Pat Buchanan on MSNBC: We're not talking about a heinous crime

He was debating the Foley issue with Mike Papantonio. Buchanan went on the say that the page was 16, so he was at the age of consent. Thus, no crime was committed.

Today, watching these right wing nut jobs is beyond creepy. First FoxNews' "innocuous" mantra and now this.

she was frothing at the mouth yesterday on CNN.

But she started the meme that Foley did it because he's a gay man. So I cheered and jeered her.

young pages, is A OK!

a "heinous crime" it is heinous behavior.

sending solitious, rapacious emails to 16 year old boys from a 50-something congressman is not?

pat buchanan has no credibility.

to marry him. but he didn't, so it's cool.

Get it?

You know a really WEIRD thought just occurred to me a few minutes ago...and take Foley out of this because I don't want to equate gay with preying on children
(which I believe Foley DID prey on a *child* 16 is not an adult)

In light of Gannon and the rumors about snotty Scotty, Rove, Bush himself and on and on...is it POSSIBLE that the gay marriage outrage/opposition coming from our right winged politicians is partially due to the fact that they want to protect their OWN wallets and they don't want to be nailed down with a legal partner?

I realize that sounds absurb but let's face it...these log cabin types appear to be more interested in random fooling around with whoever than they are with having a committed relationship with someone -- is this all just a smoke screen so they can preserve their finances and maintain a lifestyle of doing whatever with random people who have no claims on their money?

OK that was *out there* (even for me) but the thought flashed through my mind and why the hell do there appear to be all these in the closet types in the bush admin?

Something has always struck me about this-- can't put my finger on it though.

Just like Foley did as he crusaded against internet pedo's given his tendency to engage himself.

:toast:

Gotta wonder if HE is gonna fall on his sword?

And who's running that vacant office? Party time....! Surf the net, eat pizza, work on the old resume!!!!!

The newsreader mis-announced it...

That's even more interesting. I think Reynold's COS was telling the truth.

I wonder how long it will be before, or IF, that COS goes on TV and tells his side? I'm wondering if he jumped, or if he was pushed. He's telling a completely different story than Reynolds, and Reynolds was claiming that he went off on his own volition to "counsel" Foley.

Now, he used to work for Foley, but that smells like horseshit to me. If that guy went and got Foley's resignation, he did it because his current boss told him to, not because he was freelancing.

Both.

...but considering the kinky shit these Repugs are into, he probably already does. Regularly.

Fell out of a guard tower.

that one's going in the little book of republican insults, if you don't mind.

It depends on the state in which the crime(s) was/were committed. If he went to San Diego and had sex with this kid or the kid was in California when they engaged in cyber sex, then he is guilty of solicitation of a minor and satuatory rape. The age of consent in California is 18 by the way...

So it widens the geographic area possibilities.

thus making it a federal crime.
Age of consent doesn't apply.
On the internet, he is considered a kid--no matter how hard they try to spin it. That is why nobody is mentioning that little morsel.

I think this did the GOP some damage, but I guarantee their hard-core base will buy into whatever spin they come up with, no matter how transparent. They'll have to, because they'll do anything to have their cult taken from them.

Not according to the Internet bill Foley himself sponsored and Bush signed into law.

According to the bill, the age of consent is eighteen.

Maybe he doesn't know all of the details.
First age of consent isn't federal does he know more details about the # of possible pages involved and their locations than the rest of us do?
They are still minors at 16. There is evidence he gave them alcohol which is a crime. He may have had physical contact with a minor below the age of consent which is a crime. Just soliciting the internet sexual activity is a crime and we know for a fact that he did do that.

Pat should really brush up on some law before he starts defending sexual contact with minors. All you have to do is see that press conference and know that Foley's lawyer is preparing a jury pool for a criminal defense. Apparently he and Foley both are acting as if a crime occurred and they sure would know.

I can't recall the journalist who said that the other day but it's stuck in my mind as one of the most sensible assertions.

