It is substantively important to the govenment of our nation. Its all part of the "We're supposed to be a nation of laws, not a nation of weasels" issue for the Republican leadership in Congress. If there's trouble, put your hands in your pockets, close your eyes and whistle. Their reaction to Abramoff? same deal. Abu Grahib? same deal. Delay scandal? same deal. Domestic surveillance? same deal. Now we get Child Molestation and its the same deal. The man was running for reelection when the GOP campaign committee knew he was molesting children. They rubber stamp it all, from torture to child abuse. Forget its time for them to go. Its time for them to go to jail, and maybe hell.
Not just rubber stamps. What's appalling about it is the hypocrisy; using things like "online child predators!" and "they hate our freedom!" to construct the party as Decent and Upstanding Patriots while actually seducing kids and suspending civil liberties, and lying about it in order to maintain the fiction.
What do you mean? There are two ways that this might not be molestation. One is if its all made up, innocent til proven guilty etc. ANd I grant you that. Feel free to put "alleged" and "if true" as appropriate above. The other is if the kid is completely dressed, doing his math homework, and IM'ing his friends about how he's leading on a perv. And its possible that Foley is so pathetic that this is true. the fact that Foley still would believe he was comitting virtual molestation in that instance makes me think he's a molester. But if there were allegations of molestation that were viable, and leadership didn't act, then the same critquie applies.
And if you mean a Clintonian "that isn't teh sex" thing to refer to sexual acts committed on line, I'm not buying it.
I still thnk that everyone should keep on asking Haster who the new Republicn point man on Child Protection issues is. Because those children have to be protected!
Legally, it's still molestation even if the kids was stringing him along. When an FBI manpretends to be a 13-y.o. girl, people still go to jail for what they say.
One part of this that no one has brought up is that people in MA did re-elect Gerry Studds. (The other guy in page scandal 1.0 was Dan Crane -- that he did it to a girl is really irrelevant. Crane didn't run again.
killing the Republicans with a gay sex scandal, after they have gotten away with trashing the Constitution, seems a lot like putting Al Capone away on tax evasion charges and not prosecuting the Valentine's Day Massacre.
I don't know much about this, but it's my impression that most of the FBI stings happen only once the perv arranges to meet the child in person. I can't think of one off the top of my head where someone was arrested just for talking dirty.
Not that this makes Foley less of a perv, but I'm not sure what's illegal as opposed to just immoral. Harassment?
But it's not sexual harrassment in the legal sense, since it doesn't involve quid pro quo or a hostile work environment (as long as the page either worked in someone else's office or had stopped being a page while the conversations took place).
I don't really understand why the Democrats don't have an elite corps of hot young gay exhibitionist activists, out there taping themselves having sex with prominent Republicans and uploading the images to the web. How hard would it be to absolutely decimate the Republican infrastructure? Mehlman appears to be the head of their GOTV efforts, for gawd's sake.
Exceedingly Gross Sketchiness. Pretty obvious no charges will be pressed based on the evidence presented so far, hence my surprise at the use of "Molester."
The awful-as-usual comments at Drum's blog are indeed Clinton-centered.
I'm enjoying trying to figure out what the corps' dress uniforms should look like. In any case, all credit goes to you, Labs. Ever since the Gayatollah comment, I've been wondering how we can best use our comparative gay advantage.
20: One of the things former Homeland Security spokesperson Brian Doyle (the subject of the article I linked to above) did was email movie clips to someone he thought was a 14-year-old girl. He denies ever making arrangements to meet her.
I think the Clinton-bashers are ripe for the picking. All we gotta do is say, "but what if Clinton had had the power to arrest people without telling them why? Surely he'd have arrested everyone who knew about his raping/molesting/murdering and we'd never have found out about it, and Gore--or Hillary!--would be president today!"
Surely he'd have arrested everyone who knew about his raping/molesting/murdering and we'd never have found out about it
Personally, I liked Clinton for the most part (I voted for him), but wonder (asking fecitiously) if snopes is really wrong and he did get away with murders we never found out about (http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/clinton.htm)
"I can't imagine why anyone would want to write or read stories involving the rape and torture of children," said U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan. "The law does not prohibit an individual from thinking or writing about their own thoughts within their own home. But when they go beyond that, and distribute that through interstate commerce, then they violate the law."
Awesome! The law doesn't prevent us from thinking, just from publishing. Maybe this woman and Mike Diana can get together and hang out, as people whose First Amendment rights got shot to hell because they were kind of creepy and disgusting.
From the PR that Josh posted, it looks like Hastert can plausibly say that he was told there had been a small problem with Foley's emails and that it had been taken care of. Given what I've heard of the emails, as opposed to the IMs, it seems close enough to reasonable to let it go with "please don't contact this person, and be careful about the appearance of impropriety."
The fact that the Democrat was kept out of the loop is something. And we can always hope that It will be found that Hastert's self-investigation left something out.
You know, that kind of bullshit (told there was a small problem that had been taken care of) didn't work for the CEO at the company where I work, when a couple of fund managers were accused of financial improprieties. I see no reason why Hastert shouldn't go down. He chose his staff, their judgment was poor, he is responsible. Go down, Hastert.
I'm just saying that my money is on this thing disappearing by, say, Wednesday, not turning into the jumbo-sized, 7 1/2 inch rock hard scandal we were hoping for. Also, it's still pretty plausible that Hastert is innocent of serious wrongdoing.
Let us now return to our discussion of how gay Wolfson is.
I love seeing "republican" and "gay sex scandal" in the same sentence, but the way the whole Gannon think fizzled out I wouldn't bet the farm on it. Granted he wasn't a kid. But a male prostitute visited the White House dozens of times and it sank like a stone, never to be heard from again. Imagine if that happened in the Clinton era. They would have yelped about it for 3 months on cable news.
If it does sink like a stone, can we never, never, never hear again about the liberal media? If a Congressman grooming a series of sixteen-year-old boys for sexual activity, covered up by the Republican House leadership, isn't a scandal with legs (all that running, you know), nothing is.
I don't think it is plausible. Check out Glenn Greenwald, for example, on the timeline of what Hastert said he knew. When the story broke, Boehner (love that name) said he'd informed Hastert. Hastert's office said it was a filthy lie, and Hastert never knew. Then Reynolds said he'd told Hastert as well, and now Hastert admits he was informed.
Dude, the thing he maybe remembers is a Rep. interfering with the pages. Whether or not he thought there was anything to it, it's political dynamite, and it's prurient gossip about a co-worker. Are you suggesting that there is any possibility that he actually forgot, or just saying that you think the American public may be dimwitted enough to believe a denial? Because I think the first is ridiculous, barring a massive head injury -- the second, I suppose, depends on how the media plays it.
As usual, I reject FL's disgustingly reasonable attitude toward the so-called "facts" and "evidence" and Hastert's supposed "guilt" or "innocence". Run get the pitchforks, the torches, and the tar and feathers!
Several Republicans are making a big deal of this. Partly it may be because they feel pressure from "values voters". I' alos suspect that some of them are seizing an opportunity to ditch the Republican leadership for good Republican reasons, thereby saving their own asses without seeming like Democrats.
52: dude, I do think there's a non-negligible chance he forgot. I wouldn't forget, but I'm not Speaker of the House. Hastert probably hears ten things more fucked up than this before breakfast on most mornings, and he goes through one hell of a busy schedule. I wouldn't be surprised if he just doesn't recall a lot of stuff that happens.
53: you know that underneath it all I love you, right, Emerson?
Man. Forgot, in the sense that it wasn't in the forefront of his mind, sure, maybe. Forgot in the sense that when the scandal broke "Oh, that Florida Congressman who was trying to sweettalk the teenagers," didn't come to mind? I simply don't think so. There's a limit to how busy any human being can be -- the speaker of the House handles more important stuff than the rest of us, but not all that much more stuff than the rest of us.
We've just seen a carefully-crafted message from the Hastert camp, which (surprise!) takes him off the hook. We shouldn't jump to conclusions yet, should we?
NRCC chair Reynolds is pissed that he's being made the fall guy, and he's fighting back. It may be that Republican Puritanism actually makes them take this particular issue seriously, rather than throwing out wishful thinking and disinformation, as they do when it's the Iraq war that they're talking about.
Wasn't it a coverup not to look further? Especially since they bypassed normal channels, which would have required informing a Democrat? And is they had informed the Democrat, wouldn't the original investigation have been better?
Forgot in the sense that when the scandal broke "Oh, that Florida Congressman who was trying to sweettalk the teenagers," didn't come to mind?
Sorry, LB, I'm too busy defending torture in the other thread. What hinges on this? Suppose he did recollect, but claimed he didn't. That doesn't put him in Cardinal Law territory by a long shot.
Well, there's an easy way to settle this, if we build the waterboard sturdy enough to handle Hastert's considerable girth. Seriously, it angers me that the dude cannot stand up straight.
When you go see the molester about the emails and tell him to cut the crap, and you do it without starting your due process, and you do it without informing the Democrat who shares oversight responsibility with you, well my friends that is a coverup. In comment numero uno up their (Frist to be IM'd yuck) I wrote "If there's trouble, put your hands in your pockets, close your eyes and whistle. " That's what this is.
Benton, I don't disagree with you on that, exactly, but I suspect the successful Hastert angle will be, "hey, we heard there was something about emails, but they weren't explicit, just a little weird, so we told him to cut it out, and he said ok, and that was it. I didn't want to blow it out of proportion by opening an official inquiry, and of course now I feel terrible about that." That's really different from Hastert knowing about the IMs and pretending everything is fine.
It is substantively important to the govenment of our nation. Its all part of the "We're supposed to be a nation of laws, not a nation of weasels" issue for the Republican leadership in Congress. If there's trouble, put your hands in your pockets, close your eyes and whistle. Their reaction to Abramoff? same deal. Abu Grahib? same deal. Delay scandal? same deal. Domestic surveillance? same deal. Now we get Child Molestation and its the same deal. The man was running for reelection when the GOP campaign committee knew he was molesting children. They rubber stamp it all, from torture to child abuse. Forget its time for them to go. Its time for them to go to jail, and maybe hell.
Posted by benton | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 12:06 PM
Not just rubber stamps. What's appalling about it is the hypocrisy; using things like "online child predators!" and "they hate our freedom!" to construct the party as Decent and Upstanding Patriots while actually seducing kids and suspending civil liberties, and lying about it in order to maintain the fiction.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 12:12 PM
1- Not to nitpick, but is there actual molestation documented?
Posted by NL | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 12:21 PM
What do you mean? There are two ways that this might not be molestation. One is if its all made up, innocent til proven guilty etc. ANd I grant you that. Feel free to put "alleged" and "if true" as appropriate above. The other is if the kid is completely dressed, doing his math homework, and IM'ing his friends about how he's leading on a perv. And its possible that Foley is so pathetic that this is true. the fact that Foley still would believe he was comitting virtual molestation in that instance makes me think he's a molester. But if there were allegations of molestation that were viable, and leadership didn't act, then the same critquie applies.
And if you mean a Clintonian "that isn't teh sex" thing to refer to sexual acts committed on line, I'm not buying it.
Posted by benton | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 12:38 PM
I still thnk that everyone should keep on asking Haster who the new Republicn point man on Child Protection issues is. Because those children have to be protected!
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 12:40 PM
I think it's telling that one of the first people informed was the guy in charge of Republican electoral strategy.
And on the subject of creepy, hypocritical Republicans, let's not forget this guy.
Posted by J— | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 12:40 PM
Legally, it's still molestation even if the kids was stringing him along. When an FBI manpretends to be a 13-y.o. girl, people still go to jail for what they say.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 12:41 PM
I was just curious about definitions. I guess I thought there was another word for what this was, but if 'molestation' covers it, fine by me.
Posted by NL | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 12:45 PM
One part of this that no one has brought up is that people in MA did re-elect Gerry Studds. (The other guy in page scandal 1.0 was Dan Crane -- that he did it to a girl is really irrelevant. Crane didn't run again.
Posted by benton | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 12:47 PM
The other word would be sexual harassment.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 12:59 PM
Discussion at supper:
mrs NW: Of course he'll get away with it. Jimmy Swaggert did
NW: But Jimmy Swaggert wasn't encouraging a 16-year-old boy to masturbate.
Mrs NW: Jesus! do you have to encourage a sixteen-year-old boy to do that? Can't Americans do anything for themselves?
