Skip to main content

Below are my refutations of some of Republican talking points I have encountered with respect to Royal Alexander, Republican candidate for state Attorney General of Louisiana.  Elections for state office in Louisiana will be held this October and November.  Royal Alexander was once Chief of Staff of Rodney Alexander, the turncoat Democrat who is now the Republican representative of LA-05, or northeastern Louisiana, in the US House.  As a result of an egregious gerrymander, my home is now in Rodney Alexander's district.

Lengthy quotes from verifiable online sources serve as evidence in my refutations of Republican talking points.  While I understand this is annoying, I want readers to have the chance to absorb as much information as possible, for one begins to sense eery parallels between the Elizabeth Scott case, where it is alleged that Royal Alexander engaged in sexual harrassment while serving as Chief of Staff for Rodney Alexander, and the Mark Foley scandal, the controversy involving a middle aged man's harrassment of young boys in the US House Page Program that rocked the nation before the historic midterm elections, when the neoconservative movement with all its millenarian panic and hypocrisy was swept into the dustbin of American political history. 

One learns Royal Alexander violated Clause 9 of Rule 23 of the US House Rules.  This may not mean anything to most people, but when they learn how and why he violated that rule, they will be justifiably outraged.  Just relax and read the evidence I have compiled, for there is a lot of material to parse.  I will soon try to deal with it systematically in a series of diaries.   This is just the beginning, Royal, and it will continue unabated until Democrat Buddy Caldwell and/or Charles Foti, the Democratic incumbent, show you the door in the jungle primary or in the runoff this autumn.  Criminals have no place in the state AG office.

Sexual Harassment Charges

  • General information on charges
  • "Elizabeth Scott, Alexander's former scheduler, claims that Royal Alexander, the Congressman's chief of staff, "engaged in a course of misconduct" that included "inappropriate sex-based comments, ogling and touching" and "sexual advances," according to Michael Hoare, Scott's attorney. Scott told the Congressman of his aide's alleged improper behavior but the Louisiana Republican took no action to correct the situation" Roll Call, 20 OCT 2006
  • Republican Talking Point #1: "Elizabeth Scott was ineffective and incompetent."
  • Fact: Rodney Alexander's office promoted her: "Scott, 26, was employed by Alexander from the fall of 2005 through June 2006, first as an unpaid intern before moving up to take over as the Louisiana Republican's scheduler. She was paid at annual rate of $30,000, according to House disbursement records." Roll Call, 20 October 2006
  • Republican Talking Point #2: "Her complaint was politically motivated as it was made just before the 2006 election."
  • Fact: "Scott said she was demoted from her position as scheduler to staff assistant by Royal Alexander in May 2006 when "she complained of possible sex discrimination" by him....""Scott eventually left the office at the end of June, saying it was "intolerable" for her to work there any longer...."Roll Call, 20 October 2006.  Scott and her lawyer Michael Hoare filed their lawsuit with the US District Court of the District of Columbia on 27 September, only after Scott was demoted and after she left the office in July, New Orleans Times-Picayune, 21 October 2006
  • Republican Talking Point #3: "She filed her complaint after she was demoted, rendering her complaint suspect."
  • Fact: She was demoted after she field her complaint to Rodney Alexander: "Her suit alleges that after she filed her complaint, working conditions became so intolerable that she "felt compelled to quit her job."  New Orleans Times-Picayune, 21 October 2006.  "Hoare pointed out that Scott wasn't fired from her job...." "At that point, according to Hoare, Scott had been demoted in Alexander's office and she never returned to work." The Ouachita Citizen, 23 October 2006.
  • Republican Talking Point #4: "The harassment charges were independently investigated by the House Legal Office and found to have no merit."
  • Fact: "Congressman Alexander said an independent investigation was conducted by a law firm in Washington, D.C., which concluded her allegations did not have any merit...." "Hoare also pointed out that the investigation of Scott's complaints of sexual harassment was conducted by Congressman Alexander's attorney, Gloria Lett.  Lett works for the House of Representatives...,"  The Ouachita Citizen, 23 October 2006.  Gloria Lett is a private attorney, not a representative of something Royal Alexander's defenders call a "House Legal Team."
  • Republican Talking Point #5: "Elizabeth Scott is a pervert; she had a photograph of a pig's vagina on the wall of her office."
  • Fact: Rodney Alexander's office has tried to make Scott into a pervert ever since she submitted her complaint to Rodney Alexander.  "Hoare pointed out that Scott wasn't fired from per job.  He said she didn't return to work after she and Hoare were told that [Rodney] Alexander alleged that Scott made inappropriate comments to another member of Congress.  "When I asked for the name of that member of Congress, they (Congressman Alexander and/or his attorney) wouldn't or couldn't give it to me," Hoare said.... The Ouachita Citizen, 23 October 2007.
  • Republican Talking Point #6: "Rodney Alexander's office is responsive to such complaints; Scott never complained."
  • Fact: Scott was told by managers of two district offices and Rodney Alexander's wife to not submit her complaint against Royal Alexander: ""The congressman is wrong," Hoare told The Citizen Monday afternoon.  "She (Scott) made her complaints before she left her position as scheduler.  She talked to Mrs. (Rodney) Alexander and the heads of the two district offices.  "One of the things she was told was not to raise the issue with Rodney Alexander," Hoare said...," The Ouachita Citizen, 23 October 2007
  • Rodney and Royal Alexander resorted to predictable tactics both before and after Elizabeth Scott submitted her case.
  • According to Catherine MacKinnon, respected legal scholar formerly at the University of Chicago and now at the University of Michigan, sexual harassment "undercuts women's potential for social inequality in two interpenetrated ways: by using her employment position to coerce her sexually, while using her sexual position to coerce her economically," Catherine MacKinnon, Sexual Harassment of Working Women: A Case of Sex Discrimination (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979), pg. 7.  MacKinnon's two categories of sexual harassment, "quid pro quo" harassment, or a work environment wherein sexual compliance is demanded or exchanged for a particular work opportunity, and "condition of work harassment," or a work environment marked by physical and verbal forms of sexual harassment, both existed in Rodney Alexander's office, making his office a classic example of a workplace that supports and sustains sexual harassment, especially as it aided and abetted the activities of Royal Alexander.  See Idem, passim.


