Drudge Reports: Washington Times to Call for Speaker Hastert to Resign

[BoogyMan]

WASHINGTON TIMES ON TUESDAY WILL CALL FOR SPEAKER HASTERT'S RESIGNATION, NEWSROOM SOURCES TELL DRUDGE... DEVELOPING... Editorial titled: 'Resign, Mr. Speaker': 'House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once... Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance'... -- Washington Times, October 3, 2006...

Drudge has the flashing light out tonight with the above breaking story.

[lily]

If Hassert knew what was going on with Foley, did nothing to stop it, then he is just as guilty as Foley and should step down. There are conflicting reports whether he did or didn't.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But this whole story is political fodder.
2. Its going to be hilarious when it blows up in the Democrats face.
3. This is why the Democrats are so reviled.
4. The American Voter will not support this kind of political crap from the liberals.
5. Keep it up, by all ,means, keep it up!

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Elrathin]

1. But this whole story is political fodder.



Proof?

[lily]

Sorry bout that,

1. But this whole story is political fodder.
2. Its going to be hilarious when it blows up in the Democrats face.
3. This is why the Democrats are so reviled.
4. The American Voter will not support this kind of political crap from the liberals.
5. Keep it up, by all ,means, keep it up!

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


It's nice to see that you approve of a dirty old man stalking a young boy.

In all honesty, chesswars.....I haven't seen too much finger pointing done by Democrats. What I do see is demanding from both sides of the aisle that this kind of stuff stops.

[sbannon]

Hastert claims he doesn't recall being told back in the spring about "inappropriate" or "overly friendly" emails between Foley and teenage pages, and that if he was it was bundled with many other points of conversation. Also, he's said today that if he was told about it, it was in the context of--or framed as--something that had already been dealt with.

That's fair enough, our nation is in the midst of 2 wars and I can see where anyone in Congress or the Senate might not key in or focus on a 'dealt with' issue when presented in a bundle of perhaps very pressing, urgent matters of business which aren't yet resolved.

However, while claiming to not remember being told Hastert has refused to say that Rep. Thomas Reynolds[R-NY]--who's said he told the House Speaker about Foley and the emails, as well as about having been obstructed by Rep. Rodney Alexander[R-LA] (who's office the page allegedly originally forwarded the emails too, calling them sick) from seeing the email content or pursuing the matter--is incorrect about the notification. Hastert has simply said he "can't dispute Reynolds' statements".

House Majority Leader John Boehner[R-OH] initially acknowledged that he also knew of the situation in the spring of '06 and spoke with Hastert about it as well when the story first broke last Friday, he's since recanted part of that statement and said that he now doesn't remember whether he contacted Hastert or not.

This is all significant simply because given the vile nature of the offense here, and the reasonable concerns over some possible election year cover-up of Foley's actions by Republican leaders, it comes across as though Hastert is pulling the old "I do not recall" routine to dodge the issue.

Whether that's true or not, regardless of if Hastert honestly does or doesn't remember, it places him in a public perception bind that will cause both the Republican party and Congress as a whole problems with his position as House Speaker.

Basically, the public perception of any possible engaging in covering up of Foley's pedophiliac actions, or at the least ignoring them early on may act as muck in the gears for both his party and the House.

For that reason, unfair as it may seem, I agree he should resign his leadership role. Not his Congressional office (unless he was found to know much more than he claims), but certainly his position as House Speaker--for the good of the House and by proxy the country; and even for the good of his party.

It's been hard times lately for Republicans, and sad times for the country. Not to be confused as a pot-shot, but I seriously wonder what happened to the 'party of integrity' far too often anymore. I knew it was a meaningless political slogan from the start, but never dreamed they'd do so much to prove me right.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But Foley was s troll Rino, waiting to crash and burn as a Republican.
2. He was gay, and gays have no business being conservative, ever!
3. This Anti-Republican activity within our Party, is an outrage!
4. We Republicans need to make a statement, to the public, that being gay in our Party isn't acceptable, in any situation.
5. And the gays must be told, frankly "We Do Not Want You In *OUR* Party".

