Skip to main content

Glenn Greenwald comes to this conclusion.
The evidence:

  • "Communications Director for the House Democratic Caucus (Matt Miller)" was sent copies of the Foley e-mails, and, not trusting the Republicans, he sent copies to newspapers and "Bill Burton, the Communications Director of the DCCC" in 2005.
  • According to Firedog Lake Emmanuel aggressively pushed for a "to recruit a former Republican to run  as a "Democrat" for Foley's very red district seat".  Unless he knew that this would blow up, why bother.
  • When Questioned about this by Stephanopolis, he denied "ever having read the emails", not knowledge.
  • CNN is reporting that an aid of his has said that we was informed of this.

Should the blogs do to him what was done to Trent Lott?

Originally posted to LunkHead on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 06:42 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I would not (11+ / 0-)

    shed one tear if Rahm went down.

    He is a weasel....

    "People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible." --J.R.

    by michael1104 on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 06:42:59 PM PST

  •  Tip Jar (5+ / 0-)

    The Firedog Lake link above also has evidence of corruption by the Chicago machine in HIS election.

    6/24/05: Charlie the Tuna Creator Dies En lieu of flowers, please bring mayonnaise, chopped celery and paprika.

    by LunkHead on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 06:43:00 PM PST

  •  Should People Recommend? (0+ / 0-)

    Just wondering if this is something to talk about, or something NOT to talk about

    6/24/05: Charlie the Tuna Creator Dies En lieu of flowers, please bring mayonnaise, chopped celery and paprika.

    by LunkHead on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 06:47:05 PM PST

  •  Whaaaa? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radiowalla, peraspera, LunkHead, 7November
    1. Where did he lie?
    1. Where did he cover up?

    Let's analyze the false equivalency here. You are attempting to smear Rahm with no evidence. And VERY badly written, besides.

    Rahm was NOT in the majority leadership--he was not responsible for Foley's conduct. He was not involved in oversight of the Page program. He was not on the House ethics committee. You have offered no proof that he knew what Foley had done. This is crap.

    Blessed are the arrogant...for they shall be really impressed with themselves.

    by homogenius on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 06:51:26 PM PST

    •  But,,, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fabooj, gmb, LunkHead

      If he knew about a pedophile preying on ANYONE he had a legal and ethical responsibilty to report it to the police.

      This is IF he knew.

      •  Legal? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RonV, peraspera, LunkHead

        I'm aware of statutes requiring 3d Parties to report sexual contact, with specific definitions of physical contact with particular organs. Do you have in mind a specific statute requiring the reporting of dirty talk with minors?

        Democratic Candidate for US Senator, Wisconsin, in 2012

        by ben masel on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:13:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  the same could be said of the republicans though. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LunkHead

          Either it was a crime or it wasn't.  If it was a crime, than anyone who had knowledge of it and didn't report it would be culpable whether they were republicans or democrats.

          But I think we need to know more about whether or not Emmanuel actually had the knowledge that is claimed he had.

          If a democrat demands accountability in the Capital and no one covers it, does he make a sound?

          by DawnG on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 09:05:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not sure about the jurisdictions they were in... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LunkHead

            In WI it's only a crime to fail to report a felony. If talking dirty is a crime (close call, also depends on jurisdiction) it's only a misdemeanor.

            Democratic Candidate for US Senator, Wisconsin, in 2012

            by ben masel on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 09:26:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  There Isn't Any Yet (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LunkHead

        The IM's and emails haven't resulted in any legal action anywhere, have they?  While it's likely that Foley probably did have sexual intercourse with a minor at some point, to date none have come forward and no legal action has been initiated against Foley, and we now know a hell of a lot more than we knew with just the IM's.

        And look at what Greenwald wrote:

        But the Report also found that "the Communications Director for both the House Democratic Caucus and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee also had copies of the emails in the Fall of 2005" (p. 76). Specifically, the Report documented that back in October, 2005, the Communications Director for the House Democratic Caucus (Matt Miller) was sent copies of the Foley e-mails, and he was very disturbed by them.

        Convinced that the GOP-led House Committees would take no meaningful action, Miller sent the e-mails to various newspapers in Florida (The Miami Herald and St. Petersburg Times), as well as Roll Call. He also provided copies of the e-mails to Bill Burton, the Communications Director of the DCCC (pp. 45-46).

        Is the first question "did Rahm Emmanuel know?" even the most relevant one?  Who did Matt Miller work for?  Did that person/people know about it?

        Is it possible that Brian Ross got the tip on this story from the Democrats?

        Why is Greenwald talking about emails, but not IM's?  I tried to download the report, but I'm on dialup right now, and it wouldn't load.  Is he referring to something other than the IM's, or is he conflating email and IM's?

        Furthermore, to extend homogenius' point about oversight of the page program, they deliberately kept the Dem on the committee--Dale Kildee--out of the loop.  

