Foley Quits Amid Allegations of Email Sex Scandal

History of Foley Messages' Release Clarified by Players
History of Foley Messages' Release Clarified by Players
2 Sources Explain Motives, Citing Concern for Hill's Pages
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 11, 2006; A04

Two of the news media's sources of Mark Foley's sexually explicit instant messages to former House pages said this week that they came forward to expose the Florida congressman's actions, not to help the Democrats in the midterm elections.

But there are indications that Democrats spent months circulating five less insidious Foley e-mails to news organizations before they were finally published by ABC News late last month, which prompted the leaking of the more salacious instant messages. Harper's Magazine said yesterday that it obtained the five e-mails from a Democratic Party operative, albeit in May, long before the election season.

The genesis of the Foley story has become the subject of heated debate, as Republicans try to shift attention away from Foley's misconduct and the slow reaction of House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's office to what they call a political hit just ahead of the midterm elections.

"Are we saying that a 15-year-old child would've sat on e-mails that were XXX-rated for three years and suddenly spring them out right on the eve of an election? That's just a little bit too suspicious, even for Washington, D.C.," Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) said on "Fox News Sunday" last weekend. On the same day, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said he "never saw" the e-mails. "What you guys want to do is take your dirty laundry and throw it over the fence and try to blame other people," he said.

But new information suggests that the story of the release of Foley's communications with male ex-pages is more complicated than either side asserts.

The most sexually explicit material -- the instant messages that forced Foley's abrupt resignation on Sept. 29 and turned his actions into a full-fledged scandal -- appears to be disconnected from politics. The two former pages who revealed the correspondence to ABC News and The Washington Post, however, may never have come forward had Democratic operatives not divulged the five more benign e-mails that Foley had sent to a Louisiana boy.

'Over-Friendly' E-Mails

The communications that would eventually trigger the scandal were written by Foley in 2004. Foley's e-mails asked a former page from Louisiana for a picture and told him he had just finished a long bike ride and was going to the gym.

Those 2004 e-mails -- dubbed "over-friendly" by House Republican leaders -- originally leaked out of the office of Rep. Rodney Alexander (La.), a Republican. But, Republicans say, they still may have come from a Democrat on his staff. Alexander changed parties in 2004.

The timing of the e-mails' release appears to be more of a coincidence than an "October surprise," designed to affect the outcome of the elections. It took more than a year for the e-mails to be published because one publication after another decided not to print them.

The one media outlet that did, ABC News, took them public in late September only because the lead reporter, Brian Ross, had put the story on hold for more than a month as he pursued stories commemorating the anniversaries of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and Hurricane Katrina.

"There was never a plan to undermine the GOP or to destroy Hastert personally, as the speaker has vaingloriously suggested," Ken Silverstein, Washington editor for Harper's, said on the magazine's Web site yesterday. "I know this with absolute certainty because Harper's was offered the story almost five months ago."

Silverstein said his source was a "Democratic operative," the same source that had provided the e-mail exchanges to the St. Petersburg Times in November 2005. Both the magazine and the paper declined to publish a story. But the source "was not working in concert with the national Democratic Party," Silverstein added. "This person was genuinely disgusted by Foley's behavior, amazed that other publications had declined to publish stories about the emails, and concerned that Foley might still be seeking contact with pages."

A second source emerged, however, just last month, peddling the e-mails to several other publications, including The Post. And Ross of ABC News has stressed that his initial source was a Republican.

More Explicit Messages

The instant messages between Foley and two former pages were much more sexually charged. Once ABC News obtained them and confronted the Florida Republican with the documents, Foley immediately resigned.

Two of the primary sources who delivered the instant messages came forward this week to clarify their motives. Both spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear that exposure would leave them open to harassment, especially from bloggers.

