Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

macintologist · Oct 4, 2006, 11:37 AM

Probably not. If you're a Congressman the laws you write don't apply to you.

He better ****ing be prosecuted or I'll be so ****ing pissed

BRussell · Oct 4, 2006, 11:52 AM

What he did sure was scummy, but how illegal was it?

art_director · Oct 4, 2006, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by BRussell

What he did sure was scummy, but how illegal was it?

We're all going to find out.

On the surface it appears some of the IM exchanges that have been made public include cyber sex with a minor, acting as a child predator by way of suggesting sex with the kids involved via IM, asking for descriptions of and the size of one page's penis, etc.

We can probably agree he's sick. Being one of the co-chairs of the committee charged with protecting children then being the type of predator that he's writing legislation to stop is disturbing as well.

His (Foley's) actions are bad but the apparent cover-up is where the big problems will come into play. While I question the memory of the American voter I do not question their dedication to protect children and punish politicians who attempt to cover-up their lack of good judgment. Just ask Bill Clinton.

Kr0nos · Oct 4, 2006, 12:09 PM

As far as I understand he voilated several laws he himself put into place. I would be seriously surprised if he wasn't prosecuted.

art_director · Oct 4, 2006, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

As far as I understand he voilated several laws he himself put into place. I would be seriously surprised if he wasn't prosecuted.

At this point it looks to be a near certainty.

Sky Captain · Oct 4, 2006, 12:35 PM

I'm still curious as to what laws were broken.
Were these young men not of the age of consent?

Wiskedjak · Oct 4, 2006, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

I'm still curious as to what laws were broken.
Were these young men not of the age of consent?

That depends; is the age of consent in the US sixteen?

BRussell · Oct 4, 2006, 12:39 PM

From what I've heard - and I don't know the reliability of the sources - 16 would have been old enough for sex, but Foley himself had passed laws making it illegal to solicit sex over the internet from a minor. A minor is under 18, so the sex itself would have been legal, but the solicitation would have been illegal.

spacefreak · Oct 4, 2006, 12:52 PM

Is it solicitation if both parties already know each other, and both are over the age of consent?

It is amazing that the media has not published anything about this. We claim we're a nation of laws, yet nobody wants to analyze what laws may or may not have been broken?

subego · Oct 4, 2006, 01:46 PM

Back in the day, anal used to be illegal in D.C. Dunno if it's changed.

This was an issue back in '89 with Barney Frank.

I also remember oral being referred to as "oral sodomy".

OreoCookie · Oct 4, 2006, 01:51 PM

Well, it has been analyzed and AFAI have heard from the media, all of these young males were above the age of consent. Illegal? No. Immoral? I think so.

Wiskedjak · Oct 4, 2006, 01:56 PM

If there is no pedophila issue, it certainly appears that there is a sexual harassment issue.

BlueSky · Oct 4, 2006, 01:58 PM

One of the most unfortunate aspects of this story is that it's superceding coverage of Woodward's new book. Worse yet, all this homa-sekshul predator broohaha is probably the tip of the iceberg and we can look forward to weeks of lurid details as they squeak out and/or are implied by CNN and MSNBC.

Wiskedjak · Oct 4, 2006, 01:59 PM

Wow ... the media if really dragging Foley's name through the mud! Now Fox is calling him a Democrat!

Dakar · Oct 4, 2006, 02:08 PM

Rather than claim conspiracy, I bet some numbskull at Fox automatically assumed some gay congressman he never heard of was a democrat.

Millennium · Oct 4, 2006, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by BRussell

What he did sure was scummy, but how illegal was it?

As things currently stand, making a legal case would be difficult. The feds have admitted that much already. However, we still don't know the full extent of "what he did"; new stuff seems to surface quite frequently. It's entirely possible that something more clearly prosecutable could emerge.

Zeeb · Oct 4, 2006, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Wow ... the media if really dragging Foley's name through the mud! Now Fox is calling him a Democrat!

That would be an interesting thread all on its own.

art_director · Oct 4, 2006, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

As things currently stand, making a legal case would be difficult. The feds have admitted that much already. However, we still don't know the full extent of "what he did"; new stuff seems to surface quite frequently. It's entirely possible that something more clearly prosecutable could emerge.

I'm no lawyer and am not well versed in internet child predator laws, but it seems asking someone under the age of 18 to measure his penis (via IM) constitute a crime?

From ABCNews.com:

October 1, 2006— It turns out Foley's obsession with 16- and 17-year-old male pages has been known to Republicans on Capitol Hill for at least five years.

But other than issue a warning, little else seems to have been done about the congressman.

A former page has come forward to tell ABC News warnings were issued about Foley to the pages in 2001.

Matthew Loraditch says pages were told to watch out for Foley.

"It was a slight cautionary statement, you know, 'Don't get too wrapped up in him being too nice to you and all that kind of stuff.' You know, 'He's a nice guy, but he's a little bid odd,' and that sort of thing," Loraditch said.

ABC News has obtained Internet messages sent by Foley to three different pages after that warning.

