Predatorgate: Hell freezes over

I never thought I'd see the day:

I know one thing: that e-mail they call an "overly friendly e-mail," that had predator stamped all over it. No one in this country can suggest otherwise. You're in a leadership position. You have a colleague you know is at least a potential predator and we have the pages coming through his office every day? They had an obligation, that same day, to investigate him further, to call in the FBI, if that was an appropriate action and also to call in those pages and make certain every one of them was interviewed to see if there is any problems here that goes deeper than what they already knew. They failed the parents of this country is what they did.
Anyone with two brain cells still knocking together would have read Foley's emails -- what stuff do you like to do? send me a pic -- and concluded that there was something icky going on. Let's be realistic: What the GOP leadership concluded was that they weren’t bad enough that it was worth damaging their electoral chances by opening an investigation. They consciously decided to protect their own asses instead of protecting kids.

Consider how the GOP is actually categorizing those emails -- "Naughty; overly-friendly." They're not saying the emails were innocuous, after all; they're saying that they were outside the realm of totally acceptable, but, at the same time, that they were acceptable enough that they didn't warrant an investigation. They might as well laugh it off with a "Boys will be boys," because that's the precise equivalent. "Yeah, it's bad, but hey -- dudes are incorrigible. Whaddaya gonna do?"

Their big defense as regards not starting that investigation is that the emails weren't as bad as the sexually graphic IM messages, and that they only learned about those through media reports. Well, pardon me while I state The Obvious: If House Republican leaders had taken seriously the fact that Foley had been sending "naughty" emails from his private account to a teenage boy and done the logical thorough investigation, they would have uncovered those IM messages.

Not knowing about the IM messages isn't an excuse. It's the whole point.

Instead we get this "Oh, the emails were inappropriate, but not such a big deal" dissembling, which is clearly a cover for the reality: that they didn't want to raise a red flag with an investigation and risk electoral defeat. They'd rather claim to have been too stupid to discern the nature of predatory emails than admit that, in the course of playing politics as usual, they consciously decided not to protect kids from a sexual predator.

(Think Progress)

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.