maineman
Banned
he pardoned him for an unrelated crime. He had paid his debt to society for the sex crime.... or don't you believe in the concept of "paying one's debt to society"?
If Foley Were A Democrat....
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
he pardoned him for an unrelated crime. He had paid his debt to society for the sex crime.... or don't you believe in the concept of "paying one's debt to society"?
I believe that I would not release a sexual predator even for an unrelated crime. I believe that a past record is important in sentencing and treatment when considering whether to pardon somebody.
I would also ask whether the pardon did clear him of previous crimes (as they can do) so he wouldn't have to register as a predator...
I'd just prefer for them to serve their entire sentences, even for later crimes. Once again, previous record is important when working on Pardons, or sentencing.
Strawman, I didn't say either of those. This is total rubbish and you know it. It's embarrassing to attempt to defend that Pardon. You don't have to.
Blackflag
Junior Member
I would definitely support that.
damo...
These charges resulted in an additional sentence of 78 months in federal prison. Reynolds served all of his first sentence and served forty-two months in prison for the later charges.
At that point, U.S. President Bill Clinton commuted the sentence for bank fraud. As a result, Reynolds was released from prison and served the remaining time in a half way house.
He did not get pardoned for the sex with a teenager, nor for the bank fraud...he served out his sentence in a halfway house.... that means that his crime was not "forgiven", just eased by sending him to a halfway house for the remainder of his sentence, doesn't it?
Otherwise, why would he have to stay the rest of his sentence for the crimes in a halfway house?
These charges resulted in an additional sentence of 78 months in federal prison. Reynolds served all of his first sentence and served forty-two months in prison for the later charges.
At that point, U.S. President Bill Clinton commuted the sentence for bank fraud. As a result, Reynolds was released from prison and served the remaining time in a half way house.
He did not get pardoned for the sex with a teenager, nor for the bank fraud...he served out his sentence in a halfway house.... that means that his crime was not "forgiven", just eased by sending him to a halfway house for the remainder of his sentence, doesn't it?
Otherwise, why would he have to stay the rest of his sentence for the crimes in a halfway house?
Right, I noticed it in the other two threads you posted it in and would have commented but expected to find it again in another thread. It does change what I think of it...
At least he didn't let him out any earlier. Personally, I wouldn't have given him any special consideration at all. But that is just what I would do, not what I expect others to do...
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Tell me something, Carebritches...
Has it just not dawned on you, that you are spending an awful lot of time and energy defending your own scumbag pedophile, instead of shaming republicans over Foley?
Somehow, I don't think this Foley thing is playing out like the Democrats had hoped.
I agree with Damo, I still would have never even commuted or eased the sentence for bank fraud, because of his previous conviction of sex with a minor...NEVER.
I was not defending him Dixie, I just wanted to get to the bottom of the truth so I went to the links that were provided and "read" about it...that's all.
What was I suppose to do, sit back and let the LIE being passed around by you and dano and others go forward?
Same with the Studds situation...I am NOT standing up for him in the least....He abused his power with a minor, even if it was not illegal his ass would have been grass if my vote counted...
It's just that a bunch of people on this site are cutting and pasting a bunch of crap about these dems like Studds without even speaking about the republican Senator Crane who came out with his confession about sleeping with a 17 year opld page the same day as studds and was censured at the same time as studds and DID NOT RESIGN EITHER dixie? So why use Studds as an example of how Congress or we are being hypocritical now because of studds when you don't mention that Crane, who cheated on his wife and six children with his indiscretion did NOT RESIGN either, and btw they were both Censured by Congress?
Care
I was not defending him Dixie, I just wanted to get to the bottom of the truth so I went to the links that were provided and "read" about it...that's all.
What was I suppose to do, sit back and let the LIE being passed around by you and dano and others go forward?
Same with the Studds situation...I am NOT standing up for him in the least....He abused his power with a minor, even if it was not illegal his ass would have been grass if my vote counted...
