Republican Congressman resigns today after sending sexual messages to 16 y/o boy

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Well, it seems the age of consent in DC is 16.

I guess that means what he did wasn't as bad as what Clinton did. Clinton was married and used his power to have sex with someone while in office.

Foley just sent some dirty IM's.

amirite?

Foley, a six-term congressman, was co-chairman of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus and a prominent backer of legislation to crack down on online predators and criminalize child pornography on the Internet.

What's the federal age of consent?

He sent e-mails and that may fall in the feds lap, not local law.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

What's the federal age of consent?

He sent e-mails and that may fall in the feds lap, not local law.

Is there a federal age of consent? And also, he didn't have sex with anyone or attempt to, so would it still be illegal?

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Is there a federal age of consent? And also, he didn't have sex with anyone or attempt to, so would it still be illegal?

{Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2422(b)} forbids the use of the United States Postal Service or other interstate or foreign means of communication, such as telephone calls or use of the internet, to persuade or entice a minor (defined as under 18 throughout chapter) to be involved in a criminal sexual act. The act has to be illegal under state or federal law to be charged with a crime under 2422(b), and can even be applied to situations where both parties are within the same state, but uses an instant messenger program whose servers are in another state.[3]

{Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2423(a)} forbids transporting a minor (defined as under 18) in interstate or foreign commerce with the intent of engaging in criminal sexual acts in which a person can be charged. This subsection is ambigious on its face, and only seems to apply if you transport a minor across state or international lines to a place where the conduct is already illegal to begin with. United States Department of Justice seems to agree with this interpretation.

{Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2423(b)} forbids traveling in interstate or foreign commerce to engage in "illicit sexual conduct" with a minor. 2423(f) refers to Chapter 109A as its bright line for defining "illicit sexual conduct", as for as non-commercial sexual activity is concerned. For the purposes of age of consent, the only provision applicable is {Chapter 109A, 18 U.S.C. 2243(a)}. 2243(a) refers to situations where such younger person is under the age of 16 years, has attained 12 years of age, and the older person is more than 4 years older than the 12-15 year old (persons under 12 are handled under 18 U.S.C. 2241(c) under aggravated sexual abuse). So, the age is 12 years if you're within 4 years of the 12-15 year old's age, 16 under all other circumstances. This most likely reflects Congressional intent to not unduly interfere with a state's age of consent law, which would have been the case if the age was set to 18 under all circumstances. This law is also extraterritorial in nature to US Citizens and Residents who travel outside of the United States.

Ages of consent in North America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Is there a federal age of consent? And also, he didn't have sex with anyone or attempt to, so would it still be illegal?

I'm not a lawyer. I don't know if what he did was illegal, just extremely unethical.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I'm not a lawyer. I don't know if what he did was illegal, just extremely unethical.

yeah, from what Spicy posted it looks like what he did was not illegal (if we are seeing everything he wrote). But disgusting and unethical? Yes.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Link to emails?

If he's solicited online thats ridiculous...if he was just being friendly in a normal way whats the problem?

In one of those exchanges, Maf54 advises the teen to "strip down." In another, when the teen says he's wearing a T-shirt and shorts, Maf54 replies, "Love to slip them off of you." And in a third, Maf54 asks, "Do I make you a little horny?"

Like I said in DIAC, the Democrats are taking back the country one Congressional pedophile at a time!

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

In one of those exchanges, Maf54 advises the teen to "strip down." In another, when the teen says he's wearing a T-shirt and shorts, Maf54 replies, "Love to slip them off of you." And in a third, Maf54 asks, "Do I make you a little horny?"

Like I said in DIAC, the Democrats are taking back the country one Congressional pedophile at a time!

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

yeah, from what Spicy posted it looks like what he did was not illegal (if we are seeing everything he wrote). But disgusting and unethical? Yes.

The writing i've seen could be construed as enticement to sex. Then again, I got that from Wikipedia, and I have no idea if they're representing the statute accurately.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

You had said, "if he was just being friendly in a normal way whats the problem?"

I was just quoting an article talking about how he was being little bit more than "friendly."

