View Full Version : The GOP reels from the Foley scandal.
WASHINGTON – The scandal involving Rep. Mark Foley (R) of Florida, who abruptly resigned his seat Friday, has engulfed the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives, adding an explosive issue to the pile of woes facing the GOP in its tough battle to retain control of Congress.
Mr. Foley quit Congress after he was confronted with evidence that he had sent sexually explicit electronic messages to former teenage House pages. Foley had already been accused earlier of sending what Republicans call "overfriendly" e-mails last year to another former page, a teenage boy from Louisiana. Members of the House GOP leadership acknowledge they knew about the less-explicit e-mails months ago and say they were handling the issue quietly, at the request of the boy's family.
Republican leaders say they did not know about the more-explicit messages until last week. But critics charge that at the first sign of possible trouble earlier this year, when the leaders learned of the e-mail traffic between Foley and the Louisiana boy, the GOP leadership should have acted more forcefully against Foley.
Adding to the black eye for the GOP, which calls itself the party of family values, is the fact that Foley had co-chaired the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, and had sponsored numerous bills aimed at protecting children from predators.
"It's a disaster" for the Republicans, says Larry Sabato, a political analyst at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. "This could be the tipping point," he adds, referring to the 15-seat net gain that Democrats need to win control of the House.
Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1002/p03s02-uspo.html)
Apparently, some members of the GOP had been aware of Congressman Foley's predilection for young pages for quite some time:
A Republican staff member warned congressional pages five years ago to watch out for Congressman Mark Foley, according to a former page.
Matthew Loraditch, a page in the 2001-2002 class, told ABC News he and other pages were warned about Foley by a supervisor in the House Clerk's office.
Loraditch, the president of the Page Alumni Association, said the pages were told "don't get too wrapped up in him being too nice to you and all that kind of stuff."
Staff members at the House Clerk's office did not return calls seeking comment.
ABC News (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/gop_staff_warne.html)
Good Lord Almighty ... :shocked:
Comments?
DurfBarian
02-10-2006, 04:43
I don't think the party will end up "reeling" from this. Voters have short memories. Who was that Tom Delay cat anyway?
LunarSolaris
02-10-2006, 04:44
Would you be quick to post a scandal involving the Democratic party Llad?
It's all about balance. I think this is a newsworthy story, but I'm hesitant to engage because I fear you would have an agenda in posting this.
Would you be quick to post a scandal involving the Democratic party Llad?
It's all about balance. I think this is a newsworthy story, but I'm hesitant to engage because I fear you would have an agenda in posting this.
LOL.
Well, at least now we know not only Democrats can be homosexuals. So, no more accusing Republicans of hating *** people, right?
If he was a democrat you would have called him a pedophile, heh.
A paedophile is not a homosexual, regardless of their target. In fact the last study I read demonstrated absolutely no connection between the sexual attraction of paedophiles to adults and children; most boy-targeting paedophiles are heterosexual.
This is pretty disgusting, but frankly I'm not surprised. A lot of people in high office are paedophiles, you know. And of course, all politicians are creeps. There has to be something wrong with you if you want to do that for a living.
As for the GOP, it's nice of them to have periodic scandals to keep them fresh in people's minds.
I love how you so cleanly distinguish between pedophilia and homosexuality when the kid in this instance was 16 at the time. So, when does pedophilia turn back into homosexuality, 17? 18? Does it depend on local law?
I love how you so cleanly distinguish between pedophilia and homosexuality when the kid in this instance was 16 at the time. So, when does pedophilia turn back into homosexuality, 17? 18? Does it depend on local law?
Then you have a problem with the concept of paedophilia itself.
I have a problem with your concept of pedophilia if you consider a man's interest in a 17 year and 364 day boy pedophilia and a man's interest in an 18 year old boy homosexuality.
I call this one a pedo, too.
I have a problem with your concept of pedophilia if you consider a man's interest in a 17 year and 364 day boy pedophilia and a man's interest in an 18 year old boy homosexuality.
Oh okay, so you accept that being sexually attracted to a 17 and 364 day old person is paedophilia (LOL, you Americans and your conservative laws) while being sexually attracted to an 18 year old person isn't? But you think there's a big difference in my application of the terms "homosexual" and "paedophile"?
I don't know why you got that from my post, though I will accept that it may be my fault for not being clear.
You suggested that I may have a problem with the concept of pedophilia. Then I suggested I do indeed have a problem with what you seem to be using as a concept of pedophilia IF that concept involves interest in a boy a day away from being legal pedophilia, but simple homosexuality the very next day.
It is either pedophilia both days or neither of the days.
By this, I am indicating that perhaps the man interested in a 16 year old boy may simply be homosexual, as opposed to a pedophile. If interest in a 17 year and 364 day old is not considered pedophilia, then there seems to be a buffer zone revolving around the (rather arbitrary) legal limit.
Of course, this entire argument of mine seems to assume you are using the local legal age as a base measurement for pedophilia, and that may not be reasonable.
Edit: Wiki defines pedophilia as interest in prepubescent children, so I guess that this case wouldn't be defined as such, and would simply be homosexuality, if you go by Wiki.
I don't know why you got that from my post, though I will accept that it may be my fault for not being clear.
You suggested that I may have a problem with the concept of pedophilia. Then I suggested I do indeed have a problem with what you seem to be using as a concept of pedophilia IF that concept involves interest in a boy a day away from being legal pedophilia, but simple homosexuality the very next day.
It is either pedophilia both days or neither of the days.
By this, I am indicating that perhaps the man interested in a 16 year old boy may simply be homosexual, as opposed to a pedophile. If interest in a 17 year and 364 day old is not considered pedophilia, then there seems to be a buffer zone revolving around the (rather arbitrary) legal limit.
Of course, this entire argument of mine seems to assume you are using the local legal age as a base measurement for pedophilia, and that may not be reasonable.
Edit: Wiki defines pedophilia as interest in prepubescent children, so I guess that this case wouldn't be defined as such, and would simply be homosexuality, if you go by Wiki.
Well, this days thing is an intrinsic problem with the idea of paedophilia, where does one draw the line? It isn't clear. If you're trying to say now that this particular case isn't paedophilia then that's a different argument, I can't find that kid's age at the time of the emails in the article in fact.
I thought Bortaz was conflating the terms "homosexual" and "paedophile", given that I was under the impression from the article that the kid was significantly under-age.
Here's another, related problem for you; if a paedophile starts a relationship with, say, a ten-year-old, which continues until the child is say, twenty-five, is that relationship still paedophilic?
He was 16, so I don't even know if it could possibly be considered pedophilia at all anymore, if Wiki is to be trusted.
Would you be quick to post a scandal involving the Democratic party Llad?
Quck? Why Lunar ... I waited three days. To some, that's all time necessary for a resurrection. :jig:
It's all about balance. I think this is a newsworthy story, but I'm hesitant to engage because I fear you would have an agenda in posting this.
An agenda ... why little ole me?? :hide:
---------------
Recent articles concerning the alleged knowledge (of Foley) and lack of action from people in-the-know within the GOP are almost as disturbing to me as the scandal itself.
For example:
GOP Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) let Foley spend "a lot of time" with pages, including private dinner with one, after GOP knew Foley was a problem.
