REPORT: Hastert Picks Ex-FBI Chief Louis Freeh To Overhaul Page Program
By on Oct 5th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
REPORT: Hastert Picks Ex-FBI Chief Louis Freeh To Overhaul Page Program
Roll Call reports that will Speaker Dennis Hastert will “announce today that former FBI Director Louis Freeh will oversee an investigation of the House page program.”
Fox News reporter Major Garrett reported that Hastert’s office spent hours recruiting individuals to head the probe. Other names on his list, according to Garrett:
– Right-wing pundit Bill Bennett
– Lobbyist and politician Susan Molinari
– Former Rep. Bill Paxon (R-NY)
Paxon was the immediate predecessor of Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY), and has already publicly defended Reynolds’ role in the Foley scandal. Paxon and Molinari are husband and wife.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
…Ann Coulter
October 5th, 2006 at 1:44 pmLouie Freeh? Geezus. these fools at Fox are SO unprofessional.
October 5th, 2006 at 1:46 pmSTOP!….what’s wrong with the FBI director we have ON DUTY NOW?????…
October 5th, 2006 at 1:47 pmOh yah, so thats the plan, create an investigation that you can’t comment on.
Frozen Scandal Man Hath arrived!
October 5th, 2006 at 1:47 pmHow fitting. The Congressional GOP’s hatchet man on Bill Clinton is now in charge of protecting children?
For more on Freeh’s partisan skullduggery, see:
October 5th, 2006 at 1:48 pm“Freeh at Last: Revenge andRevisionism at the FBI.”
Hey wasn’t Louis Freeh part of the Clinton wag the dog group of nattering naysayers?
October 5th, 2006 at 1:48 pmIsn’t that like picking John Gotti…
…to investigate mob activity?
Hell, he would’ve done better digging up J. Edgar!…
October 5th, 2006 at 1:49 pmi wouldn’t bet against bennett
October 5th, 2006 at 1:51 pmIt’s like picking Karl Rove bwahahahaaa.
The Zero Credibility Offense!!
Hastert was against investigating sexual predators before he was for investigating sexual predators
October 5th, 2006 at 1:52 pmBusiness as usual for the GOP. Why am I not surprised?
October 5th, 2006 at 1:52 pmAmerica’s Least Wanted
Why not the CURRENT director of the FBI overseeing the investigation? Are former directors easier to bribe?
October 5th, 2006 at 1:53 pmHastert was for wagging the dog before he was for wagging the dog
October 5th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
an investigation of just the page program?? that’s sheer lunacy. no reason to investigate the members of Congress. nah.
October 5th, 2006 at 1:55 pmIn case you lib wackos hadn’t heard, it has just come to light that the little queer Foley was sending IMs to was, in fact, over 18 at the time of the incidents. Looks like there is no crime. Just a fag trying to seduce another fag. Shameful, and disgusting, yet perfectly legal. Looks like another manufactured crisis by the Dems has blown up in their face. I have an idea for you kooks: Instead pursuing victory by tearing everyone down, why don’t you put forth some ideas, and try to convince people that your point of view is preferable? Oh yeah, I forgot. That doesn’t work, because your point of view and ideology is counter to everything REAL AMERICANS stand for. I understand now.
October 5th, 2006 at 1:55 pmSo Hastert wants to name some sleezebag to investigate a sleezebag. No surprise there. Sweep it all under the rug. What kind of fools do they take the American people to be? Oh, never mind.
I like the way Harold Ford (D-TN) handles himself regarding negative campaign ad from his Republican opponent Corker.
October 5th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
Loius Freeh? Let me save you some time and effort: it’s all Clinton’s fault.
October 5th, 2006 at 1:56 pmWhy not the House Ethics commitee? Isn’t that what they are there for?
October 5th, 2006 at 1:57 pmA+Real+American — you must be so proud of your party. Congrats!
hahahahahahaha
October 5th, 2006 at 1:59 pmI posted this on another thread, but I think it needs repeating.
If Foley were merely gay, the republicans would have trotted out some adult willing to admit to being Foley’s gay playmate. The fact that no-one could be begged, paid-off, or conned into doing it, shows he wasn’t gay, he was a pedophile. That he chose young boys instead of girls can be explained by his psychology. Young boys, confused, and just starting to explore their individual manhoods (menhood?) would make tempting targets for Foley, who, as a male, would know their weaknesses and fears. He wouldn’t have as much luck exploiting young females, having never been one.
