[quote]JeffR wrote:
3. Former Rep. Gerry Studds. He was censured for sexual relationship with underage male page in 1983. Massachusetts voters returned him to office for six more terms.
JeffR
[/quote]
Studds, he was Republican if I remember correctly 
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Both Lewinski and the boy are of legal age in Washington DC and Foley’s homestate of Florida.
Not so fast, Flash. The page may have been below the age of consent in Foley’s home state, at the time the emails were sent. The investigation is just getting started.
Foley’s been chasing pages for 10 years. Congress set up a tips line for former pages to call.
As far as Hastert and leadership inaction, when that family contacted them (privately) to complain about Foley, GOP leadership asked Foley if he was doing anything wrong, and Foley said no.
That was as far as it went, as far as due diligence.
They didn’t investigate, they didn’t do anything except tell Foley to knock it off.[/quote]
Clinton allegedly raped and sexually assaulted women. Foley allegedly harrassed teenage boys via email.
Clinton still looks worse.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Clinton had relations with a woman(22).
Foley had relations with 16 year old boys.
Only a total jackass would compare the 2.[/quote]
Clinton had SEX with Lewinski and others. As far as I know Foley did not.
Has Foley perjured himself over this yet like Clinton did?
Clinton comes off far worse. Only a jackass would deny it.
[quote]100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
lumpy wrote:
Clinton had relations with a woman(22).
Foley had relations with 16 year old boys.
Only a total jackass would compare the 2.
lumpy, do you object if (as is being currently reported) the page was age 18?
Very simple question requiring a yes or no.
JeffR
Monica was 22.
If the page was 22, then NO.[/quote]
Your refusal to show a shred of intellectual honesty is embarrassing.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Both Lewinski and the boy are of legal age in Washington DC and Foley’s homestate of Florida.
Not so fast, Flash. The page may have been below the age of consent in Foley’s home state, at the time the emails were sent. The investigation is just getting started.
Foley’s been chasing pages for 10 years. Congress set up a tips line for former pages to call.
As far as Hastert and leadership inaction, when that family contacted them (privately) to complain about Foley, GOP leadership asked Foley if he was doing anything wrong, and Foley said no.
That was as far as it went, as far as due diligence.
They didn’t investigate, they didn’t do anything except tell Foley to knock it off.[/quote]
I hate to split hairs here, but, They obviously couldn’t tell him to stop something he allegedly wasn’t doing.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Has Foley perjured himself over this yet like Clinton did?[/quote]
Uh, since there hasn’t been any kind of a trial yet, it’s a little premature to ask. It hasn’t even been a week since this story broke.
[quote]Clinton allegedly raped and sexually assaulted women. Foley allegedly harrassed teenage boys via email.
[/quote]
Only kooks actually think Bill Clinton is a rapist. Foley sending innappropriate messages is a confirmed fact, not an allegation. Nobody is questioning whether Foley sent innapropriate messages, just whether he broke any specific laws.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Clinton had relations with a woman(22).
Foley had relations with 16 year old boys.
Only a total jackass would compare the 2.
Clinton had SEX with Lewinski and others. As far as I know Foley did not.
Has Foley perjured himself over this yet like Clinton did?
Clinton comes off far worse. Only a jackass would deny it.[/quote]
You can buy a lot of “worse” for $40 million.
Price tag for Starr investigation: $40 million plus
CNN - Feb 1, 1999
Although some Starr critics had previously tagged him with spending as much as $40 million, the figures contained in a Justice Department budget document released Monday represent the first government confirmation that his investigation costs have reached that level.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/01/starr.costs/
And how concerned were the Republicans about getting to the bottom of 9/11?
9/11 Commission Funding Woes
TIME - Mar. 26, 2003
The panel has until the end of May 2004 to complete its work, but it will spend the $3 million it was originally allotted by around August 2003 - if it doesn’t get the supplement.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,437267,00.html
Not very.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Three more pages have come forward with allegations against Foley.
