SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : FREE AMERICA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: longnshort who wrote (12354)10/7/2006 11:31:28 AM
From: Mr. Palau  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 14758
 
denny, denny, denny
you lying sack of dung

"Staffer Cites Earlier Role by Hastert's Office
Confrontation With Foley Detailed
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 7, 2006; A01

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's chief of staff confronted then-Rep. Mark Foley about his inappropriate social contact with male pages well before the speaker said aides in his office took any action, a current congressional staff member with personal knowledge of Foley and his behavior with pages said yesterday.

The staff member said Hastert's chief of staff, Scott Palmer, met with the Florida Republican at the Capitol to discuss complaints about Foley's behavior toward pages. The alleged meeting occurred long before Hastert says aides in his office dispatched Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.) and the clerk of the House in November 2005 to confront Foley about troubling e-mails he had sent to a Louisiana boy.

The staff member's account buttresses the position of Foley's onetime chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, who said earlier this week that he had appealed to Palmer in 2003 or earlier to intervene, after Fordham's own efforts to stop Foley's behavior had failed. Fordham said Foley and Palmer, one of the most powerful figures in the House of Representatives, met within days to discuss the allegations.

Palmer said this week that the meeting Fordham described "did not happen." Timothy J. Heaphy, Fordham's attorney, said yesterday that Fordham is prepared to testify under oath that he had arranged the meeting and that both Foley and Palmer told him the meeting had taken place. Fordham spent more than three hours with the FBI on Thursday, and Heaphy said that on Friday he contacted the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to offer his client's cooperation.

"We are not preparing to cooperate. We are affirmatively seeking to," Heaphy said.

Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean declined to directly comment on the second House staff member's assertion, saying that it is a matter for a House ethics committee investigation. "The Standards Committee has asked that no one discuss this matter because of its ongoing investigation," Bonjean said.

The emergence of a second congressional staffer describing such a meeting came on a day that Hastert (R-Ill.) was working to solidify his hold on the speakership. Prominent Republicans, including President Bush, have defended Hastert, saying he should not step down, but the criticism continues to flow.

New Jersey's Thomas H. Kean Jr., whose candidacy offers the GOP its most promising hope to take a Senate seat from a Democrat in November, called for Hastert's resignation yesterday, as did the editorial page of the Los Angeles Times. Democratic House candidate Patty Wetterling of Minnesota, a child-safety advocate and the first to air a television commercial about the Foley scandal, will deliver the national Democratic response to Bush's weekly radio address today.

Hastert maintains that he knew nothing of Foley's actions until last week, when the story first broke and Foley resigned. His stance contradicts that of House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.), both of whom said they had informed Hastert this spring.

Palmer has resolutely said he had no earlier meeting with Foley, and other leadership aides have questioned the truthfulness of Fordham. Fordham quit his job as Reynolds's chief of staff last week after acknowledging that he had tried to persuade ABC News not to publish the salacious instant-message exchanges between Foley and two former pages.

Hastert's office contends that the first confrontation with Foley occurred in November 2005, when Shimkus, the head of the House Page Board, and then-House Clerk Jeff Trandahl took Foley aside to discuss what they termed "over-friendly" e-mails that Foley had sent to a Louisiana boy. Fordham's account not only pushed the matter back at least two years but also indicated that alarms over Foley's behavior had gone well beyond bland e-mails.

Sources close to Fordham say Trandahl repeatedly urged the longtime aide and close family friend to confront Foley about his inappropriate advances on pages. Each time, Foley pledged to no longer socialize with the teenagers, but, weeks later, Trandahl would again alert Fordham about more contacts. Out of frustration, the sources said, Fordham contacted Palmer, hoping that an intervention from such a powerful figure in the House would persuade Foley to stop.

Now, a second House aide familiar with Foley and his actions told The Washington Post yesterday that "Scott Palmer had spoken to Foley prior to November 2005." The aide spoke on the condition of anonymity because the matter is now the subject of a criminal investigation and the House ethics committee inquiry.

Two law enforcement officials said yesterday that the FBI had not yet determined whether a crime had occurred in the Foley case. Justice Department and FBI officials have cautioned that cases involving the enticement of minors are notoriously difficult to prosecute.

On Wednesday night, Palmer was described as highly emotional while aides sifted through e-mails and files to determine whether he had ever spoken to Fordham. Several people who spoke with Palmer said the chief of staff was emphatic in denying that he knew anything about Foley's questionable contacts with young male pages.

Palmer, who shares a townhouse with Hastert when they are in town, is more powerful than all but a few House members. Members know that he speaks for Hastert.

