Need help w/ a Foley Apologist

Fond of the hyperbole, aren't you? Foley showed some bad judgment
(abuse of a power position) and poor seduction technique: On Salon, a
sample of the emails was so banal as to be smarmy. I haven't yet heard
that Foley actually assaulted anyone. Since you are only nineteen
yourself, surely you can't believe that a sixteen year-old is a "little boy".
Age of Consent in DC is sixteen. And who withheld the emails? Maybe
the Dems, so they could cluster-bomb with them right before elections?

DU, help me kick this guys ass through words.

Tell him to check back with you in a few days. Haven't heard he assaulted anyone yet? Let's wait and see.

careers, staffers were afraid to offend congressmen for similar reasons, and congressmen were afraid of the party leadership and messing up their majority.

for about eight years. Those people don't take this stuff lightly.

The non-evangelicals in their base are major homophobes--I've met looks of those kind of republicans. That leaves a pretty thin slice of maybe Log Cabin Republicans to defend him, but they may not feel they owe the party that has been treating them as whipping boys any favors, nor would they want to reinforce the gay equals pedophile stereotype. That doesn't leave too many republicans to defend him except those who are paid to do so.

Do you have an aluminum baseball bat?

it's on my journal

A) Why did he resign?


B) Why the cover up?

warnings by others to pages about Foley.

This isn't about politics. It's about a sexual predator who roamed the halls of congress preying on minor children. Any normal human being should be outraged at this sort of behavior.

The politics is that the repub leadership knew, swept it under the rug and looked the other way while Foley continued stalking pages.

CREW handed the emails over to the FBI the very day they got them...in July.

Brian Ross on ABC said it was repubs who were the sources of his story.

These are facts with no dispute. If this person who said these things know of any that support their arguments, they need to back it up with sources.

Otherwise, all they are doing is supporting a sexual predator and those who covered for him because it's an election year in order for Foley to continue his horrific preying on minors. Foley, and others, are elected leaders in areas of responsibility. They above all know better than to tolerate this kind of behavior.

This person who wrote these things are part of the problem and they care little for the well-being of the youth in our country.

How's that? :hi:

Age of consent is a red herring. First, there was no consent. Foley is a sexual predator who sexually harrassed subordinates just like a boss sexually harrassing an employee or a teacher sexually harrassing a student. Where it may APPEAR that the pages were consenting and just salivating over the chance for that pig to get in their pants (yeah, right) the APPEARANCE of consenting is typical behavior of someone being sexually harrassed by a person who has power over them... they feel they have to go along with it no matter how much it repulses them or face consequences. We KNOW they didn't consent because the messages were handed over by the pages themselves. If they did consent, they would have kept it to themselves and not handed over the documentation (and Foley would still be stalking through the halls of the House looking for the next victim to add to the growing list with impunity... 5 of them that we know of so far).

Second, age of consent is 16 IN DC. Most if not all of the messages occurred in other states and/or inter-state (between two different states). When this type of communication is inter-state, federal law trumps state law... and federal law says this type of communication is illegal with "a minor". Since the law defines "a minor" as a person under the age of 18, the inter-state communications were illegal. Also, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (which Foley himself submitted as a bill) says that any of this type of communication over the internet is illegal with any person under the age of 18... and it doesn't matter that the law wasn't signed until last July because there is a provision in the law that allows the U.S. Attorney General to apply the law retroactively. The GA would really have no choice but to apply the law retroactively because of the utter irony that it was Foley himself who wrote the law.

Foley resigned immediately, and is presently sitting in rehab for "alcoholism and other behavioral problems". His attorney just announced that Foley was abused as a youngster by a priest (which I don't believe for a minute) which is SOP defense manuever for child molesters. NONE of this would have occurred were Foley innocent of not only any wrong-doing but anything ILLEGAL.

Foley is toast. He knows he's toast, and so does his attorney.

I've read and re-read the Adam Walsh act, and I can't find this part:

Also, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (which Foley himself submitted as a bill) says that any of this type of communication over the internet is illegal with any person under the age of 18...

Have you seen anyone, anywhere, simply cite the section that says anything like that?