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Rider]

While I deplore Foley's actions and agree that he should leave, I'm not so sure about spreading guilt around. So far it appears that Foley broke no laws and therefore knowledge of his actions puts no legal responsibility on anyone else.
There is also growing suspicion that the release of this information to ABC was timed to prevent the Republicans from replacing Foley on the ballot in his district. If true, it at least shows that the party doing the leaking had no real concerns about the safety of pages for at least a year, maybe three.

[lily]

While I deplore Foley's actions and agree that he should leave, I'm not so sure about spreading guilt around. So far it appears that Foley broke no laws and therefore knowledge of his actions puts no legal responsibility on anyone else.
There is also growing suspicion that the release of this information to ABC was timed to prevent the Republicans from replacing Foley on the ballot in his district. If true, it at least shows that the party doing the leaking had no real concerns about the safety of pages for at least a year, maybe three.


Well actually Rider, there is another thread where Foley did meet this child in California. As for no crime committed........I'm pretty sure stalking is a crime. Either way the FBI is now investigating. As for spreading the guilt around.....I said it before and I'll say it again, anyone that knew this was going on and didn't stop it is as guilty as he is. For him to be the head of missing and exploited children is sad, truly sad.

Now for your comment on the timing.....if this was done by Rove against the Democrats, I don't think you would be this upset. As for no concern about the saftey of children.......I think that one goes to who ever covered for Foley's ass for years and not the leaker......and I do believe this "leaker" is the person who this child went to for help. So if you consider someone making known a wrong done to a child and putting a stop to it....then if it was me, I'd wear the "leaker" badge with honor.

You know.....sometimes it really is the fault of the person that did wrong and not the Democrats or the media.

[Elrathin]

IMO, whomever helped cover this up or knew about it and did nothing, (IF it is found Foley actually did something illegal), they should resign immediately and possible face charges.

If Foley didn't do anything illegal, and the person(s) that knew about it or helped cover it up don't resign, then all that will happen is they will asnwer to the voters. I would like to see them resign, but if no illegal action was done by Foley then I cannot say they must resign.

[Rider]

Lily wrote-
Well actually Rider, there is another thread where Foley did meet this child in California. As for no crime committed........I'm pretty sure stalking is a crime. Either way the FBI is now investigating. As for spreading the guilt around.....I said it before and I'll say it again, anyone that knew this was going on and didn't stop it is as guilty as he is. For him to be the head of missing and exploited children is sad, truly sad.

As I said, if he committed a crime he should be punished under the tough laws he helped pass, but it's impossible to know at this time what anyone else knew or when. It will all eventually come out.

Now for your comment on the timing.....if this was done by Rove against the Democrats, I don't think you would be this upset. As for no concern about the saftey of children.......I think that one goes to who ever covered for Foley's ass for years and not the leaker......and I do believe this "leaker" is the person who this child went to for help. So if you consider someone making known a wrong done to a child and putting a stop to it....then if it was me, I'd wear the "leaker" badge with honor.

Absolutely not, Lily. For instance I find the recent release of video of Murtha during the Abscam scandal particularly disgusting.
It's my disgust of tactics like these that make me very skeptical of the timing of this Foley scandal. Perhaps you're right and it is all coincidence, but all of this happened years ago. This "child" we're talking about is now a junior or senior in college.
Don't get me wrong- I'm not condoning anything done to this person, or other persons, but this issue is probably being used as a political weapon without much, if any regard for the victiim.

You know.....sometimes it really is the fault of the person that did wrong and not the Democrats or the media.

Of course that's true, Lily, but not necessarily so.

[sbannon]

On the timing of this whole issue, let's remember that it was ABC--the network which just "made stuff up" so they could trash Clinton over the 9/11 attacks--that broke the story. The same network which fired Bill Maher for making a politically incorrect comment on his show, actually titled "Politically Incorrect", yet still broadcasts and supports Robertson after he called for government assassinations of a foreign head of state. This isn't exactly what I'd call an overly liberal friendly network.

