North Carolina’s 10th District Rep. Patrick McHenry, a Republican,
has been on a few of the cable news talk shows in the past week
discussing the House page scandal and former Rep. Mark Foley. On
yesterday’s “Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer” he appeared with Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel from New York, and it was clear who endured the tougher questioning. An example:

BLITZER: So what you’re suggesting — and correct me if I’m wrong,
because you’ve been doing this for the last few days — that Democrats
are behind the timing of the release of this information? Is that your accusation?

MCHENRY: Well, look, all the fact points lead to one question: Did Rahm
Emanuel or Nancy Pelosi have any involvement on the strategic or
tactical level?

This morning on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” the question was asked of Rahm Emanuel.

His reaction was he did not see the instant messages or e-mails. He
repeatedly said, he did not see. I’ve asked him to testify under oath
to assure the American people that he was not involved in this issue in
any way, shape or form.

BLITZER: Do you have any evidence at all that Democrats or others might have been behind the timing of this scandal?

MCHENRY: Look, let’s be honest…

BLITZER: Do you have any evidence to back that charge up?

MCHENRY: No, no, actually, if the Democrats had any issue with saying
this, putting all the facts out on the table, they would say,
certainly, I’ll testify under oath that I had no involvement in it.
They’ve said no.

BLITZER: Well, you don’t have any evidence, though, right?

MCHENRY: Well, look at the fact points.

BLITZER: Yes or no, do you have any evidence, Congressman?

MCHENRY: Do you have any evidence that they weren’t involved?

BLITZER: I’m just asking if you’re just throwing out an accusation or if you have any hard evidence.

MCHENRY: No. It’s a question, Wolf. The question remains, were they
involved? And if they were not involved, they need to say clearly. And
it’s a question. It’s not an accusation.

BLITZER: Well, they are denying that they had anything to do with this.

A great example of how the media demands “hard evidence” in order to
allow an accusation against Democrats to fly, but if the allegation is
that House Speaker Dennis Hastert might have hidden something to
protect Foley, no such “evidence” is needed. Witness this exchange with
Rangel:

RANGEL: It’s just not obscene conduct of Foley. It’s the criminal
conduct of somebody, and we’ll find out who, in covering this whole
darn thing up. It’s clear that Republicans, certain Republicans,
especially in the leadership, knew about this. The speaker can deny it,
but I think the investigation will show it.

BLITZER: Are you
suggesting — and I want to be precise on this, Congressman Rangel,
because you’re a very precise lawmaker — that if there was a cover-up,
there was criminal violations as part of a cover-up? Is that what
you’re suggesting?

RANGEL: You will find that. You can say,
I don’t remember, you can say, I don’t know. But when you take an oath,
it’s entirely different.

And I’m talking about the perjury
that would follow rather than the absence of memory of what’s going on.
Somebody is lying in the Republican leadership. That is clear. And
they’re either going to confess or they’re going to lie under perjury.
And that’s what’s going to happen.

BLITZER: There’s multiple
investigations under way, the FBI, federal investigations, state
investigations, the House Ethics Committee now beginning to take
testimony. I assume that will be done under oath as well. Is that what
you’re saying?

RANGEL: Exactly. And the best way to handle it
is do what Foley has done, and that is quit and lose the jurisdiction
of the Ethics Committee. But you can’t get away from the FBI on this
one.

BLITZER: All right.

“You’re a very precise lawmaker?” Where’s the demand for Rangel’s evidence, Wolf?