One of ABC News's sources, a former page, said he went public with his knowledge of the instant messages on Sept. 29 only after the network, the day before, published the questionable e-mails that Foley had sent to the Louisiana boy. The former page and current college student stressed that he is a "staunch Republican" who "wouldn't vote for a Democrat ever." He also said that he is not calling for the resignation of Hastert or any other Republican leader.

"I in no way knew or intended to have all the brouhaha about what the GOP leadership knew and when they knew it," he said in a detailed e-mail to The Post. "Truthfully, I am very troubled about what it seems has gone on behind the scenes, but that in no way affects my wish to have a continued GOP control of Congress. There are bad apples everywhere."

The Post subsequently received the instant messages from a Democratic college student who had served as a page with the two teenagers who had corresponded with Foley and had shared their instant messages.

Unlike the ABC News source, The Post's source conceded that he would like to see the Democrats seize control of the House in November, but when approached by a Post reporter about the instant messages, he was reluctant to provide them. Days later, he did so.

The two sources said they had conferred about the instant messages, which they had known about for months.

The Republican former page said he had decided it was up to the victims to come forward with them, but once ABC News published the e-mails, "I knew everything I had already known about Foley was finally going to come out. His attraction to young men. His sexual conversations with them, etc."

'Interests of Kids'

"I decided that it was in the best interests of kids in general, pages and my friends specifically that Foley be dealt with quickly and swiftly so that he couldn't hurt anyone else," the Republican student wrote in his e-mail. "We've seen how long the Justice department and every other government bureaucracy can take to deal with criminal issues and abuse. I knew the media would be the fastest way to get Foley the justice he deserved."

As for The Post's source, Foley's initial response to the disclosure of the e-mails finally persuaded him to share his information, he said.

"When the first e-mails came out, Foley's campaign came out saying it was all a well-timed Democratic smear. Those rumors were unfounded, and I knew that to be untrue," the Democratic former page said. Before the ABC News report, "we were reluctant to take on Congress as young politicos ourselves, but when first blows were made, there was no harm in coming forward," he added.

HERE is Silverstein's Harper's" article. In it, he asks: "... [If this was all a plot to hurt the G.O.P.'s chances in the midterm elections, why did the original source for the story begin approaching media outlets a full year ago? ... [/b][/i]"

Why indeed? In politics, coincidence is a most rare thing. Perhaps something close to the answer to Silverstein's question may be found HERE.

What cannot be overlooked is that the Foley Flap provides Democrats conveniently salacious "change the subject" opportunity, sensationalistically removing focus from issues such as national security, foreign policy, economic progress, tax reform, and immigration.

While what has developed may not have begun with partisan intent, cleary it has become - on both sides - intensely partisan, and despite what significant legitimate merit lies at it s core, is as it has developed a distraction from the business of running the country.

Frankly, who cares about Foley anymore? He's gone, so BBB, you can move onto something else now, like how come Jefferson is still sitting proudly in Congress, or why the North Koreans got assistance from Clinton while they continued to develop their nuclear technology?

okie


okie, you forgot to engage your brain again. Will you never learn?

BBB

That's ridiculous, Okie. If you want to start a thread on Jefferson, I will come post in it and help the discussion go along. But this isn't about Jefferson, so please stop trying to change the subject, mkay?

Timber,


Yeah, it's the Soros 'shadow party' who is to blame for House Republicans covering up for a pederast all these years.

Remember that if your party had taken care of their dirty laundry in a responsible fashion, this wouldn't be a problem. You can complain about the timing, but hey - that's politics. You should be congradulating the Dems on a good play.

Cycloptichorn

Straw man, Cyc - I said only that SOME of the answer might be found in that area, and as yet it remains undetermined that any such thing as " ... House Republicans covering up for a pederast all these years ... " is a circumstance which pertains.


Indeed that is politics, and precisely that is the point. No congaratulations are in order for anyone involved with this stereotypical example of silly season sillines - its just politics ... at its meanest and dirtiest, all the way around.

