Let us peel back the layers of Foley, shall we?

[demgurl]

There are two really big issues here. One side is how others acted or, rather, did not act. I contend that the average person would be aghast at Foley's actions. They would not even consider a cover up. For someone to hear about this and not take action is reprehensible and sick.

What makes Foley's action that much worse is that this was a page. The pages work under the congressmen and anyone in that sort of work situation knows the power an employer has over an employee. In a true work situation this would be sexual harassment. In this situation, it just makes the deviant's actions that much more evil. Having the page job on your future resume is a plum job and would impress a lot of people. This young page would have easily felt pressured and almost feel an obligation to do what was instructed lest he lose his position.

Foley's actions are much worse than anonymous predators on the internet. He chose someone for whom he was in a position of power. A child on the internet can always say no but this page was put in quite a different position where he knew the deviant and had a lot to lose. To me, this makes the situation that much more despicable.

Edit: I can't spell.

[Spazito]

1. Excellent point!

"Foley's actions are much worse than anonymous predators on the internet. He chose someone for whom he was in a position of power. A child on the internet can always say no but this page was put in quite a different position where he knew the deviant and had a lot to lose. Top me, this makes the situation that much more despicable."

That is a very important piece of the scandal, imo. Couple that with the cover-up by top repubs and it will hit home with everyone regardless of party loyalties (excluding the freepers of course).

[demgurl]

5. Thanks, Spazito.

I think this is such an important point. Foley was not your garden variety deviant. He had power and he used that power on an innocent child. People really need to realize that. That makes the cover up that much worse.

[iamjoy]

2. To "Defend" Foley

from what I understand the inappropriate correspondence was after the kids in question were no longer Congressional Pages. So, technically, I don't know if it is really Sexual Harrassment.

Of course, the kids probably thought if they just sort of tolerated it, Foley might help them later in their political career.

I'm not saying what he did was okay - it was vile and reprehensible. But, there may be a subtle legal (if not moral) difference.

[NashVegas]

6. There Are VERY Legal Differences

Of the correspondance we have seen so far, there are no instances of soliticing for sex.

Of the chat we saw, the sex talk did not actually veer into simulation. Those are crucial points, as, as far as I can tell, Walsh's law hinges on those two things.

[VeggieTart]

8. Sure there are legal differences

But if it were a Democrat doing dirty IMs with a teenager, the Repukes would have a fucking field day screaming for the blood of said Congressman. And ask any parent, and they would rather not have risque messages about wanking sent to their 16-year-old kid by a 52-year-old man. So Foley is a pervert, possibly a predator, and he may not have done anything technically illegal, but it looks really bad.

Here's what I wonder. If you are in a state where the age of consent is 16, and the teenager is in a state where it's 18, and you're dirty messaging, which state's laws apply?

[NashVegas]

9. Not Sure, But

Of course they'd have a field day. They already did. We need to use that to our advantage.

[iamjoy]

10. Welcome To DU!

:hi:

I think we know each other.

But, shhhh, it's underground so we're all anonymous.
:hide:

[demgurl]

7. After reading five different stories I finally found one.....

that said you are correct that he is a former page. I truly hope nothing comes out that he has actually done this to pages in the employ of our government.

I do not think that this was a case of sexual harassment but I used that to illustrate the type of power this man could have had over the child.

[whistle]

3. I think the internet has been scrubbed as I find a google search

...of U.S. congressional pages yields nothing

[Benhurst]

4. Try again. I just typed "congressional pages" into Google, and

it came up with over 26 MILLION responses, including the first which said the program was started by Daniel Webster. :shrug:

[SmokingJacket]

11. And did he consistently stop at emails?

I'm wondering if more will come out.

I mean, were the IMs and emails a means, or an end?

He sure quit awfully fast.