Mark Foley Congressional Page Scandal

  • General information on Royal Alexander's invovlement in the Foley Scandal
  • Republican Talking Point #1: "Royal Alexander did not politicize the scandal; he simply followed the instructions of the parents of the north Louisiana page who was a victim of Foley's predatory behaviour."
  • Fact: At the behest of Rodney Alexander, Royal Alexander contacted the father of the page in question and informed him of his right to not speak with any reporters, but he also warned the parents of the possiblity that "Democrats would like to use something like this" against "a Republican," thereby politicizing the event at the outset. "According to Rep. Alexander and Royal Alexander, at Rep. Alexander's direction, Royal Alexander called the former page's parents and warned them that they might be contacted by the press about the Foley e-mails.  The former Alexander page's father recalls that Royal Alexander told him that a reporter might be calling him but that he did not have to talk to the reporter.  The father also recalled that Royal Alexander made a comment to the effect that "they were trying to make something of [the e-mails]" and that "the Democrats would like to use something like this" against a Republican.  During their conversation, the father did not make any requests or provide any instructions not to disclose the matter to other Members of Congress or conduct an investigation into the matter..." Report of the Investigative Subcommittee of the Committee on Standards and Official Conduct: Investigation of Allegations Related to Improper Conduct Involving Members and Current or Former House Pages," December 8, 2006, pg. 48.  "The father testified as follows: A[nswer]: I think he said that -- he said the Democrats would like to use something like this to smear a Republican.; Q[uestion]:  Did he say words like that?; A:  He didn't say the word "smear" but he did mention the Democrats would like to -- would love to use something like this; something to that effect.; Q:  What did he say about the Democrats?; A:  That they would love to have something, to get something -- I don't remember verbatim, but to the effect they would like to get something on a Republican, you know, make something out of it."  Deposition of Father of Former Alexander Page, Report of the Investigative Subcommittee...: Investigation of Allegations Related to Improper Conduct..., pg. 48, note 181.

