ABC's The Note reported Hastert's plan of action to protect congressional pages -- without noting it includes no Democrats
SUMMARY: The Note, ABC News' political newsletter, reported that Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert would meet with Rep. John Shimkus, chairman of the House Page Board, and his staff to "review ways to protect pages while they are serving in the nation's Capitol" in the wake of the revelations of former Rep. Mark Foley's allegedly inappropriate email communications with a congressional page, but it did not note the absence of Democrats in Hastert's plans.
The October 2 edition of The Note, ABC News' political newsletter, reported that Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) would meet that day with Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), chairman of the House Page Board, and Shimkus's staff to "review ways to protect pages while they are serving in the nation's Capitol" in the wake of the revelations of former Rep. Mark Foley's (R-FL) allegedly inappropriate email communications with a 16-year-old male congressional page, but it did not note the absence of Democrats in Hastert's plans. Rep. Dale Kildee (MI) is the Democratic member on the committee.
Only separately, The Note cited an October 2 Washington Post article by staff writers Charles Babington and Jonathan Weisman quoting an anonymous aide in the Republican leadership saying that the GOP had "erred in not notifying the three-member, bipartisan panel that oversees the page system" after Hastert reportedly learned of the email communications in late 2005. "Instead, they left it to the panel chairman, Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.), to confront Foley." Indeed, Roll Call reported on September 30 that Shimkus confronted Foley about the matter in 2005, but Kildee said in a September 30 press statement that he was never informed about Foley's communications. The Note also reported that Hastert "will be making a series of media interviews regarding Foley." Will interviewers ask Hastert why his plans to address the integrity of the congressional page system include no Democrats?
From the October 2 edition of ABC News' The Note:
The goal for Republicans on L'Affaire Foley is to drive home the message that they have nothing to hide. That's why Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) called for a Justice Department investigation into not only Foley's actions but also Congress's handling of the matter once it learned of the contacts. That's also why some Republicans in the toughest races -- Shays and Simmons in Connecticut, Wilson in New Mexico, and Fitzpatrick in Pennsylvania -- have taken steps to show some independence on Foley.
The Speaker will continue his effort to rid the GOP majority of Foley's taint by meeting with the Clerk of the House, Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), and his staff today to review ways to protect pages while they are serving in the nation's Capitol. The Speaker will also discuss how Congress can protect pages after their program concludes. Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean advises that it is "likely" that the Speaker will be making a series of media interviews regarding Foley.
[...]
In today's Washington Post, Charles Babington and Jonathan Weisman have "one House GOP leadership aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of losing his job," conceding that Republicans "had erred in not notifying the three-member, bipartisan panel that oversees the page system."
From the October 2 Washington Post article:
As the scandal broke, Hastert contended he learned of concerns about Foley only last week. But after Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.) said Saturday that he had notified Hastert months ago of Foley's e-mails to a 16-year-old boy, the speaker did not dispute his colleague, and Hastert's office acknowledged that some aides knew last year that Foley had been ordered to cease contact with the youth.
Republican leaders continued to insist yesterday that it was understandable that the "over-friendly" Internet e-mails they had seen did not set off alarm bells. But one House GOP leadership aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of losing his job, conceded that Republicans had erred in not notifying the three-member, bipartisan panel that oversees the page system. Instead, they left it to the panel chairman, Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.), to confront Foley.
Being somewhat demented, a few questions came to mind when I read that Hastert planned to "...rid the GOP majority of Foley's taint..."
First, just what happens to you when your taint is removed?
Can it be re-attached?
More importantly, just where does the "GOP majority" keep Foley's taint?
Were they holding it hostage?
Maybe that's what the GOP leadership was worried the FBI would find if they were allowed to search the House offices.
as much as I'd like to avoid thinking about Foley's taint, these Cons really seem to focus on the stuff they hate. Like the way any mention of "the Gay Agenda" invariably uses the phrase "ramming it down our throats".
I just got back to work from lunch, and had to tune in the Oxymoron to see if he'd be ignoring or spinning.
So he plays a clip of Hastert saying that he didn't know anything about the emails, then Rush tells his audience "So we KNOW that Hastert didn't know about these!" (because he said so, apparently.)
Then El Rushbo gets to the meat of the REAL problem;Thr Dems knew all about it, and were allowing this predator to run free, endangering kids, in order to sit on it until election time.
See? the problem isn't Foley's behavior at all, it's the other guys who didn't expose him soon enough.Yikes.
Another beauty from the accountability and responsibility crowd.
The Repubs should just start releasing the Mallard Fillmore comic strip every day as their press release.
only mentioned one plan -- that was for Shimkus to start the process. It's a little early for Dems to cry they aren't involved.
This is going to be one slimey story for both sides. The more I read the worse it gets. Some blogs are reporting that the same Truthout guy that was wrong about Rove being indicted also is behind an obscure website that broke the story. Supposedly Hastert and friend received the overly friendly emails, but not the far worse instant messages. Also, there are accusations that some of the emails were tampered with. Yet someone had the IM's for five months and never came forward until --(surprise)-- right before the election. That is why Hastert is asking for the FBI investigation besides finding out all Foley was doing.