Has Michael Jackson ever been known as a gay man? Have any of his adult, gay lovers ever come forward (no pun intended) to claim a liason with the King of pop? There would have been an incredibly huge financial incentive for someone to come forth (still no gay pun intended, it just the topic), but nada. Foley is a perv, plain and simple.
October 5th, 2006 at 1:59 pmOh, that’s how it works. When you’re accused of a crime, you get to handpick who’s going to investigate you. Neat.
October 5th, 2006 at 1:59 pmCLUE TO An UnReal American. Your facts are fantasy again. You might want to have that checked out.
October 5th, 2006 at 2:00 pmWasn’t Freeh the guy they were going to make New Jersey’s anti-terrorism czar, and then didn’t get the job because McGreevey’s gay pal got appointed instead?
I guess objectivity isn’t a motive here…
October 5th, 2006 at 2:00 pmLouis Freeh, and other right winger investigating themselves. Typical. Democrats should be bold and announce that when we get in power we will reform the ethics committee and put a REPUBLICAN in change of that important committee. Let’s show Bush that the strength of a real democracy is the power given to the minority. We can handle the heat, we aren’t going for revenge when back in power, and we will make bold moves to reduce the political discord in our country I bold statement like this, before the election, could put us over the top.
October 5th, 2006 at 2:00 pmDenny wants discredited liar Freeh to investigate the discredited,pedophile enabling liars in the GOP????!!!!!
Look for Freeh’s report blaming Clinton for it all, soon. He probably already has it filed in his computer ready for such an occasion
This is too freekin funny and too freekin sad.
October 5th, 2006 at 2:00 pm#14
The former Page was 17 when the e-m/IM exchanges started. The fact that he turned 18 while the exchanges continued is of little import to the case.
October 5th, 2006 at 2:02 pmGosh – where will fat denny ever find a fox who will guard this henhouse?
October 5th, 2006 at 2:04 pmApart from the fact that Freeh is a hacktacular freak, it will be interesting to see how the famously computerphobic former G-man wades into all this email and IM info.
October 5th, 2006 at 2:05 pmHey #17…The House Ethics Commitee has been virtually frozen since trying to deal with Tom Delay. The commitee is considered useless and toothless now by both parties.
October 5th, 2006 at 2:06 pmPaxon? Wasn’t he rumored to be Sandy Hume’s lover before Hume’s committed suicide?
October 5th, 2006 at 2:07 pmUPDATE! Sen. Ted Stevens has been asked to assist Freeh as an internet expert.
October 5th, 2006 at 2:08 pmReal American Cheese,
He was a minor at the time. If you have proof to the contrary you’ll have to provide it. No?
If your lying ass is what is considered “Real” then, yes, we are proud to hold an idealogy counter to yours.
October 5th, 2006 at 2:08 pmIMHO, I don’t really think An UnReal American is very concerned about facts. 2c
October 5th, 2006 at 2:08 pmARA. this mope has been stalking pages since 1995 and your party has been keeping it/him in the closet. Now it’s all coming out the GOP can’t place blame fast enough. The republicans did not go to the entire committee in charge of the pages and didn’t go to the ethics committee. your defense of this in light of what is public knowledge is a disservice to your moniker. You sir are not a real American if you choose party over the well being of children.
Now off to the corner with you and ask Mr. Shimkus to give you 40 lashes also.
October 5th, 2006 at 2:10 pm#14 “A Real American”
Are you really a REAL American? Why do you think you are? Do you think real Americans like to see sexual predators given cover so they can prey on teenage pages at will? Do you think real Americans want a sexual predator to be in charge of something like the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children Caucus? Do you think real Americans like the idea of their representatives in Congress refusing to accept responsibility for something they’ve been caught doing? Are real Americans okay with those congressmen deciding that it’s more important to win an election than to keep kids safe from a sexual predator? You might want to check with the kids’ parents on that one. That is, if they’re REAL Americans.
By the way, I realize that the Republican powers-that-be have decided that using the word “fag” is okay now, but the rest of the country doesn’t. Why don’t you just stick to using it when you’re around those people who also use the ‘N’ word.
October 5th, 2006 at 2:12 pm#25…actually, the page was 16 when it started.
