Absolved: The alcohol made me do it...

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Bledsoe

Republicans Cling To Conspiracy Theories

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/8/18420/1065


It's not easy for Republicans to defend their handling of Mark Foley's inappropriate behavior. The facts, developing day after day, simply aren't on their side.  But who needs facts when fiction has worked so well for the GOP in the past?  

Enter the paranoia, stage right.
As you know, top-level Republicans are peddling a Grand Conspiracy Theory that the Foley scandal was somehow designed and funded by George Soros and peddled by Clinton operatives. But that's wasn't their first  defense tactic.

Initially, shocked conservatives tried to argue that the emails were fake.  That attempt to derail the scandal was short-lived, given that the authenticity of the emails was confirmed by multiple sources.

Wingers turned next to describing the explicit messages as a "prank", a "joke" as James Dobson called it. It was a clever ploy by "16 and 17 year old beasts."  Come on, it's obvious, isn't it? The pages clearly possessed impressive techniques of hypnosis.  They used a calculated combination of smileys and "LOLs" to force the Republican Congressman to ask them to measure their penises for him.  "Beasts" indeed...

Alas, as more and more pages came forward--including one that is currently serving in Iraq--attacking the pages would appear....callous.  

Onto Plan C.

I like to imagine the strategy session for Plan C went down something like this:  trembling Republicans huddled around a table, trying to figure out how to fight back against their Foley "matter" (it's not a scandal you see, at least according to Hastert). One intrepid Republican comes up with the brilliant (and fool-proof!) idea. He takes a dog-eared copy of Byron York's The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy and begins carefully ripping out page after page.  He meticulously folds each page in a teeny tiny little square, and then puts all the little name-laden papers in a big bowl.  Pick a paper, any paper!  George Soros!  CREW!  ABC!  Pelosi! Emanuel!  Liberal blogs!  That should be enough names to weave a conspiracy theory, right?

And so, armed with a defense only a black-helicopter fearing X-Files fanatic could love, Republicans took to the talk show circuit and cried foul over a Democratic "plot" to take over the government this fall.

Bledsoe-

As an attorney, how much weight does heresay carry in court?  

So far all the American public has been fed is heresay and innuendo as to the Republican leadership's handling of Foley and the emails.  Please share with us your hard evidence that not even the news media seems to be privvy to.

Foley abused his power and the public trust and stepped down as any legislator should have.  He is repeatedly referred to as a pedophile, yet there doesn't appear to be any evidence presented so far that he possessed images of underage porn, nor that he had sex with anyone underage, nor solicited anyone underage for the purpose of sex.  It's a public tarring and feathering without taking into account all the facts surrounding the situation, nor waiting until they are all completely clear.  Would you want one of your own clients to be handled in this fashion?  

"Pedophilia or paedophilia (see spelling differences) is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent or peripubescent children. Persons with this attraction are called pedophiles.

In contrast to the generally accepted medical definition, the term pedophile is also used colloquially to denote significantly older adults who are sexually attracted to adolescents below the local age of consent,[1] as well as those who have sexually abused a child."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

So far, I've not heard nor read one news story that says Dennis Hastert was contacted directly about Foley's behavior.  Every news story says a staff member of another rep notified Hastert's staff.  

If Hastert wasn't notified by his staff then that represents deftness on his part, but not a great cover-up.

I find it interesting how the American psyche works.  In the days prior to "Foleygate" the GOP was showing favorable gains in public opinion polls on the real issues like gas and oil prices, war on terror, tax issues, immigration, etc.  Now polls show the GOP dropping in those areas even though the only thing that has changed with congress in recess has been a sensationalized media circus with both sides firing off memorable headlines then worrying about the real details later on.

And now, the media came up with another red herring this weekend with the "revalation" that Foley had sex with a 21 year old page who was a college graduate.  What was the point in that? How many other legislators nailed someone in their early 20's this weekend?  The electronic media is getting more people to tune in, and newspapers and magazines are doing brisker-than-usual business.

I'm not being an apologist for the GOP or Foley, I'm pointing out how quickly people are duped by the media these days and how quickly the media (lib and conservative) will report with minimal facts and a lot of innuendo.  Headlines sell.  Sensational and salacious headlines sell even better.  

I'm willing to bet after the election, Foley will be charged with a misdemeanor or two, there will be nothing substantive uncovered about a cover-up, and the story will whimper silently off into media history.

I sincerely hope that if the Democrats get their much-coveted majority in congress that they will pay heed to and observe ethics and will put an end to lobbyists and special interests running Washington.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

So far all the American public has been fed is heresay and innuendo as to the Republican leadership's handling of Foley and the emails.

 I challenge this claim.  Several Congressmen and Congressional aides have already admitted prior knowledge of lurid emails.  These are first-hand accounts, not "hearsay and innuendo".

[rwarn17588]

The more the problem is denied or scoffed at, the bigger it becomes.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

So far all the American public has been fed is heresay and innuendo as to the Republican leadership's handling of Foley and the emails.

