Wash Times to call for Hastert’s resignation as House speaker

Posted by: ST on October 2, 2006 at 9:45 pm

Via Drudge:

WASHINGTON TIMES ON TUESDAY WILL CALL FOR SPEAKER HASTERT’S RESIGNATION, NEWSROOM SOURCES TELL DRUDGE… DEVELOPING… ‘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…

When it’s posted, you should be able to find it here.

What do you think?

Update: Here’s the editorial.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

  • Leaning Straight Up trackbacked with Why should Hastert resign?
  • 46 Responses to “Wash Times to call for Hastert’s resignation as House speaker”

    Comments

    1. jpm100 says:

      I think instead of waiting for all the facts to be out, the NYT is making a push while there is still confusion over exactly what happened.

    2. jpm100 says:

      err… Washington Times.

    3. Karl says:

      Hastert has done nothing to necessitate his resignation. What a red herring.

      Understand, the EMAILS prove nothing. They are harmless if borderline overly friendly.

      The Instant messages, which conveniently can not be validated to any acceptable degree of evidence, and are easily faked, are the only “proofs” of misconduct.

      Hastert was aware of the emails. Not the IMs, as I understand the situation.

      The organizations that broke the story are apparently the ones who had possession of the IMs…for the last 3 years, though the actual information of who had what and when is murky.

      So who has more explaning to do?

    4. Sprockett says:

      Even the federal investigators could not make a case until the IM’s, this is just another desperate attempt by the Dims and the media enablers to make the GOP look bad. I think in the end it will backfire, they will overplay their hand as usual. Hastert did nothing wrong, they are trying to make a case out of thin air.

      I just so love the impartial media, one wonders where they where when Clinton was accused of statutory rape and having an affair in the white house with an itern. I for one am tired of being depicted as evil because I have consertave views , I find the left devoid of any new ideas or higher levels of thought for that matter (what the bloggers did to malkin was just another example of how much ‘Smarter’ they where).

      These people have no scruples and I doubt few of them even know what the word means…

      -Paul-

    5. Marshall Art says:

      They seem to be making a lot of assumptions. I wonder if facts mean anything to them?

    6. Karl says:

      nawwwww:d

      The facts don’t matter, just the feel.

    7. RichB says:

      If Hastert thought that the first e-mails were harmless (the ones where Foley says that the page’s 16 year old friend has a hot body and he asks for a photo), then why did he tell Foley to cease contact with the kid? If there’s reason to suspect something wrong then there was reason to suspect something was wrong and there should have been a full investigation. Hastert can’t have it both ways. So Foley said they were harmless e-mails. He also said he wasn’t gay, when half the planet knew that he was a big closet case. This was a cover up for a child predator and Hastert should resign.

    8. Severian says:

      I don’t think Hastert has done anything to warrant resignation, but this is typical of the Democrat response to most anything these days, get indignant and demand someone’s resignation. They do it constantly, if you can’t win in elections try and force everyone in the other party to resign.

      OTOH, Hastert isn’t my favorite person, particularly after he threw a hissy fit about the FBI raiding Jefferson’s office, he was way off base on that one.

    9. Brian says:

      Hastert and the others told Foley to stop emailing the kid because of the way it could be perceived. It wasn’t that he thought he did anything wrong.

      Looking back, of course we can say “Yeah,he did”, but given what was known at the time, it was a non-issue.

      I’ve been going on about this at my blog, and I’m pretty sure this entire thing has been coordinated by someone in the Democratic party. The evidence is pretty overwhelming.

      As I’ve said, though, Foley needs to be prosecuted, no doubt.

      But just as important, we need to find out who sent out these emails and IMs, and how long they had them. If it turns out it was a Dem and they had them since earlier this year, or even last year when it all originally happened, then the issue no longer is whether or not Hastert and the rest covered up, but why Democrats were willing to risk the safety of the pages on Capitol Hill in order to have a political issue in November.

    10. Karl says:

      RichB, you are mixing things.

      If Hastert thought that the first e-mails were harmless (the ones where Foley says that the page’s 16 year old friend has a hot body and he asks for a photo), then why did he tell Foley to cease contact with the kid?
      The emails were sent in 2005 and contain nothing more personal then a request for a phot and the birthday present.

