Republican Congressman Sends Sex Messages to Underage Boys

[FranchiseBlade]

I'd like some clarification about how people doing something which is legal are victimis?

I don't blame the "kids" at all. It is all creepy. I am just poking into the sensationalism here, i.e. look at the title of the thread.

The only thing illegal that seems to have gone on is A) supplying alcohol, B) sending inappropriate messages and C) "consorting" with pages -- I'm not sure what the illegality is there.

This is all very disgusting, but it's not like this guy is seducing 14 YOs or he's killing people. It's a sad pathetic story which has been sensationalized by political parrying.
The kids were minors. That is where the illegality comes into play. Some of the kids were of the age of consent, others WERE NOT.

Do you think it is legal to use the internet to have cybersex with minors, invite them to the house of a 50 + year old to drink and engage in sexual activity?

The title of the thread is accurate. That is precisely what Congressman Foley did. He sent sex messages to boys. But this goes beyond that. GOP leadership knew of this tendency towards these things, and tried to hide it and cover it up.

Finally, I will ask again, if, like you say, it is all still wrong, and no less disgusting then why are you trying to lessen the impact of it by implying their wasn't anything thing "that" illegal about it, and that they weren't really innocent kids?

[giddyup]

So, giddyup, what you're saying is that, the only thing that's illegal are the crimes that were committed, therefore, what the hell is so illegal about it?

You need to read the full transcript of the messages, you obviously haven't.
No, what I'm saying is that people are gleefully convicting him of both things that are criminal and things that are not.

I'm not minimizing any illegality. I just don't like seeing him convicted of things that are not illegal for political gain. Hey, if there weren't a political angle here I probably wouldn't care who said what about the creep.

[halfbreed]

You can post all you want, but if you get huffy puffy because you missed/skipped over a key point, then I'll huff and puff and blow your house down.

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e195/halfbreedcfnet/big_bad_wolf.gif<----Sam Fisher, internet badass

[FranchiseBlade]

You said:



Sounds to me like you're attempting to equate what he said with what the more hardcore Republicans are saying. Your last sentence is a statement which for some reason has a question mark at the end.

That's just the same as someone pointing out the simliarities in DNC talking points and an OBL video and saying "Is Howard Dean saying that he rejoices on the destruction of the twin towers?" It's absurd. Sure some do it but it doesn't make it right.

I also don't recall giddy calling anyone beasts. If he did, I apologize. You're directing your anger at what a third party said at someone who hasn't said it because they share a simliar belief structure.Drudge called the victims beasts. I asked if giddy was going to go in that same direction. He later responded in a way that seemed to indicate he was.

[SamFisher]

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e195/halfbreedcfnet/big_bad_wolf.gif<----Sam Fisher, internet badass
http://cache.kotaku.com/gaming/images/bank_robbery-thumb.jpg

[giddyup]

The kids were minors. That is where the illegality comes into play. Some of the kids were of the age of consent, others WERE NOT.

Do you think it is legal to use the internet to have cybersex with minors, invite them to the house of a 50 + year old to drink and engage in sexual activity?

The title of the thread is accurate. That is precisely what Congressman Foley did. He sent sex messages to boys. But this goes beyond that. GOP leadership knew of this tendency towards these things, and tried to hide it and cover it up.

Finally, I will ask again, if, like you say, it is all still wrong, and no less disgusting then why are you trying to lessen the impact of it by implying their wasn't anything thing "that" illegal about it, and that they weren't really innocent kids?

If 17 years of age is "minor" our high schools NATIONWIDE are full of statutory rapists.... :eek:

How many pages did Foley: A) have sex with who were underage B) send illicit electronic messages who were undeage, and C) provide alcohol for who were underage?

I think in most cases, those ages of consent for sex, porno and alcohol are very likely different. Most here seem to want to just lump them in all together.

I quibble not to help his legal case but to slow down the politicking....

[FranchiseBlade]

If 17 years of age is "minor" our high schools NATIONWIDE are full of statutory rapists.... :eek:

How many pages did Foley: A) have sex with who were underage B) send illicit electronic messages who were undeage, and C) provide alcohol for who were underage?

I think in most cases, those ages of consent for sex, porno and alcohol are very likely different. Most here seem to want to just lump them in all together.

I quibble not to help his legal case but to slow down the politicking....
Why did you raise the age of at least one page. One page was 16 and not 17. Internet regulations for the kind of stuff Foley was doing is 18. Drinking age is 21.

Statutory rape often also carries with it an age discrepency for younger people, so your high school example is off base.

[halfbreed]

http://cache.kotaku.com/gaming/images/bank_robbery-thumb.jpg

:D

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e195/halfbreedcfnet/samfisher.jpg

[giddyup]

Why did you raise the age of at least one page. One page was 16 and not 17. Internet regulations for the kind of stuff Foley was doing is 18. Drinking age is 21.

Statutory rape often also carries with it an age discrepency for younger people, so your high school example is off base.
I wasn't talking about any page at all. I was talking about the generally recognized ages for consent for those various activities. It probably varies by state, too.

My high school example is, of course, totally off base because it was based on your expressed notion that anyone having sex who is not yet 18 is not of age.
That was my point. Lot's of kids who are 17, 16 and even younger are having sex. Only those under 16 are underage. The others are of the age of consent and may have a partner who is likewise 17 or 20 or 28 or 40... shall I stop? Is there a ceiling on the age of legality? No, it would seem to be governed by other factors.

[geeimsobored]

If 17 years of age is "minor" our high schools NATIONWIDE are full of statutory rapists.... :eek:

Uh.. the rules of consent apply to adults and not other minors. A minor can have sex with someone of the same age, but Mark Foley isn't allowed to be messing around with 16 year olds.

[FranchiseBlade]

I wasn't talking about any page at all. I was talking about the generally recognized ages for consent for those various activities. It probably varies by state, too.

My high school example is, of course, totally off base because it was based on your expressed notion that anyone having sex who is not yet 18 is not of age.
That was my point. Lot's of kids who are 17, 16 and even younger are having sex. Only those under 16 are underage. The others are of the age of consent and may have a partner who is likewise 17 or 20 or 28 or 40... shall I stop? Is there a ceiling on the age of legality? No, it would seem to be governed by other factors.
So you are trying to say that it is ok for a 50 plus year old man to cybersex and masturbate over the internet with 16 year olds. You seem to at least be saying that it isn't really a big deal.

Keep saying it, and I will disagree with you. You can pretend that it is ok for grown powerful leaders to do that with 16 year old boys, and I will never agree with you. I guess we will just have to disagree on this one.

[halfbreed]

So you are trying to say that it is ok for a 50 plus year old man to cybersex and masturbate over the internet with 16 year olds. You seem to at least be saying that it isn't really a big deal.

Keep saying it, and I will disagree with you. You can pretend that it is ok for grown powerful leaders to do that with 16 year old boys, and I will never agree with you. I guess we will just have to disagree on this one.

Not defending anyone here. It brings up an interesting question though.

At what age does it become OK (legally and morally)? I think we can agree that this case falls in the "not OK" for both legal and moral considerations.

When would it not?

[KingCheetah]

Awesome - giddyup is dragging out the old deliberately obtuse Jungle Jack Hannah routine.

"Crime!? Well, I didn't see a crime..."

[rhadamanthus]

I wasn't talking about any page at all. I was talking about the generally recognized ages for consent for those various activities. It probably varies by state, too.

My high school example is, of course, totally off base because it was based on your expressed notion that anyone having sex who is not yet 18 is not of age.
That was my point. Lot's of kids who are 17, 16 and even younger are having sex. Only those under 16 are underage. The others are of the age of consent and may have a partner who is likewise 17 or 20 or 28 or 40... shall I stop? Is there a ceiling on the age of legality? No, it would seem to be governed by other factors.

:eek:

Even I did not think you'd go so far as to argue age of consent. This is the party of family values right? The whole "we don't want gays getting married" or "no teenage sex" bull**** right?

But suddenly this is all under review because of a congressman? Your motivation is all too clear...

[Deckard]

If 17 years of age is "minor" our high schools NATIONWIDE are full of statutory rapists.... :eek:

How many pages did Foley: A) have sex with who were underage B) send illicit electronic messages who were undeage, and C) provide alcohol for who were underage?

I think in most cases, those ages of consent for sex, porno and alcohol are very likely different. Most here seem to want to just lump them in all together.

I quibble not to help his legal case but to slow down the politicking....
Oh, you're quibbling. No doubt about that. You're parsing, excuse making, just plain disgusting attempting to excuse what Foley did. Spin it however you want, giddy, but that's what you're doing, and I find it very, very disturbing. I'll tell you this... if it were my son who'd been preyed upon by this sick ****, whether he was 16, 17, or 18, with that sick **** in a position of power and a US Congressman, with my son, a Congressional page, hoping to use being a page as an educational experience, and a way to get into politics, and other related fields... and was attempting to seduce my son, I have no doubt that I would be in jail, with the bastard still looking for his teeth, if he hadn't already run and hid in his bull**** "facility."

I can't believe I'm reading some of this crap. I'm astonished. You have no idea of the power someone like a congressman, a top executive in a company, or government agency, can have over a young person trying to make their way up in the world, do you, giddy.



Keep D&D Civil.

[halfbreed]

I can't believe I'm reading some of this crap. I'm astonished. You have no idea of the power someone like a congressman, a top executive in a company, or government agency, can have over a young person trying to make their way up in the world, do you, giddy.



Keep D&D Civil.

So it would be wrong to use that power for this purpose in any circumstance or is it just the age that makes it wrong?

I think it's both but if you agree with me then you'd have to admit that you can't say the Clinton/Lewinksy thing wasn't a big deal. Power was used in the same way.

[geeimsobored]

So it would be wrong to use that power for this purpose in any circumstance or is it just the age that makes it wrong?

I think it's both but if you agree with me then you'd have to admit that you can't say the Clinton/Lewinksy thing wasn't a big deal. Power was used in the same way.

Sure no one is saying that power wasn't an issue then either. There are, however, issues that most people simply aren't acknowledging.

1. It's hypocritical that Republicans are going after Clinton and then now holding back and defending their boy Mark Foley.

2. And even more ridiculous, is the fact that they're using legal tactics as a defense. What Clinton did, while morally wrong in the eyes of most, was NOT illegal. Back then, Republicans hounded him for being morally reprehensible and today Republicans are defending foley on legality while somehow pretending that morality is irrelevant in this situation.

3. Let's be realistic, it may be unfortunate but its true that the sex lives of our leaders has become fair game to sink them. Gary Hart's presidential bid sank like the titanic the moment that picture of him with a girl sitting on his lap came out. That guy Jack Ryan, who ran against Obama, got killed when it came out that he had tried to get his wife to commit public sex acts and the fact that he frequented strip clubs quite regularly. Of course we know about Clinton and what that did. Both parties are guilty of taking advantage of sexual deviance to further their own political goals, but for Republicans to claim that this is somehow "different" is ludicrous.

Clinton was wrong and Foley was wrong. I would say Foley was probably worse simply because what he did was not only wrong, but illegal. Power is inherent to ANY human relationship but in the case of Foley's relationship with kids, that power is magnified substantially.

[rimrocker]

http://static.flickr.com/109/261863311_d30cb873f9.jpg

Copy of email sent to Rep. Alexander's office from first Page that Hastert and others say they acted upon appropriately.

Notice the plural "pages." Probably enough for most normal folks to turn it over to the Bipartisan Page Committee or start an investigation. That they did neither speaks volumes.

[Icehouse]

Dude....there is no way that anyone can defend a grown man hitting on a minor.......PERIOD.......

[Nolen]

I think there are multiple levels of 'wrong' here and they're getting confused.

Social/"Moral" issues:

First of all, there's the wrongness of a person in power sexually harrassing an employee. We have laws in place to keep that in check, because it's wrong. (Sexual harrassment is probably way too generous a term for Foley, but bear with me here.) A US Congressman making HUGE sexual overtures to a teenage page... there's not a lot of situations where power is more imbalanced than that.

There's the somewhat taboo 'wrong' of an old man and young person. Some of this taboo relates to the issue of imbalance of power I've already mentioned above.

There's the issue of Foley being gay. Since I'm a morally bankrupt liberal, this is an utter non-issue to me. It's awesome watching the social conservatives tying themselves in pretzels over it.

Then there's the utterly over-the-top salaciousness of the IMs that goes way beyong simple harrassing and into... I don't know what to call it.

Legal Issues:

There are strong federal laws protecting minors from internet predators, because it's a bad problem and it's only growing. Ironically, Foley took part in writing at least some of this legislature. The question is, can the IMs, (both the ones we know about and others not yet revealed), be interpreted as solicitation for sex? If a federal task force, with an officer posing as a minor, saw this IM unfold before their eyes, would they arrest Foley? Investigation is underway and we may find out...

Sex with a minor. If one of the kids did, they'll be horrified of it getting out. If it happened and the authorities are made aware, 1)what age was the kid at the time and 2)what jurisdiction would it be under; i.e., which state, since different states have different age limits.

Providing alcohol to a minor. If he IM'ed about doing it, he has probably done it, though whether the kids will talk about it to investigators remains to be seen. Obviously illegal, but morally I see it two ways: as an isolated, innocent incident with no ulterior motive (for ex, me (33) buying a beer for my 17 year old nephew) is a total non-issue. But an older, very powerful man getting alcohol for a teenage pee-on gopher while making sexual advances- utterly morally wrong and disgusting.


____________________________________________________________ ____


I'm sure there's some things I've forgotten.

Morally, it's obviously wrong- the combination of abuse of power over a minor is inexcusable. I think that even now, with the story only partly unfolded, we can say that the leadership of the house failed to protect the page or pages in question by simply giving Foley a warning.

Legally- well, that part is underway. I personally think that even the IMs we've seen so far would pass for solicitation for sex with a minor over the internet. There's more that ABC and others have that we haven't seen yet, and even more that will come to light as more pages come forward with their stories.
If he had sex with them when they were underage, he's going to jail, no question. But we shouldn't jump to conclusions about that, maybe he's telling the truth when he says he hasn't. We'll see.


Anyway, if there's something to defend here, what is it, exactly?

[vlaurelio]

Anyway, if there's something to defend here, what is it, exactly?

the repubs outrage over clinton

[halfbreed]

Clinton was wrong and Foley was wrong. I would say Foley was probably worse simply because what he did was not only wrong, but illegal. Power is inherent to ANY human relationship but in the case of Foley's relationship with kids, that power is magnified substantially.

I agree with you on this.

[Nolen]

the repubs outrage over clinton

Is it any comfort that Clinton was put through as much hell as a president can be while still in office?

[Sishir Chang]

I quibble not to help his legal case but to slow down the politicking....

So you're quibbling because of partisanship? :confused:

[giddyup]

So you are trying to say that it is ok for a 50 plus year old man to cybersex and masturbate over the internet with 16 year olds. You seem to at least be saying that it isn't really a big deal.

Keep saying it, and I will disagree with you. You can pretend that it is ok for grown powerful leaders to do that with 16 year old boys, and I will never agree with you. I guess we will just have to disagree on this one.
... and he could do it live and it's not a crime?

Never did I say it was okay, but I have commented on the irony of "is it live or is it memorex?"

[giddyup]

Uh.. the rules of consent apply to adults and not other minors. A minor can have sex with someone of the same age, but Mark Foley isn't allowed to be messing around with 16 year olds.
This is the first time I've heard this. Can you substantiate it? Where did you find/learn this?

[giddyup]

:eek:

Even I did not think you'd go so far as to argue age of consent. This is the party of family values right? The whole "we don't want gays getting married" or "no teenage sex" bull**** right?

But suddenly this is all under review because of a congressman? Your motivation is all too clear...
I'm on record here, many times, of being in favor of gay marriage.

How can you not discuss the age of consent when you are trying to criminalize behavior? Isn't the age of consent absolutely essential?

Nothing is under review because of a congressman. I'm just discussing the facts of his case rather than responding hysterically like some lynch mob.

Your agenda is out ahead of your thinking....

[geeimsobored]

This is the first time I've heard this. Can you substantiate it? Where did you find/learn this?

It is generally a built in provision in consent laws. For example, in Colorado, consent rules don't apply if the two people having sex are within 4 years of each other. I think in texas, it has to be within 3 years to get out of the 17 year old limit.

This is standard procedure in the US and other countries.

Remember these are consent laws, not rules governing at what age you can have sex. Consent laws are designed to protect the child from having sex with an adult who could possibly manipulate the relationship from a position of power. (exactly what Foley did, assuming what is being reported is true)

[giddyup]

Oh, you're quibbling. No doubt about that. You're parsing, excuse making, just plain disgusting attempting to excuse what Foley did. Spin it however you want, giddy, but that's what you're doing, and I find it very, very disturbing. I'll tell you this... if it were my son who'd been preyed upon by this sick ****, whether he was 16, 17, or 18, with that sick **** in a position of power and a US Congressman, with my son, a Congressional page, hoping to use being a page as an educational experience, and a way to get into politics, and other related fields... and was attempting to seduce my son, I have no doubt that I would be in jail, with the bastard still looking for his teeth, if he hadn't already run and hid in his bull**** "facility."

I can't believe I'm reading some of this crap. I'm astonished. You have no idea of the power someone like a congressman, a top executive in a company, or government agency, can have over a young person trying to make their way up in the world, do you, giddy.

Keep D&D Civil.

I have made no excuse for what Foley did. What I have done is try to delineate a distinction between what is illegal and what is immoral. Is that really wrong to do... or should we just lynch him? Would burning at the stake serve our purposes better?

[giddyup]

It is generally a built in provision in consent laws. For example, in Colorado, consent rules don't apply if the two people having sex are within 4 years of each other. I think in texas, it has to be within 3 years to get out of the 17 year old limit.

This is standard procedure in the US and other countries.

Remember these are consent laws, not rules governing at what age you can have sex. Consent laws are designed to protect the child from having sex with an adult who could possibly manipulate the relationship from a position of power. (exactly what Foley did, assuming what is being reported is true)
Here's the map: http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

You do find some of the vagaries that you describe, state-by-state or nation-by-nation.

[giddyup]

So you're quibbling because of partisanship? :confused:
I quibble where others harangue-- likewise becaue of partisanship... :D

[FranchiseBlade]

I have made no excuse for what Foley did. What I have done is try to delineate a distinction between what is illegal and what is immoral. Is that really wrong to do... or should we just lynch him? Would burning at the stake serve our purposes better?
If you aren't defending what he did, then why do you keep trying to bring up the point that it was ok because of how old the pages were?

If it is wrong then why try and drag that up?

[rimrocker]

What was that you said Mr. Speaker?
___________________

Staffer Cites Earlier Role by Hastert's Office
Confrontation With Foley Detailed

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 7, 2006; A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100601888_pf.html

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's chief of staff confronted then-Rep. Mark Foley about his inappropriate social contact with male pages well before the speaker said aides in his office took any action, a current congressional staff member with personal knowledge of Foley and his behavior with pages said yesterday.

The staff member said Hastert's chief of staff, Scott Palmer, met with the Florida Republican at the Capitol to discuss complaints about Foley's behavior toward pages. The alleged meeting occurred long before Hastert says aides in his office dispatched Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.) and the clerk of the House in November 2005 to confront Foley about troubling e-mails he had sent to a Louisiana boy.

The staff member's account buttresses the position of Foley's onetime chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, who said earlier this week that he had appealed to Palmer in 2003 or earlier to intervene, after Fordham's own efforts to stop Foley's behavior had failed. Fordham said Foley and Palmer, one of the most powerful figures in the House of Representatives, met within days to discuss the allegations.

Palmer said this week that the meeting Fordham described "did not happen." Timothy J. Heaphy, Fordham's attorney, said yesterday that Fordham is prepared to testify under oath that he had arranged the meeting and that both Foley and Palmer told him the meeting had taken place. Fordham spent more than three hours with the FBI on Thursday, and Heaphy said that on Friday he contacted the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to offer his client's cooperation.

"We are not preparing to cooperate. We are affirmatively seeking to," Heaphy said.

Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean declined to directly comment on the second House staff member's assertion, saying that it is a matter for a House ethics committee investigation. "The Standards Committee has asked that no one discuss this matter because of its ongoing investigation," Bonjean said.

The emergence of a second congressional staffer describing such a meeting came on a day that Hastert (R-Ill.) was working to solidify his hold on the speakership. Prominent Republicans, including President Bush, have defended Hastert, saying he should not step down, but the criticism continues to flow.

New Jersey's Thomas H. Kean Jr., whose candidacy offers the GOP its most promising hope to take a Senate seat from a Democrat in November, called for Hastert's resignation yesterday, as did the editorial page of the Los Angeles Times. Democratic House candidate Patty Wetterling of Minnesota, a child-safety advocate and the first to air a television commercial about the Foley scandal, will deliver the national Democratic response to Bush's weekly radio address today.

Hastert maintains that he knew nothing of Foley's actions until last week, when the story first broke and Foley resigned. His stance contradicts that of House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.), both of whom said they had informed Hastert this spring.

Palmer has resolutely said he had no earlier meeting with Foley, and other leadership aides have questioned the truthfulness of Fordham. Fordham quit his job as Reynolds's chief of staff last week after acknowledging that he had tried to persuade ABC News not to publish the salacious instant-message exchanges between Foley and two former pages.

Hastert's office contends that the first confrontation with Foley occurred in November 2005, when Shimkus, the head of the House Page Board, and then-House Clerk Jeff Trandahl took Foley aside to discuss what they termed "over-friendly" e-mails that Foley had sent to a Louisiana boy. Fordham's account not only pushed the matter back at least two years but also indicated that alarms over Foley's behavior had gone well beyond bland e-mails.

Sources close to Fordham say Trandahl repeatedly urged the longtime aide and close family friend to confront Foley about his inappropriate advances on pages. Each time, Foley pledged to no longer socialize with the teenagers, but, weeks later, Trandahl would again alert Fordham about more contacts. Out of frustration, the sources said, Fordham contacted Palmer, hoping that an intervention from such a powerful figure in the House would persuade Foley to stop.

Now, a second House aide familiar with Foley and his actions told The Washington Post yesterday that "Scott Palmer had spoken to Foley prior to November 2005." The aide spoke on the condition of anonymity because the matter is now the subject of a criminal investigation and the House ethics committee inquiry.

Two law enforcement officials said yesterday that the FBI had not yet determined whether a crime had occurred in the Foley case. Justice Department and FBI officials have cautioned that cases involving the enticement of minors are notoriously difficult to prosecute.

On Wednesday night, Palmer was described as highly emotional while aides sifted through e-mails and files to determine whether he had ever spoken to Fordham. Several people who spoke with Palmer said the chief of staff was emphatic in denying that he knew anything about Foley's questionable contacts with young male pages.

Palmer, who shares a townhouse with Hastert when they are in town, is more powerful than all but a few House members. Members know that he speaks for Hastert.

The divergent accounts have highlighted the holes in the public's understanding of Foley's undoing. And they are sure to ratchet up the pressure on Trandahl to come forward with his knowledge of events. As House clerk between January 1999 and November 2005, Trandahl had direct control over the page program.

Pages apparently saw Trandahl as a strict disciplinarian. In one instant-message exchange obtained by The Post, a former page, on his way to his first annual reunion in Washington, told Foley in January 2003 that "everyone is going to be pretty wasted a lot of the time in dc."

He then added, "well we dont have the [expletive] clerk to fire us anymore. . . . we didnt like trandahl that much . . . he isnt a nice guy . . . and he gets really scarey when he is mad."

Trandahl's departure came within days of his confrontation with Foley over e-mails that the congressman had sent a former page. House aides say the circumstances of Trandahl's exit were oddly quiet. The departure of a staff member of long standing, especially one as important as the House clerk, is usually marked with considerable fanfare, said Scott Lilly, a former Democratic staff director of the House Appropriations Committee. Debate is suspended in mid-afternoon to accommodate a stream of testimonials from lawmakers.

Trandahl's departure was marked by a one-minute salute from Shimkus and a brief insert into the Congressional Record.

"My one-hour Special Order changed to a five-minute Special Order, now to a one-minute," Shimkus said. "I just want to say thank you for the work you have done."

Lilly said: "He seemed to suddenly disappear in a puff of smoke."

Trandahl, now the executive director of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, has not returned repeated phone calls and e-mails.

Congressional aides point to another factor that links Trandahl to the Foley matter. A member of the board of the national gay rights group Human Rights Campaign, Trandahl is openly homosexual and personally close to the now-disgraced former lawmaker, who announced through his lawyer this week that he is gay.

[rimrocker]

Liars all... It goes from Foley resigned on his own (what actually happened) to Repubs demanded he resign to Hastert demanded he resign.
____________

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/06/foley-lie/

Conservatives Propagate False Talking Point Defending Hastert’s Handling Of Foley Scandal

Top conservatives have fanned out on television to defend House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s role in the Foley scandal.

A key talking point: when ABC made Foley’s sexually explicit communications public, Hastert “dealt with it immediately” by going to Foley and telling him, “Resign or be expelled.” Both Ken Mehlman and Ed Gillespie said Hastert’s bold ultimatum to Foley was something not seen “in thirty years in this town.”

In fact, their entire story is a fabrication. Hastert could not have issued an ultimatum to Foley after the sexually explicit instant messages were made public, because by that time, Foley had already resigned. ABC did not make Foley’s sexually explicit communications public until Friday, September 29, at 6pm ET. Foley had already resigned three hours earlier, at around 3pm ET.

As ABC producer Maddy Sauer has described, Foley decided to resign not after an ultimatum from Speaker Hastert, but after ABC called his office on Friday morning and read Foley staffers the instant messages they had obtained. According to Sauer, Foley’s office called ABC an hour later and said the congressman would be resigning.

Speaker Hastert himself acknowledged that he had no role in Foley’s resignation in his first statement on the issue on Monday:

When [the instant messages] were released, Congressman Foley resigned. And I’m glad he did. If he had not, I would have demanded his expusion from the House of Representatives.

Full transcript video:

HASTERT: When Congress found out about the explicit messages, Republicans dealt with it immediately and the culprit was gone. [10/5/06]

HASTERT: I, first of all, learned of this last Friday, when we were about to leave Congress for the break, to go out and campaign. And that’s the first time that I heard of the explicit language. When it happened, Republicans acted. And the guy’s gone. [10/5/06]

HOEKSTRA: I mean, we were all disgusted by what we found out last week Friday. But we also need to remember that what we did do on Friday is the speaker, the leadership and the House Republican conference, we spoke with clarity. It was a defining moment for us. We said, Resign or be expelled. Mark Foley left the House of Representatives within hours of this information becoming public. [10/6/06]

MEHLMAN: The fact is, what Denny Hastert did is something that we haven’t seen done in thirty years in this town in Washington DC, and that is he said to a member of congress, either you go or we’re going to make you go. That happened the moment that Denny Hastert found out about this. [10/6/06]

GILLESPIE: In fact, voters are starting to understand that speaker Hastert reacted very strongly. As the father of a 16-year-old son, I appreciate him going to Mark Foley and saying, “You either resign or you’re going to be expelled.” That would be the first time in thirty years. [10/6/06]

[rimrocker]

Glenn Greenwald writes well... here's a snippet...

----------------
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/

...
There are, as Matt Yglesias pointed out the other day, huge numbers of people in this country -- clearly the majority of the electorate -- who are not at all stupid but simply do not have the time or inclination to pay close attention to political events. In that regard, people who spend substantial time in the blogosphere are aberrational; it is not the norm to monitor political developments on a daily basis. Most people rely upon journalists and pundits, as Yglesias said, "to let them know if something goes dramatically wrong with the governance of the country." But journalists have failed in that duty and the conservative pundits on whom many people (particularly conservatives) rely have purposely obscured what has been happening.

But for so many reasons -- its relative simplicity, its crystal clarity, the involvement of emotionally-charged issues, the salacious sex aspects -- this Foley scandal circumvents that whole dynamic. People are paying attention on their own. They don't need pundits or journalists to tell them what to think about it because they are able to form deeply held opinions on their own. None of the standard obfuscation tactics used for so long by Bush followers are working here. To the contrary, their attempted use of those tactics is making things much worse for them, because people can see that Bush followers are attempting -- through the use of patently dishonest and corrupt tactics -- to excuse the inexcusable. And seeing that, it gives great credence to all of the accusations voiced over the last five years that this is how the Bush movement operates in every area, because people can now see it for themselves.

In that regard, this scandal is like the Cliffs' Notes version of a more complicated treatise on how the Bush movement operates. Every one of their corrupt attributes is vividly on display here:

The absolute refusal ever to admit error. The desperate clinging to power above all else. The efforts to cloud what are clear matters of wrongdoing with irrelevant sideshows. And the parade of dishonest and just plainly inane demonization efforts to hide and distract from their wrongdoing: hence, the pages are manipulative sex vixens; a shadowy gay cabal is to blame; the real criminals are those who exposed the conduct, not those who engaged in it; liberals created the whole scandal; George Soros funded the whole thing; a Democratic Congressman did something wrong 23 years ago; one of the pages IM'd with Foley as a "hoax", and on and on. There has been a virtual carousel -- as there always is -- of one pathetic, desperate attempt after the next to deflect blame and demonize those who are pointing out the wrongdoing. This is what they always do, on every issue. The difference here is that everyone can see it, and so nothing is working.

What Bush followers did yesterday really encapsulates what they are about. They had Matt Drudge -- the same Matt Drudge who "broke the story" in the 2004 campaign of the intern who fled to Africa in order to escape John Kerry's lecherous stalking -- post a screaming headline claiming that one of the pages claims that he only engaged in sex chats with Foley as a prank. There are countless, obvious reasons why a page might claim that he only engaged in sex talk with a 53-year-old man on the Internet as a prank (much the way people caught with child pornography claim they have it only for research), but assume that it's true that this particular page chatted with Foley for that reason.

It is painfully obvious that this proves nothing, that it does not help the House GOP leadership in any way or even remotely mitigate their conduct. It has been clear from the first day that Foley has been engaged in a pattern of sexual pursuit of numerous Congressional pages over many years. Some pages seemed to have welcomed the pursuit and encouraged it; others found it highly objectionable; and some may have been fueled by different motives. But nobody doubts that Mark Foley has been systematically pursuing pages for sexual pleasure for years now. That is not even in dispute. And even if this one page were engaged in a "prank," that would not change the nature of Foley's behavior or impact the obligation of the GOP House leadership to act (just as someone's guilt is not mitigated when they try to hire someone they believe is a hit man but who is really a policeman pretending to be one).

Even if this one page out of all of the others were engaged in a "hoax," it is still the case that Mark Foley was systematically pursuing Congressional pages while the GOP House leadership looked the other way. The Drudge item (even if true) changes nothing. It does not even arguably affect the scandal. That is self-evident. And, on top of all of that, the "report" came from the person who is probably the single least credible source on the Internet.

Despite all of that, Bush followers in every crevice immediately and mindlessly seized on this Drudge item and cited it virtually to proclaim the scandal over, suggesting-- based solely on this single item -- that the whole thing, the entire scandal, was a meaningless hoax from the beginning. Even the Deputy Editor of The Wall St. Journal, Dan Henninger, repeated the "report" in arguing that the whole affair was a meaningless distraction: "By midafternoon yesterday, a rumor emerged that in fact Mark Foley had been pranked by the House pages."

They all seized on a plainly false -- and, even if true, totally irrelevant -- "report" to declare that the whole scandal was nothing and was even the fault of those who talked about it. Their only objective, as always, is to defend their Leaders, who can do no wrong, even when caught red-handed, and they will grab onto any claim, no matter how unreliable, false and/or irrelevant, to do so.

Beyond the deceit and desperation is the hypocrisy so glaring that it makes one's eyes squint. The examples are literally too numerous to chronicle, but one of my personal favorites is the feigned above-it-all, dismissive bewilderment that something as inconsequential and petty as a sex scandal could possibly be getting so much attention.

The Wall St. Journal's Henninger yesterday asked: "Is this Mark Foley thing really happening?" Hennginger can't believe that with so many Important Things going in the world, our country would really be focused on what he dismissively refers to as "Congressman Foley's 1995 email traffic." Henninger is the Deputy Editor of the WSJ Editorial Page -- the same Editorial Page that spent much of the 1990s focusing on the spots on Bill Clinton's penis, Hillary's affair with Vince Foster, and semen stains on a blue dress.

The same people who impeached a popular, twice-elected President of the U.S. over a sex scandal involving consenting adults, who caused our country's political dialogue for several years to be composed of the filthiest and most scurrilous speculation peddled by some of the lowest bottom-feeders and dirt-mongers, and who constructed a political movement based in large part on sermonizing about private sexual morality and demonizing those who deviate, are now protesting -- without any irony -- the fact that a sex scandal is distracting from the Truly Important Issues our country faces and that Mark Foley's sexual pursuit over many years of 16 and 17-year-old Congressional pages is nothing that really matters.

It is as though Republicans are being punished for all of their serious political sins at once, in one perfectly constructed, humiliating scandal designed to highlight their crimes and exact just retribution for them. The Foley scandal is shining a very bright light on their conduct, not just in this one incident but with regard to how they have been governing the country generally over the last five years. That is why this scandal is so important and it is why Bush followers are so desperate to proclaim the whole thing over with -- even if it means having to jump on a pathetic Matt Drudge item to do it. The one thing they don't want is for a clear, illuminating light to be shined on how they conduct themselves.

[Deckard]

Staffer Cites Earlier Role by Hastert's Office
Confrontation With Foley Detailed

By Jonathan Weisman

Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 7, 2006; A01


House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's chief of staff confronted then-Rep. Mark Foley about his inappropriate social contact with male pages well before the speaker said aides in his office took any action, a current congressional staff member with personal knowledge of Foley and his behavior with pages said yesterday.

The staff member said Hastert's chief of staff, Scott Palmer, met with the Florida Republican at the Capitol to discuss complaints about Foley's behavior toward pages. The alleged meeting occurred long before Hastert says aides in his office dispatched Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.) and the clerk of the House in November 2005 to confront Foley about troubling e-mails he had sent to a Louisiana boy.

The staff member's account buttresses the position of Foley's onetime chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, who said earlier this week that he had appealed to Palmer in 2003 or earlier to intervene, after Fordham's own efforts to stop Foley's behavior had failed. Fordham said Foley and Palmer, one of the most powerful figures in the House of Representatives, met within days to discuss the allegations.

Palmer said this week that the meeting Fordham described "did not happen." Timothy J. Heaphy, Fordham's attorney, said yesterday that Fordham is prepared to testify under oath that he had arranged the meeting and that both Foley and Palmer told him the meeting had taken place. Fordham spent more than three hours with the FBI on Thursday, and Heaphy said that on Friday he contacted the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to offer his client's cooperation.

"We are not preparing to cooperate. We are affirmatively seeking to," Heaphy said.

Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean declined to directly comment on the second House staff member's assertion, saying that it is a matter for a House ethics committee investigation. "The Standards Committee has asked that no one discuss this matter because of its ongoing investigation," Bonjean said.

The emergence of a second congressional staffer describing such a meeting came on a day that Hastert (R-Ill.) was working to solidify his hold on the speakership. Prominent Republicans, including President Bush, have defended Hastert, saying he should not step down, but the criticism continues to flow.

New Jersey's Thomas H. Kean Jr., whose candidacy offers the GOP its most promising hope to take a Senate seat from a Democrat in November, called for Hastert's resignation yesterday, as did the editorial page of the Los Angeles Times. Democratic House candidate Patty Wetterling of Minnesota, a child-safety advocate and the first to air a television commercial about the Foley scandal, will deliver the national Democratic response to Bush's weekly radio address today.

Hastert maintains that he knew nothing of Foley's actions until last week, when the story first broke and Foley resigned. His stance contradicts that of House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.), both of whom said they had informed Hastert this spring.

Palmer has resolutely said he had no earlier meeting with Foley, and other leadership aides have questioned the truthfulness of Fordham. Fordham quit his job as Reynolds's chief of staff last week after acknowledging that he had tried to persuade ABC News not to publish the salacious instant-message exchanges between Foley and two former pages.

Hastert's office contends that the first confrontation with Foley occurred in November 2005, when Shimkus, the head of the House Page Board, and then-House Clerk Jeff Trandahl took Foley aside to discuss what they termed "over-friendly" e-mails that Foley had sent to a Louisiana boy. Fordham's account not only pushed the matter back at least two years but also indicated that alarms over Foley's behavior had gone well beyond bland e-mails.

Sources close to Fordham say Trandahl repeatedly urged the longtime aide and close family friend to confront Foley about his inappropriate advances on pages. Each time, Foley pledged to no longer socialize with the teenagers, but, weeks later, Trandahl would again alert Fordham about more contacts. Out of frustration, the sources said, Fordham contacted Palmer, hoping that an intervention from such a powerful figure in the House would persuade Foley to stop.

Now, a second House aide familiar with Foley and his actions told The Washington Post yesterday that "Scott Palmer had spoken to Foley prior to November 2005." The aide spoke on the condition of anonymity because the matter is now the subject of a criminal investigation and the House ethics committee inquiry.

Two law enforcement officials said yesterday that the FBI had not yet determined whether a crime had occurred in the Foley case. Justice Department and FBI officials have cautioned that cases involving the enticement of minors are notoriously difficult to prosecute.

On Wednesday night, Palmer was described as highly emotional while aides sifted through e-mails and files to determine whether he had ever spoken to Fordham. Several people who spoke with Palmer said the chief of staff was emphatic in denying that he knew anything about Foley's questionable contacts with young male pages.

Palmer, who shares a townhouse with Hastert when they are in town, is more powerful than all but a few House members. Members know that he speaks for Hastert.

The divergent accounts have highlighted the holes in the public's understanding of Foley's undoing. And they are sure to ratchet up the pressure on Trandahl to come forward with his knowledge of events. As House clerk between January 1999 and November 2005, Trandahl had direct control over the page program.

Pages apparently saw Trandahl as a strict disciplinarian. In one instant-message exchange obtained by The Post, a former page, on his way to his first annual reunion in Washington, told Foley in January 2003 that "everyone is going to be pretty wasted a lot of the time in dc."

He then added, "well we dont have the [expletive] clerk to fire us anymore. . . . we didnt like trandahl that much . . . he isnt a nice guy . . . and he gets really scarey when he is mad."

Trandahl's departure came within days of his confrontation with Foley over e-mails that the congressman had sent a former page. House aides say the circumstances of Trandahl's exit were oddly quiet. The departure of a staff member of long standing, especially one as important as the House clerk, is usually marked with considerable fanfare, said Scott Lilly, a former Democratic staff director of the House Appropriations Committee. Debate is suspended in mid-afternoon to accommodate a stream of testimonials from lawmakers.

Trandahl's departure was marked by a one-minute salute from Shimkus and a brief insert into the Congressional Record.

"My one-hour Special Order changed to a five-minute Special Order, now to a one-minute," Shimkus said. "I just want to say thank you for the work you have done."

Lilly said: "He seemed to suddenly disappear in a puff of smoke."

Trandahl, now the executive director of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, has not returned repeated phone calls and e-mails.

Congressional aides point to another factor that links Trandahl to the Foley matter. A member of the board of the national gay rights group Human Rights Campaign, Trandahl is openly homosexual and personally close to the now-disgraced former lawmaker, who announced through his lawyer this week that he is gay.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100601888.html



I think the wheels are coming off the spin.



Keep D&D Civil.

[giddyup]

If you aren't defending what he did, then why do you keep trying to bring up the point that it was ok because of how old the pages were?

If it is wrong then why try and drag that up?
I never said it was not wrong; I was addressing the uncertainty of the illegality of some of the behaviors.

[No Worries]

More Fox mis-labeled Democrats (http://www.boingboing.net/2006/10/06/more_fox_mislabeled_.html)
http://www.boingboing.net/FOXSPOOF1.jpg

http://www.boingboing.net/FOXSPOOF2.jpg

http://www.boingboing.net/FOXSPOOF3.jpg

[FranchiseBlade]

I never said it was not wrong; I was addressing the uncertainty of the illegality of some of the behaviors.
Why does the illegality matter? Why not let the courts handle that, and focus on the GOP cover-up and the wrong that Foley did, then?

Why is it that when talk turns to how wrong it was of Foley, and how wrong it was of the GOP leaders to cover up for that you start trying to find legal loopholes for Foley?

I hope you understand why that seems like you are defending him.

[giddyup]

Why does the illegality matter? Why not let the courts handle that, and focus on the GOP cover-up and the wrong that Foley did, then?

Why is it that when talk turns to how wrong it was of Foley, and how wrong it was of the GOP leaders to cover up for that you start trying to find legal loopholes for Foley?

I hope you understand why that seems like you are defending him.
Oh, I understand it perfectly.

I don't find any correspondence between YOUR talking about a coverup and MY "covering" for Foley... but I find it interesting that you do.

I have made NO excuses for Hastert or anyone remotely associated with the coverup. I have made no excuses for Foley for that matter.

It is a matter for the courts to decide, but is it okay if I comment or criticize YOUR SIDE'S over-zealous commentary... because wouldn't that be a matter for the courts to decide also?

This thing runs both ways.

[KingCheetah]

I have made NO excuses for Hastert or anyone remotely associated with the coverup. I have made no excuses for Foley for that matter.

You've suggested multiple times that this isn't a crime and is no big deal because the page was at the age of consent.

[giddyup]

You've suggested multiple times that this isn't a crime and is no big deal because the page was at the age of consent.
What I said was that some of the behavior was not criminal and some probably was. Numerous times I pointed out the irony of the inconsistency of the laws.

Here's my second post discussing Foley; there were some other posts discussing Clinton...

Obviously, overtures to a minor are worse, but in fact weren't most of these kids over 16? even over 18? What is the age of consent in DC? Virginia? Maryland?

I don't know if the guy is a creep or pathetic but he needs to be gone either way.

His real crime seems to have been the communications he initiated where he was thereby hung by his own lawmaking. That plus the expectancy that pages were off-limits is a PR nightmare, but these kids aren't 11 or even 14 are they?

Let's see: he's either a creep or pathetic but he needs to be gone either way. I cite an apparent crime. Which is the part where I am excusing Foley?

[FranchiseBlade]

Oh, I understand it perfectly.

I don't find any correspondence between YOUR talking about a coverup and MY "covering" for Foley... but I find it interesting that you do.

I have made NO excuses for Hastert or anyone remotely associated with the coverup. I have made no excuses for Foley for that matter.

It is a matter for the courts to decide, but is it okay if I comment or criticize YOUR SIDE'S over-zealous commentary... because wouldn't that be a matter for the courts to decide also?

This thing runs both ways.
My point is that if we all agree it was wrong of Foley and wrong of Hastert and other GOP members to cover it up, then what does it matter if some of the pages were legal age.

Does that really change anything anyplace other than courts?

I don't see that it does, and it seemed like you were trying to lessen the severity of what Foley had done.

[giddyup]

My point is that if we all agree it was wrong of Foley and wrong of Hastert and other GOP members to cover it up, then what does it matter if some of the pages were legal age.

Does that really change anything anyplace other than courts?

I don't see that it does, and it seemed like you were trying to lessen the severity of what Foley had done.
1. I was trying to be accurate in describing what Foley had done and not done.

2. I said pretty much or exactly nothing about Hastert or anyone else

... your side is just making a lot of assumptions and/or extrapolations in the politiciization of the matter.

[geeimsobored]

... your side is just making a lot of assumptions and/or extrapolations in the politiciization of the matter.

You're missing the point. The very line of legal reasoning used by you in this situation was soundly blown off when the Clinton scandal came out. Every single partisan whack at Foley that has occured now is nearly identical to the same stuff that Republicans through at Clinton. If you weren't hounding the Republicans then for their brazenly partisan attacks on Clinton, then you have very little credibility to make those same claims now.

[giddyup]

You're missing the point. The very line of legal reasoning used by you in this situation was soundly blown off when the Clinton scandal came out. Every single partisan whack at Foley that has occured now is nearly identical to the same stuff that Republicans through at Clinton. If you weren't hounding the Republicans then for their brazenly partisan attacks on Clinton, then you have very little credibility to make those same claims now.
Give me a break, it's the Clinton supporters who still want to decry that he was impeached for "having sex with that women, Ms. Lewinski" rather than for lying before a Grand Jury not to mention wagging his finger in the face of the American People.

Any other similarities you want to point up?

[vlaurelio]

Give me a break, it's the Clinton supporters who still want to decry that he was impeached for "having sex with that women, Ms. Lewinski" rather than for lying before a Grand Jury not to mention wagging his finger in the face of the American People.

Any other similarities you want to point up?

wasn't he initially crucified for "having sex with that women, Ms. Lewinski"?

that was way before he lied and was impeached..

[Azadre]

wasn't he initially crucified for "having sex with that women, Ms. Lewinski"?

that was way before he lied and was impeached..
He didn't have sex... head is not sex.

[giddyup]

wasn't he initially crucified for "having sex with that women, Ms. Lewinski"?

that was way before he lied and was impeached..
What both Clinton and Foley "did" was wrong, wrong, wrong.

I think it is legitimate to make a distinction between wrong and illegal. Either way, I cut Foley no slack. He should be out of office due to the sensitive position he held, however it is our burden to be "fair and accurate" about what was illegal and what was just plain wrong. I'm puzzled as to why that is viewed as going easy on Foley. We are still a nation of laws.

Contrary to that, I didn't hold Clinton to the same standards because of his being The President. I was enthusiastically critical of Clinton for "having sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinski," but the impeachment movement came when the lies to the Grand Jury became evident. I expect better character of our national leader. He, and any man or woman, would be deserving of my criticism on that point because that is a value that I hold and that is my right whether or not anyone else agrees with it. I think many do though.

The impeachment was brought on by a different set of circumstances which the Chief Executive of The Land should never stumble into...

[giddyup]

He didn't have sex... head is not sex.
Head is not intercourse, but it is still sex-- that exchange of bodily fluids is really problematic here.

[Sishir Chang]

Give me a break, it's the Clinton supporters who still want to decry that he was impeached for "having sex with that women, Ms. Lewinski" rather than for lying before a Grand Jury not to mention wagging his finger in the face of the American People.

Any other similarities you want to point up?

Legally though it was and actually never can be proven he did lie. Wagging your finger in the face of the American people isn't a crime either. Anyway impeachment is a political an not a legal exercise.

According to Foley's own law what Foley did is illegal.

[Rocket Fan]

This is my first post in this thread and I don't know all the specifics of what all took place. I also don't know the specifics of the everything from a legal standpoint.

However, I have to say that although I'm conservative, I try to be fair in the way I treat people from each political party.

I'm conservative, but that doesn't mean I think any Republican should be allowed to do anything they want and I don't think people are automatically guilty just because they are Democrats.

I support taking the necessary measures to look into this situation to determine who was involved in any wrong doing.

From a legal standpoint, I don't know all the specifics so I'll leave that up to the court system and those investigating the case.

No matter what party they are in, if someone does something wrong I support them being punished.

There are many good republicans and some that do things wrong. There are many good democrats and some that do things wrong. Both parties have wonderful people and both parties have those that do things wrong at times.

I wouldn't judge any entire party on a few individuals.

[giddyup]

Legally though it was and actually never can be proven he did lie. Wagging your finger in the face of the American people isn't a crime either. Anyway impeachment is a political an not a legal exercise.
Indeed it is. So you think Clinton didn't lie before a Grand Jury? Exactly why was he disbarred in Arkansas then? Something's up...

According to Foley's own law what Foley did is illegal.
I totally agreed and I pointed this up in one of my first posts about this.

[SamFisher]

I totally agreed and I pointed this up in one of my first posts about this.

...and then you did a 180 and claimed that you "weren't sure what the illegality is"

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=2521305&highlight=illegal#post2521305

Classic giddyup.

[Rocket Fan]

A brief version of my thougts:

From what I've heard about this situation, I don't think that type stuff should have been taking place so I can't defend it. I find it to be inappropriate.

If it's found to be illegal, obviously he should be punished. Even if it isn't found to be illegal, it is still inappropriate and not something you want from an elected official.

[Rocket Fan]

When I say found to be illegal, I mean him found to be guilty of a crime by a court.

Obviously, we can read laws and say if it seems illegal, but he does of course deserve a fair trial.

[Smokey]

"He's a faaaaag"

PS Sound clip from the Sopranos played by Fred on Stern :D

[KingCheetah]

Which is the part where I am excusing Foley?

Right here:

This is all very disgusting, but it's not like this guy is seducing 14 YOs or he's killing people.

[Rocket Fan]

If I had a 16 year old son/daughter, I sure wouldn't want this happening!

I'm glad he is not in office anymore. I'm a Republican and I don't approve of his actions.

[giddyup]

...and then you did a 180 and claimed that you "weren't sure what the illegality is"

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=2521305&highlight=illegal#post2521305

Classic giddyup.
The only thing that was clearly illegal was the communications. The rest was murky and many posts indicates so. People aren't even sure whether these events took place in DC, MD, or VA or elsewhere. Nor is anybody crystal clear exactly what else took place.

I'm quite sure that you are quite sure that you know what went on.

[giddyup]

Right here:
Well, you can 't be guilty of doing what you do what you didn't do. If he did seduce anybody they might have been of legal age to be seduced whether you like it or not, whether it is seemly or not, and whether the House likes it or not.

I said clearly and repeatedly that ne needs to be gone. How much more clear does one need to be?

Foley is clearly excused from things he did not do. So are you.

[Sishir Chang]

Indeed it is. So you think Clinton didn't lie before a Grand Jury? Exactly why was he disbarred in Arkansas then? Something's up...


I don't recall that Clinton was ever convicted and that his disbarment was an agreement that he agreed to to put the issue behind him rather than drag it out in a lengthy court battle.

The legal case against Clinton was murky and far from cut and dry. The impeachment and issues surrounding it were almost totally political.

[giddyup]

I don't recall that Clinton was ever convicted and that his disbarment was an agreement that he agreed to to put the issue behind him rather than drag it out in a lengthy court battle.

The legal case against Clinton was murky and far from cut and dry. The impeachment and issues surrounding it were almost totally political.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/3450/disbarment.html

Clinton Disbarment Recommended


By James Jefferson
Associated Press Writer
Monday, May 22, 2000; 5:12 p.m. EDT

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. –– A committee of the Arkansas Supreme Court recommended Monday that President Clinton be disbarred because of "serious misconduct" in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.

A majority of the panelists who met Friday to consider two complaints against the president found that the president should be disciplined for false testimony about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, the Supreme Court said in releasing the committee recommendation.

Under the rules of the Committee of Professional Conduct, the disbarment recommendation goes to Pulaski County Circuit Court judge in Little Rock for disbarment proceedings. If the judge disbars Clinton, the president can appeal to the state Supreme Court.

"This action is being taken against (Clinton) as a result of the formal complaints ... and the findings by a majority of the committee that certain of the attorney's conduct, as demonstrated in the complaint, constituted serious misconduct," in violation of state rules governing lawyers, the committee's executive director said in a letter to the court.

Clinton has been a lawyer for more than 25 years and taught at the University of Arkansas law school. He has not practiced since the early 1980s, between his first and second terms as Arkansas governor.

Clinton was governor from 1979 to 1981 and again from 1983 until he was elected president in 1992.

The letter, dated Monday, was signed by James Neal, the committee's executive director, whose retirement from the panel was also announced on Monday.

The committee has 14 full-time members – lawyers and nonlawyers – who sit in panels of seven. Because of Clinton's widespread connections throughout the state, eight of the panelists bowed out before Friday's meeting, most of them citing potential conflicts of interest.

Of the six who heard Clinton's case, five are lawyers and the sixth is a retired schoolteacher.

The Southeastern Legal Foundation of Atlanta and U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright referred Clinton to the committee, saying he lied when he denied a sexual relationship with Lewinsky during a deposition in the Jones case in January 1998.

The foundation wanted Clinton disbarred and Wright did not suggest a specific penalty.

"This is a confirmation that the legal system will police its own, regardless of the position held by the attorney in question," said Matt Glavin, president of the foundation. "Remember, this is the first time in American history that a sitting president faced disciplinary proceedings."

Clinton sought something no harsher than a letter of reprimand, according to Glavin.

Wright also cited Clinton for civil contempt and fined him $90,000 for giving "intentionally false" testimony.

[KingCheetah]

Clinton...

May 22, 2000

Please keep talking about Clinton - that will keep the dems from regaining control of the house.

:D

________

New reports coming out today that Foley had sex with one of the pages.

Developing...

[giddyup]

Please keep talking about Clinton - that will keep the dems from regaining control of the house.

:D

________

New reports coming out today that Foley had sex with one of the pages.

Developing...
I'm just trying to assert the FACTS no matter whom. Foley might finally be as guilty as your side has made him out to be from Day One. :D

[KingCheetah]

May 22, 2000; 5:12 p.m.

Is this when the republican leadership first knew of Foley's predatory sexual habits?
________

Lawmaker Saw Foley Messages In 2000

Page Notified GOP Rep. Kolbe

A Republican congressman knew of disgraced former representative Mark Foley's inappropriate Internet exchanges as far back as 2000 and personally confronted Foley about his communications.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/08/AR2006100800855.html)

[SamFisher]

The only thing that was clearly illegal was the communications. The rest was murky and many posts indicates so. People aren't even sure whether these events took place in DC, MD, or VA or elsewhere. Nor is anybody crystal clear exactly what else took place.

I'm quite sure that you are quite sure that you know what went on.

The guy was in his congressional office jacking off to his computer. All you have to do is read the transcripts, which you still haven't despite the fact that you have more posts in this thread than anyone.

[Sishir Chang]

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/3450/disbarment.html

Clinton Disbarment Recommended.

What I'm not seeing there is the term "conviction" or "convicted". A panel made a recommendation but not an official ruling. Clinton accepted it and was never convicted.

[giddyup]

The guy was in his congressional office jacking off to his computer. All you have to do is read the transcripts, which you still haven't despite the fact that you have more posts in this thread than anyone.
Yes I have read them.

[giddyup]

What I'm not seeing there is the term "conviction" or "convicted". A panel made a recommendation but not an official ruling. Clinton accepted it and was never convicted.
Fine but I didn't use the verb convict. I just said he was disbarred. You are free to clutch at any straws which make you feel safe! :D

I do want to point out though, Clinton's petulance about the whole matter. He wanted and expected a slap on the wrist and he got much, much more and he wasn't very happy about it.

[BrockStapper]

I'm just trying to assert the FACTS no matter whom. Foley might finally be as guilty as your side has made him out to be from Day One. :D

seems to me, an objective observer, that you are trying to cover your ass. And with people like Foley in your party I certainly understand why...

I'm non-denominational when it comes to politics. I have never understood why people from either party will defend terrible decisions until the day they die - for better or worse.

[Sishir Chang]

Fine but I didn't use the verb convict. I just said he was disbarred. You are free to clutch at any straws which make you feel safe! :D

I do want to point out though, Clinton's petulance about the whole matter. He wanted and expected a slap on the wrist and he got much, much more and he wasn't very happy about it.

How am I clutching at straws? You do understand that legally you determine someone has done something illegall by convicting them.

[giddyup]

seems to me, an objective observer, that you are trying to cover your ass. And with people like Foley in your party I certainly understand why...

I'm non-denominational when it comes to politics. I have never understood why people from either party will defend terrible decisions until the day they die - for better or worse.
I'm just slowing down the mania.

[giddyup]

How am I clutching at straws? You do understand that legally you determine someone has done something illegall by convicting them.
Oh I understand. That's why I didn't bring up the idea of conviction. You tried to put that off on me. I simply said that Clinton was disbarred-- which he was and it was not, as you suggested, Clinton's suggestion that he be disbarred. Yes, perhaps he wanted to avoid an ugly hearing/trial but he also thought he was due a pass... and he royally didn't get it-- even from his fellow Arkansans!!!!!!

I find your defense ironic in that that's the one I've been using for Foley here. People have him commiting crimes that perhaps he didn't commit and they certainly have convicted him when he hasn't been charged or tried and perhaps won't be tried for some of the stuff they are convicting him of.

I'm glad we understand each other... :D

[KingCheetah]

I'm just slowing down the mania.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v68/kchee/unlikely.jpg

[giddyup]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v68/kchee/unlikely.jpg
... when you ignore the facts.

:D

[Achilleus]

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/2006/1101061016_400.jpg

[NewYorker]

I think what makes this so scandalous for the GOP is that they took the moral high ground as a party when they attacked Bill Clinton.

Now, they find themselves losing all credibility with the Foley scandal. Add that with the fact that a majority of Americans now feel Bush misled them about Iraq, and it spells a lot of trouble for Republicans.

[mc mark]

Kolbe was a member of the Page Board when the earlier emails were brought to his attention

So we're to believe that Kolbe was a member of the Page Board, but when a former Page came to him - a Page who Kolbe sponsored (was he a constituent, a family friend?) and said that he was being harassed by another member of Congress, Kolbe told the kid, basically, you're on your own? Deal with it yourself? Go confront your abuser when you're only 16 and he's nearly 50 and a member of Congress?

If that's Kolbe's story, it's an incredible dereliction of duty.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/10/kolbe-was-member-of-page-board-when.html

[Sishir Chang]

Oh I understand. That's why I didn't bring up the idea of conviction. You tried to put that off on me. I simply said that Clinton was disbarred-- which he was and it was not, as you suggested, Clinton's suggestion that he be disbarred. Yes, perhaps he wanted to avoid an ugly hearing/trial but he also thought he was due a pass... and he royally didn't get it-- even from his fellow Arkansans!!!!!!

I find your defense ironic in that that's the one I've been using for Foley here. People have him commiting crimes that perhaps he didn't commit and they certainly have convicted him when he hasn't been charged or tried and perhaps won't be tried for some of the stuff they are convicting him of.

I'm glad we understand each other... :D

If you recall my post stated specifically that what Clinton had done wasn't illegal and that the case against him was murky whereas evidence points very strongly to Foley's being illegal in response to your comment regarding impeachment. As I pointed out impeachment is a political process. Regarding the deal In the end Clinton agreed to the deal. I didn't say he suggested but that he agreed to the deal.

I will agree with you that what Foley hasn't been convicted of a crime and that he is still innocent. That said the evidence we have clearly seems to indicate he violated the law he sponsored. Clinton's case wasn't quite so clear cut because while it might've illicited groans the definition of "is" actually matters since proving that he perjured himself requires proof that he himself knowingly did. The Foley law regards sexual electronic communication with a minor. The challenge would be to prove that the communication wasn't sexual which since he talks about sex already establishes that.

At the minimum we could probably agree that what they both did was unethical if not proven illegal. That given I don't see how the degree of moral offense regarding what Foley did could be considered worse or even as bad as what Clinton did.

[mc mark]

Kolbe is the second person to come forward and say that top House officials had early warnings about inappropriate Foley approaches to pages. Trandahl, the top administrative officer of the House, got his job from Hastert.

[Rocket Fan]

Question:

Trying to figure out this timeline. What year was the law he worked on passed? Was this stuff taking place before the law was passed, while it was being passed, after being passed or what? Just curious because it is so ironic that he may have broken his own law.

[Rocket Fan]

It must be pretty rare that someone made the law that might get them in trouble!

[Rocket Fan]

I guess what I'm getting at is.. was this stuff going on at the same time that he was getting the law passed? That would be pretty disturbing if he were spending part of his time passing laws and the other part taking part in this stuff.

[giddyup]

If you recall my post stated specifically that what Clinton had done wasn't illegal and that the case against him was murky whereas evidence points very strongly to Foley's being illegal in response to your comment regarding impeachment. As I pointed out impeachment is a political process. Regarding the deal In the end Clinton agreed to the deal. I didn't say he suggested but that he agreed to the deal.
Do you have ANY doubt really that Clinton perjured himself or did whatever he had to do to survive politically?


I will agree with you that what Foley hasn't been convicted of a crime and that he is still innocent. That said the evidence we have clearly seems to indicate he violated the law he sponsored. Clinton's case wasn't quite so clear cut because while it might've illicited groans the definition of "is" actually matters since proving that he perjured himself requires proof that he himself knowingly did. The Foley law regards sexual electronic communication with a minor. The challenge would be to prove that the communication wasn't sexual which since he talks about sex already establishes that.

Of that, Foley is guilty as hell. No question. He hasn't been convicted but he will be I'm quite sure. Clinton's case might not be so clear but he is without doubt just as guilty as Foley. Do you have any doubt?

At the minimum we could probably agree that what they both did was unethical if not proven illegal. That given I don't see how the degree of moral offense regarding what Foley did could be considered worse or even as bad as what Clinton did.
I think you probably mean the reverse of what you've said here. Both are terrible in their own way. Neither should be tolerated.

[IROC it]

Now, they find themselves losing all credibility with the Foley scandal. Add that with the fact that a majority of Americans now feel Bush misled them about Iraq, and it spells a lot of trouble for Republicans.

They? One big scandal makes everyone in the party lose credibility? Not in the least. You underestimate the base.

Furthermore, this "majority" you speak of is the majority among those asked and polled.

Anyone can go to Montrose, San Fransisco or the Village and poll. Ask people in springer watchin' red land and you'll hear otherwise.

Scared yet? :D

[vlaurelio]

They? One big scandal makes everyone in the party lose credibility? Not in the least. You underestimate the base.

Furthermore, this "majority" you speak of is the majority among those asked and polled.

Anyone can go to Montrose, San Fransisco or the Village and poll. Ask people in springer watchin' red land and you'll hear otherwise.

Scared yet? :D

do you have any idea how these polls work?

[Achilleus]

Furthermore, this "majority" you speak of is the majority among those asked and polled.

Anyone can go to Montrose, San Fransisco or the Village and poll. Ask people in springer watchin' red land and you'll hear otherwise.

That's not how polls work.

[giddyup]

That's not how polls work.
If voting can be "manipulated", don't you think polling can be "skewed?"

I guess some pollsters are neutral, but lots of times you hear them identified as Democratic pollster or Republican pollster....

[FranchiseBlade]

If voting can be "manipulated", don't you think polling can be "skewed?"

I guess some pollsters are neutral, but lots of times you hear them identified as Democratic pollster or Republican pollster....
Yes polls released by individual campaigns are rarely as accurate as the independent major polling firms. Even those should be taken with a grain of salt.

If you know what questions were asked that might help you to better evaluate the polls. Often the questions the people are asked are included in the poll.

[Achilleus]

If voting can be "manipulated", don't you think polling can be "skewed?"

I guess some pollsters are neutral, but lots of times you hear them identified as Democratic pollster or Republican pollster....

Yeah, "democratic pollsters" and "republican pollsters" are paid by each party to conduct private polls for the campaigns.

Charlie Cook, Congressional Quarterly, Polling report, Gallup, WSJ, NYT, Rasmussen, etc. DO NOT hire partisan pollsters.

[BrockStapper]

perhaps it was this one?

Republicans Losing Grip On Married Moms (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/09/married.moms.ap/index.html)

as an interesting side note reports indicate they are tightening their grip on unmarried boys...

[giddyup]

seems to me, an objective observer, that you are trying to cover your ass. And with people like Foley in your party I certainly understand why...

I'm non-denominational when it comes to politics. I have never understood why people from either party will defend terrible decisions until the day they die - for better or worse.
Just for the record... I've not defended Foley's decisions; I feel I am protecting his civil and criminal rights...

[giddyup]

Yeah, "democratic pollsters" and "republican pollsters" are paid by each party to conduct private polls for the campaigns.

Charlie Cook, Congressional Quarterly, Polling report, Gallup, WSJ, NYT, Rasmussen, etc. DO NOT hire partisan pollsters.
How does one get to the bottom of exactly who is polling? Aren't they like shell corporations?

Obviously a pollster hired by any political party is going to be skewed-- at least for their publicly released polls -- but how do you discern what forces are at work behind a pollster?

If they are like journalists, it is against their nature to be truly objective. And I don't see why they shouldn't be like journalists-- and have less accountability.

[BrockStapper]

How does one get to the bottom of exactly who is polling? Aren't they like shell corporations?

Obviously a pollster hired by any political party is going to be skewed-- at least for their publicly released polls -- but how do you discern what forces are at work behind a pollster?

If they are like journalists, it is against their nature to be truly objective. And I don't see why they shouldn't be like journalists-- and have less accountability.

I guess you could prove your point by providing a current poll that states that the majority of the American people believe that the Iraq war was and is handled correctly.

[IROC it]

If voting can be "manipulated", don't you think polling can be "skewed?"

I guess some pollsters are neutral, but lots of times you hear them identified as Democratic pollster or Republican pollster....


Ding, ding ding! :D

And I can guaran-dog-teee you that If I take random "sampling" over the phone in a majorly democratic area I will get democrat results....

That is how it works, jack.


I have personally recieved phone calls about polls in which the party on the other end heard my "conservative" views and mysteriously lost the call...

Don't even play like the pollsters aren't heavily phoning the Dade county's, Albuquerque's, etc. Blue areas of the map do not have area codes that cannot be reached.... pollsters know who and where to call to help push the ideas they're looking for.

Wake up.

[Major]

How does one get to the bottom of exactly who is polling? Aren't they like shell corporations?

No.

Polling companies like Gallup are respected and successful because of their credibility. The minute they lose that, the organization goes to crap. They have a huge financial incentive to be unbiased.

[KingCheetah]

How does one get to the bottom of exactly who is polling?

You're right on the money here giddyup ~ Foley was indeed trying to pole the bottom of a page.

[Achilleus]

Ding, ding ding! :D

And I can guaran-dog-teee you that If I take random "sampling" over the phone in a majorly democratic area I will get democrat results....

That is how it works, jack.


I have personally recieved phone calls about polls in which the party on the other end heard my "conservative" views and mysteriously lost the call...

Don't even play like the pollsters aren't heavily phoning the Dade county's, Albuquerque's, etc. Blue areas of the map do not have area codes that cannot be reached.... pollsters know who and where to call to help push the ideas they're looking for.

Wake up.

wow... you clearly don't get it. Is this like some Stephen Colbert paraody thing, where you write "from the gut" rather than after looking at actually facts on polling?

[IROC it]

actually facts


Why bother? Polls are not MY vote. Polls are for sheep.


"Hey look everybody! This what everyone else is doing! Do it too!!" :rolleyes:

I'm uniting your scattered base. ;)

[Achilleus]

Why bother? Polls are not MY vote. Polls are for sheep.


"Hey look everybody! This what everyone else is doing! Do it too!!" :rolleyes:

Who said anything about polls affecting your vote? You made it seem like polls are skewed either wittingly or unwittingly (the cliche' "fly over state" argument) with some liberal, urban bias.

They are not.

[IROC it]

My point is that with the left, polls = truth.

Where facts = inconveniences.


Go Sheep!


Never trust a poll... go to the polls and vote!

[IROC it]

They are not.


My opinion, given personal knowledge, leads me to believe otherwise.



I am entitled to believe what I want. As are you.

Go Sheep!

[Achilleus]

My point is that with the left, polls = truth.

Where facts = inconveniences.


Go Sheep!


Never trust a poll... go to the polls and vote!

What facts are you talking about exactly?

Just spoutin' off some slogans there?

Again, polls measure the opinions of people. Nothing more, nothing less... If you are angry at them I guess it's because you disagree with the majority at the time.

*shrugs*

[IROC it]

the majority at the time.


...of the poll... and of THOSE polled.

Polls mean bupkis.


If evryone is not asked, they cannot be factual or taken as such.


I find it very telling that parties in trouble with an identity must run the polling points out as factual when in fact they are just "potentially" indicators.

Both side do it... they just seem to hold more importance than they should. That's all.

[giddyup]

I guess you could prove your point by providing a current poll that states that the majority of the American people believe that the Iraq war was and is handled correctly.
If that poll or polling effort does not exist, I cannot provide it and so I cannot prove that point. That does nothing to prove the objectivity of any pollster, because nothing is under consideration.

[Achilleus]

...of the poll... and of THOSE polled.

Polls mean bupkis.


If evryone is not asked, they cannot be factual or taken as such.


I find it very telling that parties in trouble with an identity must run the polling points out as factual when in fact they are just "potentially" indicators.

Both side do it... they just seem to hold more importance than they should. That's all.


You're starting another argument that has nothing do with what you were saying earlier.

You went from polls are inaccurate because they are skewed to urban areas to some nonsensical, partisan rant on the "identity" of parties.

If polls didnt matter both sides wouldnt spend millions of dollars on their own pollsters, as mentioned before.

You don't understand how polls are used. You can't derive policy positions from polls because someone has to drive a policy position to the point where it is understood by people being polled.

Polls are scientific measurements of opinions. Polls are facts. They weight them accordingly to be as accurate as possible ( with the obvious +/- of 3-4 %).

[Deckard]

Go Sheep!


roy d. elton must love you. :p




Keep D&D Civil.

[Sishir Chang]

Just for the record... I've not defended Foley's decisions; I feel I am protecting his civil and criminal rights...

That is admirable but I would find your defense more compelling if you had also done the same for Democrats accused of wrong doing.

[rimrocker]

Hmmmm....

Again, hard core pols like Delay and Rove would know every personal weakness of those that vote on the Hill.
_______

HOW ROVE TWISTED FOLEY'S ARM:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=47854

It seems increasingly clear that the GOP congressional leadership, eager for every safe incumbent in the House to run for re-election, looked the other way as evidence accumulated that Mark Foley had a thing for pages. Holding onto his seat became more important than confronting him over his extracurricular activities.

But there's more to the story of why Foley stood for re-election this year. Yesterday, a source close to Foley explained to THE NEW REPUBLIC that in early 2006 the congressman had all but decided to retire from the House and set up shop on K Street. "Mark's a friend of mine," says this source. "He told me, 'I'm thinking about getting out of it and becoming a lobbyist.'"

But when Foley's friend saw the Congressman again this spring, something had changed. To the source's surprise, Foley told him he would indeed be standing for re-election. What happened? Karl Rove intervened.

According to the source, Foley said he was being pressured by "the White House and Rove gang," who insisted that Foley run. If he didn't, Foley was told, it might impact his lobbying career.

"He said, 'The White House made it very clear I have to run,'" explains Foley's friend, adding that Foley told him that the White House promised that if Foley served for two more years it would "enhance his success" as a lobbyist. "I said, 'I thought you wanted out of this?' And he said, 'I do, but they're scared of losing the House and the thought of two years of Congressional hearings, so I have two more years of duty.'"

The White House declined a request for comment on the matter, but obviously the plan hasn't worked out quite as Rove hoped it would.

--Ryan Lizza

[giddyup]

That is admirable but I would find your defense more compelling if you had also done the same for Democrats accused of wrong doing.
I may be setting myself up to get clobbered, but when did I not? I thought there was plenty of reason to impeach Clinton-- at least out the full truth if nothing else.

If we weren't involved in a critical conflict, I wouldn't object to an impeachment of Bush, but of course if we werent' involved in a critical conflict there would be no reason to impeach Bush...

And secondly, I thought that Dems did no wrong?! :D

[mc mark]

WOW!!!! :eek:

How much longer can Hastert maintain that he only found out about Foley in September of last year?

An excerpt --


Fordham isn't the only witness who will testify about earlier, unsuccessful attempts to stop Foley, although the timelines differ.

Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., scheduled to appear Friday, has said he confronted Foley last fall, after he was told by Hastert's office of an overly friendly -- but not sexually explicit -- e-mail to a page from Louisiana.

Shimkus is chairman of the House Page Board, a group of three lawmakers and two House officers who set policy for the program that brings teenagers to Congress to attend school and perform errands in the chamber during sessions.

Shimkus has said that he and then-House clerk Jeff Trandahl confronted Foley in his office last fall after hearing from Hastert's aides about the e-mail. Shimkus said he told Foley to cease all contact with the Louisiana teenager.

The lawmaker did not tell the two other House members of the page board about the meeting -- Dale Kildee, D-Mich., and Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va.

Shimkus said he was following the wishes of the boy's parents.

''I think Congressman Shimkus acted in an expedited manner to find out what happened,'' while respecting the wishes of the family, Hastert said in support of Shimkus' decision to keep the two other lawmakers out of the loop.

Another Republican House member, Rep. Jim Kolbe of Arizona, has pushed the timeline on GOP knowledge of Foley's conduct back to 2001.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Congress-Pages.html?hp&ex=1160712000&en=83914463d1c0e019&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[mc mark]

In Bizarro world: Dems should be punished at the polls for not reporting our GOP pedophilia sooner.

Majority leader: Democrats endangered pages

DES MOINES, IA - House Majority Leader John Boehner today accused Democrats of endangering House pages for political gain.

Boehner, speaking at a campaign event for 3rd District Republican candidate Jeff Lamberti, said Democratic operatives have known about inappropriate e-mails sent by former Rep. Mark Foley, a Florida Republican, to young male pages for some time. He said Democrats had been shopping the information around Washington as a political ploy.

"Someone who had this information allowed those 16-year-old pages to be at risk while they were playing their political games," said Boehner, R-Ohio. "I do not believe thus far that Republicans knew about these sexually explicit instant messages."

http://www.crgazette.com/2006/10/13/Home/housepages.htm

[No Worries]

"Someone who had this information allowed those 16-year-old pages to be at risk while they were playing their political games," said Boehner, R-Ohio. "I do not believe thus far that Republicans knew about these sexually explicit instant messages."

It is really quite simple. It is all BILL CLINTON's fault. We don't know how, but we do know it in our gut.

Fox Newsworthy.

[mc mark]

Fox Newsworthy.

The new conspiracy theory is that there is an undercover republican cabal that are secret double agent democrats infiltrating the republican leadership that is perpetrating the whole kurfuffle on the American voters to influence the election.

I kid you not

Republican Gays are Closeted Dems

http://www.aim.org/aim_column/4931_0_3_0_C/

[Saint Louis]

"Someone who had this information allowed those 16-year-old pages to be at risk while they were playing their political games," said Boehner, R-Ohio. "I do not believe thus far that Republicans knew about these sexually explicit instant messages."

It is really quite simple. It is all BILL CLINTON's fault. We don't know how, but we do know it in our gut.

Fox Newsworthy.

This just in, Bill Clinton was responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire.

[halfbreed]

If only Mark Foley had been a Democrat in the 80's:

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e195/halfbreedcfnet/studds1.jpg

I mean the guy had sex with his male pages. Granted, he wasn't in charge of legislation to protect from predators but calling the guy a political pioneer? WTF?

[KingCheetah]

I mean the guy had sex with his male pages. Granted, he wasn't in charge of legislation to protect from predators but calling the guy a political pioneer? WTF?

Why the hell are they calling him a pioneer ~ particularly after the Foley saga?

Dumb.

[Achilleus]

If only Mark Foley had been a Democrat in the 80's:

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e195/halfbreedcfnet/studds1.jpg

I mean the guy had sex with his male pages. Granted, he wasn't in charge of legislation to protect from predators but calling the guy a political pioneer? WTF?

How old is he?

[FranchiseBlade]

If only Mark Foley had been a Democrat in the 80's:

I mean the guy had sex with his male pages. Granted, he wasn't in charge of legislation to protect from predators but calling the guy a political pioneer? WTF?
If he had been a Democrat in the 80's then both parties would have acted to censure him just as the did to Studs.

Instead Foley's party attempted to cover for him, and took no action. I wish Foley had been a Democrat in the 80's then his predatory actions would not have gone on for near as long, because the Dems wouldn't have covered for him.

[halfbreed]

If he had been a Democrat in the 80's then both parties would have acted to censure him just as the did to Studs.

Instead Foley's party attempted to cover for him, and took no action. I wish Foley had been a Democrat in the 80's then his predatory actions would not have gone on for near as long, because the Dems wouldn't have covered for him.

I won't argue the point you're making because it doesn't really deal with what I'm talking about.

MSNBC is calling a guy who had sex with male pages a pioneer. This strikes me as being in poor taste especially given the current political climate.

[FranchiseBlade]

I won't argue the point you're making because it doesn't really deal with what I'm talking about.

MSNBC is calling a guy who had sex with male pages a pioneer. This strikes me as being in poor taste especially given the current political climate.
I see the point. I don't think they are calling him a pioneer because he had sex with pages, but because served many years in congress as an openly gay person.

[halfbreed]

I see the point. I don't think they are calling him a pioneer because he had sex with pages, but because served many years in congress as an openly gay person.

Now I wasn't exactly cognizant of much of the 80's political environment so I may be wrong on this issue but from my understanding he was only openly gay because he was caught having sex with male pages.

Is this correct or have I been misinformed?

[giddyup]

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/Aug1999/082099/criminalclass5-082099.htm

"Yet Gary Studds of Massachusetts seduced a young male House page, defied the House when it censured him and was re-elected several times."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds

"Studds received two standing ovations from supporters in his home district at his first town meeting following his congressional censure."

"Studds was a central figure in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with minors – in Studds's case, a 1973 relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page who was of the age of legal consent. The relationship was consensual, though very unprofessional of a politician, presenting ethical concerns relating to working relationships with subordinates."

Ah, is this the virtuous hand of the Dems? It only took 10 years for this wrong-doing to bubble to the surface.

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Gerry_Studds

"On July 20, 1983, Gerry was censured for having an affair 10 years earlier with a male page."

At least Foley resigned...immediately.

[giddyup]

How old is he?
69

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds

[mc mark]

At least Foley resigned...immediately.

Giddy really...

Do you really think he made that decision on his own?

[Van Gundier]

Well... at least Studds got himself some consensual congressional page sex.

Foley's effort in "seduction" yielded as much results as Bush's effort to rebuild Iraq. He was just flat-out harassing a kid who has no interest in him.

It's clear that Studds is a much more charming lover than the pathetic Foley. People need to get beyond political correctness and realize all adult-teen sexual advances are not the same.

[giddyup]

Giddy really...

Do you really think he made that decision on his own?
mc mark.. . no, but the facts are that Foley resigned and Studds did not. Are you going to dispute that?

What's more Studds evaded detection for a full decade. Do you really think that no one knew about his seduction? To top it off, he was re-elected and he was greeted back in MA with a rousing, supportive crowd.

What are the differences in these two pictures?

[FranchiseBlade]

mc mark.. . no, but the facts are that Foley resigned and Studds did not. Are you going to dispute that?

What's more Studds evaded detection for a full decade. Do you really think that no one knew about his seduction? To top it off, he was re-elected and he was greeted back in MA with a rousing, supportive crowd.

What are the differences in these two pictures?
The difference in the two pictures are that the Dems didn't cover up STudds, but acted to Censure him.

The standing ovation and re-election all happened from the people he represented and not Democratic officials.

Foley did not resign immediately. This was going on as far back as '98.

Yes I see a huge difference in the two pictures. The Democrats did not act to cover up Studds' actions, the GOP leadership did act to cover up Foley's actions.

[KingCheetah]

The difference in the two pictures are that the Dems didn't cover up STudds, but acted to Censure him.

The standing ovation and re-election all happened from the people he represented and not Democratic officials.

Foley did not resign immediately. This was going on as far back as '98.

Yes I see a huge difference in the two pictures. The Democrats did not act to cover up Studds' actions, the GOP leadership did act to cover up Foley's actions.

Giddyup doesn't notice things like this -- he bases his opinion whatever letter is in front of their name.

D --> Bad

R --> Good

[Major]

mc mark.. . no, but the facts are that Foley resigned and Studds did not. Are you going to dispute that?


Studds' actions were also both consentual and legal according to that article. The "scandal" there was basically that he was gay. Do you think an unmarried congressman consentually dating a female staffer would be news?

in Studds's case, a 1973 relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page who was of the age of legal consent. The relationship was consensual, though very unprofessional of a politician, presenting ethical concerns relating to working relationships with subordinates."


The "scandal" was that it was unprofessional (or actually, that he was gay in a time when that was far less acceptable). The Foley scandal is that it was illegal. And that the Republican leadership may have tried to cover it up. Do you really not see a difference?

[giddyup]

The difference in the two pictures are that the Dems didn't cover up STudds, but acted to Censure him..
Quite a leap of faith there since Studds was censured 10 years after the fact.

The standing ovation and re-election all happened from the people he represented and not Democratic officials..
Support is support.

Foley did not resign immediately. This was going on as far back as '98. .
Neither did Studds. He had to get caught and be censured and then re-elected. He never resigned. Was seducing a 17YO intern much more accepted in 1983 than it is now? No.

Yes I see a huge difference in the two pictures. The Democrats did not act to cover up Studds' actions, the GOP leadership did act to cover up Foley's actions.
The former needs to be substantiated by some facts; the latter is under review.

[giddyup]

The "scandal" was that it was unprofessional (or actually, that he was gay in a time when that was far less acceptable). The Foley scandal is that it was illegal. And that the Republican leadership may have tried to cover it up. Do you really not see a difference?
Yes, I see the difference: in today's climate sending electronic messages is worse than actually having sex with someone who is the age of consent.

[Deckard]

Yes, I see the difference: in today's climate sending electronic messages is worse than actually having sex with someone who is the age of consent.
It appears that defending a Republican by dredging up past Democratic scandals is more important than what Republicans in office have done now, their record, their repeated failures, and in Foley's case, stalking young congressional pages while having his behavior covered up by the highest Republican House leadership.

Wow, giddy. You ain't lookin' too good here, bro. Should I start dredging up Watergate? I could, you know. I could bring up Watergate everytime someone like you attempts to defend Foley and the House Leadership for this incredible scandal. Why not? After all, to some of you, Foley is Clinton's fault. North Korea is Clinton's fault. Iraq is Clinton's fault. Record deficits are Clinton's fault. Record trade deficits are Clinton's fault. Record low taxes on the rich? I'm sure you could find a way to blame Clinton for that, somehow. Or a Democratic Congressman from over 20 years ago for GOP scandals of today.

How about the Republican Party taking responsibility, for once, for what is happening today? Their bankrupt foreign policy of today? Their bankrupting of my childrens future with this incredible increase in the national debt today? The pulling out of major forces from Afghanistan and putting them into an unnecessary war in Iraq that is killing and maiming thousands of our fine soldiers today? The fact that it was based on dishonesty from this Administration, this President, this Secretary of Defense, which has put us in this nightmare of Iraq today? While today, bin-Laden and his gang still runs amok, and Iraq is cranking out more terrorists, not less, today?

One could go on at length, but I'll give it a rest, for now. Really, when are some of you going to wake up to the fact that the Republican Party has become the party of "EVERYTHING is everyone else's fault." It has become the party of unaccountability, and some of you are simply enablers. Wake up and smell the coffee, if you can get past the stench of the GOP leadership and this Republican Administration.




Keep D&D Civil.

[FranchiseBlade]

Quite a leap of faith there since Studds was censured 10 years after the fact.


He was censured as soon it was known what he did. That is far different than what happened with Foley. It was known what Foley did, and it was covered up for years by the GOP leadership.

Support is support.

Yes support is support. But support by people outside of party leadership in no way reflects poorly of the party. So there is a huge difference.

Neither did Studds. He had to get caught and be censured and then re-elected. He never resigned. Was seducing a 17YO intern much more accepted in 1983 than it is now? No.

Studds didn't break the law, he didn't stalk underage paiges. Giddy, nobody is defending what Studds did. However, it isn't near the same as what has happened with Foley and the cover-up. What Studds did was wrong. He was censured by congress including people in his own party who did not make an attempt to cover up and hide what Studds did.

What STudds did was with 1 paige, and was not an ongoing pattern of predatory behavior that was covered up by his own party.

The former needs to be substantiated by some facts; the latter is under review.The facts on the Studds case came out long ago and there was no cover-up. You are acting like there was, and not one person has shown any evidence at all of a cover-up. We have evidence testimony by the key players themselves that GOP leadership covered up for Foley.

The former has already been gone over, and the latter already has people involved confirming exactly what I typed.

Finally what does STudds have to do with anything?

Does the fact that Studds had a consentual affair with a legal aged staffer change that Foley repeatedly used the internet to prey on underage paiges?

Is the fact that the GOP leadership covered up and took no action even though they knew about Foley's misdeeds changed by anything that happened regarding the Studds affiar?

Trying to make someone else dirty doesn't make you clean.

[FranchiseBlade]

Yes, I see the difference: in today's climate sending electronic messages is worse than actually having sex with someone who is the age of consent.
Do you disagree with laws that make it crimes for sexual pedophiles and criminals to use the internet to prey on underage people?

[giddyup]

It appears that defending a Republican by dredging up past Democratic scandals is more important than what Republicans in office have done now, their record, their repeated failures, and in Foley's case, stalking young congressional pages while having his behavior covered up by the highest Republican House leadership.
Stalking is also a crime. Has Foley been charged with that too? I'm not even the one who brought Studds into this, but there are many similarities and many differences in the cases.

I don't think I"ve "defended" Foley; I've said numerous times that he should be out for his offenses. I do think that some perspective is in order. Studds did what Foley wanted to do and in an ironic twist of fate Foley is the worse villain because we are more concerned about the issue in this age. That is a silly disparity.

Wow, giddy. You ain't lookin' too good here, bro. Should I start dredging up Watergate? I could, you know. I could bring up Watergate everytime someone like you attempts to defend Foley and the House Leadership for this incredible scandal. Why not? After all, to some of you, Foley is Clinton's fault. North Korea is Clinton's fault. Iraq is Clinton's fault. Record deficits are Clinton's fault. Record trade deficits are Clinton's fault. Record low taxes on the rich? I'm sure you could find a way to blame Clinton for that, somehow. Or a Democratic Congressman from over 20 years ago for GOP scandals of today.
What does Clinton have to do with this?


How about the Republican Party taking responsibility, for once, for what is happening today? Their bankrupt foreign policy of today? Their bankrupting of my childrens future with this incredible increase in the national debt today? The pulling out of major forces from Afghanistan and putting them into an unnecessary war in Iraq that is killing and maiming thousands of our fine soldiers today? The fact that it was based on dishonesty from this Administration, this President, this Secretary of Defense, which has put us in this nightmare of Iraq today? While today, bin-Laden and his gang still runs amok, and Iraq is cranking out more terrorists, not less, today?
They should. Bin Laden running amok? I heard that he has mold growing in his beard from all that cave-living...


One could go on at length, but I'll give it a rest, for now. Really, when are some of you going to wake up to the fact that the Republican Party has become the party of "EVERYTHING is everyone else's fault." It has become the party of unaccountability, and some of you are simply enablers. Wake up and smell the coffee, if you can get past the stench of the GOP leadership and this Republican Administration.
I think the tussle for responsibility is an outgrowth of the media age that we live in with sound bites and video clips used to distort reality. One can't afford to own up to ANYTHING without having it magnified by the media.

[giddyup]

Do you disagree with laws that make it crimes for sexual pedophiles and criminals to use the internet to prey on underage people?
No, but Foley has not proven to be a pedophile. How old were the pages? They were the same age as Studd's LOVER for God's sake....

[thadeus]

Anyone else find it mildly quizzical that Studds died, causing his story to pop up all over the news, at precisely this point?

[FranchiseBlade]

No, but Foley has not proven to be a pedophile. How old were the pages? They were the same age as Studd's LOVER for God's sake....
At least one was younger

[FranchiseBlade]

No, but Foley has not proven to be a pedophile. How old were the pages? They were the same age as Studd's LOVER for God's sake....
Having internet sex with underage teens doesn't qualify as a pedofile?

[giddyup]

At least one was younger
16 right? Isn't that still above the age of consent? Why this misdirection?

If Foley had sex with a 15 YO or a 12 YO just come out and say it. All these vague references to "underage" kids is ridiculous.

What Foley did was illegal, ironically, by his own hand but based on what we know he did, he didn't cross the line that others have.... yet he is the scourge while the other guy is viewed as courageous.

Do you not find that odd?

[FranchiseBlade]

16 right? Isn't that still above the age of consent? Why this misdirection?

If Foley had sex with a 15 YO or a 12 YO just come out and say it. All these vague references to "underage" kids is ridiculous.

What Foley did was illegal, ironically, by his own hand but based on what we know he did, he didn't cross the line that others have.... yet he is the scourge while the other guy is viewed as courageous.

Do you not find that odd?
16 was not the age of the consent, and as far as the internet goes it is 18 for that kind of material.

[FranchiseBlade]

16 right? Isn't that still above the age of consent? Why this misdirection?

If Foley had sex with a 15 YO or a 12 YO just come out and say it. All these vague references to "underage" kids is ridiculous.

What Foley did was illegal, ironically, by his own hand but based on what we know he did, he didn't cross the line that others have.... yet he is the scourge while the other guy is viewed as courageous.

Do you not find that odd?
again it doesn't matter what the other guy did. That was 20 years ago. This goes beyond just what Foley did. This goes into why the GOP leadership allowed it to continue for so long.

What Foley did was use the internet to prey on underage staff members some of whom did not appreciate it. What Studds did was engage in an unprofessional affair with a consenting person who was of age.

It isn't just that Foley made a mistake. IT was that he was allowed to make it over and over with knowledge of GOP leadership that it was a problem.

[Achilleus]

[QUOTE=giddyup]No, but Foley has not proven to be a pedophile.[QUOTE]

Yes he has. You don't have to have sex with someone to be a pedophile. Look up the definition. A pedophile is someone who lusts after children. This guy was stalking these pages, hoping that his cajoling would eventually pay off when they were "of age."

[halfbreed]

No, but Foley has not proven to be a pedophile. How old were the pages? They were the same age as Studd's LOVER for God's sake....

Studds was a pedophile.

Foley is a pedophile, as well.

Just because one had sex and the other didn't doesn't mean one is a pedo and the other is not. Are the people caught on MSNBC's pedophile stings not pedophiles because they never engaged in sex with a minor?

[Van Gundier]

What exactly is the definition of "pedophile"? Can somebody tell me?

I need to know because if finding 16-year-olds attractive falls under the definition of pedophile, then I've been a pedophile since age 13 or so.

[insane man]

I don't think I"ve "defended" Foley; I've said numerous times that he should be out for his offenses. I do think that some perspective is in order. Studds did what Foley wanted to do and in an ironic twist of fate Foley is the worse villain because we are more concerned about the issue in this age. That is a silly disparity.

giddy i dont think i've ever agreed with you. but i agree with this pretty much completely. frankly the entire world's age of consent is around 16. and just becuase we're prudeish about these things doesn't mean we should make one year the difference between illegal/immoral/cardinal sin and legal and who cares.

16 was not the age of the consent, and as far as the internet goes it is 18 for that kind of material.

yes using the inter state commerce clause to stretch to IMs is exactly what the constitution intended. but doing something on the internet requiring the age of consent to be 18 and doing worse in 'real life' being 17 is absurd. and to repeatedly point out the 'legality' of the technicality is simply political opportunism.

american politics needs to learn a lot from europe. the obsession with sex scandals is ridiculous. i dont care waht clinton did. and frankly i dont care about foley. its incredibly sad for me, as a democrat, to realize that if we win back congress its more because of foley and abramoff than iraq and patriot act. its actually sickening.

sorry. i had to get that off my chest.

[giddyup]

Studds was a pedophile.

Foley is a pedophile, as well.

Just because one had sex and the other didn't doesn't mean one is a pedo and the other is not. Are the people caught on MSNBC's pedophile stings not pedophiles because they never engaged in sex with a minor?
They are luring those perverts on Dateline with the promise of 12 to 13 YO girls.

Somebody 17 or 18 or even 16 I think is, generally speaking, the age of consent.

Foley got caught in the irony of a law that he helped to draw up which made his electronic contacts illegal while Studds' (what a name!) actual physical contacts with pages were not illegal. That's some weird sh!t there.

[giddyup]

[QUOTE=giddyup]No, but Foley has not proven to be a pedophile.[QUOTE]

Yes he has. You don't have to have sex with someone to be a pedophile. Look up the definition. A pedophile is someone who lusts after children. This guy was stalking these pages, hoping that his cajoling would eventually pay off when they were "of age."
The question is, then, at age 16, 17, or 18 are they legally still children? I think the answer is no. As a parent, I would say yes, but the law might disagree.

[giddyup]

giddy i dont think i've ever agreed with you. but i agree with this pretty much completely. frankly the entire world's age of consent is around 16. and just becuase we're prudeish about these things doesn't mean we should make one year the difference between illegal/immoral/cardinal sin and legal and who cares..
Well, feel better because we don't actually agree at all. I think Foley is a pervert and has no business championing the protections of children. Studds was Foley at an earlier time who, through the fog of Democratic allegiance, is no criminal but rather a hero of some sort. He plied a 17YO intern with alcohol and took him to bed.

They are both scum but how criminal are they is my question....

[vlaurelio]

in other words, if you're a parent with a teen child, you'd rather have him/her be victimized by someone like foley rather than studds

[giddyup]

in other words, if you're a parent with a teen child, you'd rather have him/her be victimized by someone like foley rather than studds
Sometimes the insight you have into my soul just amazes me.... :D

Where did you get that conclusion? I said they were both creeps-- only now one is "worse" because of a recent change in the law. The law doesn't change his soul or his mental creepiness; it only changes if and how we are able to punish him.

[SamFisher]

in other words, if you're a parent with a teen child, you'd rather have him/her be victimized by someone like foley rather than studds

Yes because if it was the latter, then time travel would have been invented.

The fact that these idiots are trying to bring up something that happened a quarter century ago is very telling.

[FranchiseBlade]

Sometimes the insight you have into my soul just amazes me.... :D

Where did you get that conclusion? I said they were both creeps-- only now one is "worse" because of a recent change in the law. The law doesn't change his soul or his mental creepiness; it only changes if and how we are able to punish him.
They are still different. One was with someone who was consenting, and at times Foley's advances were unwanted by the paiges.

But neither of them were appropriate. Also the biggest difference is that one was 20 years ago and isn't really relevant, and the other happened recently and was covered up by Republican leadership.

[giddyup]

The fact that these idiots are trying to bring up something that happened a quarter century ago is very telling.
So is justifying be willing to gloss over it or, even better, to totally forget it. Imagine if Studds had had IM... he'd have died in jail!

[giddyup]

They are still different. One was with someone who was consenting, and at times Foley's advances were unwanted by the paiges.

But neither of them were appropriate. Also the biggest difference is that one was 20 years ago and isn't really relevant, and the other happened recently and was covered up by Republican leadership.
I guess what you are wanting to do is to punish Foley for what you perceive to be a Republican coverup. Is that right?

If someone replies to an IM or an email, isn't that tacit consent? How many times did they say "Stop IMing me..." or whatever?

[vlaurelio]

Where did you get that conclusion? I said they were both creeps-- only now one is "worse" because of a recent change in the law. The law doesn't change his soul or his mental creepiness; it only changes if and how we are able to punish him.

in your eyes, are they equally morally wrong?

[SamFisher]

So is justifying be willing to gloss over it or, even better, to totally forget it. Imagine if Studds had had IM... he'd have died in jail!

Imagine if transvestite J.Edgar Hoover sodomized you, or just gloss over it.

[FranchiseBlade]

I guess what you are wanting to do is to punish Foley for what you perceive to be a Republican coverup. Is that right?

If someone replies to an IM or an email, isn't that tacit consent? How many times did they say "Stop IMing me..." or whatever?
No I want to punish the GOP leadership for their cover-up, and punish Foley for any crimes he may have committed.

I think it was that they told him NO and Gross or something to that effect with either 13 or 18 exclamation points or after it. I can't really remember the details I heard. But it left no doubt that the conversation was not welcome

[halfbreed]

Yes because if it was the latter, then time travel would have been invented.

The fact that these idiots are trying to bring up something that happened a quarter century ago is very telling.

But neither of them were appropriate. Also the biggest difference is that one was 20 years ago and isn't really relevant, and the other happened recently and was covered up by Republican leadership.

So I can expect no comparisons to Vietnam from either of you in the future? FDR, either. No Nixon posts and definitely no WWII posts about internment camps.

Probably no slavery posts, either or any posts talking about the Civil Rights struggle. We can also forget that Constitution thing because it was written over two centuries ago.

[giddyup]

in your eyes, are they equally morally wrong?
Which one actually seduced a 17YO while plying him with liquor?

[giddyup]

Imagine if transvestite J.Edgar Hoover sodomized you, or just gloss over it.
Please don't involve me in your sexual fantasies!! :D

Now you're talking about Studds not Foley.

[giddyup]

No I want to punish the GOP leadership for their cover-up, and punish Foley for any crimes he may have committed.
Agreed. Why is Foley, though, so much more of a despot than Studds in your mind?

I think it was that they told him NO and Gross or something to that effect with either 13 or 18 exclamation points or after it. I can't really remember the details I heard. But it left no doubt that the conversation was not welcome
Close the window. That sends a message.

[FranchiseBlade]

Agreed. Why is Foley, though, so much more of a despot than Studds in your mind?

Foley isn't more of a despot than Studds. Foley did prey on underage boys, and Studds had a consentual affair with someone of age.



Close the window. That sends a message. So does saying exactly what the paige said. That message couldn't be too much more clear. I see you are back to blaming the victim again.

It isn't always that easy to do when you are a teen trying to your best to make connections in what might help you get a better college, and job, and the IM is with your boss, who is also one of the most powerful men in the country.

That is precisely why the paiges' young age comes into play.

[giddyup]

Foley isn't more of a despot than Studds. Foley did prey on underage boys, and Studds had a consentual affair with someone of age.
You seem to be saying that if you had a 17YO son, you'd be okay with him being plied with liquor and sexually seduced by a 30-something guy while you'd want punitive action taken if he had received sexually-orinted IMs from a 30-something guy?

Forget the legalisms; that is taken for granted that Foley will be charged and tried. I'm getting at your reaction to the two scenarios.

Consentual gets you the pass apparently-- even if it is preceeded with liquor and the elixir of power.

[FranchiseBlade]

You seem to be saying that if you had a 17YO son, you'd be okay with him being plied with liquor and sexually seduced by a 30-something guy while you'd want punitive action taken if he had received sexually-orinted IMs from a 30-something guy?

Forget the legalisms; that is taken for granted that Foley will be charged and tried. I'm getting at your reaction to the two scenarios.

Consentual gets you the pass apparently-- even if it is preceeded with liquor and the elixir of power.
I never said I would be ok with anything Studds did. I said it was wrong.

Consentual does get you the pass in a court of law. It doesn't get you the pass as to what is ethically right and wrong. As I have said before what Studds did was clearly wrong. I am glad that he was censured. He should have been. His behavior was inappropriate and unprofessional.

For the record Foley was older than 30 when he was masturbating with his dirty suggestive chats towards these teens.

[pgabriel]

I don't see why you guys go back and forth with giddy. he does this everytime, he turns the issue into you. "so what would you do" or "so you're okay with", when that is so far from the issue its ridiculous. the issue is what did the REPUBLICANS in CONGRESS do?

[giddyup]

I don't see why you guys go back and forth with giddy. he does this everytime, he turns the issue into you. "so what would you do" or "so you're okay with", when that is so far from the issue its ridiculous. the issue is what did the REPUBLICANS in CONGRESS do?
Read the title of the thread. Start a new thread if you want one on that topic.

[pgabriel]

Read the title of the thread. Start a new thread if you want one on that topic.


that's not the point, what are you trying to prove. so what if franchiseblade is being overly critical of foley because he's a republican, so what if there was a similar scandal with a democrat. who cares?

[SamFisher]

So I can expect no comparisons to Vietnam from either of you in the future? FDR, either. No Nixon posts and definitely no WWII posts about internment camps.

Probably no slavery posts, either or any posts talking about the Civil Rights struggle. We can also forget that Constitution thing because it was written over two centuries ago.

People discuss those things for historical reasons - which is why you see them on things like the history channel.

Tell me, have you waxed poetic about the history of Gerry Studds before? Please find some posts for me pre-dating the Mark Foley scandal indicating that you were concerned about this past episode - otherwise it looks like you're taking your marching orders from Sean Hannity (who justified it because it was "pretty recent" - ha ha ha) to carry water for a child molester and those who covered up his crimes. how this helps you I have no idea.

[giddyup]

For the record Foley was older than 30 when he was masturbating with his dirty suggestive chats towards these teens.
For the record that was a reference to Studds, who died in 2006 at about age 69, who was censured in 1983 at about age 46 and who had pulled his seduction 10 years earlier at about age 36.

[Sishir Chang]

So now that Gerry Studds has died and is being eulogized we shouldn't be so hard on Foley? :confused: Crikey the man just died, he did a horrible thing but lets show a little respect.

[giddyup]

So now that Gerry Studds has died and is being eulogized we shouldn't be so hard on Foley? :confused: Crikey the man just died, he did a horrible thing but lets show a little respect.
I'm not sure who you see saying that. I've said all along that Foley needs to be prosecuted, but for Foley to be made out a beast for texting sexual messages while Studds who plied an intern with alcohol and seduced him is made out to be some pioneer is just ludicrous.

[vlaurelio]

I'm not sure who you see saying that. I've said all along that Foley needs to be prosecuted, but for Foley to be made out a beast for texting sexual messages while Studds who plied an intern with alcohol and seduced him is made out to be some pioneer is just ludicrous.

didn't Foley seduce and offer liquor to an intern thru IM as well?

they're both sexual beasts/predators.. why do you try to make Foley less of a beast?

[RocketMan Tex]

I'm not sure who you see saying that. I've said all along that Foley needs to be prosecuted, but for Foley to be made out a beast for texting sexual messages while Studds who plied an intern with alcohol and seduced him is made out to be some pioneer is just ludicrous.

While I don't approve of either person, the facts are the facts:

Studds' intern was 17 years old at the time of the seduction.

Age of consent in the District of Columbia is 17 years old.

Foley's intern was 16 when the messages began.

Case closed. Comparing the two is apples and oranges vis a vis the law.

[weslinder]

While I don't approve of either person, the facts are the facts:

Studds' intern was 17 years old at the time of the seduction.

Age of consent in the District of Columbia is 17 years old.

Foley's intern was 16 when the messages began.

Case closed. Comparing the two is apples and oranges vis a vis the law.
The age of consent in D.C. is 16. There might have been nothing illegal about Foley having sex with his pages (so long as he didn't use his influence to coerce them). Foley is being charged with a federal crime relating to seducing minors over the Internet where a minor is defined as under 17.

[Nolen]

Why the hell are you guys even debating "which one is worse?" Morally, legally, whatever?

The Republican coverup is what has been in the headlines all this time. The vilification of Foley is a molehill in comparison. Foley has resigned, he is being investigated, and if he needs to be indicted or arrested or whatever, he will.

The real issue is the repub coverup.

[halfbreed]

People discuss those things for historical reasons - which is why you see them on things like the history channel.

Tell me, have you waxed poetic about the history of Gerry Studds before? Please find some posts for me pre-dating the Mark Foley scandal indicating that you were concerned about this past episode - otherwise it looks like you're taking your marching orders from Sean Hannity (who justified it because it was "pretty recent" - ha ha ha) to carry water for a child molester and those who covered up his crimes. how this helps you I have no idea.

You got me. I had a Sean Hannity implant installed about a month ago. :rolleyes:

You cannot tell me people have not been comparing the current war to the Vietnam War.

I don't understand why you have a problem seeing that I'm saying BOTH people are in the wrong. I honestly cannot see why you fail to understand this. When have I defended Foley? I have done no such thing.

My problem is with the double standard of one being a "pioneer." I have never defended a cover-up or claimed that one did not exist. You are letting your obvious disdain for anything not resembling your own viewpoint cloud your reasoning.

[vlaurelio]

My problem is with the double standard of one being a "pioneer."

pioneer means first right? studds was the first openly gay member of congress so he was a pioneer for that matter..

if neil armstrong blew up a building that still does not change the fact that he was the first man on the moon..

[halfbreed]

pioneer means first right? studds was the first openly gay member of congress so he was a pioneer for that matter..

if neil armstrong blew up a building that still does not change the fact that he was the first man on the moon..

But wasn't he only openly gay because of what happened? An honest question because that's what I've heard but, as I've stated, being a mere toddler at the time this hapened I can't say for sure.

[No Worries]

But wasn't he only openly gay because of what happened?
Why does this mattered?

[lpbman]

Why does this mattered?
Sort of shades the "Pioneer" label a bit.

This argument is nothing but a distraction... Pay attention to what matters.

[jo mama]

You are letting your obvious disdain for anything not resembling your own viewpoint cloud your reasoning.

one could very easily say the same about you.

your attitude is very typical of bush and bush supporters. they like to play the "blame game". "but he did it!"

and north korea getting nukes was clintons fault
and 9/11 was clintons fault

[giddyup]

While I don't approve of either person, the facts are the facts:

Studds' intern was 17 years old at the time of the seduction.

Age of consent in the District of Columbia is 17 years old.

Foley's intern was 16 when the messages began.

Case closed. Comparing the two is apples and oranges vis a vis the law.
There is no wiggle room legally for Foley, period.

Don't you find it kind of ironic that Studds got a censure and a re-election while Foley is forced to resign in shame for only wanting to do what Studds actually did?

[vlaurelio]

Foley is forced to resign in shame for only wanting to do what Studds actually did?

so why is it illegal/a crime if sending sexual messages is just "wanting"?

its clear you don't mind some adult REPEATEDLY for five years making sexual advances and offering alcohol to DIFFERENT minors as long its just through IM because its just "wanting"..

[FranchiseBlade]

There is no wiggle room legally for Foley, period.

Don't you find it kind of ironic that Studds got a censure and a re-election while Foley is forced to resign in shame for only wanting to do what Studds actually did?
Again, what Studds did all those years ago has no bearing on Foley's deeds. Apparently Studds did it once, with FOley it was an ongoing thing that has lasted for years and years.

The bigger problem is the fact that nobody in leadership did anything about it even though they knew.

[Sishir Chang]

I'm not sure who you see saying that. I've said all along that Foley needs to be prosecuted, but for Foley to be made out a beast for texting sexual messages while Studds who plied an intern with alcohol and seduced him is made out to be some pioneer is just ludicrous.

People are talking about Studds as a pioneer because he just died. You do understand that in general people like to put a positive spin on someone's life when they die?

[halfbreed]

one could very easily say the same about you.

your attitude is very typical of bush and bush supporters. they like to play the "blame game". "but he did it!"

and north korea getting nukes was clintons fault
and 9/11 was clintons fault

I have done nothing to support Bush recently. I have said nothing of North Korea. I have said nothing blaming Clinton for 9/11.

What I hate is hypocrisy in all its forms. I hate it when Republicans do it and when Democrats do it. Most importantly, I hate the rampant arrogance of those who claim that their way is the only way to think. I cannot stand those on the far-left who claim to have a monopoly on truth. More importantly I find it odd that it's OK to compare the current war to a war fought more than three decades ago but not OK to compare a situation to something that happened two decades ago because it's too far in the past.

I have also done nothing but try to explain why I feel there is a bit of a double standard. I have done nothing to excuse Foley's behavior. Don't confuse the opinions of others with my own.

[halfbreed]

People are talking about Studds as a pioneer because he just died. You do understand that in general people like to put a positive spin on someone's life when they die?

Sort of like the "positive spin" put on Ken Lay? I don't believe we should speak nice of someone just because they've recently passed.

Ken Lay deserved every bit of bad press he received at his death. Studds deserves at least a discussion of his improper acts especially considering the current similar situation.

[Sishir Chang]

Sort of like the "positive spin" put on Ken Lay? I don't believe we should speak nice of someone just because they've recently passed.

Ken Lay deserved every bit of bad press he received at his death. Studds deserves at least a discussion of his improper acts especially considering the current similar situation.

You might not agree but that's a fact of our culture and that's why people are calling him a pioneer. If Studd's scandal had happened at the same time as Foley's he probably would be getting treated as bad as Foley, In fact Studd's scandal happened at the same time as a Republican senator was also found to be having sex with a page and they both were censured.

[hotballa]

classic current GOP leadership tactics.

"It's the Democrats fault for telling on us and then not letting people forget about the creepy perv we had in our party that we knew about!"

pathetic.

[giddyup]

so why is it illegal/a crime if sending sexual messages is just "wanting"?"..
To protect 12 year-olds? 17 YOs can and do have sex-- maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't. 12 YOs generally don't have sex-- most would agree that they shouldn't, but there is a class of people out there who desire them so we create the law which makes sexual electronic communication against the law just because it is so easy to accomplish. I don't understand a law which makes it illegal to communicate with someone who is of-age about sexual matters. I know they can be taken advantage of but so could any lonely person of any age. At some point you have to turn them loose and make them fend for themselves. One day you are 17 years, 364 days and it is illegal to send that IM or email. The next day is your birthday and now you are 17 years, 365 days... oops make that 18 years and I've now committed a crime for sending that same message.

its clear you don't mind some adult REPEATEDLY for five years making sexual advances and offering alcohol to DIFFERENT minors as long its just through IM because its just "wanting"..
When did I say I didn't mind it? I do question the criminality of it. If someone did that with one of my daughters there would be a reckoning.

[giddyup]

People are talking about Studds as a pioneer because he just died. You do understand that in general people like to put a positive spin on someone's life when they die?
I'll have to go back and look but I think that Wikipedia article was written long before Studds died and I believe he is lionized there as a pioneer. Isn't it true that he was only a pioneer once he was outed by virtue of his being censored?

[vlaurelio]

I'll have to go back and look but I think that Wikipedia article was written long before Studds died and I believe he is lionized there as a pioneer. Isn't it true that he was only a pioneer once he was outed by virtue of his being censored?

foley and studds are both beasts of similar level

but republican leadership is worse for knowing foley's actions for 5 years and covering it up

[giddyup]

foley and studds are both beasts of similar level

but republican leadership is worse for knowing foley's actions for 5 years and covering it up
Yeah, probably but we don't really know what they knew and it seems like some people along the way ineffectively intervened.

What did the leadership do to "cover it up?" Do you mean that they just didn't effectively step in and stop it or do you mean that they somehow enabled Foley proactively?

How is it that no Democrats knew about Foley's behavior? Or did some know and likewise did nothing or at least nothing effective?

How did Studds get a 10-years pass on his behavior? Is that more of a comment on a lack of motivation in oversight or just incompetence in not knowing what one should have known?

[FranchiseBlade]

Yeah, probably but we don't really know what they knew and it seems like some people along the way ineffectively intervened.

What did the leadership do to "cover it up?" Do you mean that they just didn't effectively step in and stop it or do you mean that they somehow enabled Foley proactively?

How is it that no Democrats knew about Foley's behavior? Or did some know and likewise did nothing or at least nothing effective?

How did Studds get a 10-years pass on his behavior? Is that more of a comment on a lack of motivation in oversight or just incompetence in not knowing what one should have known?
Democrats knew about Foley's behavior after some Republicans leaked the story.

Your assertion that STudds got away with it for 10 years and that others should have known is ludicrous. It is not customary or something one should no about a co-worker. There is no reason that other congressional members should have known about Studds private sex life.

Furthermore Studds had a one time affair, Foley had a habit of doing this over a prolonged period of time.

Giddy, trying to equate the two isn't going to work. Furthermore trying to make the Democrats look dirty isn't going to make the GOP look clean. I am not sure why you are stretching, and adding in your own theories with such determination here.

I'm sorry Giddy, but one political party is more culpable in their behavior regarding these stories. That seems hard for you to accept.

[rimrocker]

I owe an apology to Max...
_________

Priest Acknowledges Relationship With Foley

By Howard Schneider and Debbi Wilgoren
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, October 19, 2006; 11:46 AM

A retired priest from Malta acknowledged today that he had intimate contact with a youthful Mark Foley in the mid-1960s that involved nudity and -- on at least one occasion -- "light touching," but denied that he had "sexual intercourse" with him.

The Rev. Anthony Mercieca, in a telephone interview with The Washington Post from the Maltese island of Gozo, said he was surprised that his long-ago interaction with Foley had become linked to the former Congressman's troubles. Foley, a former altar boy at the Sacred Heart Catholic church in Lake Worth, Florida, where Mercieca served in the mid-1960s, resigned from Congress after reports about sexually intimate electronic messages he had sent to Congressional pages.

Following his resignation, Foley entered alcohol rehabilitation, said he was gay, and alleged that he had been sexually abused by a member of the clergy as a youth.

Catholic Church officials have encouraged Foley to name the priest involved, and Foley was expected to turn that information over to Florida law enforcement authorities yesterday. As of last night, however, Florida officials said no name had been provided, according to wire service reports.

This morning the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, citing confidential sources close to Foley's family, identified Mercieca as the priest in question. Though Mercieca confirmed his past ties to Foley this morning in an interview with The Post, there has been no independent confirmation that Foley was referring to Mercieca in his allegations, or whether there may be another priest involved.

In the interview, Mercieca said that issues like molestation and sexual harassment are "in the eye of the beholder," and that Foley -- who was 12 or 13 at the time -- might have interpreted some of their contact "the wrong way." Mercieca said he is currently 69, meaning he would have been close to 30 at the time he served in Foley's Florida parish.

"I was a little out of myself there," Mercieca said, from his use of medication following what the Sarasota paper described as a nervous breakdown. "The whole idea is . . . that I did something that he did not like, but at the time he did not say anything."

Mercieca said that he regarded their trips to skinny dip in Lake Worth, Fla., or to local saunas, as well within the cultural bounds he learned in Brazil, where he said he attended seminary and spent his first years as a priest.

"We had some kind of friendship. I was very friendly with him and his family," said Mercieca. "Then almost forty years passed without him saying anything. . . . And now because he got caught he recited these things."

In Brazil "they skinny dip all the time and no one gets scandalized. It is part of the culture. It is natural," Mercieca said. "They don't make an issue out of a skinny dip in the park or a massage."

"It was not what you call intercourse. . . . There was no rape or anything. . . . Maybe light touches here or there," said Mercieca.

Mercieca said he could not explain why Foley might be attributing his broader problems to their contact.

A House ethics panel is investigating how Congressional leaders dealt with reports about Foley's conduct with pages. Catholic officials in Florida have said they would release the name of the accused priest after consulting with prosecutors in Palm Beach County, and reviewing the priest's history. They said they would encourage any other potential victims to come forward.

An employee at the civil law firm that is representing Foley said his attorney, Gerald F. Richman, had no comment on Mercieca at this point.

Mercieca said he did not expect to be sued or prosecuted criminally over his ties to Foley. For criminal cases, the statute of limitations has expired.

Mark Serrano, a board member with the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, encouraged a full investigation, including whether he had similar involvement with other minors, and whether any allegations had been reported to church officials.

"I can't speak to the culture in Brazil but I can speak to the culture in America and speak to basic standards of morality. A crime is a crime is a crime," Serrano said. "Advanced age is no indication that kids are safe from a perpetrator . . . An investigation would be required."

Mercieca, who grew up in Malta, said he is retired now, but helps out occassionally at a cathedral in Gozo, a Mediterranean island and part of Malta about sixty miles south of Sicily. Mercieca said recent allegations of sexual abuse by priests had prompted extensive scrutiny of all clergy, and that he had never been accused or referred for counseling. He said he had no other friendships similar to the one he had with Foley.

"If anyone had even a shadow of a complaint he was thrown out of the priesthood. I had been in many parishes and the bishop never found anything. And if he found [something] he would have taken action," Mercieca said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101900533_pf.html

[moestavern19]

http://www.weddingcrashersmovie.com/crashthistrailer/index.htm?id=310534