SPEAKER HASTERT: There were two pieces of paper out there, one that we knew about and we acted on; one that happened in 2003 we didn?t know about, but somebody had it, and, you know, they?re trying ? and they drop it the last day of the session, you know, before we adjourn on an election year. Now, we took care of Mr. Foley. We found out about it, asked him to resign. He did resign. He?s gone. We asked for an investigation. We?ve done that. We?re trying to build better protections for these page programs.
But, you know, this is a political issue in itself, too, and what we?ve tried to do as the Republican Party is make a better economy, protect this country against terrorism ? and we?ve worked at it ever since 9/11, worked with the president on it ? and there are some people that try to tear us down. We are the insulation to protect this country, and if they get to me it looks like they could affect our election as well.
I’ll even give Hastert a bit of leeway given his penchant for saying things the wrong way–such as bringing up what to do in the long term for New Orleans while people were still being pulled from their houses. Let’s assume he’s not cruel enough to be blaming the kids as being some part of the conspiracy.
However, the incredibly unbelievable part of this is:
We?re trying to build better protections for these page programs.
On the surface there is no need to increase the institutional protection other than to replace the people who didn’t do their jobs. Now, perhaps there are more cases and then we do have some serious issues to look at the program, but in this case the institution would have been fine if someone had investigated. Shimkus didn’t tell the other Republican member of the committee or the Democratic member. He didn’t even tell them about the initial incident. You get a report of icky behavior and you investigate and the icky behavior is enough to ban the Member from any contact with pages even if there isn’t more.
Now, Denny has decided to try and solve the problem without including Democrats even though the committee overseeing the page program includes a Democrat. I think it’s safe to say both parties care about kids not being propositioned by Members and both can see that either party could, and has, had this problem in the past. What is it about this case that makes the process of looking at it partisan?
Seriously, this is largely a non-issue if it was dealt with when the initial information came out.
Right on target. See this that I posted at Illinoize about the RIGHT way to deal with this issue.
>>Let’s clear up some facts re: Studds and Crane in 1983. The BIPARTISAN House Ethics Committee (it was not “Democratically Controlled”) appointed a Special Counsel to investigate both Members (http://www.house.gov/ethics/Historical_Chart_Final_Version.htm)
That independent Special Counsel recommended a reprimand, which was approved by the Committee on a bipartisan basis (by definition, an equally divided committee can take no partisan action), referred to the House, and approved by the House.
That is VASTLY different than conducting no investigation, making no referral to the Committee on Standards, and not even discussing it in a bipartisan fashion. The reason this is blowing up is that the Republican House Leadership was worried they would take political heat and acted to protect themselves instead of the kids.
Does anyone really believe that John Shimkus would have let a Democratic colleague accused of the same thing get away with a brief conversation with just him and the House Clerk?
Of course not. Once again, the coverup is worse than the crime.