[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

USDOT moves to pull $4 billion from failed California high-speed rail;

America's Energy Shift: From Coal To What? (1950–2024)

THE REAL REASON WHY OPEC WANTS LOWER OIL PRICES

Détente? Musk Hints At Path Forward On BBB; Trump Team Schedules Friday Call

Tucker Carlson WARNS Trump that Neo-cons are trying to END his presidency by going to war with Iran

DR. IMMANUEL FURIOUSLY CLAIMS RFK JR. IS “DANCING AROUND” THE DANGERS OF COVID-19 MRNA VACCINES

AOC (& Bernie Sanders) Back Zohran After Cuomo Debate COLLAPSE

14 FOODS that SUCK the SUGAR from Your BLOOD

Musk 'Yes' On Trump Impeachment; Will 'Immediately' Decommission SpaceX Dragon & Doubles Down On Epstein Claims

Musk drops bombshell linking Trump to Epstein files, claims Epstein docs hidden to protect Trump

Musk To 'Immediately' Decommission SpaceX Dragon After Trump Threat, Doubles Down On Epstein Claims

Eye-opening device: Self-powered AI synapse mimics human vision, achieves 82% accuracy

This Is Israel

Rogan warns quantum breakthrough could wipe out encryption overnight, digital money vulnerable

Protesters Clash With Feds During Twin Cities Drug and Money Laundering Bust [WATCH]

A Warrior's Homecoming: Trumps Push to End Veteran Homelessness

Trump Administration Rescinds Biden-Era Guidance Forcing Hospitals To Perform Abortions

Supreme Court Dismisses Mexico Lawsuit Against U.S. Gun Manufacturers

YouTube has stopped working on 5 popular phones - so, is your device on the list?

POSOBIEC BOMBSHELL: U.S. INTEL HID UKRAINIAN DRONE ATTACK FROM THE PRESIDENT

Soldiers on US-Mexico border hunt drones with air defense radars typically used in combat

Pentagon Awards $5 Billion Virginia Sub Contract to Boost Production

Trump to Use Emergency Powers to Boost U.S. Critical Minerals Industry

Palestinian Red Crescent details medics account of 15 colleagues slaughter

Trump fires slew of pro-Israel officials in America First 'course correction'

British Airways cancels all flights to Israel until August

Majority of British people support arms embargo on Israel

Chaos at major airport as ground stop halts ALL planes just weeks after tech meltdown

Scott Ritter: Trump Needs to Decide Whether He Supports Russia or Terrorism

Texas moves to label popular snacks as unsafe for human consumption.


Pious Perverts
See other Pious Perverts Articles

Title: Limbaugh defends pedophilia
Source: Libertee Lost
URL Source: [None]
Published: Oct 3, 2006
Author: Mehitable posted it over there without h
Post Date: 2006-10-03 11:32:44 by bluedogtxn
Keywords: None
Views: 1590
Comments: 70

From the October 2 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: I'm just thinking out loud here. What if somebody got to the page and said, you know, we want you to set Foley up. We need to do a little titillating thing here. Keep it and save it and so forth. How would you get a kid to do that? Yeah, who knows? You threaten him or pay him. There's any number of ways given the kind of people that we're dealing with and talking about here.

Now, folks, I don't want to be misunderstood here. I'm not trying to mount any kind of a defense. That's a bad word. I'm not trying to get into a defense of what Mark Foley did. Please don't misunderstand. I'm just telling you that the -- the -- the orgy and the orgasm that has been taking place in the media since Friday and with the Democrats is -- it's all coordinated, and it's all -- it's all oriented toward the election. There's no concern about the kid -- no concern about the children.

There is -- there is -- there's not even any real problem with what Foley did, as we've discussed.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 65.

#1. To: All (#0)

We need to do a little titillating thing here. Keep it and save it and so forth. How would you get a kid to do that?

Anyone who can describe a teenage boy as "tittilating" ought to be in prison.

bluedogtxn  posted on  2006-10-03   11:36:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: bluedogtxn (#1)

Anyone who can describe a teenage boy as "tittilating" ought to be in prison.

Same thing for the CDA that would defend them.

It Is A Republic  posted on  2006-10-03   11:44:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: It Is A Republic (#5)

Same thing for the CDA that would defend them.

Well, I appreciate the sentiment, but this is still the United States of America, and the GOP hasn't quite gotten around to outlawing defense attorneys, reversing the presumption of innocence or doing away with jury trials; but give them time. Your budding little GOP Stalinists will soon have the police state you long for, given time.

bluedogtxn  posted on  2006-10-03   11:57:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: bluedogtxn (#10)

There is a difference in trying to get someone a fair trial and trying to get them off on a technicality. Most CDAs are snakes!!!!

