It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's Dirty Dealings Unearthed

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 07:56 AM
link   
I'll remember that..

Semper




posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
I'm sorry I trend to get busy and miss the news. I must have missed the criminal act that Folley committed. Could you link to where the charges are being placed? Or even link to what crimes he committed?

Semper


I must have missed this in the news as well. Last I heard there were no charges against Foley.

I love how juvinile politics becomes during an election. To be perfectly honest I don't give a damn about what the other guy has done wrong. I want to know what you are going to do right. I watched the Santorum/Casey Senatorial debate last night and both of those clown sounded like a pair of third graders having an arguement. Sorry if I insulted third graders, they don't know better, these clowns should. Don't even get me started on the Swan/Rendell race for Governor.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
I'm sorry I trend to get busy and miss the news. I must have missed the criminal act that Folley committed. Could you link to where the charges are being placed? Or even link to what crimes he committed?

Semper


I haven't seen any charges yet, but based on what has been released (and this will be the tame stuff as the juicy stuff will have been sealed as evidence) there is more than enough to build a case. Foley is guilty of several communications crimes, not to mention soliciting a minor, harassment, exposure of minor to sexual material, etc. This also becomes a federal matter because of the scope of act. Foley is done. The only question is how hard they come down on him. If this was John Q. Public, he would be in the can already.

I am not 100% how they will handle things in Washington or how it is written in DC. Here is how it was outlined by the Arizona House of Representatives and put into law.

Sex Crimes Against Children
· Establishes the crime of luring a minor for sexual exploitation.
1. Defines the crime as offering or soliciting sexual conduct with another with the belief the other person is a minor.
2. It is not a defense to prosecution that a peace officer masqueraded as a minor.
3. Luring a minor for sexual exploitation is a Class 3 felony (3.5 years/$150,000).


This is outlined in ARS13-1405, 13-1410. Foley would also be charge under ARS13-3512, Obsene or indecent telephone communications to minors, as well as ARS13-3353 through ARS13-3358, all dealing with Sexual Exploitation of Children. I'm 100% certain DC will have something similar

Foley is also in trouble from a federal perspective. This is also outlined from a federal standpoint in Protection of Children From Sexual Predators Act, October 30, 1998: Public Law No: 105-314. Foley will also be guilty under Federal Criminal Code and Rules under Title 18 of the United States Code (USC), Section 1470. Transfer of Obscene Material to Minors, Section 2241(a)(c). Aggravated Sexual Abuse, Section 2243. Sexual Abuse of a Minor or Ward, Section 2251(a)(b)(c). Sexual Exploitation of Children, Section 2422. Coercion and Enticement, Section 2423(a). Transportation of Minors with Intent to Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity, Section 2423(b). Interstate or Foreign Travel with Intent to Engage in a Sexual Act with a Juvenile, Section 2425, and Use of Interstate Facilities to Transmit Information About a Minor.

Just because charges have not yet been made public does not mean there Foley is not being charged. This is a very serious matter and Foley will be charged. If he is not, this is one of the most heinous abuses of power that I will have witnessed in American politics.

I hope this is satisfactory to your needs.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   
then considering at one point he was sending lewd text messages to a teen while on the floor voting it could be considered committing a crime (if they determine a crime has been committed) on federal property.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Iconoclast
I haven't seen any charges yet, but based on what has been released (and this will be the tame stuff as the juicy stuff will have been sealed as evidence) there is more than enough to build a case. Foley is guilty of several communications crimes, not to mention soliciting a minor, harassment, exposure of minor to sexual material, etc. This also becomes a federal matter because of the scope of act. Foley is done. The only question is how hard they come down on him. If this was John Q. Public, he would be in the can already.

I am not 100% how they will handle things in Washington or how it is written in DC. Here is how it was outlined by the Arizona House of Representatives and put into law.

Sex Crimes Against Children
· Establishes the crime of luring a minor for sexual exploitation.
1. Defines the crime as offering or soliciting sexual conduct with another with the belief the other person is a minor.
2. It is not a defense to prosecution that a peace officer masqueraded as a minor.
3. Luring a minor for sexual exploitation is a Class 3 felony (3.5 years/$150,000).


This is outlined in ARS13-1405, 13-1410. Foley would also be charge under ARS13-3512, Obsene or indecent telephone communications to minors, as well as ARS13-3353 through ARS13-3358, all dealing with Sexual Exploitation of Children. I'm 100% certain DC will have something similar

Foley is also in trouble from a federal perspective. This is also outlined from a federal standpoint in Protection of Children From Sexual Predators Act, October 30, 1998: Public Law No: 105-314. Foley will also be guilty under Federal Criminal Code and Rules under Title 18 of the United States Code (USC), Section 1470. Transfer of Obscene Material to Minors, Section 2241(a)(c). Aggravated Sexual Abuse, Section 2243. Sexual Abuse of a Minor or Ward, Section 2251(a)(b)(c). Sexual Exploitation of Children, Section 2422. Coercion and Enticement, Section 2423(a). Transportation of Minors with Intent to Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity, Section 2423(b). Interstate or Foreign Travel with Intent to Engage in a Sexual Act with a Juvenile, Section 2425, and Use of Interstate Facilities to Transmit Information About a Minor.

