Ask an Expert

Reader K writes today to ask a question: "I'm sorry, but didn't Hastert totally cover shit up?!" She writes this in response to this piece in the New York Times, which she found confusing. Happily, I can clear this matter up for her: Yes, Reader K; yes, he did.

In the piece mentioned above, the New York Times today reports that Hastert says that the first he heard about the Foley affair was "last Friday" (really the Friday before last, eh, Denny?) when it broke in the press. He has done everything right since then. His staff has done everything right -- unless, of course, one of them covered up the scandal, in which case that asshole is fired.

This is a classic tactic, of course. Those who performed the indignities at Abu Ghraib will be punished -- just not those who knew about it and didn't prevent it. This most recent example of pretending to take responsibility by passing it on to subordinates is especially interesting, though, since I take Hastert to mean three things by it:

1. He hopes you won't notice the fact that people had been wearing a track through his office's carpet for years trying to tell him about Foley. I think here he's not just hoping you'll buy that none of them ever actually told him -- he thinks you might not know that anyone ever even told his staff.

2. He hopes that if you know that his entire staff, their spouses, lovers, children and dogs all knew -- oh, and most of Congress, too -- you will believe that no one ever told him. These are odd grounds on which to keep one's Speakership, since they demand that you trade in the idea that he's corrupt for the idea that he is completely out of touch. Is either really a good quality? Isn't the Speaker, more than anyone else in the House, supposed to know what's going on with the various members? Isn't it almost as bad if he didn't know? Given that in that case he would have been pretty much the only one who didn't?

3. He really hopes you don't know, and won't find out, and are too polite to comment upon the hilarious fact revealed by Lawrence O'Donnell on the Huffington Post, that Hastert lives with his Chief of Staff -- a guy named Scott Palmer. That's them in the picture, sharing an intimate moment. Now, apparently shared quarters among the legislators are quite common in DC. But living with your Chief of Staff is very, very rare. You'd think, given how homophobic these people are, they'd be more careful about giving the appearance of being gay. And let's go ahead and assume that Hastert (former wrestling coach...) isn't living in a glass house. But surely you live with your chief of staff so that you guys will have the opportunity to talk? So if you're not talking, and sharing information that has been repeatedly passed on to your office, what the hell are you guys doing? Hmmmmm?

So, Reader K, I think I can pretty confidently tell you that yes, Hastert has been and is still covering shit up. My deep wish is that he is forced to say that he couldn't keep an eye on Mark Foley because he was busy having a love affair with his chief of staff. But I'd settle for less.

Keep those reader questions coming! Our only aim is education.