October 13, 2006 - When one witness says that a conversation with another person took place and that person denies that it did the conclusion that one of them is lying is self-evident. That is the case presented by Kirk Fordham’s testimony in the secret hearings being held by the House Ethics Committee. Presumably Fordham’s testimony was consistent with his prior public statements. Indeed his attorney says that it was and an “anonymous source close to the investigation” has confirmed to reporters that the testimony was as the attorney described.

According to the source Fordham was told by House Clerk Jeff Trandahl of a nocturnal visit by a drunken Foley to the male pages’ dormitory and that decided Fordham that he had to act in the hope that Foley could be pressed to modify his risky behavior. Fordham discretely spoke with Scott Palmer, Speaker Hastert’s Chief of Staff. Later in 2004 Fordham resigned from Foley’s staff and took a position as Chief of Staff to Congressman Tom Reynolds, Chair of the House Republican Campaign Committee.

Palmer claims that the conversation did not take place. Trandahl has remained silent as to the matter. Both Speaker Hastert and Palmer claim that they first learned of the misconduct when ABC News made it public. Reynolds first said that he had spoken with Hastert about the matter in the spring and now says that he does not recall having a specific conversation with the Speaker.

There is no sugar coating the matter. Either Palmer is lying or Fordham has perjured himself before the committee. The trick is to figure out which of them is telling the truth.

Juries are instructed that in judging the credibility of a witness they are to take into account the witness’ ability and opportunity to observe, his memory, his manner while testifying, any interest, bias, or prejudice he may have, and the reasonableness of the testimony in the light of all of the evidence. In this case the ultimate jury is the voting public.

Is it reasonable that Fordham is lying? What axe does he have to grind? What patron does he need to protect? After having managed Foley’s political career from the beginning why did he bail out and join the Reynolds staff? Is it reasonable that this long time Republican operative would testify as he has knowing that his testimony can only help the Democrats unless it was the truth? What axe has Palmer to grind? What patron must he protect?

The answers to those questions may help you decide where the truth lies; what did the leadership know and when did they know it. One thing is sure. Somebody is lying.