It's just that a bunch of people on this site are cutting and pasting a bunch of crap about these dems like Studds without even speaking about the republican Senator Crane who came out with his confession about sleeping with a 17 year opld page the same day as studds and was censured at the same time as studds and DID NOT RESIGN EITHER dixie? So why use Studds as an example of how Congress or we are being hypocritical now because of studds when you don't mention that Crane, who cheated on his wife and six children with his indiscretion did NOT RESIGN either, and btw they were both Censured by Congress?
Care
Last edited:
He didn't resign, but he certainly wasn't re-elected. I'll admit I paid less attention to such things than I should have.
Just as with this one. The guy isn't in Congress anymore. Good enough for me... This fascination with the actual e-mails? Not for me...
Is somebody looking into Hastert? I think that many are.
Just as with this one. The guy isn't in Congress anymore. Good enough for me... This fascination with the actual e-mails? Not for me...
Is somebody looking into Hastert? I think that many are.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I agree with Damo, I still would have never even commuted or eased the sentence for bank fraud, because of his previous conviction of sex with a minor...NEVER.
I was not defending him Dixie, I just wanted to get to the bottom of the truth so I went to the links that were provided and "read" about it...that's all.
What was I suppose to do, sit back and let the LIE being passed around by you and dano and others go forward?
Same with the Studds situation...I am NOT standing up for him in the least....He abused his power with a minor, even if it was not illegal his ass would have been grass if my vote counted...
It's just that a bunch of people on this site are cutting and pasting a bunch of crap about these dems like Studds without even speaking about the republican Senator Crane who came out with his confession about sleeping with a 17 year opld page the same day as studds and was censured at the same time as studds and DID NOT RESIGN EITHER dixie? So why use Studds as an example of how Congress or we are being hypocritical now because of studds when you don't mention that Crane, who cheated on his wife and six children with his indecretion did NOT RESIGN either, and btw they were both Censured by Congress?
Care
No one has lied about a thing. I think it's morally reprehensible to be 'making the case' for letting these pedophiles go, or ignoring this sort of behavior in our elected leaders. I thought it was wrong when Bill Clinton did it, and I said so. Democrats don't seem to think it matters, if they can find the loophole, the chink in the legal armor, the "out" to excuse the behavior and move on. Or, if they can cut a bi-partisan deal to let the republican off too. You don't hold your perverts accountable, and never have. To be lecturing Republicans about the moral ethics of sex scandals, is a bit hypocritical, in my view. Studs returned to Democrat politics, Crane and Foley will never be elected Dog Catcher again by Republicans. There is a HUGE difference of standards here, and I merely wanted to point that out.
I'm further outraged by this faux indignance over "the welfare of the poor children, entrusted to our care in D.C!" When I start looking at this whole affair objectively, I see where someone on the Democrat side, knew damn well what Foley was doing, had the goods on him, and intentionally withheld the information for maximum political advantage. To me, this makes them an accessory to the crime, and guilty of conspiracy to conceal a felony. Not to mention, the Election Ethics of such a thing. It's sad when a representative of the house resigns, not just for the individual or the party, but mostly, for the disenfranchised people they represented. Think about it Care, you and I can pick up the phone right now, and call our elected representative... who do the people in Foley's district have to call today?
His staff and his staff's office is who they can call today and 99% of their problems or issues are handled by "the staff"...I have experience with this with Senator Kerry from requests I have made or requests Matt and I have made, and his staff is who got us results, immediately on several occaisions.
Go for it Dixie... If there is someone in the Democratic Leadership that held this back for 3 to 5 years then they most certainly should be censured also...and are at fault also, in putting the children in page program at risk of coming in contact with a Congressional Sexual Predator...
I just don't see the benefit of a Democrat holding this information about this back for the past 2-5 years and how that would help a Democrat in any way other than having the Seat go to a Republican, Foley, in Florida?