Self wanders off laughing and then trying to whistle "Summertime Blues"
Posted by Nworb Werdna | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 1:12 PM
killing the Republicans with a gay sex scandal, after they have gotten away with trashing the Constitution, seems a lot like putting Al Capone away on tax evasion charges and not prosecuting the Valentine's Day Massacre.
Which is to say: I'm all for it.
Posted by kid bitzer | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 1:16 PM
Wait, I thought the FBI arrested those guys because they conspired to have actual IRL sex with the ostensible 13y/o.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 1:17 PM
That was my impression too. Foley's situation seems a bit murkier.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 1:19 PM
I expect weird, awkward sputtering from right-wingers somehow equating this with Clinton/Lewinsky.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 1:22 PM
I don't know much about this, but it's my impression that most of the FBI stings happen only once the perv arranges to meet the child in person. I can't think of one off the top of my head where someone was arrested just for talking dirty.
Not that this makes Foley less of a perv, but I'm not sure what's illegal as opposed to just immoral. Harassment?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 1:24 PM
But it's not sexual harrassment in the legal sense, since it doesn't involve quid pro quo or a hostile work environment (as long as the page either worked in someone else's office or had stopped being a page while the conversations took place).
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 1:26 PM
I don't really understand why the Democrats don't have an elite corps of hot young gay exhibitionist activists, out there taping themselves having sex with prominent Republicans and uploading the images to the web. How hard would it be to absolutely decimate the Republican infrastructure? Mehlman appears to be the head of their GOTV efforts, for gawd's sake.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 1:26 PM
Exceedingly Gross Sketchiness. Pretty obvious no charges will be pressed based on the evidence presented so far, hence my surprise at the use of "Molester."
The awful-as-usual comments at Drum's blog are indeed Clinton-centered.
Posted by NL | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 1:27 PM
Are there laws against sharing obscene material with a minor? Is that why e.g. chat rooms have a "click to certify you're 18" button?
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 1:27 PM
Tim, that's a good idea. I'm not even gay, but I've had sex with Ken Mehlman ten or fifteen times.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 1:29 PM
I'm enjoying trying to figure out what the corps' dress uniforms should look like. In any case, all credit goes to you, Labs. Ever since the Gayatollah comment, I've been wondering how we can best use our comparative gay advantage.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 1:35 PM
Would a conversation count as obscene material?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 1:37 PM
20: One of the things former Homeland Security spokesperson Brian Doyle (the subject of the article I linked to above) did was email movie clips to someone he thought was a 14-year-old girl. He denies ever making arrangements to meet her.
Posted by J— | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 1:40 PM
23. Depends. Balko linked to this recent story of a woman in PittsburgH who has been indicted for writing and posting obscene stories.
I'd guess a charge for talking dirty could be contrived. (This ignores the old favorite of corrupting the morals of a minor.)
Posted by md 20/400 | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 1:44 PM
I think the Clinton-bashers are ripe for the picking. All we gotta do is say, "but what if Clinton had had the power to arrest people without telling them why? Surely he'd have arrested everyone who knew about his raping/molesting/murdering and we'd never have found out about it, and Gore--or Hillary!--would be president today!"
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 1:49 PM
Surely he'd have arrested everyone who knew about his raping/molesting/murdering and we'd never have found out about it
Personally, I liked Clinton for the most part (I voted for him), but wonder (asking fecitiously) if snopes is really wrong and he did get away with murders we never found out about (http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/clinton.htm)
Posted by TD | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 1:58 PM
26: Moral equivalency!
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 2:07 PM
From the link in 25:
"I can't imagine why anyone would want to write or read stories involving the rape and torture of children," said U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan. "The law does not prohibit an individual from thinking or writing about their own thoughts within their own home. But when they go beyond that, and distribute that through interstate commerce, then they violate the law."
Awesome! The law doesn't prevent us from thinking, just from publishing. Maybe this woman and Mike Diana can get together and hang out, as people whose First Amendment rights got shot to hell because they were kind of creepy and disgusting.
Posted by Steve | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 3:35 PM
From the PR that Josh posted, it looks like Hastert can plausibly say that he was told there had been a small problem with Foley's emails and that it had been taken care of. Given what I've heard of the emails, as opposed to the IMs, it seems close enough to reasonable to let it go with "please don't contact this person, and be careful about the appearance of impropriety."
