<p>…and now it’s day 347 of the Ronnie Earl disbarment watch. </p>
<p>With due admiration from Kluge the carp.</p>
<p>DRJ4 - don’t feel bad. You’re just following the “It’s all a liberal conspiracy” breadcrumbs Driver et al are strewing so deftly to lead folks down the only path they can think of that leads away from their boys in DC.</p>
<p>“Why didn’t CREW and the Democratic leadership, whom they undoubtedly told about this, do something more to protect the children back in July?”</p>
<p>Why “undoubtedly”?</p>
<p>I have no reason to believe the party of the clueless would have dealt with this any better than the party of family values. </p>
<p>But they didn’t have the opportunity. The Republican-appointed House Clerk was warning pages back in 2001 about Foley. I suspect that if Denny wanted any more information, all he had to do was ask. It’s easy to understand why he didn’t, though. He just wanted it to go away.</p>
<p>The Ronnie Earl watch isn’t over, my little carp. Whatever legal problems ultimately befall DeLay will be distinct from those that land on Earl. I love it when you say “Oooh! Oooh!” btw. It somehow makes this all worthwhile.</p>
Breadballs are among the favored baits for catching carp, if anyone is interested. Spearing them is quicker and more merciful, but I prefer letting them lie, unless they become unruly and aggressive.</p>
<p>Foley’s a sicko. Yes, it’s obvious someone held onto the information when they should have gone to the authorities. That in no way absolves Foley.</p>
<p>I’m totally confused. There seems to be a lot of interest in who leaked the e-mails to the press, as if this was a horrible thing to have done. Why does it matter who leaked the e-mails to the press? Let’s say, for instance, that some democratic had the e-mails fed to them, and leaked them to the press. How does that change anything in the slightest? The FBI already knew, so it’s not as if law enforcement needed to be told. And the management of the House already knew, so it’s not as if they were going to do anything more if a democratic had suddenly come running to them with the info.</p>
<p>So the only thing that would have happened if this hypothetic democrat had not leaked, would have been that the voters of his legislative district would lnot have know what he was. And they would have returned him to office.</p>
<p>So I don’t get why leaking this info did anything except reveal an important problem to the light of day.</p>
<p>For what it’s worth, ABC says it got the e-mails from pages, NOT from Democrats. </p>
<p>If Hastert has evidence, he better reveal it soon. </p>
<p>Partisan affiliations ARE important. The party of the clueless wanted the names revealed, the party of family values wanted the thing to remain silenced. They didn’t want it leaked. They were fine with “business as usual”. They’ve been fine with it since 2001, so why change now?</p>
<p>It could have been the reverse.</p>
<p>But it wasn’t.</p>
<p>(I’m looking forward to the day when Tommy goes to the big house.)</p>
<p>because hayden, in some peoples eyes, getting the truth out is not good…and if you talk about the “leakers”, it is a way of trying to distract from what was leaked, and covered up</p>
<p>and I guess turning stuff over to the FBI wasn’t enough for some…</p>
<p>why didn’t Hastern, Reynolds, Alexander turn them over to the FBI and do something more…wow, it is truly amazing where some are trying to place the blame…not on the House leadership who did nothing, but on CREW who actually DID do something</p>
<p>that is kind of sick in its own way, blame those that helped out an adult going after minor children and place no blame on those that actually knew for a very long time for doing nothing</p>
<p>with that kind of thinking, it just shows that some think the administration can do no wrong</p>
<p>It’s not just a question of who leaked. In my view, the story isn’t really about Foley anymore - everyone agrees that what he apparently did was wrong. The issue is who knew about Foley’s emails, and especially his IMs, and when did they learn about these communications. In other words, who knew the details and how long did they sit on what they knew?</p>
<p>I don’t think some measly facts are about dissuade the true believers.</p>
<p>Who is responsible? The entire gay community, all the Democrats, the media, the parents’, and most of all, the pages, for saving the messages in first place and having the gall to come forward. There’s an intense desire here to blame everyone besides the perpertreteur and his sleeping watchmen. I’m glad some people have their priorities all straightened out - it’s one hell of a devotion.</p>
<p>I don’t know much about saving IMs but I agree people save important or unusual communications. These certainly fit the bill in my book. Maybe the pages felt the same way.</p>
<p>No one has suggested that Foley is a victim. What has been suggested is that there were people–not the Republican leadership–who had direct knowledge of Foley’s vile predilections and practices, and allowed them to continue unabated for a substantial period of time, in order to save it for an “October surprise.” Get it straight, Dadguy.</p>
<p>Foley has painted Foley as a victim. Gay, alcholic, molestation victim,etc. At least he hasn’t claimed alien abduction.</p>
<p>Oh yeah, the Democrats knew something about this guy that the Republician leadership didn’t? Who’s running the House of Representatives, anyway?</p>
<p>“I’m totally confused. There seems to be a lot of interest in who leaked the e-mails to the press, as if this was a horrible thing to have done. Why does it matter who leaked the e-mails to the press?”</p>
<p>It matters because they’re not new, they were leaked after a new candidate could be on the ballot, and because CREW is Soros-related. It may not mean anything in the grand scheme of things, but we don’t know what we don’t know, and stories sometimes have a way of becoming something you never expected.</p>
<p>Actually, Dadguy, I don’t care if someone who knew about this was in the leadership or not. If anyone knew and didn’t do something about it, even to call it to the leadership’s attention, they’re as responsible for putting these kids at risk as they can be.</p>
<p>That goes double for anyone who withheld the information until just before the election. To continue to leave kids at risk for strictly political gain is unforgiveable. And there’s not doubt this information was withheld and that it’s an intentional October surprise.</p>
<p>That said, some folks clearly have a double standard on this. Not that long ago some of my liberal friends were pooh-poohing all the fuss about female teachers having sex with teenage boys. Their position was that it was OK if the teacher was cute. </p>
<p>Now they’re up in arms about this. The essential facts haven’t changed. Someone in authority was taking advantage of young adults. That suggests that what’s got them up in arms must be one of the non-essential facts. Was it because Foley was a Republican or because he was gay? Hard to say. None of them said a word when Clinton pardon a Democrat for having sex with a 16 year old girl. </p>