October 5th, 2006 at 2:15 pmThe FBI started an investigation already, Hastert couldn’t call for another one, he had to use a wag dogger from the past, you know to make it look like he want’s an investigation [cough wink cough hack]
The GOP is weak on child safety, national security, ethics, and fiscal policy
October 5th, 2006 at 2:18 pm#34 “chimpeach”
October 5th, 2006 at 2:20 pmSave yourself some time. Before ARA would even admit to what you just wrote he’d have to stop drinking the Kool-Aid, stop watching Faux News and Hannity and actually develop critical thinking skills. I wouldn’t count on that happening any time soon.
Selecting such partisan individuals to a panel will only lead a reasonable person to believe that the results of the investigation are a foregone conclusion.
Mr. Hastert is the speaker of the entire house; not just the republican side. I expected more; but I am not at all surprised.
October 5th, 2006 at 2:21 pmLouis Freeh was a Republican judge who Bill Clinton, in a kind and truly bipartisan gesture, nominated to replace the outgoing Bush appointee Bill Sessions, who’d botched the Waco standoff.
Freeh repaid Clinton’s generosity by stabbing him in the back every damned chance he got.
A typical slimy move from Jabba the Hastert.
October 5th, 2006 at 2:23 pmMichelle malkin complaining on youtube that her racist video was deleted! must see! click my homepage for the video
October 5th, 2006 at 2:23 pm#5 – How fitting. The Congressional GOP’s hatchet man on Bill Clinton is now in charge of protecting children?
Absolutely fitting.
The Greedy ‘Ol Pedophiles can’t allow man/woman sex (impeachment of Clinton).
But, they CAN hide aggressive pedophilia within their own ranks for many years. They know it’ll make them look bad if ever found out. But they just can’t seem to help themselves control their sexual urges for underage children.
Can you say “SICK!” Yes. I knew you could. LOL!!!
October 5th, 2006 at 2:24 pm#14 you may want to quit reading JUST the Drudge report or watching only Hannity and Colmes. Because the 17 year old you are refering to is the page from 3 years ago when Foley was voting on Hill. THIS IS NOT the same kid from the IM’s earlier this year that were the really disgusting IM’s. Regardless even those IM’s were to a 17 year old.
October 5th, 2006 at 2:24 pmFreeh got the nod because he also promised to find out who stole some of Hastert’s fried okra during lunch.
October 5th, 2006 at 2:25 pmWhen Louis Freeh was nominated by Clinton to head the FBI he was a federal judge.
Reporters actually–get this–asked him about the COINTELPRO Program, which was the illegal and unConstitutional FBI program which spied on and disrupted legitimate patriotic political activities of American citizens during the Vietnam War.
But Louis Freeh claimed not to have any knowledge of COINTELPRO. Wasn’t aware.
ImAGine that: a federal judge not being aware of THE major Fourth Amendment case arising out of the political tumult of the 1960s and 1970s.
I’m not for litmus tests–but every damn lawyer, judge, and FBI agent ought to have knowledge of and be willing to publicly reject COINTELPRO and related activities.
On the face of it, COINTELPRO was treasonous, as were those who carried it out. You’re either FOR America, or you’re working to subvert it. And that’s a very reasonable take on a very conservative principle.
Louis Freeh’s reputation as an abysmal public servant flows straight from his willful refusal to live up to most basic standards of patriotic American values–and of his job as both judge and FBI head.
It prompts the question as to what were the acatual reasons he was nominated at all.
October 5th, 2006 at 2:27 pmMr. Hastert is the speaker of the entire house; not just the republican side. I expected more; but I am not at all surprised.
Comment by Caroll — October 5, 2006 @ 2:21 pm
Mr Hastert may be the Speaker of the House, but he never included Democrats in any of his decisions. Democrats are unable to get their bills presented for discussion and Hastert will strip out what the Democrats place in Republican bills. Hastert may think he speaks for the whole House, but he is the “party” man and will do whatever it takes to keep the frat boy, man-child in the WH happy.
October 5th, 2006 at 2:28 pmLouis Freeh?
“Republicans: The Other White Meat”
Fitting.
October 5th, 2006 at 2:29 pmSo-called “Real American” shows why Tom Foley is in detox today.
Foley had to always cover-up being gay because he was a Republican, the party that bashes gays. Almost every gay Republican has to be closeted because they have to gain enough votes from the religious right (I really mean “religious wrong”) to edge past Democrats.