I'm sure that was probably already said in this thread, but I just like the Austin Powers picture that goes with it. Don't act like it ain't funny.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I think it's more important that he's the Deputy House Whip...I mean a GOP Congressional Leader...

thought you guys were more tollerant of releationships outside of the norm

Why are you stopping this kid from being in a loving releationship with the congressman

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

thought you guys were more tollerant of releationships outside of the norm

Why are you stopping this kid from being in a loving releationship with the congressman

Yeah, we are. This has nothing to do with that though. The kid even asked him in one of the IM exchanges to "slow down" because he "didn't want to do anything illegal"...

This also isn't the first incident.

[motivez]

I like how there's an accusation of a 'timed scandal', but with nothing to back it up.

Maybe it's an October Suprise, but it's one the Republicans have known about, hid, and didn't allow the one Democrat who was in a position to do anything... do anything, for at least 5 years.

I really don't care if the release was timed honestly. It doesn't make what this guy did any less bad, and it doesn't exhonerate the Republicans for putting the Congressional pages in danger repeatedly with a known sexual predator.

Originally Posted by Diesel66

thought you guys were more tollerant of releationships outside of the norm

Why are you stopping this kid from being in a loving releationship with the congressman

this kid is a minor...I do not know of many democrats that are supporters of NAMBLA. Theres a difference between tolerance for consenting adults and tolerance of child predators.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by motivez

I like how there's an accusation of a 'timed scandal', but with nothing to back it up.

Maybe it's an October Suprise, but it's one the Republicans have known about, hid, and didn't allow the one Democrat who was in a position to do anything... do anything, for at least 5 years.

I really don't care if the release was timed honestly. It doesn't make what this guy did any less bad, and it doesn't exhonerate the Republicans for putting the Congressional pages in danger repeatedly with a known sexual predator.

Republicans didn't. They were told the guy had some inappropriate but non-sexual contact with the kid. They were not even allowed to see what was written so the ID of the boy would be protected (as per the parents wishes). The person in charge of Pages told Foley he was to have no outside contact with any pages and that was the end of the matter.

Until what happened Friday. It seems a Democratic support group called CREW had the dirty messages and held it long enough that a republican could not be put on the FL ballot and only then gave it to ABC News for release.

This happened almost 3 years ago. Timing is everything.

[motivez]

I'm not saying "All Republicans" knew, but the ones in key positions DID know.

In his letter to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, Hastert (R-Ill.) acknowledged that some of Foley's most sexually explicit instant messages were sent to former House pages in 2003. That was two years before lawmakers say they learned of a more ambiguous 2005 e-mail that led only to a quiet warning to Foley to leave pages alone.

There's evidence that I've posted elsewhere in this thread that shows that this has been going on since at least 2001.. and they simply covered it up. I'll post it again so you don't have to look for it:

A Republican staff member warned Congressional pages five years ago to watch out for Congressman Mark Foley, according to a former page.

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

Secondly, Chairman of the House Page Board, Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL)

GOP Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) let Foley spend "a lot of time" with pages, including private dinner with one, after GOP knew Foley was a problem.

The "timing" thing is a red herring. Bottom line is they've known about it for years, but kept it under wraps for what appears to be political reasons. Foley is a great fundraiser, and is essentially a "shoe in" in his moderately conservative district.

Apparently, holding on to power is more important than protecting children?

[Thorgrim]

In addition to explicit sexual language, former Congressman Mark Foley's Internet messages also include repeated efforts to get the underage recipient to rendezvous with him at night.


Maf54: I miss you lots since san diego.
Teen: ya I cant wait til dc
Maf54:
Teen: did you pick a night for dinner
Maf54: not yet...but likely Friday
Teen: ok...ill plan for Friday then
Maf54: that will be fun
Maf54: I want to see you
Teen: Like I said not til feb...then we will go to dinner
Maf54: and then what happens
Teen: we eat...we drink...who knows...hang out...late into the night
Maf54: and
Teen: I dunno
Maf54: dunno what
Teen: hmmm I have the feeling that you are fishing here...im not sure what I would be comfortable with...well see

The Blotter

This is how ABC News' George Stephanopoulos dissected the politics of the Foley affair on this morning's "Good Morning America": "Right now it's a category 3 hurricane and it's picking up steam. Republicans all across the country are getting questions about it. But here's the key question: Did any Republican leaders know about those x-rated emails that" ABC's Brian Ross "is talking about? If they did, it's game over. The leadership will have to resign. It will cost Republicans control of Congress. As one top GOP aide told me this morning, 'the place will burn down'."

