What Should Dennis Hastert Have Done?

[Fern]

The EMAILS were brought to the attention of the House leadership months ago. The emails have mostly been described as "innocuous" or "overly friendly", so what should, or even could, Hastert have done about it at that time?

I believe Foley was warned to "knock it off" etc. What addditional steps do you believe should have been taken?

(BTW: This question is not about the IM's, which are overtly sexual unlike the emails.)

If you're not familiar with the emails, see the above link and scroll down to the bottom.

Fern

 

[dullard]

IF the only known communications were the innocuous emails, then Hastert's actions should be small and muted. IF he knew of the other communications, then his actions should be immediate and strong. That said, I will assume only the innocuous emails were known.

1) Foley should have been scolded and been told to stop the communications.
2) Foley should have been removed from his child safety position (co-chair of the Missing and Exploited Children Caucus).
3) Foley should have been forced to take sexual harrassment training. Even if the communications with the pages were innocuous and the pages were of legal age, it is still wrong to have sexual communications with underlings.
4) Other pages should have been warned to be careful of Foley.
5) A simple investigation questioning all current/previous pages should have been quietly started. This could have found the non-innocuos emails and then stonger actions could be taken.
6) Sit back and monitor Foley.

 

[sandorski]

Investigation at the very least.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: dullard
IF the only known communications were the innocuous emails, then Hastert's actions should be small and muted. IF he knew of the other communications, then his actions should be immediate and strong. That said, I will assume only the innocuous emails were known.

1) Foley should have been scolded and been told to stop the communications.
2) Foley should have been removed from his child safety position (co-chair of the Missing and Exploited Children Caucus).
3) Foley should have been forced to take sexual harrassment training. Even if the communications with the pages were innocuous and the pages were of legal age, it is still wrong to have sexual communications with underlings.
4) Other pages should have been warned to be careful of Foley.
5) A simple investigation questioning all current/previous pages should have been quietly started. This could have found the non-innocuos emails and then stonger actions could be taken.
6) Sit back and monitor Foley.

Also inform the Democratic leadership of the House. Simple common sense approach to a problem that could affect both Republican and Democratic Pages.

NOT have Reynolds encourage Foley to seek re-election.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: dullard
IF the only known communications were the innocuous emails, then Hastert's actions should be small and muted. IF he knew of the other communications, then his actions should be immediate and strong. That said, I will assume only the innocuous emails were known.

1) Foley should have been scolded and been told to stop the communications.

He/they did that from what I can tell


2) Foley should have been removed from his child safety position (co-chair of the Missing and Exploited Children Caucus).

I was wondering about this too. However, it does seem fairly "normal" that a person concerned with childrens' welfare would be friendly and supportive of them, no? I mean, if I didn't know what we do now I'd almost think it demonstrated the guy was actaully sincere about the cause, instead of the usual grandstanding for "political points".


3) Foley should have been forced to take sexual harrassment training. Even if the communications with the pages were innocuous and the pages were of legal age, it is still wrong to have sexual communications with underlings.

I didn't notice any remarks in the emails that could reasonably qualify as "sexual communications". I wouldn't think the emails alone would warrant that. Anyho, would seem that all Congress persons should have sexual harrassment training, most exec's at big companies get such training as a regular matter.


4) Other pages should have been warned to be careful of Foley.

Why? Because he was friendly? Again, I saw nothing of a sexual nature in the emails.


5) A simple investigation questioning all current/previous pages should have been quietly started. This could have found the non-innocuos emails and then stonger actions could be taken.

Yes, I was thinking about some quiet inquiries to pages (would have only been fruitful in this case with past pages), but felt that they couldn't mention Foley by name. That would likely have been inappropriate based soley on the emails. "Hey, did Foley ever hit on you?", you couldn't say that. But I think they could have asked if anybody did. Course, only gawd knows what that may have turned up. And whatever did, they'd be obligated to follow up. I think that would have likely been a bad idea, while catching Foley a lot of other "innocent" Congresspersons could have been unfairly besmirched. A lot of opportunity for political shennagans with something like that.


