There has been reports that Hastert MAY have known about this as far back as 3 years ago. It was on the front page of the Cincy Enquirer today, I tried to find the link, Would anyone else like to try to find and add this link? Thanks.

 

I have heard similar reports. Those reports neglect to mention what details Hastert knew and which he did not which (conveniently?) leaves the impression that he was aware of all details back then.

I have heard similar reports. Those reports neglect to mention what details Hastert knew and which he did not which (conveniently?) leaves the impression that he was aware of all details back then.

I heard one report that said in the first email, there was nothing sexual at all but should have raised questions. If there is nothing sexual, I would love to know the contents that would have raised questions but yet nothing sexual was in there.

 

Very confusing and they leave out the important information that would let us make our own judgement and not rely on the talking mouthpiece for whichever side.

I have heard similar reports. Those reports neglect to mention what details Hastert knew and which he did not which (conveniently?) leaves the impression that he was aware of all details back then.

Hastert did know about the emails three years ago and had them investigated. Most people thought they were a little weird, but otherwise harmless. Hastert and others told Foley to knock it off, which he did. To my knowledge, they had no information about the IMs.

Theoretical???

 

Mark my words, the Dems are gonna get bit by this big time... :thumb:

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Brian Ross (ABC NEWS) says that his source was not a democrat, but a rebublican.

I also heard today that Foley showed up drunk at least a few times at the Page's residence hall, and was turned away. They say there were complaints about this as well, not sure when this all was to have taken place.

HYPOCRISY

 

If only Democrats had the same moral outrage with a married President actually getting it on with a young intern in the Oval Office.

 

I'll be the first to say that Clinton's indescretions while in the Oval Office are pathetic, reprehensible, undignified, and show a stunning lack of judgement on his part.

 

That said, I would ask if you can appreciate the difference between a consensual act between two adults (no matter how misguided they may have been), and the act of soliciting sex with a minor - who, by the way, is incapable of giving consent (from a legal standpoint)?

 

 

Frances

On a side note, I want to go on record as agreeing with one of Shooter's main points. As disgusting as Foley's Instant Messages were (I blushed while reading them), in our country, he must be considered innocent, until proven guilty.

 

Now, it certainly doesn't look to good for his defense team at this point, but he should be given his day in court. Of course, that would be after he finishes his treatment for alchohol and other "addictions".

 

 

Fair and balanced,

Frances

That said, I would ask if you can appreciate the difference between a consensual act between two adults (no matter how misguided they may have been), and the act of soliciting sex with a minor - who, by the way, is incapable of giving consent (from a legal standpoint)?

 

 

Frances

 

Two questions:

 

Did Foley specifically request sex from a minor?

 

Were the people involved actually under the age of consent?

Two questions:

 

Did Foley specifically request sex from a minor?

 

Were the people involved actually under the age of consent?

 

Two answers -

 

1) If he didn't, it would only be because someone has redefined what "is" is.

 

2) I'm not really sure about the second one.

 

Response #2 is why I agree with your main point of "innocent until proven guilty". Although, I think we can all agree that "innocent" would be the pluperfect example of semantics, in this instance.

 

 

Frances

Two answers -

 

1) If he didn't, it would only be because someone has redefined what "is" is.

 

2) I'm not really sure about the second one.

 

Response #2 is why I agree with your main point of "innocent until proven guilty". Although, I think we can all agree that "innocent" would be the pluperfect example of semantics, in this instance.

 

 

Frances

 

We all know which Rhodes Scholar we can thank for that.

You forgot:

Senator Bob Packwood - Republican, misconduct

Congressman Henry Hyde- Republican, married and had a 5 year affair with a married hair dresser, Cherrie Snodgrass.- did not step down

Congressman Bob Livingston- Republican, adultery

Mayor Jim West-Spokane Republican, ran on anti gay agenda but was gay himself - did not step down

Strom Thurman- Rebublican, had an child with a 15 year old black girl, did not step down.

Republican Party Chairman Sam West- caught dressing as a woman.

Congressman Ed Schrock- Republican, child molestation

Jimmy Swaggart- Pastor and Major Republican contributor, infildelity.

 

There are a bunch more, but you get my point. You guys have a ton of skeletons in your closet.

 

Senator Byrd, former alliance with the KKK and still in office.

That said, I would ask if you can appreciate the difference between a consensual act between two adults (no matter how misguided they may have been), and the act of soliciting sex with a minor - who, by the way, is incapable of giving consent (from a legal standpoint)?

 

 

Frances

This is the point raised most often to defend Clinton. However, when one of the adults is in a position of power, be it the President or member of Congress, the 2nd adult may find it difficult, if not impossible, to conform to the request for sexual favors. This is not exactly consent.

