Congressman Foley(Rep) investigated as possible sex offender [Archive]

White trash wagon

10-02-2006, 12:31 PM

Hastert 'disgusted'; Rep. Foley enters rehab
FBI, Fla. probing congressman's explicit messages to underage male pages

WASHINGTON - As former Rep. Mark Foley, under FBI investigation for e-mail exchanges with teenage congressional pages, has checked himself into rehabilitation facility for alcoholism treatment, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., returned to Washington saying he was "outraged and disgusted" with Foley's actions involving sexually charged e-mails and instant messages to underaged, male, Capitol Hill pages.

Foley's attorney, David Roth, would not identify the facility, but told the Associated Press in West Palm Beach, Fla., that Foley had checked in over the weekend.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15103356/

10-02-2006, 12:36 PM

Welcome to last Friday Scott. ;) :D

Paladin

10-02-2006, 04:10 PM

Welcome to last Friday Scott. ;) :D

I would say that he is just taking an oppurtunity to poke fun at a Republican, then then the "L" word would come out and I would be attacked by the people who aren't "L"'s. LOL

White trash wagon

10-02-2006, 04:27 PM

I would say that he is just taking an oppurtunity to poke fun at a Republican, then then the "L" word would come out and I would be attacked by the people who aren't "L"'s. LOL

I did not make one word of commentary, and that link was from today. I just posted a link.

I WILL accept your "L" word, but not the one you think. I joined the Libertarian party about 3 months ago. They are basically what the Republican party was about 30 years ago. I had been a disenfranchised Republican for about 16 years, but I have never been a Democrat.

Scott

Trip McNeely

10-02-2006, 05:41 PM

White trash wagon

10-02-2006, 07:53 PM

Republican, Libertarian, Democrat, etc whatever he is, he is a sick fuck, and needs to be locked up. What causes such sick behavior? Godamn.. :mad: Theres nothing worse in this world than a child predator.

I agree completely, 90 Notch wanted to make a political statement out of this. Just like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, those 2 hacks talked about it for 6 hours, mostly stating that this was some sort of Democratic conspiracy.

Scott

10-02-2006, 08:02 PM

I agree completely, 90 Notch wanted to make a political statement out of this. Just like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, those 2 hacks talked about it for 6 hours, mostly stating that this was some sort of Democratic conspiracy.

Scott

Neal Boortz tore Congress and former-Congressman Foley to pieces on his website today. It was great.

Paladin

10-02-2006, 08:02 PM

I agree completely, 90 Notch wanted to make a political statement out of this. Just like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, those 2 hacks talked about it for 6 hours, mostly stating that this was some sort of Democratic conspiracy.

Scott

I poke a little fun and get accused of making a political statement and the guy who posted this thread is the one making the accusation?

Funny!

32VfromHell

10-03-2006, 01:57 AM

His acts are completely sadistic and close to unforgivable considering his position of power. Not like its a first (or will be the last) but i am disgusted by the "sins" of those in power who fear nothing.

Republican, Democrat, Martian, this guy should be immediately out of office, and a statement issued as a warning that our congressman and women *are* held accountable for their moral decency.

Taking this in the context of the movie dogma by Kevin Smith, this just reminds me of the scene dealing with the Mooby boardroom executives being complete filthy wastes of humans simply because they had nothing to fear, so they could indulge their dark side.

exlude

10-03-2006, 02:25 AM

I would say that he is just taking an oppurtunity to poke fun at a Republican, then then the "L" word would come out and I would be attacked by the people who aren't "L"'s. LOL

http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/9296/mylittleonetrickpony300wp3.jpg

Paladin

10-03-2006, 09:49 AM

http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/9296/mylittleonetrickpony300wp3.jpg

And so it begins... LOL

exlude

10-03-2006, 02:26 PM

And so it begins... LOL

The pony show?

Paladin

10-03-2006, 03:10 PM

The pony show?

Yeah, that's it. :rolleyes:

Pro Trash

10-03-2006, 03:20 PM

I am most concerned with the focus this has taken on the conservative leadership and the fact they lied as to the time and extent of their knowledge of this pervs behavior. That speaks volumes and even the White House seems to be flaming them for it.

jyro

10-03-2006, 04:29 PM

exlude

10-03-2006, 04:57 PM

Who lied, where is this info?

