<div>All:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The case of former Republican Representative Foley's use of the page system to sexually communicate with minor pages, using his official tax payer supported influence, has implications that are critical to basic democratic principles regarding the conduct of government.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As it's been said, the cover up is often worse than the crime, and in this case the Republican cover up, with solid evidence it extends back before the 2004 presidential elections, is a gravely serious violation of the public right to know about the conduct of public officials in government, not only because it allowed Foley to continue this behavior in his official capacity in government, but because the cover up was possibly aimed at deceiving voters in the 2004 election.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Foley's misconduct is central to illuminating the truth behind one of the main propaganda tools utilized in the Republican rise to power. The Republican party has made political gains opposing gay rights, with grandstanding measures wasting the time of the US Congress, and the tax payers dollars, with the proposed constitutional amendment (and numerous state measures) to ban gay marriage. It is political and poetic justice that we discover they hid the inappropriate sexually oriented conduct of a gay member of their party in the US Congress, allowing the misconduct to continue, exposing the hypocrisy of their claim to the the party of "moral values," a dominant propaganda tool they have used to exploit public unease with gay rights issues for political advantage.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Secrecy and deception have been prominent tactics of the Bush administration on many levels on many issues, violating a central principle of how a democracy must function with transparency in government. This pattern is exposed again in the Foley cover up, and US House Speaker Hastert should be held accountable for complicity in allowing Foley to continue in his powerful taxpayer and voter supported role, without voters being immediately informed of critical ethics violations involving Foley's official duties in government.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If it is true that Hastert or other Republicans denied voters critical information regarding Foley's conduct with pages before the 2004 election, this is potentially a case of a cover up to swing the presidency to the Republicans. Exposing Foley's misconduct before the 2004 elections could have inflicted damage to the aforementioned propaganda message of the party of "moral values."
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The documentation that Hastert, or his office, was informed of Foley's questionable conduct with pages after 2004 is solid, though Hastert says, "he does not remember."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I quote a few excerpts below from the news article at this link:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15063977/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15063977/</a></div>
<div>
<p class="textBodyBlack"><span id="byLine"></span><b><strong>Speaker doesn't remember discussion</strong></b></p>
<p class="textBodyBlack">Hastert said he does not remember talking to Reynolds about the Foley e-mails, but did not dispute Reynolds' account.</p>
<p class="textBodyBlack"><span id="byLine"></span>"While the speaker does not explicitly recall this conversation, he has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynolds' recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution," Hastert's aides said in a preliminary report on the matter issued Saturday.
</p>
<p class="textBodyBlack"><span id="byLine"></span>ABC News reported Friday that Foley also engaged in a series of sexually explicit instant messages with current and former teenage male pages. In one message, ABC said, Foley wrote to one page: "Do I make you a little horny?"
</p>
<p class="textBodyBlack">-------------</p>
<p class="textBodyBlack">There is documentation that Hastert, and/or his office, and/or other Republicans, were informed of Foley's sexual advances to underage pages before the 2004 election. This evidence supports the assertion of a possible cover up to influence the 2004 elections favorably for Republicans.
</p>
<p class="textBodyBlack">I have pasted in a few excerpts of this news article offering information that Republicans knew of Foley's misconduct before the 2004 elections below this link:</p>
<p class="textBodyBlack"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100400616.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100400616.html</a></p>
<p class="textBodyBlack"><strong>Ex-Aide to Foley Cites '03 Warnings<br></strong> By Jonathan Weisman and Charles Babington<br> The Washington Post </p></div>
<div>
<p> Thursday 05 October 2006</p>
<blockquote><b><i>Former staffer says he alerted Hastert's office.</i></b></blockquote>
<p></p>
<p> A longtime chief of staff to disgraced former representative Mark Foley (R-Fla.) approached House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's office three years ago, repeatedly imploring senior Republicans to help stop Foley's advances toward teenage male pages, the staff member said yesterday.
