Comments Posted By clarice feldman
Displaying 21 To 30 Of 85 Comments
FOLEY MATTER PROVES REPUBLICANS SUPPORT PERVERTS
Dale, as I read the D.C. the day a person becomes 16 he is not a "child" for the purposes of the sex crimes laws here.
I expect that figure is not unusual.
Comment Posted By clarice feldman On 30.09.2006 @ 21:21
Here is the entire Hastert statement--as you can see the emails are all they had and because of the parent's wishes they were not allowed to see them:
On Friday, September 29, the Speaker directed his Chief of Staff and Outside Counsel to conduct an internal review to determine the facts and circumstances surrounding contact with the Office of the Speaker regarding the Congressman Mark Foley matter. The following is their preliminary report.
Email Exchange Between Congressman Foley and a Constituent of Congressman Alexander
In the fall of 2005 Tim Kennedy, a staff assistant in the Speaker's Office, received a telephone call from Congressman Rodney Alexander's Chief of Staff who indicated that he had an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House page. He did not reveal the specific text of the email but expressed that he and Congressman Alexander were concerned about it.
Tim Kennedy immediately discussed the matter with his supervisor, Mike Stokke, Speaker Hastert's Deputy Chief of Staff. Stokke directed Kennedy to ask Ted Van Der Meid, the Speaker's in house Counsel, who the proper person was for Congressman Alexander to report a problem related to a former page. Ted Van Der Meid told Kennedy it was the Clerk of the House who should be notified as the responsible House Officer for the page program. Later that day Stokke met with Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff. Once again the specific content of the email was not discussed. Stokke called the Clerk and asked him to come to the Speaker's Office so that he could put him together with Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff. The Clerk and Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff then went to the Clerk's Office to discuss the matter.
The Clerk asked to see the text of the email. Congressman Alexander's office declined citing the fact that the family wished to maintain as much privacy as possible and simply wanted the contact to stop. The Clerk asked if the email exchange was of a sexual nature and was assured it was not. Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff characterized the email exchange as over-friendly.
The Clerk then contacted Congressman Shimkus, the Chairman of the Page Board to request an immediate meeting. It appears he also notified Van Der Meid that he had received the complaint and was taking action. This is entirely consistent with what he would normally expect to occur as he was the Speaker's Office liaison with the Clerk's Office.
The Clerk and Congressman Shimkus met and then immediately met with Foley to discuss the matter. They asked Foley about the email. Congressman Shimkus and the Clerk made it clear that to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and at the request of the parents, Congressman Foley was to immediately cease any communication with the young man.
The Clerk recalls that later that day he encountered Van Der Meid on the House floor and reported to him that he and Shimkus personally had spoken to Foley and had taken corrective action.
Mindful of the sensitivity to the parent's wishes to protect their child's privacy and believing that they had promptly reported what they knew to the proper authorities Kennedy, Van Der Meid and Stokke did not discuss the matter with others in the Speaker's Office.
Congressman Tom Reynolds in a statement issued today indicates that many months later, in the spring of 2006, he was approached by Congressman Alexander who mentioned the Foley issue from the previous fall. During a meeting with the Speaker he says he noted the issue which had been raised by Alexander and told the Speaker that an investigation was conducted by the Clerk of the House and Shimkus. While the Speaker does not explicitly recall this conversation, he has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynold's recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution.
Sexually Explicit Instant Message Transcript
No one in the Speaker's Office was made aware of the sexually explicit text messages which press reports suggest had been directed to another individual until they were revealed in the press and on the internet this week. In fact, no one was ever made aware of any sexually explicit email or text messages at any time.
Comment Posted By clarice feldman On 30.09.2006 @ 21:14
Spartakus
There are no federal laws respecting such conduct that I'm aware of.
Comment Posted By clarice feldman On 30.09.2006 @ 20:53
Megan's law deals only with the publication of names of those convicted of state laws respecting sexual offenses.
The IM's are the improper solitication--the emails (which the Rep leadership had were not). CREW had the evidence. How long did they have it.
Can you imagine if on the basis of an email asking for the boy's welfare after Katrina and for a photo alone, the Reps had taken action against an elected Congressman? I see headlines accusing them of removing someone for presumed homosexual conduct on the basis of no evidence.
.
Comment Posted By clarice feldman On 30.09.2006 @ 20:49
This is a slander on the Republican leadership and yet another Soros financed fake scandal.
Personally, I think the D.C. police ought to investigate CREW to see if they had evidence of improper solicitations of children (the guy in the emails was NOT a child under DC law; the guy in the IMs may have been) and failed to notify the authroities.
Comment Posted By clarice feldman On 30.09.2006 @ 20:39
Aside from the question of propriety, solicitation of a 16 year old is not apparently an illegal act in D.C."
CHAPTER 41 SEXUAL ABUSE § 22-4101. Definitions.
(3) "Child" means a person who has not yet attained the age of 16 years.
Comment Posted By clarice feldman On 30.09.2006 @ 20:17
Maybe Fitz can be appointed--then he can fail to ask CREW how they got the IM's, ignore their political motivations, conflate their partisanship with "whistleblowing" and nab Hastert for forgetting when he went to the bathroom on the day he heard about the emails.
Comment Posted By clarice feldman On 30.09.2006 @ 20:11
Predatorgate? No kidding-I'd call it Plame II --the Dems are already calling for the appointment of a Special prosecutor--to, get this, investigate the Republican leadership.
Frankly, it's time to investigate CREW
Comment Posted By clarice feldman On 30.09.2006 @ 20:07
How did they get the IMs? When did they get them? If they were concerned about approaches to postpubescent boys why didn't they give this info to Hastert? Why did they sit on it until 40 days before the election?
Mac asks if this was a set up? That the correspondence suggests it may have been. He asks an even more important questions--How does anyone not a party to an IM conversation get copies of that communication?
http://www.macsmind.com/wordpress/
Comment Posted By clarice feldman On 30.09.2006 @ 19:43
(I have to proofread better):
It was widely suspected in DC that Foley was homosexual.
As far as I can tell all Reynolds told Hastert about was the rather innocuous emails sent to a 16 year old FORMER page who initiated the correspondence AND whose parents did not want to press the matter.Hastert told Reynolds to look into it. Reynolds confronted Foley who claimed innocent intention and promised to cease this correspondence and any other private correspondence with pages.
There is NO EVIDENCE that the leadership knew anything more than the innocuous emails
________dave--the emails don't come close to anything more than rather creepy for which there is as yet no criminal statute.
Comment Posted By clarice feldman On 30.09.2006 @ 19:38
