Congressman Resigns: Sent Letters to 16 Yr Old

[Lex]

The difference is that Congressman Foley resigned. He did not lie or try to justify his disgusting behavior. Clinton lied about the Lewinski incident at first and then, when the proof of his indiscretion was overwhelming, he tried to justify it.

No, the difference is not that. Are you implying that consensual sexual activities between two adults is the same as what Foley is accused of here?

Clinton did not technically lie. According to most divorce law in MD and DC, "sex" is defined as penetration. Oral sex, is not considered "sex" for legal purposes and is not, by itself, grounds for divorce. That is why he used that specific word and phrase.

Poll after poll said that no one cared about Clinton getting his dick sucked and still it would not die. You know why no one cared? Because we knew he was a whore when we elected him, they were both adults, and life was good for most Americans at that time.

Notice the differences, today?

Again, stop trying to draw comparisions where there are none. This is about the PAGE and the over up, not about which of the big 2 is the most fucked up party.

 

[mindseye]

And some technical comments regarding this story:

Q: How old was the page?

A: Dirty Videophile raises the suggestion that the page who first broke the story was 17. He was 16 when he begin receiving the messages from Foley, but is 17 now. (Other IM's have been found since then involving other pages, but the identities of the other pages have not been released, so it's impossible to say for sure how old they are.) edit: My bad! The page is 18 now, and began receiving messages when he was 16.

Q: Did Foley break a law? 16 is legal, right? And Foley never had sex with anyone, just sent dirty IM's, right?

A: The age of consent in Washington, DC, is 16. This age applies to both opposite-sex and same-sex relations. If Foley had actually had sex with the page in his office, for example, it would have been legal for him to do so (although it would have been in violation of the Rules of the House of Representatives).

However, the internet (as a form of telecommunications) is under federal jurisdiction, and it is a violation of federal law for an adult to use the internet to solicit sex from a minor. (Ironically, Mark Foley was a co-sponsor of that law!) If Mark Foley solicited sex from his page through IM's, then he has committed a federal crime.

On Sunday, the FBI confirmed that they were investigating Foley, but would not confirm any specific laws that they suspected may have been violated. However, some of the questioning has centered around an exchange that involved these messages, and whether or not exchanges like this constituted a solicitation for sex:

Maf54 (8:04:17 PM): um so a big buldge
Xxxxxxxxx (8:04:35 PM): ya
Maf54 (8:04:45 PM): um
Maf54 (8:04:58 PM): love to slip them off of you
Xxxxxxxxx (8:05:08 PM): haha
Maf54 (8:05:53 PM): and gram the one eyed snake
Maf54 (8:06:13 PM): grab
Xxxxxxxxx (8:06:53 PM): not tonight…dont get to excited

So, Foley may have broken a law, but hasn't been charged yet.

 

[fortiesfun]

I really don't have a problem with anyone wanting to suck "of age" cock. It's just that we cannot hold these bastards to any standard any different than we hold the general populace.

So fucking what? The guy likes younger dick. The fellow in question was gay too from what I've read. That's not where the problem lies.

Many older straight dudes like young pussy I'll warrant.. Go for it if you can get it I say.
In an attempt to avert attention from predictable Republican lying and double standard he diverts this thing by yelling "sexual abuse" and "priest abuse" and "alcoholism".

I respect your position, but I still disagree with it. I think the power differential is such that the solicitation is over the line of acceptability. Like student-teacher sex, it is a lot more complicated than simple "age of consent" solves.

I, personally, see no difference between MM sex and MF sex. There is a problem with soliciting minors, and the minor enjoying the attention is not an excuse. I can't agree with your urging to go for it in either orientation.

Still, I completely agree that the spin to try to make this about Foley's homosexuality instead of his abuse of power and hypocrisy is most reprehensible of all. Like the priest scandals in the Catholic Church, gays make convenient scapegoats. Instead of focusing on the abuse of power, simply appeal to the worst instincts of the crowd.

