E-Mails Force Rep. Mark Foley R-Fla. to Resign

Majic

In addition to what actually goes public, there is generally a cloud of sexual scandal surrounding Washington, D.C., but they are often kept quiet with the complicity of the press.

Kept quiet until there's more to be gained by making noise...

These scandals simmer just under the surface, and provide valuable leverage to those in the know. Generally speaking, honest men can't rise high in the ranks, because they aren't easily controlled, or readily marginalized - should they have a sudden attack of conscience it can ruin the best laid plans. Better by far to support compromised individuals, who are more likely to play ball, no matter their personal feelings on whatever subject.

Powerful men in the business community have a vested interest in propelling compromised individuals to high office, because it provides not only a control mechanism, but a sort of ejection seat or safety-release as well.

The key players in gathering dirt bear mentioning - first and foremost, co-opted elements of the CIA/FBI, and the law enforcement community. Who better to funnel incriminating evidence to power brokers, to facilitate the recruiting of compromised, readily-controlled individuals? They have the means to gather a lot more dirt, and higher quality dirt, than private entities, and not only can they conduct their business under the auspice of official sanction, but they can deliver the final, crippling blow with all the authority of the federal government. Pimps and pushers also prove to be valuable sources of compromising information, but because of their status in the community, their credibility is ZERO - they lack the weight of legitimacy. Better by far to rely on sources that are universally respected.

So when the information finally comes to light, it's not shining from some booze-hound PI, or a trafficker in narcotics, it's flowing out of the intelligence community, and the law enforcement community, and that lends it a great deal of legitimacy

Obviously this guy needed to go, but the fact that this was allowed to fester (apparently with the knowledge of both parties) until election season is intriguing, and the timing of the disclosure is clearly anything but coincidental.

Invariably, if someone gathers some dirt on a political opponent, or a powerful friend, they don't just unleash it and watch the fireworks. First, they let the dirty bird know that they're fingered. Then, they use that knowledge to guarantee complicity in scam X or to insure support for policy Y.

The leverage obtained during the period of time before the dirt surfaces is arguably more important than the ability to ruin someone. It's one thing to be able to eliminate opposition, it's another thing entirely to be able to turn your opponents into your supporters using blackmail. The latter is more powerful, more desirable, I think, because it has a larger net gain.

You ruin someone and force them out of the game and it's -1 for their side. You turn them, it's -1 for their side, and +1 for your own...

That's how you win the war, so to speak.

These tactics were employed to great effect for many generations, by organized crime in America, Europe, Asia, and presumably elsewhere. The families always loved powerful people with problems, addictions, secrets. It's like a ring in the nose of a bull. No matter how big and powerful that bull may be, one little tug on the ring brings him to his knees.

Senators, judges, prosecutors and cops with a penchant for buggery/infidelity/pedophilia and drug abuse made powerful allies for organized crime in America and abroad, because they were easily manipulated, and easily disposed of should they outlive their usefullness (which they often did, self-destructive individuals each and every one).

The days of family-oriented organized crime are almost over in this country. Now the corporate mafia has all the power. But they haven't changed their tactics much. Fewer instances of machine gun slayings in the streets just shows that this new brand of organized crime has refined blackmail, to the point where they don't need to whack a guy. They call in a hit, and the press carries it out. No blood is shed, 9 times out of 10, but the fella is dead and buried for all intents and purposes.

Sorry for the long-winded blabbering, but this stuff has always fascinated the Hell out of me.

[edit on 30-9-2006 by WyrdeOne]

You're right on target.

It kinda makes you wonder what kind of stunt Bush pulled behind closed doors the other day
when he was "pushing" support for all this Counter-Constitutional legislation.

How about the parents who wanted it swept under the rug? Guess they didn't want the embarrassment for themselves or the kid. Typical denial, and they're probably conservatives.

Five of these suckers need to go


Here are the other sorry excuses...

Near midnight, they engineered a vote to let the House ethics committee decide whether an investigation is needed.


Among the Republican explanations during the night:


_The congressional sponsor of the page, Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., said he was asked by the youth's parents not to pursue the matter, so he dropped it.


_Alexander said that before deciding to end his involvement, he passed on what he knew to the chairman of the House Republican campaign organization, Rep. Thomas Reynolds, R-N.Y. Reynolds' spokesman, Carl Forti, said the campaign chairman also took no action in deference to the parents' wishes.


_Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., chairman of the Page Board that oversees the congressional work-study program for high schoolers, said he did investigate but Foley falsely assured him he was only mentoring the boy. Pages are high school students who attend classes under congressional supervision and work as messengers.


