Well, now, which is it?
In this evening's painstakingly prepared statement by Speaker Hastert's office on the Rep. Mark Foley matter, it is made to appear that the emails between Foley and the page were never passed on to GOP higher-ups by the page's sponsoring congressman, Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA), in deference to the page's family and their desire for privacy. But a report tonight from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Washington Bureau calls that account into serious question.
First, the relevant portion of the Hastert statement:
The Clerk asked to see the text of the email. Congressman Alexander's office declined citing the fact that the family wished to maintain as much privacy as possible and simply wanted the contact to stop. The Clerk asked if the email exchange was of a sexual nature and was assured it was not. Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff characterized the email exchange as over-friendly.The Clerk then contacted Congressman Shimkus, the Chairman of the Page Board to request an immediate meeting. It appears he also notified Van Der Meid that he had received the complaint and was taking action. This is entirely consistent with what he would normally expect to occur as he was the Speaker's Office liaison with the Clerk's Office.
The Clerk and Congressman Shimkus met and then immediately met with Foley to discuss the matter. They asked Foley about the email. Congressman Shimkus and the Clerk made it clear that to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and at the request of the parents, Congressman Foley was to immediately cease any communication with the young man.
Now, here's what the Post-Dispatch reports, from an interview today with the aforementioned Shimkus:
Last year, the House clerk grabbed Rep. John Shimkus off the floor during a vote and said they needed to talk.It wasn’t unusual for the clerk at that time, Jeff Trandahl, to catch Shimkus, in the hallway or on the House floor, since together they oversaw the House page program and often had items to discuss.
This time, though, Trandahl had in his hand an email exchange between one of the House pages, a 16-year-old boy, and Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla.
Shimkus, who serves as board chairman for the House page program, read the emails, in which Foley asked about the boy’s well-being in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, what he wanted for his birthday, and for a photograph. (The boy was from Louisiana and had returned to his home state.)
Although there was nothing sexually suggestive in the emails, Shimkus and Trandal agreed: "That was enough for us to approach Mark," Shimkus recalled an interview Saturday.
Soon after, they met with Foley and his chief of staff in the Florida congressman’s office. "We basically said, ‘We got these emails. And we don’t think this is appropriate. ... You have to stop (contacting this boy)’," Shimkus said.
Shimkus told the paper that he thinks he did the right thing given the information he had at the time, though he regrets not having involved his Democratic colleague on the board overseeing the page program. "If I regret something maybe I should have had Dale (Kildee, a Democratic board member and congressmen from Michigan) with me because now it’s going to be a political football."
On Friday night, the Post-Dispatch reports, Shimkus met with the pages currently in the program. Just days after "reading them the riot act" about behaving in the program, he told them: "I’m embarrassed I’m ashamed. This lecture I gave you I should give to my colleagues."
--David Kurtz
Earlier, Josh posted on NRCC chair Tom Reynolds' statement that he had told Speaker Hastert about the Mark Foley situation in early 2006. Why is Reynolds throwing Denny from the train?
Republican insiders said Reynolds spoke out because he was angry that Hastert appeared willing to let him take the blame for the party leadership's silence.A House GOP leadership aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of losing his job, said that Reynolds realizes he has taken a shot at his leader but that it is understandable.
"This is what happens when one member tries to throw another member under a bus," the aide said.
Indeed. When one GOP congressman tries to damage another politically, it's time to speak out. But when a GOP congressman tries to proposition an underage page? Silence is the better part of what passes for GOP valor these days.
--David Kurtz
The lede in the NYT Sunday piece gets it about right:
Top House Republicans knew for months about e-mail traffic between Representative Mark Foley and a former teenage page, but kept the matter secret and allowed Mr. Foley to remain head of a Congressional caucus on children’s issues, Republican lawmakers said Saturday.
Buried deep in the piece is the suggestion of a possible federal criminal investigation:
At the Justice Department, an official said that there was no investigation under way but that the agency had “real interest” in examining the circumstances to see if any crimes were committed.
The statement that Hastert's office released late today came only "after senior aides, the House clerk and legal advisers huddled for much of Saturday in the Capitol."
It's a bit ironic that while denying for the past two days that they were circling the wagons back when the information about Foley first came to their attention, the GOP leadership has been . . . circling the wagons.
One still doesn't get the sense that their focus is on the alleged victims of Foley, or on the possible unknown victims. If the allegations against Foley are true, the kind of conduct involved is rarely isolated or limited to one victim.
So what does the GOP leadership propose to do to figure out who those victims are and provide them with assistance? A toll-free telephone number for pages and their parents to report concerns. But that pre-supposes that once a report is received, the GOP will actually do something about it.
--David Kurtz
Ever wonder why it seems like we are enduring a repeat of the Nixon Administration? Now we know. From Bob Woodward's new book, via War and Piece:
A powerful, largely invisible influence on Bush's Iraq policy was former secretary of state Kissinger."Of the outside people that I talk to in this job," Vice President Cheney told me in the summer of 2005, "I probably talk to Henry Kissinger more than I talk to anybody else. He just comes by and, I guess at least once a month, Scooter and I sit down with him." (Scooter is I. Lewis Libby, then Cheney's chief of staff.)
