Possibly Buried Lead

The WaPo delivers a story that puts Hastert's chief of staff on the hot seat in the Foley debacle:

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's chief of staff confronted then-Rep. Mark Foley about his inappropriate social contact with male pages well before the speaker said aides in his office took any action, a current congressional staff member with personal knowledge of Foley and his behavior with pages said yesterday.

The staff member said Hastert's chief of staff, Scott Palmer, met with the Florida Republican at the Capitol to discuss complaints about Foley's behavior toward pages. The alleged meeting occurred long before Hastert says aides in his office dispatched Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.) and the clerk of the House in November 2005 to confront Foley about troubling e-mails he had sent to a Louisiana boy.

The staff member's account buttresses the position of Foley's onetime chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, who said earlier this week that he had appealed to Palmer in 2003 or earlier to intervene, after Fordham's own efforts to stop Foley's behavior had failed. Fordham said Foley and Palmer, one of the most powerful figures in the House of Representatives, met within days to discuss the allegations.

Palmer said this week that the meeting Fordham described "did not happen." Timothy J. Heaphy, Fordham's attorney, said yesterday that Fordham is prepared to testify under oath that he had arranged the meeting and that both Foley and Palmer told him the meeting had taken place. Fordham spent more than three hours with the FBI on Thursday, and Heaphy said that on Friday he contacted the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to offer his client's cooperation.

However, let's have a little fun with the buried lead - this is from the end of the story:

The divergent accounts have highlighted the holes in the public's understanding of Foley's undoing. And they are sure to ratchet up the pressure on Trandahl to come forward with his knowledge of events. As House clerk between January 1999 and November 2005, Trandahl had direct control over the page program.

...

Trandahl's departure came within days of his confrontation with Foley over e-mails that the congressman had sent a former page. House aides say the circumstances of Trandahl's exit were oddly quiet. The departure of a staff member of long standing, especially one as important as the House clerk, is usually marked with considerable fanfare, said Scott Lilly, a former Democratic staff director of the House Appropriations Committee. Debate is suspended in mid-afternoon to accommodate a stream of testimonials from lawmakers.

Trandahl's departure was marked by a one-minute salute from Shimkus and a brief insert into the Congressional Record.

"My one-hour Special Order changed to a five-minute Special Order, now to a one-minute," Shimkus said. "I just want to say thank you for the work you have done."

Lilly said: "He seemed to suddenly disappear in a puff of smoke."

Trandahl, now the executive director of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, has not returned repeated phone calls and e-mails.

Congressional aides point to another factor that links Trandahl to the Foley matter. A member of the board of the national gay rights group Human Rights Campaign, Trandahl is openly homosexual and personally close to the now-disgraced former lawmaker, who announced through his lawyer this week that he is gay.

So let's see - the head of the clerk's program was gay and personally close to Foley, and he has not told his story.  What did he know and when did he know it, indeed?  And whom did he alert, and how emphatically?

[Based on this paragraph, he certainly knew there was a problem, but it appears that he only went to Foley's chief of staff with it:

Sources close to Fordham say Trandahl repeatedly urged the longtime aide and close family friend to confront Foley about his inappropriate advances on pages. Each time, Foley pledged to no longer socialize with the teenagers, but, weeks later, Trandahl would again alert Fordham about more contacts. Out of frustration, the sources said, Fordham contacted Palmer, hoping that an intervention from such a powerful figure in the House would persuade Foley to stop.

If Trandahl did not warn Shimkus, head of the page board, until 2005 he earned his dismissal.

For bonus hilarity, check out Josh Marshall, who excerpts the WaPo's discussion of Trandahl and reiterates his belief that Trandahl's story is important but somehow neglects to include in his excerpt the tidbit about Trandahl's sexuality and relationship to Foley.

I guess the reality-based community likes to digest their reality in small bites.

MORE: Jeff Trandahl is a lifelong Republican, by the way, but he might well be an Andrew Sullivan "conservative".  How many Republicans are on the Human Rights Campaign?

Let's also clip this from the Times:

Meanwhile, some Republican staff members worried that several gay men caught up in the scandal would be treated unfairly.

They include Kirk Fordham, Mr. Foley’s onetime chief of staff who resigned Wednesday as an aide to Representative Thomas M. Reynolds, Republican of New York, and Jeff Trandahl, formerly the clerk of the House of Representatives, a powerful post with oversight of hundreds of staffers and the page program. The two men were among the first to learn of Mr. Foley’s inappropriate communications. Along with the Republican leadership, they have been criticized for failing to act more aggressively to stop the congressman’s behavior, and possibly covering up for Mr. Foley.

The criticism appears to be well deserved, if the WaPo story is accurate and complete.

Comments

[paul]

The 'thin pink line'.