Just because charges have not yet been made public does not mean there Foley is not being charged. This is a very serious matter and Foley will be charged. If he is not, this is one of the most heinous abuses of power that I will have witnessed in American politics.

I hope this is satisfactory to your needs.


None of this is valid unless the "victims" file a complaint. None of them has, so far. The Stature of Limitations is also an issue here. The FBI is investigating, but so far nothing has been "sealed", the results of the investigation just haven't been released.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
None of this is valid unless the "victims" file a complaint. None of them has, so far. The Stature of Limitations is also an issue here. The FBI is investigating, but so far nothing has been "sealed", the results of the investigation just haven't been released.


Actually, there is no need for the "victim" to file a complaint. The state can make the compaint in this particular situation. Also, anything entered into evidence is "sealed" to maintain the chain of custody and evidentury procedure.

You know, I am shocked ANYONE would defend a pedophile. I guess partisan politics knows no bounds. There are certain individuals that will defend a Republican just because they are a Republican (and a Democrat simply for being a Democrat). Foley's actions after the disclosure of the claim is more than enough proof as to his interpretation of his own guilt, yet there are those that would defend him. This country is going to hell in a hand-basket, and its people like this (on both sides) that are the courier.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Look out, boys, the dam is gonna burst...

www.msnbc.msn.com...

I mean, just what the heck is going on in the GOP these days?

If I had to make a guess, I'd be willing to be some personally devestating secrets about Republican National Committee chairman, Ken Mehlman's own sexuality will come to the surface soon.

Capitalism or Kiddy Diddlers?

I leave it up to the voters to decide.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Iconoclast
You know, I am shocked ANYONE would defend a pedophile. I guess partisan politics knows no bounds. There are certain individuals that will defend a Republican just because they are a Republican (and a Democrat simply for being a Democrat). Foley's actions after the disclosure of the claim is more than enough proof as to his interpretation of his own guilt, yet there are those that would defend him. This country is going to hell in a hand-basket, and its people like this (on both sides) that are the courier.


First. I am not defending Foley.

Second. Under the laws of Washington DC he isn't a pedophile. As I have said previously, maybe the laws in DC need reworked, but until they are HE HASN'T comitted a crime. So far this is a case of someone sending suggestive messages to a 16 year old male. If the person recieving the messages hasn't filed a complaint, then there is no crime.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   
You are all forgetting, he sent the IM's in DC

The "Victim" was NOT a juvi. in DC

And yes, I work these cases, it is NOT as cut and dry as some would make it out to be..

Semper



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   
semper... put aside your party for a moment, and under age or not would you want your son recieving messages from a Mark Foley... whether he was in congress or in your party or not?



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   
NO

But I wouldn't want my daughter in the same room as Clinton.. Except she knows what the meaning of "is" is.

Not the point I was making. I don't approve of what he has done.

I also don't approve of posters making unsubstantiated statements and expecting us to just believe it. Obviously they post things like "He broke the Law" and "He is guilty" for some reason; as the statements are inaccurate at best and propaganda at the worst, one can only assume for shock value and I am not easily shocked.

I have handled cases exactly like this and their comments are insulting to those that wish to debate on some small intellectual level.

Semper



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   
What is the meaning of is anyway? Does it really have a meaning? Is it an indicator? I put on my glasses, turned on every light in the room, picked up my magnifying glass and my copy of "The Compact Oxford English Dictionary" and looked up is and guess what, it has no meaning outside of its usage. It can be a singular, or a plural, it can indicate or it can define a statement as in "it is raining out" as opposed to it was raining out....but outside of its usage it has no meaning.
At least eBay knows what IT is.


[edit on 13-10-2006 by grover]



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Only you Grover

Only you...

But thanks for the chuckle


Semper



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
You are all forgetting, he sent the IM's in DC

The "Victim" was NOT a juvi. in DC

And yes, I work these cases, it is NOT as cut and dry as some would make it out to be..

Semper


So Washington DC does not have to abide by FEDERAL laws? Washington DC also does not recognize 18 as the age of majority and anyone under that age being a minor? Interesting part of the country. No wonder all the creeps and scumbags end up in congress. They have "duty-free zone" to play in.



Also, if you work these cases, how is it not cut and dry? Consider the evidence that has been shared with the public the rest is going to be a slam dunk. If you say you work these cases, then you know what the public has is about 1% of what the authorities have. You also know that the forensic investigation of the wireless devices in question, as well as the computers that Foley has been on and owns, are going to yield a ton of data that is going to incriminate him even more. No case is 100% air tight, but this one isn't letting many bubbles escape. Just on the surface this guy is done.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   
OK,

Easy answer....