I don't know if anyone "lied" so much as just didn't say anything about it. There is apparently evidence that the GOP leadership knew about his, erm, chats with the pages but simply told him to hush up about it and stop it instead of investigating it further and/or turning it over to the authoritay.

black01gt

10-04-2006, 11:04 AM

Paladin

10-04-2006, 04:06 PM

Hey come on...lighten up on the guy. He was "molested by a priest", "he was drunk when he was sending messeges", and now Matt Drudge sez that "the sick little bastards egged the poor guy on". I really hope "the party" actually tries to defend this sick mofo! What happens to "the party" will be damned astounding...

Pretty slimy shit but at least it wasn't "The Blowjob"! :D

I just wonder how many people who thought having sex in the Oval office was Ok are now screaming foul. Hypocrites?

I also wonder, have they accused him of breaking any laws? I guess if you have moral compass issues having sex with young interns is OK, but sending foul, nasty emails to children is not. I say they are both wrong.

White trash wagon

10-04-2006, 04:52 PM

shrp88lx's

10-04-2006, 06:28 PM

Having consensual sex with an adult is not a crime (Monica was 20). Foley was after minors.....BIG DIFFERENCE!!!!

But agreed, for leaders of our country.....both are guilty of offensive behavior.

Scott
Im glad that sick fuck is out of office and I hope anyone who held that info secret is run out of office, I also thiink we should cnsider that in the past a certain democratic senator was found GUILTY of sex with a minor(16 yr old) and trying to arrange a 3 way with that girl and a another(15yr old), he wasnt run out of office, and he was pardoned by none other than BILL CLINTON...hypocrisy at its finest!!!!!

exlude

10-04-2006, 06:36 PM

White trash wagon

10-04-2006, 07:06 PM

Im glad that sick fuck is out of office and I hope anyone who held that info secret is run out of office, I also thiink we should cnsider that in the past a certain democratic senator was found GUILTY of sex with a minor(16 yr old) and trying to arrange a 3 way with that girl and a another(15yr old), he wasnt run out of office, and he was pardoned by none other than BILL CLINTON...hypocrisy at its finest!!!!!

Presidential pardons are always a touchy subject. George W Bush's daddy pardoned people for tax evasion, bank fraud, embezzling govt property, selling drugs, auto theft and even a spy who sold US Government secrets to a foreign intel agency!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pardons_and_Commutations_by_President_Geor ge_H._W._Bush

Scott

shrp88lx's

10-04-2006, 07:26 PM

Presidential pardons are always a touchy subject. George W Bush's daddy pardoned people for tax evasion, bank fraud, embezzling govt property, selling drugs, auto theft and even a spy who sold US Government secrets to a foreign intel agency!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pardons_and_Commutations_by_President_Geor ge_H._W._Bush

Scott
The hypocrisy is not in the pardon..DUH..its in the fact that Dems did not scream for this guys head to roll and for anyone in leadership to roll with it???? While on that the rep frm Ark. who got caught on tape taking bribes and they found $90000 in his freezer..did he have to resign..HELL NO no Dems called for it, I see when the Republicans get caught they resign and dont fight it Dems dont they circle the wagons. IF I ever see Dems call for resignations of someone of their own party for this type shit..I will check Hell's temp cause it surely will be freezing!!!

White trash wagon

10-04-2006, 07:46 PM

The hypocrisy is not in the pardon..DUH..its in the fact that Dems did not scream for this guys head to roll and for anyone in leadership to roll with it???? While on that the rep frm Ark. who got caught on tape taking bribes and they found $90000 in his freezer..did he have to resign..HELL NO no Dems called for it, I see when the Republicans get caught they resign and dont fight it Dems dont they circle the wagons. IF I ever see Dems call for resignations of someone of their own party for this type shit..I will check Hell's temp cause it surely will be freezing!!!

I recall Tom DeLay didn't resign all that quick! And 4 Republicans are now calling for Speaker Dennis Hastert to resign, and he's fighting like hell! Several congressional aides have stated his office was notified about Foley as much as 3 years ago!!

Demcratic Speaker Palosi did request William Jefferson resign, but he refused. And Jefferson's bribe taking pales in comparison to Tom DeLay.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15131243/

Scott

shrp88lx's

10-04-2006, 07:52 PM

I recall Tom DeLay didn't resign all that quick! And 4 Republicans are now calling for Speaker Dennis Hastert to resign, and he's fighting like hell! Several congressional aides have stated his office was notified about Foley as much as 3 years ago!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15131243/

Scottthe point is Dems have no ground to stand on here when calling for someones resignation. Its just fucking funny to watch them. Did you see Palosi on all the sunday talk shows and all during the week trying to get that guy to resign..HELL NO..yet we will see her ugly mug everywhere this week going after hastert..anyone can see the difference if they want to!!!