[Semanticleo]

"Now, according to the Post, another congressional staffer has come forward to say that Fordham is telling the truth and Palmer is lying."

"I'm up to my keister with these leaks". RWR

Damn those infernal whistleblowers. They just insist on bringing matters to the light of day. They're just starting on Hastert. Land deals, earmarks and such. His gargantuan appetite for chicken wings and
graft make Howard Taft look like Paris Hilton. It's time for the Greedheads to go,

[Semanticleo]

Scratch Paris Hilton, insert Mohandas Ghandi.

[topsecretk9]

--So let's see - the head of the clerk's program was gay and personally close to Foley, and he has not told his story. What did he know and when did he know it, indeed? And whom did he alert, and how emphatically?--

No kidding.

And little bitty baby bites

[paul]

compare these ethics...

progressives challenge the gop memebers of the investisgative committee for a 2500 dollar donation from hastert to their campaign.

Foley never gave Trandahl or Fordham money, just jobs and a place where 'homosexuals could let their hair down'.

Which is worth more a career or 2000 dollars?

[Vote Democrat!]

If only we Democrats could somehow amend the Constitution to give all these "anonymous sources", "unnamed officials", and "former government employees" the right to vote.

Judging by their prevalence in these Democrat hit pieces, there's millions of them and they'd be a solid blue voting bloc. We'd be swept into power in a landslide and never have to leave!

[anonymous]

blogACTIVE:
Direct Action Tools From D.C.

Saturday, October 07, 2006

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of information...

Hey, Dennis, on Monday I'll be telling everyone about the high level closeted staffer in your office. ...

Beginning Monday, and every weekday thereafter, I will be identifying the name of a closeted senior staffer in Congress with the hopes that those investigating this matter will make sure to include them in their questioning.

[paul]

one more lefty hypocrisy:

They use the label 'neocon' as a derisive term to cover and describe individuals who support the Iraq war.

Labeling a group of people based on their foreign policy beliefs, they can then move foward a make the argument that these individual neocons act in a conspiratorial and criminal effort.

the hypocrisy occurs, when they fail to ascribe the same potential for conspiratorial motives for a group (homosexuals) who are formed and identifed amongst themselves as homosexuals.

neocons don't get together and discuss what it is like to be a neocon in Washington, but homosexuals must deal with it as part of their day.

How does the left label a group that is far less cohesive and ascribe group motives, but ignore a group that identifies themselves as part of a group and find them incapable of a larger conspiracy?

lakhoff...you'd better explain this one.

[topsecretk9]

Re- Paste...but John Atavoros (sp) ( the one who looks like he was hit between the eyes with a baseball? Like David Corn? Yes, that one)

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/10/cnn-does-republicans-bidding-because.html

...I'm actually supposed to be on CNN tomorrow afternoon talking about the Foley scandal. As a last minute question the producer of the segment wants me to be asked why I had the emails in July and didn't turn them over to the FBI - because, of course, that is the GOP talking point of the day (as noted before, shortly after I got the emails CREW told me they had sent them to the FBI and I figured that was the best way to handle them - silly me, since the FBI is now part of the cover-up).

Anyone want to explain why all these leftsit bloggers knew to contact CREW to make sure they were at the proper authorities?

How did they know CREW had them?

[topsecretk9]

Re- Paste...but John Atavoros (sp) ( the one who looks like he was hit between the eyes with a baseball? Like David Corn? Yes, that one)

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/10/cnn-does-republicans-bidding-because.html

...I'm actually supposed to be on CNN tomorrow afternoon talking about the Foley scandal. As a last minute question the producer of the segment wants me to be asked why I had the emails in July and didn't turn them over to the FBI - because, of course, that is the GOP talking point of the day (as noted before, shortly after I got the emails CREW told me they had sent them to the FBI and I figured that was the best way to handle them - silly me, since the FBI is now part of the cover-up).

Anyone want to explain why all these leftsit bloggers knew to contact CREW to make sure they were at the proper authorities?

How did they know CREW had them? ABC says they didn't.

[stevesh]

Doesn't Rogers remind you of a hostage taker who says: "Submit to my demands or I will execute one person a day."

This is like "Dog Day Afternoon."

Weirdest time for American politics. Ever.

Tolerance, Fairness, Decency be damned.

[anonymous]

The FBI is just making things up

Submitted by CREW on 6 October 2006 - 4:01pm.

In today's Washington Post article on the FBI's failure to investigate the Foley e-mails, the bureau came up with a new lie in their effort to discredit CREW. Another of their anonymous sources said that the "FBI believed that CREW may have received the e-mails as early as April."

That's another whopper from the FBI. It's unclear why the nation's leading law enforcement organization persists in lying about the Foley e-mails. But, those secretive "law enforcement officials" who are talking to the press do just keep making things up.

