Foley Scandal: Reynolds’ Chief Of Staff Tried To Cover Up IMs
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in General Politics, LawIt’s confirmed. Congressman Tom Reynolds’ (R-NY) chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, tried to broker a secret deal last Friday to get ABC News to cover up the worst part of the Foley child predator scandal, the lurid five-plus-page instant message chat in which Foley asked a child to measure his penis and then led the child into a detailed discussion of masturbatory techniques.Howie Kurtz in the Washington Post wrote about this in this morning’s Washington Post, though at the time Kurtz didn’t name names - he simply referred to the deal-maker as a “former chief of staff” to Mark Foley. It’s subsequently been confirmed to me, by Kurtz, that the individual who reportedly tried to broker the cover-up deal was Congressman Reynolds’ own chief of staff (and former Foley chief of staff), Kirk Fordham.
Amazing.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 3rd, 2006 and is filed under General Politics, Law. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.
October 3rd, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Just out of curiosity, do you plan on milking this all the way up to the election? I understand, your just doing your part for the Dems and I actually respect that, JG. It is just that teenagers interested in politics read Donklephant and I would hate to think that this lurid content is corrupting or frightening them. We have to keep our children safe.
October 3rd, 2006 at 4:29 pm
I wish people would stop calling a 16-year-old a “child,” though. I mean, I’m 60 and I’m still my parents’ “child.” But you know what I mean. A 16-year-old is an adolescent. It’s the same kind of move as calling a newly fertilized zygote a “baby” for polemical purposes.
I’m not saying the kind of exploitation Foley foisted on that kid wasn’t unconscionable. It was. I’m saying get your language straight, or it sounds as if you think you have to make it sound even worse than it was, which means you’re afraid it’s not bad enough. It is. Stupid rhetorical moves actually detract from that.
October 3rd, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Bush should just pardon him as Clinton pardoned Mel Reynolds. You know, the guy who was imprisoned for having sex with his 16 year-old intern?
How quickly (and conveniently) we forget…
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:26 pm
No, just for the next few weeks until the new talking points come down from Dean…oh…woops.
Listen, these kids may or may not have been of consenting age. If they were in D.C., then yes. If not, then it’s the state they’re IMing from. That’s that law I believe. Also, everybody knows how young these kids are…there’s no confusion there. Child, adolescent, teenager…it’s all the same to me when somebody is a minor, which this “kids” were. Agreed?
To Todd…
Clinton commuted (not pardoned) less than half of Reynolds’ sentence for bank fraud, which he was convicted of WHILE in prison for 5 years for the other charges of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography. He spent the remainder of that sentence (36 months) for bank fraud in a halfway house. Please get your facts straight.
October 4th, 2006 at 9:26 am
Certainly Not. This isn’t pedophilia, this was fantasized Socratian pedarasty — gloriously Grecian. Just try to imagine Folley in toga, with a small flock of his adoring Ganymedes reading Homer in the sun before inadvertantly drifting off into more carnal subjects.
All perfectly natural. I am absolutely certain this same logic has been used to find a constitutional right to sodomy — but, for some reason, Folley is underserving of your Tolerance, you dare Judge him for his unrequited forrays into this ancient passtime. You, the one who lectures the vast right-wing Christian conspiracy for its myopic, discriminating moral pendantry! Poo-Shaw, your hypocrasy is only matched by your mean-spiritedness. Why are you not coming the AID of Folley - after all he is a Victim of this Culture of Fear & Hatred.
WHO, DEAR SIR, ARE YOU TO JUDGE THE PROCLIVITIES OF HUMAN SEXUAL NATURE SO FIRMLY ROOTED IN HISTORY OF MANKIND?!
October 4th, 2006 at 11:18 am
Let me get this straight, the only people who should have an opinion or questions about this story are non-hypocritical Republicans with high moral values? The rest of us have ulterior motives, low moral values, and supported Clinton, therefore we should just shut up?
Wasn’t Mark Foley and Hastert in the forefront of those non-hypocritical Republicans with high moral values who thought that Clinton was immoral for having sex with an adult woman and then trying to conceal it to protect his power? That was nothing like this situation, right?
I get it now! This is Clinton’s fault! Whew that was a close one. For a moment there, I actually thought non-hypocritical Republicans with high morals were the problem.
October 4th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Ahhh, Justin, way to split hairs. Clinton let out early a convicted child molester. Maybe you perverts think that’s alright. The rest of civilized society finds it just a bit distasteful.
It never ceases to amaze me how LOW Democrats will slink to defend their own, even convicted child molesters.
You are disgusting.
October 4th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
I’m saying when it come to sexual morality the Dems are skating on thin ice pretending to be so outraged. Unquestionably Folley acted hypocritically to whatever extent he publically espoused some canon of sexual morality and failed to adher to it. I fail to see how that rationally paints the entire Republican party as hypocrits, but whatever.
Democrats on the other hand, make their living telling people that their sexual proclivities are to be celebrated, legally recognized and folded into normative lifestyle alternatives. So James, help me pin-point the source of rage: It certainly isn’t the fact that it was boys and not girls — lets face it, that would go completely against the ideological grain of the Dems.
Is it age? Well, as Justin points out, the boys were over the age of legal consent & there is a whole 3 years difference between them and Monica’s age when she was giving Clinton a bj and using her twat as a humidor.
PLEASE, pin point exactly what part of this you people are so disturbed over? Until then, it looks and smells like political opportunism in the form of further victimization of Folley’s boys. At least Folley had the decency not to rape them in front of the public eye.
October 4th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Todd:
Wouldn’t you (I’m assuming you’re including yourself in “civilized society”) also find it to be “a bit distasteful” that the Republican leadership knew about Foley and kept him in his position with access to the pages without so much as any investigation? As for Mel Reynolds, he was scum but he actually served jail time for what he did. It quite possible (and highly ironic) that Foley may well have broken laws that *he himself* helped author. Talk about hoisted with one’s own petard. I can naturally assume that as a member of “civilized society” that you would want to see Foley serve time in jail for any crimes that he (quite possibly) committed?
October 6th, 2006 at 11:45 am
Anna,
If Foley committed a crime, you better believe he should go to prison, as should anyone (Republican or Democrat) who knew about it and kept quiet.
And why weren’t Barney Frank and Gerry Studds ever prosecuted or, at the very least, forced to resign? What they did was just as despicable, yet nothing was ever done to them.
People in glass houses…
January 11th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
You guys are very smart…. how intense! It was a good article… i like everyones opinions… nice!