 I challenge this claim.  Several Congressmen and Congressional aides have already admitted prior knowledge of lurid emails.  These are first-hand accounts, not "hearsay and innuendo".

Please cite an article anywhere from the mainstream...not a hatchet mill, that says Hastert, not Hastert's staff, was notified personally.  

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, after-all it is liberal-thinking attornies who ask juries all the time to let criminals off because the criminal was abused/raped/etc. as a child.  And liberals seem to be more enamored with the rights of criminals rather than those of the victims.  Someone else other than the perpetrator is the one to blame for his/her mis-deeds.

So I guess it should make perfect sense that the Speaker of the House that is to blame.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71


Please cite an article anywhere from the mainstream...not a hatchet mill, that says Hastert, not Hastert's staff, was notified personally.

How about from Boehner himself?  This appeared in the Washington Post:

quote: House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post last night that he had learned this spring of some "contact" between Foley and a 16-year-old page. Boehner said he told House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), and that Hastert assured him "we're taking care of it." It was not immediately clear what actions Hastert took.

Online, the Hastert quote was later removed and replaced with this:

quote: "Boehner later contacted The Post and said he could not remember whether he talked to Hastert."

Of all the things he could say, why would Boehner say that, and then immediately turn around and retract it?  Coverup?  Subsequent statements from other Congressmen and aides themselves support the claim that Hastert had prior knowledge of Foley's stuff.  Do I need to keep going?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Conan71


Please cite an article anywhere from the mainstream...not a hatchet mill, that says Hastert, not Hastert's staff, was notified personally.

How about from Boehner himself?  This appeared in the Washington Post:

quote: House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post last night that he had learned this spring of some "contact" between Foley and a 16-year-old page. Boehner said he told House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), and that Hastert assured him "we're taking care of it." It was not immediately clear what actions Hastert took.

Online, the Hastert quote was later removed and replaced with this:

quote: "Boehner later contacted The Post and said he could not remember whether he talked to Hastert."

Of all the things he could say, why would Boehner say that, and then immediately turn around and retract it?  Coverup?  Subsequent statements from other Congressmen and aides themselves support the claim that Hastert had prior knowledge of Foley's stuff.  Do I need to keep going?

I don't know the answer any better than you do as to that question, other than supposition or innuendo.

I see ABC seems to be enamored with all sorts of sexual odd-balls these days:

http://www.examiner.com/a-331568~John_Mark_Karr__TV_producers_stopped_after_Karr_seen_near_school.html

Slime sells.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

I don't know the answer any better than you do as to that question, other than supposition or innuendo.

That's just my point.  Boehner laid it all out there, then they got their story straight and Boehner retracted his original statement.

Now others have come forward to say that Hastert knew something prior to last week.  Its obvious he did nothing, so if he knew something and did nothing, why would you need an investigation to say that the Republicans mishandled the situation?

Just today, a WaPo article reports that retiring Congressman Kolbe (R,AZ) saw "sexually explicit" emails from Foley to a page in 2000!  Six years of prior knowledge, and the Republicans did nothing to stop it.  That's not innuendo, that's a fact.

[AVERAGE JOE]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

So far all the American public has been fed is heresay and innuendo as to the Republican leadership's handling of Foley and the emails.

 I challenge this claim.  Several Congressmen and Congressional aides have already admitted prior knowledge of lurid emails.  These are first-hand accounts, not "hearsay and innuendo".

Please cite an article anywhere from the mainstream...not a hatchet mill, that says Hastert, not Hastert's staff, was notified personally.  

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, after-all it is liberal-thinking attornies who ask juries all the time to let criminals off because the criminal was abused/raped/etc. as a child.  And liberals seem to be more enamored with the rights of criminals rather than those of the victims.  Someone else other than the perpetrator is the one to blame for his/her mis-deeds.

So I guess it should make perfect sense that the Speaker of the House that is to blame.

hey, I see a pattern here -- GOP screws up, it's all LIBERALS' fault.

[}:)] [}:)] [}:)]

[AVERAGE JOE]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71


I don't know the answer any better than you do as to that question, other than supposition or innuendo.

I see ABC seems to be enamored with all sorts of sexual odd-balls these days:

http://www.examiner.com/a-331568~John_Mark_Karr__TV_producers_stopped_after_Karr_seen_near_school.html

Slime sells.

yep, it's all the liberal media's fault, too.

[}:)] [}:)] [}:)]

[aoxamaxoa]

Well, at least it's not the opposition's fault.

staying OT
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=22368
"Chicago companies may not be able to count on Rep. Hastert much longer."

"money for nothing, sex for free"

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

I don't know the answer any better than you do as to that question, other than supposition or innuendo.

That's just my point.  Boehner laid it all out there, then they got their story straight and Boehner retracted his original statement.

Now others have come forward to say that Hastert knew something prior to last week.  Its obvious he did nothing, so if he knew something and did nothing, why would you need an investigation to say that the Republicans mishandled the situation?

Just today, a WaPo article reports that retiring Congressman Kolbe (R,AZ) saw "sexually explicit" emails from Foley to a page in 2000!  Six years of prior knowledge, and the Republicans did nothing to stop it.  That's not innuendo, that's a fact.

