Interviewed by Rush Limbaugh today, House Speaker Hastert said Mark Foley?s inappropriate behavior was ?a political issue? and promised Rush that ?we are going on offense.?
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
You're not helping your cause.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=126922The Mark Foley Scandal is over. The Florida Republican congressman who sent "Do I make you horny?" messages to teenage pages has resigned his seat and gone into rehab. He needed help and, now, he's getting it. There will be a few more salacious revelations--like today's report that the congressman was such a multi-tasker that he balanced the sending of racy instant messages with his duty to show up for floor votes -- and perhaps some legal playout to this sad tale. But Foley's political journey is finished.
The Republican Congressional Leadership Scandal is most definitely not over. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, House Republican Congressional Campaign Committee chair Tom Reynolds, R-New York, and other leaders of the GOP caucus who knew about the Foley problem and did little or nothing to deal with it, have been exposed for what they are: Political animals who care about nothing--absolutely nothing--except maintaining power.
How determined were these key Republicans to keep their grip on Congress in what has turned into an exceptionally troublesome election year for the party? On Monday, it was revealed that, as recently as last week, an aide to Reynolds tried to get ABC News investigative reporter Brian Ross, who broke the Foley story, to kill it. In return for joining the cover-up, Ross was offered an exclusive on what the GOP leaders had hoped would be a neatly-wrapped, relatively uncontroversial story of Foley's decision to step down "for personal reasons." According to Ross, "I said we're not making any deals."
The fact of the last-minute attempt to cut those deals gives a painfully accurate reading of the "moral values" and the political priorities of the Republican leadership circle.
That reality does not make the Republicans particularly worse than the Democrats, who are certainly not above clawing for power and practicing the politics of "victory at any cost." But, in two meaningful senses, the leaders of the Grand Old Party are distinguished from the leaders of the not particularly grand opposition party:
1. The Republicans are in charge. Hastert, Boehner, Reynolds and their compatriots and co-conspirators run the Congress. In fact, they have run things more tightly than any majority in decades. As such, this particular scandal, cannot be blamed on others. Republicans own the House, they set the rules, they determine what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. They have all the power, and their obvious lack of concern for anything except maintaining that power is now exposed.
2. The Republicans have secured and maintained that power--which is used almost exclusively to enrich their wealthy political allies, contributors and supporters--by convincing millions of working-class Americans who are sincerely socially conservative to vote against their class interests in order to satisfy their moral interests. Suddenly, the dubious political construct on which the modern Republican Party has stood has been exposed. Social conservatives have been alerted to the fact that morality has never been a high priority of the corporate "conservatives" who call the shots in the Congressional leadership of what they thought was God's Own Party.
That news comes at a time when Republicans, already battered by President Bush's dwindling approval ratings and the Abramoff lobbying scandal, are scrambling to maintain control of the House. The timing for the GOP really could not be worse, not because of the scandal's potential to cause social conservatives to vote for Democrats but because of the potential that it will cause so-called "moral-values" voters to turn away from the political process. Few political realities are more certain than this: If social conservatives don't turn out on election day, Republicans don't win.
Even the usually hapless Democrats have recognized the opening and are beginning to exploit it. Democratic candidates are calling on Republican House members to renounce Hastert and Boehner, to give back money not just from Foley's political action committee but from those of the Republican leaders, and--in the last few hours--to demand Hastert's resignation. In a key Pennsylvania House race, Chris Carney, the Democratic challenger to scandal-plagued Republican Don Sherwood, called on the incumbent to cancel scheduled fundraising events with GOP House leaders. "Sherwood should immediately cancel his upcoming fundraisers with Hastert and Boehner," argued Carney. "Don Sherwood has already brought Washington's values back to the district, now he wants to bring a depraved cover-up home."
The reach of this issue is evident even beyond congressional races; in Wisconsin, where Republican Congressman Mark Green is challenging Democratic Governor Jim Doyle, the Doyle campaign is telling reporters: "It is past time for Congressman Green to display some real leadership and add his voice to the growing chorus of voices calling for Speaker Hastert to resign."
