Posted on 09/30/2006 7:02:50 PM PDT by kristinn
On Friday, September 29, the Speaker directed his Chief of Staff and Outside Counsel to conduct an internal review to determine the facts and circumstances surrounding contact with the Office of the Speaker regarding the Congressman Mark Foley matter. The following is their preliminary report.
Email Exchange Between Congressman Foley and a Constituent of Congressman Alexander
In the fall of 2005 Tim Kennedy, a staff assistant in the Speaker's Office, received a telephone call from Congressman Rodney Alexander's Chief of Staff who indicated that he had an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House page. He did not reveal the specific text of the email but expressed that he and Congressman Alexander were concerned about it.
Tim Kennedy immediately discussed the matter with his supervisor, Mike Stokke, Speaker Hastert's Deputy Chief of Staff. Stokke directed Kennedy to ask Ted Van Der Meid, the Speaker's in house Counsel, who the proper person was for Congressman Alexander to report a problem related to a former page. Ted Van Der Meid told Kennedy it was the Clerk of the House who should be notified as the responsible House Officer for the page program. Later that day Stokke met with Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff. Once again the specific content of the email was not discussed. Stokke called the Clerk and asked him to come to the Speaker's Office so that he could put him together with Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff. The Clerk and Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff then went to the Clerk's Office to discuss the matter.
The Clerk asked to see the text of the email. Congressman Alexander's office declined citing the fact that the family wished to maintain as much privacy as possible and simply wanted the contact to stop. The Clerk asked if the email exchange was of a sexual nature and was assured it was not. Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff characterized the email exchange as over-friendly.
The Clerk then contacted Congressman Shimkus, the Chairman of the Page Board to request an immediate meeting. It appears he also notified Van Der Meid that he had received the complaint and was taking action. This is entirely consistent with what he would normally expect to occur as he was the Speaker's Office liaison with the Clerk's Office.
The Clerk and Congressman Shimkus met and then immediately met with Foley to discuss the matter. They asked Foley about the email. Congressman Shimkus and the Clerk made it clear that to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and at the request of the parents, Congressman Foley was to immediately cease any communication with the young man.
The Clerk recalls that later that day he encountered Van Der Meid on the House floor and reported to him that he and Shimkus personally had spoken to Foley and had taken corrective action.
Mindful of the sensitivity to the parent's wishes to protect their child's privacy and believing that they had promptly reported what they knew to the proper authorities Kennedy, Van Der Meid and Stokke did not discuss the matter with others in the Speaker's Office.
Congressman Tom Reynolds in a statement issued today indicates that many months later, in the spring of 2006, he was approached by Congressman Alexander who mentioned the Foley issue from the previous fall. During a meeting with the Speaker he says he noted the issue which had been raised by Alexander and told the Speaker that an investigation was conducted by the Clerk of the House and Shimkus. While the Speaker does not explicitly recall this conversation, he has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynold's recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution.
Sexually Explicit Instant Message Transcript
No one in the Speaker's Office was made aware of the sexually explicit text messages which press reports suggest had been directed to another individual until they were revealed in the press and on the internet this week. In fact, no one was ever made aware of any sexually explicit email or text messages at any time.
When you see a cockroach on the kitchen counter, there's usually a few hundred behind the wall.
That's the sort of common sense that our Congressional leaders seem to have forgotten.
I think you are blowing this out of proportion. Hastert shouldn't resign and did exactly the right thing.
He did, however send sexually explicit IMs to former pages in the past,that were not reported to either the press, the boys'parents or to Congressional authorities until now. Is that it?
Yes, when the sexually explicit IM's were found out by Hastert and the leadership, probably Friday morning, foley was immediately and rightfully booted.
Unlike the typical democrat reaction to the same situation.
You can't fathom the details so you'll make some up?
I saw that exchange between Ann and the dem...he seemed so proud of the fact that when THEIR congressman was found to actually have a physical affair with a page, he stood up on the House floor and ADMITTED it.
Like that is all that matters...just admit it...and you can be re-elected as often as you want.
OTOH...the Reps eat their own, quite well, and the dems don't.
Are you listening Kos-heads? There is no scandal here, other than the contemptuous conduct of Mark Foley.
I have been saying this repeatedly for 24 hours now. ABC News knew about this for as long as Alexander did...but unlike Hastert, ABC News HAD the explicit transcripts. ABC NEWS PURPOSELY SAT ON THIS UNTIL IT WAS LATE ENOUGH TO WREAK HAVOC IN FOLEY'S DISTRICT. That is the real "coverup" here.
"Yes, when the sexually explicit IM's were found out by Hastert and the leadership, probably Friday morning, foley was immediately and rightfully booted"
So the $64,000 question, which is not answered in the news, is WHEN were the obscene IMs made and when were they reported to the Congressional authorities ,if at all , and why didn't the boys' parents raise a ruckus, assmung that the boy even told them?
On one of the text messages I thought there was a comment from Foley or the kid stating they would have to wait till February when he turns 18 but then the reports says the kid was 16 in the summer of 05?
"I have been saying this repeatedly for 24 hours now. ABC News knew about this for as long as Alexander did...but unlike Hastert, ABC News HAD the explicit transcripts. ABC NEWS PURPOSELY SAT ON THIS UNTIL IT WAS LATE ENOUGH TO WREAK HAVOC IN FOLEY'S DISTRICT. That is the real "coverup" here"
I am confused. The parents reportedly assured Congress that the contents of the e-mails we not sexual in nature.
Are you saying that that some of the e-mails to Alexander's page were sexual in nature and deliberately withheld from Congress and the parents, but given to ABC? Or are you saying that ABC had both the transcrips of e-mails to Alexander's page, non sexual in content, as well as other IM's, not reported to the Congress, to former pages that were obsecene? Either way that is shady.
I guess I'm getting confused.
Correct. I suspect one of those two scenarios, but time will tell which it was. ABC News along with the entire MSM is always working with the DNC to subvert the GOP right before election-time. They did it to Bush 41 4 days before the 1992 election with an Iran-Contra-Weinberger "surprise" (which turned out to be meaningless but then cost Bush 4%). They did it to then-Gov. Bush with the sudden DUI release one week before the 2000 elections (which cost Bush 5%). They are doing it again here, and I think there will be one more "surprise" before October is done.
Many of the articles I've read .. they are blurring the emails and the IM's together
There are no reports of the emails continuing
The recent reports and the reason Foley resigned was due to IM's from 2003 to a different person
Those were not known about until this week
I think all the cards should be put on the table. When did ABC News receive the emails? Who was their source. It's possible that Foley was set-up? He should be thrown out of congress for his actions, but let's find out who new what and when did they know it including the MSM.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.