After reading Josh's most recent post, the lyrics of Warren Zevon's "Lawyers, Guns and Money" keeps playing in my head:

I'm the innocent bystander
Somehow I got stuck
Between the rock
and a hard place
And I'm down on my luck

[...]

Send lawyers, guns and money
The shit has hit the fan

I don't think what Foley did was a crime. (Maybe there is more to this than we know now) So how can Hastert be charged with conspiracy? Investigate? Ha! Just another example of letting the foxes guard the henhouse!

Something to keep in mind.
-Arun

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/1/23045/4791

"Mark Foley is not a pedophile, period.

by Boris Godunov [Subscribe]

Sat Sep 30, 2006 at 11:30:45 PM PDT

I know I'm going to catch a tremendous amount of grief over this, but I believe I'm speaking the truth, so I gotta do it, ya know?

Ok...here it is.  Based on all the knowledge we have, nothing indicates Foley is a pedophile.  Sexual predator?  Absolutely.  Guilty of inappropriate sexual contact with minors?  Quite probably, depending on the legal age of consent statutes of the jurisdictions involved.  A fucking hypocritical piece of shit scumbag?  Looks like it!

Boris Godunov's diary :: ::

But no, he's not a pedophile.  A pedophile is a someone who is "sexually attracted to pre-pubescent or peripubescent" people.  Sixteen and seventeen year-olds (which are the only ages we have seen involved so far) are NOT in these categories.  This is the accepted mental health definition, and I urge people to stick with it."

I'm using the defintion which Foley wrote.

If you have to eat your own words, make sure it is a healthy diet.

Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com

I wouldn't punctuate anything just yet. Your premise is based on what we know right now. What we know right now is based on an on-going investigation of what was covered up by the Enablers. When this first broke, Foley's office immediately raised the spectre of "partisan attacks" by his opponent. I believe he resigned in shame within 36 hours of that statement. Mark Foley is a sick man. His House leadership team are Enablers. Mark Foley may soon be found to be a very sick man, indeed. Period.

What's the outrage? Put yourself in the parents' shoes and ask that question again after you read through the emails to their son. This is a man who has assumed the role of supervisor, mentor and, indeed, guardian over students put under his protective care while they are being schooled in a work-study environment. The kids are going to school in the Nation's capitol. One of their "supervisors", Mr. Foley, is obviously engaged in stimulating them with his raunchy messages...now imagine this happening down the street in your local high school. And imagine the principal, guidance counselor and maybe even the School Committee Chairperson knowing about it for a year and not doing anything about the Supervisor. Hey, maybe the young man left his position out of self-protection (outrageous enough, I think), but the Enablers left the predator alone knowing full well that he might ply other pages in the future. That's pretty outrageous where I come from.

You know, Anyone who half way followed the details of the Catholic Church's crisis with Sex Abuse beginning actually back in LA in the 1980's -- but made a national story in 2001-02 with the Boston Globe's work -- would know precisely where these Republican Idiots clearly did not understand what they were actually legislating about.

The Catholic Crisis actually is much more than Boston -- when the Bishops finally appointed a commission to review secret files they found thousands of cases all over the country. Ultimately they had to come up with rules that fit within US normative Criminal and Civil Law, and indeed were contrary to Canon Law -- and there was much debate, but eventually they were accepted.

The most critical point is who is a Mandated Reporter under Federal or various State Laws. In general, it is virtually anyone in Education, Medical Care, Social Work and therapy. Mandated reporter means if you have a suspicion a minor is indicating sexual abuse, you are required to report to the civil authorities -- the police, the child abuse authorities, or to a proper prosecutor. (different states have different rules.)

Now since the Congressional Page Program is actually a semi-private High School -- and the Congress selects a committee to oversee it (electors selecting a board of education actually) -- I think the legality is that they, Senators and Congresspersons, are all Mandated Reporters. If a school counselor didn't report in timely fashion, engaged in preliminary investigation, destroyed evidence and all -- it is a felony and loss of profession license. Congress is the Board of Education for the Page School. They, or at least the ones who knew were Mandated Reporters. If a Bishop doesn't now immediatly report suspicion -- he is in very deep trouble. And they know. The Irony of CNN's picking up the Foley story the other day was at the time their crawl was running news that the LA Archdiocese was in the final throes of negotiations on its settlement, and it was costing 60 Million Dollars.

Typically, what the Catholic Church (and others) did over the years was to get their lawyers to put pressure on the family and then when they were vulnerable, offer a little dinky cash settlement along with a confidentiality Agreement that was iron clad. That eliminated the problem till the next victim showed up on the Chancellory steps. What the great crisis did was end this practice. And the great debate about Mandated Reporter is the core of all this. It certainly is not perfect, but today most settlements are large, they include long term Mental Health services, they require at least that the perp not be anywhere near minors, and if the statute of limitations has not run, they require criminal prosecution.

