Friday, September 29, 2006

House GOP story on Foley gets murkier and murkier. What did they know
about Foley and when did they know it?

by John in DC


The story about just what the House GOP leadership knew about Mark
Foley's online sexual exploits, and when they knew it, is getting more
and more contradictory by the minute.

Earlier today, ABC reported that the 16 year old page who received
Foley's creepy emails last year had forwarded the emails to
"congressional staffers," telling them "this freaked me out" and the
emails were "sick sick sick sick sick."

Which staffers?

With whose office?

Who did those staffers then tell about the emails, and what did those
people do, if anything about it?

Then later today, the SF Chronicle reported that the kid's
congressman, Rodney Alexander (R-LA), found out about the story ten or
eleven months ago and contacted the kid's parents and the House GOP
leadership.

Alexander said that the kid's parents wanted to let the matter drop.

What did Alexander tell the parents, and did that influence their
deciding to let it go?

Who else did Alexander tell about this?

Why didn't he take further action since he knew Foley would continue
interacting with pages, continued to chair the House caucus on missing
and exploited children, and that Foley continued to remain in the
House leadership?

The Chronicle now has an updated story saying that Rep. Alexander now
says he found out about the allegations "some months ago" from a
reporter.

First off, were those staffers who the kid emailed Alexander's
staffers?

If so, did they tell their boss about the allegations?

And if they did, then he found out from his staff, not from a
reporter.

Or not JUST from a reporter.

Another odd point.

In the earlier story, Alexander says he told the House leadership
about the incident.

Now, in the updated story, Alexander says that he passed the
information along to Rep. Thomas Reynolds, R-N.Y., chairman of the
House Republican campaign organization (perhaps that's what he means
by "leadership," or perhaps he's changing his story to protect
Hastert).

It's a bit odd that he'd report this to Reynolds, since Reynolds is in
charge of re-electing Republicans to congress.

Why tell him?

Was this an effort to help Foley find a way to defend against these
charges should they come up during his next election?

Now the Chronicle reports the following from the GOP campaign group
run by Reynolds:


Carl Forti, a spokesman for the GOP campaign organization, said
Reynolds learned from Alexander that the parents did not want to
pursue the matter.

Forti said, however, that the matter did go before the House Page
Board -- the three lawmakers and two House officials who oversee the
pages.


It went before the page board?

But only today Denny Hastert asked the people overseeing the pages,
specifically Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., who runs the page board, to
investigate the situation and make sure other pages weren't harassed
or abused.

There would be no need for Hastert to ask them today to investigate if
this if the same page board that had already been notified months ago
by Reynolds.

So what's going on here?

The page board also includes the Clerk of the House and the Sergeant
at Arms, both Republican appointees.

Did they know about this months ago?

Did they do anything about this?

ABC said tonight that pages said they were warned about Foley and his
antics.

Really?

But Foley was still left to interact with pages, still left in his
leadership spot, and still left chairing a caucus overseeing the issue
of missing and exploited children.

If Foley was this well known a problem, what exactly did or didn't the
page board do about it?

Who did they tell, and what did those people do?

This goes far beyond Mark Foley.

It now seems to involve quite a few senior Republicans.

Why didn't any of them do something about this earlier?

Or does the sexual exploitation of children only matter when there's
not a big R in front of the exploiter's name?

__________________________________________________

Lotsa questions, few answers.

Harry

Friday, September 29, 2006

House GOP story on Foley gets murkier and murkier. What did they know
about Foley and when did they know it?

by John in DC


The story about just what the House GOP leadership knew about Mark
Foley's online sexual exploits, and when they knew it, is getting more
and more contradictory by the minute.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/house-gop-story-on-foley-gets-murkier.html

Friday, September 29, 2006

House GOP story on Foley gets murkier and murkier. What did they know
about Foley and when did they know it?

by John in DC


The story about just what the House GOP leadership knew about Mark
Foley's online sexual exploits, and when they knew it, is getting more
and more contradictory by the minute.

Earlier today, ABC reported that the 16 year old page who received
Foley's creepy emails last year had forwarded the emails to
"congressional staffers," telling them "this freaked me out" and the
emails were "sick sick sick sick sick."

Which staffers?

With whose office?

Who did those staffers then tell about the emails, and what did those
people do, if anything about it?

Then later today, the SF Chronicle reported that the kid's
congressman, Rodney Alexander (R-LA), found out about the story ten or
eleven months ago and contacted the kid's parents and the House GOP
leadership.

Alexander said that the kid's parents wanted to let the matter drop.

What did Alexander tell the parents, and did that influence their
deciding to let it go?

Who else did Alexander tell about this?

Why didn't he take further action since he knew Foley would continue
interacting with pages, continued to chair the House caucus on missing
and exploited children, and that Foley continued to remain in the
House leadership?

The Chronicle now has an updated story saying that Rep. Alexander now
says he found out about the allegations "some months ago" from a
reporter.

First off, were those staffers who the kid emailed Alexander's
staffers?

If so, did they tell their boss about the allegations?

And if they did, then he found out from his staff, not from a
reporter.

Or not JUST from a reporter.

Another odd point.

In the earlier story, Alexander says he told the House leadership
about the incident.

Now, in the updated story, Alexander says that he passed the
information along to Rep. Thomas Reynolds, R-N.Y., chairman of the
House Republican campaign organization (perhaps that's what he means
by "leadership," or perhaps he's changing his story to protect
Hastert).

It's a bit odd that he'd report this to Reynolds, since Reynolds is in
charge of re-electing Republicans to congress.

Why tell him?

Was this an effort to help Foley find a way to defend against these
charges should they come up during his next election?

Now the Chronicle reports the following from the GOP campaign group
run by Reynolds:


Carl Forti, a spokesman for the GOP campaign organization, said
Reynolds learned from Alexander that the parents did not want to
pursue the matter.

Forti said, however, that the matter did go before the House Page
Board -- the three lawmakers and two House officials who oversee the
pages.


It went before the page board?

But only today Denny Hastert asked the people overseeing the pages,
specifically Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., who runs the page board, to
investigate the situation and make sure other pages weren't harassed
or abused.

There would be no need for Hastert to ask them today to investigate if
this if the same page board that had already been notified months ago
by Reynolds.

So what's going on here?

The page board also includes the Clerk of the House and the Sergeant
at Arms, both Republican appointees.

Did they know about this months ago?

Did they do anything about this?

ABC said tonight that pages said they were warned about Foley and his
antics.

Really?

But Foley was still left to interact with pages, still left in his
leadership spot, and still left chairing a caucus overseeing the issue
of missing and exploited children.

If Foley was this well known a problem, what exactly did or didn't the
page board do about it?

Who did they tell, and what did those people do?

This goes far beyond Mark Foley.

It now seems to involve quite a few senior Republicans.

Why didn't any of them do something about this earlier?

Or does the sexual exploitation of children only matter when there's
not a big R in front of the exploiter's name?

__________________________________________________

Lotsa questions, few answers.

Harry

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/house-gop-story-on-foley-gets-murkier.html
But Foley was still left to interact with pages, still left in his
leadership spot, and still left chairing a caucus overseeing the issue
of missing and exploited children.