John Hinderaker: Placing Children At Risk?

by hilzoy

John Hinderaker suggests that Democrats covered up Congressman Mark Foley's boy problem, a charge for which there is no evidence. One wonders, though, whether that is exactly what John Hinderaker did.

How did the email and instant messages that triggered the scandal come to light? It has been reported that at least one set of emails became public after they were sent to "a registered Republican" -- a phrase that surely describes John Hinderaker. But when did that happen? The messages themselves are three years old. When did John Hinderaker find out about them? Did he sit on them for a while, in order to prevent them from coming out in time to influence the Presidential election, or to preserve a Republican Congressional majority?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but they are important and need to be answered. If John Hinderaker has known for some time about Foley's transgressions but failed to act until now, he endangered more boys--and why? Solely to advance his partisan political interests.

One would hope that the Ethics Committee will subpoena the reporters who broke the Foley story to find out where they got their information, and when. The question to be answered is, What did John Hinderaker know, and when did he know it?

Is it possible that John Hinderaker deliberately delayed disclosure of Foley's transgressions, thereby endangering the security of current Congressional pages and other teenage boys, solely to advance the political interests of his allies? One would certainly hope not. But it is obviously a question that needs to be investigated and answered.

I also wonder: could John Hinderaker be the anthrax killer? Has he ever denied it, or agreed to take a polygraph? I don't know the answers to these questions, but they are important. Inquiring minds would like to know the answers.

Comments

[Geek, Esq.]

I do believe that is Assrocket being hoisted in his own petard.

It's crossed from partisanship to flat-out psychosis on the parts of the Pauerlein crowd.

[Xanthippas]

Most amusing.

[arky vaughn]

Great Job Hilzoy - it just amazes me that this joker lives a few miles from me and does nothing but bring the national discourse down.
I'd love to be reasonable and moderate but I left the Republican party because I ran into too many people like him.

sigh

[The Heretik]

John Hinderaker has never denied he met with Osama bin Laden in Tora Bora. Why?

[spartikus]

One wonders how kittens could be made to be sad. There is no evidence that John Hinderaker is involved in making kittens sad. But then, there's not much evidence that he is not involved in making kittens sad, either.

Surely this deserves to be cleared up? If only for the kittens?

[damon]

I read Hinderaker's post minutes before coming across this one ... great job, Hilzoy!

I really wonder about the psychology of someone like Hinderaker. I wonder what happened in his life to make it so important to him to be a shill/sycophant for people who, at best, are barely aware of his existence. It's interesting (to me, at least) to reflect on the role that people like this play in the rise of fascistic / authoritarian regimes. Not that that is exactly what is happening here (and: not that I am ruling that out, either), but history must be full of forgotten Hinderakers.

[Jesurgislac]

It was never established who the other 1984 Brighton bombing conspirators were. Can Hinderaker prove he never provided funding to the IRA or Sinn Fein? Can he show he was never in communication with Patrick Magee, the only conspirator convicted? Has Hinderaker ever visited Boston or New York, both well-known American loci of IRA supporters?

(I was just old enough to vote at the time of the Brighton bombing of the 1984 Conservative Party conference, though the first time I actually got to vote was on 11 June 1987, but reading the wiki article brings it back to me: and although formally speaking I loathe and despise Thatcher, her reaction to a terrorist attack that nearly killed her was "to omit most of the planned attacks on the Labour party from her speech" (which she had been awake, conning over, at the time of the bombing) and to begin the next session of the conference at 9.30, as scheduled, less than 7 hours after a bomb had gone off next door. I didn't like her one bit, and I still don't... but by God she had guts.)

[Ugh]

The only logical explanation for assrocket is that he's running the best right wing parody site evar! So good he even got invited to the White House.

Any other explanation is too terrible to contemplate.

[Ugh]

Another heartwarming story of our government in action:

An FBI SWAT team battered down their front door, pointed semiautomatic rifles at Irshad's wife and carried out the first raid on a private home in the federal investigation of the anthrax attacks. Agents in moon suits carted out the Shaikhs' computers, medicines and books and swabbed the television set for anthrax spores.