Couldn't it be that this just isn't a liberal vs. conservative or party vs. party issue? Perhaps it's really about the vile acts of pedophilliac nature against teenaged children entrusted to the safety of our federal government. That doesn't seem like it should be partisan to me.

As for whether or not Foley broke the law, that's certainly a question as of yet to be answered. However, he made no denials of any of the claims. He simply resigned and entered rehab where the press can't reach him. I've read the transcripts (available at ABC News) that the young man says are himself and Foley chatting, and if they are authentic there's no doubt that Foley broke numerous laws (which he helped pen and get enacted) regarding online behavior with children. But that's the question that needs to be answered, are the transcripts authentic or not?

As I said earlier, I'm not saying any guilt lies with Hastert or trying to spread any his way. That's for the Justice Dept. and other legal entities to decide. But, given the vile nature of the issue and just the appearance of Hastert having prior knowledge and not acting on it, regardless of whether it's true or not, is already mucking up the gears of the House because of his position as Speaker.

Unfair as it may seem or be, for the good of the House, the country and even the Republican party I think Hastert should step down as Speaker. But hey, the longer he remains Speaker and stays in-front of cameras over this story the better for Democrats in November it is.

[underdawg]

In response to Chesswarnow, I am afraid if one were to weed out all of the closeted, homophobic gays from the Repubican party , you might not have many leaders left. Those who protest against gays the most, usually have the most to hide.

[Rider]

Just out of curiosity Underdawg, which Republicans are protesting homosexuals?

[Elrathin]

Just out of curiosity Underdawg, which Republicans are protesting homosexuals?


I haven't heard of any personally that have spoken out against homosexuals, but you might have a chit chat with your conservative friend Chesswarsnow, because he claims Republicans are the party against homosexuals.

[Rider]

I wasn't aware that Chess was an authorized spokesman for the Republican party.

[Elrathin]

I wasn't aware that Chess was an authorized spokesman for the Republican party.


He seems to think so. And considering he doesn't seem to get any comments from the conservatives side of the house against his comments, I would wager that you guys don't seem to disagree with his comments.

[sbannon]

Just out of curiosity Underdawg, which Republicans are protesting homosexuals?Not exactly protesting homosexuals, but Republican Senator Rick Santorum certainly displayed that he openly views them in a similar negative (and confused) light to Chesswarsnow when he compared homosexuality with incest, bigamy and polygamy.

[BoogyMan]

On the timing of this whole issue, let's remember that it was ABC--the network which just "made stuff up" so they could trash Clinton over the 9/11 attacks--that broke the story. The same network which fired Bill Maher for making a politically incorrect comment on his show, actually titled "Politically Incorrect", yet still broadcasts and supports Robertson after he called for government assassinations of a foreign head of state. This isn't exactly what I'd call an overly liberal friendly network.

Couldn't it be that this just isn't a liberal vs. conservative or party vs. party issue? Perhaps it's really about the vile acts of pedophilliac nature against teenaged children entrusted to the safety of our federal government. That doesn't seem like it should be partisan to me.

As for whether or not Foley broke the law, that's certainly a question as of yet to be answered. However, he made no denials of any of the claims. He simply resigned and entered rehab where the press can't reach him. I've read the transcripts (available at ABC News) that the young man says are himself and Foley chatting, and if they are authentic there's no doubt that Foley broke numerous laws (which he helped pen and get enacted) regarding online behavior with children. But that's the question that needs to be answered, are the transcripts authentic or not?

As I said earlier, I'm not saying any guilt lies with Hastert or trying to spread any his way. That's for the Justice Dept. and other legal entities to decide. But, given the vile nature of the issue and just the appearance of Hastert having prior knowledge and not acting on it, regardless of whether it's true or not, is already mucking up the gears of the House because of his position as Speaker.