      The IMs were in 2003 and involved a different person, and those are the ones that got personal about the kids bod.

      Foley was told to cease contact because the appearence of a conflict is bad enough and the emails were borderline.

      The IMs were never used as a part of that decision, as far as we know.

      It does make a difference if you keep that in perspective.

    11. Susan says:

      The Democrats rush to judgment, not only about Foley, but also about their assumptions that somehow what one sick man supposedly did, the whole Republican party is somehow responsible for. Although I will admit, that letting the official investigation takes it course before pointing fingers and making baseless allegations, would not get them the exposure they need on this issue in time for the November elections. So, of course, by all means, lets not wait for the FBI’s reports and findings, by then it will be too late.

      Desperation is a scary thing.

      Those are part of my thoughts on the situation, full comments here.

    12. RichB says:

      I didn’t claim that the whole Republican party was to blame for Foley’s predations on the pages, just the members of the House Republican leadership who learned about the e-mail but didn’t follow up. Sure they asked Foley if he had any suspicious motives, but of course he said no. Not sure what Foley’s word was worth, considering how he claimed not to be gay, even though half the country knew he was a big closet case.

      And I love how you remove comments you don’t like, Sister Toldjah. Is that not the typical conservative reaction to try to cover up any arguments you can’t refute. What was that you were saying about one honest man spreading panic among a multitude of hypocrites?

      I knowingly removed no comment from you. Maybe next time you should ASK first rather than make assumptions, Rich, otherwise you just end up looking foolish. Is that not the typical liberal reaction to condemn first before they know the facts? –ST

    13. RichB says:

      Hmm, that’s odd, I guess someone hacked your site then. I posted two comments this morning and now only one is displayed.

      No one hacked my site. It was probably marked as a spam comment by mistake. Like most bloggers, I get lots of spam mixed in with actual comments. Please move on. –ST

    14. Karl says:

      Rich, the Republicans told him to cease contact.

      Based on the emails that was the responsible action to take, because the emails had no bad content, they were just too friendly.

      Terminating contact was responsible and worked to avoid conflict of interest and the appearence of abuse of power.

      And ST has a very fair comment section. Quit being a putz.

    15. sanity says:

      First of all the emails are not enough to convict Foley, and I believe it has been stated that there just wasn’t enough there….so shortly afterwards we have IM’s that suddenly get the light of day?

      Emails were not enough, so IM’s came to light afterwards…..why?

      If this evidence was so damning to Foley, why now?

      I agree with Karl when he states that the republican leadership only knew about the emails, something they have stated, and acted accordingly to it.

      I think the call for an investigation is a good one, but for reasons other than what the democrats want one…

      Democrats wants an investigation to see what else the republicans knew and when, and though they themselves do not know all the facts they are calling for the Frist to resign his leadership position. Typical.

      Republicans on the other hand want to find out who “leaked” this information first of all, and where and who had the IM’s that never brought them to the House leadership to do something about. I am sure there is more, but I would like to think this is not about politics but we know differently. The timing and efforts involved were purely political.

      And lastly, if Democrats were so worried about the Page, and it comes to pass that we find out democrats had the IM’s and just now released them, what does it say about their commitment to children for one. Only if it suits them politically? Party above all else! Right?

      Karl also brings an interesting point, could this be faked? He posted email photos and does comparisons here.

      So it brings up an interesting point, could the IM’s be fake? Perhaps they thought the emails were enough, and when they found out it wouldn’t be….they created the IM messages.

      If an investigation finds that these IMs are fake, what will happen?

      Again, this in no way excuses Foley, or tries to change what he did. I personally would not want him as a representative knowing these things, BUT I am willing to look at things more than just as face value, and you have to admit, something seems a bit off here.

      Remember, we are coming up on a very important election season, especially for the democrats, they will try and do anything they can to win back the house and senate. So how far are they willing to go? Could it be a possibility?

      An investigation hopefully will clear this up.

    16. sanity says:

      Remember, in the last few years we have had the “Fake but Accurae” seem to start showing as the norm. Bloggers have dissected these things and brought the truth to light, from the Bush Memo on his National Guard, to the Rueter’s Photo faking and staging.

