I'm Too Disgusted

By: pitin
Published On: 9/30/2006 6:49:38 PM

I should be writing a proper blog post about this, but I can't without using language that would get me in trouble.

It appears that damn well the entire GOP leadership knew about Foley and his pedophilia.  Speaker Hastert, Majority Leader Boehner, National Republican Campaign Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds, Chairman of the House Page Board John Shimkus and Rodney Alexander (R-LA), the pages sponsor all knew about Foley's Impropriety. Sources Here and Here

The only Democrat on the House Page Board was not given the information.

Nate de la Piedra is the Online Outreach Coordinator for the Andrew Hurst for Congress 2006 Campaign. The ideas expressed herein belong to Nate de la Piedra and do not necessarily represent those of Andrew Hurst, his advisors, staff, or "The Campaign".


RK won't let me edit diary right now (pitin - 9/30/2006 7:27:04 PM)
so here is my update...

[UPDATE]Warning Very Explicit, I literally threw up after reading this.  The Instant Message transcript has been released, here is the link on AmericaBlog.  Keep in mind, this is a U.S. Representative who is chair of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited children discussin masterbation techniques and other sexual details with a 16 year-old boy.

OMFG!!! (Loudoun County Dem - 9/30/2006 7:34:15 PM)
...WOW, the repugs are NOT going to want to watch the Daily Show or Colbert next week (or Olbermann)...

The great Josh Marshall asks some embarrassing questions (PM - 9/30/2006 9:43:24 PM)

[GOP Congressman] Alexander's Chief of Staff calls [GOP Speaker Denny] Hastert's office about emails "he and Congressman Alexander were concerned about it." But he doesn't tell the guy in Hastert's office what the emails say. The two staffs meet again later. But somehow what the emails actually say? Still not discussed.

They send Alexander's Chief of Staff to the [GOP] Clerk's Office. The Clerk asks to see the emails. But "Congressman Alexander's office declined citing the fact that the family wished to maintain as much privacy as possible and simply wanted the contact to stop."

When asked by the Clerk whether the emails are "of a sexual nature", Alexander's Chief of Staff tells him they're not but calls them "over-friendly."

Now, here's the problem as far as I can see this. Supposedly, no one in a position of authority ever lays eyes on these emails, presumably because they're relatively innocuous. But at the same time they can't be seen by anyone else because "family wished to maintain as much privacy as possible." Those two points don't really square in my mind.

So the Clerk and [GOP] Rep. Shimkus meet with [GOP Congressman Mark] Foley having never seen the emails in question -- either because they're basically innocuous or because of concern for the family's privacy. Take your pick.

So they give Foley a clean bill of health having never reviewed the emails that raised the concerns.

And Hastert's staffers?

"Mindful of the sensitivity to the parent's wishes to protect their child's privacy and believing that they had promptly reported what they knew to the proper authorities [the three members of Hastert's office] did not discuss the matter with others in the Speaker's Office."

Basically, everyone's so mindful of the sensitivity of the matter they manage never to investigate what actually happened. Isn't that what they're saying?

And also, as luck would have it, the extreme sensitivity to the parent's feelings helps keep the entire matter hermetically sealed from Speaker Hastert.

So everyone's very mindful of the privacy of the family. But somehow [GOP Majority Leader] Rep. Boehner and [GOP] Rep. Reynolds found out about it from Rep. Alexander. And Reynolds mentioned it to Hastert. But Hastert doesn't remember. And Boehner told Hastert about it too. And Hastert said it was being taken care of. Only Hastert never heard about it...

Josh Marshall writes so economically that I had to basically cut and paste this.

But here's what I want to add.  This will not be investigated unless the House turns Democratic.  Where are you going to get a good investigation. From the Justice Department, run by Torquemada Gonzalez?  House Government Reform under Tom Davis? 

Maybe Bush will make Jeff Gannon a Special Prosecutor -- I mean he's as qualified to do that job as he was to lob softball questions to W for the phony "Talon News."  You remember Jeff Gannon, the guy who had the run of the White House?

The House Ethics Committee? What A Waste. (PM - 9/30/2006 10:02:20 PM)

Feb. 2, 2005

Appointments of Rep. Doc Hastings and Other DeLay Allies to House Ethics Committee Deals Final Blow to Ethics in Congress

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today’s appointment by House Republican leaders of Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) as chairman of the House ethics committee, along with two allies of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay as members of the ethics committee, is the knockout blow to ethics enforcement in Congress. Hastings replaces former chairman Joel Hefley (R-Colo.), who was removed because he led a unanimous ethics committee in admonishing DeLay for three separate ethics violations.

Hastings has a reputation in the House as a loyal servant to House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). As a veteran member of the ethics committee, Hastings deserves praise for originally voting to admonish DeLay for ethics violations. But that vote was cast under the leadership of Hefley, who has since been dumped because he took the job of ethics enforcement seriously.

Now Hastings is in charge, and there is little in his background to suggest he will exercise independence from party politics or House Republican leaders.

“Hastings’ primary goal is to become chairman of the powerful House Rules Committee,” said Frank Clemente, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch. “You don’t get there by being tough on the people and party that control such a prestigious appointment.”***

What a hotbed of inactivity.  Since 1998 the House Ethics Committee has completed six investigations, assuming the list on their website is complete.  http://www.house.gov...

House Ethics Chairman Doc Hastings----Abramoff Pal (PM - 9/30/2006 10:18:24 PM)

That's what the local paper in Washington state says about Doc Hastings.