The president met privately with Kissinger every couple of months, making him the most regular and frequent outside adviser to Bush on foreign affairs.
Kissinger sensed wobbliness everywhere on Iraq, and he increasingly saw the situation through the prism of the Vietnam War. For Kissinger, the overriding lesson of Vietnam is to stick it out.
In his writing, speeches and private comments, Kissinger claimed that the United States had essentially won the war in 1972, only to lose it because of the weakened resolve of the public and Congress.
In a column in The Washington Post on Aug. 12, 2005, titled "Lessons for an Exit Strategy," Kissinger wrote, "Victory over the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy."
He delivered the same message directly to Bush, Cheney and Hadley at the White House.
The image of Henry Kissinger schooling George W. Bush on the lessons of Vietnam is enough to make a grown man cry.
--David Kurtz
Reading the press release tonight from Speaker Hastert's office is interesting on a number of levels. Here's what jumps out at me. The entire discussion of the 'internal review' the Speaker's office conducted seems intended to drive home the point that while pretty much the entire GOP House leadership knew about the Foley 'matter', no one beside backbencher Rodney Alexander (R-LA) actually saw the emails.
Alexander's Chief of Staff calls Hastert's office about emails "he and Congressman Alexander were concerned about it." But he doesn't tell the guy in Hastert's office what the emails say. The two staffs meet again later. But somehow what the emails actually say? Still not discussed.
They send Alexander's Chief of Staff to the Clerk's Office. The Clerk asks to see the emails. But "Congressman Alexander's office declined citing the fact that the family wished to maintain as much privacy as possible and simply wanted the contact to stop."
When asked by the Clerk whether the emails are "of a sexual nature", Alexander's Chief of Staff tells him they're not but calls them "over-friendly."
Now, here's the problem as far as I can see this. Supposedly, no one in a position of authority ever lays eyes on these emails, presumably because they're relatively innocuous. But at the same time they can't be seen by anyone else because "family wished to maintain as much privacy as possible." Those two points don't really square in my mind.
So the Clerk and Rep. Shimkus meet with Foley having never seen the emails in question -- either because they're basically innocuous or because of concern for the family's privacy. Take your pick.
So they give Foley a clean bill of health having never reviewed the emails that raised the concerns.
And Hastert's staffers?
"Mindful of the sensitivity to the parent's wishes to protect their child's privacy and believing that they had promptly reported what they knew to the proper authorities [the three members of Hastert's office] did not discuss the matter with others in the Speaker's Office."
Basically, everyone's so mindful of the sensitivity of the matter they manage never to investigate what actually happened. Isn't that what they're saying?
And also, as luck would have it, the extreme sensitivity to the parent's feelings helps keep the entire matter hermetically sealed from Speaker Hastert.
So everyone's very mindful of the privacy of the family. But somehow Rep. Boehner and Rep. Reynolds found out about it from Rep. Alexander. And Reynolds mentioned it to Hastert. But Hastert doesn't remember. And Boehner told Hastert about it too. And Hastert said it was being taken care of. Only Hastert never heard about it ...
--Josh Marshall
Yesterday the NRCC put more than $3.5 million into GOP congressional campaigns nationwide. Of that amount, negative ad buys accounted for all but $63,000. The list of expenditures is here.
--David Kurtz
Another press release ...
News from Congressman Dale E. Kildee Contact: Christopher Mansour, Chief of Staff for Congressman KildeeCongressman Dale Kildee (D-MI), the Democratic Member of the House Page Board, released the following statement today:
"As the Democratic Member of the House Page Board, any statement by Mr. Reynolds or anyone else that the House Page Board ever investigated Mr. Foley is completely untrue.
"I was never informed of the allegations about Mr. Foley's inappropriate communications with a House Page and I was never involved in any inquiry into this matter.
"The first and only meeting of the House Page Board on this matter occurred on Friday, September 29 at approximately 6 p.m., after the allegations about Mr. Foley had become public."
--Josh Marshall
Breaking: Hastert's office releases statement on Speaker's office's "internal review" ...
INTERNAL REVIEW OF CONTACTS WITH THE OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER REGARDING THE CONGRESSMAN MARK FOLEY MATTEROn Friday, September 29, the Speaker directed his Chief of Staff and Outside Counsel to conduct an internal review to determine the facts and circumstances surrounding contact with the Office of the Speaker regarding the Congressman Mark Foley matter. The following is their preliminary report.
Email Exchange Between Congressman Foley and a Constituent of Congressman Alexander
In the fall of 2005 Tim Kennedy, a staff assistant in the Speaker's Office, received a telephone call from Congressman Rodney Alexander's Chief of Staff who indicated that he had an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House page. He did not reveal the specific text of the email but expressed that he and Congressman Alexander were concerned about it.