      Could this be another instance of Fake but Accurate?

    17. sanity says:

      Oh an Rich, think before speaking and try and make connection between brain and mouth before going off on the owner of the site, ST, and accusing her of malfeance with your comments.

      ST has RARELY had to censure comments, unless they are derogatory and hateful.

      Most times ST has full faith in her readers to be able to debunk idiocy as it comes in – and we normally don’t have try very hard to debunk things.

      Don’t make us slap you with some Baklava! [chuckles]

      Regardless, your accusation of ST of removing your comments to try and prove some ort of twisted logic on your part is again, without merit, and if you were any kind of gentleman (something the world is slowly seeming to lose), you would apologize like a man, admit you were wrong and move on.

      At least then, you would show a bit more class than you have so far.

    18. Baklava says:

      You called? Point me the right way. I’ve got caffeine in me. Let me at ‘em. :)

    19. David S. says:

      Good point Brian.

      And may I add that all the states have laws that require any person that suspects there may be non-accidental abuse or neglect of a minor occuring is required by law to report that knowledge to law enforcement or the appropriate social service agency. Any failure to do so is in direct violation of laws that range from misdemeanor to felony. If all I read and hear is proven true, it appears there are a number of Dems that have broken the law; but what’s new.

      David S. :-?

    20. Severian says:

      Can’t find the link right now, but Cal Thomas had an editorial that I found interesting. I just searched around and can’t find it, but it was worth a read. In it, Thomas points out that given the way perversion and deviancy is not only accepted but glorified by certain segments of society why is this such a surprise? He also makes a point of noticing the Democrat/Liberal hypocrisy of supporting and encouraging homosexuality, promiscuity, gay marriage, etc. and then acting as upset as they are and as accusatory as they are when a Republican does the similarly immoral things that they support in others.

      Will have to keep looking for the link, it was better than I find most of his musings.

    21. RichB says:

      It’s great to see moralizing Republicans spinning so fast to cover up protectors of child molesters.

      “And may I add that all the states have laws that require any person that suspects there may be non-accidental abuse or neglect of a minor occuring is required by law to report that knowledge to law enforcement or the appropriate social service agency. Any failure to do so is in direct violation of laws that range from misdemeanor to felony. If all I read and hear is proven true, it appears there are a number of Dems that have broken the law; but what’s new.”

      As a point of fact, Brian Ross’s source for the IMs was a Republican.

      [ABC correspondent Brian] Ross dismissed suggestions by some Republicans that the news was disseminated as part of a smear campaign against Mr. Foley.

      “I hate to give up sources, but to the extent that I know the political parties of any of the people who helped us, it would be the same party” Mr. Ross said, referring to Republicans.

      Please don’t submit messages twice. Give me time to get to them so they can get posted. –ST

    22. Craig Stevens says:

      My God, Mark Foley was nothing short of a sexual predator and for Dennis Hastert and the Republican Party to enable him is a *** shame. What they did was to put more young boys in danger and give him fresh meat to damage. How can we trust them?

      This man was the Chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. It is too sad to be funny. If there where email I would think that soon a page will come forward and talk about his sexual encounters with him.

      Talking scandal, heads must role not only on the hill but I bet the white house knew about it also. Why are they meeting behind closed doors? Open the doors and let the dirt out.

      I would like to see the meeting held in public so that we can get to the truth. This must be done before the elections.

      Enough is enough…
      :(

    23. PCD says:

      Craig,

      How about all those Democrats that supported Gerry Studds be ejected from the House right now? How much of the Democrat side of the Ethics committee and Democrat leadership would be left?

      You are a partisan Hypocrite who really doesn’t care about anything but putting Democrats in power by any other means than fair elections.

    24. tom says:

      How about we look at the timeline of what we already know?

      No Democrats knew about this including the lone Dem on the page oversight committee. At least 4 Republicans knew about the IM’s and emails up to a year ago. Yet all I see is knee-jerk reactions and tinfoil-hat theories about a vast left-wing conspiracy and “October Surpirse”.

