Who is protecting us from the Watchdogs like Foley?

[Eghad]

My mom sent me some of that pre packaged drivel about what the Democrats had gotten away with. I replied to her e-mail telling her that when I was young I wasnt allowed to use the excuse that is was right because my friend Jimmy was allowed to do it and got away with it. Who talks about taking personal responisbility? Isnt that a central theme of the party? Does personal responsibility make excuses like Mr. X got away with it and that makes it ok so it isnt that bad. The Democrats didnt make Foley write those e-mails and IMs.

I read another post here about the person being 18 and that makes it ok. Thats called using a position of power to solicit favors from a subordinate, its still wrong. By using that line of reasoning the Republicans are just digging the hole deeper. They need to quit whining about what the other party did or did not do stand up and say it was wrong and take responsibility for what they did or did not do. The Democrats who are using it to make political gains are just as wrong.

Basically what this has proven is that Congress is a corrupt institution. Neither party deserves to be in power. I was talking to some folks who knew a US Attorney who had worked in and out of Washington, who is in private practice now.. He referred to the Congress as being no better than whores regardless of party.

The Foley incident is an example to that. The represenatives have made themselves whores to political power. They seek to retain that power instead of doing the right thing.

 

[buzz_knox]

I read another post here about the person being 18 and that makes it ok. Thats called using a position of power to solicit favors from a subordinate, its still wrong. By using that line of reasoning the Republicans are just digging the hole deeper.

At the time the incidents occurred, the 18 year old no longer worked as a page, correct? So that takes care of the abuse of power argument, unless you want to argue that any time a politician/doctor/lawyer/cop/etc has a relationship with someone that might stand to gain from the relationship, the politician/doctor/lawyer/cop/etc is abusing their position. Since the facts don't meet the test in this case, you must be arguing that status alone is the determining factor.

This situation is nasty enough without people looking for ways to make it worse.

 

[badbob]

Foley is, an always will be, a more honorable pervert that Bill Clinton...

A more honorable pervert? Damn! Did sombody really say that?

badbob

 

[ITEOTWAWKI]

Stage 2, I'm sure glad that you've found a way to be happy about this, because if it was either my child or my congressman, I don't think I'd be very 'okay' with it. And who brought clinton into this?! Oh, there's something going on with the republican party, time to trot out the litmus test of the clinton fiasco to give us all some well needed perspective...and to think we almost thought that this Foley character was someone worthy of scorn and ridicule.

 

[STAGE 2]

I'm sure glad that you've found a way to be happy about this, because if it was either my child or my congressman, I don't think I'd be very 'okay' with it.

Who said anything about being happy? As far as it being your kid, its not. He resigned in disgrace. What more do you want? As far as we know he comitted no crime. Is he a perv, sure. Should he go to jail, not unless he comitted a crime.

What most of us are pissed about is that the same people who defend others for doing far worse are condemning foley.

 

[Epyon]

This is great...

Ah politicians and their endless antics, how they use the nation as their big toy and not care for the contents inside it. If you love your country, vote independent, that's all I have to say. Forget Republican, forget Democract it's time for the third wheel to jump in.


Epyon

 

[ITEOTWAWKI]

Pointless. Just fricken pointless. We just can't have anyone do anything wrong and dislike it without people STILL beating the clinton horse dead. Stage, it was the fellow who seems to share your views, pointer, who brough the whole clinton comparison into this. And if you think gettin a little luvin from a fully grown and developed adult intern in ANY way comparable to starting an illicity affair with a minor...I just don't know what else I can say that you might understand. But at least foley retired...give that man a gold star. (Or hell, another page, just as long as he's legal this time)

 

[buzz_knox]

Well, I guess it's kinda relative to think that getting 'serviced' and lying about it is worse than hitting on a 'youngin and then telling the truth.

Well, if you go by which is a crime, then yes, the former is worse. Perjury in a federal proceeding is a rather serious crime. And Monica was a 'youngin, as well and only a couple of years older than the one Foley "serviced" via IM. And he isn't accused of soliciting sex from the only apparent minor in this case, so he still didn't commit a crime; he just committed an ugly yet legal act. For which I'm happy that he is gone. I just wish the others in Congress who have done so had received equal derision and had also decided to leave as well. And the point being made is that others who have done even worse (including actually having sex with a 17 year old) did not resign, nor did they receive the public outcry. Instead, they were protected. That's where the problem comes in: worse "offenders" get better treatment due to their political leanings.