Americablog (http://americablog.********.com/2006/10/gop-rep-john-shimkus-r-il-let-foley.html)
Check out this video (http://americablog.********.com/2006/10/gop-staff-warned-pages-about-foley-in.html) from ABC
I don't know if these stories are true ... cripes, I honestly hope they aren't.
He was 16, so I don't even know if it could possibly be considered pedophilia at all anymore, if Wiki is to be trusted.
If he was 16 then he would've been completely legal in Australia. But no, I don't think Wikipedia can be trusted on something like this, the application of the term is highly contested.
Personally, I'd like to see subcategories of sexual congress with a minor (or whatever it's called) created so we can distinguish between the various degrees of paedophilia. I mean, some old guy brutally raping a five year old is kind of different to a nineteen year old copping a feel with a "consenting" (admittedly, I'm begging the question there) fifteen year and eleven months old.
But pedophilia itself is not a crime at all, and I imagine not many criminal codes bother to define it, so the argument over what is pedophilia and what is not is really not a legal matter, but simply a cultural one.
Edit: If you want to hear about strange consent laws, in Florida, the law is that if you are 18-24, you can have sexual relations with a 16-17 year old. If you are older than 24, you cannot have sex with 16-17 year olds. 24 year old can, 25 year old cannot. Makes sense to me?
jimmyboy
02-10-2006, 14:35
Foley made sexual advance towards a minor boy. You guys can label him anyway you wish, I'm labling him a criminal.
Anyways, I don't know what's more shocking -
1) The crime itself, or
2) The fact that he's CO-CHAIRMAN of the "Congressional Missing and EXPLOITED children's Caucus," or
3) Whether it's true that fellow politicians KNEW and KEPT his SECRET.
What I want other than criminal prosecution of Foley is -
1) investigation & prosecution of his fellow politicians for aiding and abetting;
2) combing the system for other victims
3) determine how the Hell Foley got to become co-chairman of the group that is suppose to protect children!
jimmyboy
02-10-2006, 14:41
Edit: If you want to hear about strange consent laws, in Florida, the law is that if you are 18-24, you can have sexual relations with a 16-17 year old. If you are older than 24, you cannot have sex with 16-17 year olds. 24 year old can, 25 year old cannot. Makes sense to me?
I think the Florida legislature recognizes that there are many relationship left over from highschool where the age difference may be 4-5 years which carry on to adulthood.
So a senior dating a freshman can be 19 and 14. A couple of years later, the same couple is 22 and 17.
That's the only thing I could think of.
myleftfoot
02-10-2006, 14:59
Would you be quick to post a scandal involving the Democratic party Llad?
Nope, ECI would. We have 2 of them, 1 for each side.
SaroDarksbane
02-10-2006, 15:13
Nope, ECI would. We have 2 of them, 1 for each side.
ECI would be getting rope and organizing a lynch mob, though. :laugh:
This is obviously a ploy by the LIEberals to affect the upcoming election. The poor guy is suffering from alcoholism. It's just partisian politics to accuse this fine, Republican Congressman of pederasty. The Demoncrats should be ashamed of themselves.
True American patriots like the Republican leadership in Congress knew what was going on, but they kept it secret because they need to deal with the important matters of keeping America safe from those who would destroy it.
Talga Vasternich
02-10-2006, 17:03
2) The fact that he's CO-CHAIRMAN of the "Congressional Missing and EXPLOITED children's Caucus,"
Well, he would be an expert on exploited children, and you'd think he'd have a vested interest in finding missing children :shocked:
AeroJonesy
02-10-2006, 17:48
Well, he would be an expert on exploited children, and you'd think he'd have a vested interest in finding missing children :shocked:
I shouldn't laugh at that, but damn, it's funny!
This is obviously a ploy by the LIEberals to affect the upcoming election. The poor guy is suffering from alcoholism. It's just partisian politics to accuse this fine, Republican Congressman of pederasty. The Demoncrats should be ashamed of themselves.
True American patriots like the Republican leadership in Congress knew what was going on, but they kept it secret because they need to deal with the important matters of keeping America safe from those who would destroy it.
The sarcasm above, courtesy of Drive-by, is certainly no less valid than Ill's observation that pederasty and homosexuality are obvious Republican traits. And Democrats are inherently open-minded and forgiving about such topics anyways.
After all, it isn't like an extraordinarily powerful Democrat governor could ever wind up hawking a book about how he used to hang around truck stops engaging in homosexual trysts. Particularly to the point that he gave his latest boy-toy a 6-figure salary for being in charge of homeland security for a state that had ringside seats to 9/11, even though the kid was an Israeli poet that knew bupkis about security. Or that he used this sordid tale, humiliating his wife & children in the process, to distract what scant media attention had to be paid the scandal from delving into his administration's ongoing and systematic corruption.
No the "culture of corruption" and homosexuality are obviously Republican traits. (http://politicalhumor.about.com/b/a/106235.htm)
Bah, you Yanks and your light-weight 'scandals'. I mean, kiddie-fiddling (or should that be minor-fiddling), all in a days work.
I'd use the wiki definition - prepubescent. Once they are in puberty, it's merely statutory rape. In Canada 14 is the age of sexual consent, being raised to 16 and a provision put in that 16-18 can only have sex with people within 4 years. So in Canada, prior to the current conservative government, this would be more or less fine.
Sir EvilFreeSmeg
02-10-2006, 19:14
Unlike the EMOcrats, at least the Republican scumbags resign when they're caught. Heh, even our scumbags have more honor and class then the other side
Unlike the EMOcrats, at least the Republican scumbags resign when they're caught. Heh, even our scumbags have more honor and class then the other side
Honour? Class? In Politicians?
Never.
Although I agree, it was pretty classy to give a prospective victim a heads up (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/gop_staff_warne.html). And, you know, GOP House leaders covering up the fact that he was a sexual predator for around a year.
Stay Classy House of Reps. :thumbsup:
Sir EvilFreeSmeg
02-10-2006, 21:50
http://passionateamerica.********.com/2006/10/foleygate-mark-foley-emails-altered.html
Now there's claims being made that the Foley e-mails have been altered. This is going to get uglier than Michael Moore and Rosanne Barr getting it on in a jello pit
Hehe, this is going to be good.
*prepares marshmallows for the cross-blog flame war in the ensueing fortnight*
Sir EvilFreeSmeg
02-10-2006, 22:02
Littlegreenfootballs.com vs. dailykos.com
Place bets now!
LGF any time. They are the ones with the Guns.
Sir EvilFreeSmeg
02-10-2006, 22:22
blackfive.com vs. huffingtonpost.com
jimmyboy
02-10-2006, 22:29
The sarcasm above, courtesy of Drive-by, is certainly no less valid than Ill's observation that pederasty and homosexuality are obvious Republican traits. And Democrats are inherently open-minded and forgiving about such topics anyways.
After all, it isn't like an extraordinarily powerful Democrat governor could ever wind up hawking a book about how he used to hang around truck stops engaging in homosexual trysts. Particularly to the point that he gave his latest boy-toy a 6-figure salary for being in charge of homeland security for a state that had ringside seats to 9/11, even though the kid was an Israeli poet that knew bupkis about security. Or that he used this sordid tale, humiliating his wife & children in the process, to distract what scant media attention had to be paid the scandal from delving into his administration's ongoing and systematic corruption.
