home

'No Rules Appeared To Be Broken'

The House ethics committee concludes that misconduct has no consequences:

House Republican leaders failed to protect young pages and interns from sexually suggestive advances by former Rep. Mark Foley and remained "willfully ignorant" of the consequences, an investigative panel of the House ethics committee reported Friday.

No discipline will be forthcoming because "no rules appeared to be broken." What does that say about the need for the next Congress to implement meaningful rules -- starting with a mandatory reporting requirement when members learn about sexually inappropriate behavior?

< Bye Bye Congress | Do-Over: Reyes Appears Unqualified To be Intel Chair >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Well, no kidding. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Al on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 12:26:08 AM EST
    Congress, like any other employer, should have clear rules about sexual harassment. Here is an interesting article about this.

    gee, let me think now....... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by cpinva on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 04:16:39 PM EST
    think, think, think. oh, the thinks i can think! wait, i remember (oh, how could we forget?), why yes, it was "40 million dollars spent to determine if bill clinton got a blowjob from a 22 year-old woman, not his wife or employee, in the oval office." why yes, that was it!

    jim, let me clue you in son, if i had been asked that very same question, by that very august body of perverts, i'd have told them to go f*ck themselves, it was none of their's, or the rest of the country's, freaking business.

    then, i'd have raked every republican in congress, who voted for that $40m waste of money, over the coals, in public. i'd have hit every talk show, and named the pervert's names in public, nightly.

    i'd have ruined them. by the time i got done, starr would have been a laughingstock (wait, he is a laughingstock!), gingrich would have fled the country, and the entire republican party would have been gone. this includes lieberman.

    but hey, that's just me. :)

    BS too deep (1.00 / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 06:24:25 PM EST
    cpinva - Let me clue you in. As I have stated time and again, I didn't give a flip either. But the fact remains.

    If he had been in private enterprise he would have been fired for cause. No pension, no adulation, no media  hanging on to every word.

    So NOT caring by me and or you and the Left as a subset of hypocrites means absolutely postively without any doubt nothing.

    So, if the Repubs were hypocrites re Clintin the Demos have been so over Foley. Period. End of report.

    And what you would have done is keep you mouth shut and try to ride it out. Let's don't let the BS get to deep.

    ;-)

    In the meantime, why didn't the Demos pass laws in 1983 to protect the pages? After all, they were in charge.

    Parent

    dementia (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 06:31:54 PM EST
    In the meantime, why didn't the Demos pass laws in 1983 to protect the pages? After all, they were in charge.

    Wake up ppj, the year is 2006. Vietnam is long over...

    Parent

    11 years after (1.00 / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 06:41:24 PM EST
    squeaky - Yes, it is 2006 and the Demos had 11 years AFTER 1983 to prass laws to protect the Pages.

    Parent
    Dems (none / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 06:48:04 PM EST
    ppj, Mark Foley is a republican pedophile. This is a republican scandal and crime. The thread is about the failure of the republican controlled house ethics committee. Try as hard as you like to change the subject but it won't work.

    Parent
    Squaky - Change the (1.00 / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 08:27:25 PM EST
    subject?? I thought the subject was protection of the young pages that are supposedly in the care of the Congress, said protection having failed miserably in Foley's and Studd's case.

    Now part of problem solving has always been to explore all of the failures and develop solutions.
    Or at least it was in all the companies I ever worked at...

    Your complaint either demonstrates a strikingly juvenile attitude about problem solving, an intellectual inability to focus or a desire to use these pages for partisan political purposes.

    Your call. Which is it?


    Parent

    Which is it? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by aw on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 09:07:12 PM EST
    Your complaint either demonstrates a strikingly juvenile attitude about problem solving, an intellectual inability to focus or a desire to use these pages for partisan political purposes.

    This is a political blog of the left persuasion (TalkLeft, the Politics of Crime. The whole site is for partisan political purposes.

    Your characterization is either that of an old, rightwing, gasbag or a desire to use these pages to spread the most disgusting bile.  