Yes he deserves to be in Jail and anyone who knew right out on their asses too.

BTW Tom Delay hasnt been convicted of anything has he?? there lots to play out on that story and yet he still resigned.

Paladin

10-04-2006, 07:58 PM

Having consensual sex with an adult is not a crime (Monica was 20). Foley was after minors.....BIG DIFFERENCE!!!!

But agreed, for leaders of our country.....both are guilty of offensive behavior.

Scott

You just proved my point. Those who don't care that Clinton had sex in his office with a subordinate employee did no criminal act until he lied under oath about it.

So far, I have not heard about a crime being committed by the senator who wrote sexually expicit emails to a 16 year old.

Some have a problem with one, not the other. Hypocrisy that only liberals would defend IMO. Remember, I think both were wrong and should result in removal. Consistency IMO.

So far, only one involves a knwon crime, and that was for lying about the sex with a subordinate employee. It remains to be seen if the perv senator committed a crime.

Paladin

10-04-2006, 08:08 PM

I'm not positive on the laws in this case. I dunno how illegal it is to solicit sex to minors. I'm fairly certain it's legal to have sex with an adult, however.

I haven't read the email where he solicited sex, just talked about it in grotesque detail. It seems like he got to know them and then after they left the page program, he contacted them. I don't know of any laws against email sex, even with children. There may be a child that will come forward about sex while working as a page, but I haven't heard about any, have you?

I wonder if you have sex on your desk, assuming you are employed by a company, with a subordinate if you would be fired? I know I would. What about lying while under oath about the sex you have so little problem with? (hint: that is a felony in most states)

I stand by my assertion that only liberals would defend one, their candidate, but complain about the other. Another example of liberal hypocrisy. I have yet to hear about any Republican saying the perv senator should stay, but man did you libs defend Clinton. Some still do today. I wonder what your position will be? LOL

I thought Clinton and the perv senator should have resigned. Try consistency on for a while, it feels good.

This is one of those times that you either get it, or you don't. I doubt I will respond if you defend a position of hypocrisy. I will laugh at you, but not waste anymore time on you if you do.

Paladin

10-04-2006, 08:09 PM

the point is Dems have no ground to stand on here when calling for someones resignation. Its just fucking funny to watch them. Did you see Palosi on all the sunday talk shows and all during the week trying to get that guy to resign..HELL NO..yet we will see her ugly mug everywhere this week going after hastert..anyone can see the difference if they want to!!!

Yes he deserves to be in Jail and anyone who knew right out on their asses too.

BTW Tom Delay hasnt been convicted of anything has he?? there lots to play out on that story and yet he still resigned.

You might as well be speaking Greek to the average liberal, they won't understand any of your logic, even though it is there in spades.

exlude

10-04-2006, 08:34 PM

I haven't read the email where he solicited sex, just talked about it in grotesque detail. It seems like he got to know them and then after they left the page program, he contacted them. I don't know of any laws against email sex, even with children. There may be a child that will come forward about sex while working as a page, but I haven't heard about any, have you?

I wonder if you have sex on your desk, assuming you are employed by a company, with a subordinate if you would be fired? I know I would. What about lying while under oath about the sex you have so little problem with? (hint: that is a felony in most states)

I stand by my assertion that only liberals would defend one, their candidate, but complain about the other. Another example of liberal hypocrisy. I have yet to hear about any Republican saying the perv senator should stay, but man did you libs defend Clinton. Some still do today. I wonder what your position will be? LOL

I thought Clinton and the perv senator should have resigned. Try consistency on for a while, it feels good.

This is one of those times that you either get it, or you don't. I doubt I will respond if you defend a position of hypocrisy. I will laugh at you, but not waste anymore time on you if you do.

I havn't read all the emails either, but there was an IM conversation in which he asked to meet with one of them. Again, not sure where all the laws lead this...maybe he had to show up for it to be a crime.

Having sex on the desk is a tricky situation as it is his home at the same time, supposed to be his semi-private residence. Morally, of course, he was pinned. And absolutely he was guilty of purgery. However, I'm not sure if it should or should not have been brought before a court due to the reason stated in my first sentence. Ethics commitee was a good place for it, imo.