Be nice if they put as much time in to investigating this case as they have in to how to cover-up their failure to act appropriately.

[TexasToast]

Rogers is a creep. We do need the hostage negotiators.

[Semanticleo]

The republican house of cards is about to drop one of it's Humpty Dumptys. Can you dig it?

[topsecretk9]

Doesn't Rogers remind you of a hostage taker who says: "Submit to my demands or I will execute one person a day."

He reminds me of a self-loathing nazi.

[anonymous]

One More Hypocrisy:

They use 'liberal' as a derisive term to cover and describe individuals who do not support the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Labeling a group of people based on their foreign policy beliefs, they can then make the argument that these individual 'liberals' act in a conspiratorial and criminal effort.

[clarice]

anonymous--Did you make up that Blogactiv post? I cannot access it site. It seems to be down.

TS_-good catch.

[topsecretk9]

Clarice..stevesh caught that.

[stevesh]

They're eating their young and have set up the circular firing squad at the BlogActive comments section.

How long before Rogers disables comments?

This just says to me that EVERYONE knew, at least something rumored unseemly, in Washington - BOTH sides of the aisle. A "Gentleman's Agreement," if you will. A lot like seeing Val Pull into Langley everyday.

Dem/Media "tolerance" for gays (blacks, women), a TOTAL fantasy.

[Semanticleo]

Bush thinks he still has the Midas Touch when in reality, all he touches turns to sh--. Hastert doesn't need any help
as an early Thanksgiving turkey, plump, stuffing oozing out of every orifice, and
done. Done. Done.

[anon]

..a current congressional staff member with personal knowledge of Foley and his behavior with pages said yesterday.

Why is everyone involved in this story off the record? Is it too much to ask that people come forward and put their names behind their words? It's not like they are testifying against the Mob.

By definition, a "whistleblower" is somebody whose identity is known.

[anonymous]

anonymous--Did you make up that Blogactiv post? I cannot access it site.

Posted by: clarice | October 07, 2006 at 09:58 AM

No.

(Maybe you can find a teenager to help you; they're good with computers ... and stuff.)

[topsecretk9]

--Dem/Media "tolerance" for gays (blacks, women), a TOTAL fantasy.--

Steve, no kidding. Oreo's anyone?

But how long till a closeted MARRIED democrat gets outed now?

[Semanticleo]

"a "whistleblower" is somebody whose identity is known."

Yeah, but those 'leakers'............

[anonymous]

anonymous--Did you make up that Blogactiv post? I cannot access it site.

Posted by: clarice | October 07, 2006 at 09:58 AM

No.

(Maybe you can find a teenager to help you; they're good with computers ... and stuff.)

[jukeboxgrad]

Dave's not here, man.

But I'll be here harping and sniping all day under "anonymous," because I'm obsessed with certain people who spurned my advances.

[anon]

Is there some reason why the "current congressional staff member with personal knowledge of Foley and his behavior with pages" has been sitting on his information for the past several years, and decided to speak about it now, but only to the WaPo?

It would be nice if we could ask him these questions, but the Post is keeping his name a secret. Why is the Post engaging in a cover up?

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Does: 'Trandahl is openly homosexual and personally close to the now-disgraced former lawmaker...' = boyfriend?

If so, Hastert's Chief of Staff (IF contacted by Trandahl prior to any e-mails for evidence) would have probably thought something along the lines of, 'Sounds like a personal matter'. And not have wanted to get involved in what would look like a jealous lover using the Speaker's office on his own behalf.

Would he tell Hastert? Maybe, but maybe not.

[paul]

The weakness in your argument, anon, is that 'liberal' has been used for quite some time, and several progressives identify with it.

'Neocon' did not exist in the general lexicon until the pending invasion of Iraq. Creating a group label for the specifics of steroetyping unfairly(substituting a label to represent a much larger and more diverse belief system) is one of the sicknesses of our culture.

homsexuals identify themselves as homosexuals.

liberals identify themselves as liberals.

neocons do not identify themselves as neocons, because they do not identify with the word.

Which community sees themeselves as a 'community', neocons, liberals, or homosexuals?

Which of the three involve a belief system akin to religion, where the indivudal is working in concert with others to help further their cause?

I am sorry that you find the term 'liberal' insulting. I simply inferred it to mean that liberal was polite way referring to socialism, where higher incomes must have their money shifte to the poorer thru govt intervention. A reasonable philosophy, but one I disagree with.

[anonymous]

Oh, and please don't comment on how much of a dumbass I look like by double-posting my comment about clarice needing a teenager to show her how a computer works.

[Maxwell]

Has it now become necessary to identify the sexuality of everyone mentioned in a story? That sounds like the agenda of whoever wants to release the "list" discussed for the past 2 days.

