Tuesday, October 03, 2006

"Your Winnings Sir" - The Democratic Double Standard


If any of you infidels saw Casablanca, you can't forget the scene where Claude Raines is closing Rick's because he is "shocked" that "gambling" is being permitted in the club, and then as he says this, he is handed his "winnings" by the bar's employees. This character must have taken his cue from the Democrats.

With all the hullaballoo about former WPB Congressman Foley inappropriate emails and instant messages with underage Congressional pages, one can only think of the double standard and favorable treatment the Dems get by the press and among themselves had the congressman had a "D" next to his name rather than an "R". Foley did the right thing by resigning immediately. However, the Dems stand a chance on winning his seat and are trying to focus their inability to formulate any policies other than "I hate Bush" and "Let's cut and run" by pointing thier fingers at the GOP leadership in the House and by their cries of coverup and conspiracy. An interesting editorial in Investor's Daily shows however, that when a Democratic Congressman actually does worse than what Foley did, such as by actually having sex with an underage page or if you run a gay brothel out of your house, only a slap on the wrist is warranted. There are suggestions that the news about Foley was a planned hit by the Dems.

The article reads as follows:

Despite this, the immediate take by Democrats and much of the mainstream media was that this was a classic example of Republican hypocrisy -- talking "morals" and "values" while all the time shielding a child predator. But it was nothing of the kind.

If anything, the episode reveals the Democrats' hypocrisy about their own behavior. The fact that Foley resigned virtually within minutes of being told that ABC News had copies of his salacious e-mails and text messages indicates he at least felt shame for his actions. Can the same be said for Democrats?

Sadly, it doesn't seem so. How else can you explain the following? In 1983, then-Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds of Massachusetts was caught in a similar situation. In his case, Studds had sex with a male teenage page -- something Foley hasn't been charged with.

Did Studds express contrition? Resign? Quite the contrary. He rejected Congress' censure of him and continued to represent his district until his retirement in 1996.

In 1989, Rep. Barney Frank (news, bio, voting record), also of Massachusetts, admitted he'd lived with Steve Gobie, a male prostitute who ran a gay sex-for-hire ring out of Frank's apartment. Frank, it was later discovered, used his position to fix 33 parking tickets for Gobie.

What happened to Frank? The House voted 408-18 to reprimand him -- a slap on the wrist. Today he's an honored Democratic member of Congress, much in demand as a speaker and "conscience of the party."

In 2001, President Clinton, who had his own intern problem, commuted the prison sentence of Illinois Rep. Mel Reynolds, who had sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer and pressured her to lie about it. (Reynolds also was convicted of campaign spending violations.)

You get the idea. Democrats not only seem OK with the kind of behavior for which Foley is charged, but also they protect and excuse it. Only when it's a Republican do they proclaim themselves shocked -- shocked! -- when it comes to light. We have a lot more questions about this whole affair. The timing of the revelations, as we noted, couldn't be more propitious for the Democrats. Turns out both the Democrats and several newspapers seem to have known about Foley's problem as far back as November, according to research by several enterprising blogs.

Why didn't they come forward then? Who dredged up these e-mails -- and why did they hold them until now? This reeks of political trickery.

We're glad Foley's gone. He betrayed Congress, his party and the trust of the 33 pages who serve in Congress, and their parents. He behaved immorally, and we won't be surprised at new revelations. That said, if this scandal is the Democrats' answer to their problems at the polls, it's pretty pathetic. It shows a base contempt for the voters.

Read the entire article here.

UPDATE: Just saw this interesting post at Radaronline.com about the bogus blog that started this whole scandal. Is it trickery from the Dems? Check it out and how the Daily Kos got scoops on the contents of the blog within 12 minutes of the fateful post. Read it HERE.

14 comments:

Alex said...

Nice spin, but you (or the article) got a couple facts wrong. Stubbs lover was 17 (age of consent in DC), 3 months shy of 18 and the whole thing was consensual. The affair discovery and censure of Stubbs didn't came until 10 years later in 1986. There was no crime, unlike Foley.

There was no crime committed in Frank's case either.

Reynolds resigned, was convicted and sentenced.

None of that is worse than pedophilia and being a predator, except for Reynolds. Maybe you think gay prostitution, a consensual crime, is worse. I guess that's a matter of each person's individual values.

