Will Hastert hold on until the end of his term?

[davefoc]

Is Hastert going to survive the Foley scandal, at least until the next election, when he might lose his job anyway if the Democrats win control of the hous?


There are a few other questions assoicated with the above:

1. On a strictly political basis what is the Republicans best course of action with regard to Hastert. Dump him or hold tough?

2. How effective are the Republican talking points at mitigating the damage from this scandal?

3. On a strictly ethical basis, should Hastert be forced out?

ETA: I turned on the option that allows people to see how you voted.

This article persuaded me that it was more likely than not that Hastert's not going to serve out his term:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100601888.html

[Rob Lister]

1) Dump him for what?
2) about average...better than Reps giving Foley a standing ovation on the house floor as the Dems did a ways back in a different circumstance.
3) Not for any reason I see

[Esperdome]

I voted that he would serve out his term.

If this scandal had happened in 2002, he probably would have stepped down. Now, he is too big
a part of the machine.

Edited to add; They can find someone more dispensable to throw under the bus.

[Rob Lister]

Throw under the bus for what?

[fuelair]

For ignoring page porking (well, in his heart anyway) for a provably long time when they are the "family values" party.

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by fuelair

For ignoring page porking (well, in his heart anyway) for a provably long time when they are the "family values" party.

Thanks. I guess I'm a little behind the news of late.

Is there any evidence he ignored said same?

[Rob Lister]

Sense this is such a slow thread, I did a little research and it appears that the fingers of a cover-up...at least until such time as is suited them...points at the dems...

Quote:

Various Democrats are accusing Republicans of covering up Congressman Mark Foley's boy problem, a charge for which there is no evidence. One wonders, though, whether that is exactly what the Democratic Party 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 IMs became public after they were sent to "political operatives favorable to Democrats." But when did that happen? The messages themselves are three years old. When did the Democrats find out about them? Did they sit on them for a while, so they could use them as an "October surprise" for maximum political benefit?

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

Yesterday, eleven Republican Congressmen sent letters to Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and Rahnm Emanuel, asking them to cooperate with the House Ethics Committee's investigation by appearing before the Committee and giving testimony under oath. The letters say, in part:

We fully agree that anyone with knowledge of Foley's activities, who then attempted to conceal such activities, should be held accountable. Today, the bipartisan Ethics Committee announced that they will be conducting a complete investigation of the facts surrounding the case.

We support this decision and also believe that the seriousness of this goes beyond partisan politics and hope that you will join us in demonstrating full cooperation from your Members and and political operatives as this investigation continues to unfold.

Just as it must be determined whether any Republican Members or political operatives were aware of and attempted to conceal Mr. Foley's activities, it must also be determined whether any Democrat Members or political operatives were aware of, and attempted to conceal these same activities.

Therefore, we respectfully ask that you appear, under oath, before the House Ethics Committee.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015473.php

I love a good october surprise. Is this not exactly what this is?

tsk.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

Thanks. I guess I'm a little behind the news of late.

Is there any evidence he ignored said same?

Understanding that I have little interest in republicans other than seeing them removed from office(and I freely admit to prejudice on this matter as 2000 election made me a Yellow Dog Democrat), one of the theoretically important republican Senators stated clearly and with no weasel words (a pleasant surprise) that he personally told Hastird(in person, not through flunkeys) about it several months ago. Regardless of anyone else who knew, few disagree that Hastird failed to do his job (including Hastird).

[Esperdome]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

Sense this is such a slow thread, I did a little research and it appears that the fingers of a cover-up...at least until such time as is suited them...points at the dems...


http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015473.php

I love a good october surprise. Is this not exactly what this is?

tsk.

This is a very typical Republican response, blame the people that exposed the corruption, not the corruption or the republican leadership that knew of the corruption and did NOTHING.

[Rob Lister]

Well, is the blame correctly placed?

[Esperdome]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

Well, is the blame correctly placed?

If you want my honest opinion on it, I think its really much ado about nothing, just as was the Monica affair in the 90's. A pox on both their houses.

But since it is in the realm of politics, we will hear about who knew what, when, and where. The Blame Game will take over the news outlets maybe up till the elections.

And none of it will help us to get good government.

[TragicMonkey]

I can't decide. Is it better for our beloved representatives and senators to spend their time sexually harrassing children, or accepting bribes? If only, only, only, some forward-thinking politician would think outside the box and discover a way to do both at once.