Though all crimes have the potential to be tried in Federal Court, few are. The individual states rights give them the power to determine the age of consent for Sexual experiences as well as adjudicating any criminal or suspected criminal case that may or may not have occurred in their perspective jurisdictional province.

Several of the previous posters have elaborated on that if you go back and read the posts..

It is not cut and dry, because as so many Liberals are usually ready to stand up and shout, innocent until proven guilty. (Unless of course it's a conservative being tried on the net).

With current technology, it is fairly easy to track and record any internet conversation, if you know how and where to find the targeted subject.
However, indicating intent and other facets of the law, becomes much harder, though not impossible by any means.

Again, not everything that deals with a Senator or Representative becomes Federal just because of their job.

Semper



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
OK,

Easy answer....

Though all crimes have the potential to be tried in Federal Court, few are. The individual states rights give them the power to determine the age of consent for Sexual experiences as well as adjudicating any criminal or suspected criminal case that may or may not have occurred in their perspective jurisdictional province.

Several of the previous posters have elaborated on that if you go back and read the posts..

It is not cut and dry, because as so many Liberals are usually ready to stand up and shout, innocent until proven guilty. (Unless of course it's a conservative being tried on the net).

With current technology, it is fairly easy to track and record any internet conversation, if you know how and where to find the targeted subject.
However, indicating intent and other facets of the law, becomes much harder, though not impossible by any means.

Again, not everything that deals with a Senator or Representative becomes Federal just because of their job.

Semper


Some good comments there and I see your point, but this is also a telecommunications issue and the individual in question reportedly sent text messages to minors while in another state. Don't forget, that the minute that individual crosses a state line and solicits another individual in this manner, that becomes a federal matter. If Foley sends an IM from his home in Florida, to a page at his home in what ever state, that becomes a federal matter and links through to my post on the laws being broken. I think this is also the reason why the FBI is taking an active role in this, not just because its a politician.

Intent is also very easy to prove as the information was text messages. This is going to leave an easily tracked log that will explicitly lay out what was said. There is no need to record conversations as it is all resident on the equipment used. Unless Foley was very smart, which he obviously was not, all of those log files will be recoverable from the service provider, his phone, and his laptop. All its going to take is some time to pull all of that information.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   

If Foley sends an IM from his home in Florida, to a page at his home in what ever state, that becomes a federal matter and links through to my post on the laws being broken. I think this is also the reason why the FBI is taking an active role in this, not just because its a politician.


EXCELLENT!!!

I was hoping someone else would bring this up...

As a rule, that correlation is correct, except for INTERNET crime...

In a crime committed over the internet, specifically speaking of harassment or sexual cases that I am familiar with. (Terror is completely different)

The jurisdiction resides in either the "sending" state or the "receiving" state. As stated before, the "Feds" have the option to intervene at anytime for anything however they also must acquiesce to the "State Rights" as mentioned, or can be called upon, depending on the statute or situational parameters, or they may choose to allow the state to carry out the investigation.

Semper



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   
If a sex offender goes abroad to commit their crimes, they can be charged in this country.

The legal status of DC makes it more like a foreign nation than a state, if I'm not mistaken it's a bit like the vatican. Does anyone see where I'm going with this?

In any case, I think we can all agree that regardless of the age of consent in DC, Foley is guilty of abusing his power and his position, and he betrayed his constituents by using his time in Washington to hunt for young boys instead of representing the people who voted for him.

Regardless, there's a perfectly good thread on Foley, why are we all talking about him here?



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis

EXCELLENT!!!

I was hoping someone else would bring this up...

As a rule, that correlation is correct, except for INTERNET crime...

In a crime committed over the internet, specifically speaking of harassment or sexual cases that I am familiar with. (Terror is completely different)

The jurisdiction resides in either the "sending" state or the "receiving" state. As stated before, the "Feds" have the option to intervene at anytime for anything however they also must acquiesce to the "State Rights" as mentioned, or can be called upon, depending on the statute or situational parameters, or they may choose to allow the state to carry out the investigation.

Semper


That is true, but depending to the severity of the computer crime the Feds almost always get involved. When we are talking sex crimes that traverse state lines it usually becomes a federal issue. They may ask/demand that the two agencies work together to make an arrest, but not without it going through channels. At least that has been the approach here. Agencies do not take chances of letting scumbags like this walk on technicalities, and the Fed involvement is pretty well manditory in this regard. Also, just because Miami (for an example) does the investigation, does not mean that the charges will not be bumped up to the Feds, depending on the findings. Depends on what is found and what can be proven. In the case under discussion, it has federal written all over it. Multiple jursdictions across multiple state lines. I don't see how they are not going to assume this case from the get go.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Well,

Perhaps you don't se it, but I have investigated and prosecuted numerous cases involving FL. SC. and GA.

No Feds involved, end results, convictions..

So your information is faulty.

Semper



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join