Staffer Cites Earlier Role by Hastert's Office

Washington Post ^ | 10/7/06 | Jonathan Weisman

[conservative in nyc]

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's chief of staff confronted then-Rep. Mark Foley about his inappropriate social contact with male pages well before the speaker said aides in his office took any action, a current congressional staff member with personal knowledge of Foley and his behavior with pages said yesterday.

The staff member said Hastert's chief of staff, Scott Palmer, met with the Florida Republican at the Capitol to discuss complaints about Foley's behavior toward pages. The alleged meeting occurred long before Hastert says aides in his office dispatched Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.) and the clerk of the House in November 2005 to confront Foley about troubling e-mails he had sent to a Louisiana boy.

The staff member's account buttresses the position of Foley's onetime chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, who said earlier this week that he had appealed to Palmer in 2003 or earlier to intervene, after Fordham's own efforts to stop Foley's behavior had failed. Fordham said Foley and Palmer, one of the most powerful figures in the House of Representatives, met within days to discuss the allegations.

Palmer said this week that the meeting Fordham described "did not happen." Timothy J. Heaphy, Fordham's attorney, said yesterday that Fordham is prepared to testify under oath that he had arranged the meeting and that both Foley and Palmer told him the meeting had taken place. Fordham spent more than three hours with the FBI on Thursday, and Heaphy said that on Friday he contacted the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to offer his client's cooperation.

"We are not preparing to cooperate. We are affirmatively seeking to," Heaphy said.

Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean declined to directly comment on the second House staff member's assertion, saying that it is a matter for a House ethics committee investigation.

[conservative in nyc]

Just when you thought this was dying down, the Washington Post drags out more anonymous sources to claim Hastert's office knew abot Foley's actions earlier than previously claimed.

The second half of the article speculates about the sudden departure of the former Clerk of the House, Jeff Trandhal in 2005 - the one House official not heard from yet.

More at the link.

[tennmountainman]

Looks like Scott Palmer's denial is changing. Funny how memories change when testimony is under oath. First he denied Fordams claim, now his story is changing. Thats what tesimony under will get you... truthful statements or perjury charges.
It appears his memory is returning.

[Dane]

JMO, this scandal is dying. foley is gone and the democrats look like big hypocrites. Also the loudmouth DC press and lobbying "conservatives" who were looking for Hastert's head, have been quieted also when shown the facts.

[Just mythoughts]

Looks like these staffers have a whole lot more authority than they should, so is it a staff scandal now???

But then again we have been instructed since 1993 Clinton policy "DON'T ASK - DON'T TELL".

[Elyse]

Looks like Scott Palmer's denial is changing

The article says an unnamed staffer says this happened. Palmer's story hasn't changed.

[jwparkerjr]

Bad news for the Lefties and MSM, you can't have it both ways! Either the House leadership ignored or didn't ignore Rep. Foley's penchant for comely pages. Having someone step forward and say that Foley was 'counseled' long before Hastert's office says they dealt with it the first time makes this a matter of how Foley was dealt with, not a matter of cover-up. Of course they will decry the gentle manner in which the situation was handled, but the truth is it was indeed addressed. Perhaps we could learn from the Democrats. Maybe they would be so kind as to point out an instance in which they dealt firmly and publicly with one of their members where 'everyone knew there was a problem."

[metesky]

My anonymous sources tell me that they're sick and tired of anonymous sources.

[Cowboy Bob]

...a current congressional staff member with personal knowledge of Foley and his behavior with pages said yesterday.

Is this staff member Gay too? It seems that everybody involved in this scandal is Gay!

[AmeriBrit]

bttt

[tkathy]

I agree also, this story will die down unless something new and damning comes to light.

[oldironsides]

It is more than obvious that Hastert and others are crippled by the homosexual issues. Is it ok to confront a homosexual on his interest in boys and men? Are you risking being "branded " a homophobe Republican. Is it possible that political correctness brought the US Congress to this moment when it affects common sense decisions between right and wrong? There have been other homosexual congressmen that got into trouble with young males. Republican Bob Bauman of Maryland was arrested for soliciting a 16 year old male. He insisted he thought the male was older. Bauman had a wife and 4 kids. His constituents tossed him out the following election. The Democrat speaker back then did not go through what Hastert is going through today.

[SkyPilot]

But then again we have been instructed since 1993 Clinton policy "DON'T ASK - DON'T TELL".

