Indepedents - it was mostly aimed at the rank and file of the GOP. This information will not effect non-GOP votes, but it will effect GOP voters who are tired of the way the GOP leadership has been running the past few years.

Expect one more October surprise later this month against the GOP though.  

Jordan .

Then there's this though I cannot vouch for its authenticity.  It's from the Internets, you know.

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

And once again Fox News is fair and balanced, now Foley is a Democrat!

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"

That's hilarious, Danwhy!  You know, now that Foley has confessed his molestation by wicked Catholic priest, his disease of alcoholism and the subsequent de riguer re-hab stay all in the same week as his resignation, I'd almost think he could be an honorary Dem.  All that remains for him to do now is crash through the wall surrounding the Capitol Building and to appear on Oprah hyping his tell all book.  (Oh, Susan that was so unfair and so unlike you!)

But I wonder if Fox really did that or if that isn't a photo-shop trick along the lines of this recent attempted maligning of a high-profile Republican . 

If it's the real thing as BradBlog represents, FOXnews is way SLOPPY.  I find all the networks making stupid mistakes on their crawls and captions, however.  

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

So D do you really think that possible mistake is an example of FNC biasness?

If so, good thing it wasn't FNC who did the following mistake if that's the case because then you could accuse FNC of helping the GOP by releasing the accuser's identity: (From Drudge)

ABC ONLINE GLITCH LEADS TO IDENTITY OF FOLEY ACCUSER

FEATURED IM EXCHANGE WAS WITH 18 YEAR OLD

Wed Oct 04 2006 20:32:06 ET

A posting on ABCNEWS.COM of an unredacted instant message sessions between Rep. Mark Foley and a former congressional page has exposed the identity of the now 21 year-old accuser.

The website PASSIONATE AMERICA detailed the startling exposure late Wednesday.

ABCNEWS said in a statement: "We go to great lengths to prevent the names of alleged sex crime victims from being revealed. On Friday there was a very brief technical glitch on our site which was overridden immediately. It is possible that during that very brief interval a screen name could have been captured. Reviews of the site since then show no unredacted screen names."

SEX CHAT WAS WITH 18 YEAR OLD

On Tuesday ABC news released a high-impact instant message exchange between Foley and, as ABC explained, a young man "under the age of 18."

ABC headlined the story: "New Foley Instant Messages; Had Internet Sex While Awaiting House Vote"

But upon reviewing the records, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, the young man was in fact over the age of 18 at the time of the exchange.

A network source explains, messages with the young man and disgraced former Congressman Foley took place before and after the 18th birthday.

Developing...

Jordan .

Lol B!

Ah Jordan, come on, we all know FNC leans a certain direction (at least in their commentary), however, the above mistake (which most Republican blogs seem to feel did happen as the bloggers say they saw it) was a mistake, plain and simple.  Reminds me of the X through Cheney that CNN did, likely just a mistake (CNN and FNC) but who knows other than the one individual who actually typed it.   As per my post further up though, FNC did know about the e-mail's (not the IM's) quite some time ago, I pulled that article right from their own website.

How incredibly partisan things have become that conspiracy theories are abounding about who did the leaking etc.  The investigation will hopefully resolve that, I have no interest in judging before that, it is very interesting to read the blogs on both sides right now though, really shows the gulf.  Who knew Republicans were also good at conspiracy theories?  At least that's one thing they have in common now with the Dem's, maybe that will start bridging the gap :-)

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"

What am I? The Invisible Republican here? No paritsan conspiracy theories from moi.

Danwhy, I think your Freeper Blog may be coloring your perceptions. 

I've got a pool going with my longtime email group (16 Republicans and 2 Democrats) over when Hastert will resign. I'm saying before the sun sets on Columbus Day, October 9th. 

I'm a "zero defects" kinda gal without much wiggle room for people in positions of power taking advantage of their youthful underlings.  Waiting a year after and asking "How old are you now? How old are you now?" (pant pant pant) of your former teenage pages doesn't make Foley much more respectable in my eyes even if it may be so in the eyes of the law. It's as if these pages were being groomed for future turn-on material for the Congressman. In the same way I find a grown-up 23-year old intern soliciting the president and his taking that less than attractive bait, is despicable.

And another thing -- why would Foley mention the priest who molested him when he was 12 or 13? Was that meant to explain his own proclivity for young men? What's the deal with that?

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

"As per my post further up though, FNC did know about the e-mail's (not the IM's) quite some time ago, I pulled that article right from their own website."