</p>
<p> The account by Kirk Fordham, who resigned yesterday from his job with another senior lawmaker, pushed back to 2003 or earlier the time when Hastert's staff reportedly became aware of Foley's questionable behavior concerning teenagers working on Capitol Hill.
</p>
<p> It raised new questions about Hastert's assertions that senior GOP leaders were aware only of "over-friendly" e-mails from 2005 that they say did not raise alarm bells when they came to light this year.</p>
<p> Fordham says his warnings to Hastert's office dealt with a different matter: reports of Foley's troubling interest in male pages working in the Capitol Hill complex. He says he implored the highest ranks of the GOP leadership to intervene to thwart behavior that he had been unable to stop after multiple confrontations with his boss. Sources close to the matter say a meeting took place between a senior Hastert aide and Foley before Fordham's January 2004 departure, probably in 2003, in a small conference room on the third floor of the Capitol.
</p>
<p>-------------------------</p>
<p>If the Democrats had solid information about Foley's sexual approaches to pages prior to the 2004 elections, this raises the question why they would not have made it public then to attempt to bring Foley and the Republicans down? The fact the democrats did not expose Foley before the 2004 elections, arguably more critical than the upcoming 2006 elections, suggests they did not know of Foley's ethics violating conduct, or did not have enough documentation to make it stick.
</p></div>
<div>Blaming Democrats, or the media, for sitting on the information regarding Foley's misconduct, till weeks before the 2006 mid-terms, smacks of the same tactics the Republicans mocked when Hilary Clinton talked of the "vast right wing conspiracy" during the Clinton years. Now we have a vast Democratic/media conspiracy to damage the Republicans. Note that the facts that Foley for years has been using the page system for his sexual advances on minors is so well documented that many Republicans are agreeing this conduct occurred.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Shouldn't the Republicans pay a price for covering up Foley's misconduct in this matter, even if the public release of this information was planned to occur by political advantage seeking Democrats, or the media, in the weeks before the 2006 mid-terms? Of course many Republican party supporters would rather have more time to distance themselves from this issue before the mid-terms. But given a cover up by Republicans, this is not a case of Democrats or the media taking the Republicans totally by surprise, even if the public release of the information was opportunistically timed. Republicans were hiding this information, no doubt hoping it would not come out before the mid-terms.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If Democrats (or the media) sat on solid documentation regarding Foley's misconduct with pages, waiting for when the information would receive the most exposure, and do the most damage, then it is morally questionable It allowed Foley to continue in his misconduct, with the voters who supported him continuing to have the wool pulled over their eyes.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Where is the documentation that the media or any Democrats had solid evidence regarding Foley's misconduct, and hid this information from the public, deliberately waiting to release it before the mid-terms? Is it not possible some of this information was kept hidden, hoping to keep it a "secret" till at least after the 2006 mid-terms, thus rendering it difficult for those looking for politically damaging information to put it all together with enough documentation to go public?
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This case is more deserving of an independent counsel investigation into Republican complicity in covering up Foley's sexual approaches to pages, than there was in an independent investigation into the Monica Lewinsky case involving Clinton, given the evidence Republicans hid this information, from prior to the 2004 presidential elections up until the information broke publicly recently. Clinton paid a heavy price for his misconduct, but there was no cover up in the Monika Lewinsky case by Democrats that influenced the outcome of a presidential election in their favor. The Monica Lewinsky case was a burden that Al Gore had to overcome in his 2000 contest with Bush, as the Republicans campaigned in part on their claim to the the party of "moral values," compared to the sexual scandal plagued Democratic party represented by Al Gore.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett</div>
<div> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/7/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Paul Rumelhart</b> <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">I'd actually classify myself as an independent right now. The Dem/Rep<br>lines are too close in certain areas and differ too much in some areas I
<br>could care less about.<br><br>It seems to me that the sides are even, if what this article said is<br>true. Dems play their card that they have been sitting on for a while.<br>Reps cut their losses. Why take it any farther?
