1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Rahm Emanuel Linked to Release of Foley Emails

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Deeper_Background, Dec 11, 2006.

  1. Deeper_Background

    Deeper_Background Active Member

    A new report raises questions about Rahm Emanuel’s assertion that he and his staff knew nothing about disgraced Rep. Mark Foley’s e-mails to former House pages.

    In an October 8 interview with ABC News, the Illinois Democrat said "no – never saw them” when asked if he knew about the e-mails or instant messages between Foley and former pages before news of the messages broke.

    Asked if he was "aware” of them, Emanuel repeated, "We never saw them.”

    But the new House Ethics Committee report on the scandal, released on December 8, discloses that a senior member of Emanuel’s staff did know about the e-mail and instant messages, according to Holly Bailey’s column in Newsweek.

    The report indicates that the e-mails were given to a top Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee staffer in the fall of 2005, more than a year before Foley resigned.

    At that time, Emanuel was chairman of the DCCC.

    Matt Miller, who was communications director for the House Democratic Caucus in 2005, has been revealed as the source who leaked the e-mails to the press. He told the ethics committee that he also shared the e-mails with the communications director at the DCCC.

    Bill Burton was (and remains) the DCCC communications director and a top aide to Emanuel.

    Miller, who got the e-mails through social and political contacts, testified that he thought Burton might pass on the e-mails to a reporter.

  2. Football_Bat

    Football_Bat Well-Known Member

    Last I saw, ABC News didn't require an oath to be interviewed by.

    Move along, nothing to see here.
  3. PopeDirkBenedict

    PopeDirkBenedict Active Member

    Yes, because the most ethical Congress in history judges itself based on whether it took an oath before it made statements.
  4. Excuse me.
    Didn't all this take place during the worst Congress ever?
    I think Emanuel's an overrated tool, but this doesn't let the people who were wielding the actualy, you know, power off the hook.
  5. HeinekenMan

    HeinekenMan Active Member

    Good God. Give it a rest. Your party's guy was on the verge of raping teenage boys.
  6. PopeDirkBenedict

    PopeDirkBenedict Active Member

    It doesn't let either side of the hook. Both sides lied about what they knew and when they knew it.
  7. Uh, no.
    One side lied about what they knew and whent hey knew it, AND HAD THE POWER TO STOP IT, and refused to do so, for months, even shutting out the Democratic member of the Ethics Committee on the grounds that he was a Democratic congressman.
  8. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member

    Of course, the WSJ was full speed ahead, blowing Hastert on today's editorial page, regarding all this.

    They have NO shame.
    The Republican platform for the next two years.
    Book it.
  10. hondo

    hondo Well-Known Member

    Which was actually done for the first time by the Dems' Gerry Studds.

    Foley is a douchebag and should have never been in a position of authority, nor within 100 yards on a teen-aged boy. But if it was proven that a Republican had done this to a Democratic Congressman, you people would be screaming about dirty tricks and invasion of privacy. Please don't pretend otherwise.
  11. hondo

    hondo Well-Known Member

    And if crying means a desire to hold everyone to the same standard, then so be it. But we know that liberals and Democrats don't hold themselves to any standard, because they think they're on the side of the Angels and always 100 percent right.
  12. Done what?
    How do we know what happened with Gerry Studds? Because the House ethics process WORKED, foof. It wasn't being run by enablers like Hastert, Boehner, Shymkus, and that dunce from New York, who froze out the committee members from the other party for the political advantages of covering it up.
    Let me be clear. If it were up to me, and I were asked, I would have replied, damn right we gave this stuff to the media. This rubber-stamp, cover-up Republican majority didn't give a damn about this predator, didn't care enough to investigate, so we needed to bring public pressure on this important issue. But I'm not Rahm Emanuel, World's Smartest Human.
    And there pretty plainly were no standards in the Congress just passed. Which is why so many of them are not coming back.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page