  • Republican Talking Point #2: "Royal Alexander specifically followed the requests of the young boys' parents to not make the event into a media frenzy."
  • Fact: Royal Alexander through Rodney Alexander's office went to great lenghts to shape the message of the parents in order to ensure it did not contradict the message of Rodney Alexander's office.  In other words, Royal Alexander fabricated their testimony to the benefit of him and Rodney Alexander, not the page who was a victim of Mark Foley's predatory behaviour.  "After Rep. Foley resigned, Alexander's office contacted the family of the former page to suggest that a public statement from the family might help alleviate the media pressure being placed on Alexander's office and deter further media attention on the family.  According to the former Alexander page's father, the family edited a suggested statement sent by Rep. Alexander's office to reflect their own language and because the statement provided by Rep. Alexander's office contained information that the family could not have known." Report of the Investigative Subcommittee...: Investigation of Allegations Related to Improper Conduct..., pg. 49.

  • Republican Talking Point #3: "Royal Alexander took immediate and unequivocal steps to contact House leadership and to end the correspondence between the page and Foley upon learning about Foley's online advances to the page."
  • Fact: Only after media pressure did Royal Alexander contact House leadership, but the manner whereby he alerted them of this problem remains ambiguous, revealing that he and the people he informed did not satisfactorily address the problem: "In response to the call from the the St. Petersburg Times and the conversation with the former page's parents, Rep. Alexander directed Royal Alexander to contact the Speaker's office to advise them of the situation and to seek their assistance in ensuring Rep. Foley stop contacting the former Alexander page.  Although there were signficiant differences in the testimony regarding the manner in which that contact occurred, there was a general agreement that the Speaker's office was notified, and that the Speaker's office referred the matter to the Clerk of the House to take the lead in addressing the issue...," Report of the Investigative Subcommittee...: Investigation of Allegations Related to Improper Conduct..., pg. 49.

     

  • Republican Talking Point #4: "Royal Alexander did exactly what he should have done: he took immediate steps to stop the emails and reported the matter on 2 seperate occasions to house leadership.  Royal Alexander is not to blame; blame former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Illinois)."
  • Fact:  Royal Alexander contacted a friend in the Speaker's office twice, not someone with jurisdiction over the page program; Royal was disorganized, and he did not keep records of contact he had with those who claimed they were addressing the issue; he willfully mischaracterized the correspondence between Foley and the page as "friendly;" he did not fully cooperate with staff of those who did have jurisdiction when they contacted him, as he refused to disclose the evidence; in his conversations with staff who had jurisdiction over the matter, Royal was concerned more about the media than the page who was a victim of Foley's predatory behaviour:  "According to Royal Alexander, on November 17, 2005, he contacted Mike Stokke, the Speaker's deputy chief of staff, to brief him on the matter.  Royal Alexander contated Stokke because he knew him personally.  Royal Alexander says that he explained the matter on the telephone to Stokke and generally described the e-mails as overly friendly, although he does not recall the precise words he used....Royal Alexander testified that Stokke responded by saying, "we know," or words to that effect, and that he was relieved by this response because he thought that it meant the Speaker's office was aware of the issue and would take care of it.  Royal Alexander also testified that Stokke told him that someone from the Clerk's office would get in touch with him on the matter, and the next event he recalls is receiving a call from a woman in the Clerk's office telling him that they were "working on addressing the situation."  He does not recall the specific person who called or her precise words, but he understood that she was referring to the Foley matter.  Royal Alexander could not place the date of this phone call, but he believes it was within a week of his phone call with Stokke....Royal Alexander then came to Stokke's office to discuss the matter in person.  According to Stokke, during this meeting in his office, Royal Alexander showed, read, or summarized the e-mails to him, but did not provide him with a copy.  Stokke, believing that he had no responsibility for the page program, said that his "intention was to solve the problem that they had brought to us, which is how do we prevent this Member from having ... continued inappropriate contact with this page, and figure out the right place for this to go, and to have that person" prevent future contact with the page.  He therefore asked his assistant, Tim Kennedy, to consult Van Der Meid as to whom the matter should be referred.  Van Der Meid advised that the matter should be referred to the Clerk of the House, because the page program was under the Clerk's jurisdiction.  Accordingly, Stokke recalls that Royal Alexander was put in touch directly with the Clerk, Jeff Trandahl....Trandahl testified that he immediately called Rep. Alexander's office and talked to Royal Alexander.  According to Trandahl, Royal Alexander explained that one of Rep. Alexander's former pages had been receiving e-mails from Rep. Foley that were making the former page uncomfortable, that the press was calling the former page's family, and that the parents of the former page wanted the contact from Rep. Foley to stop.  Royal Alexander also reportedly told Trandahl that the family did not want their name in the newspaper and "just wanted it all to go away."  Trandahl recalls that he asked several times for copies of the e-mails, but that Royal Alexander was unwilling to provide them.  Trandahl also asked repeatedly whether the e-mails were sexually explicit, and he was told that they were not, but were merely "overly friendly" or "too familiar...," Report of the Investigative Subcommittee...: Investigation of Allegations Related to Improper Conduct..., pp. 49-51.  The Alexander page referred to the correspondence as "sick, sick, sick:"  "At Savoy's [the woman who sent the emails to a friend, and who essentially is responsible for breaking the story; notice now she is a former Alexander employee, which in itself raises a whole different set of questions] request, the page forwarded portions of Foley's e- mails to her, with the youth characterizing them as "sick, sick, sick." Savoy shared them with a friend, who forwarded them to others. The transmissions eventually landed with Matt Miller, who was then communications director for the House Democratic Caucus...," Advocate, 24 December 2006, as reproduced by Red Orbit, an onine news service.