Ouch.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/three_more_form.html[/quote]
Again, this is something that a full investigation will have to weed out to know if these allegations are legit.
We’ll have to wait and see what the investigation turns up. I like the idea of turning the full authority of the FBI into this investigation. Lets find out for sure exactly who held onto information and for how long.
That could be interesting indeed on both sides of the aisle. I heard that Pelosi is already fighting such a comprehensive investigation.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
JeffR wrote:
3. Former Rep. Gerry Studds. He was censured for sexual relationship with underage male page in 1983. Massachusetts voters returned him to office for six more terms.
JeffR
Studds, he was Republican if I remember correctly ;)[/quote]
Lol…a little too much wishful thinking on the part of Fox…lol! When did that happen? I hadn’t heard about that…
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Clinton had relations with a woman(22).
Foley had relations with 16 year old boys.
Only a total jackass would compare the 2.
Clinton had SEX with Lewinski and others. As far as I know Foley did not.
Has Foley perjured himself over this yet like Clinton did?
Clinton comes off far worse. Only a jackass would deny it.
You can buy a lot of “worse” for $40 million.
Price tag for Starr investigation: $40 million plus
CNN - Feb 1, 1999
Although some Starr critics had previously tagged him with spending as much as $40 million, the figures contained in a Justice Department budget document released Monday represent the first government confirmation that his investigation costs have reached that level.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/01/starr.costs/
And how concerned were the Republicans about getting to the bottom of 9/11?
9/11 Commission Funding Woes
TIME - Mar. 26, 2003
The panel has until the end of May 2004 to complete its work, but it will spend the $3 million it was originally allotted by around August 2003 - if it doesn’t get the supplement.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,437267,00.html
Not very.
[/quote]
Incredible spin JTF, you never change.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Wrong.
Didn’t apologize.
Even brought forth his accuser defiantley.
[/quote]
The page Studds had an affair with was not an “accuser”. It was a two way relationship. To an extent I would compare this to a professor/student relationship. College professors are not supposed to have relationships with their students. It is in bad taste even though it isn’t illegal. Yet it does happen, and even leads to marriage sometimes. If it’s a relationship, not a booty call or a horndog looking to get his rocks off, that is a little different.
Unlike Foley who chased multiple teenagers, hoping to score. With Foley it is a recurring pattern over his entire career in Congress. Foley is a horndog trying to get his rocks off.
Also, for the record Studds’ relationship was only discovered 10 years later. Studds and the page both said it was a mutual affair and it was nobody’s business. I believe the page was from Massachussets, so their state laws would pertain. It’s possible that the affair was legal, just in bad taste.
If Foley didn’t do anything illegal then I don’t think it is necessarily mandatory for him to resign… that would depend on his specific actions. It’s his call. Nobody had demanded that Foley resign, he resigned as soon as he heard ABC had transcripts.
And remember the laws have changed since 1973 when Studds had his affair. Foley helped write new laws against soliciting a minor via computer.
[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
JeffR wrote:
3. Former Rep. Gerry Studds. He was censured for sexual relationship with underage male page in 1983. Massachusetts voters returned him to office for six more terms.
JeffR
Studds, he was Republican if I remember correctly
Lol…a little too much wishful thinking on the part of Fox…lol! When did that happen? I hadn’t heard about that…
[/quote]
I think it ran on O’Reilly three different times the other day. Of course Olbermann & Stewart have some good stuff on it.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
We’ll have to wait and see what the investigation turns up. I like the idea of turning the full authority of the FBI into this investigation. Lets find out for sure exactly who held onto information and for how long. [/quote]
I agree that the FBI should do the investigating. The House Ethics committee is totally worthless, with the people they have in there now. Look how they coddled Tom DeLay… Hell Tom says he didn’t do it, that means he didn’t do it! The House Ethics committe will drag their feet, they will issue subpeonas and hold meetings and two years from now, they’ll still be talking about what to do.
[quote]That could be interesting indeed on both sides of the aisle. I heard that Pelosi is already fighting such a comprehensive investigation.
