home

Hastert, Republicans and Foley: Too Little, Too Late

House Speaker Denny Hastert's staff knew in 2005 that Rep. Mark Foley had had inappropriate e-mail contact with young pages. They say they told the Speaker in the spring of 2006. Hastert defends his inaction by saying he didn't know the contact had sexual, as opposed to just over-friendly tones to it. Yet, it was serious enough for Foley to be warned about it. Saturday, Hastert moved for a criminal probe.

Hastert moved for a criminal probe because his hand was forced by publicity and by other Congressmen refusing to take the fall alone. Had Hastert become aware of the explicit nature (pdf) of the e-mails through the Congressional grapevine without the press finding out, do you really think he would have called for a probe a month before the November elections? Of course not. He would have sat on it and allowed the creep to be re-elected and maintain his committee leadership positions.

There's more that defies credulity regarding Hastert's knowledge. Why was he told in the spring of 2006 but not the fall of 2005? How could John Boehner, Tom Reynolds, Rodney Alexander, the Clerk of the House and others know but not Hastert? Why wasn't a criminal probe launched then? Why wasn't Foley pressured to resign in the Spring of 2006?

The Washington rumor mill apparently had been onto Foley for years.

While campaigning for a Senate nomination in 2003, Foley, who is single, was asked whether he was gay, and deflected the question as a matter of personal privacy before dropping out of the race.

Hastert should not get away with his last-minute call for a criminal investigation. We need an investigation of who knew what and when did they know it. The Post reports:

Mr. Foley's interests were so well-known that pages reportedly warned each other to watch out for him.

....House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said he learned of the matter last spring, and Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), after first saying he heard about it only last week, confirmed yesterday that he also was informed early this year. What did the House leaders do with this information, and did they take steps to protect other pages?

Hastert's first response was to lie and say he only learned last week. Only after being nailed by Reynolds and Boehner, did he 'fess up.

Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, became the second senior House Republican to say that Hastert has known of Foley's contacts for months, prompting Democratic attacks about the GOP leadership's inaction.

I think this scandal has big, big legs. Maybe it will be the icing on the cake for November. During the Bush administration, fellow Republicans Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Bob Ney and Scooter Libby have all gone down. Karl Rove made it through by the skin of his teeth. Who can view Republicans as anything but a party that fosters a culture of corruption

I also think Hastert could be toast.

Yesterday's developments revealed a rift at the highest echelons of House Republican ranks a month before the Nov. 7 elections, and they threatened to expand the scandal to a full-blown party dilemma.

At a minimum, if Hastert knew and did nothing about it, and even worse, allowed Foley to maintain his committee leadership positions, Hastert should lose his role as House speaker.

As for Foley, his hypocrisy is stunning. He based his career on fighting sexploitation of children.

At a White House Rose Garden ceremony on July 27, President Bush hailed Foley and some other House and Senate lawmakers as members of a "SWAT team for kids." Bush spoke while signing into law a broad child protection measure that included a Foley-sponsored provision requiring sex offenders to register in every state where they live, work or attend school.

Foley's arrogance is equally stunning.

During the congressional debate in 1998 over President Bill Clinton's affair with a White House intern, Foley called Clinton's actions vile and told the St. Petersburg Times that "it's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction."

So is his acute sense of denial.

Legislating, he told National Public Radio on June 29, "is not necessarily just trying to brand people or create a scarlet letter or subject them to unnecessary ridicule, but it's really to set a bar and a standard by which they then decide, 'I better get help professionally,' 'I better go and see how I can deal with this problem,' or, 'I should absolutely avoid contact with young people in order to ensure I don't fall into this very serious problem.' "

Nothing in Washington happens in a vacuum. Republicans in the House knew. They tried to sweep it under the rug. They got caught. Now let them pay the price for violating the trust of the American people. We need to sweep the lot of them out of office.

< Hofstadter via The Note? Not Quite | Newsweek Excerpts Woodward's Book, White House Tries Damage Control >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Hastert, Republicans and Foley: Too Little, To (none / 0) (#1)
    by Kitt on Sat Sep 30, 2006 at 11:11:35 PM EST
    There's some over at John Aravois' place who think this will blow up in our faces. I don't see how.

    Re: Hastert, Republicans and Foley: Too Little, To (none / 0) (#2)
    by jarober on Sat Sep 30, 2006 at 11:29:50 PM EST
    At least Foley resigned. That's more than I can say for Democrats found in far worse positions: -- Gerry Studds -- Barney Frank Neither resigned; both should have. Foley should have resigned a year ago, but at least he went.