So instead of confronting who he is, Foley became more confused and psychologically twisted up. I’m glad he has gone to therapy because Foley after being confronted with those IMs just might have committed suicide what with facing the onslaught of his image all over the media.
I’m not so quick to call him a pedophile. As far as we know at this point he never touched anyone. He was not emailing or IMing young kids (say, 8 or 9) as most people think of pedophiles.
Foley needs and has needed some help with squaring and facing who he is. This is why the Republican leadership is most wrong. Sweeping what they knew under the table and further, pushing Foley to run for re-election was only exacerbating Foley’s problems.
October 5th, 2006 at 2:29 pm#37 Jim Wolf
Oh, I know. ARA’s a clown. Big floppy shoes, fright wig and all. Sometimes I shoot at the easy ones just for practice.
October 5th, 2006 at 2:30 pmLook for Freeh’s report blaming Clinton for it all, soon. He probably already has it filed in his computer ready for such an occasion
This is too freekin funny and too freekin sad.
Comment by Wayne
Oh Wayne, please….the assumption that Freeh will have that much of a leash to file his own report blaming Clinton is just foolhardy………it’s on Hastert’s hard drive ready for transfer….Freeh will be given a great deal of leeway on the pen he chooses to sign his name on the report…..:-)
October 5th, 2006 at 2:32 pmSo… Hastert gets to pick the person to investigate, among other things, Hastert?
What a sweet deal!
October 5th, 2006 at 2:33 pmForgive my ignorance on this, but Freeh will investigate the House Page Program and the FBI is investigating Foley’s actions?
October 5th, 2006 at 2:38 pmLouis Freeh might want to begin by havbing a talk with the editors of the St. Pete Times. You can read about their decision not to publish a story about the original Foley emails – for lack of evidence, mind you – here:
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/10/05/Columns/Why_the_Times_didn_t_.shtml
The key graphs:
Last November, we chose not to publish a story about how the Republican congressman sent cryptic, though arguably inappropriate, e-mails to a former congressional page from Louisiana.
Let’s be clear: The e-mails we obtained were not at all sexually explicit. As Tom Fiedler, my counterpart at the Miami Herald, said, they were “ambiguous.” Further, the page had provided Foley with his e-mail address voluntarily and had acknowledged in an e-mail to a friend that he initially had no suspicions about the congressman. We later tracked down the page, who told us that the e-mails made him uncomfortable. We also interviewed another page who had received e-mails from Foley and found nothing inappropriate.
Still, the Louisiana page had forwarded the e-mails to a congressional staff member asking for guidance. The Foley exchange – including the request for a “pic”- seemed creepy. Was I being paranoid? the page wanted to know.
Our decision not to publish was a close call. We decided to hold off. Why?
I led deliberations with our top editors, and we concluded that we did not have enough substantiated information to reach beyond innuendo.
We were unsuccessful in getting members of Congress who were involved in the matter or those who administer the House page corps to acknowledge any problem with Foley’s ambiguous e-mail or to suggest that they thought it was worth pursuing.
And we couldn’t come up with a strong enough case to explain to a teenager’s parents why, over their vehement pleas to drop the matter, we needed to make their son the subject of a story – and the incredible scrutiny that would surely follow.
It added up to this conclusion: To print what we had seemed to be a shortcut to taint a member of Congress without actually having the goods.
[All emphases mine]
There was nothing to investigate, and no reason to override the objections of the parents. If it wasn’t wrong for the media to pass on this story in 2005, it wasn’t wrong for the Speaker to counsel Foley and insist he stop contacting pages in this way. That’s what the Speaker did, and that’s what Foley promised.
Foley broke his promise, and now he’s gone Unlike the examples of Studds, Franks and Clinton before him, Foley quite properly resigned. For Democrats to make anything more of this, and especially to lie about it, as Wetteling, Pelosi and others continue to do, is especially vicious and disgusting.
October 5th, 2006 at 2:41 pmWhat, Ken Starr is too busy?
October 5th, 2006 at 2:42 pmI just saw Hastert’s news conference, and he is stupid and senile, so he must resign ASAP > PERIOD.
October 5th, 2006 at 2:45 pm#47: Look, please leave poor Tom Foley out of this. You mean Mark Foley. Tom Foley was the fine congressman from WA who was speaker of the house and drummed out in 94 by th Gingrich push.
