Reynolds and Shelley

Let's talk about Rep. Tom Reynolds for a minute. He's the chair of the NRCC. He's known about the Mark Foley's predelictions towards pages at least as far back as 2005 when staffers for Rep. Rodney Alexander, for whom one of the pages in question worked, complained about some of the email Foley sent to him. What did he do then? Not much.

Among those who became aware earlier this year of the fall 2005 communications between Mr. Foley and the 16-year-old page, who worked for Representative Rodney Alexander, Republican of Louisiana, were Representative John A. Boehner, the majority leader, and Representative Thomas M. Reynolds of New York, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. Mr. Reynolds said in a statement Saturday that he had also personally raised the issue with Speaker J. Dennis Hastert.

"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," Mr. Reynolds said.

He didn't bother to look at the emails, so he had no idea what he was being asked to not pursue. But at least he had plausible deniability.

When the story first came out, and the much more explicit instant messages between Foley and the pages started to surface, Reynolds' chief of staff tried to cut a deal with ABC to suppress the story in return for an exclusive about Foley's resignation.

The unnamed aide who tried to get ABC's Brian Ross not to publish the salacious IMs from Mark Foley in exchange for an exclusive on Foley's decision to resign has now been unmasked as Kirk Fordham, the chief of staff to NRCC head Tom Reynolds. Ben Smith of The Daily Politics blog has just received an email from The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz, who originally wrote about the deal offered to Ross without identifying the aide by name. Now Kurtz has confirmed to Smith via email that he was talking about Fordham. Here's what this means: The chief of staff for the leader of the GOP's efforts to hold on to the House tried to prevent the public from learning the truth about a GOP Congressman who repeatedly solicited teenagers via the internet.

Reynolds now claims he did not know what his Chief of Staff was doing, though his denial is a bit murky.

According to a story just up on the Syracuse Post-Standard's web site, Reynolds has just said that he knew nothing about what his chief of staff Kirk Fordham did on behalf of GOP Rep Mark Foley. Reynolds also is quoted saying he didn't give his top aide permission to help him. But wait -- the chief of staff himself said publicly in the Palm Beach Post on Saturday -- three days ago -- that he was going to be helping Foley. So Reynolds knew Fordham was doing this without his permission -- and didn't care?

Stay with me here. At a press conference yesterday, Reynolds explained his lack of action thusly.

I found this moment particularly damaging, though, in which Reynolds -- the third-ranking Republican in the House -- says he did what any employee would do with the Foley case: "I took it to my supervisor."

Because, you know, he only works here.

Maybe if he'd been the #2 Republican, he could have done something about this. Like blame Speaker Hastert.

At that same press conference, for which you can see video here, Reynolds was inexplicably surrounded by small children, which caused more than a bit of a distraction.

Reporter: Congressman, do you mind asking the children to leave the room so we can have a frank discussion of this, because it's an adult topic. It just doesn't seem appropriate to me.

Reynolds: I'll take your questions, but I'm not going to ask any of my supporters to leave.

[...]

Reporter: Who are the children, Congressman? Who are these children?

Reynolds: Pardon me?

Reporter: Who are these children?

Reynolds: Well, a number of them are from the community. There are several of the "thirtysomething" set that are here and uh I've known them and I've known their children as they were born.

Reporter: Do you think it's appropriate for them to be listening to the subject matter though?

Reynolds: Sir, I'll be happy to answer your questions, I'm still, uh…

Why am I telling you all of this? Because of money, of course. Foley's money, Reynolds' money, the NRCC's money, and ultimately Shelley Sekula Gibbs' money. Reynolds has given $10,000 to Shelley's campaign. As the chair of the NRCC, Reynolds has benefitted from Foley's generosity, and plans to continue to do so.

One group that will not be returning money donated by Foley is the National Republican Congressional Committee, of which Reynolds is chairman. The committee has received $330,000 from Foley in less than three years. That includes $100,000 this summer, after Reynolds learned of the messages.

Asked what effect the scandal might have on his re-election bid this fall, Reynolds replied: "I'm looking forward to finishing the final 30-some days of this campaign - I think it's going to be a great one. I'm running on my record. We'll have the people decide."

Emphasis mine. Shelley will be the beneficiary of a fundraiser by Big Time Dick Cheney tomorrow, and the NRCC is still claiming they plan to help her.

[NRCC spokesman Jonathan] Collegio said the NRCC considers DeLay's former district "a Republican district" and that the committee is "100% committed to Shelley Sekula-Gibbs and keeping it a Republican seat." He acknowledged, however, the committee had made no previous contributions. But the NRCC's Web site does not list Sekula-Gibbs as one of the candidates it is supporting. Collegio described Sekula-Gibbs' absence as "just an oversight."

Now that you do know all this, do you think Shelley should be taking the NRCC's money if they actually follow through with it? Or do you think that maybe she should do the right thing and donate it to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children? Do you think that at the very least enough facts have come out for her to express an opinion about whether or not she supports the current GOP House leadership and would continue to support them in the event she were to be elected? Remember that by their inaction, this is what they were protecting.

What's it going to be, Shelley? Do you have anything to say about any of this?

UPDATE: The Chron picks up the story. Does Shelley finally have anything to say about this? Not so much.

Sekula-Gibbs received Lampson's letter Monday but did not respond. She told the Houston Chronicle she is "waiting for the investigation to unfold."

As for who knew what and when, "those questions have not been answered," she said. "That is part of the investigation."

No criticism of how the House leadership has handled this matter. What more does she need to know to comment on that?

Posted by Charles Kuffner on October 03, 2006 to Scandalized! | TrackBack