_The spokesman for Speaker Dennis Hastert, Ron Bonjean, said the top House Republican had not known about the allegations. Shimkus said he learned about them in late 2005.

source

Mentoring the boy, nice one.

Remember these names...

1. Alexander, R-La.
2. Reynolds, R-N.Y.
3. Shimkus, R-Ill
4. Hastert

(and 5. Foley---GONE)

I want to know what made him do it (besides the obvious...power hungry pervert). One of the few bios left online for him says he's a catholic, and was born in Massachusetts.

Now you don't think he could have been a victim of a pedophile priest?

I'm pretty sure last night I saw that this had already been turned over to the FBI. Anyone else see that?


Think he'll abscound or stick around to face the music?

Come on NOW!!!

and they're probably conservatives.

I am a conservative and I feel the same way you do about this..

Semper

Originally posted by Majic
However, keeping something like this from reaching Republicans wouldn't be his concern, and keeping it from reaching the Democrats would be impossible, because nothing stays buried on Captiol Hill.

Thus I think it is probable that Hastert and others thought this had been "taken care of" the usual way, by agreement with the Democrats that it wouldn't go public.

However, that represents a contradiction. You can't have the belief that "nothing stays buried on Capitol Hill" and then assume an suppression agreement with the other side is possible.

Still makes no sense to me.

Originally posted by Majic
Each party has mountains of dirt on the other, and only a sort of "Mutual Assured Destruction" policy keeps either side from spilling everything.

I'm sorry, but I think this is also a distorted characterization. We may not see "spilling" because what there is to spill is still largely unknown.

Your view is more "conspiratorial" and would require a level of organization and complicity from all political participants I do not think possible.

Originally posted by Majic
Each election season, however, the temptation to launch a few scuds is there, and I think this was one of them.

If by "scuds" you mean a temptation to capitalize on any political advantage, then yes. That's how the system is supposed to work.

But this event is more than just a political scud. It's an example of criminality.

No mercy or understanding should be given for that.

Notwithstanding my comments to Majic above, that is not to say I don't believe the following in isolated pockets:

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Kept quiet until there's more to be gained by making noise...

But again, suppression of a crime *IS* a crime. We should tolerate none of this.

[edit on 30-9-2006 by loam]

Now I said this over the William Jefferson case (D-Louisiana), and I'm going to say it again.

Watch for the politicans that defend him!

Those are more than likely the ones with serious skeletons in their closet that are getting defensive. Jeez, I really didn't keep up with this guy, but I have one emotion on this that runs higher than anger, and that is shame. :shk:

These are the people, regardless of party affiliation, that are supposed to be representing us. I have a feeling that if we dropped the party lines, we would be able to conscienciously prosecute 90% of the people in Congress at the moment over some sort of crime.

As Majic pointed out, the culture inside the Beltway is who has what on whom. That isn't the system we are supposed to have. If we are thorough on this, we should see this as a tip of an iceberg that is well overdue for a meltdown.

What's the story on Alberto Gonzales? I thought he was supposed to be really in to prosecuting something against children, especially of this kind of nature? As far as it works here, 16 is the age of consent (I think, it was when I was 16), but if you are more than two years older than the 16-year-old, it is carnal knowledge of a juvenile which is a sex crime. Every state is different though, I really need to research this further.

I would like to mention one other thing, though the site can hold bias, the rawstory site had this news way before the MSM got it, along with the messages. Just thought I would give credit where credit's due, just like I would give ATS the same.

The Conspiratorial View

Originally posted by loam
Your view is more "conspiratorial" and would require a level of organization and complicity from all political participants I do not think possible.

You're free to believe or disbelieve whatever you like.

I've expressed my opinion and I could be wrong.

No conspiracy there.

Originally posted by Majic
The Conspiratorial View

Originally posted by loam
Your view is more "conspiratorial" and would require a level of organization and complicity from all political participants I do not think possible.

You're free to believe or disbelieve whatever you like.

I've expressed my opinion and I could be wrong.

No conspiracy there.

I hope I did not come off as abrasive. That's not what I intended.

Just trying to figure the world out....I meant no offense.

[edit on 30-9-2006 by loam]

Loam Without Pumice

Originally posted by loam
I hope I did not come off as abrasive. That's not what I intended.

Just trying to figure the world out....I meant no offense.

No, not at all, and I hope I didn't come off as irrationally defensive.

We're just sharing opinions, as is our wont.