Even when I disagree with you, Stronzo, I always admire your willingness and ability to lay your position out with clarity and passion. This time is no exception, I just draw the line differently.

 

[rob_just_rob]

The difference is that Congressman Foley resigned. He did not lie or try to justify his disgusting behavior. Clinton lied about the Lewinski incident at first and then, when the proof of his indiscretion was overwhelming, he tried to justify it.

I'm not sure whose question you were answering, but it wasn't mine.

 

[joyboytoy79]

I respect your position, but I still disagree with it. I think the power differential is such that the solicitation is over the line of acceptability. Like student-teacher sex, it is a lot more complicated than simple "age of consent" solves.

I, personally, see no difference between MM sex and MF sex. There is a problem with soliciting minors, and the minor enjoying the attention is not an excuse. I can't agree with your urging to go for it in either orientation.

Still, I completely agree that the spin to try to make this about Foley's homosexuality instead of his abuse of power and hypocrisy is most reprehensible of all. Like the priest scandals in the Catholic Church, gays make convenient scapegoats. Instead of focusing on the abuse of power, simply appeal to the worst instincts of the crowd.

Even when I disagree with you, Stronzo, I always admire your willingness and ability to lay your position out with clarity and passion. This time is no exception, I just draw the line differently.

I think the fact that this took place in a work setting is what makes it bad to me. If the boy in question had not been a Page, i don't think there would be much wrong with it, on a techinical level. The law in DC assumed that this boy was old enough to decide if he was ready for sex with anyone. We can't, as a society, judge a man if he was following the law. I mean, we can, but it has no legal bearing. Now, when you consider that this boy was a Page, and worked in the same building as Foley, this makes it workplace sexual harrassment, whether it was consentual or not. Also, the federal law agains online predation does not differentiate between "minor" and "of age of consent." It's a twisted web we weave. And rather confusing!

 

[GoneA]

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/BrianRoss/story?id=2509586&page=1

All I have to say on the issue is that Foley's a pedo, it has nothing to do with alcohol, and it seems to me that the kid knows exacty whats going on and is playing into it.

I'm not sure of that. He made a point of saying what sexually aroused him: "the whole catholic girl look". In my mind, it seems very plausible to assume this was the pages’ way of avoiding Foley’s questions, "are you hard", "you got a stiff one now",”how big are you", etc.

No one knows as a matter of inconvertible fact, but I tend to believe the idea submitted by Mindseye and MMZ: the boy could have been acting out of intimidation and a desire for advancement.

Foley is certainly a pedophile; something gives me the feeling his actions would have been no different if the page was fifteen-years-old or possibly younger.

 

[B_Stronzo]

The difference is that Congressman Foley resigned. He did not lie or try to justify his disgusting behavior. Clinton lied about the Lewinski incident at first and then, when the proof of his indiscretion was overwhelming, he tried to justify it.

He resigned all right. But only after his hand had been irrevocably caught in the cookie jar. It was widely known in Washington (from all reports) that he was a homosexual.

But yet when he was outed for overtly stupid behavior he tried to blame everyone and everything but himself (appears to be working in some circles too).

If Foley's double standard hadn't been so blatantly opposed to the reality of his life I'd have said precisely what I did to the knowledge that Clinton got a blow job from Lewinsky. "So what"?

I don't care what the sexual interests are of our elected officials.

In Foley's case it's the aftermath I find disgusting. In that sense (as I stated during the Clinton debacle) "of for the love of Christ just say she gave you head". And in the broader sense why is it that thinking people appear to be entirely unable to get the social implications of the political posturing of Foley versus his private reality?? It's irony itself.

What the repugs are doing with this thing is twisting Foley's "poor abused self" into a martyr to prove how 'obvious' the connection is from homosexuality to pedophilia. That's a firestorm those in the other camp need no help fueling.