But the FBI had acted on a bad tip. By every account available, agents found no evidence implicating the brothers, who are widely respected public health experts

But hey, their muslims, so, you know, f*ck em.

[Phil]

Hey, at least it wasn't a corporation, Ugh. That would have been completely unacceptable!

[Ugh]

A corporation would only do something like that if their customers wanted it to do it.

[Andrew]

Ugh,

Given the number of raids on people of all ethnicities, I think the problem you noted there goes a lot deeper than any anti-Muslim animus.

[Ugh]

Given the number of raids on people of all ethnicities, I think the problem you noted there goes a lot deeper than any anti-Muslim animus.

I don't disagree on the raid part, especially so recently after the anthrax attacks (funny that they don't count as an "attack" on the US by the administration, but that's a separate issue) but the subsequent extremely shoddy treatment (which is probably an understatement) by the gov't is at the least a bit suspect.

In any event, not being able to sleep on a Saturday morning gets me cranky and not inclined to much seriousness.

BTW, I enjoy your posts here and I'm very happy you joined ObWi, in case I haven't mentioned it before. Keep up the good work.

[cleek]

an excellent post, Hilzoy. these questions must be answered, for the sake of the children. if Hinderaker is involved, he must be brought to jusitce. i recommend Harsh Interrogation Techniques.

[hilzoy]

Ugh: " he's running the best right wing parody site evar!"

-- I can only assume you haven't been reading MacsMind, Strata-Sphere, or Gateway Pundit lately. They've been keeping me in giggles all week, but they are beyond parody.

[KCinDC]

Hmm, I can't find my checkbook. Are we sure that John Hinderaker didn't come into my apartment during the night and make off with it as part of a scheme to fund Al Qaeda?

[Jay C]

"... history must be full of forgotten Hinderakers."

Posted by: damon | October 07, 2006 at 03:49 AM

Especially true as a simple declaritive statement, damon: even more if taken in the imperative!

Seriously, though: why does anyone still take Powerline (Time Magazine's inexplicable encomium notwithstanding) even remotely seriously for anything, anymore? They have descended to previously unplumbed depths of hackery, and are going lower day by day.

[slaps forehead]

Oh, right... the sheer mockery value... Duhhhh.....

[Tim]

Does his spine glow red during intercourse? I believe he should prove it doesn't.

[matttbastard]

I have to work today (*grumblemumblesnarl*). Can we be certain that Mr Hinderaker is not responsible?

[lily]

Slight change of subject--but has anyone else noticed how many Repubican opinion leaders are talking exactly like sex predators? Dobson, who is a child psychologist and should know better, is blaming the pages themselves, saying that they were the bad guys who played a prank on Foley. Limbaugh, a Congressman from Utah, and a couple others I can't remember right now are pushing the same line. That's EXACTLY the line a trapped predator would push--it's not my fault, the child led me on! Turn the victimizer into the victim. The Culture Of Life party talking heads are getting their rationalizations from the playbook of sex perverts.

[Jesurgislac]

lily: how many Repubican opinion leaders are talking exactly like sex predators?

Yes. And I'm certain that there are a good many Republican parents/responsible adults who are noticing that as well.

On the one hand, it's kind of fun watching what happens when the modern Republican party runs into a scandal that cannot be resolved by (a) blaming the victim (b) blaming Clinton (c) blaming the terrorists (d) arguing that 9/11 changed everything (e) claiming that the only critics of this scandal suffer from "Bush Derangement Syndrome".

On the other hand, it's also really kind of icky.

[Bruce Baugh]

Lily, yeah, I've been noticing that for a long time, but I keep being surprised by the breadth and depth of perversion in senior Republican ranks. It's not like all senior Democrats are people I'd trust with the keys to my apartment or the custody of my niece and nephew, but there seem to be fewer of them - a lot fewer - doing things that are both disgusting and, well, tedious. So little of it is really even interesting vileness - too much the stuff of Tenessee Williams, too little of Flannery O'Connor or William Burroughs.

