Posted on 10/06/2006 11:57:43 AM PDT by 300magnum
Eleven House Republicans on Thursday told Democratic leaders they want them to appear before the House Ethics Committee to answer questions about what they may have known -- and failed to disclose -- about former Rep. Mark Foley's communications with congressional pages.
Led by Rep. Jack Kingston (Ga.), vice chairman of the House Republican Conference, the group sent letters to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) and Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean. The Republicans say Democrats shouldn't be absolved from answering questions about the scandal, especially in light of suspicions that the crisis was orchestrated as a political move to harm Republicans.
Just as it must be determined whether any Republican Members or political operatives were aware of and attempted to conceal Mr. Foley’s activities, it must also be determined whether any Democrat Members or political operatives were aware of, and attempted to conceal these same activities.
Therefore, we respectfully ask that you appear, under oath, before the House Ethics Committee.
In addition to Kingston, signatories include Representatives Kay Granger (Tex.), Phil Gingrey (Ga.), Bill Shuster (Pa.), Lee Terry (Neb.), Tom Price (Ga.), Louie Gohmert (Tex.), Joe Wilson (S.C.), Lynn Westmoreland (Ga.), Roger Wicker (Miss.) and John Shadegg (Ariz.).
In a statement sent to bloggers late Thursday afternoon, Kingston said the following:
This sad episode should not be a partisan issue. It reflects poorly on the Congress as a whole and weakens the trust of the American people. In order to restore that trust we must complete this investigation in a thorough and non-partisan fashion. All Members of the House, our staff, and members of the public regardless of political party should come forward and provide whatever information they know. We need to get to the bottom of who knew about Mr. Foley's inexcusable actions, when did they know about it, when did they first become aware of the Instant Messages in question, and what did they do with that information. As Republicans we expect, and so far have seen, nothing less from our Leaders and today we are asking for the same full cooperation from Democratic Leaders.
• In 1983, then-Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds of Massachusetts was caught in a similar situation. In his case, Studds had sex with a male teenage page -- something Foley hasn't been charged with.
Did Studds express contrition? Resign? Quite the contrary. He rejected Congress' censure of him and continued to represent his district until his retirement in 1996.
• In 1989, Rep. Barney Frank, also of Massachusetts, admitted he'd lived with Steve Gobie, a male prostitute who ran a gay sex-for-hire ring out of Frank's apartment. Frank, it was later discovered, used his position to fix 33 parking tickets for Gobie.
What happened to Frank? The House voted 408-18 to reprimand him -- a slap on the wrist. Today he's an honored Democratic member of Congress, much in demand as a speaker and "conscience of the party."
• In 2001, President Clinton, who had his own intern problem, commuted the prison sentence of Illinois Rep. Mel Reynolds, who had sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer and pressured her to lie about it. (Reynolds also was convicted of campaign spending violations.)
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=244680809798238
BTTT
"Ms. Pelosi: Mr. Foley has admitted to being Queer, Do you think Queers in Congress pose a threat to America's youth??"
Pelosi: "I don't recall."
I would love to see Nancy Pelosi sworn in... "I refuse to answer under the grounds it may tend to incriminate me".
Nancy, the hypocrit, and all the other demonrats will refuse to answer. Hearings will be a waste of time and money. But, bring them on.
Why is it that stories like this are always in Human Events or CNS but never on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, etc?!??
Good move.
These are names to remember for me. I hope more sign on.
I take it that's merely a rhetorical question.
Don't rely on FoxNews. Something is wrong there since the are not reporting balanced news but have a much stronger liberal leaning lately. Been getting disgusted. Guess fair and balanced is out the window.
I've cross linked to this thread (and pinged you) on the Rush Limbaugh daily thread where we're having a mini-discussion of how we think that group might come down. This bit of news you've provided about Kingston is really encouraging.
Anyone on FR who has solid evidence should forward it to Kingston's office ASAP. This would includes things such as the research done about the Soros/Clinton group American Family Voices, who were calling conservatives at home to get them to deluge congress with demands for Hastert's resignation. I sent that particular thread and the research links to Hastert's office, as well as to my congresswoman. Some of the comments Hastert made in the last 24 hours lead me to believe that he's aware of the Soros/Clinton fingerprints all over this thing.
Hit 'em again, harder!
Testimony under oath and polygraph is necessary here, without them there is no way any true statement will come out of a Democrat.
I wish them luck but, it ain't going to happen.
Pelosi, Emanuel and, other Democrat operatives are in this up to their lying lips.
Excellent news...linking for reference.
http://www.house.gov/ethics/
Thank you for all your hard work!
Stephen Jones Demands I pull the Jordan Edmund Story
Gonna get ugly before it's over.
"Ms. Pelosi, will you swear under oath that you had absolutely no advance knowledge (until released on last Friday afternoon) of the existence and/or nature of the electronic communications between Mr. Foley and the any of pages?"
"Would you be willing to submit to a polygraph test to demonstrate your veracity to the American people?"
"If you had even one day's advance knowledge, why did you hold back on the information if it would possibly endanger the pages in question?"
"Could you explain to the American people your relationship to or knowledge of Robin Katsaros, her son, and/or any projects involving a book about the life of pages in DC?"
[I wrote them out to use in case they couldn't muster the wherewithal to generate the questions themselves ...]
The "I don't recall" Pelosi-response suggested earlier may work under oath but is not like to do so on the polygraph. [Notice, BTW, that "I don't recall" indicates an act of volition: I do not (i.e. refuse to) recall, as opposed to "I can't recall"...]
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.