After all, it is clear that he knew about the Foley emails BEFORE Dennis Hastert – and did nothing about his knowledge besides allow staffers to try to stir up interest in the press.

Democratic campaign operatives pushed newspapers to write about then-Rep. Mark Foley's e-mails to teenage pages in the hope that a scandal would emerge before the midterm elections, according to a House ethics report.

The findings were bolstered when an aide to Rep. Rahm Emanuel, Illinois Democrat, said the congressman also knew about the e-mails, which were dubbed "inappropriate" by the ethics panel. Mr. Emanuel, who was chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) when Mr. Foley's sex scandal broke in late September, had denied knowledge of the Florida Republican's e-mails.

The House ethics panel, which is formally called the Standards of Official Conduct Committee, Friday released its final probe into Mr. Foley's behavior, scolding Republicans for failing to act on years of troubling signs and naming Democrats who knew about the e-mails.

CNN first reported Saturday that Mr. Emanuel, the incoming chairman of the Democratic caucus, was "informed" but never saw the e-mails that Mr. Foley sent to a former page in the summer of 2005.

An Emanuel aide yesterday confirmed to The Washington Times that DCCC staffer Bill Burton told the congressman about the Foley e-mails in fall 2005. The aide said Mr. Emanuel took no action because the e-mails were mentioned in passing as a "rumor" about Mr. Foley.

On Oct. 8, Mr. Emanuel was put on the spot during his appearance on ABC's "This Week."

"Did you or your staff know anything about these e-mails or instant messages before they came out?" host George Stephanopoulos asked. Mr. Emanuel interrupted with "No."

"George -- Never saw 'em," he said twice.

Isn’t such failure to act the very thing the Dems called scandalous when it was Hastert and other GOP leaders accused? Why the silence now – especially given the clear attempt by Emanuel to parse language to make a misleading statement technically true (something I suspect he learned from his old boss)?

Oh, and by the way, the report shows what I repeatedly said this past summer.

The ethics report outlined several Republicans and staffers who were aware of Mr. Foley's drunken late-night visit to the page dormitory, but concluded no Republicans knew about the sexually explicit instant messages.

The ethics panel said the tone of the e-mails and instant messages were vastly different, but said Republicans failed to exercise due diligence about the e-mails back in 2005, when the former page told his friends on Capitol Hill the Foley e-mails were "sick."

Now, will those folks who accused me (and other Republicans) of “defending a pedophile” and “covering up the truth” please acknowledge that they were, at best, wrong – if not intentionally lying about what I said at the time?

Posted by: Greg at 01:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 491 words, total size 3 kb.