[hgc]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

Sense this is such a slow thread, I did a little research and it appears that the fingers of a cover-up...at least until such time as is suited them...points at the dems...


http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015473.php

I love a good october surprise. Is this not exactly what this is?

tsk.

So far, we know that Hastert, Boehner, Reynolds and Shimkus knew about Foley. We know of no Democratic members of the House that knew about Foley. We know of no "Democratic operatives" that knew about Foley. Rob, you're reminding me of Norman's final moments in "I, Mudd," thrown out of kilter by a rash of illogic.

[mamapajamas]

Originally Posted by Esperdome

If you want my honest opinion on it, I think its really much ado about nothing, just as was the Monica affair in the 90's. A pox on both their houses.

But since it is in the realm of politics, we will hear about who knew what, when, and where. The Blame Game will take over the news outlets maybe up till the elections.

And none of it will help us to get good government.

Bingo.

You are right... the finger pointing will go on, and it won't help anything.

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by hgc

So far, we know that Hastert, Boehner, Reynolds and Shimkus knew about Foley.

What did they know specifically?

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

What did they know specifically?

At least there are press reports that information was provided to the gop congressmen hgc listed, as opposed to crevice-derived speculation from the blogger you cited.

(Not to imply that I consider the story important. The press frenzy is utterly absurd.)

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by varwoche

At least there are press reports that information was provided to the gop congressmen...

What information, specifically?

[mamapajamas]

Originally Posted by varwoche

At least there are press reports that information was provided to the gop congressmen hgc listed, as opposed to crevice-derived speculation from the blogger you cited.

(Not to imply that I consider the story important. The press frenzy is utterly absurd.)

And this is precisely the problem we're having sorting this thing out. WHAT info, as Rob keeps saying, was provided?

There are two different sets of information involved here... e-mails, which even the FBI found too innocuous to be actionable, and IMs which came to light just last week... and were to a Congressional page who was over 18 at the time. (PS: The age of consent in D.C. is 16 in any case.)

So... which set of information are we talking about here???

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by mamapajamas

So... which set of information are we talking about here???

Clearly the answer is "we do not yet know" when asked for specifically for specifics. Blogs and opinion peices, and sometimes news articles, deal not with specifics but rather with implication, rumor, and guesses. You can sometimes gage the level of the intentionally(?) misleading reporting by the use of passive voice.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

Clearly the answer is "we do not yet know" when asked for specifically for specifics. Blogs and opinion peices, and sometimes news articles, deal not with specifics but rather with implication, rumor, and guesses. You can sometimes gage the level of the intentionally(?) misleading reporting by the use of passive voice.

Clearly, the answer is for every American who disdains the Republican and Democratic parties to write in vote Kinky Friedman as president in 2008. Given that about 35% of the US eligible voters don't vote, a successful write in campaign would put Kinky in the White House, which is better than Clintonian kinkiness in the white house -- flash to Pink Floyd's Have a Cigar at this point -- and far better than whatever hangups the current residents have so far kept discrete.

Kinky for President in 2008: Why The Hell Not? Start the viral internet campaign NOW. At least he's funny on purpose.


DR

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

What information, specifically?

Pardon in advance but I'm going to answer from memory and thus I will be less specific than the not-very-specific press reports.

Foley's former chief of staff claims that he conveyed facts about Foley's misbehavoir to Hastert's office a couple of years ago.

And the NY representative who oversees the page program has apologized profusely (in a new campaign ad) for not acting on his knowledge of Foley's misbehavoir proactively.

I only have one rhetorical question (for myself) left: Why am I running fact-checking errands for someone who demonstrates not a lot of interest in the facts, based on your cite of a blogger who is engaging in pure speculation which you present here as if accepted fact, and based on your own admission to unawareness?

Quote:

Blogs and opinion peices, and sometimes news articles, deal not with specifics but rather with implication, rumor, and guesses. You can sometimes gage the level of the intentionally(?) misleading reporting by the use of passive voice.

This isn't even vaguely coherent.

[RandFan]

I have to admit. I've been reading blogs, listening to talk radio, watching news, and reading threads and I'm not certain that I know exactly what Foley did that was wrong? Was Foley a sexual predator? Was he a pedophile? Is it the hypocritical homophobe-family value BS? Hey, I can understand that. But are people upset because of the hypocrisy or are they really upset that this man had a graphic sexual conversation with someone who was 16?

Quote:

fuelair

One of the theoretically important republican Senators stated clearly and with no weasel words (a pleasant surprise) that he personally told Hastird(in person, not through flunkeys) about it several months ago

Told him what?