 

[ITEOTWAWKI]

Ok fine, lets have a parade in his honor.

Here we go back into this arguement again:

But it was perjury in a federal proceeding.

But it was a federal proceeding on his personal life, specifically, whether or not he schtooked an intern

But it was still perjury

But he shouldn't have been asked to begin with.

But perjury

But nothing, how many of us schtooked an intern? So what. He shouldn't have been made to sit on a witness stand and talk about it. It should have been between him and hilliary (the dragon).

But perjury! *stamps foot*


I guess my problem is that I feel foloy mere 'dirty' legal act was something that I found so dirty that I would wish more redicule than clinton ever recieved (And I HATE clinton). To think otherwise is to care too much about the wrong things.

Who else, who's done worse, has been better protected?

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Why is Clinton relevant?

The issue is whether this individual did a bad thing.

If Clinton was punished to severely or not severely enough then, is not relevant if Foley is treated fairly now.

The only reason to discuss Clinton is if you are a tribal political partisan and not an person with abstracted ethical standards. So your guy can violate ethical standards (if you think he did) because some other guy you don't like violated also?

Rubbish. Let your guy go because 'political leanings' protected another bad guy? What moral or ethical value system does that come from?

Maybe if we did have God in the schools, the GOP would have more logical or abstract ethical standards and not put forth this argument? Or maybe not!!

 

[Eghad]

At the time the incidents occurred, the 18 year old no longer worked as a page, correct? So that takes care of the abuse of power argument, unless you want to argue that any time a politician/doctor/lawyer/cop/etc has a relationship with someone that might stand to gain from the relationship, the politician/doctor/lawyer/cop/etc is abusing their position. Since the facts don't meet the test in this case, you must be arguing that status alone is the determining factor.

This situation is nasty enough without people looking for ways to make it worse.

So why not just take responsibility for what someone did instead of making excuses? Okay he was 18, the age of consent is 16 in some states. How would you feel about a Congressman offering to ply your child with alcoholic beverages even though he is under the legal drinking age to get sex? That is just as despicable. The problem with this whole mess is the fact that it seems to have a 5 year history and is not just limited one individual. Folks knew about it and chose to do nothing other than a slap on the wrist.Somebody has some explaining to do.

 

[invention_45]

There was no minor propositioned in this case.

52 year old emails 16 year old "Do I make you horny?". I'll let that stand on its own.

This was submitted to the FBI and no crime was found.

Mighty quick investigation, and this is the first I'm hearing he is cleared. Read Title 18.2252, look real hard at the above quoted e-mail message, and then tell me no crime was committed. "Found" and "committed" are different things.

Was his behavior inappropriate, sure, but no more so that having sex while OTJ.

Um. Clinton, if you recall, worked at home during the '90s.

As far as using your position of power to catch tail, you don't think it was Clinton's rock hard abs and white teeth that he used to bag Monica et al?

Really aint none of my business, nor yours either. What he did is no worse, really, than poking your nose in other adults' zippers to see what's going on.

Bottom line, Foley resigned (as well he should) even though he comitted no crime.

Committed. Found. Remember the difference.

Clinton engaged in legal, though far more inappropriate behavior (for which any of us would be fired for), and lied about it under oath.

Had his private life, however inappropriate, not been dragged, in a well-financed effort, before the public, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Studds did have sex with a minor, was applauded for it by his party, and elected 2 more times.

Can't comment on that one. I don't know who Studds is. Guess the applause wasn't loud enough.

Liberals are people of tolerance. They are people who feel that sex between adults is a private matter, even if it occurs on the job.

Really? If you are referring to Clinton/Monica, Clinton was at HOME, remember?

They support the gay cause.

Well, yeah, we assume their "cause", like anyone else's, is to live their lives unhampered by bigots.

Despite all that however Foley is somehow evil and should be tarred and feathered for not even doing as much as those who they hold up to be the rockstars of their own party.

Let's see now. Foley writes the very laws that make it a 5-year felony (or $100,000 defense if you didn't know) if some hacker puts one child porn photo on your computer. That's the mild part of 2252. He also writes the rest, and "champions" it to the point that he's congratulated by (much to his chagrin today) John Walsh on America's Most Wanted. All the while, he's committing or attempting to commit(though not found to be committing, according to you) a more heinous part of 2252.

Tarred and feathered? No. How about just fairly investigated like the rest of us would be.