This is going to get nasty.
That Leatherhelmnut got his talking points on time. I was afraid these scandals might disrupt Karl Rove's machine. Rush Limbaugh tossed out the same burning bag of crap today to see if anybody would step on it. This is typical of the Cons, try to deflect the blame onto whoever leaked the story...forget about the Republican leadership who DID know about the creepy, inappropriate e-mails.
The emails/IMs weren't "creepy," they were "overfriendly."
Man, that is classic Rove.
Didn't the Democrats think Rove POSSIBLY planted those false documents during Rathergate?
While I THINK it's a long shot that that there is some grand conspiracy BEHIND why these e-mails & instant messages are appearing NOW just weeks BEFORE the election, I'm just a tad surprised that you're NOT a bit suspicious, being how you USUALLY like a good conspirisy? ;-) Just funning you here. I actually find SOME of you conspiracy theories plausible.
Me? I love a good mystery, AND I have a hunch there's more to come...like maybe OTHER perverts running around the Capitol building being outed.
Between setting up a political dirty trick which ANYONE has to admit is right down Roves alley. I mean this is the guy who bugged his own office then called a press conference to blame it on an opponent in a Texas election, and setting someone up to GO TO PRISON. So no, the one is something Rove WOULD DO, whether he did or not its plausible, the other is a CRIME.
Yes, it's quite possible that there are some Democratic strategists at work here. They may have indeed timed the release to benefit Democrats in the upcoming election. There are some other possibilities...perhaps the Democrats knew about the creepy e-mails, which the Republicans also knew about...and leaked them to the press at an opportune moment. Now, if they knew about the more sinister IMs for months and didn't tell anyone, that may be a crime. If so, prosecute them. It's also possible that the IMs came from the pages themselves. We'll see.
One big difference between this and RatherGate. Foley knew the pages were minors...Rather, apparently, did not know that the documents were fake (they have yet to be PROVEN fake). Rather MAY have been set up by providing him with fake documents; Foley was not set up, only exposed (I'm assuming his guilt, since he has not denied anything).
Conspiracies all around...anything is possible.
This is going to be one slimey story for both sides.
Really? When tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories are discounted, it only appears to be a slimy story for ONE side. Yours.
This is not going to get ugly for democrats and why should it? They were not informed of any of this and even the democratic member and the other republican member of the page board weren't informed of this until they heard it via the media on Friday. As to what I have been reading, CREW received copies of these emails in the summer and immediately sent copies to the FBI asking them to investigate. CREW kept quiet about them not wanting to hinder any investigation the FBI might institute. It was also stated that when Ross from ABC put up this in the summer on a webblog that other pages were the ones who sent him the IMs they received from Foley. Ross wanted to interview Foley about this and the IM's last Friday and that is when Foley's camp tried to make a deal to give them the exclusive of his retiring if they would not publish the text of the IM's.
So, I find it incredulous that you would even hint that this is going to get messy for anyone but the Republicans. I want to know what your FBI have been doing about this for the last couple of months when they got copies? Have they been sitting on this for any particular reason and making it seem that Hastert's call to them to investigate is the first time they have heard about this? To us not involved in this mess, Republicans are the only ones responsible for this mess as to why prtoecting children fell by the wayside in their quest to maintain political power and a safe seat in Florida.
Oh, yes. I think this is going to be big trouble for the Democrats. It may even cost them the House.
I saw a bit of Rep. Hastert's press conference before i left for work, but what I did see brought the following to mind:
1. Hastert said that he was informed about the "inappropriate e-mails" months ago.
2. He saw the emails and IMs Friday.
Which bring up the question, IF he was informed months ago, WHY didn't he ask to see the e-mails and IMs MONTHS ago? Why now? Could it be because there's an election weeks away, the results of which could cost Hastert his position? NAH that couldn't be it, could it?
Isn’t it a crime called aiding and abetting when a person knowing a crime has been committed and not reporting it?
But I'm guessing that to be a complicated question. If the implication is that whoever leaked this sat on it too long, I don't know. How long can you wait to report a crime before you become a criminal yourself? Good Question. I'll bet it's more of a problem for any Republicans who knew about it and NEVER reported it than it would be for Democrats who just waited too long but finally did report it. Interesting questions, to be sure.
"I'll bet it's more of a problem for any Republicans who knew about it and NEVER reported it than it would be for Democrats who just waited too long but finally did report it. "
Just which democrats are you implying knew about this and didn't report it?
I dont think merely not reporting a crime can be considered aiding and abetting. I think that requires some facilitation here is what Findlaw has to say.
[link to practice.findlaw.com]
Federal criminal law creates a general "aiding and abetting" offense for those who "provide knowing aid to persons committing federal crimes, with the intent to facilitate the crime." Importantly, the aider and abettor's state of mind must be "knowing" and "intent[ional]"; recklessness alone is not enough
Almost every state in the union requires any individual who even suspects child abuse to report it to the appropriate authorities and even allows you to do so anonymously. Failure to report suspected child abuse is a felony.
Professionals like doctors and teachers its a crime. Is it aiding and abetting? I mean that WAS the question.