October 5th, 2006 at 2:46 pm#55.. yup sorry. My mistake…and I just realized my mistake just before you posted. Tom Foley was indeed a upstanding Democrat.
October 5th, 2006 at 2:49 pmSee what happens when I’m having a beer and watching my Tigers against the Yankees? A little distracted.
October 5th, 2006 at 2:51 pmFor those who weren’t paying attention during the 1990s, Louis Freeh, a partisan Republican judge, was appointed to run the FBI by Bill Clinton in a friendly gesture of true bipartisanship. Freeh repaid Clinton’s kindness by constantly stabbing him in the back, so much so that he grossly neglected his actual job — such as when he blew off his nominal boss Janet Reno’s warning that he needed to beef up the FBI’s intelligence and information-sharing capabilities as Al-Qaeda ramped up its terror efforts.
October 5th, 2006 at 2:51 pmJust saw the Nancy Pelosi is going to block Hastert’s appointing Freeh to this investigation. Her problem with it is that it doesn’t go far enough. It must be a much more broadbased effort.
October 5th, 2006 at 2:52 pmSounds about right to me. I completly agree with her.
Cheese & rice!!! Who give’s a flyin’ eff who is going to investigate? It doesn’t matter as the investigation will not accomplish anything. Name one thing that this administration and congress has done that HAS accomplished anything other than enriching themselves through the pain and suffering of others.
You want to make a difference? Then join the multitude of protests going on this very day across this once great nation. Do everything in your power and make every effort to get the slime out of power and out of washington DC right now. Let the A+R+A’s masturbate over the peripheral and foolish “debates” on these issues and focus instead on making the changes that have to be made if this nation is to survive.
You have two choices: 1) Stand up and do something or, 2) Bend over and take it like a fool.
October 5th, 2006 at 2:56 pmWho did he pick to head up the Hastert scandal?
October 5th, 2006 at 3:01 pmCitizen+Dad, it may be that Hastert didn’t see anything wrong in the emails he was given. I expect that to be decided by an independent investigation of this mess. I would expect him to question Foley regarding whether any other messages were sent or how far Foley had gone with pages. The difference between him asking that question and the St. Petersburg newspaper asking that question is that I think Foley would actually respond to Hastert’s question. I hope we’ll see when this investigation is concluded.
October 5th, 2006 at 3:09 pmHow come Hastert gets to pick his investigator. I thought JOD appointed someone. Where is Gonzo on this one? waiting for Rove to give the go ahead?
October 5th, 2006 at 3:14 pmCitizen Dad, no matter how many times you bring up Clinton, it does not absolve the Republicans from responsibility. Do you in any way GET IT ?
October 5th, 2006 at 3:33 pm#52 Citizen “sorry excuse for a” Dad
There was nothing to investigate, and no reason to override the objections of the parents.
And, naturally, you’d have made the same decision as those parents.
“What’s that? You say a congressman has been sending dirty e-mails to my teenage son, trying to get him to go out on a date with him? And you say he’s been doing this with a lot of other teenage pages there, too? Well, is he a Republican congressman or a Democrat? Oh, a Republican? No problem. You had me scared there for a minute. I thought you were going to tell me it was a Democrat that wanted to cornhole my son. Whew! I’m just honored to have my son serve the Republican party.”
October 5th, 2006 at 3:47 pmno matter how many times you bring up Clinton, it does not absolve the Republicans from responsibility. Do you in any way GET IT?
What I get is that Foley did not have sex with a teenage page. He sent an adult page – old enough to serve in the military, gay or straight – some creepy emails, and when confronted he admitted his behavior. Clinton had sex with a White House intern – young enough to be his daughter – and when confronted he denied his behavior. He even lied under oath about it! Democrats, true to hypocritical form, defended Clinton with the same vigor they are now attacking Speaker Hastert – who is their only remaining target precisely because Foley did the right thing and resigned.
What I get is that there is a huge double standard here. What I get is that Democrats will do anything to attack Republicans and protect Democrats at all costs, even if they have to sit on a juicy scandal for a year at the expense of House pages. What I get is that, if Foley had been a Democrat, he (like Studds, Frank and Clinton – all of whom had actual illicit sex) would be free to continue in office, because Democrats would be defending him!