No the "culture of corruption" and homosexuality are obviously Republican traits. (http://politicalhumor.about.com/b/a/106235.htm)
This situation is a sexual-harassment of a minor by a Congressman while mentoring a teen. This is when the Congressman was the co-chair of the ... Exploited Children's Caucus.
And you're comparing it to a homosexual affair.
Am I missing something in this analogy?
Hehe, this is going to be good.
Yeah, watching people defend pederasty is always a hoot.
Especially with incredibly stupid attempts at deflection. Hi Smeg!
Am I missing something in this analogy?
Nope. It's a piss poor one. Gerry Studds would have been better.
jimmyboy
02-10-2006, 22:34
http://passionateamerica.********.com/2006/10/foleygate-mark-foley-emails-altered.html
Now there's claims being made that the Foley e-mails have been altered. This is going to get uglier than Michael Moore and Rosanne Barr getting it on in a jello pit
The Right better be real careful in their claims. There's a can of worms waiting to be open.
Who are the people most likely to have access to Foley's emails?
Who are the people most likely to have access to Foley's emails?
Dan Rather?
Sir EvilFreeSmeg
02-10-2006, 22:42
Beats me who had access. The left though has had a lousy track record of falsified documents over the past 6 years.
jimmyboy
03-10-2006, 01:15
Beats me who had access. The left though has had a lousy track record of falsified documents over the past 6 years.
Good point.
The only problem is that Foley never challenged the documents. And so he never denied the charges.
DurfBarian
03-10-2006, 01:36
Well, he would be an expert on exploited children, and you'd think he'd have a vested interest in finding missing children :shocked:
WINNAR!!! :grin:
The sarcasm above, courtesy of Drive-by
This one qualifies as a self-inflicted wound, I think. Are you "disappearing" from the forums again now?
This situation is a sexual-harassment of a minor by a Congressman while mentoring a teen. This is when the Congressman was the co-chair of the ... Exploited Children's Caucus.
And you're comparing it to a homosexual affair.
Am I missing something in this analogy?
You're missing the proper Dominionist outlook on life. Repent!
Anyways, I don't know what's more shocking -
1) The crime itself, or
2) The fact that he's CO-CHAIRMAN of the "Congressional Missing and EXPLOITED children's Caucus," or
3) Whether it's true that fellow politicians KNEW and KEPT his SECRET.
Good stuff, isn't it?
Well, he would be an expert on exploited children, and you'd think he'd have a vested interest in finding missing children :shocked:
Yeah, like the Catholic Church has a vested interest in stopping abortion so all those unwanted children wind up in Catholic orphanages...
That was indeed a good one.
No the "culture of corruption" and homosexuality are obviously Republican traits. (http://politicalhumor.about.com/b/a/106235.htm)
Man, those are some lame jokes.
This situation is a sexual-harassment of a minor by a Congressman while mentoring a teen. This is when the Congressman was the co-chair of the ... Exploited Children's Caucus.
And you're comparing it to a homosexual affair.
Am I missing something in this analogy?
Simple. To conservatives, homosexuality = paedophilia. Just look at the latest push by the Catholic Church.
Unlike the EMOcrats, at least the Republican scumbags resign when they're caught. Heh, even our scumbags have more honor and class then the other side
Well, Republicans have so many scandals that they have to rush them out the door quick to make room for the next one.
But pedophilia itself is not a crime at all, and I imagine not many criminal codes bother to define it, so the argument over what is pedophilia and what is not is really not a legal matter, but simply a cultural one.
By paedophilia, aren't we talking about sexual contact with someone under the age of consent? It may be called by a number of different technical legal names but it's essentially the same thing. As far as I know "rape" is not the correct legal term in this country, it's "sexual assault" or something; but it's still rape we'd be talking about.
Edit: If you want to hear about strange consent laws, in Florida, the law is that if you are 18-24, you can have sexual relations with a 16-17 year old. If you are older than 24, you cannot have sex with 16-17 year olds. 24 year old can, 25 year old cannot. Makes sense to me?
What part of that law seems strange to you? The fact that one year is the difference between legal and illegal? That's always going to happen no matter where you put the dividing line. The same thing can be said of a lot of laws; don't you need to be eighteen to sign a contract? But at seventeen, eleven months and twenty-nine days you're not mature enough?
Over here the age of consent is 16 (except for some states which have certain peculiarities which are never enforced, I think) but from 12 to just under 16 you can still have sex with anyone who isn't more than two years older. Seems the most sensible solution to me. Because if they're practically the same age, who are you supposed to punish?
Because if you are basing your law on the fact that a 16-17 year old can't consent, making an exception for 24 year olds seems strange. But yes, you are right, this may just be a matter of dividing lines, but I think it undermines the reasoning behind the law in the first place.
Twenty-four does seem a little high to me. Assuming that a 16-17 year-old can't consent, that is.
This situation is a sexual-harassment of a minor by a Congressman while mentoring a teen. This is when the Congressman was the co-chair of the ... Exploited Children's Caucus.
And you're comparing it to a homosexual affair.
Am I missing something in this analogy?
Nope. It's a piss poor one. Gerry Studds would have been better.
Agreed, I shouldn't have framed it so it would be taken as an analogy - trying to get too cute for my own good. My point was that this is false outrage given just how foul both parties' members are, even though only the GOP gets called on it. Since this was supposedly known about several years ago, the timing of these revelations reek. The fact that the Dems trot out the "OMG U R so GAYY" despite their own supposed support of gays makes it even more laughable.
Besides, I'd have been better off talking blue dresses if I was trying for an analogy about underage interns and abuse of power. Sean Hannity apparently rode this issue all Friday, with particular reference to Clinton & his pardon of Mel Reynolds.
Man, those are some lame jokes.Yet Stephen Colbert knocked it out of the park, right? Methinks you're protesting a wee bit too much.
And now, please blame Durf for my re-re-lurking. Cya.
jimmyboy
03-10-2006, 22:41
http://passionateamerica.********.com/2006/10/foleygate-mark-foley-emails-altered.html
Now there's claims being made that the Foley e-mails have been altered. This is going to get uglier than Michael Moore and Rosanne Barr getting it on in a jello pit
Good try Smeg.
But too late. It looks like Foley is pre-empting criminal prosecution. Foley has released statements that he is 1) an alchoholic victim, and 2) a molestation victim.
Wonder if John Mark Karr and Foley are sharing attorneys.
Sir EvilFreeSmeg
03-10-2006, 22:51
I'm not siding with Foley in any way but there's too much that doesn't add up. Why did the media not report this in August? Who stores five YEARS of IM's? Why the outrage from the left now when their guys got caught doing worse and got re-elected? Why is this released now when the Republican's can't replace Foley on the ballots?
The drive-by mainstream media has a craptastic record lately of making stuff up and falsifying information. It's obvious Foley is a scumbag pedophile and deserves to be hung outside the courthouse as quickly as possible (I choose tomorrow morning at dawn). But I'm highly skeptical about the evidence of this going back for as long as it's being reported as well as many of the details. Especially the details about how the Republican leaders knew exactly what was going on. That sounds like pure bull**** being spewed for the sole purpose of trying to take a 25 year long Republican seat away.
