Skip to main content

View Diary: Rahm Emmanuel Lied Covered Up Mark Foley? (56 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But,,, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fabooj, gmb, LunkHead

    If he knew about a pedophile preying on ANYONE he had a legal and ethical responsibilty to report it to the police.

    This is IF he knew.

    •  Legal? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RonV, peraspera, LunkHead

      I'm aware of statutes requiring 3d Parties to report sexual contact, with specific definitions of physical contact with particular organs. Do you have in mind a specific statute requiring the reporting of dirty talk with minors?

      Democratic Candidate for US Senator, Wisconsin, in 2012

      by ben masel on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:13:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  the same could be said of the republicans though. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LunkHead

        Either it was a crime or it wasn't.  If it was a crime, than anyone who had knowledge of it and didn't report it would be culpable whether they were republicans or democrats.

        But I think we need to know more about whether or not Emmanuel actually had the knowledge that is claimed he had.

        If a democrat demands accountability in the Capital and no one covers it, does he make a sound?

        by DawnG on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 09:05:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not sure about the jurisdictions they were in... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LunkHead

          In WI it's only a crime to fail to report a felony. If talking dirty is a crime (close call, also depends on jurisdiction) it's only a misdemeanor.

          Democratic Candidate for US Senator, Wisconsin, in 2012

          by ben masel on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 09:26:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  There Isn't Any Yet (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LunkHead

      The IM's and emails haven't resulted in any legal action anywhere, have they?  While it's likely that Foley probably did have sexual intercourse with a minor at some point, to date none have come forward and no legal action has been initiated against Foley, and we now know a hell of a lot more than we knew with just the IM's.

      And look at what Greenwald wrote:

      But the Report also found that "the Communications Director for both the House Democratic Caucus and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee also had copies of the emails in the Fall of 2005" (p. 76). Specifically, the Report documented that back in October, 2005, the Communications Director for the House Democratic Caucus (Matt Miller) was sent copies of the Foley e-mails, and he was very disturbed by them.

      Convinced that the GOP-led House Committees would take no meaningful action, Miller sent the e-mails to various newspapers in Florida (The Miami Herald and St. Petersburg Times), as well as Roll Call. He also provided copies of the e-mails to Bill Burton, the Communications Director of the DCCC (pp. 45-46).

      Is the first question "did Rahm Emmanuel know?" even the most relevant one?  Who did Matt Miller work for?  Did that person/people know about it?

      Is it possible that Brian Ross got the tip on this story from the Democrats?

      Why is Greenwald talking about emails, but not IM's?  I tried to download the report, but I'm on dialup right now, and it wouldn't load.  Is he referring to something other than the IM's, or is he conflating email and IM's?

      Furthermore, to extend homogenius' point about oversight of the page program, they deliberately kept the Dem on the committee--Dale Kildee--out of the loop.  

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:20:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site