Check out this article in today's Los Angeles Times, it's riddled with contradictions that are quite serious.
1. The most important contradiction is about why Reynolds' top aide tried to basically bribe ABC to not run the details of the lurid instant message chats.
Reynolds' chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, retained a lawyer. You'll recall that Fordham tried to get ABC to not publish the really damning "take off your shorts" instant messages last Friday. Fordham's lawyer now claims that this wasn't an attempt to obstruct justice, but rather, was an attempt to shield "his boss" (not clear if that's Foley or Reynolds, Fordham used to be Foley's chief of staff and campaign manager) for the controversy.
The aide's attempt to ask ABC not to publish or air the instant messages was not an effort to withhold the information from law enforcement, Heaphy said.That's interesting, since Fordham told USA Today in this morning's paper that the reason he tried to get ABC not to publish the messages was to shield Foley's sister and parents from the lurid details - not his boss.
"It was never an attempt to obstruct justice," [Fordham's lawyer Tim] Heaphy said. "It was an attempt to shield his boss from the political storm."
Kirk Fordham told reporters he was trying to spare Foley's sister, Donna, and his ailing parents from the "lurid" details. He called "absurd" assertions that he was trying to cover up the incident.Having the lawyer and the client giving two different stories to the morning papers doesn't do a lot for one's credibility. Mr. Reynolds has some explaining to do.
"Perhaps a bit naively, I was thinking of Mark's family, primarily his parents," said Fordham, who is now chief of staff for Rep. Thomas Reynolds of New York, who is chairman of the House GOP campaign committee. "It was never, ever my intention to suppress this information."
2. Reynolds says he never gave Fordham permission to become Foley's spokesman. Then why does he still work for you?
Reynolds, who is locked in a tight reelection battle for his own upstate New York seat, was forced to address his aide's role on Tuesday, telling reporters that Fordham acted without his knowledge. He said he didn't discuss the Foley matter with Fordham until Friday.Okay, great. Then what do you plan to do about the fact that your chief of staff decided to become the spokesman for a child sex predator? Or are you okay with that?
"I didn't give him permission to have any conversations that he's had at any time with Mark Foley, either as his friend or as his former employer," said Reynolds, adding that Fordham was interacting with Foley on his own time.
3. The NRCC, the Republican political/election organization, wrote Foley's resignation letter?
The NRCC wrote Foley's resignation letter, which was transferred to Foley's stationery and signed by the congressman during a gathering at his house that included Fordham and Foley's sister, who has been his closest friend and political advisor.Ah, so Reynolds, who was now in the loop on the matter per his own admission, decided it was best to have the Republican election group write Foley's resignation letter because he saw this as a political issue rather than an issue of child safety? What in God's name was Reynolds doing writing Foley's resignation letter? And if this is true, why didn't we learn about it days ago?
4. Reynolds is now claiming that HE was the one who told Foley to resign. Funny, because yesterday it was Denny Hastert who took credit for asking Foley to resign (this was after Hastert claimed that no one asked Foley to resign). We learn the following in today's USA Today:
Fordham said that Reynolds instructed him to tell Foley that he needed to resign.Here's what Hastert said yesterday, according to ABC News that noticed the Hastert contradiction:
House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL), under fire from both sides of the aisle for his actions in the Foley email scandal, was asked directly by a reporter in yesterday's press conference if the leadership had asked for Foley's resignation.Confused? You should be. The story changes by the hour.
On Monday, Hastert said: "I think Foley resigned almost immediately upon the outbreak of this information, and so we really didn't have a chance to ask him to resign, and I left at the very end of the session, almost, before the very last vote."
But during Tuesday’s radio interview with Rush Limbaugh, he seemed to change his story, saying: "We found out about it, asked him to resign. He did resign. He's gone." He then repeated that line in a Tuesday interview with Sean Hannity.
Had enough?