It Is A Republic  posted on  2006-10-03   12:06:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: It Is A Republic, bluedogtxn, aristeides, Minerva (#12)

There is a difference in trying to get someone a fair trial and trying to get them off on a technicality. Most CDAs are snakes!!!!

I'm not sure what Foley will be charged with exactly.

Age of consent in DC is 16.

Foley's IM's/email's, while "tittilating" to quote El Rushbow, are not showing Foley to be offering the intern $ for sex.

And as to the issue of sexual harrassment, Foley was not the employer of the interns.

So even though Foley is a disgusting perv with pedophile potential, who deserved to be forced out of Congress, what laws did he break?

I'm playing devil's advocate...

scrapper2  posted on  2006-10-03   12:55:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: scrapper2 (#30) (Edited)

Age of consent in DC is 16.

Foley's IM's/email's, while "tittilating" to quote El Rushbow, are not showing Foley to be offering the intern $ for sex.

And as to the issue of sexual harrassment, Foley was not the employer of the interns.

Utterly irrelevant. This is what FR is pushing out now.

Foley was soliciting sex with a minor on the internet under the applicable Federal Law. Foley was the acting supervisor of the intern. Money for sex is just another red herring from FreeRepublic. If you solicit a kid for sex, it is not necessary for money to change hands to support the charge.

Minerva  posted on  2006-10-03   12:59:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Minerva (#31)

Utterly irrelevant. This is what FR is pushing out now.

Foley was soliciting sex with a minor on the internet under the applicable Federal Law. Foley was the acting supervisor of the intern. Money for sex is just another red herring from FreeRepublic. If you solicit a kid for sex, it is not necessary for money to change hands to support the charge.

I am not sure what FR "is pushing."

I was simply being curious about what charges a federal prosecutor could level against Foley and win in court.

a) Was Foley actually soliciting sex from a minor on the internet?

I'll grant you that Foley made some very suggestive lurid comments, but did Foley actually "solicit sex?"

In one case - as listed in this article - even the parents of the page did not want any action taken against Foley at the time. And the kid involved thought the communications from Foley were "creepy" but that was the extent of it.

b) This July the FBI received copies of the emails that Foley sent the Louisiana teenager in 2005 but the FBI chose NOT to pursue an investigation. Why do you think the FBI would not jump on this??? - perhaps because there was not enough evidence re: any crime being committed???

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2006/10/02/AR2006100200333.html

"FBI Knew in July About Foley E-Mails to Teen" October 03, 2006 Washington Post

"...The FBI acknowledged yesterday that it did not begin an investigation in late July after receiving copies of e-mails sent in 2005 by then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) to a Louisiana teenager..."

c) Foley was not an "acting supervisor" of the interns. Where did you read that to be the case?

d) Get your self-righteous shorts un-twisted. I am not a mindless freetard. I am not defending Foley's actions. I am only "putting out there" the possibility that it will be hard to prosecute Foley on any criminal charges and win. And this will not be because a wiley CDA is using technicalities to get Foley off. It may be that Foley's actions, while reprehensible, are not breaking any laws. Kapeesh?

scrapper2  posted on  2006-10-03   13:35:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: scrapper2 (#40)

a) Was Foley actually soliciting sex from a minor on the internet?

Yes, read the emails about sending pictures dressed in underwear, masturbation methods, measuring members and scheduled meetings. People are serving long sentences for much less.

This July the FBI received copies of the emails that Foley sent the Louisiana teenager in 2005 but the FBI chose NOT to pursue an investigation. Why do you think the FBI would not jump on this??? - perhaps because there was not enough evidence re: any crime being committed???

This is the FR email/IM game. What the FBI did was begin an observation. This is what they always do in this situation. The original emails were probably too ambiguous for the criminal standard of proof. They would have moved on a normal person, but probably waited to get more on a powerful person such as Foley.

Foley was not an "acting supervisor" of the interns. Where did you read that to be the case?

They worked for Foley's office. Foley supervised the office. This rule of agency is used everyday in harassment cases. This isn't going to fool anyone. You need something else here. As you know, you don't even need the supervisor position to support a harassment claim. A co-worker or even a subordinate can do it.

Minerva  posted on  2006-10-03   13:43:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: Minerva (#42)

Yes, read the emails about sending pictures dressed in underwear, masturbation methods, measuring members and scheduled meetings. People are serving long sentences for much less.

This is the FR email/IM game. What the FBI did was begin an observation. This is what they always do in this situation. The original emails were probably too ambiguous for the criminal standard of proof. They would have moved on a normal person, but probably waited to get more on a powerful person such as Foley.