    Which is it?

    Parent

    aw's complaint (1.00 / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 06:48:57 AM EST
    aw - And you aren't the editor.

    And the point that the Demos failed in '83 and the Repubs in 05-06 certainly falls under the subject of the politics of crime.

    edger was nakibg a snarky comment, as are you. And if you believe that a discussion about the bi-partisan failures of congress os rightwing then you have no idea of what you speak if.

    Parent

    Coffee, Jim (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 06:55:41 AM EST
    nakibg

    you have no idea of what you speak if.

    Ahem. And you do?

    Parent

    Sheer genius I tell you (none / 0) (#46)
    by aw on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 08:24:39 AM EST
    I hope they preserve his brain for future study

    Parent
    "Thought"? YOU "thought"? Heh. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edger on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 09:23:25 PM EST
    I thought the subject was protection of the young pages that are supposedly in the care of the Congress

    The House ethics committee concludes that misconduct has no consequences:
    House Republican leaders failed to protect young pages

    Why do you keep doing this to yourself, anyway?

    Oh, and one more time in case you hadn't noticed. There is no mention of Foley or Studds in TChris post.

    Topic? You know? No, I guess not...

    Parent

    Studd's case????? (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 11:42:32 PM EST
     
    ...failed miserably in Foley's and Studd's case.
    Studd's case????

    Quoting your own hijack of the thread as if it was the topic of the thread. Pathetic.

    Parent

    Whoa (none / 0) (#40)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 12:43:49 AM EST
    So, if the Repubs were hypocrites re Clintin the Demos have been so over Foley. Period. End of report.

    Again, Jim asserts that child molestation is no different from consensual sex between adults.

    Anyone else hearing alarm bells?

    Also, anyone else notice how very pathetically far the grand restorers of honor and dignity have fallen? PPJ is reduced to defending Republicans by comparing them to Clinton. Well, actually, it's nothing new, but the "They were just emulating Clinton!" defense used to be restricted to minor issues like renting out the Lincoln Bedroom. Not, you know, The Big One.

    Parent

    RE: Anyone else hearing alarm bells? (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 06:21:40 AM EST
    It's just his usual projection. Ahem.

    He loves to accuse others of what he is guilty of himself.

    He thinks this is an elementary school playground, since he's not capable of dealing with adults.

    Parent

    Noting two wrongs does not make them equal. (1.00 / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:01:39 AM EST
    scar - And as usual you make things up. And you lie.

    Noting two wrongs does not make them equal.

    I guess that is too subtje for you.

    Here. Try to focus on this.

    Clinton stole a watermelon. Foley robbd a bank.

    My point was simple, and you understood. The Demos tolerated Studds and Clinton. The Repubs attacked both and tried to ignore Foley.

    Parent

    So your'e happy (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:07:09 AM EST
    the rethugs are finally out then. Good. Maybe you're making some progress.

    Parent
    Look in the mirror. (1.00 / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 08:27:41 AM EST
    edger - As usual you are way behind. I have posted numerous times my distaste of Clinton's numerous sexual activities... demanding sex from an employee, pushing himself on a female asking for help, accepting sex from some of much less stature in the power structure than himself, as well as accusations of rape which are very strong.

    What I have said is that Monica's BJ wasn't worth the BS that the Repubs tried. It was bad politics and hurt the country.

    And I have also condemned Studds and Foley, as well as the Demos attacks on the Repubs over Foley. It is unhelpful, fixes nothing and merely sharpens hatred on both siddes.

    Just look in the mirror.

    Parent

    40mil? (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 05:51:28 PM EST
    Typical of the Congressional abuses of power during the Clinton presidency was the operation of the House Committee on Government Reform, which issued a staggering 1,052 subpoenas to investigate the Clinton Administration between 1997 and 2002.

