You can read the article here: http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20061002-102008-9058r.htm
The Mark Foley internet sex predator scandal is working it’s way through America’s newspapers and it appears that the Washington Times is the first paper to call on the resignation of Speaker Dennis Hastert.
If everything holds to be true as is being reported by ABC News, it would seem appropriate that those in leadership that knew about this stuff and did nothing need to be replaced. They just may be a little out of step with mainstream America.
It’s hard to see the Speaker resigning this close to the elections, but it’s also hard to imagine that he has much credibility in light of doing virtually nothing about the situation over email messages and Mark Foley.
What is the feeling here on this situation?
{ 160 comments }
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →
Barney Frank is a homosexual. Our Judicial system treats them like ambassadors. That’s why he’s still in Congress.
I’ll bet Rob or Right of Center that former House Whip Tom DeLay knew all about Foley’s predilections.
Why would he? Because that’s how he maintained order in the caucus and got them to vote in certain ways. He was like J. Edgar Hoover when it came to knowing where all the bodies were buried and where all the skeletons were hanging in the closet of the GOP House Caucus.
If the FBI is smart, they will go knock on his door and depose him.
John Konop,
Whether I would hire Barney Frank to watch my children is irrelevant to the issue of whether he’s a sexual predator towards children.
And that’s what we’re talking about here.
We’re talking about a Representative who used to his position to prey on minors. You cannot equate that to hiring a hooker. It does a great disserve to the victims of sexual abuse.
buzz,
The Miami Herald speaks of a “message,” singular, there were more than one email. I wonder which message they saw, and if they saw them all, including the page’s emails as well, would they still have sat on the story? I doubt it.
pvsys,
Unlike Foley, I don’t think Clinton ever admitted, through some time of correspondence, that he committed such a crime. Foley had a clear history of this, or else pages would not have been warned of a certain congressman, couple that with the language of the emails and you have a clear case of a sexual predator preying on teenage boys.
Also, in the case of Broaddrick she continuously changed her story, even saying in 1997 in a sworn affidavit for the Paula Jones case that she had never been assaulted.
CHelf,
I am not comparing child abuse with what Barney Frank did. In fact I was outspoken about the Foley issue as a Republican when it first broke.
Yet to not be upset about Barney Frank having a whore house ran out of his apartment is crazy. And my point is both parties attack each other without cleaning up there own mess.
My position on this topic makes me a target from both sides as you see.
What would be wrong to have a Congressman say hey everyone should go not just the other side?
What would be wrong telling a guy with a whore house running out of his apartment you are not fit to serve?
If Barney was a school teacher and his apartment was being used as a whore house would we let him teach kids? So why would you let him supervise them in Washington?
I am not attacking Barney Frank for being gay, this is up to the voters (I think in the Boston area). I believe in States rights strongly and we would have less problems if we respected the rights of each State.
This is just about right and wrong that simple.
Jen,
You said, “Whether I would hire Barney Frank to watch my children is irrelevant ”
It is the bigger issue why can you not speak out against your own guy? This is killing the our political system.
You should read a book by JFK called Profiles in Courage
CHelf:
Just so you’ll know, I brought up the Juanita Broaderak rape allegations NOT to defend anyone! Therefore, if your comment was directed towards me, then you’ve put words in my mouth.
Instead, I brought it up because I find that any “outrage” from Democrats on this matter is disingenuous and “pure politics” considering that they looked the other way on Juanita Broaddrick and did their best to sweep that under the carpet!
Also, at this time, there is some debate over exactly what Republicans knew about this matter… but I’ve also heard (unsubstantiated) reports that Democrats knew about this as early as late 2005 but chose to sit on it until weeks before the elections, for maximum political gain.
I can’t prove that, but if this is later proven true, would not such Democrats LIKEWISE be putting children at risk by allowing this to go on so long without doing something about this earlier?