Amazing isn't it? The left is reduced to trying to win through their opponent's scandles. How about being FOR something for a change? You just might win something then.
Module88
03-10-2006, 22:55
Who stores five YEARS of IM's?
Well, I don't plan on deleting them, and I'm at two years. Of course, I only save the good ones. But I suppose since I'm me that doesn't count. =/
Although I am curious to see what will happen in November. If the Dems can't beat the Republicans at this point, that really says something.
Cannon Fodder
03-10-2006, 23:27
All IM conversations I have are automatically stored. It's a nifty and really useful little program. Man I have stuck it to some people by having a record of convos. Anyways, that could explain that. I have nothing political to say at this time. Move along.
jimmyboy
03-10-2006, 23:37
I'm not siding with Foley in any way but there's too much that doesn't add up. Why did the media not report this in August? Who stores five YEARS of IM's? Why the outrage from the left now when their guys got caught doing worse and got re-elected? Why is this released now when the Republican's can't replace Foley on the ballots?
The drive-by mainstream media has a craptastic record lately of making stuff up and falsifying information. It's obvious Foley is a scumbag pedophile and deserves to be hung outside the courthouse as quickly as possible (I choose tomorrow morning at dawn). But I'm highly skeptical about the evidence of this going back for as long as it's being reported as well as many of the details. Especially the details about how the Republican leaders knew exactly what was going on. That sounds like pure bull**** being spewed for the sole purpose of trying to take a 25 year long Republican seat away.
Amazing isn't it? The left is reduced to trying to win through their opponent's scandles. How about being FOR something for a change? You just might win something then.
Actually the most damaging outrage is from the Washinton Times, probably the most conservative newspaper in the nation. Looks like they want full scale resignation of multiple GOPs including House Speaker Hastert in addition to Foley.
Looks like the GOP is split into two groups.
The irony is that it was the Democratic House minority leader who stood up for Hastert when the GOP is ready to abandon him.
Those are good questions Smeg. The only problem is that no one in the GOP nor Foley has brought up those challenges. The GOP sort of assumed that Foley is already guilty.
I'm not siding with Foley in any way but there's too much that doesn't add up. Why did the media not report this in August? Who stores five YEARS of IM's?
An inefficient government.
Amazing isn't it? The left is reduced to trying to win through their opponent's scandles.
LOL.
*Mentions Monica Lewinsky*
P.S. "Scandals".
Yet Stephen Colbert knocked it out of the park, right? Methinks you're protesting a wee bit too much.
And now, please blame Durf for my re-re-lurking. Cya.
I've only seen him in some of his pieces on the Daily Show, but I've never found him funny.
Is it my imagination or is American TV comedy pretty sucky? There's sitcoms, they're a write-off, and your late shows and parody shows seem pretty weak. You make some good animated comedies, but apart from those there's no way you can compete with British TV comedy.
Maybe I shouldn't jump to conclusions, not having lived in America and watched the shows that they don't show here.
But I'm highly skeptical about the evidence of this going back for as long as it's being reported as well as many of the details.
Of course you are. A Republican gets in trouble and your brain shuts down...moreso. Be sure to blame the victim tomorrow. I think that's what Hannity will be saying. You've done a swell job of parroting him today. You deserve a cracker. I mean, it's almost word for word, Smeg.
Damn that mainstream media! It's a witchtrial!
The FBI has begun an inquiry into Foley's computer contact with pages, and Hastert wrote a letter to Florida Gov. Jeb Bush asking for an investigation into whether state laws were broken.
Meanwhile, Florida newspapers — who were leaked copies of the e-mail with the Louisiana boy last year — defended their decision not to run stories. Both The St. Petersburg Times and The Miami Herald were given copies of the e-mail, as were other news organizations, including Fox News.
Oh Noes! (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/03/america/NA_GEN_US_Congressman_Resigns.php)
Talga Vasternich
04-10-2006, 01:42
Of course you are. A Republican gets in trouble and your brain shuts down...moreso. Be sure to blame the victim tomorrow. I think that's what Hannity will be saying. You've done a swell job of parroting him today. You deserve a cracker. I mean, it's almost word for word, Smeg.
It's obvious Foley is a scumbag pedophile and deserves to be hung outside the courthouse as quickly as possible (I choose tomorrow morning at dawn).
maccool - Please learn to read.
Or is calling for Foley being strung up defending him?
The Future now
04-10-2006, 10:48
What I find morally repulsive is that the Demorats would ruin the innocence of a boy by bribing him to seduce a senator.
Anybody else care to explain why the DNC wrote him a check for $55,000 two months before this story broke?
www.google.com
For the details.
Drosselmeier
04-10-2006, 11:00
Well, at least now we know not only Democrats can be homosexuals. So, no more accusing Republicans of hating *** people, right?
There is an institutional dislike and an individual in conflict with that involved in this case. Republicans are not clones or robots.
And never forget... http://www.armchairsubversive.com/
The Future now
04-10-2006, 11:06
And never forget... http://www.armchairsubversive.com/
How do they know that Timothy Mcveigh was a 'republican voter'?
Drosselmeier
04-10-2006, 11:08
How do they know that Timothy Mcveigh was a 'republican voter'?
How should I know. I didn't write that. I merely posted the link. Let me say this though... if that's your main objection you're in big trouble.
The Future now
04-10-2006, 11:16
How should I know. I didn't write that. I merely posted the link. Let me say this though... if that's your main objection you're in big trouble.
What? That they're bending/ making up facts in order to fit their agenda? I'm tired of liberals always playing the terrorism card though "4/19!!! 4/19 REPUBLICANS ARE TERRISTS!"
Drosselmeier
04-10-2006, 11:23
What? That they're bending/ making up facts in order to fit their agenda? I'm tired of liberals always playing the terrorism card though "4/19!!! 4/19 REPUBLICANS ARE TERRISTS!"
It's not at all unlikely that McVeigh voted for the republicans at some point. His political views fit fairly well on that side of the US political spectrum, and god knows he was confused enough. I'm surprised you chose to focus on that claim though. First of all, you don't know if they have any base for that claim anymore than I do. Secondly, I would have thought that "Psychologists say conservatism is a mental illness" would be an easier claim to focus on for an angry republican.
maccool - Please learn to read.
Or is calling for Foley being strung up defending him?
Right back at you. Glass houses and stones, my friend.
I never said anyone was defending Foley. I said that the shrill windbgas on AM radio are attempting to shift some of the blame away from the Republican party leadership and onto the media and one of our own shrill windbags here on the OTF is doing a superb job of mimicry.
Right back at you. Glass houses and stones, my friend.
I never said anyone was defending Foley. I said that the shrill windbgas on AM radio are attempting to shift some of the blame away from the Republican party leadership and onto the media and one of our own shrill windbags here on the OTF is doing a superb job of mimicry.
Could be worse. You could have a shrill windbag attempt to paint foley as a Democrat. (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/04/bill-oreilly-labels-rep-foley-a-democrat/)
Could be worse. You could have a shrill windbag attempt to paint foley as a Democrat. (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/04/bill-oreilly-labels-rep-foley-a-democrat/)
Is it legal for them to do that?
Is it common for news agencies to stuff up which party people are from? Or is it amazing coincidence that it just so happened to have this 'accidet' when reporting on a child sex scandel?
