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: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Forget it. I'm not even going to bother. This Semper guy is a fraud IMO. He wouldn't know his hash from a hole in the ground. The only thing he keeps tossing out there is jursdiction, and that is a fuzzy area at best. Fed involvement is highly recommended and considered a standard procedure for a trained examiner. I don;t see any level of expertise or knowledge of any of the criminal code in this subject matter. He's all opinion and that's it. Zero to back him up.

[edit on 13-10-2006 by The Iconoclast]




posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   
The problem with your "personal" attack, is there are several members here that actually know me in the real world, and what I do for a living. One member actually works with me and two others know me in the past. I have actually only been in Police Work for 19 years, you could be more knowledgeable than me. Probably not though, just guessing.

But, as this is ATS, you are of course entitled to your opinion.

Semper

[edit on 10/13/2006 by semperfortis]



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Yes, and my opinion is you're a fraud. I don't think you know anything about computer crime. You maybe a cop, you may even investigate sex crimes, but you don't investigate electronic crimes. Your lack of knowledge in this area is blatant IMO.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 08:39 PM
link   
And you need to learn grammer..

But I don't hold that against you on here.



Seriously though, believe what ever makes you sleep at night. It is as simple as, you don't know what your talking about, obviously have no more experience than what you manage to get sitting in front of your computer, and still have the audacity to criticize someone who does what you can't or wont.

You should listen to my podcast about Honor.

Semper



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 08:58 PM
link   
semperfortis, my brother from another mother.

I think we both know grammar isn't the issue here, yours or his.
You are (you're is a contraction of these two words) both puffing out your chests for what you believe in.

That old male testosterone simply must have an outlet. We all want to play God in our own little way, don't we? It is Satan's influence, I tell you, the ego. Not that I'm holier than either of thou.

When I was running clubs back in the day, it was pretty obvious by midnight who was going to get laid and who was going to get in a fight. I could always spot the tough guys right away, full of themselves and ready to back it up. No biggy.

Aren't you thankful you are protecting his right to free speech as a sworn officer? Maybe its lucky for him this conversation is taking place on the boards rather than in person, eh? Somebody might be getting ready to be handed his butt in his hat. No big thing for a Kunta Kinte, eh?



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Your 100% correct IR,

It was getting pretty embarrassing...and WAY off topic.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Great analogy by the way. I loved it..

Semper



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   
I will like to see the entire congress fall apart and be expose for what they are.

It will be more caught up in the dirty deals and scandals, we will be hearing more in the coming weeks.

Can a clean political stand up pleaseeeee


Politics are a shame to the people of this nation, today I was watching my state three running candidates, while the two main parties candidates were tearing each other apart with scandals, the third candidate a libertarian just stood there and say . . . see why you need to vote for me?

I found that so hilarious that I probably will give him my vote.


[edit on 13-10-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   
You know Marg,

That is actually a very good idea....


I agree, send them all home and lets put all new ones in.

There is no way they could do as bad a job as what's being done now.

Semper



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Hey, this thread title is misleading..

I thought we were supposed to be Wild about Harry in here..

BTW, did you know his childhood nickname is "Pinky"?
He must have had some awful sunburns out in the Hardrock mining areas of Nevada.

Speaking of childhood, look at what successful men his sons have become..
Lobbyists, Lawyers...

Just "REID" between the lines here:
LaTimes PDF

Nice Set up Eh?



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   
SD!!!!

WOW

What a find...

Great post

Semper



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
And you need to learn grammer..


Maybe you can check into the same class and learn some spelling while I work on my grammer [sic].



Seriously though, believe what ever makes you sleep at night. It is as simple as, you don't know what your talking about, obviously have no more experience than what you manage to get sitting in front of your computer, and still have the audacity to criticize someone who does what you can't or wont.


Really? How about back up your bluster. You haven't provided a single thing to back up your "story" other than have some of your "buddies" come running to your side to start a dogpile. I've asked you to explain how you gather the evidence, and you give some glib reply. Good lord, you didn't even get the "hash" joke I made, so I doubt you have a clue about forensic investigation. So yeah, you're probaly right, you do all the stuff I can't or won't, like write tickets and and work callback. I'm too busy recovering the evidence that makes charges stick.