      And now PCD wants to look back 20 years! for other equivalent scandals with yet another “partisan Hypocrite” tag for comment poster. What does this have to do with the Democrats? Please, someone help me out on this. A problem is uncovered in your party and the first reactions is that its the Dems fault. Sad.

    25. PCD says:

      tom, I can’t help you are a Edited. –ST hypocrite.

      1. Gerry Studds was having sex with under age male Pages and got caught. The Democrat leadership and Democrat Speaker of the house did nothing. Studds served 6 more terms in Congress after that.

      tom, that is the established line of conduct and official reaction defined by Democrats to such things.

      2. Foley only sent emails that were inappropriate in and of themselves, then did the IM messages which crossed the line, but were not SEX with the Pages.

      Now, what Studds did was far worse and in many states a felony. Why should Foley be more punished when Studds did far worse and was celebrated by Democrats?

      Also, Why should Hastert resign when Tip O’Neill and Tom Foley did not resign after Studds’ far worse misconduct was exposed???

      This is your hypocrisy, tom.

    26. Baklava says:

      tom accused, “At least 4 Republicans knew about the IM’s……up to a year ago.

      Which Republicans Tom?

      tom accused, “At least 4 Republicans knew about the …emails up to a year ago“.

      What was illegal about the emails that 2 newspapers, the FBI and the Republican leadership should have thought were actionable? Please tell us in your laser sharp view what were wrong with the emails that you were smarter than the FBI, 2 newspapers and the Republicans that you would’ve acted on them…..

      Tom sincerely asked, “Please, someone help me out on this.

      If someone (Democrats/news programs/anyone) sat on the damning IM’s (evidence) in order to hit politically later, they are an accesory to a crime. It is required by law to give evidence right away to criminal authorities and WHOEVER failed to do so (news sources that are leaking an IM a day right now) are responsible for a crime and should be held accountable.

      Are you sufficiently helped out or do you disagree with the law?

      We are saying anyone with evidence should be held accountable. Are you? We are saying everyone who committed a crime should be held accountable. Are you?

    27. Baklava says:

      Also. Please apologize for your inaccurate accusations or answer the first set of questions…..

    28. tom says:

      “At least 4 Republicans knew about the …emails up to a year ago”.

      All here at NPR (or anywhere else you’d like to look)

      Fall 2005
      1) Rodney Alexander (R-LA)
      Fall 2005: The former page contacts the office of his sponsor, Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA), about the e-mails. Describing the e-mails, the boy writes, “Maybe it is just me being paranoid, but seriously. This freaked me out.”

      2)Dennis Hasterts Cheif of Staff
      Alexander’s chief of staff informs the office of House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s office about the e-mail exchange, but declines to show the message to Hastert’s staff and to the clerk of the House, Jeff Trandahl, who administers the page program. Alexander’s chief of staff describes the e-mails as being “over friendly” but not of a sexual nature.

      3) John Shimkus (R-IL)
      Trandahl and Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), chairman of the House Page Board, meet with Foley, who assures them he was only acting as a mentor to the boy. Shimkus orders Foley to cease contact with the boy. Foley agrees.

      Sping 2006
      4) Tom Reynolds (R-NY)
      Alexander mentions the Foley issue to Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY), chairman of the House Republican Campaign Committee. Reynolds says he raised the issue at a meeting with Hastert. Hastert says he does not explicitly recall this conversation, but he does not dispute Reynolds’ recollection that he reported on the problem and its resolution.

      5) Hastert too? (according to Reynolds)

      6)John Boehner (R-OH)
      Alexander’s office also tells the office of House Majority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) about the e-mails. Boehner has given conflicting statements, but on Tuesday, he told an Ohio radio station that he discussed the matter with Hastert, who told him it had been resolved.

      Need I continue? So if you want the Miami Herald Editor-in-Cheif in jail, fine. But not before the aforementioned list of congressman. Agree?

      What was illegal about the emails that 2 newspapers, the FBI and the Republican leadership should have thought were actionable?
      Nothing in my (or the FBI’s) opinion. I’m just wondering how the Democrats are somehow to blame. You haven’t explained that yet. Oh yeah, because 20 years ago they did’t ask their House Speaker to resign. That makes no sense.

