Committee investigating Foley to hold press conference (2 p.m. ET)

[sabra]

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2006/12/committee-investigating-foley-to-hold.html

Committee investigating Foley to hold press conference

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct -- the committee charged with investigating the handling of former Rep. Mark Foley's inappropriate communications with House pages -- will hold a press conference at 2 p.m. ET Friday.

[sugapablo]

1. Weeeeeee.....This should be fun! :) n/t

[longship]

2. Kicked.

Fun, and I'll bet anything that there's gonna be some major ass-covering goin' on.

However, I'll bet my bottom dollar that with Stephanie Tubbs-Jones on the panel, there will be a significant minority report that nullifies some of the ass-covering.

[sallyseven]

3. I hear that Hastert is planning to resign

and he wants to assist in getting a repug in his seat. Do you think the repukes on the committee leaked bad news to him????

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. just in time for the news dump

and the weekend. Wonder if the terrorist at the mall (mentioned in a couple of threads here) was brought forth to distract?

[itsmesgd]

5. ABC: Mark Foley Investigation findings to be released @2pm

The House ethics board is set to release the findings of who knew what and when in the Mark Foley "pagegate" scandal at a 2PM presser.

details to follow

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/12/house_ethics_co.html

on edit:
Any predictions of who will, if anyone will, be named or in trouble?

[Beetwasher]

6. Let Me Save Everyone The Trouble Of Having To Read It

Actually, let me save everyone the trouble of ever having to waste time doing these Republican lead investiagations ever again. Here's the template for the "report" on every single act of "investigated" Republican malfeasance:

"After an exhaustive and thorough investiagation, it is this panel's conclusion that no one could have foreseen <insert topic>."

[itsmesgd]

7. then why did they wait until after the election?

I had guessed that the delay was to save some incumbents careers?
But you may be right, these people are immune to scrutiny.

[Beetwasher]

8. Because They Just Wanted It To Disappear

Before the election. Even a report exonerating everyone would have drawn everyone's attention to the whole thing all over again right before the election.

[itsmesgd]

9. surprise surprise

no finding of guilt for anyone.

So go out and have fun Congressmen.

yet another bush admin whitewash

[spinbaby]

10. No rules broken

From CNN:

-- The Associated Press reports the House ethics committee has concluded that Republican leaders did not break any rules in handling ex-Rep. Mark Foley's improper advances to former male pages but were negligent in protecting the teenagers, a congressional aide said today.

[alfredo]

11. Their findings: GOP leaders did nothing wrong. Surprise surprise

but they were faulted for not doing enough to protect the teenagers.

[librechik]

12. no, they did something a little naughty-- not enough for a wrist slap

See how honest and accountable they are? They admit there was some neglect!

[alfredo]

14. I'd like to know where each members stands on this.

[jefferson_dem]

13. AP link here -->

Foley panel says GOP negligent of teens
By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer

The House ethics committee has concluded that Republican leaders were negligent in protecting male pages from ex-Rep. Mark Foley (news, bio, voting record)'s improper advances, but they did not break any rules in handling the Foley case, a congressional aide said Friday.

The committee was releasing its findings Friday.

The aide, who was not authorized to be quoted by name, was made aware of the committee's findings.

"The Republicans did not break rules but were negligent in protecting the pages," the aide said.

<SNIP>

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061208/ap_on_go_co/congress_ethics

[daleo]

16. Being negligent is "doing something wrong"

This is just spin.

"The panel said it found no evidence that any current lawmakers or aides violated any rules. But it said it discovered a pattern of conduct among many "to remain willfully ignorant of the potential consequences" of Foley's conduct."

They remained "willfully ignorant" - i.e. they ignored the facts on purpose. It's like firefighters looking the other way on purpose, while a house burns down.

[Tight_rope]

15. Anyone with 1/100 of a brain cell would read this shit and know

that it's bullshit. How can "House ethics committee concluded that Republican leaders did not break any rules in handling ex-Rep. Mark Foley's improper advances to former male pages but were negligent in protecting the teenagers, a congressional aide"



"Republicans bitch that government can't work...then get elected and PROVE IT!!"

[Princess Turandot]

17. The NYT editorial on this: "Desperately Seeking Ethics "..

This kind of says it all:

"The panel’s justification for inaction is a breathtaking exercise in sophistry: “the requirement that House members and staff act at all times in a manner that reflects creditably on the House does not mean that every error in judgment or failure to exercise greater oversight or diligence” is a violation.

No, not every error or failure should be a violation, but certainly the ones that lead to an elected official’s sexually stalking teenage boys while his colleagues turn a blind eye or cover it up should be. We’d set the bar at least there. Apparently, it’s too high for the House. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/09/opinion/09sat1.html