     By way of comparison, the committee has issued a paltry three subpoenas to the Bush Administration relating to the appalling handling of Hurricane Katrina - a far more serious matter and one where there are highly credible allegations of the Administration's incompetence before and after Katrina hit, which resulted in mass suffering and death. In sum, the Republican Congress has been invisible when it comes to oversight of the Bush Presidency.

    John Dean

    Parent

    We don't need new rules.... (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 10:39:20 AM EST
    we need to scrap the page program.  Our reps don't need young teens to fetch coffee and make copies while being leered at and lusted after.

    Let the teens learn about govt. in civics class...not from our currect Congress' bad habits.

    Well said. (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 05:51:52 PM EST
    Well said.

    Parent
    Well (3.66 / 3) (#2)
    by Edger on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 02:45:20 AM EST
    If it's legal (no rules appear to be broken) then it must be ok, ok? You know, somewhat like it's only a crime if you get caught (see Ken Lay and other friends of W, or the MCA, fer example)

    Besides, it's all the pages' fault, no?

    </sarcasm> ;-) (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 10:02:40 AM EST
    It wasn't me (none / 0) (#7)
    by aw on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 10:05:43 AM EST
    I gave it a 5.

    Parent
    I know. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 10:14:34 AM EST
    Thanks. I knew you would get it, aw. :-)

    You know how to tell who rated a comment and what they rated it, right?

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#19)
    by aw on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 04:00:22 PM EST
    I don't.

    Parent
    Now I do. (none / 0) (#20)
    by aw on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 04:01:05 PM EST
    Selective Memory (1.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Don on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 07:51:47 AM EST
    I read...

    "No discipline will be forthcoming because "no rules appeared to be broken." What does that say about the need for the next Congress to implement meaningful rules -- starting with a mandatory reporting requirement when members learn about sexually inappropriate behavior?"

    I agree, rules need to be created, yet, I seem to recall a certain Democrat President who first lied about his sexual inappropriate activity ("I never had sex with that woman") and later insisted that oral sex really wasn't sex. No rules seemed to be necessary when Bill was having sex in the White House and yet now, well we had better protect these young pages from "sexually suggestive advances."

    Sexual advances = bad, unacceptable.
    Oral sex with a copy girl = not sex, not adultry, simply forgiven.

    Once again, the left just ain't right!

    but ..but ..but.. (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Jen M on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 08:04:35 AM EST
    he did it too

    --they whined

    This from the party that kept hammering home how there was NO EXCUSE for what Clinton did NONE.

    Well, this case was worse, since the pages were underage. Not only did one of the congressmen prey on them, the others stood by and did zip zilch nada.

    When their turn came to prove themselves better than, they failed.

    Parent

    Middle Schoolers (1.00 / 1) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 12:19:04 PM EST
    Jen.... As someone who never got his jockeys in a wad over Clinton, I can agree that the Repubs were hypocritical...

    They were just as wrong as the Demos were in 1983:

    and in (Demo Congressman) Studds's case, it was a 1973 relationship with a male page.

    Studds did not apologize, but admitted to "a very serious error in judgment."[5] As his censure was read, Studds faced the Speaker who was reading the motion, with his back to the other House members.[1][6] Later, at a press conference with the former page, both stated that the young man, who was 17, consented. Studds continued to be reelected until his retirement in 1997.[4]

    Link

    The Demos were in charge of the House in 1983. If they wanted to make a statement, why didn't they expel Studds??

    And I wonder why they didn't pass some strick laws that would have prevented what happened in the case of Clinton and Mosley??

    Now Mosley is gone and good riddance.

    Clinton is gone, yet he has not been condemned by his party. And even if his acts are acceptable, can you imagine what would have happened if some senior manager, or junior for that matter, had received  BJ's from a very junior employee??

    You know, many times you folks remind me of middle schoolers going nah nah nah nahhhhhhhhhh.

    Parent

    How about... no (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by scarshapedstar on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 01:03:32 PM EST
    Clinton is gone, yet he has not been condemned by his party.

