Where did all the "It's just sex" Democrats go?

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Adultry isn't illegal. Soliciting minors for sex is.

I also have no idea of what goes on in the Clintons' relationship. Maybe they're not even in love and are a marriage of convenience. Maybe Hillary didn't care that Bill cheated on her. I have no idea. That's between them.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

How can you say it's morally equivalent to try and fuck a minor entrusted to your care vs. cheat on your wife with a grown woman? Both are wrong to some degree, but what Republican Congressman Foley did is much worse.

That's exactly my point. You can argue morality on the first one and the second one, but only the legality of one incident is in play here.

The other legality (ie: lying about it) has nothing to do with the actual sexual acts itself.

[Diamond Cross]

The kid was 17. Here is a list of age of consent laws by state for you:


LEGAL AGE OF CONSENT* (ageofconsent.com)***** Age du consentement à l’acte sexuel

You'll note that the age of consent in Washington D.C. starts at 16.

So that makes this a moral issue not a legal issue. Which makes anybody else who's criticising him while excusing Former President Clinton's action, regardless if it was just a moral or legal issue, hypocrites.

In a twist that also makes this a homosexual issue, something for which the Republicans should be blasting Foley as well since they're the ones against homosexuality and feel they should be ostracised from society.

In regards to Former President Clinton, he was having a blowjob while on duty, and I believe but am uncertain, on the phone with another world leader who's name I can't remember at the moment.


He's also been accused of rape by Cynthia McKinney but no one cares about that either but would if it was a Republican.

Not to mention than in doing these things he's also cheating on his wife. But hey, that's okay too. Any issue to stick the Republicans with.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

The kid was 17. Here is a list of age of consent laws by state for you:


LEGAL AGE OF CONSENT (ageofconsent.com) Age du consentement à l’acte sexuel

You'll note that the age of consent in Washington D.C. starts at 16.

So that makes this a moral issue not a legal issue. Which makes anybody else who's criticising him while excusing Former President Clinton's action, regardless if it was just a moral or legal issue, hypocrites.

In a twist that also makes this a homosexual issue, something for which the Republicans should be blasting Foley as well since they're the ones against homosexuality and feel they should be ostracised from society.

In regards to Former President Clinton, he was having a blowjob while on duty, and I believe but am uncertain, on the phone with another world leader who's name I can't remember at the moment.


He's also been accused of rape by Cynthia McKinney but no one cares about that either but would if it was a Republican.

Not to mention than in doing these things he's also cheating on his wife. But hey, that's okay too. Any issue to stick the Republicans with.

:sigh:

Federal Laws

{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.

He did this online so it's covered by federal law.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

The kid was 17. Here is a list of age of consent laws by state for you:


LEGAL AGE OF CONSENT (ageofconsent.com) Age du consentement à l’acte sexuel

You'll note that the age of consent in Washington D.C. starts at 16.

So that makes this a moral issue not a legal issue. Which makes anybody else who's criticising him while excusing Former President Clinton's action, regardless if it was just a moral or legal issue, hypocrites.

In a twist that also makes this a homosexual issue, something for which the Republicans should be blasting Foley as well since they're the ones against homosexuality and feel they should be ostracised from society.

In regards to Former President Clinton, he was having a blowjob while on duty, and I believe but am uncertain, on the phone with another world leader who's name I can't remember at the moment.


He's also been accused of rape by Cynthia McKinney but no one cares about that either but would if it was a Republican.

Not to mention than in doing these things he's also cheating on his wife. But hey, that's okay too. Any issue to stick the Republicans with.

I disagree with Motivez that the key distinction here is legality. A 16 year old, whether technically legal or not, is uniquely vulnerable to someone in a position of extreme power and often is just coming to terms with his sexuality. A grown woman ala Monica Lewinsky knew exactly what she was doing. Therefore, morally, I think what Foley did was worse.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

You'll note that the age of consent in Washington D.C. starts at 16.

Are you suggesting this boy was a legal resident of D.C. rather than visiting as a page?