Unfair as it may seem or be, for the good of the House, the country and even the Republican party I think Hastert should step down as Speaker. But hey, the longer he remains Speaker and stays in-front of cameras over this story the better for Democrats in November it is.


We don't yet have knowledge of what is going on with regard to Hastert. If he knew that there were sexual activities going on with the page staff, he should go.

The appearance of Hastert having some kind of knowledge is a Chris Matthews drooling dream right now. If all Hastert had was the original email where the guy asked for a picture and to keep in touch I don't think you can tar him with this disgusting mess. If he had knowledge of the other activities however, he should go.

As should anyone on both sides of the isle who might have had knowledge of Foley's disgusting activities and saved them up for an October surprise.

[sbannon]

BoogyMan, I don't have anything against Hastert really--obviously that would change if it's learned that he knew details about Foley's behavior and did nothing--but right now I have no ill will or personal beef against the Speaker. That's why I said earlier that while it may seem and be unfair, I had to agree he should step down.

Politicks is in large part perception. Unfortunately, at this point the perception to many in the public is that Hastert knew more than he's admitting and either helped to cover for Foley or simply dropped the ball on protecting children.

Whether it's true or not either way doesn't matter in politicks, it's the perception that's the story. And the attention, meetings, interviews and etc. surrounding the issue are preventing Hastert from working for the people of America, and as Speaker of the House that means the gears of Congress are grindingly slow because Hastert is so caught up in this scandal.

That's why I said, for the good of the House and his party since the perceptions will motivate voters too in November, he should resign as Speaker. Not from his Congressional seat, just from his leadership role.

[lily]

The appearance of Hastert having some kind of knowledge is a Chris Matthews drooling dream right now.Â*Â*If all Hastert had was the original email where the guy asked for a picture and to keep in touch I don't think you can tar him with this disgusting mess.Â*Â*If he had knowledge of the other activities however, he should go.


Then maybe all the Republicans that said they told Hastert should again shut up and keep this secret?

I know your disdain for Mathews, but he hardly is the only reporter reporting this. Hell, even O'Reilly is!

[BoogyMan]

The appearance of Hastert having some kind of knowledge is a Chris Matthews drooling dream right now.Â*Â*If all Hastert had was the original email where the guy asked for a picture and to keep in touch I don't think you can tar him with this disgusting mess.Â*Â*If he had knowledge of the other activities however, he should go.


Then maybe all the Republicans that said they told Hastert should again shut up and keep this secret?

I know your disdain for Mathews, but he hardly is the only reporter reporting this. Hell, even O'Reilly is!


My point Lily, is that the ink on this story is hardly dry and the butt covering has begun. We DONT know who knew what yet, and most of this is pure speculation. I shouldn't have to spell it out like this for you but, oh well.

Once again you assume way too much and in the process close off any possibility of debate because if you READ what I wrote you might notice that I said "If he had knowledge of the other activities however, he should go."

Egads.

[lily]

BoogyMan



Once again you assume way too much and in the process close off any possibility of debate because if you READ what I wrote you might notice that I said "If he had knowledge of the other activities however, he should go."



Then maybe all the Republicans that said they told Hastert should again shut up and keep this secret?

No where have I said, in this discussion or in any of the other discussions that have been going on about this subject that Hastert admitted he had knowledge. But you did get one thing right, Boogyman.....READ.

[BoogyMan]

BoogyMan



Once again you assume way too much and in the process close off any possibility of debate because if you READ what I wrote you might notice that I said "If he had knowledge of the other activities however, he should go."



Then maybe all the Republicans that said they told Hastert should again shut up and keep this secret?

No where have I said, in this discussion or in any of the other discussions that have been going on about this subject that Hastert admitted he had knowledge. But you did get one thing right, Boogyman.....READ.


No, Lily, you just made a silly assumption that there was more to my commentary than what I posted.

Physician heal thyself, read something Lily.