[topsecretk9]

Honestly Anonyymous...that's not the thing that made you look like a dumbass.

[PeterUK]

"Mr. Speaker, I have a point of information...

Hey, Dennis, on Monday I'll be telling everyone about the high level closeted staffer in your office. ...

Beginning Monday, and every weekday thereafter, I will be identifying the name of a closeted senior staffer in Congress with the hopes that those investigating this matter will make sure to include them in their questioning."

Seems a good opportunity to act gay and sue straight,looks like a nice little earner ducky.

[anon]

The only "cover up" in this whole affair is the one being perpetuated by the media.

Congress seems to be infested with people willing to make anonymous accusations to the press, but none of them are willing to speak to the House Ethics Committee under oath. You can read through these media stories in vain searching the part where the "reporters" ask their sources why they refuse to make their accusations to the proper authorities.

[PeterUK]

"Scratch Paris Hilton, insert Mohandas Ghandi."

Are you being lewd again Septic?

[topsecretk9]

McCarthycrat Rogers says

So.... Beginning Monday, and every weekday thereafter, I will be identifying the name of a closeted senior staffer in Congress with the hopes that those investigating this matter will make sure to include them in their questioning. And I hope the press looks for them as well. It's time to rid the government of those that would harm us.

Gays harm us. Good Rogers.

[Maxwell]

At least 1 of the 3 last ex-pages ABC reported on has been interviewed by the FBI.

[cboldt]

I'm drawn to comparing hypothetical investigations of this case with the Libby/Plame-leak investigation. If there is in fact no crime, for whatever reason, does that mean there can't be any penalty for false statement or perjury? Are the perverts free to give false statements to investigators, taking a chance that there was no underlying criminal activity? Should the people involved in leaking and promoting the story be able to lie about the path the IMs took, with no penalty unless there is an underlying crime?

Should the investigators first establish that there was in fact a criminal violation - by checking the laws, knowing the ages of the participants and so forth - before interviewing anybody?

[clarice]

Well, cboldt that's what the FBI originally did. Saw no law was broken and dropped it.

Perhaps in the Karr case, the Colorado prosecutor might have saved herself embarrassment and the state money had she done that.

And it wouldn't have hurt Nifong either to follow that usual procedure.

[Maxwell]

What would be the incentive to lie to investigators? Grandstanding on TV or giving anonymous interview carries few risks (other than libel lawsuits). But providing false statements to federal investigators? They would have to be nuts.

[clarice]

anonymous. To be perfectly accurate, I found the site but couldn't access it--perhaps because it was overwhelmed with traffic.

[jukeboxgrudge]

I was molested by a jukebox whilst cruising the bars dressed as a cheerleader,it made me into the creature I am today.

[clarice]

He sent me salacious messages for years and I didn't know how to stop them....I am 64 and this started when I was 30. I was petrified to hit the block button and to come forward until now when I figured it would get some attention.

It started innocently enough--I thought it was an ad for sexual aids...

[topsecretk9]

Rogers is deleting comments like crazy. Really fits with his whole nazi theme.

[clarice]

I think he must be in the FBI cross hairs..

[cboldt]

The FBI is investigating now - what they dropped was the investigation surrounding the e-mails to the page from Louisiana.

The incentive to lie to investigators is to avoid "political embarassment," you know, like being caught holding on to damaging IMs until a politically opportune moment, or something like that.

I draw the hypothetical because I have read a number of people say, with a straight face, that unless there is an underlying crime, there can't be a penalty for false statements.

Whatever the rule is, it shoudl apply the same here as it did/does for Libby/Plame.

[clarice]

Of course, there can be a penalty for false statements even when there is no crime--the question is absent a motive to lie and under all the circumstances no sentient prosecutor would have indicted Libby.

[paul]

"At least 1 of the 3 last ex-pages ABC reported on has been interviewed by the FBI."

speculating that it was loraditch, president of the class of 2002. Rumor, and I do mean rumor , has it that while not a victim he was saying he saw the ims.(He was the red headed step child on Larry king)

If he intially did report seeing the ims, he likely backed off the claim, fearing that his 'knowledge, but lack of action' might serve as a character indictment for future political considerations.

[topsecretk9]

cboldt

I suspect when the door is closed they tell the FBI the truth and then when the FBI is unable to do anything because there is no crime - CREW and it's minions slander the FBI and accuse them of a cover-up...it's pretty much the established gambit...think Wilson and the SSCI

[cboldt]

I don't aim to make this thread about the Libby case. That case is winding its way through the process. I was just ponering several parallels in principle - such as belaying interviews until the statutory bases for violation are otherwise satisfied.

FWIW, I hold that excusing false statements is a bad thing. I've been gently chided here for holding that point of view in the context of the Libby case.