0
   

Hastert Lies Again, Gets Caught Again

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Sat 7 Oct, 2006 11:24 am
This article is a big deal; there's a lot of damaging info hidden in it.

Most importantly,

Quote:

Sources close to Fordham say Trandahl repeatedly urged the longtime aide and close family friend to confront Foley about his inappropriate advances on pages. Each time, Foley pledged to no longer socialize with the teenagers, but, weeks later, Trandahl would again alert Fordham about more contacts. Out of frustration, the sources said, Fordham contacted Palmer, hoping that an intervention from such a powerful figure in the House would persuade Foley to stop.


This 'graf alone shows three or four different lies being told by Hastert.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Oct, 2006 12:25 pm
Re: Closeted Gay Republicans and a Party in Political Free-F
nimh wrote:
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Closeted Gay Republicans and a Party in Political Free-Fall
by Lawrence O'Donnell
10.05.2006

That was from the Huffington Post. And included a bit too much eager gay-baiting for my taste.

It's not just random either. O'Donnell's article - I dont know who he is - chimes in exactly with an alternative narrative currently promoted by some defensive Republicans - who are trying to scapegoat a kind of 'gay cabal' operating independently within the House. See these notes on TNR's The Plank:

Quote:
10.04.06

FINGERING "THE VELVET MAFIA":

This is a touchy question, but I think it's become important to understanding what's happening in Congress right now and what may happen next.

You may know that Kirk Fordham was ousted today as Tom Reynolds's chief of staff after allegations that he tried to cover for Mark Foley's inappropriate behavior. (In fact Fordham insists he sounded the alarm.) Fordham, as I think the Plank was first to point out, is also a former chief of staff to Foley. Today ABC News notes, in passing, that Fordham is "openly gay." (I had heard this several times myself but chose not to publish it until now.) Why is this significant? Because it's becoming clear that some people on Capitol Hill are promoting a storyline that involves gay Republican staffers--apparently led by Fordham--covering up for Mark Foley. Gloria Borger hinted at this on CBS News last night, saying:

    One senior House Republican tells CBS that there's a lot of anger at what he describes as "a network of gay staffers and gay members who protect each other and did the speaker a disservice.".
Today I spoke to a gay Republican who does not work on Capitol Hill, who said he believes that the House GOP leadership is:

    mak[ing] it look like the gay velvet mafia is down there protecting Foley.... Basically what you see them trying to do is say, "There's this cabal of gays on Capitol Hill who were trying to keep this quiet."
So maybe this is how Dennis Hastert and his compatriots are explaining themselves to the base. If you're a gay Republican staffer, the implications must be more than a little alarming--as evidenced by the "list" David Corn says is going around.

--Michael Crowley

posted 6:38 p.m.


Quote:
10.05.06

GOP "GAY-BAITING"?:

NGLTF:

    The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force today condemned emerging attempts to shift responsibility for the Foley scandal by blaming gay Republican congressional staffers for supposedly covering up prior reports of predatory behavior by former Rep. Mark Foley.
Apparently several DC reporters are looking into this storyline today.

--Michael Crowley

posted 2:45 p.m.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Oct, 2006 08:38 am
Conflicting Accounts Leave Plot Holes in Foley Saga
Conflicting Accounts Leave Plot Holes in Foley Saga
House Ethics Committee and FBI Will Try to Sort Out Who Knew What -- and When

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 8, 2006; A08

Despite countless hours of TV coverage and reams of newspaper reporting on the House's handling of the Mark Foley page scandal, numerous fundamental questions remain unanswered as the FBI and the House ethics committee begin their first full week of inquiries.

Gaps and inconsistencies in the public accounts include such basic matters as when House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and his top aides first learned of concerns about Foley's relationships with male pages, and what they did about it. Also unclear is which GOP officials decided that only two members of the six-person House Page Board should confront the Florida lawmaker.

And accounts differ on whether the two board members knew the exact contents of e-mails Foley sent last year to a teenage boy in Louisiana. Those messages alarmed the boy and his parents and set into motion the events that eventually would uncover far more sexually graphic messages to other former pages, triggering Foley's abrupt resignation a week ago.

Armed with subpoena power, investigators for the FBI and the ethics committee will pursue scores of questions, almost surely including:

Who decided to keep word of the Louisiana e-mails closely held, so that only a handful of House Republicans -- and no Democrats -- knew of them?

Various accounts agree that only two people -- Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.), chairman of the Page Board, and then-House Clerk Jeff Trandahl, also a board member -- confronted Foley in November 2005 about the messages. But none has definitively said who decided that only those two should handle the task.

A Sept. 30 "internal review" released by Hastert's office says that aides to Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.) alerted Hastert's aides to the e-mails. Among those dealing with the matter were Hastert's deputy chief of staff, Mike Stokke, and his in-house counsel, Ted Van Der Meid.

