Panel Witness: Foley A 'Ticking Time Bomb'

(CBS/AP)  Republican lawmakers and aides left male interns vulnerable to Rep. Mark Foley's improper sexual advances even though the first concerns surfaced more than a decade ago, the ethics committee said Friday in its report into an election-year scandal that convulsed the House of Representatives.

The Republicans lost control of the House in last month's elections in which several strategists said the virtual sex scandal played a part.

The committee said one witness testified he warned the head of the board overseeing the program for interns, known as pages, Rep. John Shimkus, a year ago that Foley was a "ticking time bomb" who had been confronted repeatedly.

House Republican leader Dennis Hastert likely was told about inappropriate e-mails written by Foley last spring, even though he has said he doesn't recall the conversations, investigators concluded.

The panel said it found no evidence that any current lawmakers or aides violated any rules, and recommended no sanctions in the case that cost Foley his seat in Congress and contributed to his party's defeat at the polls in last month's midterm elections.

But it said it discovered a pattern of conduct on the part of many individuals "to remain willfully ignorant of the potential consequences" of Foley's conduct.

And it singles out two key leaders — John Boehner of Ohio and Tom Reynolds of New York — for sticking their heads in the sand, CBS News correspondent Gloria Borger reports.

"Neither ... showed any curiosity regarding why a former young page would have been made uncomfortable by emails from Rep. Foley," the report read.

---

Read the report. (91 pages)

---

Speculating on the reason for their reluctance to act, the committee said:

"Some may have been concerned that raising the issue too aggressively might have risked exposing Rep. Foley's homosexuality.... There is some evidence that political considerations played a role in decisions that were made by persons in both parties."

The committee interviewed numerous witnesses, including Hastert, his top aides and other lawmakers.

The man who sparked the scandal was not among them, though. Foley received a subpoena, but his lawyer notified the committee the former lawmaker would invoke his constitutional rights not to incriminate himself if compelled to testify. The committee dropped the matter.

Foley hurriedly resigned his seat Sept. 29 after the existence of sexually explicit computer messages sent to teenage pages came to light.

He quickly entered an alcoholic treatment program.

Borger reports that the 91-page document is a case study of how problems — with serious political consequences — can be swept under the rug. Foley's issues with pages go back a decade, and he was warned repeatedly by high-level staffers about what they called "terrible perceptions."

One of those staffers is Kirk Fordham, Foley's former chief of staff.

"I think the report points out where the breakdowns occurred. I think there are some people that are going to look back and wish that they had acted different," Fordham said.

Authorities in Foley's home state of Florida have opened a criminal investigation into whether Foley broke any laws related to his communications with the teens. Federal authorities are also investigating.

On balance, investigators said evidence supports the conclusion that Hastert's top aide had been told about Foley's conduct in late 2002 or early 2003. The aide, Scott Palmer, flatly denied to reporters that he was told that long ago. In testimony to the committee, he said, "I believe it didn't happen. I don't have any recollection of it."

The report said another of Hastert's aides, Ted Van Der Meid, "should have done more to learn about the e-mails and how they had been handled," in view of earlier warnings he had received about Foley's conduct.

Overall, the evidence shows that "concerns began to arise about Rep. Foley's interactions with pages or other young male staff members" shortly after he took office in 1995. Two aides reported raising concerns with him several times.

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front. Now those traitors have occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq; the President hasn%u2019t been impeached. Why?...I'm waiting.

[randalds]

I love the right-wingers here and elsewhere trying to defend the republicans by saying things like "Oh yeah, well democrats in the past did bad stuff too." As if that makes it right for them to now.

[wayfedup]

Birds of a feather "flock" together.

[wayfedup]

A President is IMPEACHED for having consentual
S E X with a WILLING ADULT FEMALE and FOLEY WALKS for MOLESTING MINOR CHILDREN?
Thanks GOP; With "leadership" like yours, and the BLIND DEVOTION of the voters who put you in power to begin with, AMERICA is on the EXPRESS ELEVATOR TO HELL!

[radiob-2009]

Apathy for the devil is at fever pitch, by Ian Hunter 30+ years ago sums it all up.

[frankly6]

Just a few things. First, rule 23 of the House rules of ethics says "A member ...officer or employee of the House shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House." How is it that House leaders' ignoring Foley's conduct is not actionable under Rule 23? Ignoring this behavior hardly reflected creditably on the House, as the November elections show.

Second, isn't it interesting that the 109th Congress Republican leaders tried to weaken ethics rules just a year or so ago? Maybe they were anticipating some... problems?

Third, and most important, isn't it interesting that some folks on this message board, when commenting on Foley's behavior, respond not with condemnation, but by bringing out 30 year old stories about Gary Studds (who was censured by Congress as I recall). If the behavior of the person in charge is inappropriate, regardless of the political party. This time it happens to be a Republican problem. Deal with it.

Posted by pakaal at 09:43 PM : Dec 08, 2006

[frankly6]

Republicans investigating other Republicans and no wrong doing was found? Imagine that.

[firststate]

I enjoyed Jay Leno's comment, if they didn't find anything wrong who was chairman of that committee, Michael Jackson?

[j-whitman]

Foley a "ticking time bomb" -- Bush/Cheney ticking WMD"s... JAIL THEM ALL FOR THE NEXT 100 YEARS,,, AMERICA WILL BE SAFER

[karen091866]

Foley is just another example of a degenerate in a position of power. He abused his position, using it as a platform to assist him in finding prey. Freak. Period.