The divergent accounts have highlighted the holes in the public's understanding of Foley's undoing. And they are sure to ratchet up the pressure on Trandahl to come forward with his knowledge of events. As House clerk between January 1999 and November 2005, Trandahl had direct control over the page program.

Pages apparently saw Trandahl as a strict disciplinarian. In one instant-message exchange obtained by The Post, a former page, on his way to his first annual reunion in Washington, told Foley in January 2003 that "everyone is going to be pretty wasted a lot of the time in dc."

He then added, "well we dont have the [expletive] clerk to fire us anymore. . . . we didnt like trandahl that much . . . he isnt a nice guy . . . and he gets really scarey when he is mad."

Trandahl's departure came within days of his confrontation with Foley over e-mails that the congressman had sent a former page. House aides say the circumstances of Trandahl's exit were oddly quiet. The departure of a staff member of long standing, especially one as important as the House clerk, is usually marked with considerable fanfare, said Scott Lilly, a former Democratic staff director of the House Appropriations Committee. Debate is suspended in mid-afternoon to accommodate a stream of testimonials from lawmakers.

Trandahl's departure was marked by a one-minute salute from Shimkus and a brief insert into the Congressional Record.

"My one-hour Special Order changed to a five-minute Special Order, now to a one-minute," Shimkus said. "I just want to say thank you for the work you have done."

Lilly said: "He seemed to suddenly disappear in a puff of smoke."

Trandahl, now the executive director of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, has not returned repeated phone calls and e-mails.

Congressional aides point to another factor that links Trandahl to the Foley matter. A member of the board of the national gay rights group Human Rights Campaign, Trandahl is openly homosexual and personally close to the now-disgraced former lawmaker, who announced through his lawyer this week that he is gay.

Staff writers Jim VandeHei, Charles Babington, Dan Eggen and Allan Lengel contributed to this report.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company



To: longnshort who wrote (12354)10/7/2006 12:14:35 PM
From: CYBERKEN  Respond to of 14758
 
Absent serious anti-left reform, the Democrat party will be the major champion of the pedophile "rights movement" that is inevitably following the gay "rights movement" they have managed to popularize so intensely.

Since old men have a greater tendency toward these mental disorders, we find, once again, the lack of TERM LIMITS at the bottom of one more Congressional obscenity. The exposure of gays chasing little boys may possibly spread in Congress, but the probability that it will hit anyone who shouldn't have been term-limited out years ago is very slim.

Perhaps the new battle cry is that they should be made to go home and live around the young men they corrupted...



To: longnshort who wrote (12354)10/7/2006 7:19:36 PM
From: Proud_Infidel  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 14758
 
UN staff claim school fees for phantom offspring
The Sunday Times ^ | October 8, 2006 | David Leppard

timesonline.co.uk

STAFF at the United Nations headquarters in New York claimed tens of thousands of pounds in school fees for non-existent children, one of its most senior auditors has revealed.

Hundreds of employees also defrauded US tax authorities by claiming refunds for mortgage interest and property taxes that should have gone to the UN.

These are just two of the scams to be revealed in a book by Edwin Nhliziyo, chief auditor of the UN’s peacekeeping division until his retirement.

His account aims to expose how the UN is losing hundreds of millions of pounds through corruption and fraud.

From Kuwait to Cambodia and from Congo to New York, Nhliziyo says, employees were on the take. Some top officials turned a blind eye, he alleges, and conducted campaigns of “dirty tricks” against auditors such as himself who tried to stop the corruption.

“I am a believer in the UN, but like 90% of the serving staff members I think member states have allowed a handful of people to abuse the organisation. It is for this reason that I wrote my book,” Nlizhiyo said.

In 1996 he became one of the first auditors to examine the Iraq oil for food programme. But Nlizhiyo says he was pulled off the project before he could investigate further. In his book, he tells of two colleagues who went on a trip in 2001 to examine how funds were being spent on the programme. “They uncovered incidents of mismanagement and possible fraud,” he said.

However, when a draft of their report was sent to Benon Sevan, then programme director, he is said to have retorted: “If you had spent more time in the field auditing and not sleeping in hotel rooms, you would have found all the answers to your questions.”

The audit report never went out. But the auditors got their revenge when an inquiry into the scandal by Paul Volcker, the former US Federal Reserve chairman, accused Sevan of accepting cash bribes of up to $160,000. Sevan denied the charges.

Nhliziyo, a 61-year-old Zimbabwean, worked at Deloitte Haskins & Sells in New York before joining the UN in 1982. In 2000 he was appointed chief resident auditor in Congo. He describes how, on the outskirts of Kinshasa, 36 mobile satellite communications units each worth $160,000 lay untouched for more than a year.

