Who gives a rat’s ass about whether or not its a crime? If he’s not indictable, he gets a pass? Fuck that shit!
And this just in…
In an interview today with CNN…
“*other * things that might have affected campaign…” Priorities.
(crossposted to Pit…)
Is there a transcript, luci?
What you’re missing, though, is that we have dual sovereigns in this system. The federal law criminalizes the Internet contact, because the federal law is concerned with interactions between states. Congress has no power to regulate interaction between two people face-to-face; there must be some interstate element to it.
The state is an independent and separate entity. It decides to criminalize (or not) face-to-face conduct.
Yeah, but so far its only available at ThinkProgress. Depending on your political orientation, you may need to be advised Shields Up! (decidedly lefty).
Which would be, of course…
The question of age is irrelevant. He is a congressman.The kid is a page. Power differences are huge. If it were a girl it would be a power thing.It is indefensible and wrong.He is scum.
Being on the committees that he was on and his public statements makes him a lying hypocrite.
Related: House Page Board Not Told About Foley EMails
Is that a cover-up I smell? Or just the stench of Republican corruption?
You mean, is it a breath mint, or a candy mint?
Given the details of this story I think it’s obviously a Junior Mint.
Drag him out and shoot him, no jury will convict.
Please don’t eat the large mints in the Urinal of Liberty!
Also, regardless of if the page were 16 or 30, doesn’t the fact that he apparently wanted Foley to quit emailing him, and had to contact the Republican leadership to make that happen also suggest sexual harrasement. I mean, I’d assume the kid would’ve gone the normal route and asked Foley to quit it before sending the incriminating emails to Hastert and all.
I mean making unwanted sexual advances to an underling is illegal regardless of age or means of communication, right?
What, it’s impossible that the federal law take differing standards of age of consent into account (say, by rating it at the location of the alleged victim)?
The point is to end up with a body of justice and law that makes some sense, rather than a random conglomeration of mismatched talking points. Someone sleeping with a child and being in the clear while someone else is charged with merely talking dirty to them is de facto a perverse situation. It’s one thing when courts have to rule a certain way based on perverse laws: it’s quite another when those laws are constructed in order to lead to idiotic outcomes.
Yep.
Not illegal in the sense of “criminal,” no.
Illegal in the sense of tortious, yes. That is, it can get you sued, but not jailed.
Thanks for the answer, that makes sense. Is sexual harassment of a minor treated the same way?
Honestly this whole scandal seems kinda “meh”. Assuming it didn’t go any further then the emails/AIMs and any resulting sexual encounters were consentual, and that Hastart et al. only got the set of rather innocuous emails that came from the first accuser, any wrong doing accept Foley’s original breaking of his own law (which is more hilarious then disturbing, IMHO) seem kinda minor. As much as I like seeing the Repubs take it on the chin (not a sexual inneundo, post a quote of that and a smiliey face below and I’ll hurt you!), I have a hard time getting worked up about this.
Also I bet a bunch of former pages of Rep. Foley are really wishing they could take that summer off any resumes/applications they might have already submitted.
I mean, this Foley clearly has MORE than a few loose screws. Howver, the guy 9as far as i know) never got to actually molets anyone. This should be kept in mind. heck, everybody doesn’t jump on Bill Clinton for the Lewinsky affair-why doesn’t Foiley rate the same?
Boy, Fox News seems to be doing a fine job of avoiding coverage of this scandal. (And of the Woodward book.)
The Amish shooting has given them all the cover they needed.
I really don’t see that the focus of outrage is on Foley per se. If it is, I don’t think it should be. You are correct that while Foley certainly is guilty of impropriety, it does appear to fall far short of actually bedding one or more pages.
My impression is, at least from the discussions here, that Foley obviously was known to engage in improper behavior, and that the risk of even more improper behavior should have been seen as urgent enough to take action to somehow limit Foley’s contact with underage boys. Yet, it appears, nothing of any mitigating substance was done to protect the pages. Instead, Foley’s personal interests, and the larger political interests of the Republican Party, took precedence over the health and safety of innocent children. That’s the outrage. That’s the truly sickening story we’re discovering here. Rather than lose a single seat in Congress, the problem was buried as long as it could be, and the pages and their parents left to fend for themselves. There’s additional outrage to be had, I suppose, in the fact that Foley was also left in charge of sponsoring legislation designed to protect children from people like himself, but to me that’s an abstract issue of morality. The very concrete and practical issue is that Foley posed a “clear and present danger” to his youthful charges. I guess assessing such risks is something the Republicans have had a very difficult time with the past few years.