Republican Congressman Sends Sex Messages to Underage Boys

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.

 

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.

 

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 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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

"He's a faaaaag"

PS Sound clip from the Sopranos played by Fred on Stern

 

Right here:

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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



________

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

Yes I have read them.

 

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!

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.