Obviously, that applies to the military, but you are dead on with your sarcasm.

Homosexuality is an unholy sacrament to the Liberals - never to be ridiculed and rebuked.

Unless of coarse it helps Nancy Pelosi and the Communists.

[Just mythoughts]

Well it can't be that holy cause these loons have ripped open their cesspool like Hurricane Kat exposed liberalism.

I am still shaking my head over Nancy the Protector demanding Speaker Hastert's head for NOT protecting the children from gays.....

[LibLieSlayer]

B I N G O ! ! !

LLS

[justa-hairyape]

Hastert should have told Foley to change parties. That would have solved the issue completely.

[spatso]

"Is this staff member Gay too? It seems that everybody involved in this scandal is Gay!"


I am beginning to think that just about everyone on FR is so politically wired they choose not to see the obvious. An obvious that just about every American mother figured out in the first few days of the Foley scandal (see Myrna Blyth, National Review, So Long Security Moms). It is strongly implied that the Deputy Clerk of the House responsible for the page program and some of the key staffers who were responsible for handling this mess are gay men. It is idiotic to think, as some suggest, that this new information indicating the probability of an earlier meeting may prove that Hastert really was doing his job. If his office actually did investigate earlier than we are talking the classic conditions of cover up by somebody. Even though, it is my belief, probably nobody on his staff ever personally told Hastert of the earlier meetings with Foley. When Hastert said right back at the beginning of this thing "I was a victim too of Foley's deceit," I think he was entirely sincere.

In the meantime stop the insanity of trying to argue that the kids may be the perpetrators of any crime that may have been committed. It is okay to argue that the Dems are manipulating the information for political gain, but lay off the kids.

[mtntop3]

But then again we have been instructed since 1993 Clinton policy "DON'T ASK - DON'T TELL".

That was not the "Clinton policy". That was the reaction to it. And there is direct application to what is going on now:

Immediately after assuming the Presidency in January of 1993, Clinton issued an executive order which would allow open gays and lesbians to serve in the U. S. military.

This met with immediate and massive public opposition nationally, including that from all the major veterans' organizations.

A crucial part of combat readiness is respecting and having reliance upon one's fellow soldiers. If a person is viewed as engaging in unnatural acts, even off-duty, the perception of that holds over to duty-hours and affects - critically in wartime - the combat unit.

It is unrealistic to expect military personnel to clinically separate a fellow soldier's personal life from the life as a member of the fighting unit.

The contention that the homosexual issue in the military is like former racial and gender barriers is false: the essence of the question is not of race or gender but of behavior - and behavior certain to cause tension, hostility and discipline problems.

But Clinton and the Clintonites - most of whom have not given one day of national service in their lives - plowed ahead. This of course would have directly affected 17 and 18 year old recruits - who would have had to contend with someone making a move on them.

The massive opposition to Clinton's action soon resulted in a mandate against lifting the ban from a bipartisan group of moderate and conservative U. S. Senators and members of Congress.

Clinton then tried an end-run. On Sept. 28, 1993, Rep. Marty Meehan brought up for a vote in Congress (Democrats had control at this time) an Administration-approved amendment which would override the Congressional mandate and permit Clinton to lift the ban.

The amendment (Roll Call Vote #460) went down to defeat 264-169. (It is instructive to view the names of the 169 Congressmen who voted for it (i.e., open gays in the military),including from Ohio: Ted Strickland and Sherrod Brown.)

Following this, a military panel (not Clinton) put forth the suggested "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy, which was then adopted by majority vote in the Congress.

So Clinton and his fellow Democrats were not reluctant to put young people - some younger than the page who was propositioned at 18 by Foley - in a direct situation where moves could be made on them.

And, incidentally, destroying the Armed Forces of the United States.

[muawiyah]

Not only is the source anonymous, she comes forward in the early hours of Saturday morning after an evening of partying with her lesbian friends on Capitol Hill.

Is this supposed to be surprising or what?

[muawiyah]

They are all gay ~ think of it as a lover's spat, but with 25 or 30 participants.

[Just mythoughts]

Thank you for the full explanation....

I pointedly used the "DON'T ASK - DON'T" as Clinton policy because it is exactly what conservatives have done in order to NOT get accused of HATE CRIMES. Call it my condensation in effect and time.....

There would have never been such policy if the Clintons and we did have a co-president and that policy has her fingerprints alllll over her gay agenda. Interesting she found the Armed Forces Committee her number one priority once she became a senator.