6) Sit back and monitor Foley.

Monitor how? Wouldn't you need a court order to catch the IM's? I question whether a judge would grant such an invasion of privacy based soley on those emails. Especialy given his position, h3ll I doubt a judge would OK for that anybody

Responses in bold above.

Fern

 

[ayabe]

....eaten a ham sandwich?


This just in......FNC is reporting that he did indeed have a ham sandwich, two of them back to back in fact, on rye bread no less.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: PELarson

Also inform the Democratic leadership of the House. Simple common sense approach to a problem that could affect both Republican and Democratic Pages.

Yeah, I bet they wish like h3ll they did that. But the only benefit I see is for "political cover"? Unless you think the Dems could have come up something, and if so, what?

NOT have Reynolds encourage Foley to seek re-election.

Meh, I really doubt he sought re-election because of his encouragement. Foley is supposed to have loved being in Congress. He prolly would have ran even if Reynolds discouraged him to run.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Investigation at the very least.

When you say "investigation" I think of hearing before Congress, sworn testimony, subpeanas, lots of publicity etc. So you would "ruin" him based soley on those emails? I think that would be unethical (again, we must assume we only know of the emails). I think anybody suggesting that (based soley on the emails) would be seen as crazy, and if a Repub - self destructive, and would be "hooted down" for good reason.

Fern

 

[catnap1972]

Blame the Democrats for everything.

Oh wait...they're already doing that...

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't know what he knew and when so I don't know what he should have done.

If I knew what he knew and when it would only be my opinion what he should have done.

What happens now may be more a matter of political expediency and power plays rather than having anything to do at all with a proper evaluation of what he knew and when and whether it was appropriate. Perhaps he will just be jettisoned like damaged goods.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I don't know what he knew and when so I don't know what he should have done.

For the moment, please assume that he only "knew of" the emails

If I knew what he knew and when it would only be my opinion what he should have done.

Yes, peoples opinions and/or ideas is what I would like to see. I welcome yours.

What happens now may be more a matter of political expediency and power plays rather than having anything to do at all with a proper evaluation of what he knew and when and whether it was appropriate. Perhaps he will just be jettisoned like damaged goods.

Agreed

 

[Todd33]

OLBERMANN (voice-over): Last September, Republican Congressman Rodney Alexander learned that one of his pages had been sent e-mails by Foley. Alexander?s staff then contacted Speaker Dennis Hastert?s office. According to ?Roll Call,? they were referred to Hastert?s top political adviser. Hastert?s office notified the House clerk, who oversees the page program, and told Republican Congressman John Shimkus, who chairs the three-person page board.

The page board, however, is responsible for the behavior of the pages. Member behavior is overseen by the Ethics Committee. The Ethics Committee was not told. In fact, Shimkus had a hint of Foley?s interest in pages back in 2002.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, 2002)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And now, someone who spends a lot of time with you also, Mr. Mark Foley.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: But Shimkus didn?t tell the other two members of Congress who sit on the page board about the new e-mails. Shimkus only told Foley, and only told him to stop e-mailing the page who had come forward.

But when that page contacted Alexander?s office, he included additional information, information not acted on, like this, ?Karianna (ph) said there was a congressman that did hit on pages,? and the fact that Foley e-mailed another page, Will, who Foley said was ?in really great shape.? No one appears to have made any effort to interview Karianna or Will or determine whether Foley did not just e-mail but also hit on pages.

This spring, Alexander decided to tell two more people about Foley?s e-mails, majority leader John Boehner and Congressman Tom Reynolds, whose primary job chairing the Republican Campaign Committee is to help it win elections, and who, knowing about these e-mails, later still urged Foley to run again this year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15141830/

They kept it to their selves and made sure it never made it beyond the GOP leadership. They should have acted on behalf of the House and not the GOP, they should have gave all the info to the Ethics committee. The committee should have then done a bipartisan or independent investigation like in the early 80s.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Fern
Responses in bold above.