Quote:

varwoche

And the NY representative who oversees the page program has apologized profusely (in a new campaign ad) for not acting on his knowledge of Foley's misbehavoir proactively.

And what did the NY Representative know?

Quote:

I only have one rhetorical question (for myself) left: Why am I running fact-checking errands for someone who demonstrates not a lot of interest in the facts...

I can't speak for Rob but I really feel out of the loop on this one. Everyone is talking about the evil this man has committed and I can't quite see it. What was it? Isn't the age of consent in Washington DC 16?

For the record, I'm not comfortable with adults having sex with young people especially those that are in a position of power. A certain cigar smoking president comes to mind. Also for the record, I never quite knew why there was such an uproar over that.

But foley didn't even have sex AFAIK.

Are we all being consistent in either our outrage or defense?

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I can't speak for Rob but I really feel out of the loop on this one. Everyone is talking about the evil this man has committed and I can't quite see it. What was it? Isn't the age of consent in Washington DC 16?

I wrote roughly this in another thread on Foley:

Quote:

1. Foley is in a position of authority over the adolescent. The difference between consensualality and coercion is not completely clear in this situation and as such Foley is attempting to use a position of authority to gain sexual gratification. Something that I see as unethical behavior.

2. If a parent entrusts their adolescent to an adult under the pretense of that adolescent gaining experience in government and the adult violates that trust the adult is guilty of a great moral violation, IMHO.

3. In this case the adolescent is entering into adulthood and as such the page program also represents an agreement between the adolescent and the supervising adult. Foley has violated that agreement with his behavior.

4. In this case Foley is clearly an individual in a position to abuse his authority over the adolescent. Any kind of sexual liason in that situation is a violation of trust between the adult and the organization that he works for. This was one of the reasons that I thought it was reasonable to condemn Clinton for the Lewinsky affair.

5. Foley's behavior is wildly hypocritical given his political stands and political activities on the issue of adult child sexual predation.

6. Given the politics of the situation, Foley can be seen as a person wildly disloyal to the Republican Party, an organization that supported him and to which he was a member.

7. Clearly the behavior was a great violation of trust between himself and most of the people who elected him

For me Foley's behavior was reprehensible and I have a somewhat open mind about the possibility that a sexual liason between an older man a male adolescent may be in the interests of both of them in some situations.

It does appear that Foley had sex with one of the pages after he turned twenty one. It appears that Foley did have a policy of not having physical sex with underage individuals.

But is anything, Foley did illegal? I'm not sure but I think possibly not. The sexual harassment angle hangs on various technicalities and the willingness of a victim to support the charges.

Should anything that Foley did be illegal? I'm not sure. I think 16 year olds need to be treated as adults in most situations and this might be a situation where I would be leaning to the idea that it is time to be letting them deal with something like this without government oversight. The kicker is whether a responsible adult is free to troll for adolescents for explicit sexual communication and potentially sex as they grow older when the adolescent is clearly participating in a government program where being subjected to sexually explicit communication with adult leaders was not part of the program as represented.

The view that I have that seems to set me at odds with most of the posters in this thread is that assuming the facts are roughly as I understand them I think the worst ethical violations here were not by Foley but by Hastert and anybody else that participated in what appears to be a cover up. Randfan is right, that there are ambiguities and holes in the information that has been released. But when only a Republican member of the page committee was notified of the troubling emails by Foley, I think it is hard to see this as anything but an attempted coverup. Speaking as a heterosexual man, if I knew that a heterosexual man had written this kind of "overly friendly" email to a female page I would have had absolutely no doubt about the completely inappropriate nature of the communication and the potentially illegal, unethical and damaging nature of what the adult writing the email intended. If I did anything other than do something that initiated some kind of investigation into this incident I would see myself as cooperating with the unethical behavior of the person that wrote the email and potentially as allowing other young people to be exposed to a predator.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by davefoc

...I think the worst ethical violations here were not by Foley but by Hastert and anybody else that participated in what appears to be a cover up.

What did Hastert know and when did he know it?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by RandFan

What did Hastert know and when did he know it?

Someon knew in 2000. Lawmaker Saw Foley Messages In 2000

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Told him what? And what did the NY Representative know?

I don't know (and don't particularly care).

Quote:

Are we all being consistent in either our outrage or defense?

I have not expressed outrage (because I am not outraged) nor am I defending anybody so I can't answer this.

[hammegk]

Robert Novak.

Quote:

House GOP leaders, who had started the week shooting at each other, now were on the same page.