It is, in any event, well past the point where if I were a Republican who took the party's moral claims seriously, I'd be looking for some independent investigations of the whole bunch.

[KCinDC]

It is somewhat funny to see Power Line and other Bush-worshipping blogs desperately trying to blame Democrats for the Foley scandal, but things become considerably less funny when you realize that the Speaker of the House and other Republican congressional leaders (as well as a former Speaker) are spreading the smear, and CNN and other media outlets are uncritically reporting it.

[cleek]

i still stand by my prediction: in a week, this will have turned into a net-loss for Dems, due to their own inability to capitalize on this and counter the Noise Machine.

[Jeff Eaton]

The Scotsman tells the sickening story of a group of Muslims in Glasgow who beat, stabbed and burned to death a randomly-selected 15 year old boy "because he was white."

It could have been worse, of course. They could have sent him nasty instant messages.

At least John retains his characteristic sensitivity.

[cleek]

At least John retains his characteristic sensitivity

i suppose the nicest thing we can say about John is that he zealously represents his client - even when his client is the GOP.

[Assistant Village Idiot]

I'm not sure why you think you scored points with this one.

I doubt that this is "What, Lassie? You say the pages are in danger?" The actual danger to 17-18 year olds seems fairly slight either way, and sitting on the information since April is unlikely to have had any measurable effect. But it's not nothing. I have mandatory reporting at my job, and if I'd sat on it for a week I'd be fired. Once you have the information, it's not your call when to release it anymore.

[hilzoy]

AVI: the point isn't that sitting on the information is OK. It's not. The point is rather that there is precisely as much evidence that Hinderaker did this non-OK thing as that Democrats did.

[will]

excellent post Hilzoy

['The Deacon']

My partner John posted on this earlier. I have nothing more to say, but Dan Rather sure knows who we are.

[cleek]

but Dan Rather sure knows who we are.

Glory Days
Well, they'll pass you by
Glory Days
In the wink of young girl's eye
Glory Days

[matttbastard]

The meme spreads: Rep. Patrick McHenry(R, NC) is on Late Edition accusing the Dems of leaking the IMs to ABC News (transcript not yet available).

Wolf Blitzer was understandably skeptical, asking for (non-existent) evidence that Foleygate was a political hit job. But McHenry is shameless: 'Do you have any evidence that they weren't involved, Howard?'

Still awaiting Hinderaker's response re: yesterday's shift - I've yet to see evidence that he wasn't responsible.

[cleek]

Still awaiting Hinderaker's response re: yesterday's shift

the longer he delays, the more credible the charges become.

[Nell]

But McHenry is shameless: 'Do you have any evidence that they weren't involved, Howard?'

I suppose it's too much to ask for that Blitzer said 'yes' and cited Brian Ross's statement that his source was a Republican.

[matttbastard]

Nell: Blitzer did, actually - and McHenry basically called Ross a liar.

[matttbastard]

Oh, and 'Howard' should of course be 'Wolf'.

[Jesurgislac]

Do we have any evidence that Patrick McHenry wasn't involved? Can he prove he wasn't aware that Foley was sexually harassing underage pages? What evidence does he have that he didn't participate in the cover-up? And was he part of the conspiracy to steal KCinDC's checkbook?

[John Thullen]

Does Blitzer have any evidence that his name is not Howard?

Wolf? Bleh!

If the Republican Party starts calling Blitzer, Howard, than he'd better be ready to produce birth records.

[Nell]

Does Blitzer have any evidence that his name is not Howard? Wolf? Bleh!

Shades of the painfully funny 'Wayne's World' episode on Saturday Night Live after the first week of the Gulf War.

Wonder if there's a YouTube of that...

[SFAW]

Would it be irresponsible to speculate that Assrocket and McHenry are lovers and gang-banging pederasts who subsequently strangle and dismember their victims?

It would be irresponsible *NOT* to.