    Re: Hastert, Republicans and Foley: Too Little, To (none / 0) (#4)
    by killer on Sat Sep 30, 2006 at 11:58:27 PM EST
    James, can you give details of Barney Frank's issues? Foley's is that he appears to have violated a federal law that he sponsored involving minor children. I don't think I've heard of Studds. How long since he's been in office?

    Re: Hastert, Republicans and Foley: Too Little, To (none / 0) (#5)
    by bad Jim on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 02:31:08 AM EST
    What would we do without the moral relativism of the conservatives? Wave our hankies and cry, "Oh, dear, look at the Democrats! They've got gays!" Foley used to focus on the threat that people like him pose to kids. If that isn't hilarious, there are no Republicans.

    Re: Hastert, Republicans and Foley: Too Little, To (none / 0) (#8)
    by Byron Wayne on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 08:58:40 AM EST
    Funny how James forgets about the repugs from days gone by Crane from Illinois? Crane and Studds both had sex with 17 yr olds. Legal consent age. It was just scandalous and not illegal. A bit different than the current situation.

    Re: Hastert, Republicans and Foley: Too Little, To (none / 0) (#10)
    by aw on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 08:58:40 AM EST
    Nobody can resist a sex scandal in this country. If that's what it takes to hurt Republicans, good, good, good! Serves them right.

    I agree. This scandal is THE scandal. This could bring the Rep House of Cards tumbling down. People might find it hard to relate to the intricacies of other scandals, as we try to parse arcane laws, but this one is easy: an otherwise formerly-respected Rep House member turns out to be a sexual predator AND he has been known to be one for some time by the Reps in control AND he has been fobbing himself off (pun definitely intended) as a Protector Of The Young. Dems, run with this all the way to 11/07! Make THIS The October Surprise: All Hastert All The Time, with Foley's child-molesting face prominently plastered right next to Hastert's in every commercial possible. Let 'er rip!

    Re: Hastert, Republicans and Foley: Too Little, To (none / 0) (#7)
    by DonS on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 09:05:30 AM EST
    Moral relativism, indeed. And the most salient feature is that the paragons of morality just almost slid this past the elections. I do believe this scandal/coverup has -- possible scandal (for the suddenly punctilious) -- just begun to unfold. Now if only the MSM can remember how to put "scandal" and "Republican" together.

    Re: Hastert, Republicans and Foley: Too Little, To (none / 0) (#3)
    by Kitt on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 09:09:46 AM EST
    At least Foley resigned. That's more than I can say for Democrats found in far worse positions: -- Gerry Studds -- Barney Frank Neither resigned; both should have. Foley should have resigned a year ago, but at least he went.
    Is that it?! The above two? You want a laundry list of Rethugs who have had similar problems....maybe not with pages, maybe not with 16-year-olds, but there's plenty of other fodder in that leadership including Mr. Hastert himself.

    Re: Hastert, Republicans and Foley: Too Little, To (none / 0) (#11)
    by oldtree on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 09:18:49 AM EST
    if what we can see stretches back to 2003, yet this person has been in congress much longer. do you think that little piece of ice over there is an issue captain? it sure looks small in the water

    If Mr. Foley had inadvertantly been chatting with a law enforcement officer, he would have been arrested. Even though we have undesputed transcripts an e-mails, somehow Mr. Foley's actions are merely "inappropriate", despite the fact that his victim was a minor. Most laughable? There is barely a mention of this story on Drudge.

    Re: Hastert, Republicans and Foley: Too Little, To (none / 0) (#14)
    by Sailor on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 11:33:19 AM EST
    Funny how 'family values' republicans have a hard time telling dems' consensual sex from the house rethug leadership protecting a pedophile.

    Re: Hastert, Republicans and Foley: Too Little, To (none / 0) (#15)
    by jarober on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 04:25:45 PM EST
    As I said above, Foley should have gone a year ago, and the House leadership handled this badly. On the other hand, Foley sent IMs and email, and the recipient was above the age of consent in DC. So to go back to Studds and Frank: -- Studds had actual sex, at the capital, with a 17 year old. When confronted with this, he refused to leave, and ran again. Studds finally retired in 1996 -- Frank had a boyfriend who ran a prostitution ring out of his (Frank's) apartment. Last time I looked, that was illegal. The boyfriend said that Frank knew what was going on; Frank denied it. Either way, he stayed, and is still in Congress. So sure, Foley is a creepy jerk, and the House leadership should have booted him a year ago. However, as badly as the Republicans handled this, it's far and away better than the way the Dems handled Studds and Frank.

    Re: Hastert, Republicans and Foley: Too Little, To (none / 0) (#16)
    by jarober on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 04:25:45 PM EST
    Talking Points? I don't get "talking points" - I'm a software industry product manager, for gosh sakes. I just haven't forgotten the last 20 years of Congressional scandals, that's all.