But I'm sure you expected that response from me, because it falls pretty much inline with every other response I have ever given. I doubt you would have forgotten that and gotten it confused like you have almost everything in the past considering you and me. You aren't that bad, right?

Paladin

10-04-2006, 08:37 PM

I havn't read all the emails either, but there was an IM conversation in which he asked to meet with one of them. Again, not sure where all the laws lead this...maybe he had to show up for it to be a crime.

Having sex on the desk is a tricky situation as it is his home at the same time, supposed to be his semi-private residence. Morally, of course, he was pinned. And absolutely he was guilty of purgery. However, I'm not sure if it should or should not have been brought before a court due to the reason stated in my first sentence.

But I'm sure you expected that response from me, because it falls pretty much inline with every other response I have ever given. I doubt you would have forgotten that and gotten it confused like you have almost everything in the past considering you and me. You aren't that bad, right?

This response is not what I expected from you. It could have been much better, less rationalizing for Clinton, but it wasn't terrible.

exlude

10-04-2006, 08:39 PM

This response is not what I expected from you. It could have been much better, less rationalizing for Clinton, but it wasn't terrible.

Actually, if you read it again, I didn't once rationalize for Clinton. I just don't think the procedure handling it was how it should have been.

Paladin

10-04-2006, 08:47 PM

Actually, if you read it again, I didn't once rationalize for Clinton. I just don't think the procedure handling it was how it should have been.

How the hell do you get that the Oval Office is his residence? Tricky situation? Pretty obvious to me, but I prefer consistency. That is what I call rationalizing. He has a private residence within the White House.

Are you drunk tonite? You are way off your game tonite.

exlude

10-04-2006, 08:54 PM

How the hell do you get that the Oval Office is his residence? Tricky situation? Pretty obvious to me, but I prefer consistency. That is what I call rationalizing. He has a private residence within the White House.

Are you drunk tonite? You are way off your game tonite.

Yes he does. Like I said, he was out of line. I'm sure you understand what rationalizing means, i.e. give him appropriate reason. But I didn't do that, it would just be more of your inability to communicate. Maybe you need to get a better grasp on that before you try to move on. It's getting tiresome having you back off topics after I shut you down just to have you do it again in another thread.

But this comes from someone who makes intelligent dialogue his life. You? You're a cop who's looking for a reason to justify yourself, it's what you do. It sure does make it a lot easier for you to form an argument when you already have it in your head before hand. Requires less brain power too. Keep trying to justify yourself off of bits and pieces, it makes you smart!

Paladin

10-04-2006, 09:14 PM

Yes he does. Like I said, he was out of line. I'm sure you understand what rationalizing means, i.e. give him appropriate reason. But I didn't do that, it would just be more of your inability to communicate. Maybe you need to get a better grasp on that before you try to move on. It's getting tiresome having you back off topics after I shut you down just to have you do it again in another thread.

But this comes from someone who makes intelligent dialogue his life. You? You're a cop who's looking for a reason to justify yourself, it's what you do. It sure does make it a lot easier for you to form an argument when you already have it in your head before hand. Requires less brain power too. Keep trying to justify yourself off of bits and pieces, it makes you smart!

As a cop I put bad guys in jail. You haven't backed me off one topic. Once again, just because YOU don't understand it, then it doesn't make sense, right? LOL

Yeah, how silly of someone to have their argument thought out beforehand, unlike the liberal who argues with no consistency or integrity. I wouldn't expect you to understand.

You can have the last word, I am done making fun of you tonite.

exlude

10-04-2006, 09:35 PM

As a cop I put bad guys in jail. You haven't backed me off one topic. Once again, just because YOU don't understand it, then it doesn't make sense, right? LOL

Not in all cases, not at all. With you, with almost absoluteness. Has been set pretty standard in the past. I guess you jumping from topic to topic and being simpled down to one-worded, name-calling posts is not you backing off topics...it's your argument improving! lol

Yeah, how silly of someone to have their argument thought out beforehand, unlike the liberal who argues with no consistency or integrity. I wouldn't expect you to understand.

You missed it, go figure. Intelligent discussion does not come from a preformed argument then picking and chosing your evidence. It comes from entire consideration of the evidence and you usually throw in a bit of honesty. I don't blame you on the lack of honesty, however, the inability to consider everything is the fault of your own stupidity.