Tim Kennedy immediately discussed the matter with his supervisor, Mike Stokke, Speaker Hastert's Deputy Chief of Staff. Stokke directed Kennedy to ask Ted Van Der Meid, the Speaker's in house Counsel, who the proper person was for Congressman Alexander to report a problem related to a former page. Ted Van Der Meid told Kennedy it was the Clerk of the House who should be notified as the responsible House Officer for the page program. Later that day Stokke met with Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff. Once again the specific content of the email was not discussed. Stokke called the Clerk and asked him to come to the Speaker's Office so that he could put him together with Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff. The Clerk and Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff then went to the Clerk's Office to discuss the matter.
The Clerk asked to see the text of the email. Congressman Alexander's office declined citing the fact that the family wished to maintain as much privacy as possible and simply wanted the contact to stop. The Clerk asked if the email exchange was of a sexual nature and was assured it was not. Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff characterized the email exchange as over-friendly.
The Clerk then contacted Congressman Shimkus, the Chairman of the Page Board to request an immediate meeting. It appears he also notified Van Der Meid that he had received the complaint and was taking action. This is entirely consistent with what he would normally expect to occur as he was the Speaker's Office liaison with the Clerk's Office.
The Clerk and Congressman Shimkus met and then immediately met with Foley to discuss the matter. They asked Foley about the email. Congressman Shimkus and the Clerk made it clear that to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and at the request of the parents, Congressman Foley was to immediately cease any communication with the young man.
The Clerk recalls that later that day he encountered Van Der Meid on the House floor and reported to him that he and Shimkus personally had spoken to Foley and had taken corrective action.
Mindful of the sensitivity to the parent's wishes to protect their child's privacy and believing that they had promptly reported what they knew to the proper authorities Kennedy, Van Der Meid and Stokke did not discuss the matter with others in the Speaker's Office.
Congressman Tom Reynolds in a statement issued today indicates that many months later, in the spring of 2006, he was approached by Congressman Alexander who mentioned the Foley issue from the previous fall. During a meeting with the Speaker he says he noted the issue which had been raised by Alexander and told the Speaker that an investigation was conducted by the Clerk of the House and Shimkus. While the Speaker does not explicitly recall this conversation, he has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynold's recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution.
Sexually Explicit Instant Message Transcript
No one in the Speaker's Office was made aware of the sexually explicit text messages which press reports suggest had been directed to another individual until they were revealed in the press and on the internet this week. In fact, no one was ever made aware of any sexually explicit email or text messages at any time.
--Josh Marshall
"It's vile. It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction."
--Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), commenting on President Clinton, following release of the Starr Report, September 12, 1998.
--David Kurtz
Every man for himself watch.
From Roll Call (sub.req.)NRCC chair, Rep. Tom Reynolds issues statement confirming that he told Speaker Hastert in early 2006 of Rep. Foley's page problem.
"Rodney Alexander brought to my attention the existence of e-mails between Mark Foley and a former page of Mr. [Rodney Alexander's [R-La.]. Despite the fact that I had not seen the e-mails in question, and Mr. Alexander told me that the parents didn't want the matter pursued, I told the Speaker of the conversation Mr. Alexander had with me."Mr. Alexander has also said he took the matter to the Clerk of the House. An investigation was then conducted by the Clerk and [Illinois GOP Rep.] John Shimkus on behalf of the House Page Board.
"Mark Foley betrayed the integrity of this institution as well as the trust of his colleagues and constituents. There is no excuse, and he needs to be held accountable."
Speaker Hastert's aides continue to insist he was out of the loop.
To the best of my knowledge Hastert has yet to speak publicly.
--Josh Marshall
A few follow-up thoughts on the Foley scandal.
First, I find it interesting that while both the Post and the Times are currently running below the fold stories on the scandal on their websites, neither, as far as I can tell has yet devoted a story to the fact that most of the Republican House leadership has apparently known about this for almost a year and yet did nothing. I don't think cover-up is too strong a word since there was apparently an active effort to keep the allegations from the only Democrat who serves on the Page Board. That decision, I think, speaks volumes.
Another point. A number of the leadership principals who apparently knew about this for months have made two arguments -- a) that the evidence they saw didn't clearly point to wrongdoing and b) that the matter wasn't pursued because the parents wanted the matter dropped to protect their privacy. In the real world, I think those are mutually contradictory rationales for not pursuing the matter. If you're dropping the matter because the parents don't want you to pursue it, I think that means there was a problem. That also ignores the apparently criminal nature of the activity.