I don't have a party (my voter's registration says "I"). When I think a Democrat is a bigger pig than the Republican opposing him, I vote for the Republican. I voted for Clay Shaw last time. I do, however, have an outlook. Part of it is that you (and I, too) should keep our hands, eyes, and noses out of other peoples' pants unless we're invited to do otherwise. And out of their private conversations unless invited to join. And out of their urine, though I don't want to try to visualize the invitation.

Another part of my outlook is that if you attempt to murder somebody, particularly a minor, you oughta get more than 3 months in prison. If you rape somebody you ought not be expecting, from statistics, to be out in 7 years. More like life while, if you simply stick some powder up your nose in private, (pick any powder you choose) you oughta be left alone to make room for those put away for REAL crimes.

My nose wasn't stuck in Clinton's zipper. His problem was properly a private matter between him, Hillary, and Monica. However, being that Foley was propositioning children, which he himself decided is a crime (and I agree with this one), his problem IS my business. I'm "the people".

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Let's get square on this right now, regardless of whether the info is only in hindsight.

Foley's Instant Messages, coupled with his constant efforts to work around and on behalf of children, describe a VERY practiced pattern of predatory pedophilia. He knows when to temporarily back off, yet always steers the conversation back to his area of interest. It's called "Grooming Behavior".

You don't get that kind of expertise overnight. If these IM's are as far as he went during his tenure as resident Congressional Child Predator, I'll personally pay for his current "alcohol therapy". This guy is a classic Predatory Pedophile. Carbon based Life Forms do not get lower than that.

And I have a hard time believing Hastert, Pelosi or any elected CongressPerson had the proof that we now have and simply sat on it. They may be CongressCritters, but they are not suicidal. Their Staffs? Well, I can't speak for their Staffs.
Rich

 

[Camp David]

My nose wasn't stuck in Clinton's zipper. His problem was properly a private matter between him, Hillary, and Monica. However, being that Foley was propositioning children, which he himself decided is a crime (and I agree with this one), his problem IS my business. I'm "the people".

invention_45: There are a few errors in your post I would like corrected.

Error #1: The matter between former president Clinton and Monica was not a "private matter" as you allege between Bill Clinton and Monica. At the time, Monica was an intern and fraternization between Federal employers (president) and interns (Monica) is illegal. See federal regulations.

Error #2: The matter you allege with Foley; i.e., "propositioning children" is still being investigated and they were not children. ABC initially broke this case calling the pages "underage" but has amended the report. Indeed, their latest statement is as follows:

"ABC News now has obtained 52 separate instant message exchanges, which former pages say were sent by Foley, using the screen name Maf54, to two different boys who began their exchanges with Foley at the age of 16 and 17 and continued through the age of 18."
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/BrianRoss/

This is a key point since if true, and it likely is, what Foley did, though reprehensible and immoral, is not illegal, since his contacts were above 18 at the time of PM receipt. I am glad, however, that Foley did the right thing and resigned. Democrats who have engaged in like conduct; i.e., Gerry Studds, Barney Frank, Bill Clinton, et al., have failed to resign....

 

[invention_45]

It's called "Grooming Behavior".

That's the part of Title 18.2252 I was referring to.

Try as I might to think "well, in some places 16 is not a minor", I would put money on that the majority here, were the perp nameless, would call what happened a crime.

Monica was an intern and fraternization between Federal employers (president) and interns (Monica) is illegal.

Did Monica file a complaint? I was out of work and watched the whole thing unfold on CSPN, and that seems to have passed me by.

...began their exchanges with Foley at the age of 16 and 17 and continued through the age of 18."

Ah. I guess I misread 2252. It must mean that such exchanges are legal with minors as long as they continue until they become adults. I'm going to the eye doctor next week for sure.


---

Did the right thing and resigned. Yup. Sure seems like someone who would want to do the right thing to me.

 

[STAGE 2]

52 year old emails 16 year old "Do I make you horny?". I'll let that stand on its own.

He is a perv, but that statement isn't illegal. I'm thrilled that he's gone, but again just because you want his actions to be illegal doesn't mean they are.

Mighty quick investigation, and this is the first I'm hearing he is cleared. Read Title 18.2252, look real hard at the above quoted e-mail message, and then tell me no crime was committed. "Found" and "committed" are different things.

Maybe so, but they've had the case for a substantial amount of time. As of right now no crime has been comitted.

Um. Clinton, if you recall, worked at home during the '90s.

