Foleygate — Day 13

October 9, 2006

For a brief time on Friday afternoon, it seemed the [tag]Foley[/tag]-related revelations may be slowing down a bit. That didn’t last.

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.

A spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) confirmed yesterday that a former page showed the congressman Internet messages that had made the youth feel uncomfortable with the direction Foley (R-Fla.) was taking their e-mail relationship. Last week, when the Foley matter erupted, a Kolbe staff member suggested to the former page that he take the matter to the clerk of the House, Karen Haas, said Kolbe’s press secretary, Korenna Cline.

The “when did they know it question” keeps getting pushed back, doesn’t it? Congressional Republicans knew about Foley’s “problem” 11 months ago, then two years ago, then three, then five, then nearly six.

It also expands the universe of congressional Republicans who were aware of Foley’s interest in pages. It appears the question may soon become, were there any congressional Republicans who didn’t know?

Unfortunately for the GOP, it was one of a series of revelations about the scandal to emerge in the last 48 hours.

For example, ABC News has added to its own investigation by noting another source confirming what House Speaker Dennis Hastert and his staff have been denying: that Hastert Chief of Staff Scott Palmer confronted Foley directly about his pursuing pages, about a year before suspicious emails were circulated among GOP leaders.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert’s chief of staff met with disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley to discuss the time and attention Foley was giving House pages years before the speaker’s office admits becoming aware of the issue, a current House staffer told ABC News.

The staffer, who asked not be identified because of the ongoing FBI and House Ethics Committee investigations, told ABC News of learning in November 2005 about an earlier meeting between Hastert Chief of Staff Scott Palmer and Foley, R-Fla.

November 2005 was around the time Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., 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 House staffer told ABC News.

That seems to corroborate the account of Kirk Fordham, Foley’s former chief of staff, who said he had gone to Palmer to ask the speaker’s office’s to intervene and try to change Foley’s behavior as far back as 2003.

As for the House Ethics Committee, charged with investigating the matter, the panel that hasn’t worked in two years is already demonstrating the fact that it’s almost certainly not up to the task.

[S]ome Democrats complained Friday about a “strategy session” conference call that [investigative panel member Rep. Judy] Biggert [(R-IL)]reportedly participated in early in the week with other House Republicans about how to deal with the political fallout from the Foley case.

But Biggert said the Monday conference call took place before she knew she’d be part of the subcommittee named to look into the issue, and she also said the call was informational and not political in nature. Biggert, a lawyer, said she can perform her duties like an “officer of the court,” without regard for who has given her political support.

In other Foley news:

* The WaPo’s Charles Babington had a terrific piece yesterday on the controversy, including discussion of the “gaps and inconsistencies in the public accounts” of GOP leaders, as well as still-to-be-answered questions.

* The Republicans’ defense of Hastert still doesn’t rely on facts.

* When asked for proof of Democratic involvement in the controversy, one of the least ethical members of Congress is left speechless.

* Hastert isn’t faring well in national polls.

* And yesterday, NRCC Chairman Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.) had agreed to appear on ABC’s “This Week,” but then decided not to show up.

The Republicans’ nightmare continues.

The Republicans’ nightmare continues.

Did you realize that this week ends with Friday the 13th? Who knows what other revelations will spring from the dark and slash the Republicans’ electoral prospects to ribbons?

  • Has anyone seen any mention of any sort of peep out of Hastert, Boehner, Blunt or Shimkus since Thursday? I’m aware of the commercial and statement from Reynolds, but the rest of the “leadership” seems to have gone quiet.

  • There has been at least one ex-page that has stated he was warned against Foley ELEVEN years ago, when he was just elected.

    The Kolbe story is particularly important because the page sought out an openly gay Republican to talk to (I’m not sure if he was the only one, or if Steve Gunderson was still there).

    The only question left is if the Democrats will push the question of hypocrisy and lies hard enough — and demonstrate that has operated in areas other than sex.

  • It worries me with things going down the toilet so fast, Shrub et al may be ready to resort to a much more dramatic October Surprise than they had probably planned. Those folks in Tehran better get out their 1 million SPF sunblock.

  • Now here’s a question about Foley I’d like to see answered. As we all know, Katherine Harris has raised the issue of what the Democrats may have known about Foley and kept to spring in October. This is an interesting accusation, as Katherine Harris is running for Senate in Florida, and Mark Foley was thinking about running too, as he had done in 2004. We know the Harris does opposition research on potential primary opponents, such as Joe Scarborough. Isn’t it probable that Katherine Harris knew all about Foley and used that information only to keep him out of the Senate race, but did not release it to protect the pages from Foley’s predatory practices?

    Isn’t that a good question?

  • The release of information that Foley had sex with a 21 year old ex-page is tending to confirm my deduction of his modis operandi. He trolls through the current crop of pages looking for likely candidates. He strikes up relationships with those that catch his eye. He begins an email relationship and carefully tracks their interest and age. Gradually, his emails and eventually his instant messages become Sext-Messages, becoming more pornagraphic. When they are eighteen he tries to establish a physical relationship. Some clearly fall for him.

    On occasion, he gets drunk and forgets his own rules, and goes straight to the page dorm looking for sex.

    He was given the task to write the laws on internet predators. You think that when he’s sober he wouldn’t know how to skirt it.

