What Do Blagojevich, Davlin, and Weller Have In Common
They were all screwed by rumors that were amazingly widespread and false.
First, I’m sorry–my judgment held up in the first two, but this time it didn’t. Read below in another post for how it unfolded and feel free to remind me from time to time.
Rep. Jerry Weller (R-Ill.), hit with rumors that he was somehow involved in the page scandal, issued a statement Thursday saying he was not a factor — but a former page or intern he sponsored was subject to some questionable behavior by another lawmaker.
With rumors racing across a number of left-wing blogs naming Weller, his campaign manager Steve Shearer said there were no facts to back up any story.
This has “nothing to do with Jerry Weller doing anything,” Shearer said.
With the blogosphere pushing unsubstantiated rumor, Shearer said “it is a new way of political assassination.”
Shearer released the statement after the blog entries were multiplying and he was flooded with calls from reporters.
“There have been all kinds of wild rumors circulating over the past week,” Shearer said.
“We believe we have now gotten to the bottom of this and other reporters who have researched this agree — that what we have been told is that a page or intern who was sponsored by Cong. Weller was inappropriately invited to a social event with another congressman.”
I checked this out with a few folks and that seems to be the consensus. And the Weller campaign handled this pretty much textbook wise by just rolling with the punch and keeping on the facts instead of trying to blame anyone.
October 20th, 2006 at
You’ve been incredibly cryptic with this whole affair (a demonstration of some admirable restraint, and nothing I’m criticizing in any way), so can I ask: is this story dead? Or has it transformed? Weller’s off the hook… but to whom and how does this page he sponsored connect in the wider page scandal?
October 20th, 2006 at
I don’t know.
I think I’ll let it develop and see if there is more out there.
October 20th, 2006 at
For the GOP whiners, I have a question. If Trandahl did give the names of two Congressman who had sex with pages to the Ethics Committee, is it wrong for the Ethics Committee to keep these names secret?
October 20th, 2006 at
Larry – nice retraction. I’m still pissed as h*ll that you let this get as far out of hand as it did, but this is a good first step to re-establishing yourself as better-than-the-average-lefty-blogger in my book.
Carl – why don’t you follow Larry’s lead and update your own blog with a similar apology and retraction? Right now, you have vicious rumors up there that you now know are utterly false. Take a break from commenting on others’ sites for a few and do the right thing.
October 20th, 2006 at
You left out the best part, that now has me waiting for more: “Name? Age?
Shearer said the page or intern was a male but did not know a name, age or a date when he was in Washington. Shearer said no investigative agency dealing with the page probe contacted Weller.”
A MALE page. Now I’m not so skeptical about the rumors.
October 20th, 2006 at
The Daily Journal is reporting:
Rep. Jerry Weller, R-Morris, through his election attorney, moved Thursday to inform the House that a former page or intern may have been the subject of inappropriate attention from another lawmaker, Weller’s campaign manager said Thursday.
Steven Shearer said the congressman was not prepared to reveal the identity of the youth, the timing, nor the identity of the lawmaker, but felt confident that a former page or intern was “inappropriately invited to a social function by another congressman.”
Shearer said Weller directed his campaign attorney to inform the House Page Board and the House Ethics Committee of the incident.
October 20th, 2006 at
We still do not all the facts about the Foley mess and that is why there is a House Ethics Committee.
Their investigation, which unlike the witchhunt which has been conducted by some in the blogs and the media, would have been fair and consider all the facts before a rush to judgement as in the case of the Foley affair. I am sorry Democrats but such an invesitgation to be fair and impartial would take a while and that is why it must remain confidential.
The House Ethics Committee investigation of Democrat Cong Gerry Studds in 1983 took over a year and he actually had sex with an underage male page far worse than anything Foley has been accused of doing. And Studds did it 10 years before the investigation but no one asked if the House Democrat leadership knew or why it waited 10 years.
And the Democrat House voted only to censure Studds. He was then re-elected seven times before retiring in 1996.
If you go to the House Ethics Committee website you will find a chart on all their investigations:
http://www.house.gov/ethics/Historical_Chart_Final_Version.htm
Almost all their investigations since 1980 involving abuse of the House page program or sexual allegations involved Democrats not Republicans. The things they were found guilty of were far worse than a few x-rated emails.