Finally, one detail here isn't getting enough attention. Rep. Alexander (R-LA), the first member of Congress to be alerted to the problem, says he contacted the NRCC. That's the House Republicans' election committee, a political organization entirely separate from the House bureaucracy and the Congress. (The head of the NRCC this cycle is Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY).) That is, to put it mildly, not in the disciplinary and administrative chain of command of the House of Representatives. Considering that the issue involved a minor, it seems highly inappropriate to discuss the matter with anyone not charged with policing the House. More to the point, however, you tell the head of the NRCC because you see the matter as a political problem. Reynolds is the one in charge of making sure Republican House seats get held. If an incumbent might have drop out or be kicked out you want him to know so that he can line up someone to replace him. You at least want to keep him abreast of the situation if you think a problem might develop. I cannot see any innocent explanation for notifying the head of the NRCC while not information the full membership of the page board.
--Josh Marshall
Hard to say what it means, if anything, but Rep. Shimkus says he interviewed Rep. Foley about the page matter with the House Clerk about 10 or 11 months ago. Presumably, that would have been former Clerk Jeff Trandahl. A few quick Nexis searches shows the first public announcements of Trandahl's departure were in the second week of November 2005.
--Josh Marshall
Mr. Speaker, I'd like unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.
Boehner calls the Post back to change his story ...
Boehner later contacted The Post and said he could not remember whether he talked to Hastert.
See earlier version here.
--Josh Marshall
Happier Days ...
From the Post: "Foley chaired the House caucus on missing and exploited children and was credited with writing the sexual-predator provisions of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, which Bush signed in July. A photo on the White House Web site shows Foley among those attending the signing ceremony."
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Shimkus on why he didn't inform the Page Board's lone Democrat aboout the Foley matter: "I'm the chairman of the page board. The Clerk and I addressed this issue."
--Josh Marshall
Someone's got a problem.
From WaPo ...
House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post last night that he had learned this spring of some "contact" between Foley and a 16-year-old page. Boehner said he told House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), and that Hastert assured him "we're taking care of it."
From Roll Call (sub.req.) ...
Boehner strongly denied media reports late Friday night that he had informed Hastert of the allegations, saying "That is not true."
Speaks for itself.
--Josh Marshall
If you want to check out Rep. Foley's House website, you're going to need to go to the WayBack machine. It's already been taken down.
--Josh Marshall
Foley Update: With the news evolving so quickly about what members of the House GOP leadership knew about the Foley scandal, another 
point hadn't become clear to me. Though I haven't seen the point made explicitly, it's clear from the late ABC News reports that there are multiple pages in question.
In this story at the ABC site, reporters write that "according to several former congressional pages, the congressman used the Internet to engage in sexually explicit exchanges."
There's another point too though. This all started to come out yesterday when ABC reported on a series of suggestive but not explicit emails between Foley and a House page. That appears to be the then-16 year old page who had been sponsored by Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA). Reportedly, that page became concerned about the suggestiveness of the emails, cut off communication and reported the emails to a member of Alexander's staff.
The graphic IM exchanges, which blew the story open this afternoon, are clearly from a minor who actively engaged with the congressman. So it seems clear it's a different page. The clincher is that that the published IM exchange is from 2003, two years earlier. So it's clear there are at least two different pages in question.
(ed.note: When I write that the other page "actively engaged" with the congressman, this is not meant to imply that minors are legally capable of consent. I make the distinction not to diminish the congressman's guilt or suggest the minor's complicity but only to note the apparently different nature of the exchanges.)
--Josh Marshall
Majority Leader Boehner hangs Hastert out to dry ...
House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post last night that he had learned this spring of some "contact" between Foley and a 16-year-old page. Boehner said he told House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), and that Hastert assured him "we're taking care of it."It was not immediately clear what actions Hastert took. His spokesman had said earlier that the speaker did not know of the sexually charged e-mails between Foley and the boy.
That's from the Post. See the rest here.
(ed.note: Thanks to TPM Reader TT for the tip.)
--Josh Marshall
35 pages of Foley emails, according to fellow Florida GOP Rep. Jeff Miller.
--Josh Marshall
Blockbuster story out from Roll Call (sub.req.)
Chairman of the House Page Board, Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) interviewed Foley last year about some of the contacts with the page. The House clerk, who is also a member of the Board, was also present. Speaker Hastert's office was informed of the interview, but according to GOP leadership sources who spoke to Roll Call, Hastert himself was not informed.
Rep. Dale Kildee (D-MI), the only Democrat on the Board, was not informed of the interview, according to Roll Call.
Rep. Shimkus released the following statement ...
“As chairman of the bipartisan House Page Board in late 2005, I was notified by the then Clerk of the House, who manages the Page Program, that he had been told by Congressman Rodney Alexander about an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House Page. I took immediate action to investigate the matter.“In that email exchange, Congressman Foley asked about the former Page’s well-being after Hurricane Katrina and requested a photograph. When asked about the email exchange, Congressman Foley said he expressed concern about the Page’s well-being and wanted a photo to see that the former Page was alright.