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 5:45 PM
The fact that the Democrat was kept out of the loop is something. And we can always hope that It will be found that Hastert's self-investigation left something out.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 5:54 PM
And of course, Haster been forced to say he didn't fuck any pigs.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 5:55 PM
You know, that kind of bullshit (told there was a small problem that had been taken care of) didn't work for the CEO at the company where I work, when a couple of fund managers were accused of financial improprieties. I see no reason why Hastert shouldn't go down. He chose his staff, their judgment was poor, he is responsible. Go down, Hastert.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 6:00 PM
On kids!
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 6:09 PM
What do youthful Japanese drummers have to do with this?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 6:12 PM
Having reflected, I recognize that I was confusing the group, On Ensemble, with the practice of taiko drumming.
I will sit in a corner and think about what I've done.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 6:14 PM
Ben Wolfson is so gay, he sits in the corner and thinks about Japanese children.
Ben Wolfson is also trendy.
And related to a guy named D/en B/este.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 6:24 PM
Say what?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 6:34 PM
I'm just saying that my money is on this thing disappearing by, say, Wednesday, not turning into the jumbo-sized, 7 1/2 inch rock hard scandal we were hoping for. Also, it's still pretty plausible that Hastert is innocent of serious wrongdoing.
Let us now return to our discussion of how gay Wolfson is.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 7:06 PM
Ben Wolfson is so gay, his ears are plugged.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 7:10 PM
If I were the editor of a paper, I'd ask for a word count on this story that would result in a column exactly 7 1/2 inches long.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 7:15 PM
But he averts his eyes when the Japanese children appear on screen!
Which only makes him gayer, sadly.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 7:15 PM
Wolfson so gay, he ain't that shaggy.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 7:50 PM
I love seeing "republican" and "gay sex scandal" in the same sentence, but the way the whole Gannon think fizzled out I wouldn't bet the farm on it. Granted he wasn't a kid. But a male prostitute visited the White House dozens of times and it sank like a stone, never to be heard from again. Imagine if that happened in the Clinton era. They would have yelped about it for 3 months on cable news.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 7:53 PM
If it does sink like a stone, can we never, never, never hear again about the liberal media? If a Congressman grooming a series of sixteen-year-old boys for sexual activity, covered up by the Republican House leadership, isn't a scandal with legs (all that running, you know), nothing is.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 8:09 PM
I'm so gay I'm sexually attracted to men.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 8:12 PM
it's still pretty plausible that Hastert is innocent of serious wrongdoing.
Yeah, so?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 8:14 PM
I don't think it is plausible. Check out Glenn Greenwald, for example, on the timeline of what Hastert said he knew. When the story broke, Boehner (love that name) said he'd informed Hastert. Hastert's office said it was a filthy lie, and Hastert never knew. Then Reynolds said he'd told Hastert as well, and now Hastert admits he was informed.
That denial is going to kill him.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 8:19 PM
I don't care if he's innocent or not, at this point I'm happy to nail any of 'em to the wall.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 8:20 PM
And I do *not* mean in a mineshafty way, either.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 8:23 PM
Wolfson's so gay he likes IMing maf56.
Anyway, I don't think it's been established that there's much of a coverup. Does this hinge on whether Hastert remembers something from a year ago?
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 8:32 PM
Dude, the thing he maybe remembers is a Rep. interfering with the pages. Whether or not he thought there was anything to it, it's political dynamite, and it's prurient gossip about a co-worker. Are you suggesting that there is any possibility that he actually forgot, or just saying that you think the American public may be dimwitted enough to believe a denial? Because I think the first is ridiculous, barring a massive head injury -- the second, I suppose, depends on how the media plays it.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 8:37 PM
As usual, I reject FL's disgustingly reasonable attitude toward the so-called "facts" and "evidence" and Hastert's supposed "guilt" or "innocence". Run get the pitchforks, the torches, and the tar and feathers!
Several Republicans are making a big deal of this. Partly it may be because they feel pressure from "values voters". I' alos suspect that some of them are seizing an opportunity to ditch the Republican leadership for good Republican reasons, thereby saving their own asses without seeming like Democrats.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 8:44 PM
Not informing the Democratic member of the committee is a coverup. This was a formal organization.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 8:46 PM
52: dude, I do think there's a non-negligible chance he forgot. I wouldn't forget, but I'm not Speaker of the House. Hastert probably hears ten things more fucked up than this before breakfast on most mornings, and he goes through one hell of a busy schedule. I wouldn't be surprised if he just doesn't recall a lot of stuff that happens.
