[Howlin]

Where is the crime here? Can somebody tell me where the crime is if the facts are as we know them now, that he IM'd boys of legal age?

[durasell]

Where is the crime here? Can somebody tell me where the crime is if the facts are as we know them now, that he IM'd boys of legal age?





It may not be a crime, but it's very, very creepy. The "Creep-o-Meter" registered off the scale.

[Dianna]

Where is the crime here? Can somebody tell me where the crime is if the facts are as we know them now, that he IM'd boys of legal age?

Has this been confirmed Howlin? All I know for sure is that the pages were former pages when contacted (a point totally lost by the media).

[Dog Gone]

The age of consent in DC is apparently 16 years of age.

However, these pages were no longer in DC.

I believe federal rules apply in this situation, and 18 is going to be the defining age.

So, there might well have been a crime. I'm not sure.

[sitetest]

Dear Howlin,

"Where is the crime here? Can somebody tell me where the crime is if the facts are as we know them now, that he IM'd boys of legal age?"

Ironically, it appears that Mr. Foley would have been better off, legally-speaking, have actual sex with his correspondents.

Apparently, the age of consent in Washington, DC is 16.

However, Mr. Foley pushed hard for legislation that makes a felony out of prurient communications via the Internet with anyone under the age of 18.

Thus, chatting about it over the Internet appears to be a felony, but actually doing it is not.

* * * * *

"Its a mixed up muddled up shook up world except for Lola"


sitetest

[msnimje]

Where is the crime here?

There is no crime as it stands now but that is of no issue to the Dems.

William Jefferson was caught red handed committing a felony and he still holds his seat.

Karl Rove did nothing and the head of the Democrat Party, Minority Leader and others called for his immediate dismissal and arrest.

Now Foley does something stupid and reprehensible but no illegal, resigns immediately and the whole Republican Party is to blame.

Hypocrite thy name is Democrat.

[ThinkDifferent]

Can somebody tell me where the crime is if the facts are as we know them now, that he IM'd boys of legal age?

My understanding is that there is a federal law (cosponsored by Foley) which makes online discussion or solicitation of sex with anyone under 18 a crime, regardless of the local age of consent.

[dogbyte12]

His lawyer said he broke no laws. Which may be true. If he had sex with one of the pages in DC, it would have been legal. If he did it in Florida, it would have not been. It also depends on the time. Some of the penalties on the internet now were not in place during the IM's.

He may very well not have broken any laws other than furnishing alcohol to a minor. Even though the age of consent is 16 in DC, you still can't give em beer.

[landerwy]

It has nothing to do with a crime, it is all about the accusations. And now they can go after republicans and clergy; kind of a two for one thing.

[Darlin']

"Where is the crime here? Can somebody tell me where the crime is if the facts are as we know them now, that he IM'd boys of legal age?"

Exactly! If this is it, if the facts are in the details of the IMs then it looks like he is guilty of "porn-talking". Its ugly, twisted and perverse but has anyone claimed actual, physical contact ? Were the IM recipents current or former pages when these "exchanges" occured ?

[keat]

Where is the crime here? Can somebody tell me where the crime is if the facts are as we know them now, that he IM'd boys of legal age?

I think it's reasonable to believe that, having spent as much time as he did in that candy store of boys, it's not likely he didn't sample the goods from time to time.

It will all come out in good time.

[El Gato]

Where is the crime here? Can somebody tell me where the crime is if the facts are as we know them now, that he IM'd boys of legal age?

Legal age in DC, but not necessarily in VA or MD. Where did Foley live, where did the pages live. I heard today that the pages were *not* at work during all this IMing and emailing. Might be a federal charge there as well as a local charge.

But if nothing else, its no different, aside from the homosexual aspect, which itself might have been a crime at the time in one of the applicable jurisdictions, than a President doing the interns, which the Dems thought just fine and dandy, but now, well it's a different ox being gored.

[conservative in nyc]

I'm not sure naughty talk on the Internet is necessarily federal crime, unless the person then crosses state lines with the intent of having sex with a minor (or there are some pictures involved). But there's a Florida law on point:

847.0138 Transmission of material harmful to minors to a minor by electronic device or equipment prohibited; penalties.--

(1) For purposes of this section:

(a) "Known by the defendant to be a minor" means that the defendant had actual knowledge or believed that the recipient of the communication was a minor.

(b) "Transmit" means to send to a specific individual known by the defendant to be a minor via electronic mail.

(2) Notwithstanding ss. 847.012 and 847.0133, any person in this state who knew or believed that he or she was transmitting an image, information, or data that is harmful to minors, as defined in s. 847.001, to a specific individual known by the defendant to be a minor in this state commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) Notwithstanding ss. 847.012 and 847.0133, any person in any jurisdiction other than this state who knew or believed that he or she was transmitting an image, information, or data that is harmful to minors, as defined in s. 847.001, to a specific individual known by the defendant to be a minor in this state commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

The provisions of this section do not apply to subscription-based transmissions such as list servers.

847.001 Definitions.--As used in this chapter, the term:

(6) "Harmful to minors" means any reproduction, imitation, characterization, description, exhibition, presentation, or representation, of whatever kind or form, depicting nudity, sexual conduct, or sexual excitement when it:

(a) Predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful, or morbid interest of minors;

(b) Is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors; and

(c) Taken as a whole, is without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

A mother's breastfeeding of her baby is not under any circumstance "harmful to minors."

(8) "Minor" means any person under the age of 18 years.

[marajade]

That's what I keep asking. What did he do that was illegal. Not one response. Only those who think I should be banned and suspended for asking.