How about the location of Republican Congressman Mark Foley at the time. Does that not matter? Btw, your list says homosexual sex is illegal in Florida! I wonder if that applies for soliciation of homosexual sex as well?

Can an adult take a minor across state lines to have sex with them if the age of consent varies?

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

So that makes this a moral issue not a legal issue. Which makes anybody else who's criticising him while excusing Former President Clinton's action, regardless if it was just a moral or legal issue, hypocrites.

This is not the only page that this has happened to, or you might be correct.

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

In regards to Former President Clinton, he was having a blowjob while on duty, and I believe but am uncertain, on the phone with another world leader who's name I can't remember at the moment.

Red herring and irrelevant, along with your point about him being married.

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

He's also been accused of rape by Cynthia McKinney but no one cares about that either but would if it was a Republican.

You mean crazy "hit the police in the face" Cynthia McKinney? She has a ton of credibility.

[Diamond Cross]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

:sigh:

He did this online so it's covered by federal law.

Age of consent laws nullify that unless if the other state had a different age set. It's different from state to state.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I disagree with Motivez that the key distinction here is legality. A 16 year old, whether technically legal or not, is uniquely vulnerable to someone in a position of extreme power and often is just coming to terms with his sexuality. A grown woman ala Monica Lewinsky knew exactly what she was doing. Therefore, morally, I think what Foley did was worse.

My point is that morality can be discussed for both of them, but legality only for one. How is that not a key distinction?

I don't know that there's a law against being a shitty person and taking advantage of someone who is coming to grips with their sexuality as long as they consent so it's just morality being discussed. In this case, the legality of that shitty action that's the key.

[motivez]

Oh, and also, for the 'He was 17' crew.. that's all from the same source who believes he's tracked down the dudes myspace. There's been no sure confirmation either way on that.

[Diamond Cross]

Double post.

Originally Posted by motivez

Are you suggesting this boy was a legal resident of D.C. rather than visiting as a page?

How about the location of Republican Congressman Mark Foley at the time. Does that not matter? Btw, your list says homosexual sex is illegal in Florida! I wonder if that applies for soliciation of homosexual sex as well?

Can an adult take a minor across state lines to have sex with them if the age of consent varies?



This is not the only page that this has happened to, or you might be correct.



Red herring and irrelevant, along with your point about him being married.



You mean crazy "hit the police in the face" Cynthia McKinney? She has a ton of credibility.

You mean crazy "hit the police in the face" Cynthia McKinney? She has a ton of credibility.

Whoops, sorryh, I meant Juanita Broadrick.

[motivez]

Foley resigned, we have the IM's, emails, admissions from multiple pages, etc.. there is plenty of evidence here. Is the same true for whoever that is?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Age of consent laws nullify that unless if the other state had a different age set. It's different from state to state.

No it doesn't. It speciffically doesn't too keep people from having mimor meet up on the internet with older people and they meet up in a state with a lower legal age. Same thing with other countries. You can't meet up online with a 10 year old and go to Tailand to sex them. It's a crime to use the internet that way.

It doesn't even matter if you are in the same state. Just like wire fraud is a federal crime even if it's in the same state.

[Diamond Cross]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

No it doesn't. It speciffically doesn't too keep people from having mimor meet up on the internet with older people and they meet up in a state with a lower legal age. Same thing with other countries. You can't meet up online with a 10 year old and go to Tailand to sex them. It's a crime to use the internet that way.

It doesn't even matter if you are in the same state. Just like wire fraud is a federal crime even if it's in the same state.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Is he wrong?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by motivez

Is he wrong?

No, but I should really proof-read my posts.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by motivez

My point is that morality can be discussed for both of them, but legality only for one. How is that not a key distinction?

It's not a key distinction because the law can be somewhat capricious. Whether Foley did something illegal is up in the air and subject to argument. That's too cloudy and misses the point. The fact is that trying to fuck a vulnerable 16 year old is worse than banging a grown woman. In a perfect world the law would reflect those differences exactly, but it's not a perfect world. The law is too unreliable to use as a measuring stick of morality, so I wouldn't stake all of Foley's moral culpability on his legal culpability.