My point here is that:
(1) Until I’m told about more specific damaging things known about by the Republican leadership earlier, then I think they deserve to be considered innocent until proven guilty
(2) I’m having a hard time taking the “outrage” on the part of Democrats seriously, considering their selective outrage on such matters
(3) Shouldn’t what Dems knew and when be just as important and punishable as what Republicans knew and when?
–Rob McEwen
John Konop,
It is the bigger issue why can you not speak out against your own guy?
If I had the opportunity, I would kick out plenty of folks. I think my problem with this whole issue is that when one person says, “Mark Foley!” someone else yells out “Barney Frank! Monica Lewinksy!” when I just can’t equate the two.
And yes, Gary Studds should have resigned.
Mojo, you said:
Broaddrick she continuously changed her story, even saying in 1997 in a sworn affidavit for the Paula Jones case that she had never been assaulted.
The rape occurred in 1978. That affidavit was in 1997. She came forward with the allegations in 1998 and said that she initially protected Clinton in the 1997 affidavit because, “I didn’t want to be forced to testify about one of the most horrific events in my life. I didn’t want to go through it again.”
Here is an expert from wikipedia:
There were four witnesses who told NBC that Broaddrick had revealed to them years ago that Clinton had brutally raped her in 1978. One was a nurse who told NBC that she tended to Broaddrick after the assault, applying ice to the victim’s bruised face and badly swollen lips. It was right after the attack that Broaddrick first revealed the rape, telling the nurse that Clinton had sex with her “against her will,” NBC reported. ABC News released a statement from Broaddrick friend Phillip Yoakum, who identified the nurse as Norma Rogers.
Keep in mind that if these events were conjured up out of thin air AFTER that 1997 affidavit (as you seem to imply), then Broaddrick would have had to have a time machine to go back and time and tell these 4 witnesses about these events years earlier.
More details here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33270
Regarding the “inconsistencies”… other prominent people have very thoroughly investigated her story and her witnesses and have found her story very credible and convincing.
–Rob McEwen
Rob,
Until something comes out that the Democrats knew something, you are only speculating and rumor-mongering. I am sticking to what has been released. Fact is that the leadership was made aware of some questionable behavior a year ago. Fact is little to nothing was done in response to this year old event to ensure this was not larger and did not involve other pages.
Rep. Rodney Alexander brought this up and nothing was pursued. Even if the page’s parents did not want to pursue this further, it was the leadership’s responsibility to take care of this with their own and the panel overseeing the page program’s job to ensure the pages were protected.
As for the Franks incident, this was wrong and happened years ago. This event is happening under the GOP’s watch. It is happening now. This Congress has already been labeled as a do-nothing Congress. Do they want to be equated to the one of 1983? Personally I’m a little more concerned with the current leadership than the one from 23 years ago.
CHelf:
To some extent, I agree with your last post and I think that is why the Washington Times rightly clarifies that its recommendation for Hastert to step down is based on the idea that even if Hastert didn’t fully understand the extent of the problem, at the least, he was negligent to not be more on top of this situation and to not takes steps to ensure that nothing was wrong. I don’t know that I agree with that, but it is a reasonable conclusion.
But my question about what Dems knew and when still applies regardless of what we know at the moment. Particularly due to the timing of this scandal! (and there is much investigation to be done)
Therefore, I’ll ask again (but with different wording):
Shouldn’t what Dems knew and when (IF it can be shown that they know about this a while ago) be just as important and punishable as what Republicans knew and when?
I think this is a fair question. If the Dems didn’t know about this much earlier, then they shouldn’t have anything to fear in this question, right?
–Rob McEwen
Rob,
IF ANYONE HELD BACK ANY INFORMATION AND DID NOT TELL THE POLICE AND PARENTS ASAP THEY SHOULD BE GONE , end of story!!!!!
Your Question is more than fair. You do not play politics with a kids life.
Hastert respected the wishes of the VICTIM’s parents by not going public .
Great article that puts it in perspective.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20061002/bs_ibd_ibd/2006102issues01
Did Democrats Page Mark Foley? Ibd
Mon Oct 2, 7:00 PM ET
Hastert should have resigned a looong time ago for having done relatively nothing as SOH to control spending or government expansion.