Well, what do you expect? The Republican party has used mean and dirty politics to get where they are, and will continue to use it in the future. The Dems have just stepped up to the plate. They aren't listening to any of that 'build bridges with your opponent' bullsh*t that the Republicans have been counseling them to do for a long time, not anymore.

You should expect Dem candidates to continue punching Republicans in the face, politically, for quite a while. And why not? It has an excellent track record.

Cycloptichorn

I don't expect politicians to behave other than as politicians always have been known to behave, Cyc - "last refuge of scoundrels", and all that - :wink:

Dems just stepped up to the plate of dirty politics? Lame excuse for a joke, cyclops. I would advise the dems to back off. This is going to turn out to be another phony scandal they hope to ride to victory, but is probably not going to work. Foley is gone, but to try to implicate Hastert and the entire Repbublican party because of some stupid tms by Foley, people aren't that stupid. Big deal. Nobody cares. And this from Chris Shays pointing out Hastert did not drive anybody off a bridge:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2553722

From okie's link:



Shays is making rash remarks because of his own attempt to get reelected.

The question remains whether Hastert has gotten his story straight yet.

Timberland, regardless of the "politics' of the Foley episode, it is the presentation that the voting public respond to rather than the reality of just politics. The christian right ( a solid republican base for sometime now) smells a stink against their designated moral agenda. While they may very well limit the stink to simply Foley being gay (an abomination) or they smell a republican party capitulation to log cabin republicans/diversity/big tent and all doesn't really matter, the unification of the christian right with fiscal conservatism (republicanism) may very well be on the edge of collapse.

Still trying to change the subject back to the Dems?

The problem with your position is that news and information keeps getting revealed every day, and none of it supports the idea that Republican leadership didn't know what was going on. None of it.

Here's an ABC article detailing Foley's attempts to crash the pages' dorm in 2000:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/foley_cruising_.html

Cycloptichorn

More straw, Cyc - whatchya got there in fact is not a detailing of a Foley attempt to "crash a dorm" (which admittedly, given the creep's history, is not at all implausible) is a detailing of a take on yet more allegations as yet unsupported by documentation - I don't claim no such documentation exists, I point out merely that none has been produced.

Sure, none of this is confirmed 'fact' yet. But as more and more testify under oath, you'd better believe that more of it than the defenders of the Republican party leadership would wish, will turn out to be fact.

It won't take much for there to be purges amongst your party; you'd better start preparing for it now.

Cycloptichorn

The christian right doesn't give a hoot about Hastert covering up for Foleys indescretions, what they care about is that Hastert covered for Foley (etal) being a queer.

( :wink: ), Cyc -

Busted... WaPo Reports Democrats Were Behind Foleygate!

Hee hee, Timber... allegations that 'unnamed' democrats were behind the sending of the emails to news organizations are, shall we say, rather uncompelling evidence at this point.

Gateway Pundit's breathless pronunciations of guilt non-withstanding, I have yet to see a single person named as guilty for disseminating this information; I have also yet to see a description of why a Democratic staffer, sending this information to news organizations, is 'behind' the scandal. It seems to me that Foley is the one 'behind' the scandal. Just because some Dems took it upon themselves to bring his perversions to the light of day doesn't make them wrong for having done so.

Cycloptichorn

I suppose, it's all settled by now:

President Bush: "Denny is very credible as far as I'm concerned. He's done a fine job as speaker."

President Bush: "This is disgusting behavior when a member of Congress betrays the trust of the Congress and the family that sent a young page to serve."


source: White House press conference today.

Just the same game looked at through a different playbook, Cyc - in the end, merely "Politics as Usual".

With the big difference being, those alleging Republican misdeeds are in fact naming specific names and testifying under oath in front of various committees and the FBI. Those making allegations against Dems are... doing what, exactly?

I have the feeling that one end of this investigation is going to go a lot further than the other end, what with the preponderance of actual evidence and testimony.

Cycloptichorn