I’ve been trying to piece it together from the stories and the congressmen’s accounts. Subject to revision as we learn more, this is one scenario that seems plausible to me.

In the fall of 2005, Rep. Alexander’s staff tells the Speaker’s staff that one of Alexander’s pages is upset about “overly friendly” emails he is getting from Rep. Foley. In the subsequent “investigation,” nobody on the Speaker’s staff actually sees the email. Neither does anyone on the staff of Rep. John Shimkus, the head of the page-oversight committee. Rep. Alexander says the page’s family wants privacy, so they rely on Alexander’s description of the emails as not sexually explicit.

In the spring of 2006, Rep. Alexander mentions the complaint to Rep. Tom Reynolds, who in turn contacts the Speaker personally. It is not clear how Reynolds put the issue to Hastert; at this level of remove, it may have been a vague and unmemorable comment.

On this account, Hastert didn’t realize how serious Foley’s offense had been until last Friday.

If this hypothetical account turns out to be accurate, it doesn’t let Hastert or his office off the hook. There was a failure to do due diligence on the fall 2005 complaint; a failure to contact House Democrats, who might have spurred more action; and possibly a failure on the part of Hastert’s staff to inform the Speaker about a serious matter.

I think calls for Hastert’s resignation over this scandal are premature until we know more. But my guess is that if aides to him don’t resign on the ground that they failed him—and resign soon, as in the next 36 hours—this is going to go up the ladder, and should.