Now -- if any of the Pages who have been victimized are reading this, I have a suggestion. Get in touch with Jeffery Anderson in St. Paul who is the leading US Litigatior in the Catholic Church (and other) cases -- and see if you too have a cause of action against the leadership of the House. (Anderson is a principal in that LA Settlement -- and he is also the lead attorney in the case against the Vatican. He's been doing this on a contingency basis for 30 or so years. I suspect since the report went to the RNCC which is not an official agency of Congress, but is actually just a party committee, no immunity would attain, and I suspect one could do some good law, and make some money. RNCC has deep pockets. You get "deep pockets" to deal with huge problems when you get the court to collect some of the stuff in the pockets.

There is a good deal about pedophilia and sexual abuse that is not well understood, but some things are. There is a clear relationship between having been a youth victim and becoming a perp in adulthood. There is also clear evidence of negative impact on academic achievement, incidence of problems with drinking and drugs, suicide, Depression, and major problems forming adult attachments. These things sometimes don't show up for years. That's why the guarentee of necessary Mental Health care always needs to be available. It is also why parents should not make anything but short term decisions.

What Hastert is guilty of is simple -- he failed to report. Conspiracy, don't know, but he failed to report a possible crime. That is serious.

Lawyers need to proceed with "all deliberate speed." As a non lawyer I feel free to get outraged immediately. You  can urge caution???

In another thread I linked to BrowardPalmBeach.com for the full electronic conversation between Foley and one page in 2003.  Excerpts follow from that exchange. Foley is Maf54 (his initials) and the 17 yr. old kid is Xxxxxxx.  I am omitting the worst because this a respectable public forum.

Maf54 (7:59:48 PM): is your little guy limp…or growing
Xxxxxxxxx (7:59:54 PM): eh growing  ...
Maf54 (8:01:21 PM): i am hard as a rock..so tell me when your reaches rock

Xxxxxxxxxx (8:33:29 PM): ya slow things down a little im still young…like under 18 dont want to do anything illegal…im not 18 till feb 23
Maf54 (8:33:43 PM): i know..
Maf54 (8:33:50 PM): nothing will happen
Maf54 (8:34:04 PM): just dreaming  ...
Xxxxxxxxx (8:45:45 PM): but im still a virgin

Excellent breakdown Sara,thank you!

for Mr. Newberry
TPM did an amazing job on the Duke Cunningham case, is there any matrix with Foley and those parties? or that shady limo company? Wade ? What ever happened to that story anyway ? I'm catching a whiff that this could really get big. It's so heartbreaking that these young men have been added to lhe list of victims of the damage this Administration has caused our children. Small comfort is found in the ironic instant karma that Foley will be felled by his own law.

The age of consent in DC is, I believe, 16.

Am I missing something here?

I think this post is worth more than a one.

The reality is that there is a quite remarkable and unsavoury record of sexual predation and sexual misconduct on the part of various ranking and highly placed members of the Republican Party. That's bad enough. But the disturbing factor is the repeated willingness of their fellow Republicans to overlook, conceal or minimize this behaviour.

As for George W. Bush, there have been a lot of rumours swirling around him over the years.

One such is that he impregnated a girlfriend and coerced her into having an abortion. Another is that he impregnated his wife's maid, and the family shipped the maid and resulting offspring off to Mexico. Are these things true? I don't know.

But I do know that many of the allegations of adultery which surround Clinton were simply rumours or unfounded charges not supported in any court. With respect to Mr. Foley, what we've heard is that there were rumours about this guy going back to 2000.

Indeed, there are hints on the record that Mr. Bush has an unsavoury sexual history. For instance, remember when there was a flap about his National Guard service, and various members in Alabama noting that they'd never seen him serve? One of these was from a Guardsman who had a special reason for looking out for George.. Because he was, in the words of this guardsmen, a notorious and well known "cocksman". ie, a rampantly promiscuous man, perhaps in an unsavoury way, given that his reputation preceded him all the way from Texas.

Another odd moment, when Bush was once asked what he and his father talked about... "Pussy." Well, I suppose that's not politically correct. But it might be harmless. Still, it shows a derogatory condescending view of women as vaginas that is the hallmark of many actual sexual predators.

Or then there was the occasion that he told a female reporter that Harvard admitting female students was a mistake in his view.

There's a lot of evidence in his conduct and words that there is something seriously wrong with this man in terms of how he views and relates to women.

Combine that with the rumours which float around as to his alleged history as a sexual predator, and I really have to wonder.

There's a lot to suggest that this Presidents Personal life history would not stand up to scrutiny. A lot of the little we know seems creepy as hell.