1) Democrat Majority Chief Page James C. Howarth (1983)Sexual relationship with a 17-year old female House page who was under his direct supervision used cocaine, and preferential treatment of employee (allowed page to miss work)
Preliminary Inquiry voted (Dec. 14, 1982); SAV adopted (July 14, 1983); hearing on SAV (Oct. 31, 1983); sustained count regarding sexual relationship and dismissed other charges, 11-0 (Nov. 9, 1983); recommended dismissal, 11-0 (Nov. 15, 1983) Sex and Drugs Investigation, resigned prior to House action (Nov. 15, 1983
2)Democrat Majority Assistant Cloakroom Manager Robert Yesh (1983)Sold and used cocaine; used marijuana and cocaine with House pages Preliminary Inquiry voted (Dec. 14, 1982) Sex and Drugs Investigation, resigned (April 15, 1983); pleaded guilty to two federal misdemeanors (March 9, 1983)
3)Democrat Rep. Jim Bates (CA) (1989) Sexual harassment and improper campaign activity in congressional office
Complaints filed (Oct. 7, 1988); Preliminary Inquiry voted (Aug. 3, 1989); Rep. Bates waived rights to SAV and disciplinary hearing (Oct. 10, 1988); adopted public letter of reproval (Oct. 18, 1989)
Member admitted to violations and was later defeated by Duke Cunningham.
4) Democrat Rep. Gus Savage IL) (1990) Improper sexual advances toward a female Peace Corps volunteer (March 1989) Complaints filed by two Members (July 20, 1989 and July 21, 1989); Preliminary Inquiry voted (Aug. 3, 1989); Rep. Savage apologized (Nov. 20, 1989); issued public report disapproving of conduct, 12-0 (Jan. 31, 1990)
Comm. found conduct violated R. 43(1) and he was reelected in 1990.
5) Democrat Rep. Barney Frank (MA) (1990)
1) Use of personal residence for prostitution by third parties, 2) improper contacts with probation office on behalf of personal assistant, 3) improper dismissal of assistant?s parking tickets, and 4) sexual activity in the House gymnasium
Preliminary Inquiry voted (Sept. 12, 1989); Rep. Frank admitted preparing memo containing misleading statements that could be perceived as an attempt to use political influence in a judicial matter and arranged improper dismissal of parking tickets for personal assistant, both in violation of R. 43 (1); Comm. recommended reprimand and restitution of parking tickets, 12-0 (July 20, 1990)
Reprimanded, 408-18
(July 26, 1990)
Member paid restitution for tickets and he was repeatedly reelected and is in line to be Chair of the House Banking Committee if Democrats win control.
6) Republican Rep. Donald E. ?Buz? Lukens (OH)(1990) Convicted of misdemeanor offense of contributing to the unruliness of a female minor (sex with an underage woman) (May 26, 1989); made improper sexual advances to Capitol elevator operator (Oct. 17, 1990)
Complaint filed (July 21, 1989); Preliminary Inquiry voted (Aug. 3, 1989); Preliminary Inquiry resolution amended to include assertion of additional charges (Oct. 22, 1990); staff report published (Oct. 24, 1990)
Resigned (Oct. 24, 1990).
7) Democrat Rep. Mel Reynolds (IL)(1995)
Misuse of congressional staff for personal purposes, misuse of official resources, failure to repay personal debts and obstruction of justice; convicted in state court of criminal sexual assault, aggravated sexual abuse, solicitation of child pornography and obstruction of justice (Aug. 22, 1995);
Preliminary Inquiry voted (June 28, 1995)
Resigned (Sept. 1, 1995)
So of the House Ethics Committee?s nine investigations involving sexual indescretions since 1980, only two involved Republican Members of Congress and both were either defeated in the next election or resigned due to the allegations.
Only one of the five Democrat Members of Congress involved in sexual misconduct resigned and one was defeated in the next election due to the misconduct.
So you should vote Republican if you want less sexual abuse in Congress because they are much less likely to be involved in such behavior and also are much more likely to be removed from office if they are involved.
And I am not even mentioning the Big Democrat Kahuna of sexual misconduct – Bill Clinton.
