If any leader from either party tried to cover up this information at the expense of the safety of our children, then they should resign their position immediately.
It would be reprehensible if any Republican leader intentionally covered up the full facts of the case, and it would be equally reprehensible if Democrat leaders sat on this information for a year in order to release it 30 days before an election.
I want an investigation to go forward to find out answers to these questions.
Without citing ANY evidence, Johnson wants to inject in the voters minds her conspiracy theory that Democratic leaders used the release of the Foley messages as a politcal ploy.
Although there is mounting evidence that House Speaker Dennis Hassert and other Republican leaders did indeed attempt to put Foley's situation under the rug, Johnson somehow feels the need to paint House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) as people who timed the release of this information just in time for the November elections.
Johnson's statement echoes those of other Republicans who've been making the rounds on the various talk shows. The most outspoken has been Freshman Rep. Patrick McHenry and when the Congressman was grilled by Wolf Blitzer about his accusatons and asked to provide evidence to support his claim (A TOTAL OF FIVE TIMES), McHenry was rendered speechless. Watch the video clip here. Transcript is below.
MCHENRY: The question remains, though: What person, group or political entity had these nasty instant messages and possessed the e-mails in order to solicit this story? And in a partisan environment like we’re in right now in Washington, four weeks out from a national election, that question must be asked.
BLITZER: So what you’re suggesting - and correct me if I'm wrong, because you've been doing this for the last few days - that Democrats are behind the timing of the release of this information? Is that your accusation?
MCHENRY: Well, look, all the fact points lead to one question: Did Rahm Emanuel or Nancy Pelosi have any involvement on the strategic or tactical level? This morning on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," the question was asked of Rahm Emanuel. His reaction was he did not see the instant messages or e-mails. He repeatedly said, he did not see. I've asked him to testify under oath to assure the American people that he was not involved in this issue in any way, shape or form.
BLITZER: Do you have any evidence at all that Democrats or others might have been behind the timing of this scandal?
MCHENRY: Look, let's be honest…
BLITZER: Do you have any evidence to back that charge up?
MCHENRY: No, no, actually, if the Democrats had any issue with saying this, putting all the facts out on the table, they would say, certainly, I'll testify under oath that I had no involvement in it. They’ve said no.
BLITZER: Well, you don't have any evidence, though, right?
MCHENRY: Well, look at the fact points.
BLITZER: Yes or no, do you have any evidence, Congressman?
MCHENRY: Do you have any evidence that they weren’t involved?
BLITZER: I'm just asking if you're just throwing out an accusation or if you have any hard evidence.
MCHENRY: No. It's a question, Wolf. The question remains, were they involved? And if they were not involved, they need to say clearly. And it's a question. It's not an accusation.
Caught red-handed.
Like Congressman McHenry, Johnson should be treated to the same round of questions by members of the media and the public at large. Republicans like McHenry and Johnson should not be allowed to freely give the impression that Democrats are somehow behind the timing of Foley's messages without citing any evidence to back up their baseless claim.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
