originalpckelly
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 07:36 PM
Original message |
BOMBSHELL!!!! Palmer to Fordham: Hastert was told by Palmer! |
|
Edited on Thu Oct-12-06 07:39 PM by originalpckelly
We all suspected this, but here is the confirmation. On Countdown, David Shuster's sources told him in today's meeting of the House ethics committee that Kirk Fordham (Foley's former Chief of Staff) did indeed tell Scott Palmer (Hastert's Chief of Staff) about Foley's activities with the pages. The bombshell came when Fordham testified about his follow-up conversation with Palmer: Palmer did indeed tell Hastert!
If the AP puts out a story with that as its features and it is proved by a second source, Hastert will have to resign.
Oh yeah, I forgot, Fordham is under legal jeopardy if he wasn't telling the truth in his testimony before the committee...in other words this is probably true (even without a second source)!
I suppose that the final nail in the coffin for Hastert will be when/if Palmer testifies before the committee, as he has to tell the truth about the meeting or he can go to jail.
|
originalpckelly
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 07:39 PM
Response to Original message |
|
this can't be lost it is so big! :kick:
|
David Dunham
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 07:40 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Palmer Could Have Lied to Fordham and in Fact Not told Hastert |
|
Fordham sounds like a bit of a pain in the neck. I think Palmer could have lied to him about telling Hastert just to get him to back off.
|
originalpckelly
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. Yeah, I don't know if bringing up a child predator... |
|
makes you obnoxious. He met with him twice, and this is a very serious issue.
|
originalpckelly
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
Gotta keep that Joementum going ;-)
|
Perky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
21. Precisely.. I don't Haster knew about it |
|
He should have and if he did he is a goner....but I think he proabbly did not understand what was going on. Just a hunch. FOr the moment.
|
greeneyedboy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
22. Republican staffer a lying PITA? possible, but i doubt he's lying now. |
Mr_Spock
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 07:42 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Pummel that fat ass 'till he finally tells the truth for once in his rotten RW life.
|
OrangeCountyDemocrat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 07:43 PM
Response to Original message |
5. So, The Ethics Committee Will Censure Hastert |
|
They'll say something like...."you did a bad bad thing. Please don't do it again." It will be like a security guard with no weapon saying..."Stop. Or I'll say stop again."
How damaging would it be if Hastert had to resign within 25 days of the election?
|
hvn_nbr_2
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
11. Stop! Or I'll say stop again. |
|
Maybe it's an old line, but I never heard it before. :rofl:
|
OrangeCountyDemocrat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
|
He did a sketch, and was immitating a British cop. I've always remembered it.
Robin Rules of course.
|
cynatnite
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 07:44 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Why hasn't Hastert been called in yet? n/t |
Monkeyman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
Journeyman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
10. Because he has denied it, protocol demands. . . |
|
all underlings be questioned first, and then, and only when there's sufficient reason to question him (which today's testimony makes very likely), would the Committee call the Speaker before it.
|
cynatnite
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
16. Thanks for the explanation n/t |
Marrak
(332 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 07:46 PM
Response to Original message |
originalpckelly
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
13. Personally, he reminds me of a Vogon more: |
KansDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-13-06 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
|
Bush looks like some kind of growth that needs to be removed.
|
JerseygirlCT
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 07:58 PM
Response to Original message |
12. Hastert will fall back on sudden amnesia. nt |
originalpckelly
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
14. That really won't be a good excuse... |
|
because he will still be blamed for forgetting being told about a child predator.
|
Kierkegaard
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
19. I'd hate to be sudden amnesia, then! |
|
Edited on Thu Oct-12-06 08:27 PM by Kierkegaard
|
JerseygirlCT
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 08:27 PM
Original message |
LOL. How will I ever get to sleep after that? nt |
Kierkegaard
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 08:33 PM
Response to Original message |
JerseygirlCT
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #25 |
28. You know, that knocks me out for DAYS. I'm such a lightweight! nt |
Oleladylib
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 08:07 PM
Response to Original message |
15. They need to listen closely to what Tom Reynolds is saying. |
karlrschneider
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 08:18 PM
Response to Original message |
18. Can anybody think of a reason for Fordham to be lying? I can't but |
|
it's no mystery why Palmer and/or Hastert would... :eyes: :kick:
|
Monkeyman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
20. They will claim a Gay network already started |
karlrschneider
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
23. Scarborough just did a couple minutes ago... |
|
:eyes: But anyhoo, why would that be a reason for Fordham to make this up? I don't get that...
|
originalpckelly
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #23 |
24. Fordham can be sent to jail if he is lying... |
|
if he is under oath, than it is simple perjury, if he wasn't 18 USC 1001 (a,c) allows him to be prosecuted for making false statements to congress.
|
karlrschneider
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #24 |
27. Sure, I know...but -somebody- is lying. |
originalpckelly
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #27 |
30. Well Palmer hasn't testified under oath... |
|
if he does testify and it is a lie, then he may be sent to jail as well. Furthermore, if Palmer discounts Fordham's story, one of them is lying and one of them will be sent to jail.