Of course Debbie defends the status quo… You don’t have a choice of doing nothing when it comes to breaking the law… This man was a predator and those that knew of his behavior should have taken steps to prevent it from happening again…
Debbie,
Hastert had a responsibility to every intern in the program. That even gives more of a reason why he needed to go the authorities ASAP and tell the parents. The parents did not need to know the name of the kid. The police could of run a sting operation without the kid. I cannot believe as a parent you would see this at least as poor judgment.
Uh oh, looks like Majority Leader Boehner is feeding Hastert to the crows: “I believe I talked to the Speaker and he told me it had been taken care of, and, and, and my position is it’s in his corner, it’s his responsibility. The Clerk of the House who runs the page program, the Page Board—all report to the Speaker. And I believe it had been dealt with.”
Bull Mouse,
Another voice of reason !!!
pvsy,
Haha, worldnetdaily? Really? Man, I got a good laugh.
I agree that Hastert should have gone to the authorities when it was bought to his attention.
I agree with his decision not to notify the press and the Democrats.
Hastert should have removed Foley from his Committee Chairman position while it was being investigated.
Foley’s local press and Fox News also kept it quite. They kept it quite because they were afraid it would offend the gay community. It was not secret Foley was gay.
OMG, I can’t stop laughing…worldnetdaily…wikipedia says it all. I mean, Joseph Farah sits atop Worldnetdaily and he was heavily involved in the Arkansas project. Ask David Brock about Farah.
I guess it’s just another part of that “vast radical-gay” agenda, huh Debbie?
debbie,
Yeah, it is true that they would have kept a lid on this for fear of offending gays, I mean, a Federal Marriage Amendment isn’t as offensive, or refusal to allow gay adoption, but Foley is the last straw. /snark
The FBI also did not follow up and investigate.
I just quoted wh at I read.
Read it yourself:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/03/america/NA_GEN_US_Congressman_Resigns.php
Leader of U.S. House defends handling of scandal involving congressman, young former page
The Associated Press
Meanwhile, Florida newspapers — who were leaked copies of the e-mail with the Louisiana boy last year — defended their decision not to run stories. Both The St. Petersburg Times and The Miami Herald were given copies of the e-mail, as were other news organizations, including Fox News.
“Our decision at the time was … that because the language was not sexually explicit and was subject to interpretation, from innocuous to ‘sick,’ as the page characterized it, to be cautious,” said Tom Fiedler, executive editor of the Herald. “Given the potentially devastating impact that a false suggestion of pedophilia could have on anyone, not to mention a congressman known to be gay, and lacking any corroborating information, we chose not to do a story.”
Rob,
Again, I am more concerned with those in charge of ALL of this than those on the side. If Dems knew of this and sat on it until now, then they are as deplorable as Foley. I’m not a Democrat so I have no issues with this to a partisan level. What I do know is that this was sat on by the GOP leadership a year ago. I also know that several other media outlets including a few newspapers and Fox News sat on this story as well. I am quite surprised they did not investigate further. Obviously plenty of people had the chance to discover the same thing ABC did. I question why no one else did.
Debbie,
You cannot just tell interns who are Republicans.
That was wrong. Do you get kids are kids !!! All the parents and all of Congress ASAP !!!!!!!!!
Child predators kill kids to cover up !!!!!!
This is from Hastert,
“Protecting our children from Internet predators and child exploitation enterprises are just as high a priority as securing our border from terrorists” . . “That’s why today we passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.
debbie,
Okay, so the newspapers do not want to convict others in print. That’s cool. But, how does that prevent Hastert from investigating the matter and taking care of the situation. I’m sure he could have kept an independent inquiry on the DL.
I am not saying I agree with his decision not to refer it to law enforcement. He should have.
John, I did not even mention Republican interns or Democrat interns. Where on earth did you get that from? You don’t make sense. Read what is posted.
Debbie,
I am sorry if i read this wrong.
