30 Comments - Niles Township - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 11:23 am: Interesting item in Sneed today that both Todd Stroger and a Chicago raised astronaut who is on the current shuttle mission are both Saint Felicitas Grade School graduates, just a year apart. What a difference a year and a daddy make…one is an astronaut and one is a space cadet. - Cal Skinner - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 1:15 pm: So, Rahm Emanuel lied? - Mr. Ethics - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 1:44 pm: Look at all those comments on the one becomes two deputy governors in the SJR. Are there no ethics nor hiring freeze when it comes to this office? - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 3:21 pm: So, what we know is that Congressman Emanuel was aware of Mark Foley for over a year. He didn’t report the emails to authorities. He didn’t take action against Foley to protect teens. But, he didn’t do nothing. What he did is keep the activities of this perv aside so that Democrats could shop the story before the mid term elections. Think about that. He decided not to report what was a threatening situations for pages so that he could unleash this bit of information with his media buddies at election time. His behavior is as disgusting as Foley’s. - Establishment Republican - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 3:27 pm: Rahm Emanuel gives new meaning to the word sleazy. Since Rich Miller has been so tough on Shimkus, is he willing to share his thoughts on Rahm regarding this matter? - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 3:30 pm: My response is that the investigation found that Emanuel had no direct knowledge. Shimkus, however, was chairman of the page board and was, therefore, directly responsible for the welfare of those kids. I’m not gonna defend Emanuel, but Shimkus had direct and ultimate responsibillity. His statements are indefensible. - Establishment Republican - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 3:39 pm: Emanuel clearly lied on national tv as to what he knew. That is something that cannot be said about Shimkus. Neither of them, nor anyone else, was aware of the sexually explicit instant messages. But both of them were aware and had seen the semi-creepy emails to the kid in Louisiana, which Democrats claim should have raised concerns. I have to say I fail to see the difference. If such stories about Foley were such widely known as Democrats claimed when this was going on, shouldn’t Rahm have done something to protect them instead of holding onto the email to try to shop a story a few weeks before the election? So, either Rahm is as guilty as anyone else in failing to protect former male pages against the flirtatious advances of a gay Congressman (which is what they were really suggesting) or the whole issue of the kids being in danger was just politics being played by the Democrats. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 3:50 pm: ER, I think you’re making a big leap in your factual statements here. I don’t think, although I would happily concede if you pointed to the specific language in the report, that Emanuel has been accused of withholding the info to spring it at the last minute. On the other hand, it was Shimkus’ DAILY duty to watch over those kids. And he failed. Period. End of story. As the Tribune editorialized today, you wouldn’t hire him to be a babysitter after this episode. - Establishment Republican - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 4:02 pm: It seems to be basic common sense why Rahm lied before the election about knowing the information. The staffer for Alexander had forwarded the email to a lobbyist friend who forwarded it to her boyfriend who was a Democrat Congressional staffer. Then, the Democrats shopped the story around to the media, and once it broke, claimed ignorance of the whole matter. As for Shimkus, this really is something that is in the past and not really worth wasting a lot of time over, but there is absolutely no reason to believe that he knew any more about Foley’s behavior than Emanuel or anyone else did. For one thing, it is worth noting that all the explicit things that Foley had been discovered to have done in regards to the instant messages were with *former* House pages, who were in no way the responsibility of the U.S. Congress at that point. In some cases, the former pages were even over 18. Foley’s behavior was inexcusable and he did not belong in Congress for it. The investigation has seemed to confirm that the only inappropriate things he did with pages who were currently under the care of the House was to strike up friendships with them, and it was only *after* they left the care of the U.S. House, that he started engaging in various levels of sexual banter. That was very wrong of Foley and perhaps immoral, but Shimkus could not have been expected to protect the *former* pages, who were voluntarily corresponding with Foley. What Emanuel and Foley knew were basically the same thing. That Foley had sent a former page an email asking him how old he was, what he wanted for his birthday that some other kid was in good shape, etc. All that is very creepy, especially the more we have found out about Foley in hindsight, but it cannot be described as predatory or perverted, the way Democrats tried to make it seem before the election. They, and many others in the media, tried to make it seem like Republicans had seen the instant message communications between Foley and the former pages that were far more graphic, and none of them had, as the Ethics Committee report claimed. In hindsight, everyone wishes that they would have kept a much closer eye on Foley, but based on the limited information that they all had, I would think that people like Shimkus acting on that one email correspondence alone would have been accused of homophobia and jumping to conclusions. I do not know Shimkus, have never met him, etc, but he seems to me to be a very honorable person, and if he truly felt that the pages in his care were in any danger whatsoever, he would have acted. The voters’ in his Congressional district did not seem to punish him over the matter in the last election, and as this story recedes from the public consciousness, I would consider Shimkus to be a viable statewide candidate at one point, while someone like Rahm Emanuel will be haunted for his dishonesty and hypocrisy on the matter. - cermak_rd - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 4:11 pm: ER, Emanuel won’t leave Congress until the Dems lose the majority (and possibly not even then). Shimkus will always have this hanging over him and I don’t think he would ever be palatable to Cook County anyway so I doubt he could win statewide. - Establishment Republican - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 4:18 pm: I doubt that Rahm ever runs statewide, and he certainly is secure in his district, but his behavior on this is something that would hurt him beyond that. Perhaps it is worth considering that Shimkus could have statewide problems for reasons other than this matter, but my point is that this incident is not the thing that would do him in. It is basically time to move on from this whole Foleygate thing, but I just do not know what Shimkus was supposed to specifically have done to protect *former* pages from voluntarily corresponding with Foley. We know that several months back he went to Foley and told him to cut off all contact with pages and as far as we know, that happened. But once they leave the program and move back to their hometowns, they are kind of out of Shimkus’s or anyone else associated with the House’s care. Have their been one remotely credible allegation of Foley acting physically improper towards or even sending sexually explicit messages with *any* *current* page, while they were under the supervision of the House and the Page Board Chair? Certain bloggers (not Rich Miller, but people who comment on this site) were vastly unfair to Jerry Weller over false and scurrilous allegations, and while Shimkus could have probably been more vigilant when it came to Foley, he hardly seems like the villain in this. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 4:33 pm: Remember, ER, the original statement out of Shimkus’ office was that he had not seen any emails. - Establishment Republican - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 4:36 pm: I take that to mean he had not seen the copies of them, but he had heard of the concern raised by the family of the former page from Louisiana, who then also said they did not want to make a big deal about it. Is there evidence that he actually saw the email? If so, I will criticize him for being less than honest, but it is certainly possible he was telling the truth as to what he had actually seen at that point. We know now for sure that Rahm and House Democrat staffers at least had in their possession a copy of the actual emails, and Rahm still went on ABC News in October and claimed he had never seen it and had not even heard of that rumor. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 4:38 pm: This was the original statement, from the Belleville News-Democrat… ===Shimkus “did not see personally any e-mail a year ago when he dealt with the issue,” Tomaszewski said. “He was only told of the one e-mail that came out first, which references, ‘How are you doing after the hurricane?’ and, ‘Send me a picture.’” When Shimkus learned of other e-mails and text messages that Foley allegedly sent the underage pages, Shimkus “did confront Mr. Foley, who obviously lied to him,” Tomaszewski said.=== - Establishment Republican - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 4:42 pm: I do not see one bit of inconsistency there. Shimkus did not personally see the email, but he heard of it, and he never claimed otherwise. Emanuel both heard of the email and actually saw it, and claimed otherwise to both on national television. Reading that article, it seems pretty clear that when Foley learned of the other emails and sexually explicit instant messages and went to confront Foley over the lies that Foley had told to him, it would have been the Friday that Foley was forced to resign. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 4:49 pm: Wrong again. The Post-Dispatch talked to Shimkus after his press staff said he hadn’t seen or read the e-mails. ===Shimkus, who serves as board chairman for the House page program, read the emails, in which Foley asked about the boy’s well-being in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, what he wanted for his birthday, and for a photograph. (The boy was from Louisiana and had returned to his home state.) Although there was nothing sexually suggestive in the emails, Shimkus and Trandal agreed: “That was enough for us to approach Mark,” Shimkus recalled an interview Saturday. Soon after, they met with Foley and his chief of staff in the Florida congressman’s office. “We basically said, ‘We got these emails. And we don’t think this is appropriate. … You have to stop (contacting this boy)’,” Shimkus said.==== If it was “enough to approach” Foley, why didn’t they do the tiniest bit of follow-up, like talk to the pages, some of whom had reportedly heard the rumors, or take some other action? - Jaded - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 4:56 pm: Man ER, are you Shimkus’ mother? He screwed up. End of discussion. Move one. At least the pedophile is out of Congress no thanks to ANYONE on the page board. - Establishment Republican - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 4:58 pm: I have claimed they should have been more vigilant in following up on things and we all can agree on that in hindsight. I imagine they were a little sensitive about appearing anti-gay by pushing too hard and approaching former pages, etc. Plus, Foley lied to them when he assured that he had done nothing wrong and would knock it off regardless, etc. Regarding what he and his staff told two different newspapers about the timeline of when they actually saw the email, I could not speak to. Perhaps it was a mix up. I do not know what the motivation would be to lie about seeing the actual email when he admitted to knowing what was in it anyway. I have not claimed that Shimkus acted perfectly in this matter or that people are totally out of line for choosing to criticize him. There should just be some consistency in a willingness to hold Emanuel to task to since he has been shown to have lied about the matter far more willfully and with an obvious political motivation to do so. If Rahm and whomever else had known about the risk that Foley posed to pages, once they left the program, they would have been just as wrong to have remained silent and not taken steps to stop Foley. After all, he was on the other side of the aisle, they really had no excuse for trying to hurt Foley’s feelings or whatever… unless they just wanted to wait to get this story out there as close to the election as possible. That was the same thing with those who were trying to smear Jerry Weller and embarrassed themselves in the process, except the Foley stuff did turn out to be true to an extent, even though nobody had the information to prove so at the time. What I would hope that people keep in mind primarily though is that there is no evidence that any actual page, while under the supervision of a Republican led House was ever actually in any danger during the course of their stay in Washington D.C., and it was pure politics for Democrats to suggest that they were, especially when we now know that if they truly believed that to be the case, they could have done something. - realist - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 5:12 pm: Rich, Even though I’m a Democrat, I disagree with you somewhat on this issue. I think anyone who knew there was a possibility that a minor was the victim of sexual advances has a moral obligation to report that information to the police or other legal authorities. Ironically, that is exactly the point that Rahm made in his interview on ABC. when he made the analogy to the obligation of a prinicpal or another teacher. In this case, I agree that Shimkus had a little more responsibility, because he was more like a principal in this case. But Rahm was like a fellow teacher who had a suspicion. As Rahm himself argued, it would be morally reprehensible for the teacher not to act to protect the child, and the simple fact is that this is exactly what Rahm failed to do–he didn’t act protect the child. I frankly am appalled at the weak action taken by the House Ethics Committee. I think all of the people who knew (Republican or Democrat, Member or Staff) that there might have been a problem and failed to act should have been severely reprimanded. Forget the fact that these are politicians. This was a serious moral failure by many people, and they should be held accountable. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 5:17 pm: Again, I don’t want to be put into the position of defending Emanuel, but Shimkus was directly responsible and, therefore, receives more ire from me than others. - Establishment Republican - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 5:31 pm: I will applaud realist for at least being consistent on this, regardless of his partisan affiliation. I would say though that if Shimkus is in the teacher/principal role and responsible for protecting the students from another teacher, the analogy would also have to recognize that the other teacher acted unambiguously improper towards the students, only after they had graduated and left the school. How is Shimkus supposed to be responsible for what the pages do after they leave the program, may be over 18 in some cases, and which they consent to? What happened in the 1980s with both Dan Crane and Gerry Studds was far more serious and potentially damaging to the well-being of young people than anything creepy Mr. Foley did. I concede that Shimkus and the House Republicans did not handle this perfectly, but that is easy for us to do with the benefit of hindsight. If all they knew about Foley was that he was somewhat overly friendly to the pages and he insisted he did nothing wrong, it could have been perceived as an anti-gay witch hunt by “intolerant Republicans” against a Member they knew was gay, but who was not open about that publicly. Had Foley done nothing other than being too friendly with pages that would have really blown up in their faces with serious criticism by both the media and Democrats. It is time for me to go now. Thank you, Rich, for the honor of the correspondence and thanks for all the hard work you do on the blog. I just feel that if “Bill” can be here on a daily basis to defend Blago over far more obvious breaches of the public trust than this matter, and his fellow bloggers tend to admire him for that steadfastness, that somebody should ask that we keep things in perspective about what Shimkus did and the new information about what Emanuel did. - Long Time Reader; First Time Poster - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 5:41 pm: Mr. Miller- While I don’t want to be viewed as defending Congressman Shimkus, I nonetheless object to your comment that it was his “job” to protect these pages. The pages are 17 - 19 year olds, most of whom are the most responsible, mature high school students throughout the entire country. These pages shouldn’t need to be protected from members of Congress. Congressman Shimkus obviously used bad judgement, and his resignation from the board is appropriate. After all, who in their right mind would have really thought that a member of Congress was trying to get into the pants of an 18 year old page? - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 5:44 pm: That was satire, right? - Infrequent poster - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 5:53 pm: Gentlemen, Debating this topic is pointless. There is no such thing as ‘generally accepted truth’ any more. Anyone can believe whatever they want, supporting their beliefs however they wish. 1+1=2? Well maybe, maybe not….it just all depends. If it means retaining my power, which I need to exist, then yes, 1+1=2. If it means *you* get my power instead, 1+1 will never equal two in my mind. Sorry, it is a matter of my existence. The details of what happened is irrelevant. All’s fair! - Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 6:04 pm: Realist — Just who should Rahm have reported the e-mails to? Shimkus? Hastert?? They both knew about it already, and Rahm had to have known that. - Bill - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 6:12 pm: ER, Leave me outta this. I didn’t like Shimkus before this scandal broke and I like him even less now. He and Hastert should both do the country a favor and resign. This has nothing to do with the governor or Rahm. Foley is a pervert and Shimkus and Hastert knew about it and didn’t do anything and your whole party paid a price at the polls. I would think you would want him gone more than anybody. - Truth - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 6:53 pm: The behavior of Reps. Shimkus & Emanuel in this matter is why the general public despises politics and distrusts politicians. The actions of both are indefensible. - realist - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 9:08 pm: Yellow Dog Democrat, To the police. Anytime a teacher (and now a clergyman) has a reasonable suspicion, they have a legal (as well as moral) obligation to report it to the police. It should be no different for a politician. - Martha Mitchell - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 10:23 pm: It’s not only this subject that makes people despise Rahm Emmanuel. He is a classic example of the in-your-face, rude, egotistical political smart-ass who thinks people should bow to his genius. Add him to the long list of the same type which includes Bradley Tusk, Lon Monk, Emil Jones, Michael Madigan, Mike Chalmness, Karl Rove, Haldeman, Erlichman and so on and so on and so on. There’s at least one of this type in every campaign, who make lots of noise and get lots of press but who contributes nothing to the good of the world, except to add to its warmth with their constantly moving mouths. - Cassandra - Wednesday, Dec 13, 06 @ 8:02 am: If Emmanuel were not so abrasive and contemptuous of anyone who doesn’t agree with him 100 percent, one would be more likely to give him a pass based on ignorance of how to proceed. Of course, any page under 18 suspected of being a victim should have been reported to the local child welfare authorities in Washington or wherever but Emmanuel probably thinks he is too important to bother with stuff like that. One hopes that the page board now has a clearly communicated and understood process for reporting and investigating inappropriate behavior by Legislative members and staff towards pages, but I wouldn’t bet on it. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.