« Winners Win And Losers Lose | Main | Without Mentioning 'Tet', WSJ Invokes It »

October 24, 2006


Thanks DemfromCT. I am very interested if the House Ethics Committee is familiar with Federal Sexual Harrassment law. I suspect Reynolds, Boehner, and Hastert all violated some part of that by not documenting their concerns. The pages would rightly have considered Foley their supervisor. Reynolds, Boehner, and Hastert failed systematically, over a long period of time, to insure a safe workplace.

I bet ol' Denny feels like Caesar in a room full of togas. He know he's getting stabbed, just hopes the guy with one hand on his shoulders gets him before the fellow with two hands on his shoulders ;-)

Stay the course, Denny, stay the course.

normallly, hastert's level of incompetence would indicate that a promotion is in order

what incompetence hasn't bush rewarded ???

I smell "haster the veep" in january or so

"No Idioot Left Behind"

it's the "george bush" way

Hastert may or may not be lying now. (He say, he/she say.)

But he still had responsibility to command his troops, to lead by his example to run a tight ship, a clean operation.

He will not be the minority whip.

I see no legal problem for him.

Until the worse of the IMs came out, the very day that Foley left on his own, it is all about what should have been done about one dumb questionable but legally ok (according to the FBI) request for a picture.
Now what was under the rug was obviously (in hindsight) horrible, but I don't that even the Democrats (well especially the Democrats) have credited Hastert with any kind of far-seeing.

If a few things had been done differently, there would be no problem.

If the Democrat on the Page committee had been apprised of the email.
If the Ethics or some other oversight (bi partisan) group had been apprised of Foley's drunken escapade at the Page building.
If a bipartisan group including a homosexual had addressed the questionable email with Foley with the stated purpose of "making sure there was no questions of impropriety."
To maintain tight majority control, Hastert's group didn't share the information. [[This did not lose the house for them, but it will add to the new Democratic majority.]]

Then when the IM's came out only or maybe just mainly Foley would have been affected

In law, there is a well-established (six centuries) principle called respondeat superior, which means that the boss is legally responsible (has to answer) for the actions of his employees.

If any of these Aides, Staffers, or Chiefs of Staff, knew last year or 3 years ago or 10 years ago, and didn't act to protect the children, the responsibility falls also upon the shoulders of their bosses, whether individual congress-critters or Hastert himself. Since Hastert's top aides live with him, it is inconceivable that the topic never came up during a decade of predation.

As for harassment, convincing a child that he has to prostitute himself to get a decent job and political favors is worse than actually fondling him, since it corrodes the spirit.

Which is worse... lifting your butt to get a contract or selling out your constituents to get a campaign contribution? Congress is perhaps not the best body to put in loco parentis since personal honor and dignity are almost unknown there.


you are invoking the terms from the law with little understanding of applicability and a lot of overstatement.

In fact your sentence structure doesn't do much better, but you can correct that with a restatement if you please.

"If any of these Aides, Staffers, or Chiefs of Staff, knew last year or 3 years ago or 10 years ago, and didn't act to protect the children, the"

"knew" what, hauksdottir?

The terrible IMs only came out recently, and on the same day Foley resigned and drove back to FL. The same day Hastert held a news conference about the issue.

The earlier email requesting a picture has been passed on by the FBI as being not criminal. Sure Hastert says he didn't know of earlier stuff, and one person says he was told. (He say, she/he say. I don't know what that is all about yet.)

Granted the House leadership should have apprised the whole Page Committe (including the Democrat) of that email. And also of Mr Foley's drunken folly in front of the Page building. But since no one has come screaming about that drunkeness, I assume that the Democrats did know, and weren't interested in publishing to the world stories about congressmen being drunk.
I personally think that many office holders in Washington, show their proverbial a*** quite a lot.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad