He’s unable to speak more than a word or two without changing the subject to Foley, mainly because that’s all he apparently thinks he has.

Well, GWR, I think I’ve got it figured out. Keith obviously has the most raging case of homophobia I’ve ever seen. With him, it’s all “who played hide the salami” all the time. I bet he’s even afraid to bend over in his own shower at home alone he’s so hyper.

How else can you explain the fact he views sending dirty IMs as a more serious crime than shooting at and attacking campaign offices?

- That’s why we’re sure she’d try it.

- Bang

Why should she? Democrats have been out of power for years in Congress, and if they win people will watch to see how they govern. They saw how the impeachment of Bill Clinton cost Republicans seats in Congress in 1998 (including, specifically and not coincidentally, two of the House impeachment managers.) Pelosi is smart enough to know that a Bush impeachment trial is the fastest road they could take back to the minority.

Besides, even if Bush were impeached, then the Senate would have to convict him. Which would require (even assuming the Democrats pick up the six seats they need for control and that every single Democrat voted for conviction) sixteen Republicans to join them.

And, even if they impeached Bush and he were convicted, what would be the reward? Turning on the TV and hearing, “I, Richard Cheney do solemnly swear…”

No, I doubt if Pelosi would want impeachment hearings. Every grain of common sense argues against it.

He’s unable to speak more than a word or two without changing the subject to Foley, mainly because that’s all he apparently thinks he has. Even then, he gets it wrong by braying about “child molesters” in the GOP, by which he means Emails. But if you read his nonsense on the other thread, the real child molesters – the ones who go far beyond Emails – are fine with him. Like Pelosi, he’s OK with the real pedophiles. You won’t get him to say one word against them. Go check his recent posts.

But what can we expect from someone who gets his news from Bill Maher?? But give him credit – that’s as close as he’s come to actually citing a source for any of his deranged rantings.

- Bang

I’m sure you will. After the Plame debacle didn’t work out for you I’m sure you are looking for anything you can. So if the Foley “scandal” doesn’t work out, what’s next?

I heard Hastert got a speeding ticket when he was 16!!! I’m sure you will be all over it!

But, tomorrow I will be watching what the house ethics committee will be doing. It should be fun.

You know, Bill Maher said something very funny tonight — Republican have sex the same way they govern — barely legal. And Congressman Gibbons of Nevada has seemed to join the sex bandwagon.

- Bang

Top aides to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) are expected to testify this week in the House Ethics Committee investigation of the Foley page scandal.

Hastert may also appear, according to Chicago Sun-Times political reporter Lynn Sweet. Today Chief of Staff Scott Palmer entered the room to testify before the committee around 2p.m.

The investigation of how the Republican leadership handled the issue has provoked turmoil and finger-pointing in Hastert’s office, congressional sources say.

Some of Hastert’s principal aides have hired criminal defense lawyers to represent them during the investigation. Ted Van Der Meid, Hastert’s chief in-house counsel, has retained Washington, D.C.-based attorney Lee Blalack, who also represents convicted former Congressman Duke Cunningham.

A key focus of the congressional investigation is the timing of when Hastert and his top staff first learned of Foley’s problem behavior toward congressional pages.

The results of an internal review conducted by the speaker’s office, released on Sept. 30, said Hastert’s staff only learned of complaints about Foley in the fall of 2005 after a congressional page complained about inappropriate e-mails.

But former House Clerk Jeff Trandahl as well as Kirk Fordham, Foley’s former chief of staff, have both told associates, and are believed to have testified before the House Ethics Committee, that top staff in Speaker Hastert’s office were informed several years ago about Foley’s inappropriate behavior toward congressional pages.

And, once again, the insults. You guys are just too used to talking to one another.

And tomorrow even more Members will testify about what they knew about Foley’s pedophila.

Last time I checked the topic was Pelosi, you’re the one who went off on the Foley tangent. I believe you started with “especially lobbying reforms to stop future Abramoffs and when it comes to protecting the little boys who have been molested lately in the House. ”

So the question is, why did you bring up Foley? I know you have a short memory so I cut and pasted from one of your previous posts, just in case you forgot.

It just seems interesting that you blast all Republicans yet seem to forget the very recent events of the Democrats.