October 20th, 2006 at
So the House Democratic Leadership conducted how many public hearings to expose this sordid behavior?
How many hearings has the Republican Leadership had in response to what we now know is more than one incident of sordid behavior?
That’s the difference John. That’s why this is so damaging to the GOP. They covered it up. The Democrats blew the whistle, even on their own members.
You should be grateful to the leadership of House Democrats (up until 1995) for keeping this information public and accessible.
October 20th, 2006 at
You know a party is intellectually and morally bankrupt when they try to deflect attention from the perverse predatory behavior of one of their Congressman by pointing to a similar (perhaps even worse) scandal that occurred over 20 years ago.
Very few Democrats now in the party were in Congress then and none were in positions of power at that time. Bad, corrupt people can come from all parties. No doubt, Democrats had more than their fair share at one time. But it is quite clear that the current crop of Republicans in Congress now is much worse and corrupt than the current crop of Democrats. The fact that Republican hacks have to go back 20+ years to point to similar Democratic scandals is proof enough of that.
For those that don’t fashion themselves as knee-jerk partisans, and choose to live in the present rather than the past, there is only one option: Vote the Republicans out of power.
October 20th, 2006 at
Clarification: I should have said that very few Democrats currently in Congress were in Congress at the time of the Studds scandal.
In any case, I assume my point was clear.
October 20th, 2006 at
GOP, fair enough. I’ve added an update to Proviso Probe, although it’s hardly clearinghouse central for info on the case.
October 20th, 2006 at
As far as we know there is no coverup until the House Ethics Committeee investigation is complete.
As I said before the Studds sexual misconduct with an underage male page occurred 10 years before it was investigated by the Democrat House Ethics Committee. So who was covering up then?
Foley resigned and Studds did not.
The real question is why the liberal media and House Democrats (who may have known something about Foley) waited until just before the election to unleash this scandal and why it was not properly handled first by a House Ethics Committee investigation which did not begin until after Foley resigned.
And now it would be interesting to know who from the Democratic party spread this totally unfounded smear attack on Cong Gerry Weller.
If you Democrats win you should be ashamed of the dirty underhanded and dispicable tactics you have used to win this election. It will be a hollow victory based on lies, deceit and even encouraging a US defeat in Iraq. I do not know how you sleep at night
October 20th, 2006 at
“pissed as h*ll”
For what it’s worth, don’t you think “pissed” is a more offensive word than “hell?”
October 20th, 2006 at
How long did Weller know before he turned the other congressman in? Did he try to cover it up?
October 20th, 2006 at
AP,
It is easy enough to believe that a guy married to an evil piece of crap would behave like an evil piece of crap.
Some might even say it is logical.
– SCAM
October 20th, 2006 at
尖锐湿疣 排铅 尖锐湿疣 成人用品 尖锐湿疣治疗 中国癌症网 肺癌 胃癌 肝癌 肾癌 食道癌 子宫颈癌 乳腺癌 卵巢癌 直肠癌 结肠癌 皮肤癌 甲状腺癌 胰腺癌 前列腺癌 膀胱癌 骨癌 鼻咽癌 脑瘤 癌症 乳腺癌 肺癌 胃癌 食管癌 肿瘤 直肠癌 结肠癌 肝癌 宫颈癌 脑瘤 甲状腺肿瘤 胆囊癌 胆管癌 前列腺癌 白血病 鼻咽癌 肾癌 恶性淋巴瘤 皮肤癌 喉癌 舌癌 胰腺癌 膀胱癌 中国康网 资讯中心 男性健康 女性健康 两性健康 大众健康 母婴健康 疾病大全 中医中药 医学知识 药学知识 药品大全 杂志期刊 健康网
October 21st, 2006 at
Kankakee Voice – Thanks for proving my point: that the rumor itself is damaging despite it being clearly untrue. Now every lefty with a fetish for bashing Weller has a fresh stash of BS to try and smear him with.
Carl – thanks.
October 21st, 2006 at
GOP,
You’re right, of course.
Democrats really need to struggle to find something bad to say about a guy who married a woman who’s family business is Death Squads.
– SCAM
October 21st, 2006 at
Since YOU’RE one of the people they are talking about, I hope he sues your ass from here to Peoria after the election.