What I get is that you people are dishonest and disgusting. The voters will understand that, in the end. May they punish you as fully as you deserve.
October 5th, 2006 at 4:30 pmI find it incredulous that Hastert would consider Bill Paxton and Susan Molinari for the job. I dare say Hastert has lost his mind.
Former New York Republican congressman, Bill Paxton, and Sandy Hume were reportedly gay companions. Yes, Bill Paxton was, or is, married to Susan Molinari. Yes, Sandy Hume was the son of the conservative journalist, Brit Hume. Yes, Paxton resigned from the House. Yes, Sandy Hume committed suicide. Yes, these rumors have been circulating for years. Yes, Bill Paxton and Susan Molinari may have been married for the wrong reasons–mostly likely love was at the bottom of the list. It appears that their marriage was a marriage of convenience.
Hastert must have a blocked artery to his brain. No one in his right mind would even remotely consider Bill Bennett, Bill Paxton, or Susan Molinari as worthy candidates.
Not only is Dubya incompetent, but the entire Republican Party. Seriously, our country is in big, big, big trouble if these incompetent, homophobic, greedy, hypocritical, self-loathing homosexual scumbags remain in office.
The essence of what’s going on in our country is that the high-and-mighty think that can do anything and not get caught. As long as they carry a Bible in their hand, they can and will do anything.
Please vote this scumbags out-of-office.
John
October 5th, 2006 at 4:55 pmFOLEY IM’s WERE PRANK
According to two people close to former congressional page Jordan Edmund, the now famous lurid AOL IM exchanges that led to the resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives, it was revealed today.
According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, goaded an unwitting Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of Dem political operatives.
The primary source, an ally of Edmund, adamantly proclaims that the former page is not a homosexual. The prank scenario was confirmed by a second associate of Edmund. Both are fearful that their political careers will be affected if they are publicly brought into the matter.
The news come on the heels that Edmund has hired former Timothy McVeigh attorney, Stephen Jones.
October 5th, 2006 at 4:58 pmquote from sibel edmonds from DailyKos:
“In 1999, the Clinton Administration actually asked the Department of Justice to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate Hastert, and certain other elected officials that were not named in this (VF) article, to be investigated formally. And the Department of Justice actually went about appointing this prosecutor, but after the Administration changed they quashed that investigation and they closed it despite the fact they had all sorts of evidence, again I’m talking about wiretaps, documents- paper documents- that was highly explosive and could have been easily used to indict the Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. That investigation was closed in 2001, and this was around the time I started reporting my cases to the Congress.”
October 5th, 2006 at 5:18 pm#66 Citizen Dud
What I get is that…
What you get is coming straight (ironically) from Drudge’s mouth. And Drudge is getting it straight from his own rectum. The last scoop Drudge had was about Monica Lewinski. He’s been wrong ever since.
If I want to read Drudge’s crap, I’ll go look for it myself.
October 5th, 2006 at 5:55 pm[...] REPORT: Hastert Picks Ex-FBI Chief Louis Freeh To Investigate …Think Progress, DC - Oct 5, 2006Fox News reporter Major Garrett reported that Speaker Hastert has been trying to get. Other names on his list, according to Garrett: … [...]
October 6th, 2006 at 7:07 pmFoley never touched any of these pages he sent E-mails to. Plus, one was 18 at the time and played along with Foley because he thought it was funny. The Page admitted this. Where was the outcry to investigate why Gerry Stubbs wasn’t expelled for actually having sex with an underage Page? Why wasn’t Barney Frank expelled for his Office Prostitution ring he claimed he knew nothing about? And why hasn’t anyone called for an investigation into why Clinton gave clemmancy to a former dem congressman who had sex with an underage campaign worker? Why hasn’t anyone investigated the fact that reporters sat on these E-mails for months, dems were shopping these e-mails to news media for months, and that neither were interested in “protecting the children” until a month before the election?
This is a non issue since Foley has resigned and is under investigation. Foley never touched anyone and no charges were ever filed by the alleged victims or their parents. The fact is that Dems cannot win on any of the real issues so they trod out this scandal and hope it sticks. Too bad they are only interested in protecting children when a republican sends a nasty E-mail to an 18 year old and ignores pedophilia when it actually occurs because it’s one of them who has done it.
October 15th, 2006 at 2:40 pm