Let’s see, pretty much everyone in the House who knew about Foley prior to the story hitting the media has said they told Hastert what was going on, so for Hastert to pull a Sgt. Schultz, when so many fingers are being pointed at him has got to be one of the dumbest political moves ever.
He said anyone who “covered up” information should resign. What information did Hastert cover up?
If he’s covered it up successfully, we wouldn’t know. Its a bit like asking “Well, did you actually *see * any invisible pink unicorns?”
Was that supposed to be an answer to my question, 'luc? That could apply to anyone, including you or me.
But we’re not, of course. We are talking about Hastert, in re Foley. This isn’t clear?
Would you consider it a “cover up” to take no further action on information which (a) you possess and (b) should be disclosed to law enforcement?
Not saying both of those criteria are met with regard to Hastert, but if they are, is that a cover up?
Hah! I can see it now: myriad definitions of the term ‘cover-up’
Well, that depends on what your definition of “cover-up” is.
It’s good to hear one of our public servants taking a stance for accountability. Reminds me of when President Bush said he’d fire anybody in his administration who was involved in outing Valerie Plame. How’d that work out?
Richard Armitage had already resigned from the State Department when he revealed that he was the source.
Hastert will indeed fire himself, from his staff position of Chief Domestic Advisor to the Speaker. Hastert will retain his House seat and his Speakership.
The newly idle staffer Hastert will begin seeking another position. Fortunately he knows the Speaker’s office has an opening for a media specialist.
Hastert’s prospects are excellent.
For fuck’s sake. Do we need to do this again? “The” source is not the same thing as “a” source.
I heard this and thought it was brilliant. Anybody who knew should have come forward and told Hastert. By setting himself up as the final authority, it completely deflects the question of what his responsibility was once he knew.
Last I heard (and I am not following the story all that closely), they have yet to determine if any crime was committed. What Foley did was very skeevy, and no employee should be subject to harassment. But this seems more an HR problem, and should be dealt with via laws covering workplace behavior and sexual harassment. I’m not aware of any perp walks for workplace harassment (which is not saying there aren’t any, just I’m not aware).
I vaguely recall some news coverage saying that he solicited pictures of an erect penis from one of the pages. Wouldn’t that qualify as a crime?
Maybe if he did it in Cincinnati.
Any old erect penis?
How do you tell how old an erect penis might be? Some form of tree rings?
Obvously we need a volunteer to have it chopped off and examined for rings. Umm, you might not be the guy to ask.
Well, this “chopping” thing was your idea. Just sayin’, is all.