Remember the Marianas sweatshops?

WASHINGTON -- Though the Northern Mariana Islands may be 5,000 miles from his central Washington congressional district, Republican U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings showed a curious interest in the U.S. commonwealth during his first term in Congress.

As a junior member of the House Resources Committee, Hastings served on a subcommittee that had jurisdiction over the Northern Marianas and was considering a Democratic proposal to impose new labor and immigration laws on the Pacific islands commonwealth.

At the apparent urging of a lobbying team hired by the Northern Marianas' government and headed by a lobbyist now under federal criminal investigation, Hastings spoke out against the proposal, saying any changes in the labor laws could "crush" the islands' "fragile" economy.

Now, as chairman of the House Ethics Committee, Hastings' interest in the Northern Mariana Islands and his relationship with its lobbying team -- led by controversial lobbyist Jack Abramoff -- has come back to haunt him. It also has provided fodder for critics who say Hastings should resign from the committee or, at a minimum, recuse himself from any deliberations involving Texas Republican U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, the powerful House majority leader whose ties to Abramoff could leave him facing new ethics charges.***

As part of the sales pitch to convince the commonwealth's government to hire Preston Gates, Abramoff wrote to the Northern Marianas' lieutenant governor in early 1995. In the letter, Abramoff bragged that one of the firm's senior partners, Lloyd Meeds, had an "excellent relationship" with Hastings. Abramoff also cited his own credentials, saying he had "extensive relations" with Republican members of the House Resources Committee.

Two weeks later, in a similar letter to the commonwealth's governor, Abramoff again mentioned Meeds had an "excellent relationship" with Hastings.

Over the years, Preston Gates' political action committee contributed $14,000 to Hastings' campaigns, including $1,000 from Abramoff. One of those contributions, for $500, came in conjunction with a Hastings fundraiser on June 26, 1996 -- the same day as the subcommittee hearing on the Northern Mariana Islands.

In the 1990s, the Northern Mariana Islands faced sharp criticism from Democrats on Capitol Hill, who alleged factory workers, many of them from China and other Asian nations, toiled in "sweatshops" and were paid less than the U.S. minimum wage. At the same time, clothing produced in the Northern Marianas was allowed to carry the "Made in the USA" label.

Was this a job for Tom Davis's Government Reform Committee? (Andrea Chamblee - 10/1/2006 12:38:32 AM)
"The Committee on Government Reform is the main investigative committee in the U.S. House of Representatives. It has jurisdiction to investigate any federal program and any matter with federal policy implications."

"Any Federal program" would include the House Page Program, and the cover up would have federal implications.

Tom Davis is one of the most senior and powerful of the Republican Leadership.  He knew or should have known about the cover up.  Tom, where were you?

this is... (littlepunk - 10/1/2006 12:52:14 AM)
...an absurd accusation.  it seems like the folks who knew about it were boner, hastert, alexander, reynolds...maybe i'm missing somebody.  if those are the four, and they kept it under wraps, well i think they have some explaining to do.  to assume that anybody else knew a thing without having read it anywhere, well i guess that's what blogs are for, to fuel crap like that.  i am very willing to believe that with this latest revelation that the upper echelons of house leadership knew - that is boner, reynolds, and hastert - that the lid was shut very tightly over it.  otherwise this definitely would have come out sooner.

how was this revealed - did foley's democratic opponent release it?  not like it matters, but if he did, damn, talk about opposition research.

No, I think Andrea's merely saying (PM - 10/1/2006 9:15:04 AM)
that an ethical House leadership would have made this known to Davis.  (Or she might be saying that since all the pages knew about Foley, how could Davis NOT know.)  I don't want to put words into her mouth, however.  Shifting it over to the lame Ethics Committee is one way to keep it out of the hands of Henry Waxman (D-CA) who is a pit bull on ethics issues.  Waxman is the only reason Davis has done anything on ethics.

However, for all you conspiracy theorist fans, google Franklin Coverup and read about the allegations that there is a nationwide pedophile ring with prominent politicians and other prominent figures involved.  (Two of the main originators of the theory were former Republican state senators in Nebraska.)  Beware, though, it is stomach-turning.

p.s. I love the spelling of boner instead of Boehner.  I believe he pronounces it "Bonner."

I will say that we will not have a complete investigation done while the GOP controls the House.

I'm saying Davis is a GOP/NRCC money machine and insider (Andrea Chamblee - 10/1/2006 9:32:16 PM)
Davis said the Reform Committee jurisdiction over anything and everything:
* when he subpoenaed Terri Schiavo for a Reform Committee investigation,
* when he blocked the Vienna SmartGrowth by threatening a Reform Committee investigation,
* when he threatened Major League Baseball with an investigation,
* when he threatened the Defense Department with a Reform Committee investigation if   ICG client Artel didn't get a contract for a service the department didn't want.

If this came up in 2001, when he was an ultimate insider on the NRCC, how could he not know? Did he look the other way, or just bury his head in the sand?  How could he do nothing if his committee has the broad responsibilities that he claims?

Does Tom Davis Agree With Chris Shays? (PM - 10/1/2006 9:21:38 AM)
Representative Christopher Shays, Republican of Connecticut, said any leader who had been aware of Mr. Foley’s behavior and failed to take action should step down. “If they knew or should have known the extent of this problem, they should not serve in leadership,” Mr. Shays said.


I'd like someone to ask Mr. Davis that question.  In other words, Mr. Davis, is a little bit of coddling of sex offenders okay by you?