Oct 03 2006

Media Covered Up Evidence Of Child Abuse Crimes

Published by at 7:46 am under All General Discussions,Foleygate

While the quivering right demands Hastert’s resignation (wrongly) the real news is being under reported and missed. And that is that Brian Ross of ABC News now says he knew of the possible crimes against children as far back as August of last year and did nothing.

Brian Ross of ABC News said he learned about the e-mail messages in August but was too busy with Hurricane Katrina and the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks to pursue them immediately.

That excuse is pure BS! First off, he had evidence of possible child abuse and that should have been reported to law enforcement – not held for some story line. And second, what was wrong with dealing with this in October – after those events he sited? What about November? Why not in December? What was so pressing in January? Why did he not do something to stop a predator in February? What was more important than this in March? Couldn’t he find the time in April of this year? Surely he had time in May or June? Nothing could be done in July and August? Was it Katrina and 9-11 AGAIN that knocked any chances of stopping a child abuse again this September? Ross planted this story with the help of Mike Rogers. Mike Rogers admits he worked to have this story timed. And it is strange how the information was planted on some know-nothing website and picked up magically by Ross. What, did the out of the way website remind Ross crimes were possibly being committed that he learned about a year earlier and he should do something?

ABC News has a lot of explaining to do. Their story indicates they found out about this from that set-up website. Now Ross is admitting something else. I will say it again, anyone who hides a crime against children for personal gain is just as sick as the criminal who abused the child for personal pleasure. Something really stinks here. I cannot fathom anyone sitting on news that children could be undergoing sexual abuse for a year and not be criminally negligent.

Addendum: The excuses proffered by these media organizations about why they did not pursue the matter are identical to those offered up by Hastert. So if these news organizations (who had only the marginal emails – we have some suspicions about Ross and ABC who do not make that claim) then it is good enough for Hastert and company

Update: That website with the emails is probably a front, and possibly for a news organization. Recall the site was established in July and then check out this admission in the NY Times article:

Then, in June, the reports resurfaced on Capitol Hill, where a neighborhood resident struck up a conversation in a bar with someone who had provided the e-mail messages. He said he passed them on to several news outlets. The resident, who said he was not affiliated with either party and was motivated by concern for the teenager, would talk only on condition of anonymity.

Is it simply coincidence that a Capitol Hill resident (aka, partisan operative – they are the only ones who want to live on Capitol Hill) finds out about these emails and then this mystery site comes into creation a few weeks later? We need to know who runs that site.

Also checkout Mark Coffey’s rundown of the mechanics of this smear campaign and ask yourself how all this could not be orchestrated.

Update: How old is this scandal? IBD now claims the scandalous emails date from 2003!

Now, what did Democrats know, and when did they know it?

As it is, Republicans deny knowing about the explicit text messages that Foley sent to a 16-year-old congressional page back in 2003. In repudiating Foley, House Speaker Dennis Hastert called the messages “vile and repulsive.”

The smell factor on this ‘story’ just went up a few notches.

18 responses so far

18 Responses to “Media Covered Up Evidence Of Child Abuse Crimes”

  1. HaroldHutchison says:

    I’d love to hear from Democrats as to when covering up possible criminal acts is acceptable behavior…

  2. carol johnson says:


    Yeah, and Mr. Ross is STILL at it. Check this out:

    Can anyone tell me…is this avarice or just plain old laziness? From ABC’s current website (as of this morning) Side bar e-mail link on the main page:


    Do You Have Info About Foley’s Contact With Pages? E-Mail Us Via Our Secured Server


    Tip lines are nothing new, I realize. This, however, is a revolting trend of actively soliticiting stories that are slanted to fit your agenda. Tell us again that you are unbiased and don’t have an agenda, Mr. Ross. Bull cookies!! Journalism…the second oldest profession.


  3. Sue says:


    Or you sure he was referring to August 2005? Or was he referring to August of this year? That is what I thought when I first read it. The anniversaries of Katrina and 9/11.

  4. Foley Setup? – Part II – Hitting a Nerve…

    h/t to a commenter that noticed that all the comments from Stop Sex Predators have disappeared.
    Coincidence? I think not. Yesterday, I challenged the owner in of the site in the comments section to reveal who they are, or I will. As I posted hereI…

  5. Correction: IBD is talking about the IMs dating back to 2003. The emails, to the New Orleans page, are from late Summer to early Fall 2005.

  6. Retired Spook says:

    This whole affair is unraveling faster than a cheap suit, and the one thing that has become abundantly clear to me is the fact the Democrats, by and large, are not offended by Foley’s behavior. They only view this revelation as a plus politically. That is just so morally repugnant to me that I cannot fathom how any rational, intellectually honest person could vote for a Democrat in November. I hope this backfires on the Dems in colossal fashion and energizes the GOP base like never before in a mid-term election.

  7. Terrye says:


    I think Foley might well have been set up, but I have to say that I am getting really fed up with people going on about crimes to children as if the man had already been tried and found guilty.