This is an incredibly volatile moment, so volatile that the Republicans may be inclined to sacrifice one of their own in order to deflect attention from the broader crisis of confidence. The party cannot afford to have its social conservative base vote suppressed by disgust, or even confusion, over Hastert's actions--and inactions.
Already, the conservative Washington Times, an influential voice in Republican circles, has called for Hastert's immediate resignation. "House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once," the newspaper's editors wrote Tuesday morning. Conservative talk-radio hosts, including Michael Reagan, the son of the former president, have been similarly tough on the leadership.
How seriously are top Republican taking the demands for a house cleaning? Seriously enough to begin lobbing bombs at one another.
In an interview with radio station WLW in Cincinnati, Boehner was pointing the finger of blame at Hastert. "[It's] in his corner. It's his responsibility," the Number 2 Republican in the House said. "The Clerk of the House, who runs the page program, the page board, all report to the speaker, and I believed it had been dealt with."
A few hours later, Boehner seemed to be backtracking--as several members of the leadership have after attempting to deflect fallout from the scandal. The majority leader issued a statement claiming that "no one in the leadership, including Speaker Hastert, had any knowledge of the warped and sexually explicit instant messages."
That is, of course, a lie. But it is a necessary lie, as all evidence suggests that Boehner was at least as fully informed of the details of the sexually explicit communications as was Hastert in the months before they became public. Thus, while many conservative activists might be willing to sacrifice Hastert --perhaps the most expendable Speaker of the House in history -- there is little reason to believe that doing so would make this House Republican Leadership Scandal go away.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20538801-2703,00.htmlHouse members who had had misgivings about Mr Foley blamed the leadership. John Boehner, the majority whip, manfully stepped up to the plate - and said it was all the fault of Dennis Hastert, the Republican Speaker of the House. Mr Hastert, in a brave display of personal responsibility, went cap in hand to the American people - and said the Democrats were to blame: they had deliberately held off on releasing the emails until they knew it would cause maximum political damage in next month's elections.
Now the Republicans, who coached the country through the great moral crisis of the Clinton presidency by promising to restore the virtues of individual morality, are in full blame-apportioning fury.
Only to pea brained morons trying to dissemble and distract attention from the second issue -- Who knew what and when, and what did they do about it?Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Sure Foley is scum who should not be in congress, but who "outed" him and how and why they did it become more and more interesting everyday.
Originally posted by: Gaard
Is it just me or has every post by a Republican about this matter gone something like this
"Yes. What he did was wrong, but..."
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Sure Foley is scum who should not be in congress, but...
Originally posted by: wiin
He should have become a democrat. Had he become a democrat when this was at its early stage, this would have gone away without a sound. As a democrat, he would have probably been censured but that's about it. It's great to be a democrat. You don't have to resign and you don't have to go to jail.
"Republicans just don't get it; every mother in America is asking how Republicans could choose partisan politics over protecting kids, and the Republicans are still asking who could have blown their cover-up," Pelosi spokeswoman Jennifer Crider said.
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
The Republican attempt to deflect blame is going to backfire.
You do realize that these are the same Democrats who had two of their members caught having SEX with a minor, not once, but twice, and took NO action at all??Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
"Republicans just don't get it; every mother in America is asking how Republicans could choose partisan politics over protecting kids, and the Republicans are still asking who could have blown their cover-up," Pelosi spokeswoman Jennifer Crider said.
Damned right! The Republican attempt to deflect blame is going to backfire. All the concern is for who outed them, not the fact that they allowed children to become targets, found out about it many times, and failed to do anything but hide it in order to not screw up the elections for themselves. It's not gonna fly. Of course, I've been disappointed before. On the other hand, the Dems are taking a chance going this route (gloves off), but they hardly have any choice, since the Republicans are trying to pin the issue on them. There's no option but to respond in the strongest terms. *shrug What would the Republicans do if the shoe were on the other foot? Just let it slide? Hell no, they be shouting from the highest spires, "look at these filthy Democrats, raping our children!"
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/15698850.htm
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You do realize that these are the same Democrats who had two of their members caught having SEX with a minor, not once, but twice, and took NO action at all??Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
"Republicans just don't get it; every mother in America is asking how Republicans could choose partisan politics over protecting kids, and the Republicans are still asking who could have blown their cover-up," Pelosi spokeswoman Jennifer Crider said.