The closest this seems to come is 18 USC 2422, for which the Adam Walsh act increased the penalties, when the "person" is a minor, is:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002422----000-.html

§ 2422. Coercion and enticement

(a) Whoever knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, to engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

(b) Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 5 years and not more than 30 years.

But even though the Walsh Act elevated the penalty when the enticed person is under 18, the "sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense" is still with reference to whether the sexual activity is defined as a crime where it occurs.

Example State A has a consent age of 18, and State B has a consent age of 16. 50 year old in state B can entice 17 year old in state A to come to state B for sex. The sexual activity in state B is not a criminal act, so there is no violation.

If both parties are in state B, then you look at section (b) of the statute and while, yes, the "minor" is still under 18, the sexual activity is not criminal. Therefore the persuasion, etc. cannot be.

The states ought to just get together, raise the whole schmeer to age 18 (with an age bracket for parties mutually within a range of 18), and call it a day.

Perhaps I'm looking at the wrong section of the act. If I am, can you point me to the one you are reading?

On the "subordinate" issue, has it been established that the IM's were held with any then-currently-employed pages?

(If you're using the word "pedophile", don't. You'll just get caught in trying to argue with how most medical experts define the word)
A sixteen year old isn't an adult. It is not "poor seduction technique" for a middle aged man, a self proclaimed Christian no less, to creep out, sexually harass, or molest adolescents. Subtract 1000 extra points for doing it in the workplace as an elected representative of the oldest Liberal Democracy on the planet. And them kick him in the nits.edit: or her.

met a page in San Diego.
Check these posts.

1) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2302660


Thanks Kpete.

Ross dismissed suggestions by some Republicans that the news was disseminated as part of a smear campaign against Mr. Foley.

“I hate to give up sources, but to the extent that I know the political parties of any of the people who helped us, it would be the same party,” Mr. Ross said, referring to Republicans.

And let's not forget that the FBI had these emails in July of this year (the same time I got a hold of them). CREW, to its credit, received the emails and the same day passed them along to the FBI.

2) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2305310

Thanks blitzen

Foley, who checked into an alcohol rehabilitation facility in Florida, also "reiterates unequivocally that he has never had sexual contact with a minor," Roth said.

But instant messages obtained by ABC News do reveal that Congressman Foley met with an underage page in San Diego, a meeting which they spoke about in an instant message exchange from April, 2003.

Maf54: I miss you lots since san diego.

Definetly use 1, 2 is still being looked into...so let's await the word on it.

at least a year.
If the exchanges were only mildly salacious and not particularly objectionable, why did weener foley resign rather than face up to them?

If the dems were sitting on them two years ago, why would they not use them to blow out the clowns in a really important election--like when we were electing all the house members, a third of the senate and the presidency?

The publiclowns have admitted that the only democratic member of the oversight committee was not informed-has been kept totally in the dark-about the nasty notes.

There are several more points, but a level headed neoclown can never actually be swayed by an appeal to logic or reason so more facts are just there for the practice.

Foley showed some bad judgment (abuse of a power position) and poor seduction technique:
No shit.

On Salon, a sample of the emails was so banal as to be smarmy.
SMARMY? IT gets far worse from here:

Maf54 (7:53:39 PM): really
Maf54 (7:53:54 PM): do you really do it face down
Xxxxxxxxx (7:54:03 PM): ya
Maf54 (7:54:13 PM): kneeling
Xxxxxxxxx (7:54:31 PM): well i dont use my hand...i use the bed itself
Maf54 (7:54:31 PM): where do you unload it
Xxxxxxxxx (7:54:36 PM): towel
Maf54 (7:54:43 PM): really
Maf54 (7:55:02 PM): completely naked?
Xxxxxxxxx (7:55:12 PM): well ya
Maf54 (7:55:21 PM): very nice
Xxxxxxxxx (7:55:24 PM): lol
Maf54 (7:55:51 PM): cute butt bouncing in the air
Xxxxxxxxx (7:56:00 PM): haha
Xxxxxxxxx (7:56:05 PM): well ive never watched myslef
Xxxxxxxxx (7:56:08 PM): but ya i guess
Maf54 (7:56:18 PM): i am sure not
Maf54 (7:56:22 PM): hmmm
Maf54 (7:56:30 PM): great visual
Maf54 (7:56:39 PM): i may try that
Xxxxxxxxx (7:56:43 PM): it works
Maf54 (7:56:51 PM): hmm
Maf54 (7:56:57 PM): sound inetersting
Maf54 (7:57:05 PM): i always use lotion and the hand
Maf54 (7:57:10 PM): but who knows
Xxxxxxxxx (7:57:24 PM): i dont use lotion...takes too much time to clean up
Xxxxxxxxx (7:57:37 PM): with a towel you can just wipe off....and go
Maf54 (7:57:38 PM): lol
Maf54 (7:57:45 PM): where do you throw the towel
Xxxxxxxxx (7:57:48 PM): but you cant work it too hard....or its not good
Xxxxxxxxx (7:57:51 PM): in the laundry
Maf54 (7:58:16 PM): just kinda slow rubbing
Xxxxxxxxx (7:58:23 PM): ya....
Xxxxxxxxx (7:58:32 PM): or youll rub yourslef raw
Maf54 (7:58:37 PM): well I have aa totally stiff wood now
Xxxxxxxxx (7:58:40 PM): cause the towell isnt very soft
Maf54 (7:58:44 PM): i bet..taht would hurt

It continues...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/06/262_foley.pdf

I haven't yet heard that Foley actually assaulted anyone.
Does he need to actually ASSALUT someone before it gets creepy, wrong, and possibly illegal? It's not like we were talking about an adult here. There's a REASON why we, as a society, have decided that 16 isn's old enough to vote, or drink, or serve in the armed forces. Because, physical capability aside, they're still children.

Since you are only nineteen yourself, surely you can't believe that a sixteen year-old is a "little boy". Age of Consent in DC is sixteen.
Does the age of consent make it any less creepy, when a 52 year old man seeks to have sex with a teenager? And, for that matter, technically Bill Clinton didn't commit a crime, since he had stipulated to what "sex" entailed." Where were the Republicans on that one? (not technically a straw man, since it relates to such similar circumstances)

Not to mention the fact that Florida law comes into play here as well.

And who withheld the emails? Maybe the Dems, so they could cluster-bomb with them right before elections?

Proof of this accusation? The only ones we currently KNOW had proof of withholding evidence are the REPUBLICAN leadership of the House.

as cover for their own cheese

And speaking of apologists, who is this douche, Lahood, that I just heard on Larry King? He was on with Wexler and he was saying that this was all the Dems fault, they should have gotten rid of the page program, it was the reason that Americans voted republican, becuase they are sick of immorality and corruption, said that Wexler had all his talking points from Howard Dean and the DCC. What as asshole.

Because Foley has admitted that the accusations are true. Therefore Foley, being the guilty party, had firsthand knowledge of the emails. In other words, Foley withheld the truth first. If he had not done so, there would be no October surprise.

Second, federal law makes it a crime to use the Internet to solicit sex from anyone under 18 years of age. Offenders can be fined and imprisoned for up to 30 years with a minimum sentence of five years in prison.

Third, a 16 year old is indeed a little boy, emotionally if not always physcically, and Foley represents Florida, remember? The consent age in Florida is 18, not 16.

Also, there was the email about meeting a page in San Diego. The minimum age of consent in California is also 18.

Foley has nowhere to go with this. He's busted cold.

get a working brain.

maybe nothing happened but the intention was there. Strange, age of consent is 16 but to watched a rated R movie you have to be 17 or accompanied by an "adult".

Sheer stupidity, I wouldn't even bother with them either.

The age of consent in California is 18!
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/instant_message.html

DU thread on the topic:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2305310

On edit: Oops ... someone already posted this info above :blush:

Maf54: then we can have a few drinks
Maf54: lol
Teen: yes yes ;-)
Maf54: your not old enough to drink
Teen: shhh…
Maf54: ok
Teen: that's not what my ID says
Teen: lol
Maf54: ok
Teen: I probably shouldn't be telling you that huh
Maf54: we may need to drink at my house so we don't get busted
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/new_foley_insta.html