[DosEquis]

In for the LOLLERCOASTER ride

[Stylerod]

A Republican staff member warned Congressional pages five years ago to watch out for Congressman Mark Foley, according to a former page.

Ok, what does that mean? Watch out because he's gay? Watch out becuase he's a pedo? Watch out because he talks too much? That doesn't say anything.

GOP Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) let Foley spend "a lot of time" with pages, including private dinner with one, after GOP knew Foley was a problem.

How did he "let" him? Did he know about the dinner? Did he know he was trying to be sexual with them? What did he know?


From the NYT's. He was popular with the Pages it seems:

He took pains to befriend the 16- and 17-year-old aides, several former pages said in interviews on Sunday. He chatted with them on the House floor, they said, sent handwritten notes and urged them to keep in touch when they left Washington for their hometowns.

In 2002, he even stood up on the floor of the House, his eyes welling with tears, and commended the young men and women for their year of service. In his speech, Mr. Foley mentioned several of the high school students by name, describing a handwritten note to celebrate one young man’s graduation and a lunch with another at Morton’s steak house.

Ashley Gallo, a 21-year-old former page who is now a senior at Western Michigan University, said on Sunday that many of her friends had viewed Mr. Foley as one of the few lawmakers who made a real effort to reach out to young people.

“You didn’t have a lot of interaction with the members because most of them treated you like a kid, but he was pretty friendly,” said Ms. Gallo, who served as a page in 2001. “He would talk to people,” she said.

“He would say, ‘Here’s my e-mail address if you want to keep in touch.’ I don’t think anyone thought anything of it. They saw him as a mentor or a reference.”

Patrick McDonald, 21, a senior at Ohio State University, said he took Mr. Foley up on his invitation to keep in touch and sent him an e-mail message asking about internship opportunities two years after he completed his work as a page in 2002. He said that he kept up a casual e-mail conversation — chatting about the 2004 presidential election, among other things — with Mr. Foley for several months and that it never became inappropriate.

“If a congressman was talking to you, it was the best thing in the world,” Mr. McDonald said. “And he made himself known to the pages in the first couple of weeks, befriending us, asking us how we were doing. He was one of the cool congressmen. He was willing to chill out with us.”

James Kotecki, 20, who was a page in the spring semester of 2003, said his orientation included a video on sexual harassment. He said he did not remember any formal rules against fraternization, however, and added that the young pages enjoyed the rare opportunities to socialize with the lawmakers. He said he met Mr. Foley only in passing, but remembered him as “a nice guy.”

“Pages are kind of very, very low on the totem pole on the Hill,” said Mr. Kotecki, now a senior at Georgetown University. “Anytime a member is nice it’s fantastic because often members don’t give pages the time of day.”

Raymond Schillinger, 20, also a Georgetown student, echoed those thoughts. He worked for Mr. Foley this spring as an intern and said the congressman treated the young staff very well.

“He was very affable, always friendly with the staff, but never over friendly, nothing suggestive,” Mr. Schillinger said.

Again, I'm not saying what Foley did wasn't wrong. It was. But was it illegal? It looks like it wasn't.

Was this timed for the most damage possible. It sure looks that way!

[motivez]

Who cares if it was timed though? Good if it does the most damage considering there was a coverup to hide the evidence from not only the Democratic party in Congress, but the people.. and the parents of those pages who entrusted the safety of their children to our Government.

And, look at the links I posted on page 6, I think. AmericaBLOG, they have links and sources (ie: ABC/WaPo) about who knew what, and when, and what was going on.

The 2001 "warning" appears to be a warning without getting into too much detail about him "getting too friendly", which is essentially nice language for "he's going to try some shit".

The dinner was after it was already known that he had a problem with doing things he shouldn't be with underage pages.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

this kid is a minor...I do not know of many democrats that are supporters of NAMBLA. Theres a difference between tolerance for consenting adults and tolerance of child predators.

Didn't you know?

We support gay marriage between 2 adults so we also think people should be able to have sex with children.