[ballz2wallz]

ABC Ignored Teen-Sex Scandal of Democrat Mel Reynolds Until 1995 Conviction

Congressman Mel Reynolds, the Democrat convicted of 12 charges, including sex with 16-year-old Beverly Heard and asking her to take pornographic photographs of a 15-year old, was indicted on August 21, 1994. ABC, the current scourge of congressional teen-sex scandals, reported nothing – until Reynolds was convicted a year later, on August 23, 1995. In fact, on May 13, 1994, ABC featured Reynolds in a "Person of the Week" speaking out in favor of two Chicago ladies fighting child molesters:

Peter Jennings: " Their local congressman is certainly on their side. He also wants to make child molesting a federal offense."


Rep. Mel Reynolds (D), Illinois: "These ladies really illustrate how being active in your community can really make a difference."


Jennings: " If the law is to change, it will need the support of many more state legislators, which means more mothers will have to get involved."

ABC’s World News Tonight story on Reynolds being convicted on August 23, 1995, didn’t have any fury about how Democrats could allow this sexual predator in their caucus. For their part, ABC seemed more suffused with sadness than outrage:

Diane Sawyer, substitute anchor: "In Chicago, Congressman Mel Reynolds remains free on his own recognizance after his conviction last night of having sex with a minor. His lawyers say they'll appeal. In the meantime, the Illinois Democrat will continue to pick up a paycheck, as ABC's Ron Claiborne reports."


Ron Claiborne: "In the end, it was Mel Reynolds' own words that led to his conviction on charges of having sex with a 16-year-old girl. Jurors said the most powerful evidence against him was police tape recordings of his intimate phone conversations with Beverly Heard, now 19."


Jeslyn Cipriani, Juror: "It was the tapes, the transcripts that we heard, Mel and Beverly talking."


Claiborne: "At one point on the tapes, which were made with Heard's cooperation, she and Reynolds discussed what underwear he prefers. He also uses explicit language as he talks about having sex with her and with himself. On the stand, Reynolds denied ever having sex with Heard. He insisted their conversations were only phone sex fantasies. But the jury convicted him of all 12 felony counts, including sexual abuse and sexual assault. He was also found guilty of soliciting child pornography for asking Heard for a nude photo of a 15-year-old girl; and of obstruction of justice, for trying to get Heard to recant her accusations.

"The convictions likely end Reynolds' promising political career. He had risen from a childhood of poverty in rural Mississippi to Harvard, Oxford Rhodes scholar and to Congress."


Gary LaPaille, Illinois Democratic Chairman: "He was amassing a lot of friends. He was amassing a good political operation. And he was standing out above the crowd."


Claiborne: "Reynolds now faces a minimum mandatory four-year prison sentence. But the felony convictions do not mean he must give up his House seat."


Dan White, Illinois Election Board: "Only on a vote of Congress could he be expelled. And that takes a two-thirds vote of Congress to do so."


Claiborne: "Expulsion from the House is rare. Michael Myers of Pennsylvania, who was convicted of taking bribes in the 1980 Abscam investigation, is the only congressman to be removed from office since the Civil War. Today, House Speaker Gingrich said he would not press for a vote to expel Reynolds.


Rep. Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House: "He hasn't even been-- he hasn't even been sentenced yet. So I think we have to wait and see."


Claiborne: "Traditionally, Congress members convicted of serious crimes do resign. But Reynolds, who is said to be $150,000 in debt and broke, may try to hang onto his seat and the $133,000 a year salary that goes with it. Ron Claiborne, ABC News, Chicago."

Do you sense that the political atmosphere surrounding Reynolds (including the puzzling wait-and-see Gingrich) was a little different back then? ABC had no mention of Mel Reynolds when Bill Clinton pardoned him in 2001.

It seems this is a little more political than many of you want to admit it is.

[Diamond Cross]

Originally Posted by motivez