Is that lost on you?

aside:

Lion? Foley's no "pedo" from what I see. He likes young guys. No one's legitimately accused him (much as I dislike the man) of being into children.

 

[madame_zora]

As Mindseye points out, his own law governing the internet is what he broke. I do find that amusing, as well as the fact that solicitng young dick is apparently more of a crime than sucking it, but who am I to judge? I wasn't the one who wanted the interweb regulated, now was I?

The hypocricy is delicious, if not entirely predictable. So are the reactions- entirely predictable. What remains to be seen is which side has the greater leverage at the time of the elections. As for his "confession" about alcoholism and being molested- so fucking what! Neither of those things is an excuse for using his position of power to make advances on teenagers ON THE JOB! Why is it so often that the very ones who are so concerned about other people's morals are the ones who should really be trying to manage their own?

 

[rob_just_rob]

If I may borrow, or perhaps even coin, a phrase...

"It's the hypocrisy, stupid."

When have conservatives ever accepted alcoholism or prior abuse as an excuse for criminal acts? Only in cases involving one of their own. I guarantee the Republicans would be building a cross and collecting nails for Foley if he had had a "D" instead of an "R" next to his name.

And I see nobody's bothered to reconcile #1 and #2, below:

1. Clinton was impeached for having an affair with an adult woman.
2. The same people who impeached Clinton covered up Foley's activities until the very end.



edit: excuse substituted for justification

 

[madame_zora]

If Foley's double standard hadn't been so blatantly opposed to the reality of his life I'd have said precisely what I did to the knowledge that Clinton got a blow job from Lewinsky. "So what"?

Man, I hear that. No one appears to have been hurt, and if it weren't for the other pages interview that felt creeped out, I'd have said he just likes 'em young. However- it appears he IS a troll, and trolling for young dick among your own employees is just wrong.

I don't care what the sexual interests are of our elected officials.

Well, you're a bigger man than I (not that that would take much!). I'm immature enough to enjoy a good old fashioned "I told you so!" when it's so desperately needed. It's ALWAYS the ones pushing restrictions on other people's freedoms who need restraint themselves. ALWAYS.

In Foley's case it's the aftermath I find disgusting. In that sense (as I stated during the Clinton debacle) "of for the love of Christ just say she gave you head".

I know he was trying to "keep it legal" and I'm sure he thought it would "blow over" without him having to get graphic- who could have predicted we'd be having a nationally televised trial of a sitting president in the United States of America where he ended up being grilled on the lurid details of an affair? It was unprecedented, but I knew when he first said it that they were going for blood- I wonder why he didn't? I think if he had just owned up to it immediately, he'd have left them with no ammo. He should have just said, "I did it, I'm ashamed, and now it's a matter between me and my wife, if you please. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Nobody's perfect, but liars lose respect and it's hard to regain it once lost.

And in the broader sense why is it that thinking people appear to be entirely unable to get the social implications of the political posturing of Foley versus his private reality?? It's irony itself.

I said it on another thread, but many people have great difficulty drawing conclusions between events. They will only come around to understanding when it's spelled out for them, usually several times. We learn in sales that the average person reads at a fourth grade level and has to hear something an average of seven times to remember it. You can't expect "average people" who can't even understand the directions on pharmaceuticals to be able to take unrelated information and find an interconnection- they just aren't capable. Everything that happens is new to them, they didn't see it coming.

What the repugs are doing with this thing is twisting Foley's "poor abused self" into a martyr to prove how 'obvious' the connection is from homosexuality to pedophilia. That's a firestorm those in the other camp need no help fueling.

Is that lost on you?

The repugs know who their base are, and how to appeal to them. See how well it works?

aside:

Lion? Foley's no "pedo" from what I see. He likes young guys. No one's legitimately accused him (much as I dislike the man) of being into children.

On this point though, I'll agree with Lion. He appears to be changing his typing style to appear young, something about it just kind of stinks of "luring" youth into something. It's more of a feeling though, I could be wrong. It *looks* like the behavior to a paedophile to me. I would say that from a psychological standpoint, it would be an aspect of paedophilia to prey on those in postions of weakness as well. Creepy, at any rate.

