Hastert said they didn't know.

[Keystone Phil]

I am watching the press conference live. He said he nor anyone else knew until last Friday.

[Alcon]

I'm not sure what to make of this in light of Loraditch's comments.  Someone, somewhere, knew.

[Monty]

If Hastert didn't know, it's because he didn't want to know.  It appears the Republicans care more about winning elections than protecting children from sexual predators.

[nlm]

Surprise, suprise. Hastert says he didn't know. I'm shocked.

Does it matter one way or the other? All of Congress should be mortified. All of Congress should be held to account. All of Congress was responsible for the welfare of the children that came to DC and acted as their pages.

I could give a damn less if Hastert knew or not - it was his watch - and I certainly have no reason to believe him based only on his word.

This is just the sort of thing that happens when responsibility and accountability are removed from government.

[Alcon]

If Hastert didn't know, it's because he didn't want to know.  It appears the Republicans care more about winning elections than protecting children from sexual predators.

I'm not sure that's fair.  I doubt that a scared teenager would have gone to the top immediately, but I think it's clear that someone knew, or forced themselves to not believe it.

[nlm]

If Hastert didn't know, it's because he didn't want to know.  It appears the Republicans care more about winning elections than protecting children from sexual predators.

I'm not sure that's fair.  I doubt that a scared teenager would have gone to the top immediately, but I think it's clear that someone knew, or forced themselves to not believe it.

While I'm not sure it's fair - I'm not sure it isn't fair. From what I've been able to glean Hastert was aware of some improper communication between Foley and a page (the exact nature or number of communications the he knew of are not known to me) and was so concerned about the welfare of these children that at best he didn't bother to look into it (or have somebody look into it) at all and at worst, he knew about the whole thing and tried to sweep it under the rug. Which ever way you slice - he's a screw-up. But, perhaps you need to be a parent to get that.

[MODU]

From what I've been able to glean Hastert was aware of some improper communication between Foley and a page (the exact nature or number of communications the he knew of are not known to me) and was so concerned about the welfare of these children that at best he didn't bother to look into it (or have somebody look into it) at all and at worst, he knew about the whole thing and tried to sweep it under the rug.

As stated in the sister-thread:

Hastert and the Congressional review board knew of the 2005 e-mail (singular) from Foley to a page which was deemed "overly friendly" but not of a sexual manner.  No punishable action was taken since it was deemed to not be a criminal action.  The sexual e-mails in question are from 2003 (to a different page), and were not known of prior to their recent release.  Hastert has already called on the AG to investigate these e-mails as well as the person who has been sitting on them for three years, since they should have been brought forward earlier.

The 2005 e-mail was brought forward and addressed.  The 2003 e-mails were not known about until last week.

[nlm]

From what I've been able to glean Hastert was aware of some improper communication between Foley and a page (the exact nature or number of communications the he knew of are not known to me) and was so concerned about the welfare of these children that at best he didn't bother to look into it (or have somebody look into it) at all and at worst, he knew about the whole thing and tried to sweep it under the rug.

As stated in the sister-thread:

Hastert and the Congressional review board knew of the 2005 e-mail (singular) from Foley to a page which was deemed "overly friendly" but not of a sexual manner.  No punishable action was taken since it was deemed to not be a criminal action.  The sexual e-mails in question are from 2003 (to a different page), and were not known of prior to their recent release.  Hastert has already called on the AG to investigate these e-mails as well as the person who has been sitting on them for three years, since they should have been brought forward earlier.

The 2005 e-mail was brought forward and addressed.  The 2003 e-mails were not known about until last week.

So they say, so they say. Ignorance certainly has been a popular excuse in government in recent times. I'm a bit tired of having ignorant government.

Hastert has already changed his mind 3 times about when he knew about it - that makes it a bit more difficult to take his word - but maybe that's just me.

Mr. Foley's interests were so well-known that pages reportedly warned each other to watch out for him. Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.), who chairs the House Page Board, said he was told by the clerk of the House about troubling e-mails from Mr. Foley to a page "in late 2005." Mr. Shimkus said he warned Mr. Foley to cut off contact and "be especially mindful of his conduct" with pages. That hardly seems an adequate response.

But to actually hold people accountable - or heaven forbid have an independent investigation - is beyond the capacity of the group that leads Congress at the moment it would seem. All we are talking about is a sexual predator that stalked children loose in the halls of Congress - no big deal, right.

[Nym90]

There should certainly be a full investigation into this. If Hastert knew about it and did nothing, he should be held responsible for his inaction.