Talga Vasternich
04-10-2006, 13:42
Right back at you. Glass houses and stones, my friend.
I never said anyone was defending Foley. I said that the shrill windbgas on AM radio are attempting to shift some of the blame away from the Republican party leadership and onto the media and one of our own shrill windbags here on the OTF is doing a superb job of mimicry.
Yeah, watching people defend pederasty is always a hoot.
Especially with incredibly stupid attempts at deflection. Hi Smeg!
You never said anyone was defending Foley?
right....got it
PatMaGroin
04-10-2006, 13:45
Not only is he an aleged molestation victim...
"Mark Foley wants you to know he is a *** man," Roth said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061004/ap_on_go_co/congressman_e_mails
You never said anyone was defending Foley?
right....got it
"I don't recall that statement" /maccondi
:laugh:
edit... wrong thread really... meh.
Talga Vasternich
04-10-2006, 14:20
"I don't recall that statement" /maccondi.
:laughing:
You never said anyone was defending Foley?
right....got it
Nope. Pederasty. I never mentioned Foley by name. You did. Why do you support molestors? Defense by deflection works for everyone!
Wait, it was the alcohol. No? Well, I was abused by a priest when I was younger. No? <insert excuse of the day here>.
See, I'm gunning for a job in this (or any) administration. Tony Snow is a rank amateur compared to me. It's very important to ignore criminal activity so we can attack those with whom we disagree.
SaroDarksbane
04-10-2006, 14:23
You never said anyone was defending Foley?
right....got it
You do realize that the Mac quote you reference was made after Smeg started claiming that the emails might have been "altered", whereas the later Mac quote was made in reference to the fact that Smeg is trying to distance the Republican leadership from the scandal to save political face, right?
And never forget... http://www.armchairsubversive.com/
I remember that one, actually I think you were the one I first saw linking to it.
I'd like to see a Democrat one as well. But it does remind me; who was it that said "liberals kill babies, conservatives rape them"?
Could be worse. You could have a shrill windbag attempt to paint foley as a Democrat. (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/04/bill-oreilly-labels-rep-foley-a-democrat/)
LOL, he's good.
Not only is he an aleged molestation victim...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061004/ap_on_go_co/congressman_e_mails
Given that the kid was 16, to me (and Canadians I presume) it isn't paedophilia, just a bit icky...
Quite a few people who are sexually abused as children turn out *** later in life. I wonder why that is.
Attorney David Roth, speaking on Foley's behalf at a Florida news conference Tuesday, said Foley was molested between ages 13 and 15 by a clergyman. He declined to identify the clergyman or the church, but Foley is Roman Catholic.
Uh-oh, Roman Catholic! You know what that means!
I remember reading a statistic somewhere that more children were molested in that year (I think it was way back in 1999) in the U.S. by Anglican priests than Catholic. But it's the Catholics that get stuck in people's minds. Well, to be fair, probably because the Catholic church made such an effort to cover it up and gag the victims. In fact there was a British documentary out just recently that claimed Ratzinger was one of the prime movers in that affair.
DurfBarian
04-10-2006, 15:35
Quite a few people who are sexually abused as children turn out to be sexually abusive, and then blame it on their homosexuality if they think it might score some political points later in life.
FTFY
It's very important to ignore criminal activity so we can attack those with whom we disagree.
Oliver North was a real patriot, wasn't he?
Oliver North was a real patriot, wasn't he?
Yes. But not nearly as patriotic as Fawn Hall. You see, North was expected to be a patriot. He had the military training and by virtue of being a privilaged male, a predestination for glory. Ms. Hall on the other hand, lacked all of these blessings, so her role was even more patriotic, and dare I say heroic. Plus, she was a looker.
DurfBarian
04-10-2006, 16:21
I always confuse Fawn Hall with that bimbo on the Monkey Business. Another patriot, though, so it's understandable.
FTFY
I saw some research done on it a while back, it's really true.
Actually, what did he do that was sexually abusive? As far as I can tell he just sent some too-friendly emails to a 16 year old boy. Who would be perfectly legal in my country.
Aside from making conservatives look bad and being a bit of a creep (and liking them really young, ew) I don't see what he's done wrong. Except that the kid is under-age because of America's rather quaint laws.
jimmyboy
05-10-2006, 05:46
I saw some research done on it a while back, it's really true.
Actually, what did he do that was sexually abusive? As far as I can tell he just sent some too-friendly emails to a 16 year old boy. Who would be perfectly legal in my country.
Aside from making conservatives look bad and being a bit of a creep (and liking them really young, ew) I don't see what he's done wrong. Except that the kid is under-age because of America's rather quaint laws.
It's difficult to explain or justify cross-culturally morality.
But Foley did violate a U.S. federal sexual harassment law when he sent such sexual content emails to a minor subordinate. As a federal lawmaker, one would expect him to folow federal laws.
Agree or not with his morality, he committed a serious felony.
DurfBarian
05-10-2006, 05:54
I don't see what he's done wrong. Except that the kid is under-age because of America's rather quaint laws.
. . . Laws made by lawmakers, including one Mr. Foley. The hypocrisy is slathered on with a hod! Marvelous.
Has Smeg called him a Democrat yet in this thread? Or blamed the kids for "egging him on"? My talking-points BINGO card isn't full yet and I'm going for blackout.
How many emails did he send? I would've thought it'd have to be a few to constitute harrassment. I mean, unless the others were more vulgar; the one I saw was pretty damn tame. I wouldn't fancy the chance of a harrassment charge being proven in court.
But sure, when politicians or legal officials break laws there's definitely an air of hypocrisy.
jimmyboy
05-10-2006, 17:01
How many emails did he send? I would've thought it'd have to be a few to constitute harrassment. I mean, unless the others were more vulgar; the one I saw was pretty damn tame. I wouldn't fancy the chance of a harrassment charge being proven in court.
But sure, when politicians or legal officials break laws there's definitely an air of hypocrisy.
Multiple emails. We don't really know what emails or how many you've seen so far. The last one is where Foley delayed a Congressional vote so that he can make his love connection.
More emails are being release by the hour. The issue is no longer whether Foley acted improper. The evidence is too heavy.
The issue is now whether OTHER members of Congress knew about it and breache their duty when they allowed him to continue. And what were their involvements - whether it was coverup (conspiracy) or aiding and abetting or mere negligence.
Everyone is treating Foley like he is radio-active.
One of Foley's former inner circle have just resigned.
thegiantturtle
05-10-2006, 17:55
Actually, what did he do that was sexually abusive? As far as I can tell he just sent some too-friendly emails to a 16 year old boy. Who would be perfectly legal in my country.*shakes head at grammar*
It's important to remember that the US has two sets of government. The federal government and the specific state governments. The age of consent laws are state statutes. I'm not sure if the District of Columbia has specific ordinances or if follows Maryland law in these cases .(DC is a bite out of Maryland, and I have never been completely clear on how it handles crimes normally covered by state law). Maryland consent laws are not nearly as strict as those in some other states:
If a party is under 12, no sexual contact is legal.
If a party is under 14, there can be no more than 2 years between the oldest and youngest party.
If a party is under 16, there can be no more than 4 years between the oldest and youngest party.
If everyone is over 16, you're good to go.In short: for Maryland residents, 12 and 14 is okay, 14 and 18 is okay, and 16 and 99 is okay.
The laws are further complicated if a minor party (here minor is defined as under 18) crossed state lines for the sexual contact to occur. Some of the teens Foley was communicating with lived in Maryland. Others I believe had their permanent residencies in other states and were temporarily living in DC. The laws surrounding these minors are the strictest requirements of those of their home state and current state, with some federal trafficing laws thrown in. When I was 20, and a 17 year old girl from VA visited me in MD and threw herself at me, I was scared by the interstate thing. I think it would have been legal in MD or in VA, but not when she crossed the state line, even though it was her idea, and I did not bring her over the line myself. I hate federalism.
By paedophilia, aren't we talking about sexual contact with someone under the age of consent? It may be called by a number of different technical legal names but it's essentially the same thing. As far as I know "rape" is not the correct legal term in this country, it's "sexual assault" or something; but it's still rape we'd be talking about.I hate that definition of pedophilia. It's a dumb definition that changes from one locale to another. Pedophilia should just be considered sex with young children. Sex with children under consent is statuatory rape. I would not consider Foley a pedophile.
The legal definition of rape and sexual assault vary by state. In Maryland, I believe rape is unconsented vaginal intercourse perpetrated by a man's phallus. A man can rape a woman, but a man cannot rape a man, a woman cannot rape a man, and a woman cannot rape a woman. There are separate sexual assault and forced sodomy laws that cover those situations. It gets more confusing when statuatory rape gets thrown in. Statuatory rape is defined as sexual contact with a member who can not consent. Things that would not count as rape between adults can classify as statuatory rape if the parties are too far apart in age.
I hate that definition of pedophilia. It's a dumb definition that changes from one locale to another. Pedophilia should just be considered sex with young children. Sex with children under consent is statuatory rape. I would not consider Foley a pedophile.
I would consider a pedophile someone who is attracted to pre-pubescent children and children going through the early years of puberty.
(in most cases)
Sir EvilFreeSmeg
05-10-2006, 18:58
www.drudgereport.com
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX MON OCT 5 2006 2:53:48 ET XXXXX
CLAIM: FILTHY FOLEY ONLINE MESSAGES WERE PAGE PRANK GONE AWRY
**World Exclusive**
**Must Credit the DRUDGE REPORT**
According to two people close to former congressional page Jordan Edmund, the now famous lurid AOL Instant Message exchanges that led to the resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.
According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, goaded Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of political operatives favorable to Democrats. This source, an ally of Edmund, also adamantly reports that the former page is not a homosexual. The prank scenario was confirmed by a second associate of Edmund.
The news come on the heels that former FBI Chief Louis Free has been named to investigate the mess.
Developing...
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reports are moved when circumstances warrant
http://www.drudgereport.com for updates
(c)DRUDGE REPORT 2006
Not for reproduction without permission of the author
And things get stranger and stranger.
SaroDarksbane
05-10-2006, 19:30
www.drudgereport.com
And things get stranger and stranger.
Certainly wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened (nor would it be the last), although the fact that he resigned speaks volumes to me about the case.
www.drudgereport.com
And things get stranger and stranger.
They had like a week and thats the best they can come up with?
Unnamed sources who are supposedley best buds with the people involved saying it was all a joke... Got me convinced that has.
a. Why did they not come out and say this to start with?
b. Why was his first response to resign rather than give his side of the storey?
c. Can't you still get prosecuted for soliciting a child/minor even if the person at the other end of the line is really an adult - see pervertedjustice (anti-pedophile activists) for examples. It's not as though the intent was not there...
double post monster...
Hey - whats with the tars?
Sir EvilFreeSmeg
05-10-2006, 19:38
Certainly wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened (nor would it be the last), although the fact that he resigned speaks volumes to me about the case.
I agree wholeheartedly. He is a scumbag and needed to go away.
But to quote Speaker Hasert (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.foley05oct05,0,488890.story?track=rss) "The people who want to see this thing blow up are ABC News and a lot of Democratic operatives, people funded by George Soros."
There's still a LOT more to this story than we have already. October suprise? Helluva drug
SaroDarksbane
05-10-2006, 19:41
But to quote Speaker Hasert (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.foley05oct05,0,488890.story?track=rss) "The people who want to see this thing blow up are ABC News and a lot of Democratic operatives, people funded by George Soros."
Well, duh. It's not like the Republicans don't pop champagne corks when a Democrat is caught doing something wrong or illegal. You yourself are usually the first person to plaster it all over the forum.
thegiantturtle
05-10-2006, 19:42
I agree wholeheartedly. He is a scumbag and needed to go away.
But to quote Speaker Hasert (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.foley05oct05,0,488890.story?track=rss) "The people who want to see this thing blow up are ABC News and a lot of Democratic operatives, people funded by George Soros."
There's still a LOT more to this story than we have already. October suprise? Helluva drugAnd Speaker Hasert might be guilty of political spin and/or trying to cover his own ***. I think more will come out, but the resignation, delay in this response, and lack of solid source all point to this story being bogus.
jimmyboy
05-10-2006, 20:10
I agree wholeheartedly. He is a scumbag and needed to go away.
But to quote Speaker Hasert (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.foley05oct05,0,488890.story?track=rss) "The people who want to see this thing blow up are ABC News and a lot of Democratic operatives, people funded by George Soros."
There's still a LOT more to this story than we have already. October suprise? Helluva drug
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061005/ap_on_go_co/congress_pages_105;_ylt=AneRswjgrZGUN1m5O331NqSGbT oC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
Looks like Hastert has either gone nuts or senile. He can't figure out friend from foe.
"A former Republican aide said Wednesday he had expressed concerns to top officials in Hastert's office about Foley's behavior with pages more than three years ago."
"Some leading Republicans have publicly blamed Hastert for failing to take action after he was warned about the messages. And a former Foley aide said he told Republican leaders about the Florida congressman's conduct years earlier than they have acknowledged."
It's be nice to get Hastert to sing while under oath. Let's see whether threats of perjury and jail helps him recollect his memory.
Sir EvilFreeSmeg
05-10-2006, 20:13
I say let's not get too whacked out over this until at least Monday. Let the weekend shows and bloggers connect the dots and get the truth out.
Then we can resume our usual flamefest:thumbsup:
SaroDarksbane
05-10-2006, 22:18
I say let's not get too whacked out over this until at least Monday. Let the weekend shows and bloggers connect the dots and get the truth out.
Any time Smeg suggests that people not jump to conclusions, you know you have him on the defensive for sure.
Sir EvilFreeSmeg
05-10-2006, 22:31
Right now I don't believe anybody is telling enough of the truth. Give the talking heads the weekend to blather and the bloggers the time to sort throught he mess and what really happened will come about by Monday.
Until then this is a giant circle-jerk with double the mess
www.drudgereport.com
And things get stranger and stranger.
Didn't the guy publically admit to it?
Any time Smeg suggests that people not jump to conclusions, you know you have him on the defensive for sure.
Which is strange, because usually when he's losing (read: at most three pages into any one of his threads) he just goes away and sulks.
*shakes head at grammar*
Informal English. Anyway, good thing I'm not a grammar Nazi.
It's important to remember that the US has two sets of government. The federal government and the specific state governments. The age of consent laws are state statutes. I'm not sure if the District of Columbia has specific ordinances or if follows Maryland law in these cases .(DC is a bite out of Maryland, and I have never been completely clear on how it handles crimes normally covered by state law). Maryland consent laws are not nearly as strict as those in some other states:
If a party is under 12, no sexual contact is legal.
If a party is under 14, there can be no more than 2 years between the oldest and youngest party.
If a party is under 16, there can be no more than 4 years between the oldest and youngest party.
If everyone is over 16, you're good to go.In short: for Maryland residents, 12 and 14 is okay, 14 and 18 is okay, and 16 and 99 is okay.
The laws are further complicated if a minor party (here minor is defined as under 18) crossed state lines for the sexual contact to occur. Some of the teens Foley was communicating with lived in Maryland. Others I believe had their permanent residencies in other states and were temporarily living in DC. The laws surrounding these minors are the strictest requirements of those of their home state and current state, with some federal trafficing laws thrown in. When I was 20, and a 17 year old girl from VA visited me in MD and threw herself at me, I was scared by the interstate thing. I think it would have been legal in MD or in VA, but not when she crossed the state line, even though it was her idea, and I did not bring her over the line myself. I hate federalism.
But as far as I can tell there was no sexual contact (or indeed any physical contact) between this guy and the kids he emailed, so has he in fact broken any laws?
I hate that definition of pedophilia. It's a dumb definition that changes from one locale to another. Pedophilia should just be considered sex with young children. Sex with children under consent is statuatory rape. I would not consider Foley a pedophile.
The legal definition of rape and sexual assault vary by state. In Maryland, I believe rape is unconsented vaginal intercourse perpetrated by a man's phallus. A man can rape a woman, but a man cannot rape a man, a woman cannot rape a man, and a woman cannot rape a woman. There are separate sexual assault and forced sodomy laws that cover those situations. It gets more confusing when statuatory rape gets thrown in. Statuatory rape is defined as sexual contact with a member who can not consent. Things that would not count as rape between adults can classify as statuatory rape if the parties are too far apart in age.
I don't care for any of those terms, I think the whole thing needs to be rewritten.
jimmyboy
06-10-2006, 05:06
But as far as I can tell there was no sexual contact (or indeed any physical contact) between this guy and the kids he emailed, so has he in fact broken any laws?
This is the federal one.
http://www.eeoc.gov/types/sexual_harassment.html
In Florida (crime scene), the age of consent is 18, and I think have their own version of the federal statute.
And I swear there's another statute that Foley help pass a short while back.
The Future now
06-10-2006, 06:08
This is typical EmoRat mudslinging. I mean, seriously, who among us can honestly say that they've never seduced a teenage male intern? Glass houses and stones, people.
DurfBarian
06-10-2006, 06:12
Good point. I know Smeg's got at least a few notches carved on the ol' pole, if you know what I mean.
Good point. I know Smeg's got at least a few notches carved on the ol' pole, if you know what I mean.
My girlfriend carved a notch on the ol' pole after she caught me with the peanut butter.
This is the federal one.
http://www.eeoc.gov/types/sexual_harassment.html
In Florida (crime scene), the age of consent is 18, and I think have their own version of the federal statute.
And I swear there's another statute that Foley help pass a short while back.
The thing is though, as far as I know (and I've only seen an excerpt from one email) he hasn't done anything apart from being "too friendly". Did any of the kids ask him to stop but he continued? Can you really be convicted of harrassment because you're being too friendly? Even if the opposite party doesn't ask you not to?
Talga Vasternich
06-10-2006, 11:57
Can you really be convicted of harrassment because you're being too friendly? Even if the opposite party doesn't ask you not to?
In America, yes to both questions.
Three reasons.
First, you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
Second, the "victim" might feel too intimidated to tell/ask you to stop.
Third, harassment is viewed from the eyes of the "victim". If they believe they are/were being harassed, it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.
SaroDarksbane
06-10-2006, 12:45
In America, yes to both questions.
Three reasons.
First, you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
Second, the "victim" might feel too intimidated to tell/ask you to stop.
Third, harassment is viewed from the eyes of the "victim". If they believe they are/were being harassed, it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.
Rather a slippery slope, though.
If I say "Hi" to a woman at work, and she reports me for harrassment, is it really fair to say that only her opinion matters?
Talga Vasternich
06-10-2006, 13:10
Rather a slippery slope, though.
If I say "Hi" to a woman at work, and she reports me for harrassment, is it really fair to say that only her opinion matters?
You are free to defend yourself in court.
Saying something like "Hi" would be laughed out of the courtroom, but saying something like, "That color looks good on you." has gotten people in trouble.
SaroDarksbane
06-10-2006, 13:19
You are free to defend yourself in court.
Saying something like "Hi" would be laughed out of the courtroom, but saying something like, "That color looks good on you." has gotten people in trouble.
Well then, I guess it matters what people other than the victim think, doesn't it? :smiley:
Apparently asking someone to measure their wang is also frowned upon. Especially when you put your job on hold to make such a request.
I do like this latest, "it was a prank" attempt at deflection by Matt 'journalistic integrity' Drudge. Apparently, Foley didn't know his chain was being yanked (as the prankee) and responded as he normally would have. So, he's hitting on pages, as he normally would have, but because "it's a prank LOL" this is a non-story. Well, as long as you ignore the other pages who have come forward.
SaroDarksbane
06-10-2006, 13:27
Apparently asking someone to measure their wang is also frowned upon.
Pffft, where do you work? :laugh:
Talga Vasternich
06-10-2006, 13:34
Well then, I guess it matters what people other than the victim think, doesn't it? :smiley:
As long as you don't mind having to defend yourself against a lawsuit, you're right.
SaroDarksbane
06-10-2006, 14:17
As long as you don't mind having to defend yourself against a lawsuit, you're right.
Dondrei's initial question was whether or not you can be convicted, not whether or not you can be charged. You responded that yes, you can be convicted because it only matters if the victim thinks it was harrassment.
This is untrue. It also matter what the judge/jury think.
Personally, I'm not actually sure what law you can be charged under. I assume it varies from state to state. Of course, being fired requires no court of law to find you guilty beforehand. =)
Talga Vasternich
06-10-2006, 14:32
Dondrei's initial question was whether or not you can be convicted, not whether or not you can be charged. You responded that yes, you can be convicted because it only matters if the victim thinks it was harrassment.
This is untrue. It also matter what the judge/jury think.
Personally, I'm not actually sure what law you can be charged under. I assume it varies from state to state. Of course, being fired requires no court of law to find you guilty beforehand. =)
You are correct. To be found guilty a jury has to convict you.
Let me give you an example, and you're in the jury hearing a harassment case...
Female Employee: "My boss said that if I slept with him I'd get a pay raise. I didn't sleep with him and I didn't get a raise"
Employee's boss: "I never said such a thing. She didn't get a raise because she didn't earn one."
No witnesses....no hard evidence on either side....both sides have character witness testimony that their client is honest and the other is a liar.
Do you find for the employee or the boss?
I'd say his chances against a jury are significantly diminished because it's a young boy in question. If he sent the same "overly friendly" letters to a woman, I'd bet you anything he could easily get out of it. Well, with a half-decent lawyer anyway.
Assuming this is the sort of case where a jury would be involved, I don't know about that.
SaroDarksbane
06-10-2006, 14:44
You are correct. To be found guilty a jury has to convict you.
Let me give you an example, and you're in the jury hearing a harassment case...
Female Employee: "My boss said that if I slept with him I'd get a pay raise. I didn't sleep with him and I didn't get a raise"
Employee's boss: "I never said such a thing. She didn't get a raise because she didn't earn one."
No witnesses....no hard evidence on either side....both sides have character witness testimony that their client is honest and the other is a liar.
Do you find for the employee or the boss?
The boss.
Reasonable doubt exists in spades.
I'd say his chances against a jury are significantly diminished because it's a young boy in question. If he sent the same "overly friendly" letters to a woman, I'd bet you anything he could easily get out of it. Well, with a half-decent lawyer anyway.
Which do you think is the bigger issue to the jury? The "young" part, or the "boy" part?
Which do you think is the bigger issue to the jury? The "young" part, or the "boy" part?
The "boy", but the "young" ain't helping.
jimmyboy
06-10-2006, 15:34
The thing is though, as far as I know (and I've only seen an excerpt from one email) he hasn't done anything apart from being "too friendly". Did any of the kids ask him to stop but he continued? Can you really be convicted of harrassment because you're being too friendly? Even if the opposite party doesn't ask you not to?
Well, the kid doesn't have to ask him to stop because of his age. Since 18 is the legal age of consent, he can't consent.
Besides, let's take a look at what is "friendly." Commenting on how nice a woman's outfit makes her body looks is can get you in trouble. So I think Foley talking about masturbation, the lenght of his penis, and suggesting that he get the kid drinks (contraband) is going to be interpreted by the jury as more than "friendly."
Let's take the boy out of the equation. Suppose you're 55 years old. And there's a new 16 year old girl in the office. If you start telling her about your penis size, asking her about her breast size, talk about masturbation, and offer to buy her (underaged) alchohol, the American jury will hang you.
I don't know how the Aussie court works. But if this is ok in Australia, then I'm moving there when I'm 55.
Well, the kid doesn't have to ask him to stop because of his age. Since 18 is the legal age of consent, he can't consent.
But... consent to what? Talking?
Besides, let's take a look at what is "friendly." Commenting on how nice a woman's outfit makes her body looks is can get you in trouble. So I think Foley talking about masturbation, the lenght of his penis, and suggesting that he get the kid drinks (contraband) is going to be interpreted by the jury as more than "friendly."
Is that what he said? That would be different.
Let's take the boy out of the equation. Suppose you're 55 years old. And there's a new 16 year old girl in the office. If you start telling her about your penis size, asking her about her breast size, talk about masturbation, and offer to buy her (underaged) alchohol, the American jury will hang you.
I don't know how the Aussie court works. But if this is ok in Australia, then I'm moving there when I'm 55.
I thought the emails were distinctly less vulgar and obvious than that, maybe I was wrong.
jimmyboy
06-10-2006, 16:14
But... consent to what? Talking?
I bought up consent because it's the basis to a consentual relationship. One can't claim sexual harassment if one was a willing participant to a relationship. So if an adult victim consented to Foley's advances, then there's not much of a claim. Since the victim is a kid, he can't consent.
But anyways, the point is moot. The kid did forwarded Foley's email to other Republican represetatives and attached the following words:
"sick-sick-sick-sick-sick-sick-sick-sick-sick-sick-sick-sick-sick."
Over-friendly is the word that the GOP put out. I don't think the victim would refer to it quite as mildly.
Albeit the investigation is ongoing so we don't have all the details, here's some of what's been leaked:
http://www.startribune.com/587/story/722288.html
From 2003 instant messages revealed last Friday:
"how my favorite young stud doing"Do I make you a little horny?"You in your boxers, too? ... ell, strip down and get relaxed."
(Foley also discusses methods of masturbation with one teen.)
From a 2003 instant message revealed on Monday: "I would drive a few miles for a hot stud like you."
From 2003 instant messages revealed on Tuesday: "We may need to drink at my house so we don't get busted."
http://www.southernvoice.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=9437
Foley, who in the past has refused to comment on published reports that he is ***, repeatedly asked the 17-year-old about masturbation and the size of the youth’s penis, according to a transcript of the exchange released by ABC News.
The television network said the transcript was one of 52 instant message exchanges it has obtained from former congressional pages that consist of online conversations between Foley and two former pages under the age of 18. In each of the exchanges, Foley used the screen name Maf54, which ABC News said it verified as Foley’s online name.
thegiantturtle
06-10-2006, 17:36
But as far as I can tell there was no sexual contact (or indeed any physical contact) between this guy and the kids he emailed, so has he in fact broken any laws?No contact, but I bet there's an improper relationship law he broke. In public schools, you can't talk about anything even slightly sexual without getting parent permission first. I suspect that their are laws about other adults conversing with minors.
I don't care for any of those terms, I think the whole thing needs to be rewritten.I think everyone can agree that the legal definitions of rape and assault terms are ridiculous.
The "boy", but the "young" ain't helping.I think the boy part is actually a positive for him. 16 year old boys aren't considered in nearly the same light as 16 year old girls.
"how my favorite young stud doing"Do I make you a little horny?"You in your boxers, too? ... ell, strip down and get relaxed."
(Foley also discusses methods of masturbation with one teen.)
From a 2003 instant message revealed on Monday: "I would drive a few miles for a hot stud like you."
From 2003 instant messages revealed on Tuesday: "We may need to drink at my house so we don't get busted."
Oh, okay. That's definitely way over the line.
I think the boy part is actually a positive for him. 16 year old boys aren't considered in nearly the same light as 16 year old girls.
I don't think so, no jury will ever buy the "he led me on" excuse if the target is a young boy, but "she led me on" will often fly if it's a girl. Everyone assumes all children are 100% heterosexual.
jimmyboy
08-10-2006, 16:58
I don't think so, no jury will ever buy the "he led me on" excuse if the target is a young boy, but "she led me on" will often fly if it's a girl. Everyone assumes all children are 100% heterosexual.
Probably depends on the mix of the jury. Which probably depends on where the trial is.
Example, the jury is predominantly composed of right wing religious nuts from Provo, Utah will have a different outlook from a jury of left wing radicals from San Francisco.
Probably depends on the mix of the jury. Which probably depends on where the trial is.
Example, the jury is predominantly composed of right wing religious nuts from Provo, Utah will have a different outlook from a jury of left wing radicals from San Francisco.
Well sure, that will have an effect.
jimmyboy
09-10-2006, 04:35
Well sure, that will have an effect.
Sorry didn't mean to nitpick. It's just that the US is terribly diverse. And what you get is some weird inconsistency.
So if you plan to commit a crime, avoid states like Texas and Florida.
Unless of course, they're white collar like embezzlement, antitrust activities or bribing politicians etc.
Back on topic.
I guess I'm a little peave on this matter since I'm growing terribly tired of the old boys club covering for each other. Hastert's innitial statement was that he didn't innitially report this to the FBI because he wanted to take care of it "internally."
WTF is internally? As though there's a special police and separate laws for politicians since they're so much better than the rest of us peasants. Anyways I can't wait for the results from the FBI investigation.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.