In none of those cases you have proven cover-up by the democratic leadership. The most you can say is that Clinton commuted his sentence, but that's far from what Hastert did.

Blaming the Dems and the papers for not coming forward with the info is laughable. They are not the leadership of the party Foley belongs to. And even if the conspiracy theory is true, and the Dems just waited until the Republicans had the rope around their necks, does that justify Hastert's inaction? That's ridiculous. The party of values and principles indeed.

Finally, "do-the-right-thing" Foley had no choice but to resign when the whole thing blew over, then blamed alcohol, a molesting priest and probably Clinton sometime soon. The right thing would have been to resign out of his guilty conscience.

Alex said...

BTW, those "inappropiate emails" as you call them, are a crime. Predators are jailed for that. Call a spade a spade, will you?

Srcohiba said...

If you are under the age of consent, whether consensual or not, is statutory rape. Strict Liability. Does not matter if they are 17 or not. No excuse. Frankly, what Stubbs did was worse. He used his position of power to obtain sex from a subordinate minor.

Also, check the statutes in Virginia and Maryland, and District of Columbia, running a house for prostitution is a felony.

Srcohiba said...

Also, if the dems had the info, if they waited until now to get a political advantage it is just as unexcusable if the House Leadership sat on the IM situation. They conceivably put other minors in harm's way for political gain. That's dirty politics.

Srcohiba said...

On the contrary: the emails are not a crime. (the ones re: send me a picture; etc.)

The instant message maybe; in order for there to be a crime there must be intent to solicit and/or commit a lewd act on a minor and an overt act in furtherance of the intent.

e.g. the Bill Kamal case.

Alex said...

a) The page in Stubbs' case was not under the age of consent, he was already of age (17) and closer to 18. No statutory rape there.

b) No need to check any statutes: I didn't say prostitution isn't a crime. What I said was that is a consensual crime and certainly not worse than being a pederast in my book. Yours may be different. Furthermore, the most you can accuse Frank is of knowing the gy was commiting a crime and not reporting it.

c) You said "inappropriate emails and instant messages with underage Congressional pages" so you believe both the emails and the IMs were just inappropiate, not criminal. But if you read the IMs, there's plenty of solicitation ("come to my house, we'll drink" "are you hard now" etc), this was no fantasy. Plus the guy had contact with the kid, he can't say he didn't know it was an actual minor, which has been the standard defense of internet predators and what forces police to arrange an actual meeting.

d) it just came out that an aide reported Foley's disturbing behavior towards pages to Hastert THREE YEARS AGO. Hastert sat on the info way loger than anybody else and probably was the one who did cause harm to other minors his predator buddy was targeting. You can't just absolve him and blame the Democrats.

Point is, you know the guy is a pederast and Hastert covered up for him to preserve a seat in Congress, and still you find a way to blame the Democrats. How far would you take partidism?

Srcohiba said...

AU contrere Msr. Alex:

1) I said the emails were not criminal. The IM's could be different. The issue is did he commit an overt act. His comments would likely not fly unless there is additional evidence. The fact someone makes a comment, absent an overt act to show the furtherance of the intent to committ a crime is not a crime.

Don't argue with me on the law. It's what I do for a living.

2) I'm not defending Hastert. I think he should resign esp. if the allegations that they had the knowledge of the im's and he did nothing are true.

3) I am not "blaming the dems" -- I just say they are hypocrites.

And BTW, you are dead wrong about statutory rape laws. For ex. in Florida the law is:
"(1) A person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, "sexual activity" means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose." Nuff said.

Also, Barney acquiesence by allowing his home to be used as a brothel is called aiding and abetting the commission of a felony. It's a major crime dude. Just like driving drunk over a bridge into the river and drowning your passenger while you disappear for a bunch of hours.
-------------
Also, my argument is this: if the dems had this information, i.e., of Foley engaging in what I've seen thus far (something akin to sexual harassment or if there is evidence of a crime taking place), why did they wait to bring it to the public knowing that Foley could be doing this to someone else. Isn't the well being of potential victims more important than political gain?

If you have knowledge of a public official stealing money from the taxpayers or of committing a crime against people or property, the ethical thing to do is to report it immediately rather than sit on the story so that one could get a political advantage.

In sum, Foley est un pedraste. Je suis d'accord. But is he a criminal? Not enough evidence as of yet.

