Americablog: "Second Republican congressman snared in page sex scandal?"

[jefferson_dem]

Second Republican congressman snared in page sex scandal?
by John in DC - 10/07/2006 08:03:00 AM

Denny Hastert has put me in a difficult position.

I've heard rumors. Unsubstantiated talk. No proof yet. But I've heard things. Just like I heard things about Mark Foley this past July. This time I've heard things about a relatively senior Republican member of the House, and also about someone on the Speaker's own staff. Both rumors seem relevant to this story as it's unfolding.

So here's my dilemma. Denny Hastert says that if I don't report the unsubstantiated allegations I've heard, I'm a criminal. But the thing is, I'm also a journalist, and a good human being. I don't think it's right to print unsubstantiated rumors I've heard, rumors that could make life quite difficult for this Republican congressman and this senior member of Hastert's staff.

So what do I do? Do I publish unsubstantiated rumors about a GOP congressman and one of Denny Hastert's top aides? I don't want to, I don't think it's right, but Denny Hastert says he'll sic the FBI on me for hurting children if I don't. And he'll probably end up blaming Nancy Pelosi if my rumors turn out to be true and I didn't go public with them.

So what do I do? Maybe I'll just call Denny Hastert's office on Monday, tell them what I've heard, and let them decide how comfortable they are with the Speaker's new standard of justice.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/10/second-republic...

[Carl21014]

1. You blab away!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Screw the Republican Rat $%^&! You know he's a Republican so he's guilty of something! Think about Swiftboat and remember how they play!

[Seabiscuit]

7. WRONG!!! Don't fall into the Slimeball Hastert's trap.

To the OP:

1. Hastert is trying to intimidate you into thinking that failing to report the rumors is a crime. Bullpucky. Hastert is the one already guilty of the crime of covering up reliable and direct evidence of Foley's crimes and he knows it. But your sources are only giving you unreliable rumours. All the difference in the world.

2. More importantly, if the rumors you're hearing turn out to be false and you publish the stories even before learning they're false, you will then be guilty of libel (a civil offense) and can be sued by the person or persons who are the target of the unsubstantiated rumors.

DON'T DO IT!

Investigate. Don't publish.

[chill_wind]

2. Uh oh.............

K&R to the top!

[hang a left]

3. If Hastert wants him to post unsubstantiated rumors

there is a reason. And it is probably not a good one.

[Hav]

4. .

Nah, what was meant here was probably the lies from the right and from this pig Hastert that the Democrats knew about Foley and hold the info back.
I suppose that there were rumours about Foley's behaviour, just not definite proof. Rumours that turned out to be true but could not be proven at the time.
So this person has rumours now about another Repub but hasn't the proof yet. So by Hastert's logic, if the rumours are indeed true, this person sat on the info and did nothing .

[Terri S]

5. ask Dan Rather about not triple checking sources !

sure.. publish rumor,hell - make it up! after all 'they' do it!

same kind of reasoning that says it's ok to torture because look at what 'they do'.

Screw ethics to prove someone else is unethical.. I mean it's all about winning right? jeez, how very GOP

[NVMojo]

6. K&R

[SpiralHawk]

8. I don't want to kick this thread, but....

Denny Has-tart thinks it is my solemn dooty to doo so. Thus, having gulped down some republicon kewl aid, I'm offering a little bitty kick weensie underage kick to show I "respect" the up-standing repube-lick-on "leadership.

Underage page kique (as the French might very well say if they knew no Francais)

[chill_wind]

9. John in DC was on CNN this eve. (Video link)

Did anybody catch it? (I didn't)

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/10/video-of-my-cnn...

If memory serves, he was the guy who broke the Gannon Guckert WH Story on his blog. I think I also recall reading that he has a lot of contacts inside the gay DC political establishment.

I took his piece as a commentary around 2 things:

1 Irony at the self-entrapping catch-22 "defense" Hastert has created regarding standards for disclosure

2 He probably is in fact getting ready to do what he is purporting- to break this story next week, complete with reaction from Hastert's office.

I could be wrong.