House Ethics Panel Clears Leadership in Foley Scandal
 |
James Joyner | Friday, December 8, 2006 |
The House Ethics Committee has found that no rules were violated in the Foley scandal.
The House ethics committee has found that Republican leaders did not break any rules in handling allegations against former Rep. Mark Foley, but that they were negligent in protecting the teenage pages, a congressional source said. No one will be reprimanded, the source said.
The ethics committee plans to hold a news conference Friday on its investigation into Foley, whose alleged e-mail exchanges with former congressional pages prompted his resignation earlier this year, a congressman and a GOP aide said.
Perhaps the rules could use some tweaking.
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia with his wife and infant daughter.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- None Found
- Paradox of Choice Paradoxically Untrue
- Private Forecasters Support Claim That Stimulus Worked
- Entertaining Kids During the Holidays
- How Much Will Escalation Cost?
- No Party of No
- Thought of the Day
- Queer International Studies
- OTB Latenight – r.e.m.
- Krugman on the Debt and Deficits
- A Question About Bonuses and Bailouts
- http://www.elephantsordonkeys.com
- Moderate Voters.org - An Alternative to the Far Right and Far Left.
We on the left suggested that years ago...why are you so late in jumping on the bandwagon?
You'll have to be a little more specific than that, Matt. I've never been opposed to rules protecting pages from aggressive Members; it just never previously occurred to me that they would be necessary.
Would you have the Congress write a rule that reads, "Don't act like a damned fool"? That would certainly be honored in the breech, if at all.
In legal terms, "negligence" is defined as the "failure to use ordinary care," and "ordinary care" is in turn defined as "that degree of care that would be exercised by a person of ordinary prudence under the same or similar circumstances."
One who's been adjudged to have been negligent, therefore, has been proven to have behaved with culpable carelessness.
Doesn't that sound like an appropriate assessment here?
If so, I'd suggest that no revision of the rules is needed.
Comments are Closed