        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

        by Dana Houle on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:20:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly (5+ / 0-)

      Not enough reporting to know for sure

      except . . .

      Rahm gave the distinct impression to Stephanapolous that he knew nothing at all about Foley until the story broke.

      More reporting needs to be done.

      We should be careful not to smear him unfairly.

      And -- we should not provide him any cover if he is shown to be a liar.

    •  This whole story (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peraspera, ChiGirl88, homogenius, LunkHead

      There's not a lot of information there.  I keep reading these stories that ask if Emmanuel knew about this, but there's nothing to them but speculation.  I would like to get a little more info that's concrete before making assumptions.  I'm thinking though, if he did know about this, we'd have heard about it back in Sept. and would have probably been blamed for it all in the first place. ;)

      Black by popular demand!

      by fabooj on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:06:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This all seems counterproductive to me (5+ / 0-)

    Rahm Emmanuel didn't cause Mark Foley and, even if he knew all about Foley, the Republicans would have denied and covered if up, like they do everything else.

    Meanwhile, Rahm Emmanuel kept his eye on the ball and helped give us this Democratic Congress.

    Let's keep focused and not shoot our own footsoldiers!  

    Isn't there a war to stop and a President to impeach?

    •  Rahm didn't "give" us a Dem Congress (8+ / 0-)

      The Clintonistas want that to be the official version, but it simply isn't true. Emmanuel gets some of the credit, the netroots get some, and George W. Bush gets some for being so unpopular and stubborn.

      Personally, I hold Rahm the Magnificent in minimal high regard. He wrote off all challenger races in my home state of Michigan. Not one dime for the DCCC until he's gone.

      "I am a Christian first"--Augusto Pinochet.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:20:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Devil's Advocate (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LunkHead, DemocraticLuntz

        Did any of the challengers raise any significant money?  There's no reason why even a semi-credible candidate in lower Michigan couldn't raise at least a quarter million without breaking a sweat, and a half million wouldn't be hard at all for a halfway decent candidate.  Did any of them raise enough to get themselves off the ground?

        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

        by Dana Houle on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:23:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nancy Skinner (MI-09) did (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mickT, gmb, LunkHead

          To the extent that $250K is the price of admission to the Democratic Credible Candidates Club, or DCCC, isn't that a reflection of how corrupt our campaign finance system has gotten?

          My problem with the national party's "all or nothing" stance toward challenger races is that it creates an infinite loop: challengers can't raise money because their race is perceived as hopeless; would-be challengers shy away from running because they can't expect support; the challenger who does run is out-gunned and defeated; and then the cycle starts anew.

          The party elders have basically told Michiganders to find a Mega Millions lotto winner who wants to buy a congressional seat, move to a state with more competitive races, or go into a Rip Van Winkle state for six years. None of those alternatives particularly appeal to me.

          "I am a Christian first"--Augusto Pinochet.

          by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:39:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Have to Deal with Reality (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LunkHead

            A week of TV in Detroit costs about $400K.  I mention the $250K as the absolute basement even if you do almost nothing.  

            The issue you raise about raising money is one that pops up higher than $500K, ESPECIALLY in an incredibly wealthy district like Knollenberg's district.  

            As for the final paragraph, I don't buy that at all.  I predict that the nitwit over in Schwarz' seat will be one of the nation's top Republican targets.  With Schwarz in office it probably wasn't winnable.  With him in there, it's a great opportunity for a pickup.  If Knollenberg retires or can draw a top notch candidate, that seat is vulnerable.  Between Knollenberg (probably safe, but not certain) and...Wahlberg, that's his name--between those two in competetiveness is McCotter.  But Tony Trupiano just wasn't the candidate who would be seen as a top notch candidate.  May be a great guy, but I don't think any of the people in Michigan were willing to stake their credibility on his ability to win that seat.

            And as the money spent by the DCCC on Boyda and in the Florida seats and on Grant and Kleeb and others shows, if they think they can win a seat, they'll go anywhere.  Of course they're often hampered by their own biases on what's a competetive district, but their perceptions of the candidates often come from the members of that state's delegation and the state political leaders.  If the DCCC never played in Michigan, it's probably more because the delegation members and other political leaders in the state didn't think the challengers in those three seats were particularly credible and conveyed that to the DCCC.

            The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

            by Dana Houle on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:57:18 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Okay, but how do you break the cycle? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LunkHead

              It's hard to believe that a better candidate than Trupiano will run in 2008 (I wouldn't be surprised if Tony punts on a rematch with Thin-Skin Thaddeus McCotter), which means we'll start from even deeper in the hole next time around. Seriously, should I put the house on the market and move to a district with better representation?

              "I am a Christian first"--Augusto Pinochet.

              by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 08:07:51 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Hey, Knollenberg Ain't Great Either (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                chumley, LunkHead

                I think there are several factors.