    So when the Leadership confronts him, he says with a straight face that he has broken no laws.

    As we know, for the Republican’ts ethics and morality are not the benchmarks. Rules don’t even apply (keeping 15 minute votes open for hours?). Nope, it’s only a question of what laws are broken and even then it matters only if they are being actively enforced.

  • Any Democratic campaign managers reading this, a word of advice from an interested voter: Do not start running negative campaign ads on this. All it takes is even the appearance of one Democrat being even remotely connected to this scandal for the Republican machine to turn this into a “bipartisan” issue, at which point all of those ads pick up the taint of hypocrisy. Take the high road and talk about the big issues: the war, the economy, health care, education, energy policy. This scandal has legs and will run without your help.

  • Is it so hard to say, “There was no investigation over Studds because the Democratic leadership didn’t cover it up — they censored him.”

    Foley could have run again, and the GOP would have stood behind him. He fled only after ABC did its job.

  • I heard this morning on NPR that the GOP is rallying around Hastert in an attempt to put the scandal behind them. They claim that they would like to move on to more important issues like Iraq and Afghanistan. Wow, huh? I’m not so sure that is going to give them much traction.

    Chicken: “Excuse me chef, I would really like out of this pan of hot oil. I have a pressing engagement in the oven.”
    Chef: “Don’t worry, the oven will still be there.”

  • Lance (#5),

    That’s a very good question. Harris no doubt did have the dirt on any and all portential rivals. So why not Foley? What did she know and when did she know it? I’d bet she floated not so subtle hints throught the Florida GOP leadership that she would expose Foley as a page-diddling pedophile if he ran.

    Would it be irresponsible to speculate? No. It would be irresponsible not to speculate.

  • A spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) confirmed yesterday

    Rumors are that Kolbe himself was overly friendly with pages before he came out of the closet, and Howie Klein claims that Kolbe is known to troll for young latino boys in his district. His known involvement might deepen in the next few days.

    Isn’t that a good question?

    A very good question. Someone needs to ask Kathy what she knew.

    He was given the task to write the laws on internet predators.

    This is the point that gets lost too often. Leadership and staff had to talk to him over and over about inappropriate behavior with minors (much of it online), and then they assign him the task of leading the charge against internet predators? Jesus, it’s hard to describe how sickening that is.

  • “A very good question. Someone needs to ask Kathy what she knew [about Foley’s predatory tendencies].” – Shalimar

    In trying to answer my own question, I ran across this editorial in the St. Petersburg Times, Foley’s home newspaper, which held the story about Foley’s emails to the Louisiana boy.

    “Oh, for a sex scandel” By PHILIP GAILEY, Times Editor of Editorials
    Published June 11, 2006

    The recent news that Blair’s lecherous deputy prime minister, John Prescott, had carried on a steamy affair with his secretary for two years provided some relief from the almost daily reports of deteriorating public services, soaring mortgage rates, rising unemployment and government bungling. Even better, the secretary was talking.

    Americans would count ourselves fortunate indeed if the worst that could be said of Dick Cheney was that he had office sex with a secretary and played croquet on government time. Prescott is an embarrassment; Cheney is a threat to fundamental constitutional principles.”

    Well, if the St. Petersberg Times knew in November 2005 about Foley’s “Overly Friendly” emails, they could have known the American sex scandal for 2006.

    What’s fascinating is that the St. Petersburg Times endorsed (excuse me, recommended) LeRoy Collins over Katherine Harris back on 19 August 2006. I was kind of hoping that I could show that the paper endorsed Harris while knowing about Foley, but that does not seem the case.

  • Another tidbit from the CNN story:

    ***Also, former House Clerk Jeff Trandahl, who oversaw the page program, cited concerns about Foley’s contacts with congressional pages long before Trandahl resigned from the post in 2005, sources told CNN on Monday.

    Trandahl repeatedly raised red flags about Foley’s behavior with pages years before Republican leaders confronted Foley about an e-mail he sent to a former page in 2005, sources familiar with the situation told CNN.***
    ——————————————–WASHINGTON (CNN)

    For some strange reason, I keep getting the image of “the Domino Effect” in my mind—and I’m not talking about pizza, either. That four-week window that the GOP needs to fix this thing closes with the break of dawn in DC tomorrow morning. It should be accompanied simultaneously by four uninterrupted weeks of “smash the GOP” ads. Pull out every last crumb that can be used against these heinous demons, their happy-juice haloes, and their WalMart wings.

    This is the hour; the moment of opportunity in which to strike at every last shred of vitriol that the Republikanner beast has at its disposal. The Limbaughs and O’Riellys; the Hannitys and the Coulters—crush them with a ceaseless onslaught of every vile smidgen of mud they’ve ever slung. Every lie—every twisting of truth—every deceit, exaggeration, and intentionally cherry-picked fable—bring it all around, every last piece of it, and “fire for effect.”

    Yes, this is the hour in which the GOP finally receives its due—and every loyal patriot of these United States should give Dennis Hastert a standing ovation,* for making the defeat of the GOP a reality….

    *note to the reader—for this standing ovation, please consider “anything you can possibly imagine” to be acceptable. My eight-year-old son (of “the dummy in the white house” fame) is awake and watching me type—so I don’t want to “go into graphic detail,” if you follow my drift ;

    • Comments are closed.