You should listen to my podcast about Honor.


I'm sure its rivetting. I'll take it with me to the FOP meeting. I'm sure we can all learn so much from someone who knows so little.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 12:41 AM
link   
I don't know Semper, but I'm pretty sure he's dead on about this. I have a degree in criminology, and we can smell our own.

Unless Foley made physical contact with someone 15 and under, or sent nude pictures of said children, or provided alcohol, I'm not sure he's broken any laws. Even if he sent messages from D.C. to Virginia, and vice versa.

It's an embaressing and disturbing ethics violation, just not so much a legal one.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Well, for what it's worth, I have 1/2 a CJ degree, along with a number of unrelated partial accomlishments, and I think you're both wrong about Foley. Two words - Mann act.



www.law.cornell.edu...

Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 5 years and not more than 30 years.


It should be up to a jury to decide whether Foley's behavior constituted an enticement, or whether it was simply crude and disgusting.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 03:08 AM
link   
I had a whole post written out, and then my laptop ate it, when it backed my page up. But, the problem with the Mann Act, is that Foley used the IMs as masterbation material, rather than the actual preperation for traveling across state lines - with someone under 18 years old - for the purposes of sexual activity.

It would have to be worded in a such a way, that it would have to sound like this...

"Be ready at 6:00, so I can drive you to Virginia and [fill in the blank] to you".

And that's the test that would be used to determine whether Foley would be guilty under the Mann Act. Right now, based on the currently released IMs, Foley is still protected under First Amendment Fantasy Speech guidlines, considering that the age of consent is 16 years old in D.C.

The Mann Act was originally created to crackdown on white slavery rings, and was later used to arrest Jack Johnson and Frank Lloyd Wright.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 03:31 AM
link   
Sorry about your post, that's happened to me a couple of times and it certainly sucks.

On topic, it was my understanding that Foley arranged a trip to see one of the boys, San Diego I think. I'm gonna search for a link...



www.sptimes.com...

In another message, Foley appears to describe having been together with the teen in San Diego.

Maf54: I miss you lots since san diego.

Teen: ya I cant wait til dc

Maf54:


Teen: did you pick a night for dinner

Maf54: not yet … but likely Friday

Teen: ok … ill plan for Friday then

Maf54: that will be fun


The subtext is certainly there...

It appears that he used the internet to facilitate inappropriate meetings with young boys. Since the age of consent varies by state, it may not be a crime in DC/Florida/wherever, but the federal statute clearly defines a minor as anyone under the age of eighteen, right?

I understand that this is a grey area, but that's precisely why a trial should be held, to determine whether or not Foley committed a crime.

The FBI is, assumedly, working this case to the best of their ability, finding evidence and contacting witnesses. Hopefully they'll find sufficient evidence to secure a conviction, but I think there's already ample evidence to support a trial.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 04:08 AM
link   
To Protect and Serve..

A noble thought, but it all depends on who is being served and who is being protected.

Quite a conundrum when our very lawmakers are the one's breaking the law and the people of this country are the victims.

It's nothing less than organized crime at the highest level.

We the People struggle just to make ends meet while those we entrust to represent us,
fleece the American people for all it's worth with no meaningful oversight.

They use politics and religion to keep us distracted and divided to limit our focus on a greater common enemy within.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 06:39 AM
link   
EXACTLY..

I think some misconstrued my intent...

I think he is guilty as sin, but my assertion is we can not "HANG" the man yet as there is a process. That process does not include Federal intervention except in certain circumstances.

WO, Congrats on working toward the degree.

