Rich: You wrote [quoting the Times]: “‘On Friday, Mr. Hastert dissembled, to put it charitably, before conceding that he, too, learned about the e-mail messages sometime earlier this year.’ I don’t think this is fair. As of this moment, I believe Hastert had legitimately forgotten being told (because when he was first told the whole thing was being minimized).” I agree this is possible, but I think one has to admit that the behavior of Rep. Hastert and friends last week is at least as susceptible to the Times’ interpretation. First, Rep. Boehner tells the Washington Post, sometime late last Thursday or early Friday, that he talked to Hastert about this problem several months ago and that Hastert told him it was taken care of. Then, while Hastert’s office is categorically denying that Hastert had any knowledge of the scandal prior to last week, Boehner calls the Post back on Friday, and says he suddenly doesn’t remember talking to Hastert. (At best, this instance of unremembering casts an appalling light on Boehner’s credibility. At worst, it suggests that Hastert may have leaned on Boehner to change his story.) Then, on Saturday, Rep. Reynolds issues a press statement making clear that he, too, told Hastert about the matter some months ago. Hastert’s response is that Reynolds may be correct, but that Hastert doesn’t remember the conversation. Again, I think it’s remotely possible that Hastert may not remember being told before last week. But given the fact that several other people remember being told in late 2005 and early 2006, that at least one person (or two people, if you include Boehner) quite clearly remembers telling Hastert earlier this year, that Hastert’s memory loss works conveniently and entirely to his benefit, I can’t fault the Times for its characterization of Hastert’s ducking and weaving.

ME: It just may have been any warnings that Hastert got were not dire enough for him to recall them now, because everyone else was (wrongly) down-playing the e-mails.