  • Republican Talking Point #5: "Royal Alexander deserves credit for helping to end Foley's sexual harassment of former House pages."
  •  
    Fact: Royal Alexander was not concerned with the safety of former House pages within Foley's reach but with the reputation of Rodney Alexander's office, and he tried once again to shape the message of all involved parties.  He never contacted Stokke to follow up on developments; he only contacted his friend in the Speaker's office who had no jurisdiction over the matter to warn him of media attention, which again reveals that Royal did not have former pages' interests in mind, only the interests of Rodney Alexander and the Republican Party in general: "The Harper's [magazine] writer was interested in the story, and soon thereafter, he contacted the offices of Rep. Foley and Rep. Alexander.  Rep. Foley, as he had done previously with the St. Petersburg Times, talked to the reporter directly and attempted to explain away the e-mails.  Rep. Alexander's office again responded by contacting the former page's parents to warn of possible press calls, and also to confirm that there had been no more communication from Rep. Foley.  Royal Alexander also again contacted Stokke to advice him of the renewed press interest in Rep. Foley's e-mails.  On June 1, 2006, Royal Alexander e-mailed Stokke, "I just wanted to give you a heads up that the sensitive matter we discussed about 3 months ago re Rep. Foley is cropping up again.  It may be worth a conversation."  According to Royal Alexander, Stokke did not respond.  Stokke testified that he does not recall receiving the e-mail....," Report of the Investigative Subcommittee...: Investigation of Allegations Related to Improper Conduct..., pp. 54-55.