Damned right! The Republican attempt to deflect blame is going to backfire. All the concern is for who outed them, not the fact that they allowed children to become targets, found out about it many times, and failed to do anything but hide it in order to not screw up the elections for themselves. It's not gonna fly. Of course, I've been disappointed before. On the other hand, the Dems are taking a chance going this route (gloves off), but they hardly have any choice, since the Republicans are trying to pin the issue on them. There's no option but to respond in the strongest terms. *shrug What would the Republicans do if the shoe were on the other foot? Just let it slide? Hell no, they be shouting from the highest spires, "look at these filthy Democrats, raping our children!"
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/15698850.htm
1. Mel Reynolds had SEX with a 16 year old campaign worked and was on tape having phone sex with her and talking about have a threesome with her 15 year old friend. Democrats knew about this and did nothing, the guy even got elected again. It wasn't until he was convicted that he left congress.
2. Gerry Studds was caught in 1983 having SEX with a 17 year old page, admitted to it, and the Democrats did nothing. Studds called a press conference with the page and said it was a consented relationship and a "private relationship" and stayed in congress until 1997!!!!
Now these same Democrats are all in an uproar because a Republican sent dirty e-mails and IMs to pages? Give me a break.
BTW: Newt wanted Studds and a Republican caught having sex with a page kicked out of congress, but they had to settle for censure. During the censure Studds turned his back on the speaker and the house Democrats gave him a standing ovation, including one ?we must protect the children? Nanci Pelosi. I guess protecting the children is a new cause for her huh?
It matters because the Democrats did NOTHING and many of the same people who were in congress during the Mel Reynolds thing are still in congress, including Nanci Pelosi, possible next speaker of the house.Originally posted by: Tangerines
Both of the incidents you described happened years and years ago. I fail to see how these have anything to do with the current Foley scandal. The Democrats in 1983 are not the same people that represent the Democratic Party today.
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It matters because the Democrats did NOTHING and many of the same people who were in congress during the Mel Reynolds thing are still in congress, including Nanci Pelosi, possible next speaker of the house.Originally posted by: Tangerines
Both of the incidents you described happened years and years ago. I fail to see how these have anything to do with the current Foley scandal. The Democrats in 1983 are not the same people that represent the Democratic Party today.
Democrats did nothing when they had indisputable evidence of their member?s having SEX with minors. Yet they are raising hell that the Republicans did not take action because on of their members sent some icky e-mails to a minor... see the hypocrisy?
Other than showing you are a liar, I fail to see what the point of this statement as made was. The fact of the matter is Gary Studds was censured by the United States House of Representatives, which happened to be controlled by the Democrats at the time by the way if you didn't notice. He was also stripped of his chairmanship.Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It matters because the Democrats did NOTHING and many of the same people who were in congress during the Mel Reynolds thing are still in congress, including Nanci Pelosi, possible next speaker of the house.
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It matters because the Democrats did NOTHING and many of the same people who were in congress during the Mel Reynolds thing are still in congress, including Nanci Pelosi, possible next speaker of the house.Originally posted by: Tangerines
Both of the incidents you described happened years and years ago. I fail to see how these have anything to do with the current Foley scandal. The Democrats in 1983 are not the same people that represent the Democratic Party today.
Democrats did nothing when they had indisputable evidence of their member?s having SEX with minors. Yet they are raising hell that the Republicans did not take action because on of their members sent some icky e-mails to a minor... see the hypocrisy?
You do realize that you're the same Bushwhacko sycophant who keeps trying to dissemble and divert attention away from the immediate crimes at hand. NOTHING done by ANY other member of Congress at any other time changes or excuses the wrongs that were done in this case:Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You do realize that these are the same Democrats who had two of their members caught having SEX with a minor, not once, but twice, and took NO action at all??
ThinkProgress.org is a liberal media site so you're welcome to question the source for the above quotes, but ONLY if you can disprove the facts as stated.Conservatives Push False Talking Point Defending Hastert?s Handling Of Foley Scandal
Top conservatives have fanned out on television to defend House Speaker Dennis Hastert?s role in the Foley scandal.
