Does D.C. Sex Scandal Go All the Way to the Top?

There are reasons that Hastert may not want any information surrounding the Foley sex scandal to come to light.

October 2, 2006 -- Hastert's other major conflict of interest. Dennis Hastert's business relationship with the late 1970s/early 1980s Koreagate scandal figure Tongsun Park, who was a co-owner and 1966 co-founder of the members-only Historic George Town Club -- in the early 1980s a center of a prostitution scandal involving male and female congressional pages -- may have influenced his decision to avoid digging up dirt on the new congressional page sex scandal involving Mark Foley and other key House GOP leaders. Koreagate involved the channeling of money by the Korean Central Intelligence Agency to Park to influence members of Congress. Unification Church leader, Rev. Sun Myung Moon, the owner of the Washington Times and close friend of the Bush family, was also involved in the scandal. The scandal, according to Peter Dale Scott, had links to Washington, DC mafia boss, Joe "The Possum" Nesline. The club was also linked to the CIA proprietary firm Consultants International.

Numerous websites display the sordid scandal of the late '80s involving male prostitution rings, including children, and sex parties attended by not only wealthy businessmen but officials at the highest level of US government. These sites have shown the Washington Times articles by Paul M. Rodriguez and George Archibald.

This scandal came amidst, and perhaps because of, the Franklin Credit Union scandal, in which Lawrence "Larry" King was said to be running a large, well-connected and very prosperous child prostitution/slavery ring, with many of the children having come from Boys Town, Nebraska.

A documentary was produced entitled "Conspiracy of Silence" produced by British Yorkshire Television and was scheduled to air nationwide in the U.S. on the Discovery Channel on May 3, 1994. It was yanked at the last minute, despite already appearing in the listings of TV Guide. It is the most chilling thing I have seen so far.

I encourage every American to view this hour long documentary (be aware it is the rough edit so there are several spots where it goes black, but be patient).

Here is a great interview with former Nebraska state Senator John De Camp about the scandal, the evidence and the implications (at the time).

And what about Jeff Gannon?

?
A recent post on his blog interested me - and I had to ask the question asked by others: by being a person in the "media" (he calls himself "new media") in the White House Press Corps and therefore getting some attention himself, is he trying to get people to investigate?

It seems that there are too many coincidences, too many threads that run the same direction that one cannot help but wonder if Foley was just playing outside of their game and as much as anyone tried to contain him, he got sloppy and then got caught when actual records of his communications were published?

Was it then something that hit too close to home for those in power, so they tried to hush it up/deny/blame others?

Is this why there is so much vehement projection onto the Democrats (who, I would surmise are just as guilty as they are in the circle of sex partiers) besides the obvious public/political ramifications?

Is this (1, 2, 3)why the FBI wouldn't investigate or forward it to the DOJ to press charges against anyone in the Franklin case? And it looks like that may repeat this time, too. There are articles where authors and apparently the FBI wonder if Foley actually broke any laws and they haven't yet siezed his computers?

"It's a violation of Florida law for an adult to knowingly contact a child and knowingly transmit sexual information" over the Internet.

- Mitchell Nixon, head of the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force of North Florida.

Tom Flocco asks made this very keen point:

That Fordham would be committing career suicide by literally throwing the Speaker of House under the bus if his statements were not true lends substantial credence to seemingly strong evidence surrounding the Foley email cover-up by congressional Republicans.

Then Tom asks - is this the tip of the iceberg? It would seem so.

But I think the main question, with all the above considered is:

Will there be real legal actions, or any real action taken at all?

Threaten the victim? He wasn't protected by the Sex Offender registry, was he?

It appears that kooks who would rather ignore the real ramifications of the Foley sex scandal and the ensuing mess in D.C. are actually threatening a former page who was the recipient of the more mild emails from the former Congressman.

One little issue seems to be causing some debate (to put that charitably) within loyalists of the two parties: the actual age of the former page. The News-Press reports that the terrified page is NOW 17.

Alexander sponsored the then-16-year-old’s service as a House page but said the teenager worked for the House clerk. The boy, who is from Monroe, La., is now 17.

But then there is a pesky question about who told who, when? This, dear reader, is where the plot thickens, and Rep. Alexander has some explaining to do. He first indicated that he was contacted by the former page's parents about the "overly-friendly" emails, but here he says differently:

“My first job was protecting the innocence of that young man and his family,” Alexander said. “When I informed the family, they said they were aware of the situation and told me that they weren’t going to pursue it because of the harm that it could do to their son.”

But then he says this:

“It wasn’t normal for (Foley) to be sending those e-mails to a 16-year-old, which is why I informed the House leadership,” he said. “The young man clearly felt that the e-mails were creepy, which is why he notified our office.”

Well? Which is it? Did the kid go to the Congressman before going to his own parents? Does that even matter?

And speaking of party loyalists, the poor former page was 'outed' by a hard-core hater, "Wild Bill" Kerr of Oklahoma - a wanna be radio talking-head. Maybe he thinks that he has to be a bigger asshole than the assholes that are currently polluting the airwaves to get any attention? He's pretty slimy and disgusting to even go where he did. Others are posting photos of his son (which was available online anyway, but now connected to the 'outing' it is associated with hatred and vengeance on the other foot) and implying that his son should receive the same death threats and other threats to bodily harm and personhood that the former page is experiencing. That whole situation is totally out of hand.

First off, it is unconscionable to publicly "name & shame" a victim of a crime (yes, I know, there are many claims that there is no "victim" and that he was 18 at the time of the emails). Regardless, it is still a despicable thing to do - to anyone, by anyone, period. To do it out of some bizarre blind loyalty to a political "party" is even stupider. (And that means Nancy Disgrace, too!)

Loyalists of both of the two major parties are really missing the point here. Mark Foley committed a sex crime, and possibly more than one. It is irrelevant whether any non-law enforcement know the exact details of the IMs, what IS relevant is that the tough sex offender laws did NOT protect the pages (or any other minors) from a 50+ year old man who abused his position and access.

That is the relevant fact that seems to be lost in all of the partisan bickering (which is really, really sickening and embarassing, folks). Realistically, any internal investigation will be stymied by those in power (happens to be the GOP this time), people will get "thrown under the bus" and it will fade due to some manufactured crisis designed to divert the country's attention from getting too close to the disgusting and pervasive sexual perversions of those who rule us.

Where's 'Berto Now? -or- A Tale of Two Standards

It seems that even though the esteemed Speaker of the House has asked for an investigation into disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley, there are actually reports that posit that he may not have broken any laws, or that it is unclear if he actually did break any laws.

"We've been looking at this, and it's just not clear," said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "There are a host of statutes involved."

Excuse me??

David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, agreed.

The new laws against use of the Internet to entice children have added an additional level of uncertainty.

"There are a bunch of new laws against using the Internet," Finkelhor said. "Someone has to go through them to see what is there."

Exactly what Foley has done is unclear. A series of Internet instant messages between the former page and the congressman who used the online name "Maf54" graphically discussed male-to-male sex.

For those who are interested, here are some sections of the newly codified Adam Walsh Act**:

Section 111 (7)(C) -and- (H) -and- (I)
SEC. 111. RELEVANT DEFINITIONS, INCLUDING AMIE ZYLA EXPANSION OF SEX OFFENDER DEFINITION AND EXPANDED INCLUSION OF CHILD PREDATORS.

(5) AMIE ZYLA EXPANSION OF SEX OFFENSE DEFINITION-

(A) GENERALLY- Except as limited by subparagraph (B) or (C), the term `sex offense' means--

(i) a criminal offense that has an element involving a sexual act or sexual contact with another;

(ii) a criminal offense that is a specified offense against a minor;
...
(7) EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF `SPECIFIED OFFENSE AGAINST A MINOR' TO INCLUDE ALL OFFENSES BY CHILD PREDATORS- The term `specified offense against a minor' means an offense against a minor that involves any of the following:
...
(C) Solicitation to engage in sexual conduct.
...
(H) Criminal sexual conduct involving a minor, or the use of the Internet to facilitate or attempt such conduct.
(I) Any conduct that by its nature is a sex offense against a minor.
...
(14) MINOR- The term `minor' means an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years.

Clearly, the Age of Consent (AOC) for federal law is 18.

This is not including state laws. Regardless if the page was 16 in D.C., Foley was in FL in one Instant Message conversation; Florida it is 16 for sex with other young people, but 18 if the "partner" is 24 or over. In the District of Columbia it is 16. In Delaware (he was there during one of the chats), it is 18.

Flordia law expressly prohibits

anyone from ''encouraging, offering or soliciting sexual conduct'' over the Internet with anyone under 18. Child predators face a minimum of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine, with steeper penalties for repeat offenders.

Since Foley used the Internet to send messages to a minor who was located in a different state, that triggers the old "commerce clause" which gives the Federal government jurisdiction.

So - that brings me to my original question: Where, oh where, is ol' Berto now? I thought he promised to crack down on sex offenders and those who would prey on our children?

If 'Berto and the DOJ guys think they can just wait this one out, or anyone who thinks that this has no merit, I point you to the following caselaw:

In U.S. v. Murrell (11th Cir. 2004) it states Foleys case to be one of an "attempt" and quotes U.S. v. Bailey 228 F.3d 637 (6th Cir. 2000);

"{T}the Sixth Circuit addressed this very issue. The defendant in Bailey contended that attempt made under 2422(b) "requires the specific intent to commit illegal sexual acts rather than just the intent to persuade or solicit the minor victims to commit sexual acts." Id. at 638. In response, the court held:

*4 While it may be rare for there to be a separation between the intent to persuade and the follow-up intent to perform the act after persuasion, they are two clearly separate and different intents and the Congress has made a clear choice to criminalize and the attempt to persuade, not the performance of the sexual acts themselves. Hence, a conviction under the statute only requires a finding that the defendant had an intent to persuade or to attempt to persuade. Defendant Bailey's attack is therefore meritless."

Which brings me to my second question: Is this going to be a situation in which we see (yet again) that there are two sets of standards - one for commoners and one for the ruling class? Justice demands that there not be. Unfortunately, we are living in Bizarro-World where people are charged for "sex crimes" and did something ridiculous, like taking a photo of one's *own* 1-year old infant, but not a REAL and actual sex crime. More unfortunately, it is not as uncommon as we might like to think.

If Foley is charged either by the feds or the state it will be a stiff sentence, if they go by the law. When Mark Foley gets out of prison, his troubles will be far from over. It is not uncommon to be charged with -both- federal and state crimes, then to do time in the federal system and be transferred upon release to the state. Well, at least there will be plenty of time for some light reading and introspection, non?

** The AWA will be codified as: Public Law 109-248, however, it is not online yet; that is why the link goes to the (now passed and signed by the president) bill HR 4472.