What about sexual contact with a kid 16 and up? (Aravosis nails it)

[MADem]

Foley's lawyer just said the following on TV:
Let me make something perfectly clear. There was absolutely never any inappropriate sexual contact with any minor.
But as an astute reader just emailed me, in many states, including apparently DC, 16 is the age of consent. Below 16, you're a minor. 16 and up, you're not a minor.

So Foley's lawyer just said he never had sex with any 15 year olds. And yes, all pages are 16 and up, from what we've heard. So the question is whether Foley had sex with anyone under 18, and with anyone he met in the page program?

One more thing, his lawyer keeps saying Mark is not a pedophile. That's nice. But pedophilia is generally considered having sex with a prepubescent, usually under 13. So that again begs the question of whether Foley preys on young children.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/10/what-about-sexual-contact-with-kid-16.html

[Greybnk48]

1. Excellent, K&R n/t

[hedda_foil]

2. Tweety said the same thing right after the bogus press conf.

[texasleo]

3. and he was "molested" from age 13-15. Strange that his page was 16.

[DaveJ]

4. Glad that's settled...

I'm sure the pages and their parents are satisfied now. :eyes:

[MADem]

8. No one is excusing the behavior.

John pointed out that the LAWYER "parsed" to essentially deny that the bum molested MINORS or that he was a PEDOPHILE, when in fact what he did was prey on youngsters inappropriately.

And that lawyer may be on shaky ground, because the federal laws might not support his claim....

[DaveJ]

12. Understood...

Yea I understand, thanks for posting the info. I knew Repukes would start making the claim 'but technically he didn't break the law' and all that crap. I just think that regardless he made some serious enemies.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. Yup. If you really want to get technical, a pedophile is somebody who

is sexually attracted to prepubescent children; a person who is interested in adolescents is called a hebephile. So even if Foley actually was fooling around with these 16- to 17-year-old pages, it would be technically true to say he isn't a pedophile. Weasel words, of course.

[Skidmore]

6. Begs the question indeed. He preys on minor children and

uses weasal words and parsing to excuse his behavior. His behavior is contemptible and jaded. If what the lawyer said is true it is even more contemptible because he was so goddamned manipulative and sociopathic that he sought to preserve himself while screwing up the lives of these boys. If this had happened to my son when he was that age, believe me, I would have gone ballistic. Freaking congressperson that he is or not. You don't mess with my minor child.

[Swamp Rat]

7. Mark Foley is an ephebophile.

He may also be a pedophile, but hasn't been caught yet.

[SoCalDem]

9. Sorry.. If you need a parent's signature on a consent form

to BE a page, and you are confined in a dorm for your safety, well..you're a kid..technically you may be able to "consent" and are not a minor in the sense of sexuality, but just try and sign a legally binding contract or get married or do any other thing that involves legality..If you are not 18..you have to get a parent's permission..

It's the 52 yr old grown up vs 16 yr old child on loan from their parents thing that's the issue here..and if it is not against the law, why did he hide it?

[sunnystarr]

42. I just wanted to add ...

How is this different than a teacher having sex or sexually expoiting a student? If 16 is legal then ask those family value voters if it's ok for teachers to do it. Then ask if it holds true for a 52 year old teacher. Or how about a principal?

[DaveJ]

10. Don't foget the alchohol...

...it appears he was serving it to the underaged.

[Swede Atlanta]

11. Let's "reframe" the issue

I don't think any of us, as we age, aren't cognizant that we are occasionally observant in a young man or woman, depending on your sexual orientation. Let's face it, it isn't all about sex but just looking back on our own past and the vigor and innocence of youth. I don't see anything perverted in appreciating the beauty of youth and maybe a daydream or two. But taking that attraction beyond the mental to action, physical or "virtual" crosses the line with me. Even if these young pages were over the age of legal consent, what is a 50+ year old gay man doing engaging in sexually explicit exchanges with a page. I don't care whether he was a straight man hitting on a female, a straight woman hitting on a male, a gay woman hitting on a female or a gay man hitting on a male, the issue is the same. This is simply inappropriate conduct for our elected officials.