A key talking point: when ABC made Foley?s sexually explicit communications public, Hastert ?dealt with it immediately? by going to Foley and telling him, ?Resign or be expelled.? Both Ken Mehlman and Ed Gillespie said Hastert?s bold ultimatum to Foley was something not seen ?in thirty years in this town.?
[ Videos of various Republican comments ]
In fact, their entire story is a fabrication. Hastert could not have issued an ultimatum to Foley after the sexually explicit instant messages were made public, because by that time, Foley had already resigned. ABC did not make Foley?s sexually explicit communications public until Friday, September 29, at 6pm ET. Foley had already resigned three hours earlier, at around 3pm ET.
As ABC producer Maddy Sauer has described, Foley decided to resign not after an ultimatum from Speaker Hastert, but after ABC called his office on Friday morning and read Foley staffers the instant messages they had obtained. According to Sauer, Foley?s office called ABC an hour later and said the congressman would be resigning.
Speaker Hastert himself acknowledged that he had no role in Foley?s resignation in his first statement on the issue on Monday:Full transcript video:
- When [the instant messages] were released, Congressman Foley resigned. And I?m glad he did. If he had not, I would have demanded his expusion from the House of Representatives.
- HASTERT: When Congress found out about the explicit messages, Republicans dealt with it immediately and the culprit was gone. [10/5/06]
HASTERT: I, first of all, learned of this last Friday, when we were about to leave Congress for the break, to go out and campaign. And that?s the first time that I heard of the explicit language. When it happened, Republicans acted. And the guy?s gone. [10/5/06]
HOEKSTRA: I mean, we were all disgusted by what we found out last week Friday. But we also need to remember that what we did do on Friday is the speaker, the leadership and the House Republican conference, we spoke with clarity. It was a defining moment for us. We said, Resign or be expelled. Mark Foley left the House of Representatives within hours of this information becoming public. [10/6/06]
MEHLMAN: The fact is, what Denny Hastert did is something that we haven?t seen done in thirty years in this town in Washington DC, and that is he said to a member of congress, either you go or we?re going to make you go. That happened the moment that Denny Hastert found out about this. [10/6/06]
GILLESPIE: In fact, voters are starting to understand that speaker Hastert reacted very strongly. As the father of a 16-year-old son, I appreciate him going to Mark Foley and saying, ?You either resign or you?re going to be expelled.? That would be the first time in thirty years. [10/6/06]
ProfJohn -- Keep on repeating the same tired, diversionary BS. The quantity of your lies and distractions doesn't change the quality of the truth about this case. The more you post, the more you prove what a lying POS you are. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:Aide: I warned Hastert's office about Foley
POSTED: 6:09 p.m. EDT, October 5, 2006
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
[*]NEW: Aide said he warned speaker's office about Foley 3 years ago
[*]Former Foley aide resigns after trying to negotiating with news media
[*]Key conservatives back Hastert, as does White House
[*]Republican whip questions how Hastert handled Foley matter
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Speaker Dennis Hastert's office was notified of concerns about then-Rep. Mark Foley before 2005, casting doubt on top GOP leaders' statements that they heard nothing of Foley's inappropriate behavior before then, a former aide to Foley said Wednesday.
Hastert's office has denied the claim.
Kirk Fordham made his remarks after resigning Wednesday amid allegations that he tried to protect Foley from congressional inquiries into his inappropriate contact with congressional pages.
Fordham elaborated in an interview with ABC News and said he told Hastert's chief of staff, Scott Palmer, that Foley was too friendly with the pages, and that Palmer talked to Foley.
Hastert's spokesman Ron Bonjean told ABC News, "That [warning] never happened."
Added Palmer, "What Kirk Fordham said did not happen."
In a statement to CNN, Bonjean said only that "this matter has been referred to the Standards Committee and we fully expect that the bipartisan panel will do what it needs to do to investigate this matter and protect the integrity of the House." (Full story)
A GOP leadership aide, however, questioned why Fordham told AP on Wednesday morning that he "had no inkling that this kind of blatantly reckless -- just obscene -- behavior was going on behind our backs," but later said he had warned Hastert about it.