 

[rawbone8]

Does the fact that Foley represented an area of immense affluence, Palm Beach, and sat on a pretty large kitty of some $2.7 million in political contributions (Friends of Mark Foley as of August 2006), mean that he was too valuable to lose to scandal when the first complaint from the parents was made to Reynolds?

The parents' complaint was apparently made to Reynolds in the spring this year, if I'm not mistaken, and in July Foley made a gift to the fundraising committee Reynolds ran, with a relatively large sum of $100,000. Maybe that's not tied in any way to Foley's indiscretions. Maybe it shows that Reynolds genuinely thought that the indiscretions were minor, so he could accept it, and not forsee it going to blow up in his face several months later.

Of course, it can be construed by political enemies that through that exchange silence was bought, or protection was extorted. The Dems are certainly fanning that fire.

I don't know much about how politicians pass the money around to each other to establish their power, but I imagine there must be obscenely large amounts going to central committees in both parties to grease the wheels.

It's easy to see how the goal of staying in power makes for corrupt, unethical decisions. As with any crime, it's getting caught that matters. And worse, getting caught covering up.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

The difference is that Congressman Foley resigned. He did not lie or try to justify his disgusting behavior. Clinton lied about the Lewinski incident at first and then, when the proof of his indiscretion was overwhelming, he tried to justify it.

Pfft. Foley resigned only when his behavior toward subordinates became public. And even now he is clearly trying to dilute the blame and portray himself as a victim. Classic tactics of the guilty. And the lack of action by that pompous "family values" hypocrite Hastert? Equally unjustifiable.

Sorry coop, looks like you went bear hunting with a squirrel gun.

 

[GoneA]

Neither of those things is an excuse for using his position of power to make advances on teenagers ON THE JOB!

That, I think, hits the core of the issue. Foley didn't know where to draw the line between professional and personal life. I have a hard time believing he [Foley] refrained from forming a connection between his work-relationship with the page to the one they shared online. Bait, if you will.

On this point though, I'll agree with Lion. He appears to be changing his typing style to appear young, something about it just kind of stinks of "luring" youth into something. It's more of a feeling though, I could be wrong. It *looks* like the behavior to a paedophile to me. I would say that from a psychological standpoint, it would be an aspect of paedophilia to prey on those in postions of weakness as well. Creepy, at any rate.

Again, I completely agree. I somehow don't think "chat speak" is Foley's first choice of expression.

I could be wrong, but, I mean . . . c'mon

 

[SpeedoGuy]

Does the fact that Foley represented an area of immense affluence, Palm Beach, and sat on a pretty large kitty of some $2.7 million in political contributions (Friends of Mark Foley as of August 2006), mean that he was too valuable to lose to scandal when the first complaint from the parents was made to Reynolds?

Ya think? lol :smile:

I guess Hastert was too busy doling out tax breaks to millionaires and advocating illegal wars to bother with disciplining Foley.

 

[B_Stronzo]

I respect your position, but I still disagree with it. I think the power differential is such that the solicitation is over the line of acceptability. Like student-teacher sex, it is a lot more complicated than simple "age of consent" solves.

I, personally, see no difference between MM sex and MF sex. There is a problem with soliciting minors, and the minor enjoying the attention is not an excuse. I can't agree with your urging to go for it in either orientation.

Still, I completely agree that the spin to try to make this about Foley's homosexuality instead of his abuse of power and hypocrisy is most reprehensible of all. Like the priest scandals in the Catholic Church, gays make convenient scapegoats. Instead of focusing on the abuse of power, simply appeal to the worst instincts of the crowd.

Even when I disagree with you, Stronzo, I always admire your willingness and ability to lay your position out with clarity and passion. This time is no exception, I just draw the line differently.