As did at least 2 other media outlets and NONE of them did anything. Interesting how you pull only FNC out of that list in trying to infer biasness though. You may have something if the other two told the story and FNC didn't but when three media outlets didn't run the story, then I don't think you can say there was some sort of biasness as to not running the story.

"Who knew Republicans were also good at conspiracy theories?"

What conspiracy theories? Are you talking about the fact that this information is published one month before a very important election? Oh please! I'm sorry but that is NOT a conspiracy theory. That's just absurd. We all know that October is filled with surprises as is the weekend before an election. This is the normal thing - not a conspiracy theory.

This whole thing is despicable with Foley, as Susan said. It makes it worse when the pages are under 18. But even if they weren't, it's descpicable. And as I said before, if any GOP or Demorat members knew what Foley was doing, I'm all for their resignation and brouight up on criminal charges if they committed a crime.

I don't see Hastert resigning but if he does he will do at least two weeks before election. That means he'll do it either next week or the week of the 16th.

BTW - here's an interesting story

Jordan .

This is an interesting read how the page's name (Jordan Edmund) came to light:

http://passionateamerica.blogspot.com/2006/10/meet-jordan-edmund-one-mark-foley.html 

Jordan .

WOW -- triple post. I don't quite believe this because it doesn't really explain why he resigned, but this is interesting:

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU OCT 5 2006 2:53:48 ET XXXXX

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.

According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, goaded an unwitting 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.

The primary source, an ally of Edmund, adamantly proclaims that the former page is not a homosexual. The prank scenario was confirmed by a second associate of Edmund. Both are fearful that their political careers will be affected if they are publicly brought into the investigation.

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.

The news come on the heels that Edmund has hired former Timothy McVeigh attorney, Stephen Jones.
 

Jordan .

Have you seen this?  Three new ex-pages have come forward. What an outta control perv.

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

From FNC, this speaks to Susan's guess on how long Hastert will be around:

WASHINGTON —  House Republican candidates will suffer massive losses if House Speaker Dennis Hastert remains speaker until Election Day, according to internal polling data from a prominent GOP pollster, FOX News has learned.

"The data suggests Americans have bailed on the speaker," a Republican source briefed on the polling data told FOX News. "And the difference could be between a 20-seat loss and 50-seat loss."

Most GOP lawmakers have stood by Hastert, pending a full airing of the facts in his handling of the Mark Foley affair, in which the former Florida representative was caught exchanging salacious messages with teen pages in Congress. The new polling data, however, suggests that many voters already have made up their minds.

The GOP source told FOX News that the internal data had not been widely shared among Republican leaders, but as awareness of it spreads calculations about Hastert's tenure may change. The source described the pollster who did the survey as "authoritative," and said once the numbers are presented, it "could change the focus" on whether the speaker remains in power.

While internal GOP polls show trouble for Republicans, the newest AP/Ipsos poll also showed that half of likely voters say the Foley scandal will be "very or extremely important" when it comes time to vote on Nov. 7. By nearly a 2-1 ratio, voters say Democrats are better at combating corruption.

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"

Above, I said: "The political fallout of Foley wasn't aimed at Democrats and only somewhat to Indepedents - it was mostly aimed at the rank and file of the GOP. This information will not effect non-GOP votes, but it will effect GOP voters who are tired of the way the GOP leadership has been running the past few years."

Whether the release was timed with the election can be questioned all day long, but oen thing is for sure - the bolded part of my comment is dead on. Take a look at this article from today :

A Democratic candidate accuses her Republican rival of not doing enough to stop disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley and his cybersex exchanges with teenage males in an ad for Christian radio stations.

Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy is challenging seven-term Rep. Deborah Pryce, a member of the GOP House leadership, in one of the more competitive races. Kilroy's weeklong ads begin Saturday.

...

Pryce said she was out of the loop about complaints that Foley had sent improper messages to teenage male pages until after the congressman resigned Sept. 29.

"I was dumbfounded," she said.

Since then, she has angrily called Foley "sick," has criticized fellow Republicans for not reporting the problem to Democratic lawmakers before it became public and has called for investigations into Foley's behavior.

Kilroy spokeswoman Amanda Wurst said the campaign chose Christian and conservative radio stations because their listeners are concerned about values.

...

Jordan .

Wow, politicians are politicing!!

Personally, I think the Dem's should shut up about this and just let it take it's course.

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"

"Personally, I think the Dem's should shut up about this and just let it take it's course."

Won't happen in this tight election. they are going to overreach and hurt them in the long run (esp when the GOP releases their October surprise).  

Jordan .

You mean this isn't the October Surprise?