I was under the impression that the pages knew rumors about Foley. Rumors + the inncocuous emails should be enough to:
(a) Confront Foley,
(b) Give Foley sexual harassment training,
(c) Tell the pages to be careful. Maybe don't mention Foley by name, but also give the pages sexual harassment training.

As for monitoring, I didn't intend spying on him. I simply think regular questioning of him and following up on any future rumors about pages would be sufficient.

Hastert and his staff, in my opinion, did much of what should have been done. But he didn't go quite far enough. If it comes out that he knew more, then I'll change my opinion on him.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: sandorski
Investigation at the very least.

When you say "investigation" I think of hearing before Congress, sworn testimony, subpeanas, lots of publicity etc. So you would "ruin" him based soley on those emails? I think that would be unethical (again, we must assume we only know of the emails). I think anybody suggesting that (based soley on the emails) would be seen as crazy, and if a Repub - self destructive, and would be "hooted down" for good reason.

Fern

There has to be something slightly less encompassing then all that?

 

[Todd33]

I'm pretty sure if the Ethic committee just sat down and ask Foley if there was anything besides the e-emails that he would like to tell them about before the investigation began he would have gave it up under pressure and the whole thing could have been handled in private and everyone's hands would have been clean. But absolute power corrupts absolutely and the GOP took the coverup route.

 

[Craig234]

Course, only gawd knows what that may have turned up. And whatever did, they'd be obligated to follow up. I think that would have likely been a bad idea, while catching Foley a lot of other "innocent" Congresspersons could have been unfairly besmirched. A lot of opportunity for political shennagans with something like that.

You were not doing too badly until the above weak argument.

You're concerned the pages would have made up a bunch of lies about congresspeople hitting on them, and that worry justified not asking?

Come on...

An investigation will help determine whether the info given to the leadership was light and they handled it ok, or whether they were given more info and dropped the ball.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Investigation at the very least.

Yeah, I'd definitely call an investigation if I saw someone ask someone else for a photo.

Let's be realistic here.

Hastert has asserted the first email is the only one he saw and had knowledge of, and there's no evidence to prove otherwise. That email, now, in context, looks pretty damning. But back then, it would not have.

Naturally, the mainstream media has attempted to garble the whole thing. There's a world of difference between that first email and the later IM messages and emails that have come out.

EDIT: Got to add my liberal disclaimer: I'm not defending Foley in any way, shape, or form. People like him are scum, and his actions are reprehensible.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Todd33
They kept it to their selves and made sure it never made it beyond the GOP leadership. They should have acted on behalf of the House and not the GOP, they should have gave all the info to the Ethics committee. The committee should have then done a bipartisan or independent investigation like in the early 80s.

Or maybe they should have done like they did with good old Gerry Studds back in 1983. Give him a phony "Censure" and then (3 times) a standing ovation.

The truth is that matters like these were basically glossed over "in the early 80's" as you cite. These guys were given a slap on the wrist, allowed to maintain their positions of power, and business went on as usual.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Todd33
They kept it to their selves and made sure it never made it beyond the GOP leadership. They should have acted on behalf of the House and not the GOP, they should have gave all the info to the Ethics committee. The committee should have then done a bipartisan or independent investigation like in the early 80s.

Or maybe they should have done like they did with good old Gerry Studds back in 1983. Give him a phony "Censure" and then (3 times) a standing ovation.

The truth is that matters like these were basically glossed over "in the early 80's" as you cite. These guys were given a slap on the wrist, allowed to maintain their positions of power, and business went on as usual.

Just like Wategate, this is about a cover up and abuse of power. What happened in the 80s was at least investigated and in the open. The only ones to blame are those who re-elected him.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

I'm going to reserve judgement on this issue as it seems that every five minutes there is new and sometimes conflicting information coming to light.

Example ABC posted that about an hour ago. Another news story cites an undated encounter in front of the page dorms where Foley was drunk and trying to get in the building. (Was on Fox, can't find it now)

It's looking very bad for Foley right now and it's looking worse and worse for the R leadership but I'm still absorbing all the new data as it comes in. I'm very interested in exatly who knew what and when.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: dullard
IF the only known communications were the innocuous emails, then Hastert's actions should be small and muted. IF he knew of the other communications, then his actions should be immediate and strong. That said, I will assume only the innocuous emails were known.