It should be noted that staffers in Hastert's office confirmed Kirk Fordham's story.
|
Gabi Hayes
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #30 |
31. anybody remember John Dean vs. the White House? |
|
that was the first thing I thought of: everybody in Hastert's corner is aligning themselves against them
I said this in another thread: Fordham has GOT to have some way to prove his side of the story. if not, who's going to believe him, AFA the investigative body goes?
or is he just a plant by, uh, somebody, that will make this all blow up in Leopoldian style?
|
originalpckelly
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #31 |
33. No, no, you forgot the 2nd independent source who confirmed the story... |
|
The one who told the Washington Post, that Fordham and Palmer did have a meeting. The second source was from Hastert's office, so it is highly likely he knew what he was talking about. The only thing that second source wouldn't know is the bit about Hastert being told by Palmer.
So if Fordham isn't lying about having the meeting with Palmer, why would he lie about the fact Hastert knew?
|
mojowork_n
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-13-06 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #33 |
37. How could he not know? |
|
I think I read somewhere (on Bartcop?) that Hastert's "room-mate" is Palmer. They spent a lot of time together.
Before he was involved in politics, "Coach" Hastert had some sort of publicly embarassing situation, that forced him to resign from coaching. The theory has been put forward that the reason * had Hastert named SpeakerOfTheHouse in the first place, was that he'd be someone verrrry easy to "control", with built-in blackmail leverage...
I'm very sorry I can't remember where I read that. In any event, it's looking more and more like it's about time for Hastert to step down, maybe it will all be common knowledge in a very short time.
(...By the way, what does the blue, rounded rectangle, with the white-circle-thing represent? I don't have a clue what it's supposed to mean.)
|
originalpckelly
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-13-06 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #37 |
|
everyone seems to think Hastert didn't know, what the hell? Oh well, there is almost certainly proof that will come out in short time.
|
femrap
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
35. Fordham is NOT lying and for a very good reason... |
|
he is gay and doesn't want gay people to be stereotyped as pedophiles. Pedophila is much more common with hetero males.
|
chat_noir
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 08:41 PM
Response to Original message |
janx
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-13-06 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #26 |
39. Wow--when were these pics taken?! n/t |
emmadoggy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-13-06 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #26 |
43. Geez! Look at that expression on Georgie's face!! |
|
Look at how tightly his lips are pursed. Talk about your Lord PissyPants!!! x(
|
Justice Is Comin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 09:20 PM
Response to Original message |
29. Why was Palmer so frantically going through his emails at one o'clock |
|
in the morning after the story broke if he knew Fordham had never told him?
Does the word start with an "s" ?
Of course, you realize there are two copies, the sender and the receiver. Plus almost certainly, on the server.
And Palmer you told Hasturd when he was on the prone position with you in bed as you were whispering sweet nothings in his ear.
You're going on the grill Palmer.
|
Jack Rabbit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 09:32 PM
Response to Original message |
32. Any responsible journalist would be able to report this |
|
Kirk Fordham said under oath before the House Ethics Committee etc.
Of course, Hastert and Palmer could call him a liar.
Before the committee, they can always fein amnesia ("I don't recall").
|
Nictuku
(907 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-12-06 10:03 PM
Response to Original message |
seemslikeadream
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-13-06 12:20 AM
Response to Original message |
36. third independent source |
|
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/11/foley.fallout/CNN was told by two sources familiar with Fordham's account and a third, independent source that Fordham maintains he arranged a meeting between Foley and Palmer about that report and accounts of other behavior Fordham found troubling
|
robertpaulsen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-13-06 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #36 |
40. I smell a resignation! |
symbolman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-13-06 06:50 PM
Response to Original message |
|
the trees turn color, the Pumpkins all abloom, and the SMELL OF GOP RESIGNATION IN THE AIR -- YES! :)
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Apr 30th 2024, 10:05 PM
Response to Original message |