I read some unsourced quote from a Republican and they said they didn't have a smoking gun when they got the first emails. I said, yah but you had smoke. Aren't repsonsible people supposed to investigate smoke?

However bad some of his ideas are, at least Buchanan has been consistent in adhering to a basic set odf principles.

But for mr. Culture War to now take such a transparently phony position that is against everything he claims to stand for....Oh Pat you done sold yourself down the river.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT11111

Age of consent is a red herring... there was NO CONSENT! They were sexually harrassed, and like typical sexually harrassed individuals they either tried to ignore it, brush if off or went along with it. We KNOW they did not consent because they were coerced due to their being lowly little subordinates. We KNOW they did not consent because they saved the proof and are handing it over at the expense of their own political careers... they won't get so much as an envelope stuffing job in the Repuke party for handing in that proof.

I'm amazed that some people can't see the glaring difference between dating your boss and being sexually harrassed by him/her. Just boggles the mind.

Yesterday he was all over the place stating the "fact" that gay men are often pedophiles. Not a word about the freak who killed those children because he was "dreaming of molesting little girls again".

reporter said that Fordham was Foley's minder for a long time.

I missed this in any case.

I need to do some sorting out. Thanks!

a crime. Regardless of local jurisdiction age of consent for physical contact. The explicit IM's to former pages likely fall under this Fed law.

:eyes:

how anyone takes them seriously is beyond me.

C'mon it's about the power exerted by the adult upon the will of the minor as much as it is about sex. The manipulation if not outright domination weighs heavily in these types of situation.

On Fox they were calling the initial emails "innocuous". Now Pat B. is asserting that there wasn't even a crime. This is desperation. Good fodder for Dems on the campaign trail. The Republicans only care about power. Children aren't even important to them. Their talking points have all been nothing but a pack of cheap lies.

harassment, and it's worse when you're 16 as you lack a network to seek assistance and the sophistication to demand that your treatment end immediately.

Harmless. Innocuous. Only meant it as a joke. Didn't mean anything.

How many times have any of you, DU, heard any or a variety of these throw-away excuses for inexcusable behavior against yourselves?

The Foley situation is not political payback. It's about what's appropriate behavior and respect for people. And there is never an appropriate time to harm someone.

n/t

Having sex with a minor is illegal in every state, unless you are within a certain age of the minor -- in most states it's 2-3 years.

It varies from state to state, and is definitely not illegal in all states.

Here's a link with some of the ages by state:

http://teenadvice.about.com/library/weekly/qanda/blageofconsentchart.htm

subordinates and feared repercussions if they complained. Also I read that it is an offense to transmit obscene material across state lines.

He just said about Fordham that it's like rats jumping from the sinking ship. The R party has no time to recover before the election. Everything that Pat B. says - Mike comes back with a great retort cautioning us to watch for the Republican talking points. Just "brill".

Being put on the hot seat for her ad! But she's asserting that by not doing something, they caused further victimization.

Edit: She's running for Congress in Minnesota.

Would you be so unconcerned? :eyes:

give me a break

If I ever found out that an adult was talking to my 16 year old in those terms, they wouldn't be safe. At least their car wouldn't. I'd keyjob the words Viejo Verde.

Is that what Pat is advocating?

wasn't committing a crime. That's what I heard. Maybe I missed the other part.

smoke, and it remains to be seen what fires are underneath.

My guess is there'll be plenty of fire when all is said and done, too.

warning signs to him. Even that so called over friendly e-mail was a hugh red flag that teenage pages were at risk.

sex between to consenting adults. :eyes: In that case, we impeach! :banghead: I am willing to bet if Foley had been a Dem., buchanan would be singing a different tune.

:shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

A typical Repug idiot.

The emails and IMs are an ordinary crime.

As for the cover up, well that's where the meat of the story is.

He must protect Foley - it is his duty as a member of the GOoP (Groping Oodles of Pages).