GOP Knew Of Rep. Foley’s IMs?

GOP Knew Of Rep. Foley’s IMs?


If you haven’t heard about the brewing scandal involving Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.), an underage page and sexual explicit IM sessions yet, here’s the lowdown.

Read up? Okay, now then…

It appears as if some in the GOP knew of this a while ago, but did nothing about it. Obviously, if this is true, it’s pretty appalling.

From the SF Gate:

Campaign aides had previously acknowledged that the Republican congressman e-mailed the former Capitol page five times, but had said there was nothing inappropriate about the exchange. The page was 16 at the time of the e-mail correspondence.

Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., who sponsored the page from his district, told reporters that he learned of the e-mails from a reporter some months ago and passed on the information to Rep. Thomas Reynolds, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Republican campaign organization.

Alexander said he did not pursue the matter further because “his parents said they didn’t want me to do anything.”

Carl Forti, a spokesman for the GOP campaign organization, said Reynolds learned from Alexander that the parents did not want to pursue the matter. Forti said, however, that the matter did go before the House Page Board � the three lawmakers and two House officials who oversee the pages.

So my question is did they not see the IM sessions? What’s going on here? Apparently Foley was a shoe-in to win re-election so did retaining power in the House supercede the need to expose Foley sooner?

I hope we get more answers soon on this one.

  • ascap_scab

    Suddenly we can put John Shimkus (R-IL-19), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV-2), Dale Kildee (D-MI-5), and Thomas Reynolds (R-NY-26) in play!!

    Reynolds is already in a tough race. This may push it over.

  • GOP Going Down Like Catholic Church

    Hastert is going down like Cardinal Bernard Law. And the GOP is going down like the Archdiocese of Boston.

    Cardinal Law also tried to “take care” of a pedophilia epidemic in the Archdiocese of Boston. Quick transfers of priests. Hushing of complaints and appeals to loyalty. It didn’t work. The archdiocese was cratered by the onslaught of suits and ended up having to sell off churches and the Cardinal’s own mansion.

    The scandal had been brewing for a while but one case involving a priest who’d abused a number of kids broke the floodgates some years ago. After that case took root and grew literally scores of young and not-so-young adults stepped forward and filed their own cases against yet other abusive priests.

    When this is over the GOP will be nearly completely depopoulated and the rolls of NAMBLA will have probably doubled.

  • Jeremy

    Near as I can tell, age of consent is 16 in Washington and the (only obliquley explicit) emails were with a 16yo while the much ickier IM logs were with a 17yo. This is exceedingly icky, but it’s not paedophila or exploits with an “underage page” far as I can tell.

  • gerryf

    Jeremy, well, then, I guess it is ok, then? Foley just likes them young, he’s no pervert? Please.

    I wonder if parents of these pages from all over the country feel that it is not paedophilia?

    I probably just read your post wrong and took it as your being an apologist for Foley, so if you were just clarifying, I’m sorry I snapped.

    Actually, seeing as how he continued the “relationships” (there were more than one), and wrote at least some of these IMs from Florida, where the age of consent is 18, and from what is coming out, he contacted pages in other states where the ages of consent are older than 16 (ex: 17 in Luisiana), it would seem he might still be guilty of such things.

  • Kevin

    Jeremy, please clarify your remarks because I’m trying really hard to shake the impression that your defending a 52 year old man starting a relationship with a 16 year old boy under his power. That goes well beyond “icky”.

  • Kevin

    Sorry, just read a little further and realize it’s not necessarily a “relationship” that we’re talking about. It still goes way beyond “icky”.

  • Marina making pictures

    What a big scandal. I wonder why GOP covered Foley.
    Perheps they wanted to wait until the election is over. Or they might be involved within the casse very deep.

    Thank you for sharing this story with me !

  • Bob J Young

    I know all politicians are a sleazy punch of monsters (dem and rep) but to shield a pedophile just to keep a congressional seat is appalling.

    From the NYT article

    “The page who received the first e-mail messages told ABC News that people in the program had warned his class to watch out for Foley. “

    The whole Abramoff thing showed that the current batch of republican leaders were corrupt, but I expect that of all politicians. Politicians are in it for money and power. This on the other hand is a new low even for washington.

  • JollyRoger


    I have to disagree with you on a couple of points.

    (1) This guy was in a position of high authority, and he was trying to seduce pages. This is beyond normal pedophilia-it goes right to subhuman and reprehensible. It’s the worst kind of abuse of the public trust.

