I am incensed! If you're not already frothing at the mouth, then get ready to because this is not a story of eating good Chicago-style pizza or world famous Haagen Daz ice cream, which I hear the Speaker loves. This is a story about Cover Your Ass. This is about politicizing the truth to retain power in the House of Representatives. This is the story of the Speaker throwing the ball to the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, knowing that they will quiet the Foleygate story until after the November elections.
I know it's a few days before the midterms are with us, but this investigation is about truth vs. lies. If released in a timely manner, the results of this investigation will impact the outcome of this election, as they should. If the Republican leadership did no wrong, then it should be so noted. If there was a cover-up by the Speaker, his staff and the other leaders who remain in important positions, that too should be known. How can the president and the Speaker of the House claim to be working so hard to keep us safe if they can't even protect the young girls and boys who are serving as pages in the House? These young people are representatives of both political parties, and what can they learn from this? Why would they want to serve their country when they witness adults taking advantage of children and when they see members of their own party who will do anything to retain their power? That's why we cannot be silent. This is about a breach of trust. This is about the future and how we can seize our country back.
Are we going to stay quiet or are we going to exert some pressure on the committee to move quickly and to release some information to the public? Who are we and do we demand accountability and oversight whether the Republican majority is willing to exert it or not? We are citizens with real concerns. We should act to do whatever we can to ensure that the Republican leadership is being investigated to determine if there was in fact a cover-up.
This is what got me so upset: I called the House Ethics Committee on Friday afternoon. I asked the woman who answered the phone if Dennis Hastert is being called to testify and if he will be put under oath. Her immediate response was that the information is confidential. What? What information is confidential? The committee cannot release the names of people who will be called to testify. So I repeated what she said back to her and she confirmed. She said it was a committee rule. Well then, where did that rule come from and who initiated it and when?
How is the media getting the information about who's testifying? Is someone from the committee "leaking" information to the press, but they cannot reply to a citizen's request for information? It's an innocent request. You and I have the right to ask it. We want to know if the Speaker will be questioned under oath. We have the right to ask and we should demand the answer. If necessary, they should LEAK it to us just like they leaked it to the press. If they violate their own rules for the press then they should violate their own rules to reply to a citizen's question.
Here's the rule: http://www.house.gov/...
Scroll down to Rule 7e: Except as otherwise specifically authorized by the Committee, no Committee member or staff member shall disclose to any person outside the Committee, the name of any witness subpoenaed to testify or to produce evidence.
This is what I want you to do: 1) Call the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct at 202-225-7103 first thing today. 2) I am also asking you to ask friends and family to call them too and to ask the same question I asked.
If you push the subject, the person on the phone will ask you if you'd like to leave a comment. Say YES! Tell her you expect the committee to hold the Speaker, J. Dennis Hastert, to the same standards that he has required the committee to hold the others to. Tell her you want the Speaker to be subpoenaed and to testify under oath. We want him to be questioned about what he knew when and we want his testimony to be under oath.
Tell her you read this article and quote the Speaker:
http://news.yahoo.com/...
Ethics committee chairman Doc Hastings, R-Wash., and ranking Democrat Howard Berman of California would provide no details on the subpoenas but told a news conference the committee was seeking both testimony and documents.
Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean said the speaker had not yet received a subpoena from the ethics committee but was willing to testify. "If the ethics committee asks him to, of course," Bonjean told The Associated Press.
After you've called the ethics committee and registered your comment/complaint, then come back here and provide me with a comment or two about the question(s) you want to see them ask the Speaker when they have him under oath. Give me permission to quote you and to use your comment.
On Tuesday morning I will fax a letter from the group of concerned citizens who demand the truth along with the questions you've submitted to this diary. Please ask your friends and family members to call and if they don't blog, they can send to me their questions via e-mail at victoria2dc at gmail.com. I will e-mail/fax a copy of the letter to the White House, the Speaker, the committee and to the congressional offices of the Ranking Majority Member, Doc Hastings and the Ranking Minority Member, Howard L. Berman. It appears that Howard Berman had no information about this scandal until it was released by ABC News on September 28, 2006. But he is the Ranking Minority Member! That is outrageous.
Questions for the Speaker:
1) Were you aware that either the Ranking Majority Member of the ethics committee or the Ranking Minority Member did or did not know about the inappropriate nature of Mr. Foley's conduct prior to the release of the information from ABC News on September 28, 2006? 2) Did you approve of any secret gentleman's agreement to keep that information from the other members of the committee? 3) Did you give instructions to Representative Hastings that he is to leave no stone unturned in seeking the truth concerning this investigation? 4) Did you set any timelines regarding the release of this investigation's findings? Did you instruct them to move forward quickly so that the American people know the truth before the midterm elections next month?
