Since when is this nonsense, this behavior new? In twenty days no one will even remember his name. Thank goodness. One of the forgettables, a current black head in a future footnote of history. No, not even history - of records which no one will ever read. IN Christ
I am so sick of people using rehab as a sham to try to gain sympathy from prosecutors, judges, and juries. On the other hand, has Foley actually done anything that he can be charged for?
Well, let's first see if he can be charged. Or, let's work it more tactically and ask: What can Mark Foley be charged with?
Yes Will you are 'spot on' What can they get to 'stick' The R's are working O/T to make sure nothing 'sticks'
That is not at all true. I have yet to hear one Republican defend Mark Foley's actions. But back to my question, do you have any idea of what laws Foley might have broken?
No I have no exact knowledge and that seems to be the point that is preventing any charges being set. But seems like they are having the same problem too? If they could have found a law that he had broken surely he would have been charged by now? Is that not correct? ..................or do they need more time?
The question to my mind is not so much can Foley be charged, he should be removed in the disgrace he deserves... It is rather the other congressmen who kept his behavior a secret which would render their silence a collusion. Were a man to be judged innocent of a heinous crime due to insanity, wouldn't anyone else who was hiding his criminal behavior be, nonetheless, an accessory? And criminally so even if the primary perpetrator recieved his innocent verdict? If Foley's defense is that he was molested and a drunk, what excuses do his accessories offer? Just wondering.
In the United States, it can take years for the prosecution to prepare a case. Our Constitutional right to a speedy trial doesn't begin until the defendant has been formally accused of a crime. This could drag on for several years. The legal age of consent in the U.S. varies from state to state, in the District of Columbia it is 16. Everyone wants to get Mr. Foley, but he may have not committed any crimes. The Democrats want to get Mr. Foley because it could damage the Republican Party. The Republicans want to get Mr. Foley in revenge for the damage he has done to the Republican Party. I don't know if anyone actually cares about the damage which could be done by flirting with a 16yr old. And no, there is absolutely no chance that Mr. Foley is going to be able to plead innocent by reason of insanity. I'm not even sure how that came up.
The facts should be determined first. I've seen a good half a dozen "facts" this week, many contradicting each other. Dems have wasted no time (and no effort for that matter) in lobbing out accusations. If democrats convicted terrorists as fast as they convicted Foley, we wouldn't have a need for the patriot act. Anyone read Ann Coulter's latest regarding Foley? http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17381 She nailed it the same way democrats nail their pages
I was not suggesting Foley will be judged innocent because of insanity, lol, nor do I actually believe he committed a criminal act, he may be liable to suit for sexual harrassment, however. Now, if this happens to be the case, could not the congressmen who covered his antics up also be in collusion? I was sarcastically suggesting that even if Foley were to get off the hook because of his claims of sexual molestation by a priest, or alchoholism, does this excuse those who partook in the cover up? I think they are on shakier ground than he. At least, they should be. Foley's a sick sob... what are they?
That's exceptionally thin. I've never even heard of someone being charged as an accessory to sexual harassment. Is there even a statute for that? OK, I've done the barest bit of research on "sexual harassment": Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964 strictly prohibits sexual harassment. Title VII classifies sexual harassment claims into two categories: "quid pro quo" and "hostile work environment". Title VII, applies to any company with more than 15 employees when it comes to sexual harassment. The company must be in an industry affecting interstate commerce. Quid pro quo sexual harassment takes place when a supervisor or someone with authority over your job demands sexual favors from you in exchange for his/her assistance in promoting, hiring, or retaining you. The demand for sexual favors can be express, e.g. "If you go to bed with me, I will make sure you keep your job or get a raise", or it can be implied from unwelcomed physical conduct such as touching, grabbing or fondling. As an employee, you have a right to work in an environment that is free of discrimination, intimidation, insult and ridicule. You have a potential claim for hostile work environment if the sexual harassment unreasonably interferes with your work performance or creates an offensive or intimidating work environment. In order to have a claim for hostile work environment, you must be able to prove that there was more than a single incident of harassment you may also have to show that the sexual conduct was unwelcome. It would be hellishly difficult to try to show that these conditions have been met by any of Mr. Foley's known actions. Moreover, even if we were to be able to make a case for that, I am not seeing where Mr. Foley can be charged criminally for this. This appears to be a civil matter for which all penalties are financial. In laymans terms -- this is not a crime. Therefore, by extension, no one can be charged as an accessory to something which is not a crime. Therefore, I ask again: What crimes can we charge this dirtbag with? What crime has he committed?
Again, I state, I do not know of any criminal charges HE could be charged with... but now his superiors who covered up his involvement may well be. Not because of Foley's actions but because of their cover up of them, if this could be proven. Precedent in another political environment could be found in Watergate alone. Cover ups are ILLEGAL. And what I think you might be missing here is that while the perpetrator of sexual harrassment on the job is, well, the perpetrator, the COMPANY is also liable. Especially when higher-ups have covered up the behavior. Precedent for this could be found recently in the Boston and New Orleans law suits against the Catholic Church. Not to mention ENRON. Not to mention that our law-makers are, in theory anyway, held to such higher standards. A-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!! Higher standards A-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!
Covering up a crime can be found to involve illegal acts, however: 1. We have yet to identify a crime here. 2. Even if we are able to identify a crime, we then have to identify any crimes which may have been committed by any other individuals. It is quite improper for you to continue as you are, without even being able to identify a single law that has been broken. So, let's all display a bit of intellectual rigor and stick to what must be question number one: What crimes can we charge Mark Foley with?
Was Gary Condit ever prosecuted for murdering his intern? She was old enough that there was no stick just because he was fucking her. None of the Democrats seemed to worry about "sexual harassment" that time and no one seems to have mentioned it during this latest round of worries about the safety of Congressional pages. I guess it's OK to fuck 'em and kill 'em, but AIM is definitely out of the question.