GOP leaders assail Foley amid Democratic criticism

N

NewsBoy

News Delivery
House Republican leaders mounted an effort to explain their own conduct after the resignation of Rep. Mark Foley and suggested there should be a criminal investigation of Foley's contacts with congressional pages.</img>
30551350


More at link...
 
What about a criminal investigation into them for covering his actions up. I know here in Florida, not reporting child abuse is a crime!


I think talking dirty with a child on the internet qualifies as abuse...!
 
Last edited:
Do you have evidence of abuse? So far e-mails and IMS have been reported, what evidence have you of actual abuse?
 
Damocles said:
Do you have evidence of abuse? So far e-mails and IMS have been reported, what evidence have you of actual abuse?
Click to expand...

It's only a matter of time, before some young person finally comes forward with a tale. I'm betting on it. I notice no one took up for my earlier bet. How about this one. Want to bet Rep Foley (R)Florida stuck to emails and IMs and never stuck his hand in some underage boy's pants. I'll take that bet 2 to 1...
 
Prakosh is right.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Speaker Dennis Hastert has asked the Justice Department to investigate how lawmakers handled allegations that a Florida congressman exchanged sexually explicit messages with a 16-year-old former congressional page, the speaker's office said.

Democratic leaders in the House and Senate had called for a swift inquiry earlier Sunday, questioning whether the GOP leadership in the House had improperly squelched concerns about former Rep. Mark Foley's contacts with pages.
Click to expand...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/01/foley.quits/index.html

Damage control. I have to say, though, that at least the Repukes are behaving rationally. This is the smartest move they could make under the circumstances . . . and it's also the most ethical move.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Prakosh is right.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/01/foley.quits/index.html

Damage control. I have to say, though, that at least the Repukes are behaving rationally. This is the smartest move they could make under the circumstances . . . and it's also the most ethical move.
Click to expand...


hastert has NO CHOICE at this point but to turn it over, because the ethics committee can no longer investigate him because he is NO LONGER a member of congress and can no longer be censured...by them....
 
Last edited:
Perhaps not, but is is a pedo sex crime.
It will be wonderful if he has to register as a sex offender and let everyone know where he lives for the rest of his life :)
 
You dont think its abusive to draw a young boy into sex talk? Then why is it illegal?
 
Troglodyte27 said:
What do the age of consent laws say?
Click to expand...

the laws of consent say....it is abuse... these Pages are 15 years old and 16 years old....

They are not 17 years old...

of course I have not looked up the age of consent for washington dc....?

I think you are just trying to spin the issue Trog, it was the Republican Leadership that hid this...at least that is what we have reported so far...
 
It seems to me that so many people have this guy guilty and convictred without so much as looking at the evidence, without a proper investigation to reference, an incomplete view of the timeline, or even a knowledge of the underlying law(s).

Allegation - Foley talked dirty to boys.
Proof - e-mails and IM.
Law issues - Age of consent, message content
Problem - How many here, or making comment in other venues have seen the evidence before making judgment? How many know what the underlying law is?

I am not defending a pedophile, no way in hell. I just want to know how many people actually know what they are talking about, based on fact, and how may are spouting the garbage they heard from the talking heads?
 
I don't want to change the subject, but look what is on the books as law in the oh so "liberal" massachusetts...

Chapter 272: Section 14 Adultery

Section 14. A married person who has sexual intercourse with a person not his spouse or an unmarried person who has sexual intercourse with a married person shall be guilty of adultery and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in jail for not more than two years or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars.





Chapter 272: Section 18 Fornication

Section 18. Whoever commits fornication shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three months or by a fine of not more than thirty dollars.



Chapter 272: Section 35 Unnatural and lascivious acts

Section 35. Whoever commits any unnatural and lascivious act with another person shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred nor more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or in jail or the house of correction for not more than two and one half years.


that doesn't seem liberal to me and it is dated as updated law as of december 05
 
Oct. 1, 2006 — A Republican staff member warned Congressional pages five years ago to watch out for Congressman Mark Foley, according to a former page.



Related: Florida Rep. Foley Resigns Amid E-mail Flap



Matthew Loraditch, a page in the 2001-2002 class, told ABC News he and other pages were warned about Foley by a supervisor.


Loraditch, the president of the Page Alumni Association, said the pages were told "don't get too wrapped up in him being too nice to you and all that kind of stuff."


Staff members at the House clerk's office did not return phone calls seeking comment.


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2514259&page=1
 
Troglodyte27 said:
It seems to me that so many people have this guy guilty and convictred without so much as looking at the evidence, without a proper investigation to reference, an incomplete view of the timeline, or even a knowledge of the underlying law(s).

Allegation - Foley talked dirty to boys.
Proof - e-mails and IM.
Law issues - Age of consent, message content
Problem - How many here, or making comment in other venues have seen the evidence before making judgment? How many know what the underlying law is?

I am not defending a pedophile, no way in hell. I just want to know how many people actually know what they are talking about, based on fact, and how may are spouting the garbage they heard from the talking heads?
Click to expand...


Ohh, I get it it is the WMD, and war in Iraq thing all over again, but it is the demos talking now, right ?
 
uscitizen said:
Ohh, I get it it is the WMD, and war in Iraq thing all over again, but it is the demos talking now, right ?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean, or the connection you are trying to draw. It could be interesting, please carry on.

My basic point was - lots of opinion at this point, but little factual material upon which to base it, as in so many sensational things. Is that where you are going?
 
Last edited:
Troglodyte27 said:
I'm not sure what you mean, or the connection you are trying to draw. It could be interesting, please carry on.

My basic point was - lots of opinion at this point, but little factual material upon which to base it, as in so many sensational things. Is that where you are going?
Click to expand...

And of course the lack of "factual material"makes Democratic participation not only possible but highly likely, right?????
 
Prakosh said:
And of course the lack of "factual material"makes Democratic participation not only possible but highly likely, right?????
Click to expand...
No, it means that we do not exclude democrat participation, especially in light of an allegation. "Does the allegation have merit?" is one of many questions that need to be answered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top