Please. As has already been pointed out, his conduct was in violation of federal regs. Whether or not Monica filed a complaint is irrelevant. They were both in violation.

Really aint none of my business, nor yours either. What he did is no worse, really, than poking your nose in other adults' zippers to see what's going on.

The hell it isn't. He was on company time meaning MY TIME. Every single one of us here would have been fired for doing what he did. I could care less who or what he screws as long as it isn't on company time. In this case it was and as one of the people that pays his salary I wanted some payback.

Had his private life, however inappropriate, not been dragged, in a well-financed effort, before the public, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Had he not been screwing around on company time we wouldn't be having discussion. In either case, when you are under oath, whether its a legit question or not, its your responsibility to truthfully answer. I have to, you have to, and he has to. NO ONE is above the law.

Can't comment on that one. I don't know who Studds is. Guess the applause wasn't loud enough.

Look it up. You might find it in the dictionary under "double standard".

Really? If you are referring to Clinton/Monica, Clinton was at HOME, remember?

Nope, it was OTJ.

Well, yeah, we assume their "cause", like anyone else's, is to live their lives unhampered by bigots.

Well, then leave Foley alone. He was propositioning an 18 year old. Nothing illegal about that.

Let's see now. Foley writes the very laws that make it a 5-year felony (or $100,000 defense if you didn't know) if some hacker puts one child porn photo on your computer. That's the mild part of 2252. He also writes the rest, and "champions" it to the point that he's congratulated by (much to his chagrin today) John Walsh on America's Most Wanted. All the while, he's committing or attempting to commit(though not found to be committing, according to you) a more heinous part of 2252.

Based on what. So he likes boning 18 year olds. That isn't illegal. If it was Barney Frank would have been put away long ago. Show me some evidence that this guy did actually rape a kid and I'll be the first in line to play with the cattle prod. Short of that, the presumption of innocence applies.

Tarred and feathered? No. How about just fairly investigated like the rest of us would be.

I don't have a problem with that. I just want people who have defended this behavior in the past to pipe down.

I don't have a party (my voter's registration says "I"). When I think a Democrat is a bigger pig than the Republican opposing him, I vote for the Republican. I voted for Clay Shaw last time. I do, however, have an outlook. Part of it is that you (and I, too) should keep our hands, eyes, and noses out of other peoples' pants unless we're invited to do otherwise. And out of their private conversations unless invited to join. And out of their urine, though I don't want to try to visualize the invitation.

Then why are you so interested in getting into foley's pants when it hasn't been established?

 

[ITEOTWAWKI]

He was on company time meaning MY TIME.

Did you miss the article on Foley holding up a congressional vote having a lil phone sex with his boytoy? At least clinton probably had a moment in his schedule...

Good grief!

 

[mack59]

Just to Clarify

Just to clarify for those upset that republican supporters are bringing up Clinton, Studds, and Frank - i.e. Democrats who had their own sex scandals:

First, I have already been so disgusted with both parties that I will only vote third party. Therefore I do not find myself with a dog in this "political fight."

But that is the point - what congressman foley did was despicable - and he needed to resign and he needs to be investigated, charged if evidence of specific crimes can be found, then prosecuted, and then if found guilty sent away for as long a term as available under sentencing. No one here seems to be really disputing that at all.

What is really at issue is politics - the democrats running to make as much political hay out of this as possible and therefore the republicans fighting back by throwing up all the past democratic sex scandals.

The democrats know that the longer they can keep this a front page story the more it hurts the republicans and the better the democrats chances are of ensuring their take over of the House and Senate. The republicans therefore try to defuse it by throwing up past democratic sex scandals that show in their opinion the hypocracy and double standards of the democrats in excusing and covering up scandals in their own party.

All this points out to me is that both parties are essentially amoral institutions that exist soley or at least primarily to first and formost seek and gain power. Neither party is primarily concerned with freedom - they are much more concerned with power and control.

How can you tell when a politician is lying - his lips are moving.

This country very badly needs to get rid of political parties, career/professional politicians, and get back to limited government where government decisions and policy do not directly result in billion dollar favours and handouts.

If anybody has a solution please let me know.:barf: :barf: :barf:

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Mack-
From your lips to God's ear, 'cuz nobody else seems to be listening.

I think you've summed the entire issue up, most fairly. Foley's the worst kind of predator; but using that fact for political gain or, conversely, excusing it by pointing out the "comparative" sins of others is beyond the pale....even here at TFL.

Stick a fork in it. This one's done.
Rich