http://www.newsok.com/article/2951137/
2006-10-05 07:51:40 · 16 answers · asked by Shiraz the truth detector 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
the former page has hhired a lawyer becuase he is under FBI investigation
2006-10-05 07:53:59 · update #1
HELLVA--he is not condoning anything. However if the IMs went to an 18 year old instead of a 17 year old the Libs will have nothing to point fingers at. And Foley resigned in SHAME over this-he disgraced his position and office and violated the trust of his constituents---something the Dems have NO CLUE on. After all--it's just about sex isn't it? Or does that only apply to Democrats?
2006-10-05 08:00:32 · answer #1 · answered by Cherie 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋
You sound as if you are bound and determined to support this creep no matter what you have to twist to do so. The page was 16 when the inappropriateness occurred, and he is not the only page now coming forward. Congressmen/women are in loco parentis to the pages that work for them. Their conduct is to be that of a parent, not a predator. Whether a page is 16 or 18, the responsiblity of the Congressperson does not diminish.
The main question here to me seems to be why you are so eager to paint Foley as smeared? Are you seriously suggesting that what he did was acceptable by any standards? You should be more careful, you're coming off sounding like a predator yourself.
Also, DUH of course the former page has hired an attorney. He has a right to protect himself legally from oh hell I don't know - people like yourself?
2006-10-05 15:13:12 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Foley has been indulging in this behavior for years, according to his accusers. There is more than one child involved. Or, to refute your specific claim, put it this way; even if there is only one child involved, the fact that he was reported for the problem 3 years ago makes the now 18-year-old only 15 at the time.
No matter how you spin it, he is guilty of a sexual crime against a minor. Don't expect that to go away, even if the email that is in the news right now was sent to an 18-year-old. His electronic records have been requested by the House Ethics Committee. He resigned VERY quickly; I doubt very much he would have resigned at all if he knew an investigation would clear him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/washington/05cnd-hastert.html?hp&ex=1160107200&en=ed644f3ba9b42abf&ei=5094&partner=homepage
2006-10-05 15:14:32 · answer #3 · answered by functionary01 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It was not an 18 year old . .It was a 16 year old. But a 16 year old is not considered a minor at that age in Washington DC. No matter what age it was .. it was, at the very least, ethically wrong. More pages are also coming forward saying that they told the top staff of the problem over 3 years ago. Which does not match up with the time line that Hastert was saying before. The whole thing stinks ! :)
2006-10-05 14:55:21 · answer #4 · answered by tysavage2001 6 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Are you actually defending Mark Foley? - talk about a credibility buster.
What about the many other pages who had sordid conversations with Foley?
Find someone else to defend - this is a losing case.
2006-10-05 15:05:24 · answer #5 · answered by Derek D 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Now, do you republicans lie knowingly or are you just passing on lies and distortions that you've been sold.
We've been watching bush and my dh and i have been saying for years now - this man could rape and kill his daughter on tv and people would still excuse him and love him. this foley matter comes closer to proving that republicans will go along with anything as long as a republican does it.
it's been an amazing display of 'situational ethics' i've seen this the republicans first started throwing that phrase around to, as usual, accuse their opponents of exactly what they're doing.
You people are the limit. Traitors in our midst.
2006-10-05 14:58:39 · answer #6 · answered by cassandra 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Apparantly you didn't read the part in your own post where it says "he would have been 16 or 17 at the time". Also you don't seem to be aware that there were IM's and emails sent to more than one page.
But I am not suprised at this, you always do a good job of expressing your ignorance.
2006-10-05 14:58:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
It's not a smear if he really did it.... LOL Last time I checked he said what he did was wrong, he quit in the blink of an eye, and has gone on to blame both alcohol and the Catholic Church for his chasing teenagers for sex. WHATEVER.
He's right where he needs to be, out of a job. Hastert better be next.....
2006-10-05 15:00:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
God. REALLY trying to make this into something you can deal with, aren't ya?
Several pages have some forward, and many of them were under 18 when this started. Try again, You Phail.
"The smear on Foley." LOL...god, that's rich. Thanks for the laughs.
2006-10-05 14:53:55 · answer #9 · answered by jonjon418 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Record time...2 days to figure out a way to condone Foley's behavior...I wish he knew he was innocent, before he resigned...
2006-10-05 14:53:19 · answer #10 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