Gay Patriot Header Image

What a difference a few months make…

Posted by Average Gay Joe at 7:56 pm - October 4, 2006.
Filed under: Constitutional Issues,General,National Politics

Allow me to put aside my intense anger about the Foley mess for a moment.  I found these statements in a report from the Associated Press (via BreitBart.com) to be quite interesting:

The Justice Department ordered House officials to “preserve all records” related to disgraced Rep. Mark Foley’s electronic correspondence with teenagers, intensifying an investigation into a scandal rocking Republicans five weeks before midterm elections…

Acting U.S. Attorney Jeff Taylor for the District of Columbia sought protection of the records in a three-page letter to House counsel Geraldine Gennet, according to a Justice official speaking on condition of anonymity.

Such letters often are followed by search warrants and subpoenas, and signal that investigators are moving closer to a criminal investigation.

Search warrantsSubpoenasOrders to “House officials” to “preserve all records” in a criminal investigation?  This all seems very familiar to me, as if something like this occurred just a few months ago.   I have to wonder just when House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca) will be holding a joint press conference to protest this “breach” of the separation of powers.  Will House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis) be holding any hearings soon about this obvious “trampling [of] the Constitution” by the FBI?  Surely Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Oh) will condemn this latest “Justice Department invasion” with Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md) at his side to vigorously assert Congress’ “right to protect itself”?  After all, these ‘distinguished’ members were only upholding principles enshrined in the Constitution when they angrily protested a legal warrant being served on the office of Congressman William Jefferson (D-La).  Right?  Hmm, most curious…

(Related posts of mine on this can be found here and here.)

Share

13 Comments

  1. Ok DRUDGE is reporting that the most damning IM’s are from an ex page who was over 18 when most of the IM’s happened. Does this matter? These pages were all out of DC and Foley’s power circle. Seems to me that this makes this scandal a lot less creepey. Also, Brent Scowcroft is saying Woodward “made up quotes” in his new Bush bashing book. Is it possible that all this crap is this years Bush DUI, Natl Guard document forgerey story? In other words 90% made up?

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — October 4, 2006 @ 9:43 pm - October 4, 2006

  2. Off topic.

    I don’t know that it makes them less creepy for me or even less wrong, just not criminal or quite as sick.

    I find 50 year old men Iming with 18 year old men creepy, partly because I just can’t look at 18 year olds and see a potential sex partner. But maybe it is a man thing, since many a man has dumped an older wife for the new and improved younger model.

    Comment by just me — October 4, 2006 @ 10:00 pm - October 4, 2006

  3. #1: “over 18 when most of the IM’s happened”

    Translation: “under 18 when some of the IM’s happened.” Look, before you start grasping at straws, consider for a minute that if Foley had only been involved with ex-pages over 18, he would not have folded as quickly as he did. Sure, it would have been a bit unseemly and he might still have resigned but it would not have happened as quickly as it did. After all, it would have been perfectly legal if a bit taudry.

    No, there’s more here than has yet been told. The clues are in the IM’s that suggest some actual meetups between Foley and individual pages. Hopefully, a full investigation will show what happened and which of the GOP leaders turned a blind eye to it.

    Comment by Ian — October 4, 2006 @ 10:08 pm - October 4, 2006

  4. #4: “But maybe it is a man thing, since many a man has dumped an older wife for the new and improved younger model.”

    You may be right. Plus there is certainly an emphasis on youth within much of our culture. It’s even worse in gay male culture to the extent you have guys in their late 30’s to 60’s who pretend they’re still young by for example wearing clothing like speedos, thongs, kilts, etc that really shouldn’t be seen on any male over 25.

    Comment by Ian — October 4, 2006 @ 10:20 pm - October 4, 2006

  5. Oh, sure, Gene. Not investigating sexual harassment of an 18-year-old kid, after the Congressman’s own aide has reported ongoing problems to the House Speaker, is much less serious.

    Where is Scowcroft’s denial of Woodward’s reporting?

    Comment by JonathanG — October 4, 2006 @ 10:22 pm - October 4, 2006

  6. Please don’t try to justify this or explain it away. It’s (very) wrong no matter how you slice it, politics notwithstanding.

    Comment by bloaner — October 5, 2006 @ 12:11 am - October 5, 2006

  7. No, there’s more here than has yet been told. The clues are in the IM’s that suggest some actual meetups between Foley and individual pages.

    Which means that what the pages did was consensual.

    After all, none of them have said Foley raped them; furthermore, IanRaj and his fellow Democrats, as proven by Gerry Studds, have repeatedly argued that sixteen-year-old pages can consent to sex and that it isn’t even criminal.

    If the Republicans are smart, what they will do is push through a bill that immediately criminalizes electronic or actual contact of a sexual nature with anyone under the age of 18.

    Puppets like IanRaj will immediately oppose it — and make it obvious that they’re really hypocrites on the issue.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 5, 2006 @ 1:42 am - October 5, 2006

  8. #7: “Which means that what the pages did was consensual.”

    Not if they were minors. And it appears that one of the trysts may have occurred in San Diego where IIRC, the age of consent is 18.

    “If the Republicans are smart, what they will do is push through a bill that immediately criminalizes electronic or actual contact of a sexual nature with anyone under the age of 18.”

