In Which I Try To Raise A Point About Foley Before Everyone Else Does

by hilzoy

This is becoming very annoying. First, I read some coverage of the Foley story and wonder why no one seems to have said, clearly and succinctly: the problem here is that the leadership left teenagers in their charge at risk for political reasons. Then I click over to firedoglake and discover that Reddhedd has said exactly what I wanted to say. (Damn her eyes!)

Today I read this by Howard Kurtz:

"On Friday afternoon, a strategist for Rep. Mark Foley tried to cut a deal with ABC's Brian Ross.

The correspondent, who had dozens of instant messages that Foley sent to teenage House pages, had asked to interview the Florida Republican. Foley's former chief of staff said the congressman was quitting and that Ross could have that information exclusively if he agreed not to publish the raw, sexually explicit messages.

"I said we're not making any deals," Ross recalls."

I immediately wondered whether this strategist was the same former Foley staffer who was now working for Rep. Tom Reynolds, but had come back to advise Foley. A bit of Googling established that it was indeed that staffer, one Kirk Fordham. Hmm, I thought: what to make of this? I hadn't worked out the answer to that one when life intervened, so I didn't put it in my last post, and now everyone else has written about it first. (Damn their eyes too!)

So, eager as ever not to be scooped -- not even by Gary! -- I now present one tiny question I haven't seen anywhere else -- probably because it's too insignificant for people to bother with, and because I just haven't looked hard enough to find the multitudes who have written about it. But anyways, here is the tiny toothpick with which I stake my claim to have asked a question I haven't seen anyone ask about this, namely:

In the story above, Kurtz claims that "on Friday afternoon", Fordham tried to cut this deal. The ABC story that he was trying to prevent was filed at 3:02pm. The first story, about the "over-friendly" emails (as opposed to the graphic IMs), was filed at 3:06pm the previous day.

This is the first confirmation, to my knowledge, that Fordham was there before the IM story broke. (In the post I linked to above, Glenn Greenwald claims that that fact is in this story, but in fact it's quite ambiguous about when Fordham showed up, reporting on Saturday that Fordham had "returned to Foley's side to advise him during the past couple of days." TPM's timeline puts Fordham's appearance on Saturday the 30th, citing the same story.)

Before the IM story broke, of course, only the emails had been made public. Reynolds, of course, had known about these emails for months; here's how he characterized them in an interview with the Buffalo News, published Sunday the 1st:

"Asked how Alexander characterized the messages, Reynolds said: "I'm not going to get into all that . . . I'm not into a grand jury witness thing here, or whatever."

Later in the interview, however, Reynolds said: "I was told that a member of the House was communicating with a page and that the page had some discomfort with it." (...)

Despite his conversation with Alexander, Reynolds said: "I had no idea what was contained in any e-mails." Asked if Alexander told him anything that would give him reason to contact authorities, Reynolds said: "Not that I could tell."

Reynolds said Alexander told him that he had spoken with the page's parents. They didn't want the matter pursued, he said, "so I thought it had to be pretty well satisfied."

"I didn't give this a whole lot of thought when the member who sponsored the page told me he was in contact with the parents of the 16-year-old."

Nevertheless, he contacted Hastert to alert him. "Despite the fact that I had not seen the e-mails in question, and Mr. Alexander told me that the parents didn't want the matter pursued, I told the speaker of the conversation Mr. Alexander had with me," he said. (...)

Reynolds said he didn't think to bring the issue to the House Ethics Committee after Alexander approached him. But the House voted unanimously on Friday to refer the matter to the ethics panel."

Nothing set off any alarm bells, according to Reynolds. No reason to inform the House Ethics committee; no reason to "give this a whole lot of thought" once he heard that Rep. Alexander had spoken with the boy's parents. Nothing there; move right along.

I find it odd that Reynolds would loan out his chief of staff to Foley, at a time when he's in the middle of a very tough race and working as head of the NRCC in the middle of a very tough election season (and yes, I know that federal workers are not supposed to work on campaigns, but I would find it flatly incredible that a chief of staff would not be involved in both, or that his presence just wouldn't be missed. And, as John Aravosis notes, it would be nice to know whether he's advising Foley at the taxpayers' expense.) I find it especially intriguing that Reynolds would lend out his chief of staff before, not after, the IM story broke. At that time, all that had been made public were the emails -- the ones that, according to Reynolds, had failed to raise any red flags before.

It could be that Reynolds is just very generous with his staff's time. Someone asks him to loan out his chief of staff, and he's always ready to oblige. It could be that Foley called Reynolds or Fordham after the first story, confessed all, and asked for Fordham's help. Or it could be that Fordham was dispatched to ensure that Foley resigned and/or to contain the damage. (Since Foley has now confessed to being an alcoholic, he might have been in the middle of a major meltdown.) In this latter case, I can't really see Reynolds taking this step without consulting with the House leadership.

In any case, it would be nice to know why, exactly, Fordham showed up when there was nothing known to the public that would explain his presence. If the answer is something along the lines of my third hypothesis, it would also be nice to know how Reynolds knew that there was enough to this story that he needed to dispatch his chief of staff, at what had to have been the worst possible time, to deal with it.

