2006-10-06 11:45:03 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Obviously.
2006-10-06 11:46:51 · answer #1 · answered by OnOneDreamsAnyway 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
the priority is complicated, simply by subject concerns with getting info. The website replace right into a criminal minor on the time, and the kinfolk refused to launch info. Legally, they are in a position to't rigidity the priority. If the kinfolk comments that the touch ended, they are in a position to warn him, yet without further data, there is not any longer plenty greater they are in a position to do. Then there is the criminal question of what extremely handed off? Age sixteen is the age of consent in D.C. Emails do no longer in all probability symbolize an offense. Ethically, they are in a position to reprimand him, yet previous that, there extremely isn't plenty greater which could be accomplished. what's eye-catching, traditionally, is the Studds comparision in 1983 the place the congressman (D) quite had sexual kinfolk with the website (additionally over sixteen yet under 18) and alter into no longer ejected from the domicile, and alter into re-elected. So there is likewise no precedent for coping with a case like this.
2016-12-13 03:29:10 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, sorry to bust your bubble. Just like they know where Ben Laden is, but is either hiding the information in order to make a grand finale or to make some sort of statement that will benefit their own means at the approiate time of convince. Trust me, this government knows everything they need to know when needed. They were going to release the information on Foley at a more convenient time that was NOT now, before the election.
2006-10-06 12:15:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is it true that the Democratic leadership knew about Clinton's sexual habits, such as infildelities and harrassment of women before he was elected in 1992?
So Foley was a bad seed, you think he's the only one? Do you think no Democrat is a pervert underneath?
2006-10-06 12:05:08 · answer #4 · answered by Jeffrey S 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, and it is also true that a gay democratic party senator in the 1980's was guilty of not only gay messages, but actually having sex with a male minor under his employ. The whole of senate gave him a written warning as a punishment to which he turned his back on them when they read it to him. When he was given the opportunity to confront the issue in front of the entire senate afterwards, he told them that he was gay and he couldn't help being that way and that was the end of it. The senate was a democratic majority at the time and they all gave him a standing ovation. Hooray for the double standard!!!
2006-10-06 11:50:36 · answer #5 · answered by Eric T 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Totally untrue. The Pages parents spoke out today.
http://www.houmatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061006/APN/610061223
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/06/politics/main2070420.shtml
The Democrats are just trying to smear All Republicans and the Dems gullible voters gleefully lap it up. However you might ask who had the IM`s for 3 years and said nothing until earlier this week. I believe that is a real crime.
2006-10-06 12:01:16 · answer #6 · answered by Gone Rogue 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What difference does it make if true?
Age of consent in Wahington DC is 16 and you must be 16 to be a page.
Sooooo.....what is the big deal.....just sex...as the democrats have said in the past!!
2006-10-06 12:14:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe it was the Democratic staffers who had the info, just goes to show Reps and Dems in Washington are all ruthless jerks.
2006-10-06 12:02:08 · answer #8 · answered by Zen 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. He may have been told about an email or 2, but they were nothing like the instant messages. ABC had also been shown the emails, and they obviously thought nothing of them either.
2006-10-06 11:49:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I heard '94. I think the whole congress knew though
2006-10-06 11:47:12 · answer #10 · answered by buckylask 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