Do the dems get preferential treatment for more serious sexual offenses? The answer is yes.

Alex said...

You do this for a living? Could have fooled me: if an IM exchange where both participants are actually present and one is enticing the other to perform sexual activities for his gratification is not an overt act, I don't know what is. I hope you don't actually go to court with that defense. Let's start with the basics, federal law:

US Code, TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 117, § 2422. Coercion and enticement:

"(b) 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."

which has been ammended several times (would take forever to list all of them) to both include Internet communications and to specify that an actual meeting does not need to take place as long as the predator is certain the victim is a minor (and not a police officer impersonating one for example).

You may also want to look up D.C. § 22-3010:

"Sec. 209. Enticing a child or minor.

"(a) Whoever, being at least 4 years older than a child or being in a significant relationship with a minor, (1) takes that child or minor to any place for the purpose of committing any offense set forth in sections 201-205 (D.C. Official Code §§ 22-3002 to 22-3006) and 207-209 (D.C. Official Code §§ 22-3008 to 22-3009.02), or (2) seduces, entices, allures, convinces or persuades or attempts to seduce, entice, allure, convince or persuade a child or minor to engage in a sexual act or contact shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years or may be fined in an amount not to exceed $50,000, or both.

"(b) Whoever attempts:

"(1) To seduce, entice, allure, convince, or persuade any person whom the actor believes is a child or minor to engage in a sexual act or contact, or

"(2) to entice, allure, convince, or persuade any person the actor believes is a child or minor to go to any place for the purpose of engaging in a sexual actor contact shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years or may be fined in an amount not to exceed $50,000, or both."

As far as the statutory rape accusation, you, the lawyer, is the one who again is dead wrong. Florida law may say "16 or 17" but District of Columbia Code, § 22-3008 and § 22-3009 clearly say: "An individual less than 16 years of age is unable to consent to sexual activities with a person 4 or more years older than him or her." LESS than 16. Look it up before you wave that law title at me. You do know about a little thing called "jurisdiction" right? I mean, I'm not a lawyer but I did watch "My Cousin Vinny".

And WestLaw is a wonderful thing.

I still don't see how Democrats get preferential treatment. Show me one instance from your list where the House failed to censure or reprimand or the congressman in question wasn't charged if there was a criminal act and I'll agree with you. Even if you say Stubbs continued to be a representative for five more terms, the ones giving him that kind of "preferential treatment" were the voters in his district, not the leadership of his party or the big bad MSM.

BTW, it's "au contraire" mon ami.

Srcohiba said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Alex said...

Thanks for the offer but I'll pass. I'd rather go to an attorney who uses the statutes for the state where the crime happened. As far as Mr. Foley, we'll see if the FBI charges him. You and I both know that absense of charges doesn't mean a crime has not been committed.

Srcohiba said...

Based on the published evidence, it's a weak case. No U.S. attorney would touch it without something more.

So I could have fooled ya huh? You know more about the law than me wonderful. How many federal cases have you tried and won? How many trial have you had? How many law degrees do you have? (this is what ticks me off is when pundits on the left and right go about and babble about the law and Court decisions without a friggin clue about what they are talking about)

If you think you can get a conviction alone based solely on the published IM's then you're one hell of a prosecutor. I'd suggest you run for State Attorney and I'll send you a $100 donation to start your campaign.

I could give you more commentary, and this is fun, but I actually need to spend my legal talents on paying clients. If you want a consultation you can set up an appointment and pay my hourly rate.

I'd be glad also to give you a tutorial on criminal law 101 on the difference between the actual commission of a substantive crime and the crime of attempt. There is no evidence (published thus far based on the IM's) which establishes a substantive crime. The issue here is whether there is evidence to establish the crime of attempt which is part of the statute you cited to.

Finally what are you doing on Westlaw? Either you're a student and you're using your account for non-educational purposes or are you using someone's account.

C'est fini mon ami.

10/05/2006 5:49 AM

Srcohiba said...

cute comment alex. I'm amused.

Alex said...

In all seriousness, I didn't mean to make a generalization about your professional skills, anymore than you meant for me to actually take a consultation with you. I'm saying this because I would not like anyone to make a similar generalization about mine, other than in jest. So if you took it that way, please accept my apologies.

Srcohiba said...

no problemo.