« Previous | Main | Next »

ABC Exclusive: No Prosecution Likely for Foley

December 08, 2006 7:38 PM

Jason Ryan contributed to this report:

According to Justice Department officials, it is unlikely that the U.S. Attorney's office in Washington will press forward on a prosecution in the Foley case.

According to several sources, prosecutors have had difficulty establishing probable cause of a crime. The barrier in getting past the probable cause threshold was the statute on transmitting obscene materials to minors. Under federal law, the age of minors receiving obscene materials is 16.

December 8, 2006 in Mark Foley Internet Scandal | Permalink | User Comments (67)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Interesting how law enforcement suddenly backed off after Foley poured millions into digging up dirt on them. This Republican corruption and pedo ring is so sick that it is beyond disgusting. The cover up is even worse. Why are the Christian Right-Wing 'family values' freaks so sexually deranged?

Posted by: Mia | Dec 9, 2006 9:12:42 PM

To the "Foley was a pedophile" crowd:

Nothing Foley was accused of falls under the range of pedophilia. A pedophile is someone who is attracted to pre-pubescent children. That's not the case with Foley. It's normal for any adult to find post-pubescent people sexually attractive. Whether you like it or not, about 97% of modern American boys can be considered post-pubescent by age 16.

What he did was unethical and, because of his position of authority, immoral. Nothing I've seen alleged was illegal. Only in a totalitarian government would everything that's immoral be illegal - part of liberty is the freedom to exhibit poor taste.

Both parties behaved poorly in the handling of the Foley matter. No gay person should be surprised to see homosexual subjects exploited for political gain by either party. Big politics is about winning, not loyalty to an ideal.

Posted by: goethe | Dec 9, 2006 9:18:54 PM

BILLYBOY ASKS: "Oh so if you're 17 its ok? "

"Okay" is not the same thing as criminal. Something can be horrible and immoral and damaging and yet not against a criminal law.

"Not criminal" DOES NOT make it okay

Posted by: Jon Moseley | Dec 9, 2006 9:21:03 PM

I love it how the Democrats are all upset.

Even though one of their own actually had sex with a minor in the 80's and was re-elected.

Unlike Foley...who went into a dark hole to hide...forevor.

Posted by: vince | Dec 9, 2006 9:39:04 PM

The City of New Orleans and theState of Lousiana had the responsibility the responsibility of first responders. The school buses were left unused and shown in the flood. The National Guard was gathered North of New Orleans to avoid being in the storm. When they tried to enter the area, the roads had to be cleared. stuborn and uninformed residents were left to ride the storm out. Then the finger pointing from the Governor and Mayor began to cover their behinds. Hospital and Nursing home patients left unmoved give a hint of the lack of preparation by State and City in my opinion. Why did they not call Gov Jeb Bush in Fl for an idea of what to do in this situation. He has handeled various Hurricanes with honor.

Posted by: Jrm | Dec 9, 2006 11:13:28 PM

Isn't it obvious what needs to be done? You need to change the law to protect children under 18. Sixteen is too low a threshold.

Posted by: Lori | Dec 9, 2006 11:15:49 PM

Hmmm, Drudge links to an article and instantly a bunch of GOP true-believers start posting comments ranting about "Bush-bashing" and "liberals" and other assorted Fox News buzzwords and talking points. Go figure.

Face it folks, The GOP DESERVED to take a hit over the Foley scandal. For years they systematically covered up for a guy they knew had a sweet tooth for young boys. What Foley did might not technically be a felony, but a forty-something-year-old elected official playing tiddlywinks with teenage high-school students working for him IS a matter that should be brought to the voters' attention. Did the Democrats capitalize on the scandal? Sure, they tried, and they had every right to. It's not their fault the GOP has taken no responsibility whatsoever for its actions over the past ten years, and it is certainly not their fault that every time the country turns around they discover another closeted homosexual hiding in the GOP, a party that enshrines homophobia in its platform and calls the most rabid gay-haters in the country its "base".

For those of you making comparisons between how the GOP dealt with corruption in its ranks and how the Democrats dealt with corruption in their ranks over the past year, consider: News breaks that the FBI has just discovered close to $100 thousand in William Jefferson's freezer. Democrat leaders respond by holding a meeting and asking Jefferson to resign his committee seat. Jefferson refuses, and the Democratic Caucus subsequently votes to strip him of his seat. Compare to: News breaks that Tom DeLay has finally been indicted after myriad allegations of corruption. Republican leaders respond by holding a midnight meeting and rewriting party rules so that indicted politicians can retain their leadership positions.

Is it really any wonder that people were tired of the GOP?

Posted by: Hypnos | Dec 9, 2006 11:19:50 PM

Slaphappy, your comment makes no sense.

Posted by: Huh | Dec 10, 2006 12:04:46 AM

I agree that Brian Ross should be prosecuted for impersonating a reporter.

The Foley case has been used as a political tool to bash the opposition. If there was real outrage over a "crime" then Mr. Ross should be in high dungeon about the miscarriage of justice that occurred when the late Rep. Gerry Stubbs' abuse of a minor was left unpunished.

Posted by: Keith H. Lepley | Dec 10, 2006 12:08:18 AM

"How does this relate to Iraq again? I love how everything for liberals relates some how to Bush bashing or the war."