Paladin

10-05-2006, 10:22 AM

Not in all cases, not at all. With you, with almost absoluteness. Has been set pretty standard in the past. I guess you jumping from topic to topic and being simpled down to one-worded, name-calling posts is not you backing off topics...it's your argument improving! lol

You missed it, go figure. Intelligent discussion does not come from a preformed argument then picking and chosing your evidence. It comes from entire consideration of the evidence and you usually throw in a bit of honesty. I don't blame you on the lack of honesty, however, the inability to consider everything is the fault of your own stupidity.

LOL, once again, if you don't understand it, it has to be somoene else's fault.

exlude

10-05-2006, 11:33 AM

LOL, once again, if you don't understand it, it has to be somoene else's fault.

Not in all cases, not at all. With you, with almost absoluteness. Has been set pretty standard in the past.
.

Pro Trash

10-05-2006, 11:59 AM

I just wonder how many people who thought having sex in the Oval office was Ok are now screaming foul. Hypocrites?

I also wonder, have they accused him of breaking any laws? I guess if you have moral compass issues having sex with young interns is OK, but sending foul, nasty emails to children is not. I say they are both wrong.

Well to be honest she was over 18 and note the word "she" when describing the one he made contact with. I don't feel Clinton was any more innocent than this guy but two factors differ from a social stand point, one is that "she" as in a different gender and the other is over 18 as in not ILLEGAL in tendency, yes it was immoral as all get out, but not illegal. The fact he is coming onto a boy (stipulates gay tendencies) who is under the age of 18(illegal to have sex with if you are an adult). I laugh at anyone who defends him by saying he never intended to have sex with these boys if given the opportunity, that is as believable as " I didn't inhale". I think the biggest issue is he is from the party that states it is the moral majority, i.e. a value system based off Christianity. I may not by a Christian scholar but I do not recall the bible approving of perverse conversations or homosexual desires, call me fickle :rolleyes:

Pro Trash

10-05-2006, 12:20 PM

Who lied, where is this info?

Well Hastert stated he didn't have any prior knowledge of such behavior then recanted adding he knew of prior issues with Foley's behavior.

jw33

10-05-2006, 12:24 PM

George W. Bush just IM me and asked to suck my cock....

line-em-up

10-05-2006, 01:35 PM

Well to be honest she was over 18 and note the word "she" when describing the one he made contact with. I don't feel Clinton was any more innocent than this guy but two factors differ from a social stand point, one is that "she" as in a different gender and the other is over 18 as in not ILLEGAL in tendency, yes it was immoral as all get out, but not illegal. The fact he is coming onto a boy (stipulates gay tendencies) who is under the age of 18(illegal to have sex with if you are an adult). I laugh at anyone who defends him by saying he never intended to have sex with these boys if given the opportunity, that is as believable as " I didn't inhale". I think the biggest issue is he is from the party that states it is the moral majority, i.e. a value system based off Christianity. I may not by a Christian scholar but I do not recall the bible approving of perverse conversations or homosexual desires, call me fickle :rolleyes:

And don't forget that it was Foley who, in 2003, was talking about how horrible "those people" were for preying on the innocent children.

For you Foley friends: To compare foley to the Monica isuue is just a desperate attempt to not accept that your republican leaders are capable of doing wrong. Afterall, they are all God fearing christians that could never do anything so morally incomprhensible.

Clinton got a blowjob from a LEGAL consenting female who probably initiated the whole thing. Foley was talking dirty and who knows what else to an underage male. Not only is he guilty of doing that, but his cohorts in the government knew about it and they didn't feel (despite their christian superiority) like anything needed to be done about it. Clinton and Foley both did things considered wrong. The reps have been throwing the Clinton incident in the dems faces for the last 8 years. Now it's time for a little payback. So be a man and don't whine and complain like little girls about it the whole time.

line-em-up

10-05-2006, 01:43 PM

I recall Tom DeLay didn't resign all that quick!

But, don't you remember how deLay held a press conference proclaing his innocence and how the DA in Harris County had it in for him?

Speaking of DeLay, did any of you guys see the show they had on PBS Wednesday night about DeLay Abramoff and some of their friends. It covered how they were defauding several Indian tribes and others out of millions of dollars and how DeLay used his influence to do their bidding. Hopefully they will show it again.