    What planet do you live on? On mine, Joe Lieberman was the very first to condemn him, and pretty much everyone else followed suit, even as 80% of the public - this puts you in a very small minority - felt no such condemnation was necessary.

    This is a pretty nonsensical mishmash of rightwing BS, even for you, Jim. Also, my conscience is bothering me. I feel I have to warn you that while you evidently see no distinction between sexual contact between two consenting adults and involuntary predation by an adult upon a child, the law does. I'm not going to speculate on your personal life, but, well, you've got some funny ideas. That's all I'm gonna say.

    Parent

    No clue (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edger on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 12:55:23 PM EST
    Funny, there is absolutely no mention of Sydds, Clinton, or Mosely in TChris post.

    You know, many times you folks remind me of middle schoolers going nah nah nah nahhhhhhhhhh.

    Do you have any clue at all, Jim?

    Parent

    Funny (1.00 / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 06:29:25 PM EST
    edger - So if someone leaves something out, we are just supposed to ignore??

    That's funny. Big time funny.

    Parent

    Hilarious... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 06:46:13 PM EST
    ...I'm laughing so hard I'm speechless. Where should we start? I really don't want to insult your intelligence, Jim.

    Why do you do this to yourself?

    Parent

    as opposed to (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jen M on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 01:35:26 PM EST
    those who not only got their underwear in a wad but tried to overthrow the presidency.

    oops, off topic, now who brought us here?

    Parent

    Please try to concentrate (1.00 / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 06:30:55 PM EST
    Uh Jen, they impeached him per the Constitution.

    Now I know that doesn't mean a lot to you, but please, try to concentrate.

    Parent

    that thing (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Jen M on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 06:58:11 PM EST
    Your man Bush ignores?

    Parent
    Topic, you know? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 06:49:21 PM EST
    Points, you know? Missed, you know? You know, you know? No, I guess not....

    Parent
    But bush has shown that America... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Bill Arnett on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 11:30:24 AM EST
    ...is no longer a nation of laws, but a nation of men.

    Examples in how to run government "trickle down" from the top, and with the worst president in American history, the rethug congress learned their lessons well.

    They do say no rule was broken, so apparently it's A-OK to send messages of seduction and pornography to minor pages. Wasn't it stuff like this that led to the downfall of Caligula?

    How can ANY person of conscience think this is alright and no cause for censuring anyone?

    Momma's, don't let your babies grow up to be pages.

    Mornin', aw, edger, everybody.

    Parent

    Please! (none / 0) (#4)
    by roger on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 07:53:58 AM EST
    Last I knew, Monica was an adult when she had her fling. She was also extremely willing.

    The pages were pursued children.

    Exactly the same in Repub world, I guess

    Parent

    Studds?? (1.00 / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 06:32:15 PM EST
    Does that also apply to the 17 year olf that Studds had sex with???

    And when did willing matter in sexual contact with children??

    Parent

    uh (none / 0) (#14)
    by scarshapedstar on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 12:55:20 PM EST
    Wasn't Monica a willing participant? I don't remember her sending emails to her friends saying stuff like "SICK SICK SICK!"

    Parent
    House ethics? (none / 0) (#9)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 10:56:57 AM EST
    The house ethics committee was a oxymoron. One of the many reasons the american people voted the republican party out.

    From WaPo April 2006:

    REP. ROBERT W. NEY (R-Ohio) has been implicated in accepting lavish trips and other gifts from Jack Abramoff in exchange for helping the lobbyist's clients. Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) has been caught up in the Abramoff net as well; yesterday his former deputy chief of staff pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges arising from his dealings with Mr. Abramoff. On the Democratic side, a former aide to Rep. William J. Jefferson (La.) has pleaded guilty to helping Mr. Jefferson try to obtain bribes for brokering telecommunications deals in Africa. And that's not even the whole roster of alleged ethical improprieties. Busy times for the House ethics committee, right?