So at the very least, I think we should acknowledge that there are rumours, and that there is enough to the mans words, actions and personality that these rumours may well have a foundation.

Republicans have never been shy about trumpeting rumours as fact, and even manufacturing rumours that they could trumpet as fact.

We don't have to descend to that level. But I think that where we find smoke, we should at least acknowledge that there is smoke, and perhaps support investigation to see if there were some fires.

If the kid was over 16, he's of legal age. And is there anything in Foley's e-mails that indicates sexual intent towards the kid?

"In-person, actual sex between Foley and a 16-year-old page would be perfectly legal in D.C. and in most places in the U.S., but it seems that it is a criminal act for Foley to discuss or solicit sexual acts with the same page over the Internet.
Why?

Under the so-called "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" (of which Foley was a co-sponsor), along with 18 U.S.C. 2251, discussion or solicitation of sexual acts between Foley and any "minor" under the age of 18 would appear to be a criminal offense…

Republicans drew the line of age of consent at 18 when, with overwhelming support, they enacted the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006," which the President signed into law (with Mark Foley standing behind him). By definition, then, they consider the acts in which Foley apparently engaged to be criminal. They even enhanced the penalties for this conduct. For those purposes, it doesn't really matter what states have designated as the age of consent because House Republicans have declared it to be a federal crime to solicit or discuss sexual acts with someone under the age of 18."

AHA! It was illegal! My question was a perfectly legit one because I was under the assumption that age of consent is 16 in D.C., but not for internet pedophilia. And my "disgustingly inappropriate" comment about the foxes guarding the henhouse still stands. They rethuglicans aren't capable of truly investigating this because they are the "foxes" in charge of guarding the pages. Get a life Jack!

Re: Because he was, in the words of this guardsmen, a notorious and well known "cocksman". ie, a rampantly promiscuous man, perhaps in an unsavoury way, given that his reputation preceded him all the way from Texas.

You know, much as I loathe the Bush administration and all its evil works, dredging up wild oats old George sowed in his feckless youth strikes me as out of bounds. How many of us (including right wing Republicans) didn't hoe a few rows in the wild oats patch when we were young and dumb? I know some of my shenanigans when I was 19 or so would raise more than a few eyebrows (my own as well now that I am staid and respectable!) if they were dragged to light now. You won't often hear me saying "Give Bush a break" but in this much that is exactly how I feel.

I believe there is something seriously wrong when a 50year old male is preying on a 16 yo for sex, whether that is a legal age for consent or not the sexual predatory behavior of Foley is intolerable. 

The kid wrote 13 times in his request for help that the email was sick, thirteen times he repeated the word sick...so whatever Foley said it was sufficient for a 16 year old to view it as inappropriate and find it so emotionally disturbing that he type the word sick thirteen times.

Googling press coverage, the US headlines tend to be "Foley Resigns..." or "Hastert calls for FBI Probe" while European headlines focus in on Republican leadership: "Top Republicans accused of cover-up over sex scandal." Rep. Tom Reynolds (R), chairman of Foley's committee, apparently accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from Foley for his re-election campaign in upstate New York at the same time he was burying information about Foley's incriminating emails. Hastert "doesn't remember" being informed about Foley's page problem by the series of people who claim to have informed him.

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 doesn't seem to quite apply, since Foley's emails and instant messages in question appear to have come from prior to 2006. It does seem to be a bit hypocritical of Foley to have been championing the bill after having done what he did with the former page.

There is no reliable therapy or "cure". The best that can be done is isolate the perp from minors. If society could figure out how to do this safely, we might be able to avoid overuse of Jails or Correctional Facilities that have nothing to offer

I suggest that they have 'sexual predator colonies' just as they had leper colonies. These individuals are a danger to societies children and therefore are not worthy of being in the general public population. Quarantine them with their own colonies. Maybe then they will learn to act on their sexual desires with other adults.

All I'm saying is that persistent rumours should at least be acknowledged and investigated.

It's not the Democrats who made George W. Bush's moral character an issue. It's the Republicans who did it, and who used it mercilessly as a club to beat Gore, Kerry and other Democrats. By failing to ever challenge that 'moral character' and simply letting it pass, the Democrats essentially conceded the ground. The best they ever rallied with was a snivelling 'we're moral too.'

You may think you are taking the high road. But actually, in terms of the realities of politics, this is simply another example of the Democrats endless politics of surrender. The Republicans choose issues, the Republicans frame issues, and the Democrats refuse to contest these issues. It's why you perrenially lose.

Perhaps you have not seen the messages (IMs and emails)...

1) Assuming that the IMs and emails that I've seen are accurate, I can say that I (49 years old, married 16 years) have *never once* said or written *anything* so sexually explicit as those messages.