“I agree with his decision not to notify the press and the Democrats”.
That was part of the issue is only Republican interns( I am not sure if all ) knew not Democrats.
John,
There is a huge difference between interns and pages. I hope you know that.
First and foremost, interns are predominantly college students (and no longer minors.) Pages are high schoolers in 10th or 11th grade and are 16 or 17 years old.
Demonbeck,
I am sorry you are right. I did make that mistake. Thank you jk
I was talking about the Democrat leadership. Hastert was told by the victim’s parents not to pursue it, and Hastert had no reason to believe that this was not an isolated incident.
Hastert should have notified law enforcement but he did notify the Congressman that recommended the page.
Mojo:
Your comments:
I can’t stop laughing
…demonstrate that you are obviously a partisan hack and you don’t have the facts to back up your assertions… so you resort to personal attacks which don’t prove anything.
Personally, I don’t find rape to be a laughing matter (as you obviously do) and, in fact, everything I quoted and linked to is very well substantiated in MANY places and has not been proven wrong. If you’d like me to source this in mainstream media sources, let me know. I’d be happy to.
But you’d rather attack the messager than deal with the fact that there is actually MUCH proof that Bill Clinton raped Juanita and very little evidence to the contrary.
But, hey… I think it speaks volumes about your intentions on this thread that you are so willing to blow off Juanita yet, at the same time are trying your hardest to get “Hastert and the GOP House Leadership” in trouble as best you can over this issue.
I think it is obvious that the target of the scandal is your primary motivation, not the crime itself. …which again proves my point that Democrats are disingenuous about this matter.
–Rob McEwen
Debbie,
Not true, remember his speach about Adam Walsh law. That is why Hastert called child predators as the same as “terrorists
debbie,
BTW, if you think I am wrong about guys like Foley acting on kids , the story just broke he did. The sad part this story usual ends with police finding more victums.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/new_foley_insta.html
Um, had Hastert launched an appropriate investigation, he would have found out that this was NOT an isolated incident and other minors would not have been subjected to this Congressman’s advances.
Just as such, the entire membership of the Page Board, Republicans and Democrats should have been notified.
There is nothing that can be said in defense of those who tried to make light of this incident.
Just know that had an investigation occured when Hastert and Company knew about this last year, a lot of this would have been avoided.
Tragic and horrible. Very sad is all I can say.
These types of statements are driving me crazy:
when Hastert and Company knew about this
Why? Because there is MUCH that Hastert did NOT know about until the past few days!
(But, I have to agree that there is a fairly solid case here for negligence and lack of due diligence on Hastert’s part…. considering the little he did know about then.)
–Rob McEwen
pvsys,
“demonstrate that you are obviously a partisan hack and you don’t have the facts to back up your assertions… so you resort to personal attacks which don’t prove anything.”
This is funny considering that you base your entire argument on worldnetdaily which was started by a man heavily involved in the Arkansas Project.
“Personally, I don’t find rape to be a laughing matter (as you obviously do) and, in fact, everything I quoted and linked to is very well substantiated in MANY places and has not been proven wrong. If you’d like me to source this in mainstream media sources, let me know. I’d be happy to.”
Again, by the worldnetdaily and the Arkansas Project. No one else.
“But you’d rather attack the messager than deal with the fact that there is actually MUCH proof that Bill Clinton raped Juanita and very little evidence to the contrary.”
I have never seen any evidence that he raped that woman, she herself has recanted and changed her testimony numerous times. It reminds me of that girl that accused the Duke lacrosse team of rape. Some of these women are actually lying. During my service in the United States Army I knew a female soldier that falsely accused two NCOs of sexual harassment and a third of rape. It is sick, but it does happen.
“I think it speaks volumes about your intentions on this thread that you are so willing to blow off Juanita yet, at the same time are trying your hardest to get “Hastert and the GOP House Leadership
Oh come on Bull Moose. You have to admit the Debra LaFave reference was funny.
pvsys,
“Why? Because there is MUCH that Hastert did NOT know about until the past few days!”