Use this story for reference:
http://cbs4.com/...
Aide Told Hastert About Foley 3 Years Ago
Kirk Fordham told The Associated Press that when he learned about Foley's inappropriate behavior toward pages, he had "more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene," alluding to House Speaker Dennis Hastert.
Hastert's office denied the explosive allegations.
5) Mr. Speaker: Do you swear under oath that Mr. Fordham did not inform you or your Chief of Staff, Scott Palmer, or any other member of your staff about former Congressman Foley's inappropriate behavior toward pages? Mr. Forham has sworn under oath that he had, "... more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level of the House of Representatives" and that means your sir.
Present this to him in writing and allow him to read it before he testifies:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Both Fordham and Trandahl decided that Fordham should call Palmer, according to the source. In a phone call with Palmer, Fordham expressed his concern about Foley's "over-friendliness" to pages, although Fordham did not specifically mention that Foley was seen outside the pages' dorm. Palmer said he would talk to Foley about it; two days later, Fordham checked in with Palmer. Palmer said that he spoke with Foley and that he told the speaker about it, the source said.
Palmer has said: "What Kirk Fordham said did not happen."
The first in a series of questions we need the House Ethics Committee to ask Speaker J. Dennis Hastert while he is under oath, remembering that he can be removed from office at a later time if his statements are found to be false:
6) Mr. Speaker, while you're under oath, let me confirm: Are you are the highest official in the US House of Representatives? Do you hold yourself accountable for the operations, ethics and overall work of all members and their staffs as the Speaker of the House of Representatives? Are you personally responsible for the oversight of issues such as this matter with former congressman Foley? If your answer to that question is yes, then I ask you again, based upon Mr. Fordham's statement in the Washington Post, someone is lying about the phone call that Fordham said he made to your chief of staff Palmer. Mr. Palmer has been quoted as saying, "What Kirk Fordham said did not happen." But Mr. Speaker, Mr. Fordham's statement has been collaborated by two different sources. Mr. Speaker, we rely on you to provide moral leadership. This is not just about Foley. This is about ethics and high standards. In all honesty, under your leadership, some of the most immoral, unethical and quite frankly, most criminal, acts have taken place in the halls of the United States Congress, and only a few of them have surfaced as of this time.
Mr. Speaker, we understand your long time relationship with Mr. Palmer. We know he is critical to the operation of your office. We know that you spend more time with him than your wife because you work together every day, you live together in a Capitol Hill townhouse, and you commute back to Illinois on the weekends together. We understand this relationship and the role Mr. Palmer plays in the operation of your office, but this is not about friendship or loyalties. This is about the truth.
7) Here's is another important piece of information we ask you to consider prior to answering further questions:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/...
Second Source Tells ABC of Earlier Role by Hastert's Office
October 07, 2006 3:54 PM
ABC's John Yang reports: A current House staffer has told ABC News that Scott Palmer, House Speaker Dennis Hastert's (R-IL) chief of staff, met with disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) to discuss the time and attention he was giving House pages many months before the Speaker's office has said it became aware of the issue.
The staffer, who asked not be identified because of the ongoing FBI and House Ethics Committees invesgitations, told ABC News that the meeting between Palmer and Foley came to light in November 2005, around the time when Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), head of the House Page Board, and then-House Clerk Jeff Trandahl, who was administrator of the page program, met with Foley about an e-mail exchange Foley had with a former page, sponsored by Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA).
"At that time, I became aware that there was a previous meeting" between Foley and Palmer, the staffer told ABC News.
This corroborates the account of Kirk Fordham, Foley's former chief of staff, who said he had gone to Palmer to seek the intervention of the Speaker's office to try to change Foley's behavior. Earlier, Palmer said "what Kirk Fordham said happened didn't happen."
Mr. Speaker, here is another piece of information we ask you to consider before you answer the question. This is another quote from the Washington Post article of October 12, 2006:
It would be very hard to believe if Palmer knew that kind of detail, he wouldn't have acted upon it, and it's hard to imagine Scott Palmer would have spared the Speaker that knowledge," said one former Republican leadership aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of jeopardizing his lobbying contacts.
