The House Ethics Committee has released its report (download a searchable version here) on the Foley scandal and there is a few interesting facts inside of it. Specifically the number of Democrats who knew about Foley’s conduct. It all began when Matt Miller, Communications Director for the Democratic Caucus, got his hands on the emails. He shared them with a few newspapers and then:
Miller testified that also during the fall of 2005, in part as a "gut check" regarding his impression of the e-mails, he provided the e-mails to the communications director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ("DCCC"). Miller testified that he was not aware of what actions his DCCC counterpart may have taken with respect to the e-mails, but he expected that he would share them with the press. Miller testified:
I think I gave them to him not with any direct expectation,but with the understanding that [the DCCC communications director] is someone that talks to reporters all day. If there’s something that I’m missing, maybe — maybe there’s a way that he could get the — you know, that he could give them to a reporter; you know, in the course of talking to reporters that he might find a way. I didn’t have any direct expectation, but in general.
Miller also testified that no one else was shown the emails:
Both Field and Miller testified that neither then-Rep. Menendez, who was then chairman of the Democratic Caucus, nor any other person in the office of the Democratic Caucus, was provided with the e-mails or was involved in the decision to provide them to the press.
But CNN is now reporting that Democrat Rep. Rahm Emanuel knew about the Foley scandal early on. Problem is that he told ABC in October that he did NOT know anything about the Foley deal:
The head of the House Democrats’ campaign committee, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, had heard of former Rep. Mark Foley’s inappropriate e-mails to a former male page a year before they became public, a campaign committee aide told CNN.
Foley, a Republican, resigned after the scandal broke. House Speaker Dennis Hastert and other Republicans have suggested repeatedly that some Democrats knew about the e-mails earlier than they have acknowledged, but waited till midterm elections approached to bring up the issue.
Emanuel’s campaign committee aide said Friday that the Illinois Democrat was informed in 2005, but never saw the correspondence and did not have enough information to raise concerns. The aide said Emanuel took "no action" because his knowledge was "cursory" and little more than "rumor."
The aide’s acknowledgement differs from the flat "no" Emanuel gave in October when asked — during an interview on ABC’s "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" — if he or anyone on his staff knew of the e-mails before the scandal broke.
Here is the video showing the corrupt Democrat giving a bald faced lie to ABC:
Glenn Greenwald, someone who I would rather not link to but alas, he does such a good job here of detailing Emanuels misdeeds that I am forced to:
Did Rahm Emanuel explicitly and clearly lie during his October appearance on ABC?
Emanuel would likely say that he did not "lie," because each time he was asked whether he was "aware" of the e-mails — which he plainly was — he never denied being "aware" of them. Instead — he would likely argue — he changed the subject by denying that he ever "saw" the e-mails, a fact which appears (based on what we know) to be true (or at least not demonstrably false). Therefore, in the narrowest and most technical way, an argument could be constructed that Emanuel did not actually "lie" in his responses.
But that argument, ultimately, is nonsense. If you listen to the video, there is little doubt that Emanuel was lying in every meaningful sense of that word. He not only denied having "seen" the e-mails, but also interrupted Stephanapolous’s first question about whether he was "aware" of the e-mails with an emphatic "no," and at least on one other occasion, denied not only having seen the e-mails, but also having been aware of them. Those denials were just outright false (i.e., "lies").
Independent of the question of whether Emaneul "technically lied" — and far more important — is the fact that Emanuel was clearly and deliberately misleading. Any reasonable person would have come away from that interview (as I know I did) with the strong impression that Emanuel was completely unaware of any e-mails sent by Foley to the pages, and that he had no reason to know anything was amiss with Foley until ABC broke the story.
In fact, Emanuel emphasized how inappropriate it was for Republican House Leadership to allow Foley, in 2005, to become the Chair of the Missing and Abused Children Caucus despite what Emanuel called the "warning signs" about Foley’s behavior. But Emanuel was aware of at least some of these same "warning signs" in 2005, and he said nothing about them at the time. He was guilty of doing exactly what he was piously and indignantly accusing the GOP House Leaders of doing — namely, knowing about the Foley e-mails to pages and taking no action.
Right on target. It’s apparent that Greenwald is only taking Emanuel to task because there is not much love for Emanuel in the moonbats cupboard but I will give him credit for taking on a Democrat who does wrong. We don’t see that happening much these days.
Anyways, we all know the Democrats visited all the Sunday talk shows in October telling the television audience how wrong it was for the Republican leadership to have sat on this scandal but as now we find out that the Democrats did the same thing.
This comes on top of the Jefferson election victory recently:
Voters looked past a federal bribery investigation of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) and reelected the eight-term congressman in a runoff election Saturday.
Jefferson grabbed a commanding lead over state Rep. Karen Carter, a fellow Democrat, almost as soon as the polls closed in the New Orleans district. With 44 percent of the precincts reporting, Jefferson, had 61 percent of the vote.[…]Jefferson, Louisiana’s first black congressman since Reconstruction, has been the target of a wide-ranging investigation into allegations that he took bribes — including $90,000 allegedly found in his freezer during an FBI raid — from a company seeking lucrative contracts in the Nigerian telecommunications market. He has not been charged with any crime and denies any wrongdoing.
He described his win as "a great moment and I thank almighty God for making it possible."
Now what was it that Nancy promised?
We pledge to make this the most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history.
Yup….gonna have lots to blog about over the next few years.