House Ethics Panel Clears Leadership in Foley Scandal

The House Ethics Committee has found that no rules were violated in the Foley scandal.

Mark Foley Photo 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.

FILED UNDER: Congress, ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. madmatt says:

    We on the left suggested that years ago…why are you so late in jumping on the bandwagon?

  2. James Joyner says:

    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.

  3. Beldar says:

    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.