    You are acting as if Foley was sodomizing preschoolers. So far as I know there is no indication that he even touched anyone. And the IMs were communications with a college kid.

    Now I think what Foley did was creepy, but when people go on about crimes against children when so far as we know there were no crimes it sounds just plain hysterical.

    So far it seems that Foley was inappropriate and out of bounds and that is bad enough. His behavior was also unethical and irresponsible but this stuff about crimes against childred is not only not true, it is insulting to the pages themselves who are not babies. They are old enough and mature enough to be pages and if they felt that Foley was out of line they should have said something to someone.

    If that email asking for a pic is all there is that hardly is a crime. And if that IM was really with someone over 18 then that is not a crime either.

    Do not make it worse than it already is. That is why these people did not come forward, because according the FBI there is no crime. And if that is so all that is left is scandal and bad behavior.

  8. ivehadit says:

    I think this is energizing republicans BIG TIME to get out and vote.



    The dems are as slimy as they come and we don’t need anymore carville/begalla/lehane/clinton/shrum EVER, EVER AGAIN! NEVER!

  9. Karig says:

    So somebody printed out or saved a bunch of salacious instant messages from Rep. Foley and held on to them in secret for three years, then releases them to the world one month before the election — AND they want Reps. Hastert AND Reynolds to step down because they supposedly should have known about these IMs and forced Foley to resign before now.

    Right, this is just a case of the GOP getting caught. Move along, folks; no leftwing shenanigans to see here.

    As far as I’m concerned, Foley resigned. This issue should be closed. The only reason it’s still open is because now the Dems want to use the issue to smear other Republicans with. The “n*gger” and “doe’s-head-in-a-mailbox” stories didn’t work to derail George Allen, so now the smear-monkeys are trying the “Republicans are pederast enablers” angle. I guess Clarice is right when she suggests that watching politics on TV for the next month or so is going to be like getting one faceful of raw sewage after another.

  10. AJStrata says:


    The IM messages from 2003 which Hastert and otherse never saw were clearly sexual in nature and to minors. Foley is most likely a child predator. What bothers me is a news media or partisan hack hiding these apparent crimes for years – leaving other kids exposed to risks.

  11. Enlightened says:

    Terrye – I totally agree. At what point in this story did Mark Foley lose his constitutional right of Innocent until Proven guilty? The same can be said for Hastert, and Ross, and everyone else involved.

    Time and time again the democrats repeat the same MO – Breathlessly Break The Story, obtain the knee jerk reactions, use those reactions as fact, and force a hand based on facts not in evidence.

    The fact that the right just falls into that trap, time and again – by demanding Hasterts resignation, by vilifying Mark Foley and Brian Ross for that matter, just lumps them into the same shit bucket.

    I hope Hastert has balls bigger than raisinettes and says hell no I am not stepping down until a full investigation has been made. I think Foley should have waited and made no comment, and stepped down after the intial wave of Dem said/Rep said vitriol died down, instead he gave the Dems another golden egg to play with.

    In the case of IM messages, there is no way in hell to prove the age of the recipient or the sender. There is no way to prove that Foley sent them, or did someone else in his office do it (perhaps Glenn Greenwald can elighten us on that note). Why does everyone repeatedly call these recipients “children”? Teenagers are not children. Teenagers of lawful age are not children. Foley has not been accused of touching a child or a teenager. These are some troubling things that need to be determined before a person and/or persons lives are utterly destroyed.

    The saddest thing is that the Dems are not doing this to gain votes – anyone with a brain can discern that a man and his sexual proclivities does not change their political leanings, it changes how they feel about that person, they may not vote for that person, but they will not jump parties because of it either.

    It’s just another case for angry, mindless, heartless humans with no soul left to guide them to destroy a man.

  12. Foleygate…

    It’s always about the coverup, or the incomplete investigations, isn’t it….

  13. HaroldHutchison says:

    AJ, I agree.

    And it is the hiding of those IMs that will sink the Dems’ efforts to profit off this.

  14. Terrye says:


    Maybe I am wrong, it would not be the first time, but I heard that the IMs were with a young man of college age. That is not a crime. It is icky, but it is not a crime.

  15. Terrye says:

    And AJ, so far as I know there has been no evidence of Foley ever touching a child, maybe we should hold up on the lynch mob until there is.

  16. Ken says:

    The American political class is essentially corrupt and has little
    business promoting its decadent “democracy” in an undesirous
    conservative, truly and contrastingly so, Moslem world, as Foleygate proves.

  17. Snapple says:

    I think some “peace” activists who don’t want the Iraqis to be able to vote and have democracy are getting money from Saddam.

    Syria and Iran are causing trouble in Iraq; their political class are a lot worse than ours.

    Al Qaeda is killing mostly Muslim people.

    Who do you like Kenny? Stalin? Mao?

  18. Snapple says:

    Saddam’s sons used to rape young brides. Saddam paid for terrorists.

    And they still don’t know who paid for 9-11, do they?

    They don’t know Al Qaeda paid for 9-11.