Foley may never face criminal charges but the reality is the same. He preyed on young, largely innocent young men for his own sexual gratification. Legal or not there is something wrong with that.

And in full disclosure, I am an openly gay man.

[MADem]

15. Well, I have to say I'd love how he'll explain the alcohol aspect

Providing booze to minors, even if they aren't "sexual" minors, is a bozo no-no!

I think he actually will be in hot water; even though DC law might not get him, his own internet law might....

It's funny though--Bob Dole saying "down boy" in a Pepsi commercial (which I found pretty disgusting, given the Viagra ads) while watching Britney Spears didn't get many outraged comments. I get the feeling lusting after young ladies is more acceptable in society...and of course, one can always use the "she's a slutty temptress who lied about her age" excuse if one gets caught.

[tsuki]

21. Parents send their children to learn about the workings of a democracy.

In exchange, they are guaranteed that they will be monitored and secure. Having the monitors and the security prey upon their children is broken trust. The entire program becomes a lie and worse. We cannot trust our government to work for our and our children's best interests.

[Carni]

29. Foley's type was commonly known as a *dirty old man* in my day

He's gross-- and I would think that if he had been IM'ing underling female pages.

[elehhhhna]

39. thank you for an excellent post and

WELCOME to DU!

[madrchsod]

13. the average person that reads this or hears it

are not going to care about the technicalities of the law. they are disgusted and they are pissed and that`s what really counts

[MADem]

19. Oh, of course, but John's point was that the lawyer was trying to

sleaze out of it by saying "Poor Mark is a gay drunk. And those minors, ya see...they weren't TECHNICALLY minors...you can screw 'em in DC if they're 16 and up, see!!!!"

Let's not talk about supplying alcohol to minors, that's too confusing.

Next thing ya know, the lawyer will come forth with "Those flirty lads were ASKING for it."

Ain't equal opportunity interesting? The "nuts and sluts" defense CAN be applied to males as well as females, potentially....

[The Wielding Truth]

28. Not against their will, you can't! If they were in a vulnerable position

and pressured to submit, it is rape. It is sexual abuse.

[MADem]

30. That issue hasn't come to the fore and no accusations have yet been made

John's point (and he is a lawyer) is that the lawyer for Foley is parsing. He's not APPROVING of the guy's approach, he is simply pointing out that when the lawyer DENIES sexual contact with minors, it could be that the reason he is ABLE to deny it is because the kids were not technically MINORS under DC law.

What John is saying is that the lawyer might just be BULLSHITTING, see?

Having an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate is a cause for censure, but it doesn't result in jail time. Molesting a minor will result in jail time. Thus, the parsing of the lawyer becomes significant.

[Swede Atlanta]

20. Agree on that level

But again, is suggesting alcohol in an instant message breaking the law. All of this conduct, with someone as young as these pages were is totally inappropriate. We should be able to expect the best from our elected officials. Shouldn't we be attracting the brightest and best among us to lead us? I think the founding generation were represented by their very best. They all had foibles, differences and issues but they were men of great dignity, intelligence and compassion (except of course for the slaves, which is another matter altogether and something their time should be charged with).

[Oeditpus Rex]

14. I doubt most voters will care

about the age of consent in D.C.

[MADem]

31. Hey, he's not running,..he's out of it. His lawyer is trying like hell to

keep him OUTTA JAIL. That's why these word games are significant, see?

[Oeditpus Rex]

32. Yeah, but in the bigger picture

it isn't about Foley going to jail or to Fire Island or anywhere else. It's about public perception of the Republic Party with the mid-terms in 35 days.

[MADem]

34. Oh sure, but in the context of this thread, it's what the lawyer is doing

to try to save Foley's ass....

[Oeditpus Rex]

38. Okay

I'll give you that one.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

16. Well thought out! K&R

[intheflow]

17. If he's talking about hard ons with 16-y-o's, that's sexual contact.

Even if he didn't physically touch any of the pages, he has still made an impression on them at an impressionable age, when they are not psychologically in the adult developmental stage.