But I will say that if this turns out to be the last such scandal of the season, I'll be quite surprised.

Rather, this looks more like one of the opening volleys to me.

The good news: we'll know within five weeks.


Edit to add: And I think WyrdeOne totally nailed it above.

[edit on 9/30/2006 by Majic]

When are they going to start dis-allowing minors to work as pages in the government? This is not the first time pages have been involved in sexual misconduct. We talk about protecting the kids, well we should start not with the internet but with one place thats had problems in the past with these power brokers playing off at being moral, but in reality being morally bankrupt.

It wasn't long ago that Homeland Security guy got busted too.

Pie

As far as it works here, 16 is the age of consent (I think, it was when I was 16), but if you are more than two years older than the 16-year-old, it is carnal knowledge of a juvenile which is a sex crime.

Depends on the juristiction.

Actually what's interesting with the legal aspect of this case is that the age of consent in DC is 16, period. So if he had actually had sex with this page, it would have been perfectly legal under DC law. But under the so-called "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" (of which Foley was a co-sponsor), it's illegal to solicit sexual acts from anyone under 18 online.

So it wouldn't be illegal for him to actually do anything with the kid, just to talk about it online. Gotta love our crazy legal system

As far as disagreement over whether it's "pedophilia" or not, it's simply not.

Pedophilia is a strictly defined clinical term that describes a sexual interest in prepubescents, and pursuing a 16 year old, who is well beyond puberty, simply doesn't qualify.

IE he's still a pig, but not a pedophile

Good point PieMan. Seriously, this is an excellent question.

I'm just wondering now if it will end here, or will this be the straw that broke the camel's back and a rash of these types of incidents surface. I wish they'd all just lose it now and start pointing their fingers where they should. I highly doubt any of this is not known amoung their peers when it goes on.

Originally posted by Majic
Loam Without Pumice

Very crafty of you, Majic.

Originally posted by Majic
But I will say that if this turns out to be the last such scandal of the season, I'll be quite surprised.

I would agree with that. I'm sure a whole lot of searching is going on.

Originally posted by Majic
Edit to add: And I think WyrdeOne totally nailed it above.

Yeah, it was impressive.

Originally posted by xmotex
Depends on the juristiction.

"Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" (of which Foley was a co-sponsor), it's illegal to solicit sexual acts from anyone under 18 online.

Here are some additional federal statutes that might apply. (You have to hunt through the list. One or two might apply, depending upon the facts.)

Investigative Programs: Crimes Against Children

I'll Call "Pederast" For Five Years In Prison, Alex

Originally posted by xmotex
Pedophilia is a strictly defined clinical term that describes a sexual interest in prepubescents, and pursuing a 16 year old, who is well beyond puberty, simply doesn't qualify.

IE he's still a pig, but not a pedophile

If this story is true, then he's also a criminal.

This sort of solicitation of minors over the Internet (i.e., anyone under 18) is prohibited by federal law and is also almost certainly prohibited by state law as well.

Particularly since a minor is involved, if Mr. Foley did what he is alleged to have done, he should be treated like any other sexual predator.

I think Pieman is correct, minors should not be working in government at all.

This gets to the heart of some very sensitive cultural issues though.

The system of "pages" - young (mostly) men brought in as servants to rich and powerful (mostly) men is a vestige of the feudal system of "squires", which was essentially a semi-secret pederastic system. IE the rich and powerful knights were provided with young boys to carry things and, err "polish their swords" as it were.

The sexual component was never explicitly admitted to, but was often present and expected. Like a lot of aspects of pre-mass-media societies, there was often a marked difference between public and private "morality" - IE between that which was openly acknowledged and that which was privately accepted as normal.

Faced with an open, massive and pervasive mass media, this wall is breaking down, and the results are increasingly not going to be pretty.

Beside the political spin on the story, I will say that this type of human beings can be found any where among the rest of the population.

They are not limited to political parties, they are within the church, children clubs and any other place where is a way to get close to children.

This is just outrageous when powers protect them until it gets to obvious to be keep hidden any more.

They should be hang by their genitals.

If this story is true, then he's also a criminal.

Indeed, and under a law he himself co-sponsored.

Again the gap between public and private morality - the public morality being what we profess to others, the private being what we actually act on.

Senior administration officials did nothing to report Foley's activities to the proper authorities.

That my friends is contributory.

I am certain that the FBI will seize Foley's computers and his AOL records.

If there is any indication that ANY other child may have been a victim of Foley's predatory
activities, there is no way this investigation will stop with Foley.