He knew enough.
Jeees at all the selfrighteousness being spewed in here. John, the parents in LA knew something was up, why don’t you go after them with the same energy you go after the others and demand to know why THEY didn’t call the police? Don’t limit this to the politicians, if you’re really concerned about those kids up there. Anyone who knew about it has an obligation to notify law enforcement, and those who don’t should be prosecuted as accomplices. Now get on with it and go after all of those responsible for the wellbeing of those boys and stop making it a political issue only.
Personally I don’t think anybody really cares about the boys’ wellbeing in this, Dems, Republicans nor the onlookers. Boys not much older than these are sent off to fight and die for an unjust war with inadequate plans and insufficient gear, authorized by these very same people, so protecting our young ones are not really that high up on the list of priorities for anybody in authority in Washington.
And, are parents yanking their kids out of the page program over this? Not that I’ve seen. It appears the whole thing is a scandal for scandal’s sake, and all the riches and rewards scandals can generate.
John wants to know why nobody’s going after the Dems for committing similar immoral acts, well consider that the Dems are not in charge of ANYTHING right about now, and are most definitely not trying to pass laws dictating how people live their lives in private. Those who ARE trying to pass such laws are now demonstrating their moral bankruptcy and utter lack of authority to preach to the rest of the world how they’re supposed to live.
Chris,
The parents are in a tough situation. That is why in cases like this you report them to the police right away. Once you know who child predators are catching them is the easy part. Foley is like a drug addict and they always need their fix.
That is why you also tell parents because the story almost always ends with multiple victims. And hopefully this time nobody got killed to cover his tracks.
As far as the Democrat issue. All I am saying is we need both sides to worry less how it looks and do the right thing. Bull Mouse had a lot of guts to say what he said.
At the end you have to say you respect Bull Mouse for what he said and it was the right thing. Do you not think if we acted honest instead of being partisan hacks would that not force Congress to do the same?
The parents are responsible for their child’s well being. Hastert, Shimkus, etc. are responsible for the entire page program of however many teenagers from across the country that come to DC to participate in this program. These parents are responsible for their children. Those in charge of this in Congress are responsible for their own behavior and what goes on with the children in their charge while there in DC.
you base your entire argument on worldnetdaily
I only linked to the wnd page because it had one of the most detailed sources about a particular interview with the nurse who had examined Juanita’s injuries immediately after the rape… but Juanita’s testimony and the 4 people who she discussed this incident with, including that nurse, have been discussed in MANY news outlets. (didn’t I already say this!!!)
But, again, you obviously hate WND, so you are trying to make WND the issue while ignoring the very credible witnesses in this case.
I have never seen any evidence that he raped that woman
Many people have been convicted in a court of law for similar crimes with less evidence. Sure, there is no DNA evidence… but much corroborating circumstances and verification by witnesses.
OK… so you are going to believe Clinton over Juanita when:
(1) we now know about Monica …Monica wasn’t in the picture when these rape allegations 1st came out
(2) Since that time, it was proven in a court of law that in a sexual harassment lawsuit Clinton presented to the court an affidavit which both Clinton and Clinton’s attorney knew in advance was false. This is highly illegal and, in fact, led to Clinton’s disbarment in Arkansas.
(3) I’m quite sure you’d now be saying similar things about inconsistencies in Monica’s story Monica she didn’t happen to keep that blue dress handy.
(4) There is no comparison of Juanita to the Duke lacrosse allegations. Juanita owned a nursing home business and was a respected member of the community. As I understand it, the Duke Lacrosse accuser admits to having casual sex at other times that very same week. The two accusers have dramatically different ethical standards and there is really no comparison between the two. Also, unlike Clinton, there is no history or similar misbehavior with the Duke players… or at least not a history involving additional sexual harrassment allegations.
But the overall point is simply that, Democrat or not, anyone who so easily blows off Juanita’s allegations but then expects massive resignations of the house republican leadership over Foley is inconsistent at best and more likely a disingenuous partisan hack.
