Foley vs. Studds: Just the facts, please

Can someone provide the actual facts, please?

If Foley violated a law, then it would be the Internet related law, correct? Does that apply to anyone under age 18?

Is the age of consent in DC 16?

If Studds actually broke the law, why wasn't he arrested and charged?

Studds did not violate the Internet law, as Foley did. Correct?

Just trying to get my rebuttal points in line for when I need them.

Or at least, most people didn't.

..he was censured 10 years later (!)

they didn't even have computers. Except maybe the ones as big as houses.

And that's why they're looking at the laws in DC, Florida, Louisiana, etc.. etc.. etc..

:shrug:

Congressional page sex scandal

Studds was a central figure in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with a minor – in Studds's case, a 1983 relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page.

During the course of the House Ethics Committee's investigation, Studds publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, a disclosure that, according to a Washington Post article, "apparently was not news to many of his constituents." Studds stated in an address to the House, "It is not a simple task for any of us to meet adequately the obligations of either public or private life, let alone both, but these challenges are made substantially more complex when one is, as I am, both an elected public official and gay." He acknowledged that it had been inappropriate to engage in a relationship with a subordinate, and said his actions represented "a very serious error in judgement."<1>

As the House read their censure of him, Studds turned his back on the speaker and members in the chamber and ignored them. Later, at a press conference with the former page standing beside him, the two stated that what had happened between them was nobody's business but their own.<1>


Continued service
Studds was re-elected five more terms after the censure. He fought for many issues, including environmental and maritime issues, gay marriage, AIDS funding, and civil rights, particularly for homosexuals. In 1995, the House of Representatives abolished the House Merchant Marine and Fishing Committee, which Studds had previously chaired when the Democrats controlled the House.


After Congress
Since retiring from Congress in 1997, Studds has been a lobbyist for the fishing industry.

wikipedia

chastised for it until 10 years later, in 1983.

1. Studds was involved with a single 17 year old page. Foley pursued pages purported to be as young as 14.

2. In 1983, there were no rules prohibiting sexual interaction between members of the House and Congressional pages. In 2006, such rules had been in effect for 23 years, as a result of the scandal involving Studds and Republican Representative Dan Crane. (Why do you suppose the Repugs are focusing on Studds and ignoring Crane?)

3. Studds broke no laws. Foley broke laws, including laws that he himself had sponsored and lobbied to have passed.

3a. (Added on edit) Studds' was censured for having sex with a young man in the District of Columbia, where the young man was of legal age and where "sodomy" was not a crime. According to published emails and instant messages, Foley engaged in sexual relations in the District of Columbia, California and Florida with young men who were below the age of consent for where the sex took place and, in Florida, at a time when sodomy was a criminal offense.

4. Studds acknowledged his actions. Foley blames alcoholism, sexual abuse at the hands of a priest more than 40 years before, and pretty much anything else that will let him deny responsibility.

5. When Studds' one affair became known to the Congress, the leadership acted swiftly to censure. When Foley's multiple affairs became known to the Congress, the leadership covered it up for several years.

6. Before his actions became public, Studds was not in a leadership position to oversee laws regarding protecting children and prosecuting those who exploit children. Foley was chair of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, which according to the Wikipedia, "was formed in order to assist the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) and coordinate federal legislation preventing child abduction and exploitation of children, including prosecution for possession of online pornography and solicitation of minors for sexual activity."

7. Studds and the Democratic Party had never set themselves up as judge and jury for the morals of all Americans. Foley and the Republican Party have.

I'm sure there are more differences, but these should suffice for now.

:yourock:

I'm bookmarking this.

Both Studds and Foley (and repub Dan Crane) acted inappropriately in entering into or pursuing a sexual relationship with high school juniors entrusted to their care as pages. That's really all that matters to the public. They don't care whether what the law says or not. As a parent, the notion that you send your child off to Washington to be a Congressional page and some adult, at least twice your child's age, a person of supposed responsibility, comes onto them sexually is not merely gross, it makes you see redder than red.

Trying to distinguish the Studds case from Foley is a losers' game. The right approach is to say, yes, Gerry Studds, a Democrat, and Dan Crane, a Republican, both acted inappropriately in entering into sexual relationships with high school juniors entrusted to their care as pages and both of them should have been forced to resign. Period. End of discussion. Issue nullified.

:hi:

may not have lost his seat in Congress but his actions contributed to the rise of the GOP values voters talking points that caused the Dems to lose big time a few years later.

The Dems paid for Studds politically. THe repugs will pay for Foley politically as well. THey are supposed to be the party of family values. Bummer, they blew it.

Mz Pip
:dem:

I'm trying to get away from the morality issue, I just want the facts and the legal implications.

I believe the sexual interactions between him and the page in question took place in the District of Columbia, where the page was of legal age and which did not have any law criminalizing homosexual activity.

In contrast, published emails and messages released with regards to Foley strongly suggest that he engaged in sex with men who were below the age of consent in the states where the interactions took place (California and Florida, so far) and possibly below the age of consent in the District of Columbia. Assuming a pattern of behavior, it should be noted that it was a criminal offense to engage in "sodomy" in Florida until the United States Supreme Court struck all such laws down on June 26, 2003. Every sexual interaction that occured before then in the state he represented is one count of "lewd and lascivious behavior" and prosecutable as a second degree misdomeanor, with up to six months in prison for each count.

between him and Foley.

(well, not *this* reply, but the other reply)

Those are all excellent points, but sometimes more than one point is overwhelming to my neocon associates...

Thank you for the excellent concise facts, though.

Its the creepy factor: a middle aged member of Congress entering into or pursuing a sexual relationship with a high school junior who is away from home, entrusted in the care of supposedly responsible adults -- indeed, the supposedly responsible adults to whom the public has entrusted the country itself.

That's all any parent cares about in this situation and making arguments based on what was or wasn't against the law is a total loser. Defending Studds is a loser. The only thing to do is to cite both Studds and Crane and agree that what they did also was reprehensible and that they both should've been forced out of Congress. Once you've made that point, it you've nullified the other side's arguments.

all use the talking points here. Because you BETTER believe it's gonna come up in conversation as the wrong-wing's echo chamber keeps spinning this like there's no tomorrow. It's kinda like one of those on-foot chase scenes in the movies where the bad guy's trying to get away and keeps throwing trash cans and knocked-over chairs around behind him, to trip up and slow down the good guys in pursuit. They WILL do as much of this as possible to trip us up and slow us down. This is good information to have.

K&R! And bookmarked.

Given how the Rethugs are spinning the issue, it is vital that we have our rebuttals listed out. And do not let them focus on Gerry Studds: REPUBLICAN Dan Crane received the exact same censure as Studds at the very same time.

I dont know who this Studds character is and I dont care.

FOCUS.

THEY are the ones who keep bringing up Gerry Studds, all while ignoring Dan Crane, the Republican Representative who was censured in 1983 along side Studds for likewise having sexual relations with a page who was 17.

That is all the retort anyone needs for that.

FOCUS.

If they are bringing that up, let them- it shows they have nothing.

I want the facts so I can answer the objection properly. Saying it's "old news" isn't the proper answer, imho.

...the response is "I think Republicans are desperate if they have to bring up something that happened 20 years ago- I want to discuss why the Reoublicans covered up this boy-sex scandall, as well as why they covered up info about Iraq & 9/11..."

Or:

"It is obvious that this is brought up so that the topic does not turn to how the GOP covers up EVERYTHING- not just this- for example..."

Sure learn about it all you want- but dont suggest that DEMS have entire interiviews or converstaions about this Studds guy- FOCUS and redirect to THE CURRENT COVER UP.