“Congressman Foley told the Clerk and me that he was simply acting as a mentor to this former House Page and that nothing inappropriate had occurred. Nevertheless, we ordered Congressman Foley to cease all contact with this former House Page to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. We also advised him to be especially mindful of his conduct with respect to current and former House Pages, and he assured us he would do so. I received no subsequent complaints about his behavior nor was I ever made aware of any additional emails.
“It has become clear to me today, based on information I only now have learned, that Congressman Foley was not honest about his conduct.
“As Chairman of the House Page Board, I am working with the Clerk to fully review this incident and determine what actions need to be taken.
“The House Page Program has been an integral part of the House of Representatives for many decades. Preserving the integrity of the House Page Program is of utmost importance to me and to the House of Representatives, and we intend to uphold and protect its values and traditions.”
The whole matter has been turned over to the House ethics committee.
--Josh Marshall
Foley Update: Rep. Alexander (R-LA) tells paper he informed Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) of Foley/underage page contact.
--Josh Marshall
The story changes. Did Rep. Alexander (R-LA) report Rep. Foley (R-FL) to the NRCC, the House Republican campaign committee?
An NRCC spokesman says the matter was brought before the House Page Board. But it's not clear what they did about it.
Everybody's running for cover.
--Josh Marshall
Big. Big Trouble.
We caught wind of this and tried our damneddest to confirm it this afternoon. But we weren't able to. Rep. Alexander's office wasn't eager to return out calls.
But now the AP has the story. And here's why there may be a lot more fall out from the Rep. Foley (R-FL) story.
The page in question worked for Rep. Rodeny Alexander (R-LA). And the page brought the matter of his contacts with Foley to the congressman's attention via a staffer, who I'm told has since left Rep. Alexander's employ.
Here's the key passage from the AP article ...
The page worked for Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., who said Friday that when he learned of the e-mail exchanges 10 to 11 months ago, he called the teen's parents. Alexander told the Ruston Daily Leader, "We also notified the House leadership that there might be a potential problem," a reference to the House's Republican leaders.
I assume that passage doesn't need much unpacking. But let's do it anyway.
So Rep. Alexander knew about this 10 or 11 months ago. And he says he notified the House leadership. That means Hastert and (at the time) either Tom DeLay or Rep. Blunt (R-MO). We don't know it was either of those three men yet. But that's what Alexander means when he says he "notified the House leadership." They're the House leadership.
If I'm understanding this correctly, that means that the leaders of the House Republican caucus have known for almost a year that a member of their caucus was having cybersex with an underage congressional page. And apparently they did nothing about it.
I think this story is about to get a lot bigger.
--Josh Marshall
Let me try to clear up some confusion. Earlier I did a post that said that Florida election law doesn't give the Republican party much of an opportunity to save Rep. Mark Foley's (R-FL) seat. (Foley resigned today in the wake of revelations that he had sexually explicit IM chats with a congressional page.)
A number of readers have written to say that the law Paul Kiel refers to in this post doesn't bear that out or that other sites say differently.
Let me explain.
Florida law says that the state GOP cannot remove Foley's name from the ballot. However, since he's dropped out of the race, they can designate a replacement. And any votes "Foley" gets will go to that GOP replacement.
The problem for the GOP is that Florida's 16th congressional district isn't that strong a GOP district. Foley won in 2004 with 68% of the vote. But President Bush pulled only 54%. That tells me it's a GOP district. But not by much. And there was already a serious Democratic challenger in the race.
So here's how this plays out to me. No question, strong Republican partisans will vote for "Foley" because they know that vote goes to the candidate the local GOP has chosen to replace him. But outside of strong partisans, I really don't think a lot of voters are going to check off the box next to the candidate who's just resigned because he was exposed for having sex chats with underaged congressional pages. That just doesn't play to me.
And once the replacement gets picked, candidate X and the local Republican party can start putting up flyers that say "Vote for guy who had cybersex with a minor because the vote will really go to candidate X who would never do such a thing."
But that's just a hard message to get a lot of traction with. And if you figure that President Bush could still get 54% in that district, which doesn't seem likely, how many of the those 54% of Bush voters would you lose because they don't know that "Foley" really isn't Mark Foley, the disgraced congressman? I think more than four percentage points of them.
Given the Dems were already making a race of it, I think the Republicans' prospects for holding that seat are not good at all. Not a cakewalk. But I'd say this race now leans toward the Dems.
Others don't see it that way. But that's my read.
Late Update: A credible but unconfirmed tip has it that the Florida GOP is going to "sue to get the replacement's name on any ballots already not 'printed'". If successful, that could of course change the calculation. And remember of course that the Florida state judiciary is now well larded with Jeb Bush toadies. So don't count out the possibility.
--Josh Marshall
From the House to the Big House? Rep. Foley (R-FL) may be prosecuted under child sex predator laws he helped pass.
--Josh Marshall
Yet another shoe drops. This just out from Salon ...
