The drive by media is so obsessed by the Foley scandal they apparently are unaware of the Reid scandal exploding. But they are also missing some key reporting in the Foley scandal as well – since of course the news doesn’t implicate Republicans but relates to a prediction I made a while back that Fordham and Trandahl, both conservative gays, had attempted for years to cover for Foley and force him to back away when he let his desires overrun his judgement. The gay conservatives or workers for conservatives naturally feel a lot of pressure to excel and to never let one of theirs fall into a stereotype ripe for gay bashing. So I am not surprised all signs lead to fellow gays trying to corral Foley when he went off course.

The NY Times is reporting that a source close to Fordham has some interesting revelations on what Fordham may have testified about yesterday:

A person close to the inquiry who is sympathetic to Mr. Fordham said that Mr. Fordham decided to break his loyalties to Mr. Foley, a Florida Republican whose political career he had protected and scripted for a decade, in hope of getting his boss to change his behavior. The person agreed to speak about the matter, which is under investigation by federal prosecutors and by the House, only on the condition of anonymity.

Emphasis mine. It is clear here that Fordham was in constant damage control relating to Foley’s sexual appetites. There is no other way to read this. Ten years ago is 1996, and I believe Foley was first elected in 1994. So was the decade up in 2004, 2005 or 2006? Either way, the ‘break’ in loyalties is well timed with the exposure of this story. We know Trandahl and Foley knew of the LA Page email issue from the fall of 2005. Is it possible that Fordham, when he learned through the rumor mill about another event with Foley, finally said enough was enough and helped get the emails to a Democrat operative in the period Oct 17-Nov 30, 2005? This ‘break” wording is quite intriguing.

Mr. Fordham has said he discreetly told Scott Palmer, Mr. Hastert’s chief of staff, about a pattern of Mr. Foley’s behavior.

The person sympathetic to Mr. Fordham said that one incident had pushed Mr. Fordham into action after years in which he heard minor complaints about Mr. Foley’s conduct. The person said that Jeff Trandahl, then the House clerk, had told Mr. Fordham that Mr. Foley, who seemed drunk, had gone to the pages’ dormitory near the Capitol after hours.

Mr. Palmer denies receiving a warning about Mr. Foley. Mr. Trandahl has declined to comment, saying he will save his remarks for investigators.

OK, but telling Palmer Foley was drunk outside the Page dorms is not the same thing as telling Palmer Foley was drunk and looking for some young sex outside the Page dorms. I made this point before as well – a drunk Congressman is not a shocking event on Capitol Hill. My bet is Shimkus testified that whatever Fordham said, it did not imply sexual predation on Pages. But we still have this undertone that Fordham had to expose Foley to get him to stop his actions. The drive-by media is so focused on the Hastert angle they don’t even comprehend what they are writing.

Mr. Fordham’s testimony rests at the center of what investigators are trying to determine. The notion that he is, essentially, testifying against the word of Mr. Hastert and his closest aides underscores how the page scandal has upended the midterm election campaign and created unlikely political casualties.

I have seen nothing to indicate Fordham rang alarm bells about Foley in the sense he was a sexual predator. We know Kolbe didn’t do more than tell Trandahl and Foley (and probably Fordham) in 2000, the previous time Foley was out of control. This looks like Fordham got tired of toeing the line for Foley and Trandahl and leaked on Foley. Of course, if he really was concerned about Foley’s actions then he could have taken this all to the FBI and Dennis Hastert himself – not to Democrat operatives who started shopping the story to the media. That is not how you report a potential crime.