[MODU]

So they say, so they say. Ignorance certainly has been a popular excuse in government in recent times. I'm a bit tired of having ignorant government.

Well, I guess we should make a requirement that Congressmen be omnipotent then.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, the 2005 e-mail (the one which was known about) was deemed overly friendly but did not violate any law, so how could there be any punishment other than informing Foley to limit his contact with another Congressman's page?  Should we drag him out on the steps and beat him because of a non-sexual e-mail?  Maybe we should waterboard him until he gives us a confession (real or fake), and then haul him out in front of the public to have tomatoes thrown at him.  Would that be more to your liking?  After all, that's what the Democrats did to Gerry Studds in 1983, right?  Oh wait...

[nlm]

What would make me happy? How about a full independent investigation of what everybody (Dem and Rep) knew and when they knew it. That would make me happy. How about an actual effort to re-introduce accountability into government. That would make me happy.

I realize that children being sexually stalked by Congressmen is simply a political inconvenience for some, for some - they would prefer to play the partisan game of "oh well, the other side was bad at some point in time as well" as opposed to making an honest effort to resolve actual problems (which is one of the main reasons accountability in this government has all but disappeared). I've never been in favor of that game - I'm even more opposed when we are talking about a sexual predator that stalks children loose in the halls of Congress.

You should also look up ignorant and omnipotent, one has little to do with the other and having an all powerful Congressman is hardly what I'm looking for - I'm simply tired of stupid ones.

[nlm]

Here's a simple question, for those with children only - if you placed your child in the care of somebody else and that person knew that your child had recieved "overly friendly messages" from another person that was also responsible for the well being of your child and it turned out that individual had been sexually stalking your child - would "I didn't know about it" seem like a good excuse? And that's freaking best case - worst case is still that a number of people knew the whole damn thing and tried to sweep it under the rug and are still trying.

I don't think there is a parent in the world that would take "I didn't know about it" as an answer - not one. A full independent investigation into this is the only remotely acceptable outcome. Oh, and hauling Foley out and letting us bean him with Tomatoes would work well on top of that.

Most parents, myself included, would want Shimkus dead and buried and wouldn't be at all interested in listening to folks defend themselves like Hastert is trying to do. A full scale indepedent investigation - that would be the only thing that should be able to save Hastert.

[Monty]

I wonder how many Republicans who knew Foley would have let their children be pages for this pervert.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The real problem for the GOP is that Alexander went to RNCC chair rather the page board chair with his concerns about Foley.  At the very least Louisiana 5 becomes a possible Democratic pickup in addition to Florida 16 because of this.

[Smash255]

Tom Reynolds is claiming that he told Hastert months ago.  So who is lying reynolds or Hastert???

[nlm]

The real problem for the GOP is that Alexander went to RNCC chair rather the page board chair with his concerns about Foley.  At the very least Louisiana 5 becomes a possible Democratic pickup in addition to Florida 16 because of this.

Well, you need to get your spin of the situation down prior to addressing a problem. Party image is more important than protecting children from sexual predators - at least for Alexander it would seem. Surely the folks in LA 5 will understand his perspective on that.

The next few days of spin should be amazingly head spinning.

[minionofmidas]

So... what should the duties of a "page" be? What do they need "pages" for anyways?Think about cutting that job out, maybe.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What do they need "pages" for anyways?

I think we all just found out the answer to that question...

[The Dowager Mod]

The St.Petersburg times knew in November and kept it quiet.

[nlm]

The St.Petersburg times knew in November and kept it quiet.

More info please.

[Smash255]

The St.Petersburg times knew in November and kept it quiet.

More info please.

it was reported on CNN's "The situation Room", supposidly the teen who got the e-mails declined to comment on the story, and they decided not to run it because they didn't want to cause any damage if it wasn't true.  Some editors in the paper criticized them on not doing more searching, talking to more pages, and not contacting the authorities.

[The Dowager Mod]

http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2006/09/a_note_from_the.html

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The real problem for the GOP is that Alexander went to RNCC chair rather the page board chair with his concerns about Foley.  At the very least Louisiana 5 becomes a possible Democratic pickup in addition to Florida 16 because of this.

Serves him right for switching parties 15 minutes before the filing deadline in 2004.

[nlm]

The St.Petersburg times knew in November and kept it quiet.

More info please.

it was reported on CNN's "The situation Room", supposidly the teen who got the e-mails declined to comment on the story, and they decided not to run it because they didn't want to cause any damage if it wasn't true.  Some editors in the paper criticized them on not doing more searching, talking to more pages, and not contacting the authorities.

http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2006/09/a_note_from_the.html

Grazie, Grazie.