    Gee, whatever happened to States’ Rights? Oh that’s right you’re an authoritarian wanting to impose your religious dogma on the rest of us. Well, you know exactly where you can stick it.

    In any event, Foley is being investigated by the authorities. The REAL story now is what the “Foley Five” knew and when they knew it. And it sounds like Fordham is going to spill the beans. All because the GOP jackals couldn’t even wait until his butt was out the door before trying to set him up to take the fall. Glenn Greenwald suggests he might be Foleygate’s John Dean. We can only hope!

    Comment by Ian — October 5, 2006 @ 1:56 am - October 5, 2006

  9. Thank you for so elegantly demonstrating my point, IanRaj.

    You and yours are screaming about how awful it was that Foley had electronic contact and may have had sex with someone under the age of 18 and that he should be punished — but oppose putting a law in place that would do exactly that as “imposing religious dogma”.

    Since the age of consent is 16 in DC, puppet IanRaj, prove your “states’ rights” argument and state publicly that there is nothing illegal or immoral about Foley having sex, cyber or live, with a 16-year-old page in DC, and that anyone who tries to claim otherwise is “imposing religious dogma”.

    You’re so easy to expose as a hypocrite, IanRaj; we just have to realize that you’re bashing Foley for having sex with minors when you yourself argue so passionately that there’s nothing wrong with having sex with minors and that trying to put in place laws that limit it is “imposing religious dogmas”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 5, 2006 @ 2:15 am - October 5, 2006

  10. Just out of curiosity, what do any of these comments have to do with this post? Try none.

    Comment by John — October 5, 2006 @ 8:24 am - October 5, 2006

  11. The Leaders of the House will not hold that press conference like you ask. They will say that Rep. Mark Foley is no longer a member of the house, therefore no longer falls under the Constitution’s protection of House members.

    Comment by James — October 5, 2006 @ 10:00 am - October 5, 2006

  12. I think its been made clear that there may be more than one page and that it is possible that not all of these pages may have been 16 or that these conversations or meetings occurred all in DC where 16 is the age of consent. The very reason why a federal law determining contact with minors is wrong is because states have already defined what is a minor in certain situations and what is not a minor. Some states define age of consent at 18, others at 16. The laws exist that detail appropriate or inappropriate behavior. Let’s assume for one second that Foley was within the law regarding age of consent in all cases. Republicans really still have no argument against his resignation since they themselves still argue that Clinton should have resigned for his interludes with an of legal age intern. If Foley was within the law and all of the interactions with pages were consensual, frankly I don’t think he’s a pedophile. Which leads me to wonder why he would resign if he was within the law?

    Frankly I think we will find not all of the pages were of legal age and we’ll find out that his behavior was far more devious than we know as of now. If he hooked with a page in San Diego where age of consent is 18 and the page was not 18, then that’s illegal.

    Also, in some of the IMs I’ve seen, the kid says that he is “underage.” Which infers that assuming the kid knows the law, he knows he is jail bait. It was clear in the conversations that Foley knew he was doing something wrong.

    Comment by Britton — October 5, 2006 @ 2:26 pm - October 5, 2006

  13. Republicans really still have no argument against his resignation since they themselves still argue that Clinton should have resigned for his interludes with an of legal age intern.

    Nice try, Britton.

    No one is arguing that Foley should not have resigned.

    Furthermore, the reason Clinton should have resigned is because he a) had an affair, b) tried to abuse the powers of his office to cover up the fact, and c) lied to a grand jury investigating it.

    Contrast that to the former CEO of Boeing, who resigned over an affair and coverup, without having to even lie to a grand jury.

    Strike one.

    The very reason why a federal law determining contact with minors is wrong is because states have already defined what is a minor in certain situations and what is not a minor.

    I suppose then that you thought the Federal drinking age mandate was wrong because states had already chosen theirs.

    Personally, I think that’s an excellent model to use; enact a Federal law where states have the choice of raising the age of consent to 18, no exceptions, or losing their Federal law enforcement funds.

    I’m tempted to hang around and wait for you to do your trained-Democrat trick of why sex with minors is OK when anyone other than Foley does it, but we’ll move along. Strike two.

    Foley was within the law and all of the interactions with pages were consensual, frankly I don’t think he’s a pedophile. Which leads me to wonder why he would resign if he was within the law?

    For the same reason that you’ve suddenly discovered moral values, Britton; the fact that laws permit a sixteen-year-old to have sex doesn’t mean that people think it’s a good idea.

    Foley’s goose was cooked among the Republican Party leadership, its representatives, and his own constituency the minute that information came forth. Unlike Democrats, who repeatedly re-elect individuals who have sex with minors like Gerry Studds (after all, like Dem pundits have been saying, Studds represented Cape Cod, where there are a lot of gays, and they didn’t care about him sleeping with underage minors), Republicans have certain bright lines you just don’t cross, and that was one of them.

    Again, Britton, you’re merely setting yourself up for failure. The Republicans will immediately propose legislation once Congress comes back into session to do exactly as I proposed above — and it will force you and your fellow Democrats to either put up or shut up.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 5, 2006 @ 3:45 pm - October 5, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.