  • Republican Talking Point #6: "Because Royal Alexander and Rodney Alexander were not sanctioned by the House Committee on Standards and Official Conduct, they did nothing wrong."
  •  
    The Committee did not clear all parties involved in the Foley Scandal of improper conduct, and the Committee directly admonished Rodney Alexander's office, which includes Royal Alexander; the Committee also told Royal and Rodney that the concerns they raised about the family's privacy were moot and sanctimonious, as newspapers were already in possession of the e-mails; moreover, the Committee noted the political motivations subtending the bungled response and handling of the situation: "The Investigative Subcommittee's conclusion that the evidence does not support further investigative or disciplinary proceedings should not be read as a conclusion that the Members, officers and employees whose conduct was reviewed acted properly at all times in connection with their knowledge or handling of information concerning improper conduct involving Members and current and former House pages.  To the contrary, the Investigative Subcommittee finds a significant number of instances where Members, officers or employees failed to exercise appropriate diligence and oversight, or should have exercised greater diligence and oversight, regarding issues arising from the interaction between Rep. Mark Foley and current or former House pages....As a general matter, the Subcommittee observed a disconcerting unwillingness to take responsibility to take responsibility for resolving issues regarding Rep. Foley's conduct.  Rather than addressing the issues fully, some witnesses did far too little, while attempting to pass the responsibility for acting to others.  Some relied on unreasonably fine distinctions regarding their defined responsibilities.  Almost no one followed up adequately on the limited actions they did take....With respect to the e-mails to the former Alexander page, a number of Members, officers and staff had opportunities to inquire further into Rep. Foley's conduct, to elevate the issues raised by the e-mails to more senior Members or staff, or to otherwise take steps consistent with knowledge of inappropriate e-mails from a middle-aged Member of Congress to a 16-year-old boy one month removed from the House page program.  While some did fulfill their responsibilities, the Investigative Subcommittee finds that too many exhibited insufficient diligence or willingness to take the steps necessary to ensure that the matter was being appropriately handled.  No one in the House who was involved in addressing Rep. Foley's conduct, other than Rep. Alexander and his staff, actually saw the e-mails.  Several people were told about the e-mails and were asked to take action regarding them, including confronting Rep. Foley and telling him to stop communicating with the former page, but none of those people saw - or insisted on seeing - the e-mails prior to taking such action.  A number of witnesses testified that they were not given copies of the e-mails because of the family's request for privacy, but all of those witnesses knew at the time that a newspaper already had the e-mails.  Almost no one followed up to make sure that the action they had taken had been successful....The Investigative Committee cannot determine conclusively the motivation for those who failed to fulfill their responsibilities.  However, the Investigative Committee identified several factors that may have been in play....There is some evidence that political considerations played a role in decisions that were made by persons in both parties.  The wishes of the page's family for privacy could have also provided a convenient justification for failing to pursue the matter more aggressively for those who were already so inclined.  Some or all of these factors (as well as others) may have played a role in decisions that were made about how this matter should have been handled, but in the Investigative Subcommittee's view none of these factors mitigated the need for those involved to learn all the relevant facts and communicate those facts candidly and freely to those with authority to address the issues raised by the e-mails....", Report of the Investigative Subcommittee...: Investigation of Allegations Related to Improper Conduct..., pp. 69-71

  • Republican Talking Point #7: "The bipartisan Investigative Subcommittee did not punish Royal Alexander at all, because the committee believed he did his job."
  • Fact: The Committee did not punish Royal Alexander, but they did essentially tell him that he has poor judgment, and that his characterization of the e-mails from Foley to the former Alexander page as "overly friendly" was a gross understatement; in fact, the committee subtly accuses Royal of distorting the context and the content of those messages; moreover, the Committee intimates that Royal's unwillingness to disclose emails to Trendahl can be a violation of Clause 9 of Rule 23, the Code of Official Conduct of the House of Representatives: "The Investigative Subcommittee does not conclude, however, that the e-mails sent to the former Alexander page were merely "overly friendly," as they have often been described both by the few who saw them in 2005 and some who saw them for the first time after Rep. Foley's resignation.  When read carefully and in context, the e-mails reflect inappropriate communications between a middle-aged congressman, through his private e-mail account, and a young male who had just left the employ of the House.  The e-mails included references to the "great shape" of another former male page, a question about the age of the page and what he wanted for his birthday (although Rep. Foley had been told by the former page that his birthday was five months away), and a request for a picture, all of which could fairly be read as inappropriately personal and excessively familiar, and which some could read as implicitly sexual....The Investigative Subcommittee concluded that the Code of Ethics for Government Service, which is applicable to Members and employees of the House, is also implicated in this matter.  In particular, Clause 9 of the Code of Ethics for Government Service provides that "[a]ny person in Government service should ... [e]xpose corruption wherever discovered."  Just as in the case of evidence of corruption, the Investigative Subcommittee believes that Members and House officials must act in a responsible manner in any case of any allegation involving House pages.  At a minimum, House Members and officials are obligated not to withhold any information from any appropriate governmental or supervisory authority that relates, or even possibly relates, to the education, care, or safety of House pages...," Report of the Investigative Subcommittee...: Investigation of Allegations Related to Improper Conduct..., pp. 74-75, 79.