[karlrschneider]

37. Talking about hardons is sexual contact? So what about all those

Viagra commercials? Are those guys having sex with 10 million TV watchers? Jeezus....

[intheflow]

40. There's a difference between alluding to sex in an ad and

one-on-one IMs. Hell, there's a difference between explicit lyrics/music videos and one-on-one talking. One instance is directed to a broad audience, and another is targeted to an individual. It's apples and oranges, imo.

I was sexually active when I was 15--with 15-18 year-olds, my school peers. I don't have a problem with teen-on-teen sex or gay sex, as long as it's informed, consensual and safe. But I was totally freaked out when a 50+ man hit on me when I was 16. THAT was gross and creepy and just plain wrong.

[karlrschneider]

45. That happened to me too, many times. I just said 'no thanks'

and that was it. How did you handle that situation? Obviously you aren't permanently scarred..for life...if the guy had been 30 would it have been less freaky? 40? What are the exact parameters?...I really don't know. Are there mitigating circumstances, like that Annie Nicole what'shername who married a guy 60 years her senior (I don't know the details but it apparently was somewhat shocking to many people)...I think Hugh Hefner still diddles teenage girls (maybe for money?)...is that a 'perverse'
situation? What about teenage boys who 'hustle' guys coming out from gay bars? That's something you
can find in any fair-sized city. I gotta tell ya, it's damn hard to discuss these things dispassionately around here without seeming to defend a sexual predator (or getting accused of being
one as I've been.)

A few DUers have savaged me for suggesting that Foley ought to have a fair trial before conviction.
Isn't that what we've all been screaming about concerning the Gitmo 'detainees'? It seems that
embracing equal justice has become passe' for some around here.
:eyes:

[intheflow]

49. Not permanently scarred, but

still creeped out 25 years later. Actually had a few of those things happen to me in my teens, but was pretty tough and streetwise, so knew how to take care of myself.

Anna Nicole Smith was an adult when she married that old guy. She was married (or at least a mother) at 17, but that was with a guy who was 16. I don't care who Hefner diddles as long as they're 18 or older.

This is the issue: 18 is legal, 16 is jailbait. I'd be willing to bet that any state in which 16 might be legal to be married without consent probably also has sodomy laws still on the books that they pursue to keep "them thar homasexshuls in thar place"--in other words, 16 as age of consent probably applies to boy and girls that get knocked up, but not to boy-on-boy relationships.

As for the underage boys who hustle men coming out of the gay bars, I've known a few of them. The guys I knew all had other problems that drove them to hustle outside gay bars, such as they were run aways (from homes that didn't accept their homosexuality, or we physically or sexually abusive to them), they had bad drug habits (crack and heroin, mostly) and they were all alcoholics. They hustled for money, drugs, and drink, they were not looking for sex for sex's sake alone. They hustled to survive.

This is an entirely different social problem than older men who pursue mid-teen boys. I mean, an adult man walks out of a bar and finds a person willing to have sex with him for money, that's prostitution business as usual. (Not good, not to be condoned, but as old as the hills.) But a person who goes out of their way to pursue underage teens of any sex is a different thing entirely. Then the onus is on the adult pursuing, not the teen being pursued. There is nothing I've read in any of these Foley accounts to suggest those emails and IMs were solicited or even particularly welcomed by these teens.

I agree, Foley should be tried in a court of law. But on the other hand, if it were my son he was IMing... I'd be in the streets demanding the media cover it luridly and in exacting detail every inch of the way.

[karlrschneider]

52. I guess I understant, mostly...or some

I'm sorry you're still creeped about something from 25 years ago. If you were tough and streetwise,
wouldn't that have been a pretty effective defense against such an event? I guess I don't quite get that. But you say 18 is legal and 16 is jailbait...that depends on the laws of any particular state.
So it might or might not be true. I'm assuming you know the Supreme Court invalidated "Sodomy" laws
a couple years ago? So whatever you or I might think about it, they addressed it, it's a done deal.
The application to "minors"...another arbitrary classification, is likewise dependent on the venue.

