The Washington Post has a well-reported and damning story today about the pattern of harassment and abuse that interns and staff members in former Democratic Representative Eric Massa's Congressional office have reported:

Beginning in March 2009 and over the next several months, male staffers complained that [Massa] had touched them in a sexual manner, came up with reasons to have staffers travel alone with him on overnight trips, and expressed a desire to have sex with the men in the office.

But it wasn't until after a year of staff complaints -- when allegations about Massa's behavior threatened to become a public embarrassment -- that supervisors alerted congressional leaders to the problem.

This is a very ugly report, based on more than two dozen interviews, and it leaves you with a few conclusions: Eric Massa was a predator; his junior staff felt threatened and harassed, and also powerless to stop him; and his senior staff was so captured by the guy that they worried more about protecting him than about protecting those he was hurting.

Essentially, interns and junior staffers say they started telling Chief of Staff Joe Racalto within three months of Massa coming to office that Massa was making unwanted verbal and physical advances on male staffers. Racalto's response was to try to talk Massa into stopping that behavior. He told the Post "he had difficulty controlling his boss and lacked a manual to guide him. He said he confronted Massa about allegations of improper advances, but the lawmaker denied doing anything improper."

First: A manual? There actually is a manual for this type of situation, published by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which states very clearly what someone in Racalto's position should do:

When an employer receives a complaint or otherwise learns of alleged sexual harassment in the workplace, the employer should investigate promptly and thoroughly. The employer should take immediate and appropriate corrective action by doing whatever is necessary to end the harassment, make the victim whole by restoring lost employment benefits or opportunities, and prevent the misconduct from recurring. Disciplinary action against the offending supervisor or employee, ranging from reprimand to discharge, may be necessary. Generally, the corrective action should reflect the severity of the conduct... The employer should make follow-up inquiries to ensure the harassment has not resumed and the victim has not suffered retaliation.

Notice that nowhere in there does it say, "Just do what you can, and try to keep it out of the papers." Second, Racalto's defense is that when confronted, Massa denied the allegations? Yeah. What's Massa going to say? Oh, clearly I am a predator, you're right, Joe. I'll reverse my behavior immediately!

Now, it does get a bit foggy, because Joe Racalto -- who was Massa's subordinate even while he was the junior staff's superior -- was in a difficult position. If he reported Massa's harassment -- which, the Post notes, several staff members say he was a recipient of, too -- then he had to know that Massa would lose his job, and Racalto would lose his job, and all of those staffers would lose their jobs. They'd also be branded the guys who turned in their boss. Capitol Hill being Capitol Hill, that could be a very hard thing to overcome. Massa won his 2008 by only 5,000 votes, a 51-49 rematch with the man who defeated him in 2006. Even a whiff of scandal would probably end his chances in 2010. Massa was pretty popular in certain circles already. He appeared on "The Rachel Maddow Show" to discuss Afghanistan in May, drawing on his own Navy experience; he also appeared in December, delivering a rant against Vice President Dick Cheney. This was a guy who knew how to manipulate the media. Racalto had to know that -- and he probably feared it.

That still doesn't completely explain, and it certainly doesn't excuse, the fact that that it took not just a year, but a threat that Massa's harassment had moved beyond his captive staff to an outsider before Racalto and Deputy Chief of Staff Ron Hikel decided to report Massa's behavior to his superiors in the House leadership. The Post reports that a comment on a blog alleged that Massa had made an inappropriate pass at a bartender at a funeral reception for a 19-year-old Marine from Massa's district who was killed in Afghanistan. The bartender in question called Racalto, "asking why Massa wanted to meet him in Buffalo, 85 miles away, for dinner. Racalto said he confronted Massa, and the congressman said he was trying to give the man a law school reference."

This apparently finally tipped Racalto off that Eric Massa not only had a problem, but was a problem -- namely, that there was a media problem about to explode:

"Mr. Racalto told the Congressman he did not believe him, and informed the Congressman that he was going to report his conduct," Racalto's lawyer wrote. Racalto, snowbound in New York, said he called Hikel in Washington, and the two discussed the need to alert House leaders.

Hikel called Hoyer's office about the blog and other allegations of harassment. Three weeks later, Hoyer confirmed to reporters that his office had given Massa's office an ultimatum: Report Massa to the ethics committee within 48 hours or Hoyer would.

Massa proved, within a week of resigning, that he knows how to manipulate the press -- he first managed to get a significant number of liberal talk shows and Web sites, including Rachel Maddow's show blog, to run with his story that he'd been "torpedoed" for his opposition to health care reform. Glenn Beck also took that bait. Larry King had him on. Massa also claimed his health had led him to resign, before finally saying it was all a big misunderstanding, that he'd been joking around with some guys who had taken things too seriously. The story has hovered in that gray he-said, he-said territory for a while, until the Post's seemingly conclusive report today.

The only way a guy like Eric Massa can get into his 50s believing that "joking around" line might work is if, at every point in his career, he's been allowed to slide. Joe Racalto and Ron Hikel are probably only the last in a long line of subordinates who have excused Massa's behavior and ultimately chosen to protect him over those being harassed.

It's sad, but I find this all both believable and probably not even exceptional. The further we move into personality politics, where the candidate is as important to voters as what he or she stands for, the more difficult it will be for staffers to expose any flaw in that person without feeling they're also jeopardizing the cause. The atmosphere of Capitol Hill, of politics in general, is so focused on results (which it should be) that the madness of the men and women who are able to snag those Congressional positions is often obscured, willfully, by those around them.

How many other Eric Massas do you think there are out there?

 (Addendum: Rachel Maddow has applauded Steve Benen's post today about the unfair amount of coverage The Washington Post has given to the Massa scandal as compared to the ongoing John Ensign scandal. On the surface, I think Benen's right -- there's been more coverage by the Post about Massa. There is, however, a reason for that: one is about a year-long pattern of harassment and abuse against multiple parties that was covered up for political reasons. The other is a one-time case that began with a sexual relationship between consenting adults and, yes, escalated into corruption and extortion. Should both be covered vigorously? Absolutely. It's not really fair to say that the Post is ignoring Ensign and picking on a liberal, though, without discussing the ways in which the cases are different -- in fact, it feels like a really weird defense of a guy that Maddow seemed to personally like who has been effectively revealed to be quite unlikeable).