Quite a turn of phrase, mmmmm?

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I have to admit. I've been reading blogs, listening to talk radio, watching news, and reading threads and I'm not certain that I know exactly what Foley did that was wrong? Was Foley a sexual predator? Was he a pedophile? Is it the hypocritical homophobe-family value BS? Hey, I can understand that. But are people upset because of the hypocrisy or are they really upset that this man had a graphic sexual conversation with someone who was 16?

I agree with this, from a personal level. I posted elsewhere here that Foley appeared to be harmless, and nobody has yet accused him of molesting anybody. But from a political standpoint, I think it is perfectly logical that Democrats, fundies and anybody else pelt the GOPs with rotten tomatoes because of their "outrage" at Clinton's immoral behavior. Oh, sure, they'll say they were really only concerned about "lying under oath", but we all know differently. I distinctly recall many people saying how Clinton was a predator because Monica was so young and innocent.

And no, I'm not going to dig up any damn links. If you were paying attention at the time, you remember it.

Originally Posted by RandFan

I can't speak for Rob but I really feel out of the loop on this one. Everyone is talking about the evil this man has committed and I can't quite see it. What was it? Isn't the age of consent in Washington DC 16?

Even if the age of consent isn't 16, most of us have enough experience with hormone-soaked 16-year-old boys to know that they are unlikely to be "innocent victims" of anybody. If they played along, they knew what they were doing. I'd be much more worried about a 16-year-old "boy" being a sexual predator than succumbing to one.

Originally Posted by RandFan

For the record, I'm not comfortable with adults having sex with young people especially those that are in a position of power. A certain cigar smoking president comes to mind. Also for the record, I never quite knew why there was such an uproar over that.

Well, I'm 15 years older than my wife, so I disagree. And yes, she is in a position of power (over me).

Originally Posted by RandFan

But Foley didn't even have sex AFAIK.

Are we all being consistent in either our outrage or defense?

Yes, we are being consistent. Consistently stupid, but at least consistent. If you're going to be outraged by Clinton's activities with someone who was unquestionably an adult, then you certainly ought to be outraged by Foley's activities, whether or not you can decide what "sex" means.

[marksman]

I'm not sure it can accurately be stated that Foley is guilty of sexual harrassment, either.

First, I don't think there's evidence he ever solicited a page assigned to his own office. So he wasn't in a direct position of authority over that page, unlike, say, Clinton's authority over White House interns, which was direct. Nor was he ever assigned to the committee that oversaw the page program.

Second, the defense I always heard when people brought up the sexual harrassment angle in the Lewinsky scandal was that the Clinton-Lewinsky relationship was consensual. (Never mind that consent isn't a defense to sexual harassment.) Is there evidence that Foley solicitated somebody after that person told him to stop? I haven't seen it.

Third, were Foley's actions hypocritical? I thought it was pretty clear that Foley was gay. Articles had been outed as early as 2003, although he denied the reports. Foley bucked both his party and his church (he claims to be Roman Catholic) with pro-choice stances. He has backed many laws against internet sex pedophiles, but it doesn't appear that Foley was a pedophile himself.

Basically, Foley's conduct is skeevy. It's not exactly sexual harrassmenet, but it's kinda close. It's not exactly pedophilia, but it's kinda close.

What was Hastert supposed to do even if Hastert knew everything we know now? Foley didn't break any laws. He didn't commit sexual harrassment. He didn't comit pedophilia. He didn't break any internet sex crimes. His only crime appears to be liking young men barely over the age of consent, seeking such companions in the workplace (but not from direct subordinates), and trying (not very successfully) to hide his sexual orientation. Was Hastert to call for an investigation of this? On what grounds?

The problem is wholly political. The religious right wishes that Foley's conduct was illegal. They wish that the age of consent was 21 across the nation, that homosexuality was outlawed.

And the Democrats hope that their disgust at Foley will keep the religious right from the polls.

That's it. I can't fathom on what basis Hastert should have to step down because I can't figure out what he did wrong in the Foley scandal.

[marksman]

Originally Posted by Tricky

Yes, we are being consistent. Consistently stupid, but at least consistent. If you're going to be outraged by Clinton's activities with someone who was unquestionably an adult, then you certainly ought to be outraged by Foley's activities, whether or not you can decide what "sex" means.

And if you weren't outraged at Clinton's activities, then you certainly ought not to be outraged at Foley's activities (much less at Hastert).