As to the hustlers, and to the extent they do what they do only for money, according to them in many cases, one wonders why they do that in lieu of servicing females, a clearly significant source of
clientele. The reason is, as I've been told by these same guys, is that they prefer it that way.

It's damnably difficult to defend someone's right to a fair hearing who has basically been convicted
in a public forum. I understand that. But I can't in good conscience ignore the replies from some
of the "kids" in the alleged IM "logs" we've seen. If a kid had been truly offended by Foley's
comments, I have to wonder why he would keep up the conversation replying the way he (they) did.

Saddam Hussein is on trial. He at least got that much. Hundreds of alleged 'illegal combatents'
have yet to have a day in court. We are properly incensed about that yet some of us are willing
to convict this Foley guy just because he's a Republican. He's probably guilty. So why can't we
give him the same opportunity we DUers are so emphatic about giving the Gitmo prisoners?

[jberryhill]

60. So, Sex-Ed Teachers are engaging in "sexual contact" with teens?

Is that your point?

[progdonkey]

18. Exactly, whenever one of these Repub lawyers say ANYTHING...

You have to read it as a lawyer. Every word is chosen carefully.

"My client never touched any 12-year-old's butt (but that doesn't mean he didn't touch her breasts.)" etc.

[MADem]

22. Or that the kid was thirteen when it happened!!!

Parsing, parsing and more parsing...every word picked like a fresh flower!

[karlrschneider]

23. I read that 5 times and can't see any point.

??

[MADem]

25. The point is the lawyer is playing word games to mitigate his client's

guilt.

[karlrschneider]

33. The way you pasted the article didn't make it clear who was saying what.

Here:

Foley's lawyer just said the following on TV:

Let me make something perfectly clear. There was absolutely never any inappropriate sexual contact with any minor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is the end of the quote from Foley's Attorney, there was nothing to indicate that what follows
was commentary on the quote:

But as an astute reader just emailed me, in many states, including apparently DC, 16 is the age of consent. Below 16, you're a minor. 16 and up, you're not a minor.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 'astute reader' simply stated a fact that doesn't appear to be in question.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So Foley's lawyer just said he never had sex with any 15 year olds. And yes, all pages are 16 and up, from what we've heard. So the question is whether Foley had sex with anyone under 18, and with anyone he met in the page program?

One more thing, his lawyer keeps saying Mark is not a pedophile. That's nice. But pedophilia is generally considered having sex with a prepubescent, usually under 13. So that again begs the question of whether Foley preys on young children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think he knows what "begging the question" means.

[MADem]

35. The entire paste is from John's blog, without commentary

The writer is no idiot. He used to work for Madeleine Albright. He's smart as a whip.

[karlrschneider]

36. No, not with commentary but with no way to separate quotes from opinion.

That is what I am objecting to.
It was fairly clear in the LINK but the way you copied and pasted, everything looked exactly the same, it was impossible to tell who was saying what.

[MADem]

61. Uh, the way I copied and pasted was EXACTLY as it appeared

at John's blog. I didn't adjust anything. I dragged and dropped, and that was that. No editorializing on my part whatsoever.

[jberryhill]

50. It doesn't matter what his lawyer says on TV

If Foley had sexual contact with someone under the age of 16 in DC or FL, he's going to jail.

His lawyer can claim Foley invented a cure for cancer. It won't change the facts.

[MADem]

62. Well, of course

The point I was making (or more correctly, John was making) is that the lawyer is doing a massive spin job. He's throwing it all up against the wall, and he is playing word games specifically with the word MINOR. We all know a kid under 18 is a minor in some sense of the word (can't drink or vote or join the military) but in terms of sexual contact, the "minor" lines are different depending on the state.

It's unlikely that the cretin DID have relations with anyone under sixteen. It's likely that he stayed within the letter of the state laws, and thought he was too clever by half. That was the point that John was making.

[BlueEyedSon]

24. He's a hebephile (or ephebophile). Look it up.

[glitch]

26. The lawyer sure seems to be admitting a lot with his parsing.

Yikes, it is worse that initially disclosed. Which is of course why he resigned.