                One, candidate recruitment.  One of the reasons we were competetive in a bunch of places this time around was that we had fairly good candidates in lots of districts, including some that were much more Republican than yours.  Some were self-funders, but most were just good candidates who were a good match for the district, could raise a decent (but seldom huge) amount of money, ran efficient campaigns, got lots of press, and conveyed the impression that if the race got hot and they were under pressure that they'd come off well and would be a good investment.

                Two, it helps if you've got good grass roots support, both attached to the candidate and in the institions in the district.  

                Three, it helps to have a good state party, because they're really important in Congressional races because you have to do a lot of the field through the state party.  While we may disagree, having seen two other state parties up close and having heard about lots more, on this score Michigan is in excellent shape.

                Four, it helps to not be going against the political winds in the state and district.  Here, for no reason of their own doing, the Michigan candidates were at a disadvantage, because for the longest time Michigan was lagging behind most of the rest of the country because of the awful economy and Granholm's anemic standing in job performance perceptions and in her race against DeVos.  

                Five, it really, really helps to have the ability to raise money locally for the candidate.  PAC's (primarily labor) only generate maybe $225-$275K to a Democratic challenger against an incumbent.  The DCCC is limited to giving no more than $79K directly to a candidate (and half of that has to be passed through the state party).  In a year like 2006, with races popping up all over, they might be able to push another $200K in individual contributions to challengers who aren't absolute top tier from day one (like Lampson against DeLay or the three candidates in CT), and even that would be a lot.

                So, it's really important that a candidate be able to raise quite a bit of money relative to their district.  If you're running in the Plains, that might mean $350-$450K.  In a place with an expensive media market, like Detroit, it probably means you need to raise about $650K on your own (not counting labor and liberal interest group PAC money).  And to do that, local people need to buy in to the campaign, figuratively and literally.  That means lots of $50 to $250 checks from people for whom that's not going to keep them from paying their bills, but for whom that may mean not going out on the town as often during election time.  It may not seem fair or right, but it's the harsh reality.

                And speaking from one of those harsh realities, it can be done, and people will give quite willingly if they think the candidate has a chance and is working hard.  

                The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                by Dana Houle on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 08:28:49 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Nice to know what the Democratic Party stands for (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LunkHead

          Let me guess. Which is it?

          A. Health Care for the average American

          B. Going to wealthy contributors and raising money to show to gatekeepers of the elite club that you won't upset the status quo with other elite club members and actually demand something stupid, like health care for the average American.

          C. Living in an imaginary world where the people that most need government support, those that are already fighting between feeding themselves and buying the over-expensive drug that will keep them alive because shareholders need gas for their corporate jets, all of a sudden have thousands to shower their saviour that they know will march into Washington and make their mandatory energy/food/health care costs go down.

          •  My Friend Had Horticulture in High School (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LunkHead

            My subject line had as much to do with your comment as your comment had to do with my original question.

            The DCCC isn't a policy organization, it's a campaign committe tasked with electing Democrats to Congress, and they have to do their part because the DCCC can't do it themselves.  

            The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

            by Dana Houle on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:49:22 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It has everything to do with your comment (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              shpilk, LunkHead

              I'll use simple sentences.

              Someone runs with a ticket that he wants to provide health care to his people.

              Who supports him? People that are broke/bankrupt by the current broken system. Not a lot of money to be had.

              Rahm says go jump in a lake, the people that support you can't afford costly advertising. We only like people that have money.

              End result: The people with no money, no health care, crappy jobs have no on the Democratic party supporting them.

              Not a real difficult concept to understand.

              Or in other words, to most of America, big fucking deal corporate Dems won instead of corporate Reps.

              Lovely long-term strategy to win the hearts and minds of Americans and get them convinced that Congress actually cares about them.

              •  Find a Single Example (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LunkHead

                Just one.

                And find a Democratic challenger who got more than one-fifth as much money from corporate PAC as they got from labor PAC's.

                Sir, I submit that on the subject of campaign finance and on how the DCCC and DSCC target resources, you really don't know what you're talking about.

                If you wish to prove me wrong, the easiest way will be to answer my two questions.

                The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                by Dana Houle on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 08:32:40 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  FL-16 only went for Bush 54-46 in '04. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LunkHead

    Not that Republican.

    Join the College Kossacks on Facebook, or the Republicans win.

    by DemocraticLuntz on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:07:07 PM PST

  •  Have people FOLLOWED this story ?? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LunkHead, dem4evr

    The e-mails were a little too friendly but that was it.

    It was the IMs that were explosive.

    •  OK, That's What I'm Wondering (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LunkHead, dem4evr

      Can someone on broadband download the report and see if Greenwald is mixing up the emails and the IM's?  I suspect he may be.

