Hastert Knew About Mark Foley Allegations

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Elections, General Politics

In early 2006 no less. And the Wash Post has revealed that his staff knew about it in the fall of last year. Yet nothing was done about it.

Now, of course Hastert is saying that he only found out about this story last week, but the problem he’s running into is that not only has Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.) gone on the record as saying he notified him about the situation, but House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) has also said that when he found out about the questionable emails (not the IMs) in the late Spring, he told Hastert about them and Hastert made it apparent he already knew about them.

Woops.

Now, to be fair to the GOP, it appears as if the emails were not anywhere close to what the IM sessions have revealed about Foley’s behavior. However, I think the following piece of information may be the most damning of all. See, when all this came about the chairman of the House Page Board, Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.) was notified, but he didn’t tell the Democrat on the Board, Rep. Dale E. Kildee (D-Mich.), about the situation.

Ladies and gentleman, my prediction is that this will absolutely destroy the G.O.P.’s chances of holding onto the House in the fall. It’s over.

I’ll have more as it unfolds.

UPDATE:
Ed Morrissey has some suggestions for the GOP:

I cannot tell CQ readers how disgusted I am with Speaker Hastert. Reynolds is no fringe nutcase; he’s the man Hastert trusted to run the midterm re-elections of the Republican caucus. He has no reason to lie, but Hastert apparently did. This also calls into question Boehner’s earlier reversal, when he denied saying that he informed Hastert after Hastert denied knowing of Foley’s activities.

Hastert should have been a man from the beginning and admit that he knew about Foley. Now he has destroyed any credibility left in his Speakership, and he has only compounded the embarrassment for the GOP caucus. Foley’s actions reflect on Foley alone, but thanks to Hastert and perhaps Boehner, the aftermath will reflect on all Republicans in the House.

Republicans have to act swiftly to remove the stench of Foleygate from the party. They need to demand the resignation of Hastert as Speaker, as well as Boehner as Majority Leader if he lied to protect Hastert. Allowing Foley off the hook was a mistake in judgment, but this is a betrayal of those who trusted Hastert to lead the House with dignity, honesty, and integrity.

Dollars to donuts, Hastert will stay.


This entry was posted on Saturday, September 30th, 2006 and is filed under Elections, General Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

3 Responses to “Hastert Knew About Mark Foley Allegations”

  1. ChrisO Says:

    The e-mails may not have been as damning as IMs, but as Josh Marshall points out, it took ABC News exactly one day to uncover the IMs after seeing the e-mails. I guess the difference is you have to want to know the truth.

  2. Groucho Marx Says:

    Oh, by the way. To all members of the lunatic left-wing fringe:

    In the District of Columbia, the legal age of sexual consent is 16.

    Need a link?

    http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

    Now, if you’re going to start bitching and screaming that even if it’s legal, it’s inappropriate for a 50-something politician to have sex with an unpaid young volunteer, and any such politician should be forced to resign immediately just for suggesting it …

    … need I remind you …

  3. Mr. Reason Says:

    Uh, hey Groucho, better think twice. It’s not that simple actually. Age of consent in D.C. may not even be a factor here. Whether or not Foley broke the law will depend entirely on where he and the teen were at the time of the conversation. If he or the teen were in Foley’s home state of Florida at the time, it’s FLORIDA law that applies. Under Florida law, it is illegal and an offense to encourage, offer or solicit sexual conduct on the Internet with anyone under 18. Period. If the online interaction was with multiple teens in multiple states, Foley’s fate is even more murky. So until it’s all straightened out, it’s really up in the air and not as cut and dry as the age of consent. Under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, which Foley himself championed, he could face stiffer sentencing if convicted of anything relating to the online child laws. Party of morality my ass.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: