[QUOTE=ralph124c]
people like Ted Kennedy ought to be trembling in his shoes :o
[/QUOTE]
Why?
If one were unkind, one might suggest an urgent necessity to somehow spread this shit puddle to lap at the shoes of Dems.
[QUOTE=ralph124c]
people like Ted Kennedy ought to be trembling in his shoes :o
[/QUOTE]
Ted has a history as a houndog, but I have seen no evidence that he is a pedophile (or ephebophile, whatever). What are you alluding to?
[QUOTE=ralph124c]
I would not be surprised at a MAJOR 9and very embarrassing) lawsuit against the congress. people like Ted Kennedy ought to be trembling in his shoes :o
[/QUOTE]
I think this strategy–desperately trying to find some way to implicate Democrats in this situation–is the most repulsive of all the responses.
Not all Republicans are responsible; if a particular Republican is responsible, there need to be facts and arguments about why that’s the case. Same goes for any Democrat.
Certainly if there’s a Democrat who hushed this up, they’re responsible. A Democrat who led to the information’s release did a good thing.
Daniel
I rise to nominate friend Bricker as official SDMB Prosecuting Attorney in the matter of Foley, Hastert, et. al.
Anyone ever hear the old saw about, “Never write an email you wouldn’t want to see published on the front page of the New York Times?”
So here’s a perfect example. Email printed on the front page of the New York Times. That’s gotta sting.
So for future reference, it’s a lot safer to proposition teenage boys orally. Uh, I mean, verbally. In person, that is.
All kidding aside-how does somebody like ex-rep Foley act so stupidly? The papers are FULL of people getting caught, trying to arrange sexual encounters with children. And having emails traceable to your own computer? The guy should be censured for stupidity as well.
[QUOTE=Loopydude]
I wonder the same. As pointed out in the related thread , the Adam Walsh Act may have made things very difficult for Foley:
From here (and bolding mine). If the age of consent is 16, maybe the status of a “minor” isn’t a problem, and intent is a difficult thing to prove, I suppose. I’ve got no feel for how it might play out in a criminal proceding based only on the available evidence. I think probably no criminal offenses here, though he was damn close. New evidence could change that pretty easily, though. As Rep. Foley said himself:
[/QUOTE]
No cite just this second, but I’m pretty sure that Federal law considers a minor to be someone under 18. Still, there is simply not enough evidence right now for a finder of fact to say that Foley’s conduct constitutes attempted criminal sexual conduct. It’s just not explicit enough. As you correctly point out, though, we’re about one e-mail away from reaching that level.
The booze, maybe?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
I rise to nominate friend Bricker as official SDMB Prosecuting Attorney in the matter of Foley, Hastert, et. al.
[/QUOTE]
First thing I’d do is go to a grand jury and get subpoenas for Foley, Reynolds, and Hastert. This would have salubrious effect of locking them into their stories NOW. Any changes of heart down the line would be prosecutable as perjury.
Then I’d turn the FBI loose on the computers Foley had access to, home and office, and try to recover as much info about messages he sent. I’d also get them to compile and interview all the pages from this and prior years – what are the odds this is the first time he did this?
I’m willing to bet that criminal information would come to light.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
First thing I’d do is go to a grand jury and get subpoenas for Foley, Reynolds, and Hastert. This would have salubrious effect of locking them into their stories NOW. Any changes of heart down the line would be prosecutable as perjury.
[/QUOTE]
Question: wouldn’t they be allowed to change and revise their testimony up until the grand jury was dismissed? I thought that was a pivotal point in the Plame leak grand jury.
Daniel
I would further suggest that he be empowered with the use of “alternative interrogation” methods. Subject to oversight, of course. A committee of myself, Der, Elvish, and Doggyknees to assure everything is kosher and copacetic.
That seems fair.
Along the lines of stupidity, I can’t halp but ask a question that I haven’t seen discussed yet. Do we know if any of the teenage boys are/were gay? I don’t necessarily want to pry into these boys’ private lives, but was Foley so stupid that he propositioned straight teenage boys? It’s just so hard to understand how someone could be that stupid…
[QUOTE=elucidator]
That seems fair.
[/QUOTE]
Of course. To say otherwise is a sure sign of support for child predators.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
As you correctly point out, though, we’re about one e-mail away from reaching that level.
[/QUOTE]
If you count Foley’s instant messages, no, we’re not.
From your own cite:
[QUOTE=H.R. 4472: Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006]
(14) MINOR.–The term ``minor’’ means an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years
[/quote]
[QUOTE=squeegee]
If you count Foley’s instant messages, no, we’re not.
[/QUOTE]
Had not seen those before.
I read them far enough to find something that I believe qualifies as criminal:
Assuming the transcript is accurate, and that Foley, “Maf54,” believed “Xxxxxxx” to be underage, or if “Xxxxxx” was in fact underage regardless of Foley’s belief, then I contend that the exchange above is violative of the law.
Also just in:
The story is not moving in a good direction for Mr. Foley.
[QUOTE=squeegee]
From your own cite:
[/QUOTE]
I know. Per the other thread, this may lead to the bizarre situation where, had Foley “only” engaged in sexual intercourse with one of these lads, and said boy was at least 16, no law would have been broken. But, for emailing or IMing the same lad with the intent to solicit such activity, Foley has now comitted a Federal felony. So I left open the possibility, from a purely common-sense perspective, that the youth’s probable status as legally able to consent to sex in the District of Columbia might somehow be a mitigating factor. Or would, under the AWA, sexual contact itself without any solicitation by wire, also be a Federal offense? If so, does this mean the Federal law completely trumps D.C. law, and the laws of any other state where the AoC is under 18?