Which also leads to the thought: can Assrocket and McHenry prove that they absolutely nothing to do with flying the planes into the WTC towers? I have never seen evidence that they were not involved, so perhaps someone should investigate this?

[matttbastard]

The Late Edition transcript has been released. 'Howard' was a product solely of my own sleep-deprived imagination. Had watched Reliable Sources prior to Late Edition; so easy to mix up these disposable Beltway hacks.

Here is the exchange in question:

BLITZER: So what you're suggesting -- and correct me if I'm wrong, because you've been doing this for the last few days -- that Democrats are behind the timing of the release of this information?

Is that your accusation?

MCHENRY: Well, look, all the fact points lead to one question: Did Rahm Emanuel or Nancy Pelosi have any involvement on the strategic or tactical level?

This morning on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," the question was asked of Rahm Emanuel.

His reaction was he did not see the instant messages or e-mails. He repeatedly said, he did not see. I've asked him to testify under oath to assure the American people that he was not involved in this issue in any way, shape or form.

BLITZER: Do you have any evidence at all that Democrats or others might have been behind the timing of this scandal?

MCHENRY: Look, let's be honest...

BLITZER: Do you have any evidence to back that charge up?

MCHENRY: No, no, actually, if the Democrats had any issue with saying this, putting all the facts out on the table, they would say, certainly, I'll testify under oath that I had no involvement in it. They've said no.

BLITZER: Well, you don't have any evidence, though, right?

MCHENRY: Well, look at the fact points.

BLITZER: Yes or no, do you have any evidence, Congressman?

MCHENRY: Do you have any evidence that they weren't involved?

BLITZER: I'm just asking if you're just throwing out an accusation or if you have any hard evidence.

MCHENRY: No. It's a question, Wolf. The question remains, were they involved? And if they were not involved, they need to say clearly. And it's a question. It's not an accusation.

[...]

BLITZER: Congressman McHenry, when Brian Ross of ABC News, who broke this story, says his original source was a Republican source, do you not believe him?

MCHENRY: Well, here's the question. With the initial e-mail, which the speaker's office was given, which CREW, a liberal advocacy group funded by George Soros, was given and numerous media outlets were given and the FBI, they all made the same conclusion, that there was no action that could be taken on it.

Now, Nancy Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel have said that they had no knowledge of that.

So you're telling me that dozens of people in groups, some aligning with the Democrats, had no knowledge of these e-mails?

BLITZER: No. The only point I'm saying is Brian Ross, who broke the story on ABC News, says he got it from a Republican source.

MCHENRY: Well, certainly. That would be a wonderful ploy by...

BLITZER: So you don't believe him. Is that what you're saying?

MCHENRY: I'm not saying I don't believe him. I'm saying that if the Democrats were to do this, they're smart enough to let somebody else do the handing over.*

Later, after being asked by Blitzer about resignations, McHenry tried to hide behind Bill Clinton's infamous member:

MCHENRY: Look, give me a break on this resignation stuff. Gerry Studs, who in 1983 actually had sex with an underage male page, did not resign from Congress. In fact, he was just voted a censure by the House of Representatives, with 79 Democrats voting against that censure motion. He was promoted to committee chairmanship later in 1992, given a standing ovation.

President Bill Clinton actually had sex with an intern in the White House. He didn't resign. So you're telling me the speaker of the House, because he was at some point possibly given a questionable e-mail and did not kill the man?

Charles Rangel (D, NY) had this to say about McHenry's throwback sh*t-throwing:

RANGEL: I agree with Patrick that if Republicans were going to resign just because they made mistakes, the president would have resigned on Iraq, resigned on the fact that the terrorists really are out of hand, half a dozen Republican members of Congress have been indicted, so they would resign because of corruption. Some have.

The deficit is swelling. Katrina is there. So, for God's sake, all the Republicans would resign if just making mistakes. Even the American public has no confidence in the president or the Republican Party.

Heh, indeed.