[/quote]
Wrong. Dem leadership definitely wants comprehensive investigations. You’re confusing two different things.
Hastert called Pelosi and proposed overhauling the page program. Pelosi said that’s not good enough. we want an investigation. Hastert wants to say that the problem is the page program itself. There’s nothing wrong with the page program, as long as Congressmen will keep their pants on. This is an attempt by Hastert to shift responsibility off of individuals, and blame “the system”. Also Hastert wanted to appoint Louis Freeh to oversee an overhaul of the page program. Freeh was Ken Starr’s assistant and he’s a blatant partisan, some would say hatchet-man. Pelosi was in-bounds to say no to that.
This is not an October surprise by the Democrats. A Republican staffer broke the story to ABC.
“Longtime Republican was source of e-mails”
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/100506/news2.html
Foley should have limited himself soliciting blowjobs. Nothing else. Then he could point out the obvious…Oral sex isn’t sex! So, how could he be soliciting sex?
Only penis to vagina (in this case, anus) counts. Well, that’s what I learned in another high profile debacle.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Incredible spin JTF, you never change.
[/quote]
So where is the spin? In your head apparently.
$40 million to get a perjury conviction versus Bush allotting a paltry $3 million to investigate the worst act of terrorism ever.
I think it’s a clear indication of their priorities.
When it comes to 9/11, I guess we should be grateful there was any investigation at all.
Bush Opposes 9/11 Query Panel
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/attack/main509096.shtml
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
This is not an October surprise by the Democrats. A Republican staffer broke the story to ABC.
“Longtime Republican was source of e-mails”
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/100506/news2.html[/quote]
Actually, Brian Ross himself said a democratic staffer was also a source.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115991928869181847-ItSzBt2_3XmxCbazT5AE_ZThp_M_20061011.html?mod=blogs
How long did this democrat have this communication? And how many more democrats “knew” about Foley? Hmm, Hmm.
Then there is this, now that the IM Page has been IDed.
“According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, goaded an unwitting Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of political operatives favorable to Democrats.”
“…political operatives favorable to Democrats.” Hmm. Edmund has lawyered up, as he’ll undoubtly be subject to the investigation. Let’s see just where this investigation takes us. Indeed, who all “knew” Foley was a perv.
And no, the article doesn’t claim Foley was just playing his part in a prank. He was serious. The page and his friends were goading him to get a laugh at the pervs expense.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Incredible spin JTF, you never change.
So where is the spin? In your head apparently.
$40 million to get a perjury conviction versus Bush allotting a paltry $3 million to investigate the worst act of terrorism ever.
I think it’s a clear indication of their priorities.
When it comes to 9/11, I guess we should be grateful there was any investigation at all.
Bush Opposes 9/11 Query Panel
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/attack/main509096.shtml[/quote]
What? Why the hell did we need to spend more on 9-11? Bin Laden and Al Qaida did it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
How long did this democrat have this communication? And how many more democrats “knew” about Foley? Hmm, Hmm.
Then there is this, now that the IM Page has been IDed.
“According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, goaded an unwitting Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of political operatives favorable to Democrats.”
[/quote]
Well okay, I think everybody is entitled to believe in at least one conspiracy theory. So pick a good one.
An elaborate prank gone awry, that fell into enemy hands. Huh. Is that it?
Do you know it’s being reported that people knew Foley was a perv going back to '95?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Incredible spin JTF, you never change.
So where is the spin? In your head apparently.
$40 million to get a perjury conviction versus Bush allotting a paltry $3 million to investigate the worst act of terrorism ever.
I think it’s a clear indication of their priorities.
When it comes to 9/11, I guess we should be grateful there was any investigation at all.
Bush Opposes 9/11 Query Panel
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/attack/main509096.shtml
What? Why the hell did we need to spend more on 9-11? Bin Laden and Al Qaida did it.
[/quote]
Don’t get him started on his 9/11 conspiracy bullshit.