I feel identically the same about your considered position at all times ff.

Your scapegoat point is exactly the thing that horrifies me about the thing in the largest sense.

I wonder, though, who really held the power? Foley or the guy(s) who was (were) courting him in email(s) as innocent as he may want to appear.

I wonder, in truth, what the ratio is of individuals like Foley in his same position who abuse their power identically but are (fortunately in their positions) plain old garden variety heterosexuals.

Bet it happens a bunch.

 

[fortiesfun]

I wonder, in truth, what the ratio is of individuals like Foley in his same position who abuse their power identically but are (fortunately in their positions) plain old garden variety heterosexuals. Bet it happens a bunch.

Nothing would surprise me anymore.

It feels to me like ABC specifically targeted Foley because of the hypocrisy involved in violating the internet predation law he promoted, (It makes a good story) but perhaps his sexual orientation was the deep reason.

I've seen the way that all forms of sexual non-conformity get grouped together in the discourse used by practitioners of the politics of divisiveness to try to paint we dissenters as perverts undeserving of political, and even human, rights. I see that blending going on here, and again fear that I might be losing more than I am gaining from this whirlwind of scandal. But, that may just be my paranoid side speaking.

For the moment, I am content to keep the focus on abuse of power and on cover-up, where the case is clear and no supposition is needed.

 

[DC_DEEP]

The difference is that Congressman Foley resigned. He did not lie or try to justify his disgusting behavior. Clinton lied about the Lewinski incident at first and then, when the proof of his indiscretion was overwhelming, he tried to justify it.

Can you explain to me, please, plainly and succinctly, WHY Mr. Clinton was given an opportunity to lie about Ms. Lewinsky? By this, I mean, why was he even asked, in the context of the investigation during which he WAS asked?

 

[Lex]

...

For the moment, I am content to keep the focus on abuse of power and on cover-up, where the case is clear and no supposition is needed.

This is key. I think that we need to collectively shout down all other angles and keep the focus squarely on this. Him being gay, abused and/or an alcoholic should be relative non-issues. Making those the issues is a smokescreen.

 

[DC_DEEP]

This is key. I think that we need to collectively shout down all other angles and keep the focus squarely on this. Him being gay, abused and/or an alcoholic should be relative non-issues. Making those the issues is a smokescreen.

Of course the non-issues are brought up as (hopefully mitigating) smokescreen. It's October, remember.

I think it is terribly relevant, as brought up in a few previous posts, that the sheeple can focus neither upon multiple issues nor upon protracted issues. If it lasts more than a couple of weeks, it fades. If another issue surfaces, the last one fades.

Whether or not he "actually had sex" (that depends on what the meaning of "had" is, right?) he violated some of the very federal laws he sponsored/supported. Whether or not they felt it was "bad enough" at the time, other legislators and their staff had knowledge that the illegal activity was occurring; perhaps they didn't know the full extent, but they knew, and probably could figure what was going on behind the scenes. Democrat or republican, any congressional office/officer should have taken available information and ACTED upon it. It's pretty nauseating that Hastert and Boehner will most likely "explain" their way out of the sticky situation, and their criminal negligence will just be another of those fading, superceded issues.

We need a big shakeup, we need a GOOD thorough housecleaning. Our legislative branch (well, the executive branch, too) is just overflowing with toxic waste, masquerading as politicians.

 

[joyboytoy79]

We need a big shakeup, we need a GOOD thorough housecleaning. Our legislative branch (well, the executive branch, too) is just overflowing with toxic waste, masquerading as politicians.

Actually, the judicial branch isn't all that great at the moment either. Unfortunately it's the best branch of our nearly obsolete governing system. Until we return to the original system of checks and balances that was outlined in our nearly ignored constitution, we're in serious trouble. Honestly, i think it's a horrible system indeed when congress is in charge of investigating its own members. I know that if Foley had been a democrat, Hastert would have been pushing criminal prosecution to the fullest extent of the law.