*Previously on Reliable Sources, Bill Press had a great response to the notion of the Democratic leadership orchestrating a 'Vast Left Wing Conspiracy' to bring down the GOP before November: "I wish Democrats were organized enough and smart enough to have engineered this entire crisis. They can't organization [sic] a two-car funeral. So you can't blame this on the Democrats."

[Assistant Village Idiot]

Hilzoy, thank you for clarifying, but you may jump too quickly. Someone has sat on this information from April until just before the election. I accuse no one, but the list of suspects must start with those most sympathetic to Democratic electoral interests. Whoever it turns out to be, it is far more likely to be fan of the Democrats than it is to be John Hindraker.

My usual advice on all scandals is to wait until more complete information comes out. I am content with that advice this time as well.

[cleek]

Someone has sat on this information from April until just before the election.

that particular point is of interest to nobody except partisan Repbulicans looking to distract from the issue at hand.

[matttbastard]

Shorter AVI:
It's all about Clinton's penis. It always swings back to Clinton's penis - especially when a Republican is caught with his pants down.

[matttbastard]

Ok, 'Shorter Republican Party at large' would have been more apt - AVI made a convenient scapegoat (BTW how do we know s/he wasn't involved with the scandal?! Somebody better email Hinderaker ASAP.)

This is, as cleek and others have pointed out, an attempt at distraction, born of desperation, from a party clearly on the ropes. Regardless of the motivation, timing, or baseless smears against the Democratic Party leadership, the Republican's electoral prospects in November are looking grim.

[liberal japonicus]

My usual advice on all scandals is to wait until more complete information comes out. I am content with that advice this time as well.

If that's the case, then perhaps you shouldn't be discussing the bright line of 16 or 18 or whatever until all the facts are in.

[Jesurgislac]

liberal japonicus: If that's the case, then perhaps you shouldn't be discussing the bright line of 16 or 18 or whatever until all the facts are in.

I don't see why. AVI is just advising everyone else to "wait until more complete information comes out". AVI is clearly happy to discuss this scandal: he, she, or it is also content to advise others not to. This is the principle of "do as I say, not do as I do": AVI might even be Mark Foley himself, who practices that principle with a vengeance.

[cleek]

AVI might even be Mark Foley himself

i suggest we assume he is, until he can prove otherwise.

[matttbastard]

I'm not measuring anything for anybody.

[liberal japonicus]

MB, what are you wearing?

[matttbastard]

Shorts and a...

hey!

(Strangely enough, I had a 'date' of sorts yesterday - and no, she didn't give me a hand job, although we did visit a feminist sex shop).

[hilzoy]

AVI: the thing is, it's not at all clear to me that someone did wait until right before the election to make this public. It was leaked to the press last year, but they didn't want to go with it while the page was not willing to go on the record. It somehow got to CREW last July, and they turned it over to the FBI. It got to ABC in early September, but they only got to it recently. Someone seems to have been trying to interest the press in this for quite some time.

[liberal japonicus]

More facts, inconvenient as them may be...

[Carleton Wu]

Someone has sat on this information from April until just before the election.

Thing is, it's *possible* that some Dems knew and held back for political purposes. But it's *certain* that several elected Repubs knew (at least, knew that there was something they should've looked further into, but choose not to). They could've opened thing thing up anytime in the past two years (or more), but didn't. For political purposes. They knew enough to warn incoming pages, but not enough to put at stop to it, either quietly or publicly.
Plenty of hypothetical condemnation for hypothetical democratic behavior, but no actual condemnation for actual republican behavior...

Dan Rather sure knows who we are.

Im not sure that's a functional response to "you're a bunch of f*ing idiots and here's why". Braver, smarter people might choose to explain how they are not idiots, but I can understand why you'd prefer to discuss something else instead, God being on the side with the most artillery and all.
I mean, Dan Rather knows a lot of people. Dan knows who Kim Jong Il is, for example- hey, maybe you and Kim can get together at the next People-Who-Are-Known-By-Dan bash & share tips on propaganda and torture.

Does his spine glow red during intercourse?

I've never heard it called that, but hey, it's as good a nickname as any.