A former football teammate of Sen. George Allen decided Friday to go on the record with recollections of the Virginia Republican's alleged racist behavior during college.Edward J. Sabornie, a special education professor at North Carolina State University, had previously spoken to Salon about Allen's behavior on the condition of anonymity, because he feared retribution from the Allen campaign. In a Salon story on Sunday, Sabornie was quoted as a "teammate" who remembered Allen using the word "nigger" to describe blacks. "It was so common with George when he was among his white friends. This is the terminology he used," Sabornie said in that article.
Read the rest here.
--Josh Marshall
In case you're wondering whether the Florida GOP has any chance to replace resigned Rep. Foley (R) on the ballot and not give the seat to the Dems, the answer seems to be no.
--Josh Marshall
File under Gotta Start Somehwere ...
Sen. Allen (R-VA) introduces bill to help black farmers.
--Josh Marshall
Hitting the wires: Mark Foley (R-FL) considering resignation after emails flap.
Update: It's done. Those emails were just the beginning, apparently.
--Josh Marshall
I think we're getting down to that true last refuge of the scoundrel marrow.
According to the president, those who think he's created a mess in Iraq which is making us less rather than more secure are "buy[ing] into the enemy's propaganda."
Isn't this what the president's own intelligence agencies are telling him? I guess they're buying into the enemy's propaganda. From what the polls seem to say, more than half the country is buying into the enemy's propaganda too. Pretty much everybody does, I guess, beside the president and those who sign on to his dogmas.
What's actually just as revealing is the president's own argument about the Iraq-Terrorism NIE, which amounts to a sort of covert play for double-or-nothing with the American people.
Pick it apart and the argument is that Iraq's a disaster which has made us less safe. And if we can't change it from a disaster to a success it will be even worse than it is now.
So the argument amounts to, Stick to The Incompetent Crew Who Created the Mess!
Give Us Your Vote Because Who Better to Trust Than the Guys Who Created the Mess!
Or Maybe, Vote For Us Because Don't We Have to do Something Right Eventually!?!
Rolls right off the tongue.
--Josh Marshall
Bush was told violence would increase in Iraq in 2007, but failed to share that information with the public.
--Josh Marshall
How long before the torture bill the Senate passed yesterday is challenged in court? "Days." And even those who voted for it don't seem too keen on its chances.
--Paul Kiel
Greg Sargent talks to Jennifer Duffy, the Senate expert at the Cook Political Report, on the Dems' chances for capturing the Senate this November.
--Paul Kiel
From a live chat at WaPo ...
Washington, D.C.: Your wrote today "...a prominent Democratic polling firm tried to raise alarms yesterday with the release of focus group findings... that attacks on Democrats for opposing any efforts to stop terrorists...were highly effective." Despite these warnings, you also report that Sen. Reid said it was "beyond (his)ability to comprehend" how a member of Congress could be accused of supporting terrorism.This situation is a little like Rice and Bush ignoring intelligence warnings that bin Laden was planning to attack with planes. Despite Bush's non-stop speeches over the last three weeks detailing all the ways in which Democrats can't be trusted to protect against terrorists, the Democratic "leadership" apparently aren't going to explain themselves or fight back. Can you explain what the Democrats think their passivity will accomplish; other than to allow Bush and the Republicans to completely assassinate their characters in order to keep one party rule humming along?
Jonathan Weisman: I'm as amazed as you are. The Democrats keep saying the Republucans did it to them in 2002 and 2004 and they're going to do it again in 2006. Yet they say it won't work. I'm not so sure.
I'm really hoping Reid's point is being misconstrued. But is it?
--Josh Marshall
More revelations from the new Congressional report on Abramoff's White House doings.
Ralph Reed to Jack Abramoff: "talked to rove about this and i think i killed it."
And, boy, is Ken Mehlman in trouble.
--Paul Kiel
Uh oh. More muck in New Jersey. This time Sen. Robert Menendez's (D-NJ) close advisor was caught on tape asking a contractor for a "favor." That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Paul Kiel
Quick -- who said this? "Please put Karl Rove in his usual table." Any guesses?
--Paul Kiel
TPM Reader RW ...
I have to disagree with your earlier reader. Everyone’s waiting around for the Republicans to drop some sort of shoe. If it never comes, expect large Democratic gains. Right now I don’t think they have anything. Basically, their entire argument is that if we don’t stick with their failures, they will become bigger failures. And the only message they have is the same message they’ve had for years, fear and the flag. If there’s one thing about this country, it is that stuff gets old fast. And this stuff is real old.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader BC ...
I can't stand it any longer: This evening all the network news programs air Bush's slam, "The party of FDR and Truman is now the party of cut and run". There's no democrat presenting any equivalent slam against Bush or the "torture" republicans. The other day Rice gets extensive air time to say, "We received no strategy regarding Al Queda from the Clinton administration" and there are no democrats, no Richard Clarke, no Clinton to rebut the allegation. The republicans are making hay in Congress with all their "war on terror" provisions regarding Habeas Corpus, torture, and warantless wiretaps- the "tools the president needs to fight the war on terror" and you have to watch C-Span to hear any democrats presenting a sensible argument against Bush's "tools".