"It's contradictory from what he said just this morning. He's changed his story," the aide said.
Fordham was the top aide to Rep. Tom Reynolds, R-New York, and once held the same job for Foley. In his resignation statement, Fordham vigorously denied taking any inappropriate action on Foley's behalf.
"When I sought to help Congressman Foley and his family when his shocking secrets were being revealed, I did so as a friend of my former boss, not as Congressman Reynolds' chief of staff," Fordham said. "I reached out to the Foley family, as any good friend would, because I was worried about their emotional well-being. At the same time, I want it to be perfectly clear that I never attempted to prevent any inquiries or investigation of Foley's conduct by House officials or any other authorities."
Reynolds is the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, which is working to keep the GOP in control of the House in November's elections. The scandal has not only rocked the Republican leadership but it has become an issue in Reynolds' upstate New York district just weeks before the vote.
"It is clear the Democrats are intent on making me a political issue in my boss's race, and I will not let them do so," Fordham wrote in his resignation letter.
Reynolds would not say Wednesday whether he asked Fordham to quit. However, Reynolds said he thought it was "inappropriate" for his chief of staff to negotiate with a news outlet over its coverage. And he said Fordham believed he was becoming a "distraction."
Foley, a six-term Florida Republican, resigned Friday after his e-mails to a teenage boy who had served as a congressional page became public -- and as ABC News was about to air more explicit records of instant messages the congressman exchanged with other pages.
ABC reported that Fordham offered the network an exclusive on Foley's resignation if it agreed not to air transcripts of the most explicit messages. Wednesday, citing unnamed GOP sources, it said Fordham had interceded with Republican leaders to keep concerns raised by the family of a Louisiana teen from the full three-member board that oversees the page program.
The network also reported that Fordham's associates consider him a scapegoat for Hastert, R-Illinois, who has been sharply criticized for his handling of the issue. But Bonjean, a spokesman for the speaker, said Hastert had no advance knowledge of Fordham's resignation, nor did he demand it.
Conservatives rally behind Hastert
The resignation comes as key conservative House members voiced support for Hastert but questioned how he handled the Foley matter.
The call for Hastert's resignation came Tuesday in an editorial on The Washington Times Web site. The editorial charged that "either [Hastert] was grossly negligent ... or he deliberately looked the other way." (Full story)
A spokesman for Hastert said the speaker would not step down.
And in a statement released Wednesday, Rep. Mike Pence, R-Indiana, and Joe Pitts, R-Pennsylvania, said "regardless of our reservations about how this matter was handled administratively, we believe Speaker Hastert is a man of integrity who has led our conference honorably and effectively throughout the past eight years. Speaker Dennis Hastert should not resign. "
Pence is chairman of the influential Republican Study Committee, and Pitts is chairman of the conservative Values Action Team.
A key Hastert ally, Republican Ray LaHood of Illinois, said the call for Hastert to step down was "absolute nonsense." (Watch the GOP defend Speaker Hastert -- 2:54)
"The speaker brought us through 9/11. He's helped the president with major legislative initiatives," LaHood said Wednesday.
"He's been a good, strong speaker and has been able to deal with ethical conduct of members of Congress," LaHood said. "This idea he should resign is absolute nonsense, and it's just a lot of political fodder for people who want to make hay 35 days before the election."
However, not all Republicans are in Hastert's corner. Rep. Ron Lewis, of Kentucky, "disinvited" the speaker Tuesday from joining him on a campaign stop, Lewis' spokesman Michael Dodge said.
"It was not done as a gesture to condemn the speaker," Dodge said. "There's an investigation that's begun with the FBI, the House ethics committee is going to convene as early as tomorrow and in light of there being some questions in leadership about who knew what and when [Lewis thought] it would be inappropriate."
Dodge also said that the Foley matter "came up at just about every stop" Wednesday on the campaign trail.
Shadegg shows support
Arizona Republican Rep. John Shadegg, however, rallied to Hastert's side Tuesday, circulating a letter that says the calls for Hastert to resign "are unwarranted and fundamentally unfair."
