I find the whole idea of calling the emails from Rep. Mark Foley to a 16-year-old boy "suspiciously friendly" absolutely absurd. Something that is merely friendly can't be suspicious in a way that would raise ethical questions.
[Rep. John] Shimkus questioned Foley, but at that time, he had seen only suspiciously friendly e-mails, not the explicit instant messages revealed recently. In one e-mail to the former page, for example, Foley asked for a picture of him. The boy reportedly told an associate that he considered the request to be "sick," but Foley convinced Shimkus that the exchanges were innocent, Shimkus and Republican leaders said.
To have the recipient label the emails "sick" and then dismiss them as innocent because the sender (someone you are aligned with) says they are innocent sends up a huge red flag for me. It indicates that the asker was looking for a denial and a reason to dismiss the evidence.
Also I wonder if any request to Rep. Foley that he change his behavior toward pages went something like this, 'Cool it, will you? We got mid-terms coming up in '06."
Well, I just read in Crooks and Liars and it turns out Foley contributed $100,00o dollars the the Republican party's campaign fund this July. I'm sure like the email, it was just a suspiciously generous contribution.
Technorati tags: crime politics sex crime sexual assault foley