Congressional Perversion

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by JackDog

There aren't any skeletons in the Dems closet because, unlike the Repubs, they're not forced to stay in the closet.

1. Grossly implausible.
2. How could you have evidence for it? "I haven't heard about the scandals that haven't yet broke"?

[JackDog]

You're the second person to quote me on that, so I'd might as well clarify myself. There are certainly skeletons in the Dems closet (William Jefferson just got busted for corruption), but since they embrace the gay community, they don't have as many sexual skeletons in their closet.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by JackDog

There aren't any skeletons in the Dems closet because, unlike the Repubs, they're not forced to stay in the closet. Democrats accept everyone,

Not everyone. They don't accept pedophiles...yet.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

From everything I have been hearing and reading, this would seem to be a fact that is in question.

What's a fact that's in question? That there has been an allegation?

Did the conduct about which the Republican leadership had definite knowledge rise to the level of actionable misconduct? From what I have been able to gather Foley was privately advised to discontinue behavior (basically paying excessive personal attention to pages) that was inappropriate, but not necessarily illegal, immoral or harmful. Would it have been appropriate to publicly reprimand Foley for behavior which may not have risen to the level of real misconduct, simply on the suspicion that it might indicate an inclination to engage in real misconduct? The question of what they knew and when they knew it is at the crux of the whole charge of a cover-up.

Fair enough, with the caveat that Hastert is likely lying about what he knew and when he knew it, as evidenced by the fact that he claims not to have recalled a documented conversation about Foley last spring. Sure, it's possible that he had a conversation about the possible sexual misconduct of a prominent member of his party and later forgot about it, like he has so many reports of Republican congressmen harrassing underage boys that that one in particular slipped his mind, but it's pretty unlikely. You'd think something like that would stick out in one's memory.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by yguy

Not everyone. They don't accept pedophiles...yet.

Whew...those pesky liberals might emberace pedohiles someday! Thank God the GOP is courageous enough to denounce pedophiles from the rooftops while quietly providing them with victims.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by Adam

Whew...those pesky liberals might embrace pedophiles someday!

Someday? Pat Buchanan's already out there saying Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton marched alongside a NAMBLA float in a NYC Gay Pride parade. At least, that's how he put it on teevee last night. He's a but more careful with his written words:

Hillary Clinton has marched in the annual New York Gay Pride Parade. For years, that parade had a float carrying members of NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, whose monomania is the elimination of the age of consent for sex between men and boys.

Mark Foley's Oprah Defense

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Someday? Pat Buchanan's already out there saying Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton marched alongside a NAMBLA float in a NYC Gay Pride parade. At least, that's how he put it on teevee last night. He's a but more careful with his written words:

Was Foley on the float? That's bipartisanship, Kyle!

[JackDog]

Yikes! Buchanan may be a bit more careful with his written words, but that doesn't stop him from presenting factual errors and slander as facts.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by JackDog

presenting factual errors and slander as facts.

Nah, Giuliani and Clinton are public figures. Buchanan is well protected by the First Amendment. But the inference he's trying to draw is pretty clear. The Faux News/WorldNutDaily crowd will be all over it.

[erimir]

His statements about Alfred Kinsey could be considered libelous... I dunno what the deal is with making such statements about people who are dead (but I presume he has living children and/or grandchildren).

[Legs]

Silly little CNN Video on the Fol-out from the Page scandal

[JackDog]

Originally Posted by erimir

His statements about Alfred Kinsey could be considered libelous...

That's what I meant to say....I tend to confuse slander and libel. Since I did mix up those two words, I should probably go re-learn their definitions. One of the other statements that kinda peeved me was this one:

Originally Posted by Pat Buchanan

Whether we admit it or not, many male homosexuals have a thing for teenage boys, which is why so many of them wind up with black eyes when they try to pick them up.

WTF is that all about?!? Replace homosexuals with heterosexuals, boys with girls, leave out the violence, and the statement is even truer (is that a word?). The part where he "justifies" gay-bashing made me almost as angry as his lies about Kinsey.

[D. Scarlatti]

Both are defamation: slander is spoken defamation while libel is written defamation, although the distinction isn't adhered to as rigidly as it once was. As for Kinsey, legally you can't defame him because he's dead.

[D. Scarlatti]

Best headline yet:

Foley's Bergere

[D. Scarlatti]

Today's unfortunate headline:

Church to probe priest who fondled Foley

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Today's unfortunate headline:

Church to probe priest who fondled Foley"

Do we consider the "Church" to be alien?

(It should have been "Prelates Prepare to Probe Priest Feared Fondling Foley.)

[JackDog]

Why did Foley release the priest's name to Florida prosecutors? I would think that even if what he did was against the law, the statute of limitations had to have run out years ago.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by JackDog

Why did Foley release the priest's name to Florida prosecutors? I would think that even if what he did was against the law, the statute of limitations had to have run out years ago.

I believe the question is when did the clock on the statute of limitations start running.

If it has run out, that might well have been the reason. No legal effect, but the public effect is more than negligible.

Or, are you saying that this is nothing but a stretch for symapathy and an attempt at rationalizing what he had done?

[JackDog]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Or, are you saying that this is nothing but a stretch for symapathy and an attempt at rationalizing what he had done?

I'm guessing that the statute of limitations expired at least 20 years ago, so that's basically what I'm saying. If the priest's actions were so bad, why did Foley wait so long until he reported him?

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by JackDog

I'm guessing that the statute of limitations expired at least 20 years ago, so that's basically what I'm saying. If the priest's actions were so bad, why did Foley wait so long until he reported him?

um....'Cause he enjoyed it?

He waited until the point that he needed a lame rationalization for his own actions.

[JackDog]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

um....'Cause he enjoyed it?

When you say something like that, you really need to use an emoticon...but I totally agree. It's funny that the pic that they've been using from Foley's altar boy years has him with a huge smile on his face and his hand on the priest's knee.

[Freddy]

In Florida Foley would have to convince a court that he did not remember the abuse until recently. See link.

http://www.smith-lawfirm.com/sol_Florida.html

[JackDog]

In addition to the statutory extensions, Florida has a "delayed discovery" doctrine which generally provides that the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the victim either knows or reasonably should know of the wrongful act giving rise to the cause of action. In Herndon v. Graham, 767 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 2000), the Florida Supreme Court held that the delayed discovery doctrine is applicable to repressed memory or 'traumatic amnesia' cases, stating that the statute of limitations does not begin to run (accrue) until the victim is aware that the abuse occurred.

Sounds kinda sketchy to me. Isn't repressed memory notoriously unreliable? Also, according to my reading of the Florida law and my understanding of the Foley situation, this priest isn't in any legal trouble--and Foley and his attorneys knew that, but released this pathetic excuse to the press anyway to gain sympathy.

[erimir]

I saw the yearbook photo of Foley at age 15 in Newsweek. I can see why the priest got "friendly" with him, *rowr*

I wouldn't go so far as to say that Foley enjoyed what happened, but he clearly did not think it was serious enough to warrant reporting (perhaps he would feel embarassment, or feared it could initiate further questioning of his sexuality) until it was politically useful to do so.