‘New disclosures could quickly imperil Mr. Hastert’

Over the last week, one of the problems for House Republicans was that the Mark [tag]Foley[/tag] scandal was unfolding slowly. New details emerged, bit by bit, with every new revelation exacerbating an already scandalous situation. It’s why crisis management dictates getting all the bad news out at once; it’s preferable to slowly bleeding to death.

Yesterday was the first day in eight in which no new damaging details emerged, and it led more than a few Republicans to believe they had filed turned the corner. One senior Republican official told the New York Times, “I’m hoping this is gone.” The same official, the NYT reported, “cautioned that new disclosures could quickly imperil Mr. Hastert.”

Speaking of new disclosures….

House Speaker J. Dennis [tag]Hastert[/tag]’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.

Hastert’s line — that he first learned of Foley’s “problem” in 2005 — is getting shakier all the time.

Of course, in the short term, Palmer, one of the most powerful aides on the Hill, is in a very tough spot right now. He denied having been told about Foley’s interest in minors in 2003, and now we have two sources saying he knew. Palmer also denied confronting Foley directly, and the two sources have said Palmer is wrong about that, too.

Updates about the House clerk, who helped confront Foley in 2005, don’t help either.

[Former House Clerk Jeff 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. […]

“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.”

“New disclosures could quickly imperil Mr. Hastert”? As Josh Marshall put it, “I guess that’s what next week is for.”

That’s not the half of it. My take is here:

http://thepremise.com/archives/10/07/2006/310

The part everyone’s going to be talking about is from Lawrence O’Donnell:

“If Fordham did warn Palmer about Foley a long time ago, what are the odds that Palmer did not tell Hastert? As close to zero as you can get. Many chiefs of staff are close, very close, to their bosses on Capitol Hill. But none are closer than Scott Palmer is to Denny Hastert. They don’t just work together all day, they live together.

“There are plenty of odd couple Congressmen who have roomed together on Capitol Hill, but I have never heard of a chief of staff who rooms with his boss. It is beyond unusual. But it must have its advantages. Anything they forget to tell each other at the office, they have until bedtime to catch up on. And then there’s breakfast for anything they forgot to tell each other before falling asleep. And then there’s all day at the office. Hastert and Palmer are together more than any other co-workers in the Congress.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odonnell/who-is-scott-palmer_b_31171.html

Bedtime… Breakfast…

Is it hot in here? It feels really hot in here.

  • Thanks CB Fridays just aren’t big enough to hide the Repub scandals. I don’t know how much this will effect the elections, but it’s nice for Karl Rove to get an October surprise for once. It’s probably mostly a matter of who stays home on election day.

    I’m sure the Repubs have something up their sleeve. I’m just waiting for the other jack-boot to fall.

  • “I’m hoping this is gone.”

    It’s really is nice of the Repugnantcan’s to give the Democracts such great pull quotes for their ads, don’tya think?

    “Republicans don’t care about kids, they just care about their jobs.”

    “The Republican approach to corruption? Hope it will go away.”

    “The Republicans helped Mark Foley prey on kids for years. Now they want you to forget it ever happened.”

    As for Hastert, I give him two weeks. Maximum. If his peers don’t get him a coronary will.

  • Question on this: if indeed Palmer did talk to Foley more than once, wouldn’t that bolster the GOP’s side of this that “we were actively trying to do something”? I know it still looks like Hastert knew and did nothing about it, but now it would seem his staff has some kind of plausible explanation. “Well, we DID talk to him.”

    Anybody got an opinion on that one? I’m curious here.

  • Dave G.:

    I see your point, but look at it this way — Republicans can and do say whatever they think is to their advantage. They don’t even care if it’s true.

    On the facts, you’re right. But then Dems would simply say what they’re already saying: Republicans were only trying to keep things quiet.

    Unless Republicans can actually document that they brought in a counselor, or did something concrete, I don’t see any way that multiple discussions about the issue with Foley does anything but reaffirm the fact that the Republicans didn’t stop the man even after they knew.

    And that’s a damning charge.

  • “Hastert and Palmer are together more than any other co-workers in the Congress.”

    Is this the newest “non-outed” Republican “odd couple”????

    Eeeeewwww…. the thought of seeing Jabba the Hastert naked…….

    The mind reels.

  • “Unless Republicans can actually document that they brought in a counselor, or did something concrete, I don’t see any way that multiple discussions about the issue with Foley does anything but reaffirm the fact that the Republicans didn’t stop the man even after they knew.”

    These guys don’t get that this defense didn’t work for the Catholic Church, which even after all the scandal is still held in higher regard than the Republican Party????

    Further proof if proof was necessary that “Republican” is a synonym for “moron,” “idiot,” “drooler,” “fool,” and just plain “stupid.”

  • “Well, we DID talk to him.”

    True, but when it comes to kid/adult/sex matters, people want blood for the first offense. This went on for years and it was obvious the repeated talks or confrontations didn’t work.

    Plus it would allow the Dems to say the GOP’s approach to people who stalk kids is to talk to them (soft on child abuse), float a few rhetorical questions about how bad things have to get before the GOP does more than talk to the creeps in their ranks, ask voters how they would feel if Foley were a teacher at their child’s school and the principal only talked to him about inappropriate behaviour towards students &c, &c.

    Not pretty, for the GOP at any rate.

    In addition, their first response was I didn’t know nuthin’, then it was I told him and walked away. These guys are so hosed and the best part is, they did it to themselves.

  • Also, the more they contend they talked to Foley (or each other) about this, the bigger the question of why wasn’t the entire Page Board consulted instead of only the chairman? It would mean that all these discussions took place without involving the only Democratic member of the board or even the sole mother on the Board, a fellow Republican. It just makes it more and more of a cover-up.

  • No amount of disclosure, no depth of the depravity revealed, will ever, under any circumstances, occasion sensible or repentant activity on the part of today’s GOP. Even the good one (they must be there somewhere) are asswipes for corporations. And the Dems are only slightly better. I think the only thing not ruined by focus group testing is “South Park”. Of course, it would never occur to the sheeple to follow that show’s example of success.

  • Isn’t it odd how eight days ago, everyone was denying any knowledge of Foley’s frolicing amongst the pages. Today, they claim they knew about it, and did something about it. Now—if only the media would get themselves a sturdy spine, some iron-clad guts—and play those “Day One” videobytes alongside the Day Eight videobytes…..

  • I think the only thing not ruined by focus group testing is “South Park”. Of course, it would never occur to the sheeple to follow that show’s example of success.

    [Ed Stephan]

    Kyle: Oh my God! They killed Denny!

    Big Gay Al: Super!

  • What Steve said.

    Hey Press Corpse… can you please ask the Republicrooks which statement is a lie, or if both are lies?

    BTW, what a terrible week to take a vacation. You guys have fun.

  • Comments are closed.