The reason there is need for an investigation is because no one is certain beyond doubt who knew what/when.  Stories change, new information pops up, rumors are dispelled.  No one seems to be able to agree when people were told things, who was told, and who told them and whose job title included the responsibility of taking care of the issue.  

How is it possible that not one Democrat was aware of Foley's leanings when it appears all the page classes for at least six years (so far) knew about this guy's creepy behavior?  Far from a GOP cover-up, it's been a Congressional cover-up until it became politically expedient to leak it into the media for political gain.  I cannot believe you don't have the slightest skepticism about the timing and method by which this was outed.

Foley's sexual leanings apparently weren't that big a secret in Washington and you guys are all feigning horror that this guy was hidden by his party, yet you dismiss as irrelevant that sexual predators have been hidden by the Democrats as well in the past, because it was in the past and it fits your paradigm.

The only reason anyone is calling for Hastert's head is because it implies a huge sex scandal stemming from the top of the House GOP down, without any real proven merit up to this point, considering no comprehensive investigations are complete.  Dennis Hastert and others are being tried by sound bites in the court of public opinion.  There are legal processes by which fact-finding, and ultimately punishment or absolution takes place.

This story has served it's purpose of mis-leading the average yutz who just bounces from headline-to-headline forgetting that the media makes money off generating news and in their haste to get the word out, frequently gets details wrong.

If you were caught in a similar whirlwind as Hastert is, wouldn't you want it carefully investigated instead of being tried by public speculation and sound bites?

[AVERAGE JOE]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

I don't know the answer any better than you do as to that question, other than supposition or innuendo.

That's just my point.  Boehner laid it all out there, then they got their story straight and Boehner retracted his original statement.

Now others have come forward to say that Hastert knew something prior to last week.  Its obvious he did nothing, so if he knew something and did nothing, why would you need an investigation to say that the Republicans mishandled the situation?

Just today, a WaPo article reports that retiring Congressman Kolbe (R,AZ) saw "sexually explicit" emails from Foley to a page in 2000!  Six years of prior knowledge, and the Republicans did nothing to stop it.  That's not innuendo, that's a fact.

The reason there is need for an investigation is because no one is certain beyond doubt who knew what/when.  Stories change, new information pops up, rumors are dispelled.  No one seems to be able to agree when people were told things, who was told, and who told them and whose job title included the responsibility of taking care of the issue.  

How is it possible that not one Democrat was aware of Foley's leanings when it appears all the page classes for at least six years (so far) knew about this guy's creepy behavior?  Far from a GOP cover-up, it's been a Congressional cover-up until it became politically expedient to leak it into the media for political gain.  I cannot believe you don't have the slightest skepticism about the timing and method by which this was outed.

Foley's sexual leanings apparently weren't that big a secret in Washington and you guys are all feigning horror that this guy was hidden by his party, yet you dismiss as irrelevant that sexual predators have been hidden by the Democrats as well in the past, because it was in the past and it fits your paradigm.

The only reason anyone is calling for Hastert's head is because it implies a huge sex scandal stemming from the top of the House GOP down, without any real proven merit up to this point, considering no comprehensive investigations are complete.  Dennis Hastert and others are being tried by sound bites in the court of public opinion.  There are legal processes by which fact-finding, and ultimately punishment or absolution takes place.

This story has served it's purpose of mis-leading the average yutz who just bounces from headline-to-headline forgetting that the media makes money off generating news and in their haste to get the word out, frequently gets details wrong.

If you were caught in a similar whirlwind as Hastert is, wouldn't you want it carefully investigated instead of being tried by public speculation and sound bites?

1) The strategy shifts to "instead of accepting responsibility, try to spread the blame to include the opposition."

2) It's Average Joe, not average yutz.

[Conan71]

"2) It's Average Joe, not average yutz."

Point taken []

The one person for whom it is clear should have taken responsibility already has by resigning and he is now hiding in re-hab.

The strategy for the left so far has been to make a shot-gun blast of one person's actions to include the top of the GOP in the house in order to shore up their own political aspirations.

As of yet, it remains to be seen, if anyone else is culpable and won't until investigations are completed.  Anything else is speculation until the legal and political investigations and processes have taken their course.

[Bledsoe]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Bledsoe-

As an attorney, how much weight does heresay carry in court?  

So far all the American public has been fed is heresay and innuendo as to the Republican leadership's handling of Foley and the emails.  

Conan--you are correct that hearsay (with certain exceptions) is not admissiable in court--except in the so-called "courts" GW Bush has established with the help of the 109th Congress.

Seriously, I expect grand juries to convene--subpeons to be issued--oaths to be taken and the "evidence" will be presented in due course.

Now --the free press and democracy are at work--this is the good and bad of American politics,  a very bad system, except for all the others which are worse.

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by Bledsoe


Conan--you are correct that hearsay (with certain exceptions) is not admissiable in court--except in the so-called "courts" GW Bush has established with the help of the 109th Congress.

There's another court where it's admissible almost without restriction--the Court of Public Opinion.