On these political tests that we recently took on here, the main reason I was considered leaning to the left is because of my distrust for the government and the fact that I think business should be regulated or at least monitored. If you saw the program, you would see why. There is so much corruption in our government between dirty politicians and big business paying to get what they want, it makes me sick at my stomach to think about it. The almighty dollar has driven people into moral banckruptcy.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/capitol/watch.html

Paladin

10-05-2006, 02:59 PM

Well to be honest she was over 18 and note the word "she" when describing the one he made contact with. I don't feel Clinton was any more innocent than this guy but two factors differ from a social stand point, one is that "she" as in a different gender and the other is over 18 as in not ILLEGAL in tendency, yes it was immoral as all get out, but not illegal. The fact he is coming onto a boy (stipulates gay tendencies) who is under the age of 18(illegal to have sex with if you are an adult). I laugh at anyone who defends him by saying he never intended to have sex with these boys if given the opportunity, that is as believable as " I didn't inhale". I think the biggest issue is he is from the party that states it is the moral majority, i.e. a value system based off Christianity. I may not by a Christian scholar but I do not recall the bible approving of perverse conversations or homosexual desires, call me fickle :rolleyes:

I undersatnd about the age issue, but having sex with a subordinate, regardless of age, would get all executives of publically owned or accountable companies fired. This guy sent some horrible and offensive emails to children and should have been removed or resigned.

I still have an issue with anyone's credibility that can only see how Foley did wrong enough to resign but Clinton did not.

I have yet to see a Republican defend Foley and say he should not resign. I did not see any Democrrats say Clinton should resign. Hypocrisy by the Dems IMO.

Paladin

10-05-2006, 03:03 PM

And don't forget that it was Foley who, in 2003, was talking about how horrible "those people" were for preying on the innocent children.

For you Foley friends: To compare foley to the Monica isuue is just a desperate attempt to not accept that your republican leaders are capable of doing wrong. Afterall, they are all God fearing christians that could never do anything so morally incomprhensible..

I have yet to see a Republican who thinks Foley should stay. If anyone did, then they are wrong.

Clinton got a blowjob from a LEGAL consenting female who probably initiated the whole thing. Foley was talking dirty and who knows what else to an underage male. Not only is he guilty of doing that, but his cohorts in the government knew about it and they didn't feel (despite their christian superiority) like anything needed to be done about it. Clinton and Foley both did things considered wrong. The reps have been throwing the Clinton incident in the dems faces for the last 8 years. Now it's time for a little payback. So be a man and don't whine and complain like little girls about it the whole time.

Do you think Clinton having sex with a subordinate in his office and then lying about it did not justify the criticsm the Republicans gave him? How about all the Dems who kept silent about Clinton but are now screaming for Foley's head?

I say the Republican stance, that both Clinton and Foley did things that deserved removal from office, is the only honorable stance.

Paladin

10-05-2006, 09:46 PM

Gerry Studds was a Democrat representative who had sex with a male page he had gotten drunk who was only 16 at the time. He was the first representative to go public about his homosexuality. This "outing" happened of course after the censure about having sex with a 16 year old male page he got drunk came out.

I saw several stories from some unverified sites that I didn't want to post and get flamed on because they were right-wing or less than credible. I am sure someone can find the story from an offical news site.

Newt Gingrich said the page was drunk and claimed rape, but the story I saw was that the allegation came out when the page was 26, 10 years after the incident. That may explain the lack of criminal prosecution, since the statute of limitations had probably expired. There must be some proof since the censure was done after a hearing and Newt called for his expulsion. Apparently Nancy Pelosi and some other Democratic leaders were able to negotiate a deal to keep him from being expelled. Pelosi even voted for him as chair of his committe 4 times AFTER the censure came. This is all according to Newt Gingrich.

I sure wonder if any of the current democratic leaders //coughs and looks at Nancy Pelosi// remember a time when it was OK for Studds (what a name for a homosexual LOL) to have sex with underage pages? HMMMMMMM...

Oh yeah, this guy was one of Bill Clinton's pardons.

Pro Trash

10-05-2006, 10:51 PM

I undersatnd about the age issue, but having sex with a subordinate, regardless of age, would get all executives of publically owned or accountable companies fired. This guy sent some horrible and offensive emails to children and should have been removed or resigned.

I still have an issue with anyone's credibility that can only see how Foley did wrong enough to resign but Clinton did not.

I have yet to see a Republican defend Foley and say he should not resign. I did not see any Democrrats say Clinton should resign. Hypocrisy by the Dems IMO.

Foley didn't give anyone a chance to argue that point for he resigned immediately. I agree Clinton should have been removed from office long before the perjury issue simply based of the immoral issue and the Presidency has no place for such behavior.