–Rob McEwen
pvsys,
“But, again, you obviously hate WND, so you are trying to make WND the issue while ignoring the very credible witnesses in this case.”
Yeah, I don’t care for WND, and I haven’t seen any credible witnesses. So?
“Many people have been convicted in a court of law for similar crimes with less evidence. Sure, there is no DNA evidence… but much corroborating circumstances and verification by witnesses.”
Then why wasn’t he convicted, in a criminal or civil court? Ken Starr himself felt that Broaddrick’s claim was not credible. It merited a footnote in his report.
“(1) we now know about Monica …Monica wasn’t in the picture when these rape allegations 1st came out”
I’m not for sure if you know this but there is a difference b/w consensual and non consensual sex. I certainly hope you know this.
“(3) I’m quite sure you’d now be saying similar things about inconsistencies in Monica’s story Monica she didn’t happen to keep that blue dress handy.”
Probably not being that there were actual recorded conversations from Monica and her recollection of the incidents was continuously spot on. Oh yeah, and she never recanted and changed her story like Broaddrick.
“(4) There is no comparison of Juanita to the Duke lacrosse allegations. Juanita owned a nursing home business and was a respected member of the community.”
Oh, so it was okay for those lacrosse players to rape her if they wanted? Wow, and I get accused of being insensitive.
“As I understand it, the Duke Lacrosse accuser admits to having casual sex at other times that very same week.”
Easy women deserve to get raped I guess.
If Ken Starr and investigators decided it didn’t merit prosecution. If she changed her story, then I guess I’d have to say there is a reason to doubt her story.
But, I’d have given it the same consideration that I do now, but when this all blew up I was 15 and didn’t give a damn about politics or the president, so I can’t say. All I know is that my attention is on the current scandal and it appears, listening to Boehner and Reynolds, that Hastert may be involved in a coverup. At worst he is an opportunistic scumbag, and at best he is a negligent incompetent. Either way, the man does not deserve to sit in such a dignified chair. I don’t have the facts and evidence of Juanita Broaddrick before me, and frankly I don’t care, I never liked Clinton anyway, but I can see the evidence and messages and emails of Foley and the possible coverup. And, like I said I am not a Democrat so I can’t be a partisan hack, as a matter of fact, I’m a registered Republican so you can quit with that bit of b.s. It’s getting a little old.
Mojo:
You are really good at taking other’s statements out of context and adding meanings which were clearly not originally intended.
First, YOU are the one who brought up the Duke case… but ALL I was saying is that a nursing home owner who volunteered for Clinton’s campaign AND a nurse who attended to Juanita afterwards are much more credible witnesses in a rape allegation than an exotic dancer with a history of frequent casual sex. That is all I said… nothing more. Nothing less. For example, I never said that the exotic dancer didn’t have a case or didn’t deserve her day in court or didn’t get raped.
Regarding Starr, it was my understanding that he had a particular range or focus and that he dutifully stayed within this range during his investigation and that is why he didn’t open up his inquiry to include Juanita. Certainly, the fact that the rape occurred about 20 years before Clinton even took office probably had much to do with this as well.
And my point about Monica was simply that I recall many who initially discounted Juanita saying… “hey, maybe that rape really did happen” after the Monica situation came out… the point being an overall pattern of sexual conquest… sometimes in the form of rape, other times in the form of sex with subordinates… both stemming from the same need to use power as a means the achieve sex and both forming a general pattern which many didn’t acknowledge until AFTER Monica. THAT is why I brought up Monica! (something else you took out of context, as usual)
But what I find startling is… why do you so desperately need to defend Clinton and trash Juanita?
Certainly, I never imagined that anyone would defend Clinton in this matter… but thank you for showing everyone the Left’s hypocrisy in these matters.
–Rob McEwen
Bill,
I agree with your post back at:
Bill Simon // Oct 3rd 2006 at 12:40 pm
Not much intelligent being said on this thread anymore.
Mad Dog
You are one funny dude !! LOL
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →
Comments on this entry are closed.