Very disturbing, first time I read some of the things he wrote. Silly bot, but uses lines from Foley http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/29/193826/500 I don't like the whole "let's get treatment for alcoholism" thing, it's like blaming the alcohol for it.
This is becoming more and more a problem as you have noted they are blaming a product, alcohol, for the root cause of their own misdemeanors, crimes and predatory instincts 100% not acceptable as an excuse
Everyone seems to blame some sort of substance for misbehaviour. Anything to avoid responsibility. Alcohol doesn't "make you a bad person", it brings the bad out in you.
Of amazing coincidence; Gary Studds just dyed. He was censured in 1983 for engaging in sex w/ a page a decade earlier. I didn't know the history on the case. Studds represented Cape Cod in Massachusetts. That is a very Gay region and after being censured and going back to the district the people kept reelecting him for several terms. Per what I read on msnbc, the page later came back and supported Studds. significant differences between then and now...but also significant differences with the make up of the districts between the areas Foley represented and the district Studds represented. I would guess that the time frame difference between when Studds acted with the page and when Congress dealt with it....had a tremendous impact on censure rather than forcing him out immediately.
It might depend on the age of consent in DC. Last I knew some states were 18 and some 16. BTW, what's the age of consent for Ho's on MySpace.
My bet is this guy broke the law - recidivist as this particular nonsense historically is I'd be willing to lay odds. I believe the whole catastrophe well worth investigating. Again, I ask, ex post facto notwithstanding, if someone KNEW about his illegal activity, whether it occured before the passage of this law or not, and COVERED IT UP!!! would not THIS person be liable? Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...
Liable for what? Is "covering up" a non-crime somehow a crime? My wife just made tacos. If I don't tell someone in the government about the tacos, can I be held liable for not doing so?
lol... Will, you write: Yes, under these circumstances, yes, I believe it would be. Let us say a man committed a criminal act, and then received executive clemency, is the cover-up of that crime by a public official also indemnified by that pardon? I believe not. Your wife's tacos notwithstanding.
In your example, the actions were criminal at the time they were conducted. In Foley's example, the actions were not criminal at the time they were conducted. I keep checking this thread, hoping that someone will post something to disprove my working theory.
Well, Nixon's actions were never judged criminal, his subsequent pardon notwithstanding, just ask Colson.
Chuck Colson pleaded no contest to a charge of obstruction of justice. Let's look at the sub-sections of obstruction of justice: Assault on process server Resistance to extradition agent Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally Influencing juror by writing Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees Theft or alteration of record or process; false bail Picketing or parading Recording, listening to, or observing proceedings of grand or petit juries while deliberating or voting Obstruction of court orders Obstruction of criminal investigations Obstruction of State or local law enforcement Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant Civil action to restrain harassment of a victim or witness Civil action to protect against retaliation in fraud cases Definitions for certain provisions; general provision Obstruction of Federal audit Obstructing examination of financial institution Obstruction of criminal investigations of health care offenses Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy Destruction of corporate audit records Please name a defendant and an offense which you believe they committed and we will work from there.
Again, Mr. Spencer, your entire premise is that no one, not even a congressman, was involved in any criminal act as a result of Foley's actions. First off you exonerate a man at the beginning of a called investigation, secondly you seem unable to decipher how it is that one man may not be charged while another, who had nothing to do with the primary act, may. You are historically inaccurate, resistent to supposition and application of precedent, and, well, just plain stubborn here You are wrong and my bet is Foley is guilty of a crime. Oh, happy day Obviously this has to do with registry of convicted sex offenders... it is ex post facto law, and another bit of Foley precedent Again, the investigation continues, until it concludes and I am told otherwise, I will bet on Foley having his freak on for these young pages post passage of this bill. That's number one. Number two: It will be proven and others will also resign in disgrace to avoid prosecution.
First, resigning does not do anything to avoid prosecution. Resigning is a political issue, not a criminal one. The authoritities of law enforcement don't care where you work when they take you to trial. Second, you should list the source of your quote. Matthew Gross is a Democratic party hack and propagandist blogger -- not an expert on Constitutional law. Third, you really should read up on when ex post facto laws are considered unconstitutional and when they are not before you post again. You are letting your emotions get the better of you.
Again, this is about as ridiculous a statement on this issue as you have yet summoned. You must be wearing your historical blinders this morning. As per the quote of the democratic whoever. See, Mr. Spencer, unlike yourself, I am not on any team and therefore think independantly, both politically and religiously (that's why I'm an Independant Fundamental). I find truth where truth is, and took the time (far too much time) to try and answer you. I actually believe you are rather full of yourself on this issue and shall leave you to the banquet. My bet is he's guilty... and I've already paid the vig.
So too are Democrats... The irony here is, Gerry Studds actually had sex with a 17 year old page, and after being censured, continued to work, get re-elected and never once appolgized for raping a young kid. Foley just had conversations, apologized and resigned voluntarily. It's also kinda ironic that Studds was taping high school ass the same year Foley graduated high school. Yep, Democrats are sick people. I find it even more ironic that when Republicans do something acceptable, Democrats call for their heads, jail time, impeachment, etc... Democrats do the same thing, they get away Scott Free... Everything from raping a child (Studds) to murdering a young women (Teddy). Yep, Democrats are sick people too. "gay national politician in the U.S. In 1983, he admitted to having had an affair with a 17-year-old page in 1973 and was censured by the House of Representatives."
Hahahahahahahahahahha!!!!!!! Right on the money!!! Hyprocracy, like truth, is wherever you find it. People have always been my greatest disappointments. Heck, just ask my mirror.