ABC News: Pages ‘Sending All Sorts of Messages About Possible Other Members’

floyd1975

Taft wrote:

Wow. No, a congressman doesn't see every single piece of mail that comes to their office, nor should s/he. However, this particular information should have been presented to them and to argue otherwise is pathetic.

Furthermore, yes in D.C. the age of consent is 16 yrs old, however, solicitation of sex from a child under the age of 18 is a crime under federal law. Regardless, having a congressman in his authoritative role soliciting teenage pages is a SERIOUS problem and there was a responsibility to act on this much sooner by those who knew. Their failure to do so was for political reasons and they should be held accountable with their jobs.

Next time something goes to a Congressional office in a stack of mail or email, I will give them your number to check and see whether it should be taken to the Member.

There was no actual solicitation found yet which is why the FBI says this is falling into a legal gray area. I, personally, disagree with these actions but this may not fall into the definition of a federal crime.

There seems to be some people paying for this with their jobs. You just aren't happy that every Congressman you would have out of Congress isn't resigning over it.

Taft

zstillings wrote:

Next time something goes to a Congressional office in a stack of mail or email, I will give them your number to check and see whether it should be taken to the Member.

There was no actual solicitation found yet which is why the FBI says this is falling into a legal gray area. I, personally, disagree with these actions but this may not fall into the definition of a federal crime.

There seems to be some people paying for this with their jobs. You just aren't happy that every Congressman you would have out of Congress isn't resigning over it.

You are really going to hold strong on your stance that this information wasn't necessarily something that a congressman should have been presented with?

floyd1975

Taft wrote:

You are really going to hold strong on your stance that this information wasn't necessarily something that a congressman should have been presented with?

Whether he should have been or shouldn't have been is not this issue. The issue in calling for his resignation is whether he was. If he was not then the staffer in question should be the one dealing with the consequences.

Taft

zstillings wrote:

Whether he should have been or shouldn't have been is not this issue. The issue in calling for his resignation is whether he was. If he was not then the staffer in question should be the one dealing with the consequences.

That is where we disagree, and if you go back and read my "taking in the light most favorable..." post you will see that anyone who hires an aide with such incompetence needs to be held accountable.

floyd1975

Taft wrote:

That is where we disagree, and if you go back and read my "taking in the light most favorable..." post you will see that anyone who hires an aide with such incompetence needs to be held accountable.

Are you for the abolition of Congress?

Taft

zstillings wrote:

Are you for the abolition of Congress?

That is a very infantile and superficial way of looking at things.

Anyway, this just released:

Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., the congressman who sponsored the page at the heart of the furor, said Hastert "knew about the e-mails that we knew about," including one in which Foley asked the page to send his picture.

floyd1975

Taft wrote:

That is a very infantile and superficial way of looking at things.

Anyway, this just released:

Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., the congressman who sponsored the page at the heart of the furor, said Hastert "knew about the e-mails that we knew about," including one in which Foley asked the page to send his picture.

How is that infantile and superficial? I am willing to bet that a lot of staffers had heard about this. They talk to each other across offices and, sometimes, even across the aisle. There would be a mass exodous of Democrats and Republicans if your standards were upheld for all parties and not just used for political purposes.

Taft

zstillings wrote:

How is that infantile and superficial? I am willing to bet that a lot of staffers had heard about this. They talk to each other across offices and, sometimes, even across the aisle. There would be a mass exodous of Democrats and Republicans if your standards were upheld for all parties and not just used for political purposes.

So you are "willing to bet" that this story was the talk of the town among staffers but none of them thought to tell their bosses? Hilarious!

floyd1975

Taft wrote:

So you are "willing to bet" that this story was the talk of the town among staffers but none of them thought to tell their bosses? Hilarious!

Once again, how is that infantile and superficial? Are you willing to bash the left side of the aisle for the staff knowledge of this?

Taft

zstillings wrote:

Once again, how is that infantile and superficial? Are you willing to bash the left side of the aisle for the staff knowledge of this?

I have answered this question several times.

Furthermore, it is becoming clear that it goes beyond staff knowledge, all the way to the House Speaker. Hastert "knew about the e-mails that we knew about."

Do you agree that if the evidence supports that various congress members knew of the issues that they should resign?

floyd1975

Taft wrote:

I have answered this question several times.

Furthermore, it is becoming clear that it goes beyond staff knowledge, all the way to the House Speaker. Hastert "knew about the e-mails that we knew about."

Do you agree that if the evidence supports that various congress members knew of the issues that they should resign?

Yes, I agree with that. I do not agree with any improper relationships with subordinates.