  • Republican Talking Point #8: "Regarding the Foley scandal, it is undeniable that the young page's parents specifically requested that the matter not be subjected to a media frenzy and that they would prefer if the emails from Foley would simply stop.  This is why Royal Alexander handled the affair in such a clandestine manner."
  • Fact: Royal Alexander gave a reporter a copy of the emails in defiance of the parents' wishes, and the House Investigative Committee believes the rationale that Royal Alexander and Rodney Alexander provided when they willfully impeded the Clerk of the House's investigation, claiming that they were acting on behalf of the family's best interests, defies logic; in fact, they viewed it as a ruse; and it was, as the family did not ask Royal Alexander to impede an investigation; in addition, Royal Alexander's refusal to cooperate with Trendahl created problems for Rep. Shimkus (R-Illinois), Chair of the Page Board, who had to confront Foley with no evidence:  "The former Alexander page's decision to send the Foley e-mails to his acquantaince on Rep. Alexander's staff [Ms. Savoy] in August 2005 triggered a complicated series of events that led eventually to Rep. Foley's resignation over a year later.  The Investigative Subcommittee finds that few of the individuals who ultimately came to participate in those events handled their roles in the manner that should be expected given the important and sensitive nature of the issues involved.... The Investigative Subcommittee next carefully reviewed the evidence surrounding the November 2005 press inquiry regarding the e-mails, which soon led to the notification of the Speaker's office, referral to the Clerk's office, and the subsequent intervention with Rep. Foley by Jeff Trendahl and Rep. Shimkus.  The Investigative Subcommittee was particularly interested in understanding the wishes of the parents of the former Alexander page regarding how the matter was to be handled, because a number of witnesses testified that they had decided against taking certain actions because of the family's desire for privacy, as conveyed by Rep. Alexander's office.  The Investigative Committee finds that the family did wish that the matter be handled in a way that maintained their and their son's privacy, but we also conclude that the family's desire for privacy could have been accommodated while still investigating the matter more aggressively.  The family did not provide any instructions or directions not to share the e-mails with appropriate House Members or staff.  By the time of the initial press inquiry in November 2005, the former page believed that the e-mails had stopped after the former page had stopped responding to Rep. Foley's messages.  Neither the former page nor his parents were seeking to have Rep. Alexander's office or anyone else address the matter, and the only reason the family was faced with a question about how the matter should be handled was because of the press inquiry.  Understandably, they did not want to see any publicity regarding their son, but their testimony is clear that they did not impose any conditions on how Rep. Alexander's office should proceed.  The refusal of Rep. Alexander's office to provide copies of the e-mails to the Clerk is not supported by the stated concerns for the family's privacy.  Although at least one member of Rep. Alexander's staff had been aware of the e-mails for over two months, Rep. Alexander and his chief of staff [Royal Alexander] learned of the e-mails only because at least one newspaper reporter had them and called both the family of the page and Rep. Alexander's office.  The staff's refusal to give those e-mails to an officer of the House based on concerns for the family's privacy defies logic given that the reporter already had copies of them, and that Rep. Alexander's office gave a copy of one of the former page's e-mails to the reporter....Trandahl had taken numerous steps to protect the integrity of the page program and to try to define and enforce limits on the interaction between pages and Members, officers, and staff.  The Investigative Subcommittee concludes that much of Trendahl's conduct when he heard about the e-mails was reasonable ... He also, according to his testimony, pressed Rep. Alexander's chief of staff [Royal Alexander] for copies of the e-mails, but the staff member reportedly refused to provide copies, citing the wishes of the parents for privacy.  The Investigative Subcommittee attempted unsuccessfully to determine why Trandahl had not sought support from the Speaker's office or the members of the Page Board to obtain a copy of the e-mails....The Investigative Subcommittee believes that given the importance of the need to protect the safety and well-being of the pages, in the future the Clerk, as an officer of the House, should not feel constrained...The Investigative Subcommittee similarly concludes that Rep. Shimkus should have demanded copies of all relevant e-mails or other documents, if not before he confronted Rep. Foley, then after....The Investigative Subcommittee concludes that confronting a Member in such a member without having access to all relevant information was imprudent...," Report of the Investigative Subcommittee...: Investigation of Allegations Related to Improper Conduct..., pp. 82-84, 86-87.