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:23:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  He's not mixing up necessarily, (3+ / 0-)

        but he's conflating.  He's acting like having possibly seen, or having heard of the existence of, emails that set off alarm bells but contained nothing in itself actionable as far as I can tell, is equivalent to having seen the really explicit IMs.  

        To me, it's kind of a manufactured story because I'd assume based on what we've heard that pretty much everyone at all connected to any kind of information/gossip network in Congress knew that there was some kind of issue with Foley and pages, and these emails don't really fill in more than that.  Greenwald is acting like knowledge that this particular set of emails existed is equivalent to having seen the IMs, where my read would be that that knowledge was closer to having heard rumors that Foley was overly friendly.  Which, as I say, I suspect everyone had.

  •  Also, firedoglake's just bitter because they were (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    homogenius, LunkHead, dem4evr

    backing someone for FL-16 who would've probably lost even if Mark Foley had actually been running for re-election after the scandal broke (as opposed to just having his name on the ballot).

    Join the College Kossacks on Facebook, or the Republicans win.

    by DemocraticLuntz on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:12:08 PM PST

  •  Not a Rahm fan (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LunkHead

    but, so far, I don't see much there, there. Sadly, totally untrue, malicious gossip about gays molesting boys is still all too commonplace. Unless further reports indicate that Rahm was told something specific enough on which he could reasonably take action I think we should take a pass on the pitchforks and torches.

    I do think Rahm was a total horse's patootie, however, for not keeping his mouth shut on the subject since he was aware of the gossip about Foley. Putting himself in the position of having to cover up his knowledge on Stephanopoulos was beyond stupid.

  •  O/T I used to deliver papers in Rahm's district (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LunkHead

    in the neighborhood where his father was a doctor. Very Republican area (for Chicago) in those days, 34 years ago.

  •  Well (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mickT, gmb, LunkHead

    I don't dislike Rahm Emmanuel; but, if it turns out that he knew about Foley a year before the scandal came out, he should face accountability. I'm not sure if that includes his resignation or giving up his leadership position, but he should be investigated. No one--Republican or Democrat--who was involved in the scandal should escape without facing accountability.

    http://www.keen.com/jiacinto For DC related travel advice, please visit that link.

    by jiacinto on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:40:34 PM PST

  •  Hearing a rumor and being in a position (4+ / 0-)

    to have oversight are two different things.

    "When I fed the poor, they called me a saint. When I asked why are the poor hungry, they called me a communist." Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Sao Paolo

    by PrometheusSpeaks on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 08:04:53 PM PST

  •  Foley's seat was not deep red (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LunkHead

    W got 54% there in 2004, that is not a deep red performance, only marginally red.  The Dems also recruited someone fairly strong just in case Foley ran for the Senate.

  •  fascinating n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LunkHead

    'Not a Call for Impeachment'
    Simply: Truth.Justice. Reconciliation.
    If Impeachment comes by way of Justice being served, so be it.

    by shpilk on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 10:55:10 PM PST

    •  OK .. I spent some time and scoped out (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LunkHead

      Greenwald, FD and CNN.

      Let me just say this. If this were a Republican accused of the same thing, this place would be calling for the hangin' judge.

      Just sayin', folks.

      Greenwald is no fool, and neither is Pachacutec.

      Something is wretched in the land. Fan or no fan, the appearance of impropriety is a good enough reason to bring forward the questions being asked here.

      We should be stepping up to the highest standard, and reject these games, and the players who foist them upon us. This means LOTS of heads will roll, not just Rahm's, but it's the right thing to do.

      Now is the time to do it, too.
      Let this fester, and it will damage others in 08.

      I predict Rahm will be spending more time with his Congressional duties very shortly, and seeking a lower profile. I can't say that saddens me much, either.

      'Not a Call for Impeachment'
      Simply: Truth.Justice. Reconciliation.
      If Impeachment comes by way of Justice being served, so be it.

      by shpilk on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 11:18:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hmmmm (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fnb, LunkHead

    I am no fan of Emmanuel and I completely back Howard Dean and his 50 State strategy.  But I am beginning to worry that the Democratic takeover is more focused on going after political personalities rather than removing bad policies and creating positive change.  Negativity breeds itself.  Let the first 100 days be about the positive change now possible.

    We already have a William Jefferson problem.  Must we create a Rahm Emmanuel problem as well?

    I do not see parallels between Trent Lott waxing yearningly for an America that elected Strom Thurmond President, and Rahm Emmanuel spinning what he knew exactly.

    Progressive bloggers have got to have SOMETHING better to do with their time than snipe at Emmanuel over the Foley affair.  Leave the Foley scandal to the Republicans, it is not something the Democrats need to link each other to.  Initiating the politics of destruction against Emmanuel has got to be about the worst political agenda item choice since the Bushes gave us the Terry Schaivo fiasco.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site