2) the page may have been of legal age, and if Foley were another similarly aged person, this whole story would be different. The issue with Foley is the huge power differential between himself and his targets.

3) Foley's actions are, in my opinion, a extremely ill-considered and could have hurt some of his targets. But that's only part of the real crime here. The crime is Republican Leadership being aware of this situation and doing essentially *nothing* to stop it, and saying *nothing* to any authorities that could move to stop it.

It's the Republican Leadership: The selfsame ones who are constantly blathering on about morality, keeping silent about genuinely immoral behavior when it suits them.

The Republican Leadership talks constantly about Protecting Marriage from the idea of gay marriage among consenting adults. At the same time these people are doing not lifting a finger to protect minors whose safety is their responsibility from someone with a known weakness. A weakness for homosexuality no less!

I'm using the defintion which Foley wrote.

The fact that Foley may have derived a faulty definition is of no relevance to the question of whether he falls under the correct definition of the term "pedophile".

You might argue that Foley is a "self-described pedophile", but he isn't a pedophile for the reasons outlined above.

As Josh has pointed out in his blog sexual contact between an adult and a consenting 16 yr old is not illegal.

So to believe that Foley was instigating pedophilia one would also have to maintain that pedophilia is now legal in the United States.

Foley is in fact probably a "hebephile" - someone who is attracted to a post-pubescent person under the age of 18.

We shouldn't dumb ourselves down to his level just because he doesn't know the difference.

I agree that we should use words correctly, and I agree that the remedies of the law should be applied to their full extent. I am old fashioned enough, however, to believe that as a general principle older people ought to set a good example for younger people and those in positions of authority ought to set a good example for those for whom they are responsible. So on a different level, I think this issue is very serious no matter what specific mental health categories or specific laws apply.

Yeah, I'm 49 too. And I've never(knowingly) sent sexually explicit messages to a 16 year-old.

And by the way, not all "ill-considered" actions are crimes.

I'm not defending Foley's actions here... I also think that a 52 year-old sending sexual messages to teenagers is distasteful.

But surely Foley's still innocent until proven guilty?

"The issue here must be whether Foley did anything illegal."

Seems likely, with two Florida laws in play. An excerpt from this Raw Story article:

Over the course of several pages of dialogue, that conversation became extraordinarily graphic, and included several direct references to masturbation techniques and frequency, discussion of the child's penis size, and even the congressman's explicit interest in sexual contact with the boy.

The conservative Washington Times called for Hastert to "resign his speakership at once" for not acting to investigate questions about Foley's e-mails when he first learned of them.

Agreed absolutely this is a serious matter.

It appears Foley is guilty of rank hypocrisy, sexual harassment, hebephilia, soliciting sex from a minor online. At least some of which are extremely serious matters.

But there is as yet no evidence he's a pedophile. And I'd stop short of presuming that he did. The reason I think it's important to do so is that I detect, most particularly in the fact that many on the right appear to be uncharacteristically outraged by one of their own's transgressions, a strong whiff of homophobia surrounding the affair.

I just don't believe the same level of outrage over Foley's behavior would have been reached had he been making unseemly advances toward a 16 year old girl. In that case I expect we'd have had a whole slew of stories emanating from the murkier depths of the Right Wing Noise Machine about how suggestively the girl dressed and acted, about her sexual history, all designed to suggest that Foley, while weak, had been the object of a Lolita-esque seduction. Since Foley is (now openly) gay however and the idea of a boy with a much older man is beyond repugnant to the Right they are unable to reconcile their desire to minimize his offences with the facts.

There is a hackneyed but misguided notion that somehow pedophilia and homosexuality go hand-in-hand. You will find on the right-wing discussion groups countless discussions in the coming days making that homophobic association.

But since we aren't homophobes here I think it's important that we make an effort to distinguish Foley, an abusive sexual predator of pubescent minors, from pedophiles when the reality is - thus far - unable to support that connection.

Raw Story also says that Foley "might" be in legal trouble. But the Florida laws linked at Raw Story's website don't define who is a "child."

If the courts decide that a Florida teen is old enough at 16 to consent to have sex, but still needs protection from "sexually inappropriate" messages from other of-legal-age persons, we're in trouble.

If a "minor" means anyone under 18, then we need to raise the age of consent to 18.

30 year old persistent rumors for which any statute of limitations have long since expired should be left to gather mold with the skeletons in the closet.
And the scandal of the Bush administration is not that little Georgie may have sowed enough wild oats to feed Scotland for a year, nor even that he might have had a silver coke spoon up his nose long ago. No, the scandals are the things going on right here, right now.
Obsessing about the distant past is just dumb, when the present is FUBARed and the future looks grim.