Comments

[Anarch]

all I have is chive-talk

Why yes, I speak chive...

[Anarch]

As if Indian-Americans hadn't suffered enough at the hands of Republicans this season!

Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, macaca?

[Steward Beta]

I mean, whose at fault, you for farting, the others for giving you a dirty look or the church for not being a place conducive to farting?

The waitress who served the Huevos Rancheros with a side of Refried Beans.

[JakeB]

Anarch--
I must insist you stop monkeying around.

[Ugh]

According to the banner at ABCNews.com, Foley's attorney will hold a presser in about 5 min to drop a "bombshell."

Any guesses?

Me: His attorney will state that Foley has been the victim of an extortion campaign and never sent any of those IMs or emails and only resigned because he had an alcohol problem and didn't want the accusations to be an issue in the upcoming elections.

[cleek]

Any guesses?

all the "pages" were actually FBI agents, conducting a sting operation.

[Ugh]

all the "pages" were actually FBI agents, conducting a sting operation.

That's better, or how about a combination: he was part of an FBI sting operation to smoke out purported extortionists.

[JakeB]

That Foley's actually a Democrat.

[Slartibartfast]

when he returned from a place well known for its underage sex trade

Arkansas?

[KCinDC]

Things still seem to be standing here in DC, so it must not have been much of a bombshell. Oh, here it is (abcnews.com banner): "FORMER CONGRESSMAN MARK FOLEY WAS MOLESTED BY A CLERGYMAN AS A TEENAGER AND IS GAY, ACCORDING TO HIS ATTORNEY".

I think someone here (or several people) predicted that announcement yesterday.

[Gary Farber]

Hastert: they're out to get him.

Interviewed by Rush Limbaugh today, House Speaker Hastert said Mark Foley’s inappropriate behavior was “a political issue” and promised Rush that “we are going on offense.”

The “offense” is an effort to portray the scandal as a conspiracy specifically timed by liberals to affect the elections. “We are the insulation to protect this country,” Hastert declared, “and if they get to me it looks like they could affect our election as well"

Etc. And: oh, no!

(Anyone remember "Mr. Bill" from SNL in the Seventies?)

[gwangung]

And the sad thing is that there are enough dim bulbs who believe Rush and Hastert about how the "Dems are out to get them."

[liberal japonicus]

Anyone remember "Mr. Bill" from SNL in the Seventies?

doing Rush and Hastert Mr Bill style would require a lot more clay, I think...

[Nell]

This post at TPM Cafe's Election Central bears on Hilzoy's question about Reynolds and Fordham.

My take: Reynolds is lying like a rug. He sent Fordham, or agreed freely to his going, to get Foley out of the way of the media for a few days.

[JakeB]

Arkansas?

Somewhat to the south and east, actually, although you do put me in mind of a number of jokes.

[JakeB]

That is to say, your comment does, not you qua Slartibartfast.

[KCinDC]

Gwangung, enough for what? I'm still hoping any people who'd believe Rush on that are in the 30% that are unreachable regardless.

[Ugh]

the 30% that are unreachable regardless.

Ah yes, the 30% who would respond to BTKWB with "he did it to show the terrorists how tough we are!'

[cleek]

"FORMER CONGRESSMAN MARK FOLEY WAS MOLESTED BY A CLERGYMAN AS A TEENAGER AND IS GAY, ACCORDING TO HIS ATTORNEY".

yeah... and that is relevant, how ? not many blocks were busted by that one, i'd wager.

[Ugh]

Oooo, check out the cage match between Baseballcrank of the blog of the same name (and also just "Crank" on redstate) and john cole (actually, I just skimmed it so it might not be much of a cage match).

[liberal japonicus]

My take: Reynolds is lying like a rug. He sent Fordham, or agreed freely to his going, to get Foley out of the way of the media for a few days.

And if Fordham is a good soldier, he'll say that he didn't get approval, and then hope his falling on the sword will be viewed with approval. If he doesn't, it will really indicate total implosion.

[Slartibartfast]

That is to say, your comment does, not you qua Slartibartfast.

Here's to reading all the way to the end of the thread before responding. Actually, I thought you were talking about Thailand; oh what a story that would have been.

[Nell]

Slarti, you honestly don't know about Rush and the Viagra from his vacation in the Dominican Republic?

I thought the Arkansas crack was pretty offensive, but maybe I don't know enough about Arkansas.

[Nell]

lj: doing Rush and Hastert Mr Bill style would require a lot more clay

brings to mind this from Billmon.

[Gary Farber]

"I thought the Arkansas crack was pretty offensive, but maybe I don't know enough about Arkansas."

I was thinking it was perhaps some sort of not-quite-making-sense hit on the Clintons, but basically I chalked it up as Slart being cryptic and it not being worth asking about.

[Slartibartfast]

No: Alabama and Virginia were pretty much all worn out.

[Slartibartfast]

And probably I should have looked here before saying anything, but I don't tend to do such things before cracking wise. Or unwise, more likely.