They worked for Foley's office. Foley supervised the office. This rule of agency is used everyday in harassment cases.

a) Maybe those adults you refer to who were convicted committed their crimes in states where age of consent allowed prosecutors to try them as pedophiles. Age of consent laws vary by state jurisdiction, as you know.

b) "The original emails were probably too ambiguous for the criminal standard of proof." Yes, that's what I said earlier.

And I would suggest to you that even the IM's that Foley sent the second kid still make for a difficult case to prosecute.

It's my understanding that the second kid in question - the San Diego one who got the lurid IM's - was a few weeks shy of being 18 when the IM's initially started and that the alleged contact happened with the kid AFTER he turned 18.

Please consider the quotation attributed to Foley's lawyer in the Washington Post article I linked to:

..."Roth, interviewed last night on CNN, said that Foley is "absolutely, positively not a pedophile" and "has never, ever had an inappropriate sexual contact with a minor in his life." ...

c) Regarding the issue of "sexual harrassment" in the work place, please consider that other pages are now challenging what Matthew Loraditch, a page in the 2001-2002 class, told ABC News regarding Foley. And Mr. Loraditch himself is now back tracking on what he alleged in the interview:

Here's what Matthew says on his MyFace site:

"...The fact of the matter is in an informal situation a supervisor mentioned that Foley was a bit odd or flaky and did not connote by tone or otherwise that he should be avoided..."

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/state/content/state/epaper/2006/10/02/1002p age.html

"Page disputes warning about Rep. Foley" October 02, 2006

d) At this point, unless other evidence is uncovered by the FBI, I think Foley's lawyer, Mr. Roth, will be able to make piece meal of the prosecutor's case, if one even comes up, with what has been uncovered thusfar.

Look, Minerva, I'm just playing devil's advocate. Don't shoot the messenger.

scrapper2  posted on  2006-10-03   14:26:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: scrapper2 (#50)

Maybe those adults you refer to who were convicted committed their crimes in states where age of consent allowed prosecutors to try them as pedophiles. Age of consent laws vary by state jurisdiction, as you know.

The evidence shows that Foley trolled for minors on the interet. This is a federal offense that defines the age of consent as being 18. Foley is one of the people who pushed these laws through.

The evidence now shows that Foley did in fact have sex with an minor solicited on the internet. Poeple do ten years for just showing up in a McDonald's parking lot to meet the sting bait.

I don't think you are going to be able to excuse Foley, even to truely faithful.

Minerva  posted on  2006-10-03   14:32:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: Minerva, Fred Mertz (#53)

The evidence now shows that Foley did in fact have sex with an minor solicited on the internet.

What "evidence" is there that Foley had sex with a minor solicited on the internet?

I am not defending Foley. The guy is a perv, a sleazeball, and he should rot in hell.

But if you believe this is a slam dunk criminal case, I think you maybe mistaken.

I am not seeing any hard evidence produced that Foley had sex with a minor. a)I read that Foley sent an email to a minor asking for his picture and that the email was "creeped" out...but that the minor's parents did not want charges pressed or the case pursued at the time it happened. b) I read that Foley sent lurid IM's to a former page, who was a few weeks of 18, and that there may have been a sexual encounter AFTER the former page turned 18.

Just because you wish for justice to be served against Foley in a court of law, it's not wishes that count - it's hard evidence that will do it - and I am suggesting that none may exist.

There was enough impropriety for him to resign on moral and ethical grounds, but a criminal case against Foley, I'm not sure about that.

And no, Fred, I am not a former page, but thank you very for asking me directly.

scrapper2  posted on  2006-10-03   15:32:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: scrapper2, aristeides (#61)

And no, Fred, I am not a former page, but thank you very for asking me directly.

I apologize. I read something the other night that led me to believe that.

Fred Mertz  posted on  2006-10-03   16:43:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: Fred Mertz, aristeides (#64)

I apologize. I read something the other night that led me to believe that.

Apology accepted, Fred.

Now I must apologize to you for sounding so scrappy and snarky.

Now that you mention it, on Sunday aristeides addressed a comment to me that implied this to be the case after I linked to a blog of a former intern. I did not correct him because I thought he meant my page class to be the class of pages whose names appeared on the blog I quoted from. I am still trying to figure out how to do proper cut and paste from a link so it looks more distinctly cut and paste, maybe in italic writing or something. All I can muster now with my limited techie skills is starting the cut and paste with 3 dots and quotation marks, but that's not very "distinctive."

#11. To: scrapper2 (#0) I think this would be your page class.

Do you happen to know John Eunice, who I think is the "John" that Foley was talking about?

aristeides posted on 2006-10-01 22:01:15 ET

scrapper2  posted on  2006-10-03   16:54:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 65.

        There are no replies to Comment # 65.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 65.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]