      PCD – refresh my memory. Was it ever contended that the Speaker of the House knew about Studds transgressions but did nothing to stop it (ie cover it up)? You’re starting to sound pretty desperate here. There are calls for Hasterts resignation (by Republicans and Democrats) becuase of the perceived his failure to do his job. It has nothing to do with Democrats unless you cant get past 1984. Are still wearing zubas?

    29. Great White Rat says:

      Come on tom, you should be smart enough to know better.

      Even you admit there was nothing actionable in the Emails. They were known, referred to the FBI, and found not actionable. Seems to me that calling in the FBI does not exactly amount to a coverup. But you still want another 5 or 6 Republicans to lose their jobs anyway. So please, explain to us how not engaging in a cover-up amounts to wrongdoing. And can we deduce from that that actually engaging in a cover-up is laudable in your world?

      You keep confusing the issue. No one is blaming the Dems for Foley’s conduct. That’s his fault and his alone. What we are doing, and are perfectly justified to do, is point out how the same people (such as you) who feign indignace at Foley’s conduct give standing ovations and committee chairmanship to people who have done much, much worse. So you really ought to get off your sudden moral high horse.

    30. Baklava says:

      tom foolishly wrote, “Nothing in my (or the FBI’s) opinion.

      Exactly. Checkmate. Thanks for playing.

      You wrote later in the same post, “perceived his failure to do his job.

      You just talked out of both sides of your mouth. You got outsmarted and DON’T even KNOW IT. Anything you say at this point beyond an apology to Hastert would be incredible.

    31. Baklava says:

      GWR, He doesn’t get what he just did I’m sure. I set him up and he fell into the trap.

      He is either wrong about one thing or the other and he needs to decide where he was wrong. He is in checkmate. Ain’t no way out. He’s done here. All can see the clear loss.

    32. Great White Rat says:

      Baklava, you’re right…he didn’t get it in the previous thread and he won’t get it now.

      These libs kind of remind me of Wile E. Coyote. They think they’re super-geniuses, much smarter than we are, and always seem to wind up dropping the anvil on their own heads. :)

    33. Baklava says:

      I don’t think he read his own linked NPR story. It said what he, you and he himself for a brief flash of a moment said.

    34. PCD says:

      tom, Hastert said had he know about the IMs, he’d have removed Foley from Cohgress himself. The Democrat speaker left Studds in Congress for 6 more terms after Studds was caught and publicly exposed for having sex with under age pages. Now, what don’t you understand about your hypocritical position.

      HASTERT: Didn’t know of the IMs, but would have removed Foley.

      O’Neill/Tom Foley/Democrat Leadership: Left Studds in Congress without penalty for 6 terms AFTER knowing and having public reaction to Studds having sex with underage pages.

      Now, what don’t you understand, Edited. –ST?

    35. tom says:

      Even you admit there was nothing actionable in the Emails Actionable by the FBI. Apparently they decided no law was broken. Different than saying that the House leadership shouldn’t take some action to reign this thing in. So what you seem to be saying is that it’s OK if House Leadership knew of innaproriate conduct, as long as it wasn’t illegal yet. Good idea, lets wait until he breaks the law before any action is taken. Kind of like Delay did’nt do anything illegal, even though his cheif of staff did, it’s all OK. I’m just looking for a little honesty here.

      Boehner said he knew about “inappropriate contact” this spring and told Hastert. Once again, apparently we need to wait until he actually breaks laws to stop the conduct.

      PCD, Edited. –ST

    36. sanity says:

      It’s been 7 days of nothing but Foley, investigations, FBI, full House press, media talking…ect.

      Meanwhile most have let slide that charge of child pornogrpahy has been dismissed on Karr and a prosecutor who thought this was a slam dunk, now looks foolish that the man they brought over on a private jet, sipping champagne and eating prawns, just got off scot free.

      North Korea is gearing up for a Nuclear Test, and Russia and China probably could use our help, but we are too wrapped up in Foley to pay much attention to that in Congress, the Media, ect.

