<p>Tonight on ABC, investigative journalist Brian Ross suggested there may be other members of Congress who engaged in inappropriate behavior towards congressional pages:</p>
<p>BRIAN ROSS: So far, Foley is the only member whose overt sexual approaches have been documented. Charlie? </p>
<p>CHARLES GIBSON: The only one to be documented, but are there other shoes to drop? </p>
<p>ROSS: Were hearing quite a bit from former pages. Theyre sending us all sorts of messages about possible other members.</p>
<p>the Republcans have stated who they shared it with, and believe me, if they share with Dems, I think they would have said that, but they names 4-5 republicans that all knew…</p>
<h1>337: Side topic: To have branch of government investigate another branch is a delicate issue. Perhaps the FBI/DOJ/Homeland Security would prefer to have The House (Congress) investigate itself first before it undertakes its investigation?</h1>
<p>DRJ4, it’s been widely reported in the press that the Democrat on the committee wasn’t notified. I wasn’t trying to be mysterious; I thought it was common knowledge at this point.</p>
<p>In other statements, Kildee has said that the first she learned of the allegations and complaint was on 9/29/2006.</p>
<p>I agree it’s very, very suspicious. Even more suspicious is the fact that Alexander brought the original complaint to the Republican Campaign committe, instead of any ethics or disciplinary body. Talk about politicizing the situation.</p>
<p>The above link also contains a transcript of Maf54 pressuring one of the pages to tell him what will happen “after” they meet for dinner, and the kid trying to dodge the question and put him off till Feb.</p>
<p>itstoomuch: I don’t think that’s how Abscam and numerous other FBI probes into Congressmen were handled, so I doubt it’s routine for them to let Congress investigate its members for possible criminal wrongdoing. And we haven’t heard any evidence that the FBI referred this to the House for investigation…or that the House conducted any sort of credible one.</p>
<h1>340: “On Friday afternoon, a strategist for Rep. Mark Foley tried to cut a deal with ABC’s Brian Ross.”</h1>
<p>Actually, it’s even worse. This person, Kirk Fordham, is now chief of staff for Congressman Tom Reynolds (R-NY), chair of the NRCC. He was formerly Foley’s chief of staff.</p>
<p>DRJ4 - you asked for conyat to post a link regarding the allegation that the democrats on the page committee were kept in the dark. I believe this was already posted in message 256. Shimkus confirmed it. However, I think that is misleading, since it appears from news late this evening (I don’t have the link) that one or more republicans on the committee have complained they were excluded from deliberations also. Clearly the House leaders treated this as the explosive political issue it has in fact turned out to be. But the crime is that they treated it as a political issue.</p>
<p>the Republcans have stated who they shared it with, and believe me, if they share with Dems, I think they would have said that, but they names 4-5 republicans that all knew…</p>
<p>and for Hastert to conveniently not remember…and for the people who were supposed to deal with to not read the emails in question? to protect the privacy of the minor> what they can’t black out the name? gee, they do that all the time</p>
<p>Do you have a link that lists the members and explains the rules/procedures of the Congressional page program? Based on what I’ve read, the program appears to be supervised by the Clerk of the House, a nonpartisan position, and that the Clerk participated in the initial investigation of the Foley emails. I assume the Clerk could have involved the other members if needed and it would be interesting to hear the Clerk’s views.</p>
<p>After re-reading comment #256, I did miss Rep. Kildee’s statement. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. That quote reaffirms that the Foley matter was initially handled by Rep. Shimkus and the Clerk of the House. Do you believe the Clerk is part of the cover-up, too?</p>
<p>House clerk asked to see text of email, was told it was nothing sexual, and clerk passed the information onto the Chairman of the page board, a republican…Clerk was told he couldn’t see emails to protect the identity of the former page, and he trusted Alexander on that…Chairman privately tells Foley to stop the contact…</p>
<p>The congressmen involved are all dancing so fast, it’s frankly tough to figure out who told who what at this point. This one told that one, no he didn’t, yes I did, etc. etc. So I’m not addressing who exactly is part of a cover up when it doesn’t seem clear whether there was a cover up yet. </p>
<p>But let me address the undertone that appears in your (drj4) post. You seem to be saying that the post of Clerk is nonpartisan, and therefore how could a reasonable person believe he was part of a cover up.</p>
<p>The post may be nonpartisan, but that doesn’t mean that it is occupied by a nonpartisan person. It is an elected post, and therefore I would suspect it would be occupied by a Republican. And in fact, the current clerk is very obviously a Republican.</p>
<p>But who knows what the clerk was told or shown. I think we’ll have to wait for the pie throwing among the congressmen to end before we figure out who’s coated with whipped cream, as it were.</p>
<p>Just watching Stephen Colbert: " Denny Hastert used to be a high school wrestling coach. So what could he possibly know about sexual harrassment of young boys? "</p>
<p>DRJ4, I am kind of curious why you keep asking people (or at least me) for links instead of reading yourself what’s commonly been reported. Here’s one of many links that talks about the founding and purpose of the Page Board, in response to the scandals of the 1980s, with reference to the Foley situation.</p>
<p>I selected this one via the arcane method known as Google. Who knows what you might find, if you explore beyond CC and the Republican talking points?</p>
<p>"Afterward, the minimum age for pages was raised to 16 from 14. Tighter supervision measures were put in place, including a dormitory blocks from the Capitol, where pages must live and attend classes.</p>
<p>Lawmakers created the Page Board, a bipartisan panel that oversees the program. The Page Board, which was formed to ensure the “welfare of the pages,” rests at the heart of the current controversy."</p>
<p>There would have been no need to appoint a panel, much less a bipartisan one, if Congress had intended for the Clerk of the House and the Chairman of the Page Board to make unilateral decisions about the welfare of pages, especially on such a serious issue.</p>
<p>I want to add that my interest in this particular issue is not partisan. If it turns out that Democrats have been putting sexual pressure on pages via the Internet and covering it up, I will be just as appalled.</p>
<p>Here is something about the house clerk- notice who she worked for previouslly- I am assuming its the same House Clerk discussed in the news as this is from the official site</p>
<p>Karen Lehman Haas, a native of Catonsville, Maryland, was appointed the thirty-fourth Clerk in December 2005. She is only the second woman in history to hold this position. As Clerk, Ms. Haas plays a central role in the daily operation and legislative activities of the House.
Ms. Haas began her service on Capitol Hill in 1984 when she worked for then-Minority Leader Robert H. Michel. For almost 11 years she served as Leader Michel’s Executive Legislative Assistant. Following a brief leave to work in the private sector, Ms. Haas returned to Capitol Hill in June of 1999 to serve as Floor Assistant to Speaker J. Dennis Hastert. In this capacity, she coordinated the daily floor activity, including the appointment of presiding officers and activities relative to the Speaker’s chair. During her tenure with the Speaker she also served as Staff Director of the Steering Committee.</p>
<p>Ms. Haas attended public schools in Maryland and completed her college education at the University of Maryland, College Park. She is a 1984 graduate of the University majoring in Political Science with a minor in Economics. Ms. Haas resides in Maryland with her husband and two children.</p>
<p>If you will read earlier comments in this thread, you will see that I have provided several links. I apologize if you feel I have burdened you with undue requests for links. It won’t happen again.</p>
<p>Kluge,</p>
<p>I consider your comment a compliment, so thank you. If I am indefatigable, it’s only because I want to see the facts before rendering judgment on Hastert and the other leaders. (If I were a liberal in the classic sense of the word, I would also insist on awaiting evidence of Foley’s guilt before condemning him. I guess that proves I’m not a classic liberal but it proves that of many others here as well.) As I stated earlier in this thread, if the GOP leaders have known for some time about the IMs - which I consider salacious and indefensible - then they are pathetic. I haven’t seen anything to suggest that is the case but, of course, it could be.</p>
<p>Hayden,</p>
<p>If your point is that all people are partisan, I agree, but I have no reason to think the Clerk of the House would take sides on a matter such as this. Perhaps you know more than I do about DC politics. Given my location and interests, I’m sure many people know more about inside-the-Beltway politics than I.</p>
<p>Clerk of the House worked for Hastert and it is an elected position…so it is partisan in that regard…there are nominations for the job, and a vote…and as she worked for one of the big players in this mess, who knows</p>