Stokke contacted Trandahl, who then contacted Shimkus. The review says Trandahl and Shimkus "immediately met" with Foley. But it does not say who chose the meeting's participants, and why other Page Board members -- including Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Rep. Dale E. Kildee (D-Mich.) and Sergeant-at-Arms Wilson "Bill" Livingood -- were never alerted.

Some lawmakers say Capito, Kildee and Livingood might have urged queries to current and former pages, which could have turned up accounts of Foley's unusual friendliness to the youths and his sexually explicit messages to some of them. Such accounts were quietly traded among pages, former pages and some House staff members, according to recent news reports.

Did Trandahl and Shimkus know exactly what the e-mails to the Louisiana boy said?

Hastert's internal review indicates that the two men did not know the e-mails' precise language when they sat down with Foley, because Alexander's staff refused to divulge it at the boy's parents' request. That may have put the two men at a disadvantage when confronting Foley, who assured them that the messages and his intentions were innocent.

Shimkus has said Alexander's staff did provide him with the text of the e-mails before he confronted Foley. In them, Foley requested a photo of the boy, then 16, and asked what he wanted for his birthday. The boy told an acquaintance he found the request "sick, sick, sick."

How did House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) handle word of the Louisiana e-mails?

Hours after Foley resigned Sept. 29, Boehner told The Washington Post that he had heard last spring of some contact between Foley and a 16-year-old boy. He said he mentioned it to Hastert, who assured him "we're taking care of it." Soon after The Post asked the speaker's staff for comment on the remarks, Boehner called the paper and said he could not recall whether he had spoken to Hastert about the matter.

On Tuesday, Boehner told a Cincinnati radio station: "I believe I had talked to the speaker, and he told me it had been taken care of. My position is, it's in his corner, it's his responsibility."

Did Hastert know about the e-mails to the Louisiana boy?

Reinforcing Boehner's initial comments, Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.) -- chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee -- says he learned of the e-mails from Alexander this year and told Hastert about them. "I took logical, common-sense steps of notifying my supervisor," Reynolds told the public radio program "On Point" Thursday. "My supervisor was the speaker of the House."

Hastert says he does not recall such conversations with Reynolds or Boehner, but he does not dispute that they may have occurred. He says that Stokke and Van Der Meid did not tell him about the e-mails and that there was no reason for them to do so. Hastert says he does not recall hearing of concerns about Foley's dealings with teenagers until the day Foley resigned.

Was Hastert's staff alerted to earlier concerns about Foley's behavior toward teenage pages?

Kirk Fordham, who served as chief of staff to Foley and later to Reynolds, says that in 2003 he repeatedly asked Hastert's staff to help put a stop to the Floridian's inappropriate attention to male pages on Capitol Hill. Fordham says that he appealed especially to Hastert's chief of staff, Scott Palmer, and that Palmer discussed the matter with Foley in a Capitol meeting.

A congressional staff member with personal knowledge of Foley and his actions has told The Post that Fordham's account is accurate. But Palmer has said through a spokesman that Fordham's account is untrue.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Oct, 2006 06:10 pm
Re: Closeted Gay Republicans and a Party in Political Free-F
nimh wrote:
. O'Donnell's article - I dont know who he is -


Yes, you do.

He's the legal correspondent for one of the all news channels-not Fox. He also predicted Rove's indictment due to the many times Rove voluntarily appeared before the grand jury, and other reasons.

Of course, Rove never got indicted. O'Donnell's reasoning seemed sound enough, but he didn't leave himself a lot of wiggle room either in case the Rove indictment never happened.

O'Donnell has held several fairly high positions in the Democratic Party as well.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Oct, 2006 06:21 pm
Re: Closeted Gay Republicans and a Party in Political Free-F
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
closeted gay Republicans who have been working at the highest levels of the Republican leadership.

Is the implication that Hastert and other Republicans have such fantastic gaydar that they should know who the closeted homosexuals are? Or that Hastert is blameless because of some sort of conspiracy among gays?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Sun 8 Oct, 2006 06:23 pm
Re: Closeted Gay Republicans and a Party in Political Free-F
nimh wrote:
It's not just random either. O'Donnell's article - I dont know who he is - chimes in exactly with an alternative narrative currently promoted by some defensive Republicans - who are trying to scapegoat a kind of 'gay cabal' operating independently within the House. ...

Ah. Conspiracy among closeted homosexuals in an effort to take the heat off of Hastert.

First a conspiracy among pages...

Now a conspiracy among homosexuals...

Have they gotten their tinfoil hats updated?
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Oct, 2006 06:31 pm
Hastert won his Congressional District with 69% of the vote last time.

Is there any realistic chance he can lose this time?

I think a lot of Republicans would like to see it happen, so that Hastert and perhaps most of the scandal will go away without the Republicans having to admit anything.

Do you suppose Rove will be offering aid to TWO Democrats this fall, Lieberman and Hastert's opponent? Very Happy
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2018 11:22 am
@blueflame1,
blueflame1 wrote:

Brandon, imo you just play games with the obvious.


12 years later it is same old same old
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/20/2018 at 02:56:38