I as well have some small "degree-s" that are relevant and though that is a good find, it becomes irrelevant in this situation. Due to :


to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so,


The problem here is the age of consent in DC being 16. Now that still makes it disgusting, but not illegal. NOTE: "Any activity a person can be charged with a criminal offense. :Very specific:

On a separate note, each state also has specific criminal codes that cover most offenses. Now as I stated before, the Feds. can and do on occasion insert themselves into a certain case for various reasons, yet, unless it is specific to Federal Jurisdiction, Kidnapping across state lines, Interstate flight to avoid prosecution, Counterfeiting etc, the individual state's Attorney General can either request federal intervention or refuse it.

Regardless of the conspiratorial hype on here in reference to the federal government taking over, state rights are still a very protected inclusion in the Constitution.

Semper



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   
I see what you're saying, and have no fear, I'm not interested in demonizing you. I realize there's a difference between protecting the process and protecting a scumbag. Unfortunately the former often requires the latter.

So let's try another angle.

What's the standard that must be reached for legal consent? People in positions of power have leverage over their victims, to such a degree that 'consensual' sex can be interpreted as exploitave and coerced, no?

If a male employer makes sexual advances and his female employee feels that she can't say no without repurcussions, that meets the legal definition of rape, does it not?

Isn't this a similar situation with Foley? Doesn't he have sway over the lives and careers of these boys, to an extent not unlike that of an employer/employee relationship?

Can consent be given freely in such a situation? No, he didn't have a gun to the kids' heads, but he had the benefit of a position of power, and public trust, and the potential is there for exploitation using a sort of sexual terrorism.



Am I way off base here?

The age of consent is one thing, fine, but the consent has to be qualified for it to apply. Just as if he had gotten the boys drunk in order to gain their consent, using his position to the same effect constitutes a breach of the law, no?

Help me out here...



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   

see what you're saying, and have no fear, I'm not interested in demonizing you


Yes, thanks, that has already been done on here. HAHAHAHAHAHA. Or I should say attempted.


What's the standard that must be reached for legal consent?

Age and Mental Capacity and this varies state by state. There are no specific Federal Guidelines that I am aware of.


People in positions of power have leverage over their victims, to such a degree that 'consensual' sex can be interpreted as exploitave and coerced, no?

Yes, and falls under several different Sexual Harassment Statutes..


If a male employer makes sexual advances and his female employee feels that she can't say no without repurcussions, that meets the legal definition of rape, does it not?

NO, Not at all..

Again, if the female is not mentally incapacity in anyway, it is again, Sexual Harassment. Not Rape.


The age of consent is one thing, fine, but the consent has to be qualified for it to apply. Just as if he had gotten the boys drunk in order to gain their consent, using his position to the same effect constitutes a breach of the law, no?

Now your on to something. As the Law states, getting them "Drunk" where they had a diminished mental capacity and unable to make coherent decisions, then yes, Sexual Statutes apply. Otherwise, no.

Just a Note.

I began my Career in Maryland, Moved to Delaware and retired from there. Came here, SC, finished my advanced degree and now work for the State. Saying that, I have three academy's under my belt and 19 years this year; so some small experience...
I'm not blowing my horn by any means, I'm not like that... But the point is..

I DO NOT have experience in every state, and believe me, they all vary. For example, Maryland where I started is a "Common Law State" Delaware is pure "Statutory" while SC is a unique combination. I am only answering as to the extent of my knowledge.

Also of note.
Rape is frequently one of the most incorrectly used words. In every state I have worked, Rape requires either the use of force, the threat of force (Implied or not) or the victim must either be Below the legal age of consent AND the suspect more than 6 years their senior (Statutory Rape). Also included are victims of diminished mental capacity, such as Mental Patients, or drugged Victims. Rape almost always also requires "Vaginal Penetration."
Other statutes that apply more accurately are charges such as "Unlawful Sexual Contact", (Various degrees of this) "Sexual Harassment" ETC.

Semper



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 01:14 AM
link   
It seems everyone is missing the probability that this predator's actions were not strictly confined
to the halls of Congress.

This stuff goes way back,
Until Foley's hard drives and IM records have been thoroughly examined, we can not rule out the
possibility that this behavior continued in the private sector.

That means other people's children may have been affected.

If so, Hastert could have prevented all of it when he first had the chance.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join