Milhouse VanHouten

zstillings wrote:

Whether he should have been or shouldn't have been is not this issue. The issue in calling for his resignation is whether he was. If he was not then the staffer in question should be the one dealing with the consequences.

What about John Shimkus? He's the head of the Page Board. He found out about the emails, and chose not to inform Representative Dale Kildee, a Democrat who is a 20-year member of the Page Board. Would you characterize that as "playing politics"? Shimkus asked Foley about the matter, Foley assured him there was nothing to it beyond a friendly email exchange. Shimkus ordered Foley to cease the emails, and Foley complied, and that was that, apparently. Why didn't Shimkus purse the matter any further??

floyd1975

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

What about John Shimkus? He's the head of the Page Board. He found out about the emails, and chose not to inform Representative Dale Kildee, a Democrat who is a 20-year member of the Page Board. Would you characterize that as "playing politics"? Shimkus asked Foley about the matter, Foley assured him there was nothing to it beyond a friendly email exchange. Shimkus ordered Foley to cease the emails, and Foley complied, and that was that, apparently. Why didn't Shimkus purse the matter any further??

I answered that about Members who knew. My issue was with the claim that Members who had staffers who happened to hear about it needed to resign as well.

JaneNY

jlew24asu wrote:

thats why I'm so confused on why you want to be an american? its kinda why I dont live in Iran. I hate the government and the people running it.

I haven't read through all 4 pages of this yet, but just because there's a bad driver at the wheel of a car doesn't mean the car itself is bad - that's kind of how look at what's going on in the U.S. The drivers suck right now, but they'll be out of the car soon enough.

DPrival78

JaneNY wrote:

I haven't read through all 4 pages of this yet, but just because there's a bad driver at the wheel of a car doesn't mean the car itself is bad - that's kind of how look at what's going on in the U.S. The drivers suck right now, but they'll be out of the car soon enough.

but the car is about to go full speed off a cliff..

69charger

RainDog wrote:

This just in. 69charger vicariously approves of man on boy sex between congressmen and underage pages provided they have an R next to their name.

Or is it that you're equating a drunken car accident (involuntary) to a 50-odd year old man tasked with keeping sexual predators from propositioning underage boys and girls on the internet who then - sexually propositions underage boys on the internet (voluntary)?

I say, someone sounds pissed; and not completely above using the Chewbacca defense.

I'm not defending anyone and I love the way you label me a member of NAMBLA because I posted the word Chappaquiddick.

You goofy liberals are funny.

My point is this shit goes on on both sides and should not be politicized. The voters see right through it.

WMA

69charger wrote:

<...>
The voters see right through it.

Well, you gotta admit, these voters probably understand an old guy making sexual advances on a teenager more readily than they understand all of the lobbying scandals, campaign finance laws, constitutional law, and so on.

Getting free trips in exchange for votes? ...so what?
Making sexual advances on your son and covering it up ... them bastards!

RainDog

69charger wrote:

I'm not defending anyone and I love the way you label me a member of NAMBLA because I posted the word Chappaquiddick.

You goofy liberals are funny.

My point is this shit goes on on both sides and should not be politicized. The voters see right through it.

You mention Chappaquiddick, then say that these things should not be politicized. Then why mention Chappaquiddick at all? Could it be that these things are politicized? Don't pretend you wouldn't be all about the exploitation of this cover-up had happened on the Democratic side of the isle.

Hell, the Chappaquiddick incedent happened over thirty years ago; yet it still gets brought up anytime someone discovers any kind of scandal involving the Republicans. Not politicized. Gotcha.

69charger

RainDog wrote:

You mention Chappaquiddick, then say that these things should not be politicized. Then why mention Chappaquiddick at all? Could it be that these things are politicized? Don't pretend you wouldn't be all about the exploitation of this cover-up had happened on the Democratic side of the isle.

Hell, the Chappaquiddick incedent happened over thirty years ago; yet it still gets brought up anytime someone discovers any kind of scandal involving the Republicans. Not politicized. Gotcha.

How many times do I have to say this and how many times do you have to read it...

My point is this shit goes on on both sides and should not be politicized.

RainDog

69charger wrote:

How many times do I have to say this and how many times do you have to read it...

My point is this shit goes on on both sides and should not be politicized.

Convenient you would think that now. Were you glad that the Republicans were able to make gains these last few years? You know they were able to do that in part by politicizing things like homosexuality and White House related adultery; not to mention religion. If they hadn't done that, this scandal might not be sticking right now.

So you're right, it probably shouldn't have been politicized - but it was a while ago. Reap the benefits, take the falls.

Don't worry too much, though. I fully expect the Democrats to screw this up.