The letter, dated Tuesday, said at least two newspapers, including the Miami Herald, knew of an e-mail exchange between Foley and a page "for months" (Read letter) and didn't view the contacts as significant.
"And, after conducting their own inquiries, they decided not to publish the story or pursue the matter further," the letter continued.
"To demand (Hastert's) resignation based on the current facts and before the investigation that he has called for is completed, is unwarranted and wrong," the letter said.
But another member of the House leadership, Majority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri, said Tuesday said he would have handled the Foley situation differently, the AP reported.
"I think I could have given some good advice here, which is you have to be curious. You have to ask all the questions you can think of," Blunt said, according to the AP. "You absolutely can't decide not to look into activities because one individual's parents don't want you to."
CNN's Dana Bash, Deirdre Walsh and Andrea Koppel contributed to this report.
Copyright 2006 CNN. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Associated Press contributed to this report.
And the lies they were telling, they sell in the name of their savior.
And Who's Watching Over Who's Watching Over You?
Tell me, who's telling who's telling you what to do what to do?
Assuming Clinton was anywhere between tasteless and horribly wrong to do it, it still means NOTHING with respect to the facts in this case.Originally posted by: Craig234
Don't know how John missed it, but sadly, Mel Reynolds had his sentence commuted by Bill Clinton. This appears to be a pretty unjustified commutation, showing the democrats have our own errors.
Originally posted by: Craig234
Don't know how John missed it, but sadly, Mel Reynolds had his sentence commuted by Bill Clinton. This appears to be a pretty unjustified commutation, showing the democrats have our own errors.
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Gaard
Is it just me or has every post by a Republican about this matter gone something like this
"Yes. What he did was wrong, but..."
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Sure Foley is scum who should not be in congress, but...
:laugh:
Ummm there were phone calls between Reynolds and the 16 year old where he talked about having a threesome between her and a 15 year old.Originally posted by: Aegeon
By the way its easy to say Democrats knew about the Mel Reynolds thing, its another thing to prove it. Waiting until someone is convicted of wrongdoing is actually a pretty common way to deal with criminal issues, that way the House can be rather certain of his guilt before doing anything. Generally at a mimimum the House will always run an investigation that takes some time unless the representative in question resigns first in all cases or the representative is convicted in court of serious criminal charges first.
New story about ABC ignoring Reynolds story till he was convicted"At one point on the tapes, which were made with Heard's cooperation, she and Reynolds discussed what underwear he prefers. He also uses explicit language as he talks about having sex with her and with himself. On the stand, Reynolds denied ever having sex with Heard. He insisted their conversations were only phone sex fantasies. But the jury convicted him of all 12 felony counts, including sexual abuse and sexual assault. He was also found guilty of soliciting child pornography for asking Heard for a nude photo of a 15-year-old girl; and of obstruction of justice, for trying to get Heard to recant her accusations.
Harvey you are so right about that part, and so far there is NO evidence at all that shows that Hastert or anyone else in congress knew about Foley and the inappropraite IMs with the pages. If that evidence shows up, which I don't think it will, then I will join you in calling for Hastert to resign.Originally posted by: Harvey
Only to pea brained morons trying to dissemble and distract attention from the second issue -- Who knew what and when, and what did they do about it?Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Sure Foley is scum who should not be in congress, but who "outed" him and how and why they did it become more and more interesting everyday.
The only thing that matters is the truth. IF Hastert and/or other Republican leaders knew about Foley's inappropriate sexual contacts with underage pages weeks or months or years ago and did nothing to stop him, or worse, actively covered it up, it doesn't matter who brought the facts to light, just as it didn't matter that it was Republican activists who busted Clinton in his lies.
WRONG IS WRONG, and the ONLY thing that matters is whether such accustations of real wrongdoing are true and supported by the evidence.
I never thought or posted that there was any defense for Clinton's lies or other proven misdeeds so go ahead and point fingers at him if you get your jollies that way, but now that the shoe's on the other foot, trying to distract attention from the possiblity that Republicans are now the ones under suspicion of serious ethical lapses is consumate hypocrisy on your part.