He also found that a company had been paid millions for a contract which included charging the UN for the services of 28 employees to man two fire engines on an airfield that saw only two flights a week.



To: longnshort who wrote (12354)10/8/2006 2:57:04 PM
From: BEEF JERKEY  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 14758
 
I heard Hastert once sat beside Republican Timothy McVeigh on a bus - so what?



To: longnshort who wrote (12354)10/11/2006 2:13:14 PM
From: Brumar89  Respond to of 14758
 
Foley Affair Illustrates Party Differences
by Peter Ferrara
Posted Oct 11, 2006
The Foley scandal actually illustrates a dramatic difference between the Republcican and Democratic parties. To see that, let us go back to the last scandal regarding congressional pages in 1983.

Gerry Studds was then a gay Democrat congressman from Massachusetts. He admitted to having sex with a 17-year-old male congressional page. The page had not previously engaged in homosexual sex. Studds seduced him by luring the boy back to his apartment and serving him alcohol until the boy was drunk.

Then-Rep.Newt Gingrich (R.-Ga.) called for the House to expel Studds, along with a then-Rep. Dan Crane, an Illinois Republican who admitted to having sex with an underage female page. But the House, then under Democrat control, refused and instead voted to censure the two lawmakers.

Crane gave a tearful apology to the full House, but Studds refused to apologize, or to stand appropriately for his censure. Instead, in a later defiant speech, House Democrats rose three times to applaud him. The Washington Post said that Republicans were targeting Studds for his personal life.

Liberal Democrats in Studds’ district re-elected him six times after that. Republicans in Illinois voted Crane out in the next election.


By contrast, former Rep. Mark Foley, embroiled in the current scandal, did not have sex with the congressional page, but he did send him repulsive, sexually explicit, electronic messages. As soon as those messages were discovered, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R.-Ill.) demanded that Foley resign or else Hastert would have the House expel him.

Given these contrasting records, how could Republicans and their allies let this story be turned into a scandal over whether Republicans acted fast enough or even whether they tried to cover up Foley’s conduct?

There is not one shred of evidence anywhere that Hastert or any other Republican took any affirmative action to “cover up” Foley’s actions. Was the Republican leadership too slow in acting against Foley?

The very day that the Republican leadership heard of the sexually explicit, repulsive instant messages from Foley, they demanded and got Foley’s resignation. The charge against the leadership is that they were previously aware of earlier e-mails from Foley to a former page back home that did not include any such sexually explicit matter. These e-mails simply suggested an overly personal interest in the boy, such as asking for a picture.

The Republican leaders did not ignore these emails. They directly and personally demanded that Foley stop contacting pages. Given the mild content of those earlier e-mails, what more did Hastert fail to do that now warrants his resignation, or condemnation of the entire House Republican caucus?


Indeed, two major Florida newspapers had those earlier e-mails a year ago and decided there was nothing in them that warranted a story. The Miami Herald called them “innocuous.” The FBI also had them some time ago and found no reason for an investigation. The boy’s family, moreover, asked that the whole episode not be made public.

The question that should be raised is this: Would Nancy Pelosi as speaker change the Democrats’ policy of not expelling members who behave as Foley did? Or, if as speaker, would she continue to support legislation to revoke the national charter of the Boy Scouts of America because they refuse to hire gay scoutmasters?

Pelosi hasn’t been asked about joining a San Francisco gay pride parade in a 2001 along with a public supporter of the North American Man Boy Love Association, the late Harry Hay. At a New York University forum sponsored by a campus gay group in 1983, Hay said, “[I]f the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what 13-, 14-, and 15-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world."

The Democrat record also includes the sad story of Rep. Mel Reynolds, who was indicted in 1994 for having sex with a 16-year-old campaign worker and then encouraging her to lie about it. Liberal Democrats in his Chicago district re-elected him, but in 1995 he was convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice, and solicitation of child pornography. Not to worry. President Bill Clinton pardoned him.


This is no time for social conservatives to abandon Republicans. The Republican congressional majorities voted through a ban on partial birth abortion, confirmed two excellent Supreme Court nominees, stood with pro-life groups on stem cells and the Terry Schiavo legislation, and have followed through on many other issues as well. The Supreme Court now hangs in the balance with four solid conservatives, four extreme liberals and one confused moderate.

Liberals now expect social conservatives to forget all this and be distracted by their phony crocodile tears over Mark Foley. Here’s betting these voters will prove the liberals wrong again.

Mr. Ferrara, who served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, works for the American Civil Rights Union and the Institute for Policy Innovation.
humanevents.com