Instead of burdening my readers with an analysis of all this evidence, I will just propose a set of themes in order to broach what will hopefully be a long discussion in the comments section.  But I do want to emphasize that Royal Alexander violated Clause 9 of House Rule 23 by impeding the investigation into the Foley Scandal, which in my opinion already invalidates his candidacy for Attorney General.  I also believe his manipulation of witnesses and his overt politicization of the scandal when the media first contacted him and the former page's parents should raise the eyebrows of anyone who believes we should have an impartial advocate of the public and not a political hack in the very important office of Attorney General.  Moreover, that the House Investigative Subcommittee isolated the excuse of the parents' desire for privacy both he and Rodney Alexander used during the investigation and basically said that it failed to cut the mustard reveals that Royal Alexander lacks the judgment to represent the citizens of our state.


So Royal and Rodney will resort to any ruse in order to impede an investigation into Rodney's office.  And notice the pattern that begins to develop when one medidates on the full significance of this sentence.  Notice all the misinformation they offered the press about the Elizabeth Scott case: first she was ineffective; then she was seeking some form of retribution because of a disagreement over pay; then she had political motivations; and now she is a political operative with perverted impulses.  The shifting explanations are the words of a desperate man trying to avoid a messy sexual harassment case, not someone who is convinced of his innocence.  And notice that Rep. Alexander's wife and, indeed, Rep. Alexander watned to suppress Elizabeth Scott's claims in order to protect Rodney Alexander, Royal Alexander and, by implication, the Republican Party.  Why does this resonate with Royal's suppression of the evidence in order to protect the Republican Party in what already was a toxic political environment for their Party?  Why does this dovetail almost too well with Royal Alexander's exploitation of the family's desire for privacy when refusing to disclose evidence to the Clerk of the House?  And why does Rodney Alexander's recourse to an investigation conducted by counsel he retained, which in my opinion is hardly an unbiased source,  in his sad attempt to dismiss the allegations of sexual harassment by Elizabeth Scott resemble Royal Alexander's attempt to seek protection with a political ally in the former Speaker's office, to whom he did show the e-mails, and not to seek the advice of the Clerk of the House, to whom he would not disclose the e-mails?  And why all the secretive wording in the email to his friend in the former Speaker's office when Harper's Magazine revived the story?


Violation of Clause 9 of Rule 23 of the US House of Representatives; manipulation of witnesses and of evidence; alleged acts of sexual harassment; unwillingness to disclose evidence to the Clerk of the House, but a willingness to disclose it to a reporter; failure to pursue aggressively any followup on the House's actions against Mark Foley, but a rushed email to a friend in the former Speaker's office when it is known that the media is interested once again in the story; collaboration with a political ally in the former Speaker's office and not with the Clerk of the House, who has jurisdiction over the House pages; willfull distortions of the nature of the e-mails to the Clerk of the House and to the media; overt politicization of the scandal to the parents of the victim of Foley's predatory behaviour and to Members and staff of the House; an inability to maintain records of conversations with officials in the House who are charged with investigating corruption and other culpubale actions; and the coordination of a smear campaign in order to avoid any accountability for potentially sexually harassing a subordinate in the office:  these densely imbricated and inextricable charges based on verifiable evidence irrevocably vitiate Royal Alexander's claim that he is fit for the office of Attorney General.  According to the House Investigative Subcommittee, he willfully broke the law, and he may have broken the law again if Elizabeth Scott's allegations are true, and at this point I am wont to believe that they are.


Feel free to discuss any aspect of the above evidence you find particularly damaging or compelling.  Because I am still coming to terms with the enormity of the evidence against Royal Alexander as it is presented in the House Investigative Subcommittee's report, I do not believe I can do it justice just yet.  Indeed, so much of it is so damaging, I have no clue where to begin.  I have also been staring at this computer screen for seven hours while organizing all this material.  Please type your thoughts, and I will try to address them in due time.


Laissez les bons temps rouler!

Originally posted to pointecoupeedemocrat on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 12:48 PM PDT.

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

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site