ADVERTISEMENT

Can't make it up: Freeh was Hastert's choice to investigate Foley mess

Aoshiro

Well-Known Member
Mar 8, 2012
4,018
5,686
1
Remember the House page scandal? Rep Foley sexting pages and having inappropriate relationships with teens? Dennis Hastert (now under indictment for paying off someone for his inappropriate conduct) was was Speaker of the House at the time. And who did he want to "investigate?" None other than Louis Freeh.

I'm not a conspiracy nut, but if I were a conspiracy nut I'd be asking why Hastert -- a guy with skeletons in his closet -- was specifically asking for Freeh.
 
Remember the House page scandal? Rep Foley sexting pages and having inappropriate relationships with teens? Dennis Hastert (now under indictment for paying off someone for his inappropriate conduct) was was Speaker of the House at the time. And who did he want to "investigate?" None other than Louis Freeh.

I'm not a conspiracy nut, but if I were a conspiracy nut I'd be asking why Hastert -- a guy with skeletons in his closet -- was specifically asking for Freeh.
Because Freeh's shortcomings were not known at the time. From the ridiculous JFK assassination theories on down conspiracy theories almost always lack evidence or pass the test of reason.
 
http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/05/01/freeh.resigns.timeline/

Freeh's shortcomings not known in 2006?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

That's funny.

But at least you're now admitting that he has shortcomings. That's progress.
No. I have never thought that there was a cover up of the events of 2001. Freeh's star has dropped much more so in the last 4 years than any previous misgivings dictated. Your floating something out that you can't prove. One thing about me is that in my book you need proof before you float innuendo. From Freeh on down innuendo is rampant on this issue.
 
No. I have never thought that there was a cover up of the events of 2001. Freeh's star has dropped much more so in the last 4 years than any previous misgivings dictated. Your floating something out that you can't prove. One thing about me is that in my book you need proof before you float innuendo. From Freeh on down innuendo is rampant on this issue.

What's good for the goose...

If Freeh can draw "reasonable conclusions" about people then so can I.

And I have "reasonably concluded" that a guy who had skeletons in his closet that he didn't want discovered must have had some reason for specifically wanting Freeh to look into the House page program.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjsocrates
Because he'll say what you pay him to say?
Could this guy just be an over zealous prosecuter that will bend the truth to gain indictments or shape a report? I do know I would love to have a conversation with him and ask him why he came to the conclusions he did on the Sandusky scandal.n
What's good for the goose...

If Freeh can draw "reasonable conclusions" about people then so can I.

And I have "reasonably concluded" that a guy who had skeletons in his closet that he didn't want discovered must have had some reason for specifically wanting Freeh to look into the House page program.
You can conclude whatever you want. That still does not make it fact. I am sure you will agree.
 
It is ABSOLUTELY UNREAL that NOBODY in mainstream media will call out Freeh for what he is. A completely for hire tool who will take your money and write a fake report that says whatever you want it to say. How many freaking times does he have to be 100% discredited before someone picks up on this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206
ADVERTISEMENT