I wasn't outraged at Clinton's activities. I'm not outraged at Foley's activity. The fact that this scandal has spead to other offices is just plan silly.

The only people who appear to be consistent are the religious right, who was outraged at Clinton and at Foley. They are consistently bigoted.

[boloboffin]

Powerline's sad pathetic attempt to make this a Democratic scandal would be better received if there were a single shred of evidence that any Democratic staffer had anything to do with these revelations.

Brian Ross says he's been talking to Republicans. It's Republicans engaged in the circular firing squad for the benefit of the cameras. It's Hastert's office that comes up again and again as being told about Foley's page problem, now as far back as 2002.

Perhaps the Democrats planned this when they were finalizing the Apollo landing storyboards.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by marksman

The only people who appear to be consistent are the religious right, who was outraged at Clinton and at Foley. They are consistently bigoted.

And of course, people like you and I who are outraged by neither. However, there are a lot of people who claim they were only outraged because Clinton lied under oath, yet they are not outraged that he was questioned about his (perfectly legal) sex life under oath. I can do without that kind of hypocrite too.

As for Hastert, I have no problem with him, as a person, remaining mum about another person's private sex life. As a Republican leader, he is stupid for not addressing this ticking bomb as soon as he found out.

[marksman]

Originally Posted by Tricky

However, there are a lot of people who claim they were only outraged because Clinton lied under oath, yet they are not outraged that he was questioned about his (perfectly legal) sex life under oath. I can do without that kind of hypocrite too.

Well, although I wasn't outraged by Clinton's infidelities, I totally understand why a defendant in a sexual harassment lawsuit would be asked about other instances of the defendant soliciting sexual favors from a subordinate. Which is not to say Clinton engaged in perjury, but that the question itself was not frivolous in context.

Quote:

As a Republican leader, he is stupid for not addressing this ticking bomb as soon as he found out.

What was he supposed to do with the information of Foley's perfectly legal actions that, while distasteful, particularly to his constituents, violated no rules? Was Hastert supposed to out Foley? We has supposed to convene a press conference and say "Mark Foley has done nothing illegal or worthy of Congressional censure, but I just wanted you all to know that I think what he is doing is immoral and sick."

I don't get what Hastert's options were with respect to Foley.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Tricky

Well, I'm 15 years older than my wife, so I disagree. And yes, she is in a position of power (over me).

I wasn't speaking in terms of relative age. My wife is 6 years older than me. I'm talking about a relationship between a much older adult and an adolescent and I only said I was uncomfortable with it.

Otherwise, thanks for the response.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by marksman

Well, although I wasn't outraged by Clinton's infidelities, I totally understand why a defendant in a sexual harassment lawsuit would be asked about other instances of the defendant soliciting sexual favors from a subordinate. Which is not to say Clinton engaged in perjury, but that the question itself was not frivolous in context.

Well, I disagree because the question should be as to whether he sexually harassed subordinates, not did he have sex. And of course, no sexual harassment by Clinton was ever proven. But I see your point.

Originally Posted by marksman

What was he supposed to do with the information of Foley's perfectly legal actions that, while distasteful, particularly to his constituents, violated no rules? Was Hastert supposed to out Foley? We has supposed to convene a press conference and say "Mark Foley has done nothing illegal or worthy of Congressional censure, but I just wanted you all to know that I think what he is doing is immoral and sick."

The smart thing to do would have been to confront Foley and tell him in no uncertain terms to cut it out (for the good of the party, not because it was illegal). And oh yeah, document it fully. Had he done so, he would still have caught some grief for the cover up but the "why didn't you do something" charge would have been largely defused.

Most smart people keep a CMA file.

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by marksman

I don't get what Hastert's options were with respect to Foley.

For me, the answer to this is obvious, but given the number of people here that seem to disagree, perhaps I have let my biases influence my thinking.

If I am in charge of an organization and somebody comes to me with this kind of evidence I would be very concerned. At a minimum I would discuss the situation with the people enpowered to oversee the youth program. I would follow up and find out what kind of investigation they proposed to do. I would talk the situation over with the director of human resources if my organization had such an individual. I would want to see that a reasonable effort had been made to talk to individuals in the youth program to see if any others had received similar communications. If there was any evidence developed that indicated possible criminal behavior I would want to see law enforcement authorities involved.

For me, Hastert's non-actions are strong evidence of the intent to cover up this situation and given that Hastert couldn't know the extend Foley's behavior it is evidence of a cover up done with an understanding that people might be endangered by the actions of the individual being covered for.