As far as activist groups revealing the Democratic or rebulican hypocritical gays in Congress, one by one....I have heard that...
Not all gays in congress will be outed by this blogger, but gays that lead a different life than what they show in their own lives... is what this blogger just said on tucker carlson...
A gop aid is who supplied the emails from what it just said on tucker's show?
don't know about the instant messages?
DIXIE: "Somehow, I don't think this Foley thing is playing out like the Democrats had hoped!"
"Internal Poll Suggests Hastert Could Devastate GOP"
Fox News
Oct. 5
FOX NEWS: "House Republican candidates will suffer massive losses if House Speaker Dennis Hastert remains speaker until Election Day, according to internal polling data from a prominent GOP pollster, FOX News has learned."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,218043,00.html
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Why do you put the caviat at 2-3 years? If a Democrat OR Republican, knew that Foley had engaged in this behavior, it is their responsibility to inform the authorities immediately, there is not a 2-3 year window on this, or a 2-3 month window. If someone knew what was going on, and deliberately held the information so as to effect a national election, that is a serious matter as well. You wouldn't accept me telling you, I would support Hastert's removal, only if he knew about it for more than 6 months, but not less. We have quite a bit to investigate here, and I fully support prosecution for those involved in this, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, and whether they withheld information about a crime for 2 months or 2 years.
Pelosi and Emmanuel have declined a polygraph, so that tells me, they knew about this. The whole thing is beginning to stink like 3 day old tuna, and what's ironic, is if it comes out that democrats played dirty tricks here, they stand to lose more votes than the scandal gained them.
Pelosi and Emmanuel have declined a polygraph, so that tells me, they knew about this. The whole thing is beginning to stink like 3 day old tuna, and what's ironic, is if it comes out that democrats played dirty tricks here, they stand to lose more votes than the scandal gained them.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Prissy, I think you need to quit trying to govern by polls. Any poll results posted today, were taken before the details of this affair were widely known, and are subject to change dramatically over the course of the next few weeks.
Why do you put the caviat at 2-3 years? If a Democrat OR Republican, knew that Foley had engaged in this behavior, it is their responsibility to inform the authorities immediately, there is not a 2-3 year window on this, or a 2-3 month window. If someone knew what was going on, and deliberately held the information so as to effect a national election, that is a serious matter as well.
If this was a "clever" Democratic plot, do you realize how STUPID they were for holding it for "two to three years" (your words).
The time to spring this clever "trap" would have been November 2004, which was less than two years ago.
Fox News, Oct. 5:
WASHINGTON — House Republican candidates will suffer massive losses if House Speaker Dennis Hastert remains speaker until Election Day, according to internal polling data from a prominent GOP pollster, FOX News has learned.....While internal GOP polls show trouble for Republicans, the newest AP/Ipsos poll also showed that half of likely voters say the Foley scandal will be "very or extremely important" when it comes time to vote on Nov. 7. By nearly a 2-1 ratio, voters say Democrats are better at combating corruption......
"The data suggests Americans have bailed on the speaker," a Republican source briefed on the polling data told FOX News. "And the difference could be between a 20-seat loss and 50-seat loss."
If this was a "clever" Democratic plot, do you realize how STUPID they were for holding it for "two to three years" (your words).
The time to spring this clever "trap" would have been November 2004, which was less than two years ago.
Fox News, Oct. 5:
WASHINGTON — House Republican candidates will suffer massive losses if House Speaker Dennis Hastert remains speaker until Election Day, according to internal polling data from a prominent GOP pollster, FOX News has learned.....While internal GOP polls show trouble for Republicans, the newest AP/Ipsos poll also showed that half of likely voters say the Foley scandal will be "very or extremely important" when it comes time to vote on Nov. 7. By nearly a 2-1 ratio, voters say Democrats are better at combating corruption......
"The data suggests Americans have bailed on the speaker," a Republican source briefed on the polling data told FOX News. "And the difference could be between a 20-seat loss and 50-seat loss."