One of our readers sent an e-mail urging me to reconsider my views on the Foley story. The reader explains that he was molested by a parish priest 40 years ago, and sees this as another case of an institution protecting predators. I can certainly understand that. My friend Chad at CCK has his own criticisms, which are not unreasonable. I will state the facts as cleanly as I can in order to defend my opinion.
1) When Representative Foley was confronted with sexually explicit text messages he sent to former pages, he resigned. Had he not done so, he almost certainly would have been expelled. He may now face prosecution. There is no evidence that anyone in Congress new of these messages until this week.
2) Last year a 16 year old received e-mail messages from Congressman Foley that the young man felt were disturbing. I don't know that these messages have been published anywhere in full. Here is how they have been described:
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.”
3) The young man sent the messages to the office of Rodney Alexander (Republican, Louisiana), who informed the House leadership of the matter. It seems clear that Speaker Hastert was informed. At the request of the young man's family, Congressman Alexander's office did not turn over the e-mails to other House Republicans, or reveal his name.
4) It is not true, as Chad has it, that the House leadership did nothing. The House Clerk (Jeff Trandahl) and the Chair of the House Page Board (Representative John Shimkus) confronted Foley:
who insisted he was simply acting as a mentor to the former page, officials said. He assured them nothing inappropriate had occurred.
“They asked Foley about the e-mail,” the speaker’s statement said. “Congressman Shimkus and the clerk made it clear that to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and at the request of the parents, Congressman Foley was to immediately cease any communication with the young man.”
5) The question is whether the response was sufficient, given what they had at the time. What they had was a third party complaint by an anonymous accuser, based on documents that they were not permitted to see. They were told only that the e-mails were "overly friendly" but not sexually explicit. Is that enough to launch a more serious investigation, and to make public what at that moment amounted to mere rumors? Maybe so. But several independent sources now suggest otherwise.
6) At least two newspapers, The Saint Petersburg Times and the Miami Herald, both had more information than the House leadership did (including, apparently, the text of the e-mails). Both declined to publish the story.
7) The FBI also received copies of the e-mails in July. The FBI concluded that they did not warrant an investigation.
8) Based on points 5-7 above, I conclude that the actions of the House leadership were reasonable and proper. They had no evidence at all of wrong-doing on Foley's part. If it turns out that they knew more than we now know, they may be in deep doo doo.
9) Protecting minors from sexual predators is an imperative at all levels of government (and for newspapers, too, I assume). Protecting the privacy and reputation of innocent citizens and office holders against calumny is another imperative. One of the oldest and most important procedural safeguards is to put little weight on, and limit the spread of, anonymous accusations. House leaders may have been acting to protect one of their own, but they were respecting those safeguards. Democrats are surely using this story to damage Republicans (that's what I would do!). But in their passion, they risk stripping everyone of a most basic kind of protection.
10) Congressman Foley's sexual orientation is clearly a part of this story. Chad directs us to this nugget, from ABC news.
A Republican staff member warned Congressional pages five years ago to watch out for Congressman Mark Foley, according to a former page.
That is a pretty short news article (I posted all of it). It is possible that the anonymous staffer knew of previous inappropriate contacts between Congressman Foley and pages. It is also possible that he knew from hearsay that the Congressman was gay. It is likely that the young man who complained about the e-mail was privy to this information as well. That would explain why he viewed the e-mail as "sick," when it otherwise seems "overly-friendly" at worst. Does homosexuality in itself constitute a grounds of suspicion in such cases? Should Congressmen who are openly gay, or merely rumored to be gay, be quarantined from contact with pages, in the absence of any other evidence that they have behaved inappropriately? I think that is the likely outcome of this story, and I do not think that it represents progress.
Recent Comments