    If you answered yes, you don't know this ethics committee. Fifteen months into the 109th Congress, the panel managed on Thursday to have its first real meeting of the Congress. Members gathered behind closed doors for six hours and . . . drumroll . . . agreed to continue a previously launched investigation of Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) for distributing an intercepted cellphone call between House leaders in 1996. That's all.

    WaPo

    The page involved with Studds was of... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Bill Arnett on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 12:38:49 PM EST
    ...the legal age of consent when, as the page testified before congress, they had a consensual affair. Studds constituency reelected him again repeatedly and it is they who judged Studds and decided he was more valuable as their representative.

    This is the most over-hyped piece of ancient history that the wingnuts always cite, disregarding totally the fact that the page in the rethug scandal not only did not consent, but in fact reported it to the congressman who got him the position saying it was "sick", repeated 16 times.

    And most ridiculous of all, OMG, that Studds was so courteous as to face the person speaking to him, perforce causing him to turn his back on others, is now been blown so far out of proportion as to be beyond silly.

    All these attempt to conflate democratic faux pas with rethuglican transgressions against pages are comparing apples and Buicks.

    Natuve Americans (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 06:34:49 PM EST
    Well, since that was the law then, I expect to hear no more complaints from you about the treatmemt of native americans by our forefathers.

    Fair is fair, eh???

    Parent

    Native Americans? (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 03:51:42 PM EST
     Wow what a non-sequitur.
    I expect to hear no more complaints from you about the treatmemt of native americans by our forefathers.
    Something you are obviously proud of? Who is next? The Palestinians, the Iraqis, or all muslims in general. Or are you advocating genocide for illegal mexicans?

     

    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 05:53:44 PM EST
    A typical question for someone who knows no history.

    Parent
    They have (none / 0) (#18)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 03:10:12 PM EST
    no ethics about invading countries, why should they care about ethics here?

    Foley (none / 0) (#22)
    by chris in sacto on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 05:27:29 PM EST
    To parse whether a page is of "legal age" shows how uncomfortable "polite society" has with calling a spade a spade.  Foley is a pedophile, and a regressed one at that.  Pedophiles rape children, and rape is about power.  For a teenager to be approached by a Congressman would be intimidating enough, even if it weren't in a sexual context.  

    Continue to parse, you're just delaying facing the truth and pedophiles will continue to get away with murder.  Violating a child sexually is like murder.  

    Regressed pedophiles are incurable.  They're stuck.  My guess, Foley was raped at the same age as a child.  He needs help and I certainly hope he finds it behind bars someday, serving a life-long sentence.  Otherwise, there will be many, many more victims ahead for Mr Foley.  

    BTW, aren't you just tickled pink he gets a nice retirement income from the taxpayers?  

    Six degrees of O.T (none / 0) (#48)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 08:45:05 AM EST
    Treaties (even broken ones) are based on law,       idiot. Stick to discussing things you know something about.

    Treaties (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 06:00:11 PM EST
    Treaties per se may or may not be based on law.

    Stick to logical thinking, if you can.

    Parent

    Convention on the Rights of the Child (none / 0) (#49)
    by aw on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 08:57:45 AM EST
    Still not ratified by the US.  Why would they care about a few pages.
    The United States has had particular difficulties in ratifying the CRC due to strong opposition by conservatives to the treaty. The Bush administration has stated its opposition to the treaty:

        "The Convention on the Rights of the Child may be a positive tool for promoting child welfare for those countries that have adopted it. But we believe the text goes too far when it asserts entitlements based on economic, social and cultural rights. ... The human rights-based approach ... poses significant problems as used in this text."


    wiki

    foley was protected by ... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Sailor on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 03:38:24 PM EST
    ... the republican leadership, even after they were warning pages not to be alone with him. The republican leadership themselves blamed each other and called each other liars about this.

    they kept a pedophile in office because he was a good fundraiser. I hope criminal charges are files against them and that actual independent oversight will happen ... but I'm not holding my breath, just like I'm not holding my breath that ppj won't constantly attempt to hijack threads and some of us will fall for it.

    (I think it's a form of roadrunnerous coyoteis)