53: you know that underneath it all I love you, right, Emerson?
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 8:47 PM
Man. Forgot, in the sense that it wasn't in the forefront of his mind, sure, maybe. Forgot in the sense that when the scandal broke "Oh, that Florida Congressman who was trying to sweettalk the teenagers," didn't come to mind? I simply don't think so. There's a limit to how busy any human being can be -- the speaker of the House handles more important stuff than the rest of us, but not all that much more stuff than the rest of us.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 8:52 PM
We've just seen a carefully-crafted message from the Hastert camp, which (surprise!) takes him off the hook. We shouldn't jump to conclusions yet, should we?
NRCC chair Reynolds is pissed that he's being made the fall guy, and he's fighting back. It may be that Republican Puritanism actually makes them take this particular issue seriously, rather than throwing out wishful thinking and disinformation, as they do when it's the Iraq war that they're talking about.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 8:55 PM
Undernath what? That's creepy.
Wasn't it a coverup not to look further? Especially since they bypassed normal channels, which would have required informing a Democrat? And is they had informed the Democrat, wouldn't the original investigation have been better?
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 8:57 PM
Forgot in the sense that when the scandal broke "Oh, that Florida Congressman who was trying to sweettalk the teenagers," didn't come to mind?
Sorry, LB, I'm too busy defending torture in the other thread. What hinges on this? Suppose he did recollect, but claimed he didn't. That doesn't put him in Cardinal Law territory by a long shot.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 9:13 PM
Cardinal Law, Ordinal Law, Natural Law, Transcendental Law, Rational Law.... my head hurts. There's a Cardinal Sin, too, in the Philippines.
LB, keep talking to Labs while we head out to the lynching, OK?
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 9:17 PM
Well, there's an easy way to settle this, if we build the waterboard sturdy enough to handle Hastert's considerable girth. Seriously, it angers me that the dude cannot stand up straight.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 9:24 PM
60: Transfinite Law. It's what Bush uses to justify tyranny.
Posted by Anarch | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 9:34 PM
Is Hastert the least visible Speaker in recent memory? Is it an anomaly that he's so overshadowed (politically) by the Majority Leader?
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 9:36 PM
When you go see the molester about the emails and tell him to cut the crap, and you do it without starting your due process, and you do it without informing the Democrat who shares oversight responsibility with you, well my friends that is a coverup. In comment numero uno up their (Frist to be IM'd yuck) I wrote "If there's trouble, put your hands in your pockets, close your eyes and whistle. " That's what this is.
Posted by Benton | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 9:46 PM
In other words, Emerson is right on in 58, and I only read it after posting my own screed.
Posted by benton | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 9:47 PM
TPM is siding with the idea that they're fucked.
Benton, I don't disagree with you on that, exactly, but I suspect the successful Hastert angle will be, "hey, we heard there was something about emails, but they weren't explicit, just a little weird, so we told him to cut it out, and he said ok, and that was it. I didn't want to blow it out of proportion by opening an official inquiry, and of course now I feel terrible about that." That's really different from Hastert knowing about the IMs and pretending everything is fine.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 11:20 PM
Why shouldn't Republicans cover up for Foley?
They covered up for so many more prominent party members!
Ronald Reagan committing adultery. ("...the 57-year-old Reagan's creaky coupling with an 18-year-old campaign worker [and] ... how Reagan blithely bounced the bedsprings with lover Christine Larson while wife Nancy struggled to give birth to daughter Patti.") (And more.)
Ronald Reagan committing rape.
George HW Bush committing adultery.
Bob Dole's adultery hidden by newsmen. (last item)
George W Bush impregnating a 15-year-old girl.
George W Bush trying to get a 14-year-old girl drunk.
Has all that just gone down the Memory Hole to oblivion?
Why expect Mark Foley to stay away from the party?
Posted by Raven | Link to this comment | 10- 1-06 12:49 AM
Raven, around here we call it the Hoohole..
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 10- 1-06 6:08 AM
66 gets it exactly right. That's actually a very plausible scenario.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 1-06 10:45 PM