      People, Democrats and even some republicans have called for Hasterts resigniation, and with the Republicans they are thinking that this would show that Republicans are taking removing of corruption from the party very seriously to the base, but all that will do will again open this up for a longer debate, especially since to replace Hastert they will have to convene and vote, on a new speaker, and you know the Democrats will keep dragging this out as long as they can.

      Now, whether Hastert will keep his job after the election, I don’t think he will. He will either resign or asked to step aside after the election.

      Meanwhile Pelosi seems to think she is the one for the job, that perhaps to clean this up needs a “womans” touch….if that is so, then I vote for Ann Coulter to replace him.

      Then let the Hilarity begin.

    37. If the name calling doesn’t stop this thread will be closed. Take a chill pill, ya’ll.

    38. tom says:

      PCD, edited.–ST what you’re saying is that it’s ok if he knew about illicit activity as long as it isn’t illegal? That makes sense, lets wait until he acutally molests the kid!

      Boehner said he told Hastert here, or did he change his story?

    39. tom says:

      ST – I just missed your last post. Chill pill taken. Allow me to restate:

      PCD, are you saying is that it’s ok if he knew about illicit activity as long as it isn’t illegal? That makes sense, lets wait until he acutally molests the kid!

      Boehner said he told Hastert here, or did he change his story?

    40. - tom – without in any way defending Foley’s actions, you and I, and everyone, knows this “expansion of guilt” campaign isn’t really expected to cause any innocent Senators to resign. It’s simply the Dem’s hoping to keep the narrative on anything but the WOT and homeland defense. i give it a few more days, and then you worst nightmare, “weak on terrorism, and no idea’s” will push it’s way back into the spotlight. Good luck. Maybe you can tread water, and dupe the electorate until the elections, but I highly doubt it.

      – Bang **==

    41. PCD says:

      tom,

      My, my, my, evidently when it is Gerry Studds molesting pages, it WAS alright, many of your democrat reps gave Studds three standing ovations for telling the US House to “kiss off” as his response to being censured. Then, Tip O’Neill did noting. That is the precedent you Democrats set. Live with the truth, tom.

      Now, Foley is gone. You and your disingenuous colleagues are applying a different standard to Hastert than you applied to O’Neill. If enabling and condoning child molestation deserves removal from the US House, then start with each and every Democrat that applauded Studds, Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel,… Then, when you prove that Hastert was shown the IM’s, not just the email, then you have a case, until then, tom, you just are a disingenuous partisan trying to scam your way into power.

    42. Baklava says:

      What you are saying Tom, and what my question pertained to, was that you above the FBI, 2 newspapers, and the Republican leadership would’ve found something in the “emails” that were “actionable”. That is how you got into checkmate. By saying that nothing was actionable. You lost.

      The other groups saw nothing actionable either. Nothing to go on. If you are now changing your story please tell us WHAT in the “email” was actionable. Back to my original set of questions that you have to either change answers on or fail to realize you are in checkmate.

      We know you are smarter than 2 newspapers, the FBI and REpublican leadership. So now point to what was actionable in the “email”.

      Now for part 2 – What woudl’ve been your action based upon the actionable evidence that you are pointint to in the email? :-w Not to worry. This one isn’t really tricky….. =))

    43. Great White Rat says:

      tom,

      You can’t have it both ways. If you want Hastert et al to resign because nothing had happened yet with Foley, but might happen later, then you’re duty bound to explain to us why you think it was OK for Tip O’Neill – who knew Studds was kiddie-diddling for years before he was caught – to stay on.

      By your logic, if applied consistently, any Dem who (1) gave Studds a standing ovation while he flipped off the entire country during his censure hearing, or (2) failed to call for him to resign thereafter should immediately resign. Since those Democrats approved of his deeds (or at least knew of them), and since he refused to apologize and accept responsibility, a reasonable person would conclude he was likely to repeat them. Therefore, all such Dems should resign using tom-logic. Q.E.D.

      Of course, the key phrase there is “if applied consistently”, which you’re clearly unwilling to do.

      Give it up…you couldn’t answer anything I asked on the previous thread, and can’t answer anything Baklava asked here. All you keep doing is reinforcing our point that you guys have lower standards – far lower – for elected officials than we do.