As expected, the House Ethics Committee presented a laundry list of would haves, could haves and should haves to the American public regarding Republican lawmakers failure to protect young male pages from former Congressman Mark Foley.
As reported by MSNBC, the panel said it found no evidence that any current lawmakers or aides violated any rules.
But the panel discovered a pattern of conduct among many "to remain willfully ignorant of the potential consequences" of Foley's conduct.
In fact, according to the Investigative Subcommittee's report, Clerk Jeff Trandahl-who resigned November 18, 2005-had concern about Foley's close interaction with pages for almost a decade by the time the emails were brought to his attention November 2005.
Trandahl-whose responsibilities as Clerk of the House include the House Page Program- indicated he had followed the "chain of command" by reporting his concerns to his liaison in the Speaker's House, Ted Van Der Meid.
Trandahl had also attempted-unsuccessfully-to procure the sexually explicit emails from Rep. Rodney Alexander's office, who refused to provide copies, citing the wishes of the family for privacy'.
Ooops...Alexander's office already provided a member of the press with a copy of one email.
Your bad, Rodney.
Or as the report states so succinctly, the action 'defies logic' and simply doesn't quite wash with the Privacy Wish of the Family sanitation defense by your office, Rod.
The Investigative Subcommittee further offered that, as an officer of the House, the Clerk should not feel constrained by such a chain of command (or any other such reporting structure) and in the future, the Clerk should report directly to the attention of the Speaker.
(Message to Karen Haas, the present Clerk of the House-that means you).
Trandahl and Reynolds-you should have, you could have, and as recommended by the Investigative Subcommittee who released the bipartisan report Friday before high tailing it out of Dodge on the last day of the 109th Congress-would have.
The report also found that Speaker Dennis Hastert was likely told about Foley's e-mails by two Republican leaders last spring.
Hmmm...Hastert just doesn't recall those conversations.
Beg to differ, sir.
Both Majority Leader John Boehner of Ohio and Rep. Tom Reynolds of New York have said they informed the former speaker last spring.
The report documents, "The speaker's reported statement in response to Majority Leader Boehner that the matter 'has been taken care of' is some evidence that the speaker was aware of some concern regarding Rep. Foley's conduct" even prior to the spring conversation."
You should have taken action, Mr. Hastert-you could have.
The question is would you have, if the midterm elections had not loomed on the horizon?
Would you have taken action with your knowledge that the full court press for passage of the Adam Walsh Act-by none other than Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus Co-Chair Mark Foley (R-FL) and the Tony Soprano of the House, James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), also the House Judiciary Chair-was running hot and heavy, as a sure fire political vote getter for the Family Values Republicans?
That John Walsh himself lobbied for passage and signature of the AWA by the President on July 27, 2006, the 25th anniversary of the boy's disappearance?
Any action by Hastert at that time would have certainly rendered the Walsh legislation-a constitutional nightmare reminiscent of the never enforced Child Online Protection Act-DOA.
One wonders what actions newly elected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi might have taken. Now that the HEC recommendations have been dropped neatly in her lap, we wait and see what happens next with Foleygate.
Glaringly absent from the report-the testimony of Mark Foley.
Masterminding an escape worth of Houdini himself, Foley rehabbed in Arizona while his attorneys waved away the Subcommittee's November 16 suponeas.
Asking that the suponeas be deferred 'in light of the pending criminal investigations' by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement as well as other state and local LE agencies, the attorneys also indicated that 'if Foley were made to appear for testimony he would invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to testify'.
The Subcommittee chose to defer questioning of Mr. Foley until 'resolution of any criminal proceedings and instituting enforcement proceedings to compel compliance with the suponeas would unnecessarily delay issuance of the report'.
In other words, let's get this investigation the hell over, with or without Houdini.
The Investigative Subcommittee should have had Foley testify. The members could have.
The big question.
Would the Subcommittee have done the same for any other American citizen, self-exiled in the Land of Make Me Better?
I think not.
The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct Report