[truthisfreedom]

27. San Diego. don't forget San DIego! if he had sex with a minor there,

as was hinted in one of the IM's, he is toast. and there is this... where was the page during this cybersex?


http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/new_foley_insta.html

[jberryhill]

51. I've been waiting for someone to Google up...

...any report of visits that Foley made to San Diego...

[Egalitariat]

41. Has anybody alleged that he committed a crime?

Or is he just a hypocrit? That's what confuses me.

[karlrschneider]

53. He has already been convicted and sentenced. Didn't you notice?

...

[jberryhill]

65. Well, lots of folks are shouting "criminal"

...but I haven't seen a single statutory provision cited.

For example, the Adam Walsh act gets a lot of general references, but it doesn't seem as if those throwing it around have actually looked at it. That's understandable to some extent since most statutes, as passed, can be hard to read since they include long recitations of things to be inserted into various existing statutes. What people then do is pull one of the inserts out of context of the statutory provision to which it applies and say things like "The Adam Walsh Act defined 'minor' as 18 federally" or words to that effect, without bothering to notice that while, yes, the word 'minor' is used in the federal sexual abuse statutes, you'll come across a lot of specific behavior involving "a minor under the age of 16", etc.

It would be helpful to point out a specific statutory offense, with reference to the elements required for that offense, to consider whether Foley committed a crime based on the facts known to date, but if you try to walk through any specific statute you will be accused of "defending" Foley.

Apparently, being called a "sex criminal" must be something like being an "enemy combatant", such that a clear reference definition isn't needed. Here, have a pitchfork and a torch.

[lumberjack_jeff]

43. The best response is: "No minors? Okay, what about juveniles?" n/t

[buddysmellgood]

44. Call talk radio programs and ask about Republicans and pedophilia. Say

it as much as you can. Ask for explanations. Republicans and pedophilia. Are our children safe around republicans?

[MissMarple]

46. Two things: position of trust and internet communication.

He is a predator. They tend to gather where there are vulnerable groups of people.

Additionally, some of those pages may be fifteen years old.

[MADem]

64. No, not anymore. In 1983, I think, they changed the rule

It USED to be pages could be as young as 14. Now they must be at least sixteen, and most are sixteen and seventeen; juniors and seniors in high school. They get to do one semester or one summer session. They pay them what would work out to nineteen grand a year, but they take out four hundred a month for dorm fees and breakfast and dinner (they are on their own for lunch). It used to be your polticially contributing parents could get you the gig; now though, you have to have good grades (if you contribute to someone on the page committee that probably doesn't hurt).

[TorchTheWitch]

47. The lawyer if full of shit on two counts

"Let me make something perfectly clear. There was absolutely never any inappropriate sexual contact with any minor."

First, "sexual contact" includes ANY sexual contact whether it is physical, on the phone, or in regular mail or over the internet in emails or IM's. The lawyer is claiming there was no sexual contact and there absolutely was... the IM's were contact and they were sexual.

Second, ANYONE under the age of 18 is a minor. Makes no difference that you can have sex at 16 in DC or not... if you are not yet 18 you are a minor. People are allowed to drive at 16, but they are still minors until they turn 18. There is no gray area of who is a minor and who is an adult according to the law, and this lawyer knows that. You are a minor until you turn 18 with all it's associated privileges and burdens, and if you are 18 or older, you are an adult with all it's associated privileges and burdens. At certain ages before becoming an adult at 18 there are certain privileges you may be old enough to be granted such as driving or having sex depending upon the laws.

When sexual contact is inter-state (and by "sexual contact" that can be physical or phone or internet or regular mail) federal law trumps state, and federal law says that sexual contact with "a minor" is illegal. Since the law also determines that "a minor" is a person under the age of 18, than Foley having sexual contact of any type (physical or otherwise) is illegal. The IM's at least were inter-state, therefore if Foley spoke sexually with anyone under the age of 18 in those IM's, he broke federal law.

Incidently, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 signed into law last July provides that the law can be applied retroactively...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Walsh_Child_Protection_and_Safety_Act
Other elements:

Gives the U.S. Attorney General the authority to apply the law retroactively (cf. ex post facto law).