Every day I read countless liberal blogs offering compelling confrontation to the lies and smears the republicans let fly in their constant barrage, yet none of this corrective dialogue is observable in the MSM. I guess my point is, do we fault the MSM for this mostly one-sided debate the average news consumer is exposed to, or are the democrats no-shows when it comes to aggressively getting "our side" presented in the daily discourse of the media? The liberal blogs are great with exposing truth, but they're preaching to the choir while the republicans never let up in their campaign to control the greater public dialogue. (An analogy- a dem takes a girl out on a date, and he spends the evening asking about her while telling her about himself- a pleasant evening enjoying one another's company. A repub takes a girl out, and he relentlessly paws at her, he continuously tries to undress her, and single-mindedly devotes the entire evening pursuing his libido-driven agenda, much to her dismay. Worn down, she eventually succumbs to his aggressions.)
Thanks for letting me cry on your shoulder a bit.
--Josh Marshall
Did you know that House passed something called the Iran Freedom Support Act tonight on a voice vote with no debate?
You should. They're going to try to ram it through the senate now too. Read the article and find out more.
--Josh Marshall
Conrad Burns (R-MT) working to keep on schedule to insult every ethnic group in advance of November elections.
--Josh Marshall
BREAKING -- White House ties to Jack Abramoff stronger than previously reported.
Update: Oh, and the favors they did for him.
--Justin Rood
And they keep coming. There was a new witness against Sen. George Allen (R-VA) on Hardball today. See the video here.
--Paul Kiel
HUD Secretary Jackson reportedly too incompetent to be charged with corruption.
--Josh Marshall
It's been a pretty interesting election cycle so far. So I figured it was about time we had a congressman/intern scandal. Here a kids' advocate congressman gets caught emailing with 16 year old.
--Josh Marshall
US Chamber of Commerce field director for the Simmons (R-CT) campaign runs videos bashing universal health care with images of holocaust corpses.
--Josh Marshall
Santorum: Torture bill "purely politics." At least that's what he said in June.
--Josh Marshall
Now that's a crusading DA!
Westchester DA and GOP candidate for AG, Jeanine Pirro, is demanding that Alberto Gonzales investigate the US Attorney who is investigating her plan to get Bernard Kerik to help her plant a bug on her husband's boat to catch him in one of his alleged trysts.
"I am calling on U.S. attorney, Alberto Gonzalez, to begin an immediate investigation and appoint a special prosecutor to get Elliot Jacobson off his witch hunt. There needs to be a federal investigation of the felony of leaking sealed court documents."
--Josh Marshall
Hotline poll press release ...
Despite a slight increase in President Bush's approval rating 42% among both registered and likely voters this month, likely voters are showing significantly more support for Democrats in September than they did in August. Last month among likely voters, Democrats and Republicans were tied at 40% in a generic Congressional ballot, while this month, Democrats hold a 13-point advantage over Republicans (46% - 33%). Among registered voters, Democrats' advantage in the generic congressional ballot increased three points since August, at 43% - 33%, compared to 40% - 33% last month.
--Josh Marshall
Well, we have our answer.
At today's press briefing, no reporter from the White House press corps asked Tony Snow why he lied yesterday about the length of time it takes for the Intelligence Community to prepare an NIE.
There was this exchange, however, on why there's no particular rush.
--Josh Marshall
First class justice? Or fly coach?
I'm not sure that's the best metaphor, but it cuts to the heart of what strikes me as the most significant part of the bill that Republicans are jamming through the Senate today. As others have noted in more detail, this law allows the president to detain any US citizen in the United States and hold him or her without trial forever.
All the president needs to do is find that you are an 'enemy combatant'. And it's entirely his call.
There's so much in this legislation that I know it's hard to say what's 'most significant'. And I'm not trying to devalue the torture provision. But this point seems to cross the biggest divide. In essence, it means that the entire criminal justice system in this country becomes discretionary in the hands of the president.
You have the protection of the courts and due process. Until that gets too sticky, in which case the president can pull you out of the court system and detain you forever with no recourse to anything but the president's mercy.
Basically, getting arrested, prosecuted and thrown in the slammer the old-fashioned way becomes a privilege that can simply be revoked. Like I said, first class justice, up in the comfy seats.
--Josh Marshall
Habeas corpus amendment goes down to defeat in the senate. McCain, Graham and Warner each voted against.
--Josh Marshall
Nancy Johnson (R-CT) calls 911?
The American Medical Association PAC just dropped a whopping $300,000 into Nancy Johnson embattled reelection campaign in Connecticut's 5th District.
--Josh Marshall
Changing horses in mid-stream? This is from the press release for an interview with Bob Woodward on 60 Minutes ...