<br><br>Just to be clear, I condemn the behavior of sitting on something like<br>this because of political motivations. Whether it was democrats waiting<br>for the right time to strike or republicans that were trying to avoid a
<br>scandal, I condemn it. Obviously, I also condemn the behavior of trying<br>to come on to underage pages. I just think pushing it farther in the<br>political arena is a waste of resources.<br><br>Funny that we're talking about trust here when discussing an article
<br>that claims to have information on a subject but doesn't actually<br>present it as fact. Trusting innuendo and gossip isn't much better than<br>whatever trusting you are accusing me of. I have a naive wish to go<br>
along with my naive ability to trust, though: I wish the people we<br>elected into office would spend 1/10th the amount of time they spend on<br>political maneuvering on actually trying to make this country a better<br>place.
<br><br>Paul<br><br>g. crabtree wrote:<br><br>> Spoken like a trusting Democrat. I agree about the creepy & stupid<br>> part but, if the DNC or democrat operatives were aware of this<br>> situation months or even years earlier and waited till six weeks out
<br>> from the mid terms to spring the nasty news for the advantage it would<br>> bring then I think that that has its own stink of nastiness (if not<br>> criminality) and deserves to be made public.<br>><br>> gc
<br>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Rumelhart"<br>> <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>><br>> To: "vision2020" <<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">
vision2020@moscow.com</a>><br>> Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 11:37 PM<br>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Scandals<br>><br>><br>>> So responding in sexually-explicit ways to an underage staffer is<br>>> somehow ok if it's really a joke that's being played on you? How is
<br>>> this an improvement? Now he's both creepy and stupid at the same time.<br>>><br>>> Anyway, he's resigned. That should be the end of it as far as I'm<br>>> concerned, at least from a political standpoint. This arguing about who
<br>>> knew what should stop.<br>>><br>>> Paul<br>>><br>>> Pat Kraut wrote:<br>>><br>>>> On the front page of the local newspaper tonight there is talk of<br>>>> scandals...but what scandal?
<br>>>> This is from a blog and makes me question who started this and what<br>>>> and when<br>>>> did they know??<br>>>> Foleys a slime, no question but what is the rest of the story??
<br>>>> Dirty tricks<br>>>> to change the election?? I think dems should be put under oath also.<br>>>><br>>>> After the Frenzy<br>>>> 10/05 03:13 PM<br>>>> This is why it pays to wait and get more facts before joining the
<br>>>> chorus of<br>>>> pundits and operatives demanding resignations. I will revisit this<br>>>> later.<br>>>> XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX MON OCT 5 2006 2:53:48 ET XXXXX<br>>>>
<br>>>> CLAIM: FILTHY FOLEY ONLINE MESSAGES WERE PAGE PRANK GONE AWRY<br>>>> **World Exclusive**<br>>>> **Must Credit the DRUDGE REPORT**<br>>>><br>>>> According to two people close to former congressional page Jordan
<br>>>> Edmund,<br>>>> the now famous lurid AOL Instant Message exchanges that led to the<br>>>> resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by<br>>>> mistake got<br>>>> into the hands of enemy political operatives, the DRUDGE REPORT can
<br>>>> reveal.<br>>>><br>>>> According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well,<br>>>> Edmund, a conservative Republican, goaded Foley to type embarrassing<br>>>> comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill
<br>>>> politicos.<br>>>> The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of<br>>>> political operatives favorable to Democrats. This source, an ally of<br>>>> Edmund,
<br>>>> also adamantly proclaims that the former page is not a homosexual.<br>>>> The prank<br>>>> scenario was confirmed by a second associate of Edmund.<br>>>><br>>>> The news come on the heels that former FBI Chief Louis Freeh has
<br>>>> been named<br>>>> to investigate the mess.<br>>>><br>>>> Developing...<br>>>><br>>>> =======================================================<br>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
<br>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>>>> <a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>>>> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">
Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>>>> =======================================================<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>><br>>> =======================================================
<br>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>>> <a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>>> mailto:
<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>>> =======================================================<br>>><br>><br>><br>><br><br>=======================================================
<br>List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br> <a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">
Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>=======================================================<br></blockquote></div><br>