8) Frankly Mr. Speaker, either Mr. Fordham or Mr. Palmer has lied about what they knew, what they did to solve this problem and when they did it. Does Scott Palmer, your chief of staff keep records of phone calls and meetings? Have you asked him to carefully check those records? ? Have those records been turned over to the FBI and the ethics committee? If not, could those records be turned over to this committee? Are you willing, under oath, to answer this question? Which of them is lying? On what facts or personal knowledge do you base your response Mr. Speaker?
Again Mr. Speaker, we quote from the Washington Post's October 12, 2006 article:
A current staff member who has corroborated Palmer's meeting with Foley has also offered to cooperate with investigators. House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who said he told Hastert about the Foley matter this spring, yesterday afternoon received an invitation to testify and "looks forward to cooperating fully," said spokesman Kevin Smith.
9) Mr. Speaker: Representative Boehner, the Majority Leader, was quoted early on in this investigation that he had spoken to you personally about this situation. Would you like to take this information to your counsel and read it together over lunch before we ask you again about what you knew and when you knew it?
Further information for the Speaker to ponder:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... dyn/content/article/2006/10/08/AR2006100800855.html
Lawmaker Saw Foley Messages In 2000
Page Notified GOP Rep. Kolbe
By Jonathan WeismanWashington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 9, 2006; Page A01
A Republican congressman knew of disgraced former representative Mark Foley's inappropriate Internet exchanges as far back as 2000 and personally confronted Foley about his communications.
The revelation pushes back by at least five years the date when a member of Congress has acknowledged learning of Foley's behavior with former pages. A timeline issued by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) suggested that the first lawmakers to know, Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.), the chairman of the House Page Board, and Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.), became aware of "over-friendly" e-mails only last fall. It also expands the universe of players in the drama beyond members, either in leadership or on the page board.
10) Mr. Speaker, according to the timeline issued by your office, the first lawmakers to know about Foley's problem were Rep. John M. Shimkus and Rep. Rodney Alexander. Can you explain the discrepancy in the dates? Can you explain to us how this could have been going on and how so many people say they knew about it, but yet you, the one ultimately accountable for the care of those young boys and girls knew nothing until September 29, 2006? Remember sir, you are under oath and your statements will be evaluated along with the statements of the others who have testified before this committee. We urge you to go back through your memory bank and try to recall the first time you heard about this situation.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/...
Warnings About Foley's Behavior Failed to Move Congress to Action
October 02, 2006 6:22 PM
Despite repeated warning signs going back at least five years, almost nothing was done in Congress to stop Foley's suspect behavior with pages.
Today, Republican leaders said they had no idea how bad it was until ABC News revealed some of Foley's X-rated messages to the underage boys.
"No one in the Republican leadership, nor Congressman Shimkus, saw those messages until last Friday when ABC News released them to the public," said Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL).
But there were lots of warning signs.
In 2001, pages were warned to be careful with Foley.
In 2005, one page complained to his congressman about "sick" e-mails from Foley, a complaint passed on to the Speaker's staff.
Then this past spring, the complaint was again raised with three Republican leaders, including Hastert himself.
<snip> Later on in the same article by Brian Ross, the Speaker was quoted as saying, "I have known him for all the years he has served in this House, and he deceived me too," Speaker Hastert said.
11) With what we know now Mr. Speaker, after 18 days since the release of the original story by Brian Ross of ABC News, do you stand by the statements above that were attributed to you?
And finally, a few questions for the Ranking and Minority Members of this committee - Did the House Ethics Committee break their own rules by releasing information they told us (the group that is initiating this inquiry)was CONFIDENTIAL? Someone released/leaked it to ABC news. How can they do that? Isn't that breaking the rule 7e of the ethics committee? It certainly looks that way to us.
Please follow my google search:
http://www.google.com/...
Read on at http://abcnews.go.com/...
Overseer of House Pages to Be Questioned
WASHINGTON Oct 13, 2006 (AP)-- The chief congressional overseer of House pages, who says he tried to stop ex-Rep. Mark Foley from e-mailing a Louisiana page in late 2005, is ready to explain his actions to House investigators.
Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., scheduled for questioning Friday before the House ethics committee, says he kept the two other House members overseeing the pages in the dark as he confronted Foley last fall. Shimkus, chairman of the House Page Board, said he was following the wishes of the boy's parents by not telling the other members.
This reeks of leaks and stories to cover-up the cover-up! It appears that the committee will be quiet except to leak selected information that they want the media and the public to know. Let's cut to the chase: Someone or several members and members of their staffs are lying. Who wants the truth?