    (2) You can bet Mark probably dabbled underneath 16 and 17, since the river he swam in was a little young. Whether or not we’ll be offered any proof of this remains to be seen.

  • reader_iam

    Regardless of what constitutes a relationship, it’s about the unequal power relationship, to put it in simplistic terms, the same basis upon which sexual harassment charges stand, the same philosophical basis as to why it’s inappropriate (or, at least used to be, and mostly still should be, in my view, not one universally shared, I know) for bosses and workers to have relationships–and the consensual part really is beside the point.

    I don’t much care about the gender of the older or the younger party involved.

    I do care about Foley’s shameful (icky or no) behavior. And what, if the story bears out, the appalling (non)reaction of the leadership was.

    It’s not OK, no matter what side of the aisle, and under any circumstances. That’s my position and I’m stickin’ to it.

  • Kathy

    Interesting that the first group that contacted was a Republican POLITICAL group. Just goes to show where the GOP’s priorities lie.

  • Jeremy

    Jeremy, well, then, I guess it is ok, then? Foley just likes them young, he’s no pervert? Please.

    Sorry, I knew I should have clarified. This is obviously really wrong and my stomach churns reading those IMs. And asking for a 16yo’s photo is way out of bounds and it obviously meets the “sick, sick, sick,” description given of it.

    But is it illegal? That’s all I was asking. The word pedophile is getting banded around a lot. This doesn’t seem to meet the diagnotic criterion for that by a long way:

    A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

    B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

    C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

    I think the seriousness of actual pedophila is being devalued here, but I’m not saying foley was in anyway not doing something wrong, sorry.

  • Jeremy

    PS. to clarify again, I also realise the diagnostic criterion don’t determine the legality of the behaviour (just the applicability of the word “pedophile”) which is why I asked earlier about the age of consent.

  • Sherman T. Potter

    The proper term is actually ‘ephebophile’.

  • gerryf

    the proper term is actually hypocritical piece of crap, but yes, Sherman has the correct terminology (i didn’t even know that word)

  • sleipner

    What really gets me is that the supposed “party of morality” is the party that supports torture, hides pederasty, takes huge bribes from K street and others, has racists among them, mortgages the future economy and environment for immediate political and monetary gain, and many other despicable acts that thinking people would consider immoral.

    Somehow, though, abortion and gay marriage seem to override all other considerations, since it tricks the “whackos” into voting for them.

  • Upset Republican

    Oh come on people! Let’s focus on the issue here. Foley is a sick guy and should be prosecuted. Does it always have to be a political thing? Let’s not start throwing stones about someone in a position of power taking advantage of someone under them. How soon we forget the past, huh?

  • Upset Republican

    Oh! And to further clarify… I realize this is on a different level because these were minors. This guy is sick and should be sent to jail. But on a side note… ANY person abusing their position to seduce subordinates should be forced to step down.

    And I guess I’m one of those “whackos” that is tricked into voting for that “party of morality”. Torture??? Sleep deprivation is far from torture if you even look at some of the tapes the terrorists have released of their prisoners. Bribes??? You have got to be kidding me. Don’t even alude to the fact that the only political party that has expected any type of bribe is ONLY republicans (there are bad apples on both sides). Racists among them? Just think Byrd.

  • sleipner

    Sure, sleep deprivation may not be a big thing but that’s only a mild example of a much larger and much nastier arsenal of techniques that Bush seems to think excusable, in spite of the Geneva Conventions.

    The Democrats have a LONG way to go before they get to even a tiny fraction of the egregious excess the Republicans whipped up over Clinton’s adult consensual sexual encounter.

    And if, as it seems, other Republicans, and indeed their very leadership KNEW about potential child molestation and deliberately covered it up, then they also can be charged with felonies and removed from office.

  • Jim Hayes

    I am 30 years old and looking for a new job.Am I too old to be a page?Sounds like a fun job.

  • Non Partisan

    Hey I think everyone agrees that Mark is a dirty boy, but in response to the “egregious excess the Republicans whipped up over Clinton’s adult consensual sexual encounter” personally I didn’t give a flying F@#* about his sex life I was mad he was fooling around ON THE JOB (he was in the oval office), I mean if I got caught getting head at work I’d lose my job, and I was REALLY upset that he lied on the stand about it. No his personal life was not any of our buisness, but when he took and oath to tell the Whole truth and nothing but the truth he should have done so or at least said “hey man it’s none ya bizness and I’m not answering that question.” He LIED ON THE STAND. That is a crime and what has our country come to when even the top guy is breaking the rules?