Get used to it. We've got years of 'but Clinton had oral sex' and 'that stained blue dress' to make up for.

Posted by: Diane Sweet | Dec 10, 2006 1:16:18 AM

Many confused people posting here.

1) Foley is unquestionably guilty of engaging in suggestive internet messaging with pages younger than 18. Whether or not these actions constitute a Federal crime, the subject of this posting, is unclear, but Foley unquestionably did exchange these messages. The national response seems to be a collective, "Ugh. Gross."

2) This collective, "Ugh. Gross" did not turn off the Republican's base. So called values voters, turned out in approximately the same numbers and voted approximately as heavily for Republicans as they have in the past 3 congressional elections.

3) From 2) it follows that if Democrats attempted to use the Foley scandal, they did so unsuccessfully. In particular, Congressional representatives associated with the scandal, Tom Reynolds and Dennis Hastert, managed to be reelected.

4) The reason the Republicans lost congress, from Fox News: "Voters across the nation said they disapprove of the job President Bush is doing and many said their vote for Congress was to express opposition to him. A clear majority said they disapprove of the war in Iraq, and most said they do not believe it has improved the long-term security of the country."

It's the war in Iraq. That Foley guy is a creep, but Republicans lost because of Iraq.

Posted by: yesteray | Dec 10, 2006 1:38:21 AM

Foley is not a pedophile. Pedophile's are attracted, sometimes soley, to prepubescent children, not post pubescent adolescents. It's a misnomer to call it that. all the men attracted to 16/17 year old Britney Spears were not pedophiles.

From the beginning, the analysis was there was likely no crime here, as distasteful as it may be for there to be an old man into young people. Further, even if he had slept with the, they were all legal age, at least everything that was revealed, depending in which state it happened.

(and the fact that there are different ages shows the lack of consensus).

Posted by: jack johnson | Dec 10, 2006 1:58:19 AM

I never did see any of the evidence against Foley that showed a crime had been committed other than a few emails. I'm glad Foley, unlike Barney Franks and Bill Clinton, had enough honor left in him to resign. That was the right thing to do. As far as the major news networks, they continue to go down the path of biased reporting to gain a political advantage for their liberal views, then they will continue to lose credibility. There's plenty of places on the internet to get the real facts so folks can make up their own minds. The days of being spoonfed what the press wants to feed the public is over. Now lets see some reporting on how this new Congress is the most corrupt Congress there has ever been. And report some truth out of Iraq and the good things happening there for a change. Report on this democrat plan they said they had for Iraq. Where is it? Let's see it!

Posted by: Gopher | Dec 10, 2006 4:54:17 AM

realamerican,

Thanks for the offer. Unfortunately it would take far too much time and energy for us to explain to you the hypocrisy of the conservatives.

You think the Swift Boaters were somehow noble in their endeavors?

Posted by: EP | Dec 10, 2006 5:16:26 AM

Question for all the conservatives who bitch about the timing of the release of this info; given that Foley's behaviour was well known insider gossip for about a decade why did they not "expose" Foley on their own a year and a half ago? They could have bumped their credentials with their religious wacko base and gay bashed their way to another win.

Maybe because they realized they would be hypocrites as they do same thing from time to time? Or maybe they think letting pages resolve this issue on their own builds character? Or maybe it's a good way to drive out those young Republicans with honor and integrity so the party will stay slimmy and corrupt? HMMMM

Posted by: Liberal Gay male | Dec 10, 2006 9:45:17 AM

The bottom line is 17 is the age limit. If you dont like the law, have it changed.

Foley abused his position and when caught he resigned and we have not heard from him since.

The only people who have made this something political were the Democrats. The GOP quickly disowned Foley and were highly critical. While the Democrats sat on the information, let him continue to have these inappropriate relationships, until they felt it would be most damaging.
This was not about political party until the Democrats made it this way. Foley and the Democrats really are disgusting.

Posted by: Daniel | Dec 10, 2006 10:00:24 AM

hey realamerican, regardless of how Herb put it, your "Master's Degree in political science and MBA" still can't remove the fact that Foley deserved all the negative spotlight he got. The man is a pervert and I would hope anyone who is expect to represent our country to be subjected to the same scrutiny regardless of their political affiliation.

The big point is who cares about the timing. This guy needed to be taken out of power. Imagine if you had a son working as a page in washington and lets see if your opinion changes.

Posted by: richiiec | Dec 10, 2006 10:29:20 AM

Foley is gay, not a pedophile. A pedophile is someone who is attracted to pre-pubecent children, that is not who foley was going after.

Posted by: g | Dec 10, 2006 11:00:27 AM

Tempest in a teapot.
One remedy for those concerned about this and more serious recent page scandals:
Switch from high school age to college age pages.
If properly designed it would be more cost effective, as well.

Posted by: JimSmiling | Dec 10, 2006 11:38:40 AM

Foley gets accused in the press, with solid evidence, he immediately resigns.

William Jefferson is found with $92,000 cash in his freezer, Democrats re-elect him.

Culture of corruption, anyone?

Posted by: Mikeyrat | Dec 10, 2006 12:15:22 PM

Post a comment