Were the people involved actually under the age of consent?

 

The kid who Foley got in trouble over was 16 at the time, in DC the legal age for sexual contact is 16, But in Florida where Foley is from it's 18, And in Louisiana where the kid is from it's 17. So it all boils down to where was this kid when the emails and messages were received. At least during one of the instant message conversations Foley was in Florida and the kid was back home in Louisiana. Now, is sexual talk/chat or sending sexual messages considered sexual contact? If so is it for all states?

 

Foley did ask the kid to send him an R rated pic of himself in one of the emails, sending any images of this manner of anyone under the age of 18 is illegal. Not sure how the wording is on asking for the images would effect him, I can't find anything on that yet. Now if this was a sting operation and Foley thought he was talking to a 16 year old but in fact it was a sting, how much trouble would he be in over those emails and instant messages?

 

But who knows, maybe Foley didn't break any laws in DC, But regardless if the kid was over the age or not, there needs to be a law that says the age of consent is for those people who are not in power over people, like a teacher or congressman, then the age of consent should be around 20.

 

At some point you have to allow people to be adults and give their consent, regardless if they are involved sexually with someone in power. I still say 20 is a good age, you are old enough to know you don't have to do what the person in power over you is asking or whatever, you are also old enough to know if you don't want to have the sexual contacts that you could ruin the persons career. So if you are over 20 I say you can do what you please with any other legal aged person, even if they are I a position of power. I saw the videos of Monica greeting Clinton in public, she got what she wanted, all smiling and all, if she didn/t want to be with Bill do you think she would be at some of his rallys/speeches? she didn't find it difficult, if not impossible, to conform to the request for sexual favors, she got what she wanted. Actually I think she got a huge kick out of it and at times even used him (not saying he was a victim), that she as having sex with the president, sorta like a huge ego trip for her. But you have to start allowing people to be adults sooner or later.

It seems Ken Lucas got into some hot water on this issue and along the lines of what Newt Gingrich said on Meet the Press.....

 

http://news.nky.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20061006/NEWS0103/610060428

 

Democratic Congressional candidate Ken Lucas has leveled intense criticism at U.S. House GOP leadership for how it has handled the situation regarding disgraced former Congressman Mark Foley.

 

Lucas called on House Speaker Dennis Hastert to resign after it was reported Wednesday that he was alerted two years ago that Foley, a Florida Republican, was exchanging sexually explicit electronic messages with male teenage Congressional pages.

 

Lucas has challenged his opponent, Republican U.S. Rep. Geoff Davis, to also call for Hastert's ouster.

 

"I ... served with Speaker Hastert and believe him to be a good man," Lucas said in a statement. "However, these aren't ordinary times or ordinary circumstances and the lack of urgency in his response to this matter must have consequences."

 

But it is Lucas taking heat from a gay rights group for comments he made Tuesday to the editorial board at the Kentucky Post.

 

"Those folks (in leadership) had plenty of warning about what was going on," Lucas said, according to the paper. "It was common knowledge that Foley was a gay man. To me, when people in positions of leadership saw things around the edges, that should've raised red flags."

 

When asked to clarify his position, Lucas said that "if this were a man with a wife and a family, I don't know that that shoots up a flag."

 

Lucas later issued a statement to the Post and other media saying he misspoke and should not have speculated about Foley's sexuality. Foley's lawyer confirmed that he is gay.

The kid who Foley got in trouble over was 16 at the time, in DC the legal age for sexual contact is 16, But in Florida where Foley is from it's 18, And in Louisiana where the kid is from it's 17. So it all boils down to where was this kid when the emails and messages were received. At least during one of the instant message conversations Foley was in Florida and the kid was back home in Louisiana.

 

Foley did ask the kid to send him an R rated pic of himself in one of the emails, sending any images of this manner of anyone under the age of 18 is illegal. Not sure how the wording is on asking for the images would effect him, I can't find anything on that yet. Now if this was a sting operation and Foley thought he was talking to a 16 year old but in fact it was a sting, how much trouble would he be in over those emails and instant messages?

 

Regardless if the kid was over the age or not, there needs to be a law that says the age of consent is for those people who are not in power over people, like a teacher or congressman, then the age of consent should be around 20.

 

There appears to be more than one page involved and it seems that they were different ages and in different locations. Druge is reporting that the page involved in one of the more infamous IM's was 18 at the time. In general I agree that it will come down to the exact age of those involved, the location of those involved, and the laws that were applicable at the time the events occured. It would appear that it will take some time to sort out those details.