1) Foley should have been scolded and been told to stop the communications.
2) Foley should have been removed from his child safety position (co-chair of the Missing and Exploited Children Caucus).
3) Foley should have been forced to take sexual harrassment training. Even if the communications with the pages were innocuous and the pages were of legal age, it is still wrong to have sexual communications with underlings.
4) Other pages should have been warned to be careful of Foley.
5) A simple investigation questioning all current/previous pages should have been quietly started. This could have found the non-innocuos emails and then stonger actions could be taken.
6) Sit back and monitor Foley.

1. Good idea, and it was done I think.
2. Removing anyone from thier seats in the house is VERY hard to do, especially after something like a "creepy" e-mail. Additionally, it would have been picked up by the press who would have started a feeding frenzy. Second, look at how hard it was the Dems to remove William Jefferson from his positions. Anyone who is not fit to serve on the Missing and Exploited Child Caucus should not even be in congress, and at the time of the e-mails there was no evidence suggesting that.
3. That training is worthless plus it would imply that he was doing something of a "sexual" nature that called for training. Additionally, the sexual IMs, that we know of, were written two years before Hastert learned about the e-mail.
4. Warning the pages would be tantamount to calling Foley guilty of something he did not do- or something we did not know he had done at that time.
5. See above... everyone would have assumed he did something wrong, why else would they be investigating. MAYBE they could have checked to see if pages were getting e-mails by ANY congressmen and then tried to find out everyone who was e-mailing them. Of course we don't know how often pages exchange e-mails with congressmen. If Foley is the ONLY person e-mailing pages then that is a HUGE warning sign, but if it is fairly common for pages and congressmen to exchange e-mails then who knows.
6. Good idea, but Foley lied about the whole sex IMs thing, what is to say that he would break down and admit to doing wrong while being watched?

BTW: sex offenders are notorious for not being able to control themselves. So even if Foley wanted to stop who is to say that he would have been able to control himself?

Biggest mistake made was not getting the Democrat on the page board involved, even Fox News said he was a stand up guy, that might have stopped some of this finger pointing. But lets be honest even if EVERY member of congress was told about the e-mails there would still be the blame the leadership game being played. This is becoming less about what Foley did and more about getting or keeping power. Foley is GONE, nothing can be done to him by congress, if this was not about politics they could turn this over to the FBI and Capital Police and sit back and wait for them to report all the details, but that is not how Washington works. And I am sure Republicans would do the same thing.

BTW: it looks like the House ethics committee has not even started to investigate William Jefferson despite the widely known fact about the $100k in the freezer. This just shows you how slow they are to move on anything involving members, from either side.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This just shows you how slow they are to move on anything involving members, from either side.

You can thank Delay for that.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This just shows you how slow they are to move on anything involving members, from either side.

You can thank Delay for that.

Get over your partisian BS, this stuff has gone on for YEARS! Long before Republicans took charge.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW: it looks like the House ethics committee has not even started to investigate William Jefferson despite the widely known fact about the $100k in the freezer. This just shows you how slow they are to move on anything involving members, from either side.

Yeah, kinda funny how the MSM has dropped that story, eh?

Maybe we should get Brian Ross on that.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This just shows you how slow they are to move on anything involving members, from either side.

You can thank Delay for that.

Get over your partisian BS, this stuff has gone on for YEARS! Long before Republicans took charge.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-04-gop-ethics_x.htm

But DeLay rejected that criticism. "We didn't weaken the rules; we strengthened the rules," he said.

In a meeting Monday night, the Republican majority had abandoned plans to make a broader change in its ethics rules that critics said would have gone even further toward loosening standards. That change would have stricken a requirement that lawmaker's behavior "reflect creditably on the House," a provision that came into play in the DeLay cases. Shays said his party was forced to reconsider because many Republicans would have voted against it.