Two of them were sent to pages in the 2001-2002 class, with sexually explicit messages, most too graphic to be broadcast, from Foley using the screen name Maf54.

Maf54: To be honest, I am a little to interested in you. So that's why I need to back off a little.

Teen: Ya slow things down a little im still young…like under 18. don't want to do anything illegal…im not 18.

Maf54: cool..dont forget to measure for me.

A reference to his request that the page provide the measurements of his sexual organ, a request he repeatedly made to another page as well.

Former pages tell ABC News the pages involved with Foley were afraid to offend the powerful Republican congressman.

"So there would definitely be some hesitation especially for the people who want to move up in politics eventually," Loraditch explained. "You know, you don't want to get involved in something like that."

The FBI's preliminary investigation of Foley began over the weekend, with agents in the cyber unit of the FBI already examining some of the Internet messages.

It's possible Foley could end up being prosecuted under laws he helped to enact as the co-chairman of the House caucus on Missing and Exploited Children.

Sky Captain · Oct 4, 2006, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Wow ... the media if really dragging Foley's name through the mud! Now Fox is calling him a Democrat!

This is why I have a problem with the media.
The whole lot of them , like politicians, are rotten to the core.

art_director · Oct 4, 2006, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

This is why I have a problem with the media.
The whole lot of them , like politicians, are rotten to the core.

Would have to agree with that.

finboy · Oct 4, 2006, 04:53 PM

I wonder if this is the same kind of "separation of powers" thing that folks were screaming about with the FBI going into the office of Wm. Jefferson (D-LA)? CAN the FBI investigate this without Congressional oversight?

art_director · Oct 4, 2006, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by finboy

I wonder if this is the same kind of "separation of powers" thing that folks were screaming about with the FBI going into the office of Wm. Jefferson (D-LA)? CAN the FBI investigate this without Congressional oversight?

The FBI hasn't even siezed Foley's computers yet. In this nation's state of paranoia they'd sieze the computers of a citizen for the smallest of reasons. But, when a member of Congress is looking for a piece of young asss they do squat. What a joke. We certainly aren't getting our money's worth with them.

Spliffdaddy · Oct 4, 2006, 05:59 PM

I think the real scandal will happen when we find out who was sitting on the IMs for the last 9 months.

Hint: It wasn't a Republican

turtle777 · Oct 4, 2006, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I think the real scandal will happen when we find out who was sitting on the IMs for the last 9 months.
Hint: It wasn't a Republican

Bill ?

-t

Spliffdaddy · Oct 4, 2006, 06:15 PM

I'm being serious.

Do you think Republicans broke the story 5 weeks before election day?

It's fairly apparent that there is a *gasp* liberal behind it.

ABC and other news media knew about the IMs at least 9 months ago.

and no, there's not even a slim chance Foley will be prosecuted.

itai195 · Oct 4, 2006, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Hint: I hope it wasn't a Republican

Fixed

nonhuman · Oct 4, 2006, 06:25 PM

Who cares who released it and if the decision to do so was political? Yes, that should be examined at some point, and whoever decided to sit on this information should be censured, but the most pressing issue right now is Foley.

Spliffdaddy · Oct 4, 2006, 06:31 PM

No it isn't. Foley resigned.

The most pressing issue is who sat on the evidence until now.

nonhuman · Oct 4, 2006, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

No it isn't. Foley resigned.

The most pressing issue is who sat on the evidence until now.

Resigning doesn't magically remove his culpability. He still potentially committed a crime, and whether or not he did and how that will be handled is the topic of this thread.

So yes, it is.

[Edit: If a crime was committed, then whoever held back the information should be charged as a co-conspirator, or accomplice, or whatever fits the bill. If no crime was committed, then there was nothing wrong with holding back the information, so who sat on the evidence is not in the least pressing until it's determined if a crime was committed or not.]

Millennium · Oct 4, 2006, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by art_director

I'm no lawyer and am not well versed in internet child predator laws, but it seems asking someone under the age of 18 to measure his penis (via IM) constitute a crime?

Unfortunately, just because something is illegal doesn't always mean it's possible or practical to prosecute. The reasonable-doubt standard and the no-double-jeopardy rule are Very Good Things, and I have no intention of arguing against them, but they can make getting convictions in things like this very difficult. This is particularly true if they can't prove that any actual sexual contact took place, and IIRC they haven't been able to do that yet. It would seem that Foley has managed to cover his rear very carefully as far as that goes, if the IM you posted is any indication.

But perhaps something will emerge that shows him actually engaging in sexual contact with the pages. That's something I would define as "more clearly prosecutable," because it makes things much more concrete. I honestly don't know whether to hope this happens or not: it would mean that he's victimized people even further than we already know, but it would increase the chances of putting him away.

ironknee · Oct 4, 2006, 07:15 PM

>IF< --(look at that big if) foley goes to prison, will he be thought of as just a pervert or a pedophile?

olePigeon · Oct 5, 2006, 11:35 AM

Longtime Republican was source of e-mails

GSixZero posted this in the other Foley thread.