Veteran Washington reporter Bob Woodward tells Mike Wallace that the Bush administration has not told the truth regarding the level of violence, especially against U.S. troops, in Iraq. He also reveals key intelligence that predicts the insurgency will grow worse next year. Wallace’s interview with Woodward will be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, Oct. 1 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.According to Woodward, insurgent attacks against coalition troops occur, on average, every 15 minutes, a shocking fact the administration has kept secret. “It’s getting to the point now where there are eight, 900 attacks a week. That’s more than a hundred a day. That is four an hour attacking our forces,” says Woodward.
The situation is getting much worse, says Woodward, despite what the White House and the Pentagon are saying in public. “The truth is that the assessment by intelligence experts is that next year, 2007, is going to get worse and, in public, you have the president and you have the Pentagon [saying], ‘Oh, no, things are going to get better,’” he tells Wallace. “Now there’s public, and then there’s private. But what did they do with the private? They stamp it secret. No one is supposed to know,” says Woodward.
Just speaking for myself, I think it's a little late in the day for Woodward to hop off the Bush bandwagon. But on the merits of what he's saying it's not a surprise. This is why it's important to keep pressing for that NIE. The president and his advisors are lying through their teeth about what's happening in Iraq and they're covering up key information that voters should know. They're preventing it from coming out before the November election.
--Josh Marshall
Anybody in the White House press corps want to ask Tony Snow why he lied to you guys yesterday?
Frances Townsend did the same thing the day before. But let's stick with Snow. When asked why the White House is holding up that Iraq-only NIE until after the November election, Snow said the following (emphasis added) ...
They're just flat wrong. What happened is, about a month ago Director Negroponte informed the committees that he was, in fact, going to do an exhaustive review on Iraq. That's a month ago. These reviews take about a year to do, so the idea that it is in "draft" form -- they're just beginning to do their work on it. And Intelligence Committee members if they don't know it, should. But there is not a waiting Iraq document that reflects a national intelligence estimate that's sitting around gathering dust, waiting until after the election.
Well, that's just a crock. Justin Rood looked into this yesterday. And according to the 2004 Senate intel committee report, most NIEs take between two weeks (for a rush job) and two months to complete. And how long did it take to complete the Iraq WMD NIE. Less than three weeks. (Amazing what you can accomplish when your heart is really in it, isn't it?)
According to the Council on Foreign Relations, "NIE drafting guidelines included in the July 9 Senate report describe three rough timeframes: a "fast track" of two to three weeks, a "normal track" of four to eight weeks, and a "long track" of two months or more."
And what did Snow say when trying to deny the politics behind this NIE's delay? "These reviews take about a year to do ..."
Am I wrong to say he lied to you guys? I don't think I am.
Can we get this question asked again?
--Josh Marshall
House nixes wireless deal made as a favor to Abramoff. Maybe a Friends and Family plan is cheaper? ("I yield the remainder of my monthly minutes to the gentleman from Alabama.") That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
No, you can't have it.
The White House refused Wednesday to release the rest of a secret intelligence assessment that depicts a growing terrorist threat, as the Bush administration tried to quell election-season criticism that its anti-terror policies are seriously off track.Press secretary Tony Snow said releasing the full report, portions of which President Bush declassified on Tuesday, would jeopardize the lives of agents who gathered the information.
It would also risk the nation's ability to work with foreign governments and to keep secret its U.S. intelligence-gathering methods, Snow said, and "compromise the independence of people doing intelligence analysis."
No ...
--Josh Marshall
For those of you who missed our report today, let me return to that second NIE on Iraq that we discussed yesterday. This is a different report than the one President Bush partly declassified on Tuesday. This one deals solely with Iraq and the state of things on the ground today.
After Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) pressed the administration to release the report Tuesday morning, President Bush's Homeland Security Advisor Frances Townsend told a press briefing that the report was scheduled to be released in January 2007 and that the timing had nothing to do with this fall's political calendar.
I asked Justin Rood to look into the question of whether the administration is slow-rolling the report. And while there is no way to know directly, Justin found out that there is pretty strong evidence that that is just what's happening.
Democrats asked for the new NIE in July. John Negroponte, the DNI, announced on August 4th that one would be prepared. It's true that NIEs take a long time to compile. But according to a senate intel committee report last year they take between two weeks and two months to compile, depending on the urgency. So even if it were on the outside edge of that range, it should be done sometime next week.
So, what's the delay?
Here's what Rep. Harman said today
The president says the election is supposed to be about national security. So where's the report? What's the delay? What are they afraid of?
This deserves pressure.
--Josh Marshall
Here's one of those signs of which way the wind is blowing. CQ is one of the insider sheets that keeps tabs and ratings on the various competitive seats around the country. They've just changed the Tennessee senate race -- where Harold Ford (D) is up against Bob Corker (R) to replace Bill Frist -- to "no clear favorite."
All the stars are going to have to be in alignment for Harold Ford to pull this off. He's got to run a kick-ass campaign, which he seems to be doing. Corker's got to run a feeble campaign. And you can check that box off. And the national tide's got to