So Rep. Mark Foley, Republican of Florida, has quit the house after ABC News exposed explicit text messages and emails between Foley and a page (pages?). Rightfully, and for slime like him if prosecution is available he should be prosecuted. (As should this man have been ousted and prosecuted (scroll down) - but that's water under a Massachusetts bridge.) There is no defending Foley, and anyone who tries will be covered in the same slime. But there are accusations flying around about a "cover-up", and calls for Republican leadership to resign. Let's take a look at some facts before we boil over, shall we.
In the first place, "cover-up" indicates that the not only did someone know the extent of a problem, they actively sought to prevent its exposure. If I'm reading the stories in the NY Times and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch correctly, neither of these propositions is true. According to the NY Times:
Aides to the speaker and other Congressional Republican leaders said the messages, which an Alexander aide described to them as “overfriendly,” were much less explicit than the others that came to light after ABC News first disclosed the e-mail correspondence with Mr. Alexander’s page. The aides said Mr. Alexander’s office, at the request of the page’s family, did not show them copies of the messages. In those messages, sent after Hurricane Katrina, Mr. Foley asked about the well-being of the boy, a Monroe, La., resident. He wrote: “How are you weathering the hurricane. . .are you safe. . .send me a pic of you as well.” The page sent the note to a former colleague, describing it as “sick.”
In another message, Mr. Foley wrote, “What do you want for your birthday coming up. . .what stuff do you like to do.”
The e-mail exchanges that came to light after the first news reports were far more graphic. When he was confronted about them on Friday, Mr. Foley resigned. Republican leaders said they had not known about the other e-mail correspondence.
Foley's emails are creepy, indicating a serious problem, but according to this story the most explicit and sexual contacts weren't revealed until 2 days ago. Further, as regards knowledge of the initial emails, all stories have indicated that the leadership was not given the messages, only described them "at the request of the page's family."
Additional details come fromt the Post-Dispatch story, interviewing Rep. John Shimkus, the Republican member who co-supervises the page program. He did see the emails, but did not disclose them to the leadership.
Shimkus, who serves as board chairman for the House page program, read the emails, in which Foley asked about the boy’s well-being in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, what he wanted for his birthday, and for a photograph. (The boy was from Louisiana and had returned to his home state.)
Although there was nothing sexually suggestive in the emails, Shimkus and Trandal agreed: "That was enough for us to approach Mark," Shimkus recalled an interview Saturday.
Soon after, they met with Foley and his chief of staff in the Florida congressman’s office. "We basically said, ‘We got these emails. And we don’t think this is appropriate. ... You have to stop (contacting this boy)’," Shimkus said.
Shimkus said Foley told them, "‘When I was a young person, an adult became my mentor inspired me to be a congressman and that’s all I’m doing’." Foley said if he was guilty of anything, Shimkus recalled, it was of being "overly friendly."
As Shimkus and the rest of his House colleagues now know, "He lied to me. He lied to the former clerk."
Foley announced his resignation Friday after ABC News reported that he had indeed sent sexually explicit emails to other male pages.
Shimkus said he believes he handled the situation as best he could, given the information he had at the time. He said he didn’t tell any other lawmakers about the incident, even other page board members, because he thought it had been addressed sufficiently.
He was wrong about that, but being wrong is not criminal.
He said he never learned, until Friday, about the other more explicit messages Foley sent, Shimkus said.
So unless some new facts come out about when Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Boehner and the others knew the details, this is not a "cover-up" under what should be a relatively uncontroversial definition. Let's look at precedent, as a guide. No one would accuse Democrats, in 1996, of a "cover-up" in the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. They didn't know. Or of a cover-up in the Mel Reynolds scandal. Or of a "cover-up" in the Gerry Studds scandal.
It's what you do after you know that could be objectionable. Studds was censured, but should have been ousted. The only thing Mr. Clinton had going for him in his "encounter" was that she was "of age." But a married man, one-of-one as opposed to one-of-five hundred thirty-five, taking advantage of the immaturity of a twenty-one year old intern should have been far more objectionable to the members of his party, Sen. Joe Lieberman excepted. Instead Democratic leadership stood with him on the White House lawn and voiced their support. That's objectionable, but certainly not a "cover-up." I don't think a single Republican has or will ever voice support for Foley.
10/1/06 2200: Well, now isn't this interesting. Tom Maguire. Clarice Feldman. RIck Moran. October surprise, indeed.
Comments