Gunny
Gold Member
The im's have been all over the news....
Haven't seen a one. Just a few statements caveated by "allegedly."
They are putting the specific language of the im's all over network and cable news... you might not get it on Fox, though. (I'm not being facetious about that, I don't know if they're giving it that kind of coverage). There also isn't anyone out of Foley's camp, including his attorney, denying the content of the im's.
See my previous response. However, let's assume he's guilty. He's resigned. He should be tried, convicted and shot. That is STILL no reason for a partisan witch hunt.
It's only relevant to the extent that it's an excuse and his going in to alcohol rehab really doesn't have anything to do with his "problem".
I say irrelevant meaning he might as well piss in the wind as expect me to believe any lame excuses for completely unacceptable behavior, that not only shows him for the immiral scumbag he is, but has also cast a shadow on the political party he represents.
No. Hence my post specifically saying "if" he knew. But I'm also not the one calling for his ouster. That started with the WashTimes and some Republicans in the house.
The Republicans have proven time and again they eat their young.
Except, again, they've been playing the specific language of the im's on network and cable news since yesterday. So, unless the im's are fabricated.... then yes, he propositioned minors for sex... something, again, that Foley's camp isn't denying. As for him not being charged, I suspect that is going to happen pretty soon, hence him getting his team in order now.
So his running off to rehab and/or blaming it on a Catholic priest more than likely isn't going to fly with the law anymore than it is me.
Not really.... again, Foley hasn't denied the allegations and it is being treated as a given by everyone in the House...including the Republican leadership, so I'd say it's safe to assume the allegations are true. Do you know of anyone on Foley's end who's saying that it didn't happen as described?
I do not. However, counsel, isn't it true that it is not encumbent on the accused to state or prove innocence? It is encumbent on the accusers/prosecution to PROVE his guilt.
No... haven't forgotten it. Foley is, to the best of my knowledge, only denying having had physical contact with a minor. I don't believe he's denying the on-line propositions.
Again, I don't see a lack of denial as an indicator of guilt. A confession and/or some evidence would work.
Sure, by not denying it, he's playing to the "rush to judgement" crowd, but legally, it indicates nothing.
We're of like mind on that issue. I think that's pretty much universal and non-partisan.
Fair enough.
I'm not taking Foley's side, and by all indications, he's guilty as Hell. But, I would hate to be wrong based on assumption.
And yes, I gave President Clinton the same benefit of doubt until HE proved otherwise. Matter of fact, I gave him more than the benefit of the doubt because I knew Linda Tripp and she was a self-righteous, power-hungry bitch.