Foley is toast... no wonder he's hiding in rehab and his attorney is trying desparately to tug at the potential jury pool's heartstrings on his client's behalf. He already knows Foley is going to be arrested and tried. I'll not be surprised if Foley kills himself.


On Edit: There is no way in the world I believe that Foley had no physical sexual contact with minors whether consented to or not. The very idea that he didn't at least grope a minor is beyond belief... he just hasn't been caught out on that yet, and I bet evidence of it is coming.

[jberryhill]

48. "Sexual Contact" is defined in 18 USC 2246 by the terms of the Walsh Act

the IM's were contact and they were sexual.

That's absurd.

The federal definition of "Sexual Contact" for the purpose of crimes under the relevant section of 18 U.S.C. is:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002246----000-.html

(3) the term “sexual contact” means the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;

[TorchTheWitch]

55. That's not what we're talking about

You sound like Foley's attorney. The whole point to that attorney claiming there was no sexual contact was because he was going by the legal definition which is NOT what the general public would believe to be contact (well, duh... of course he’s going to try to mislead the general public - that’s part of his job). He's trying to make it appear that Foley didn't contact any minors and have communications with them of a sexual nature. Yes, there was contact as far as the general public is concerned because he contacted them in order to communicate with them, and yes, it was sexual... and it was also illegal if those kids were minors when it occurred.

Maybe you missed it, but this discussion is about Foley’s attorney’s disingenuous parsing of words presented to the public for a purpose designed to try to garner sympathy for his client and make him appear innocent, which has NOTHING to do with legal terminology. We aren’t talking about legal terminology here, we’re talking about parsing of words, which is why I put certain words that came from the mouth of said attorney in quotes.

Clearly, this attorney used the legal definition of certain words before the public to deliberately dupe the public and cause them to believe that his client is more innocent than he is.

[jberryhill]

58. Impressive

He's trying to make it appear that Foley didn't contact any minors and have communications with them of a sexual nature.

Everybody pretty much knows that.

Yes, there was contact as far as the general public is concerned because he contacted them in order to communicate with them, and yes, it was sexual... and it was also illegal if those kids were minors when it occurred.

Well, "illegal" is the sixty-four thousand dollar question here. Which section of the Walsh act, or any other law, makes it generally illegal to engage in sexual talk with a 16 year old?

I got the impression that the attorney was trying to make the public believe he had not physically engaged in contact, in the normal sense of the term "sexual contact", with any minors, so I guess what he was trying to do was totally lost on me.

[MADem]

63. States' rights, perhaps?

Who Is a Minor?
Federal statute defines “minor” as any person younger than 18.6 “While a majority of states follow the federal statute, some state laws define ‘minor’ or ‘child’ as a youth younger than 14, 16, or 17.7 Delaware law includes any person 18 years of age and younger in its definition of a ‘child.’”8

http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=1504

[mhatrw]

54. Exactly. Foley had sex with at least a few 16 to 17-year-olds. n/t

[TorchTheWitch]

56. I think you're right

I also think that's why Foley's attorney brought it up. He isn't sitting in rehab resigned of his post because of physical sexual contact, so there's no reason to address that. This just screams of jumping the gun to deny something he's not been caught in yet but knows he's going to be. No question in my mind that he at least groped on minors (who either did or didn't consent... maybe both since there seems to be quite a long line of them)... if not pages than other kids. This guy was incredibly emboldened... who knows what disgusting things he's done we haven't heard about (yet).

[radfringe]

57. Below 16, you're a minor. 16 and up, you're not a minor.

that may be, but in the majority of people's mind - if the victim is under 18 it's still a crime

legally it may not be pedaphilia, but it could be statutory rape

[jberryhill]

59. Not in DC or FL

if the victim is under 18 it's still a crime

I'm beginning to believe that those places, like DC and Florida, in which 16 is the age of consent and there is no age-difference provision from 16-18, might want to revisit their laws. Because the general perception seems to be that having sex with someone who is 16+ is illegal everywhere.