The Foley scandal just gets more and more interesting. If the age of consent in D.C. is 16, the question becomes did Foley engage in a legal "wrong"? A moral "wrong"? Does the difference matter? If so, does it depend who’s attacking his behavior? And, if he didn’t commit any legal wrong, in what capacity were the Republican leadership complicit in his behavior?
From where I sit even if there’s no legal “wrong” in hitting on a 16 year old – and I don’t give a shit if it’s a 16 year old boy or girl – there’s a definite ick factor given Foley’s age and position of power. But, with the legal consequences removed, can we really distinguish his behavior from Clinton’s?
The larger question regarding corruption and accountability still troubles me. Certainly you’d think there’d be some concern about the scope of Foley’s communication and an inquiry into the age of his on-line buddies.
I just think if we’re going to hold anyone accountable for this, Republican or Democrat, we need to be very clear about what we’re holding them accountable for.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I read a story suggesting that perhaps Foley didn't do anything criminal. However, what he did was certainly morally wrong because of the power difference. My reading of "misdemeanor" in the Impeachment Clause is that it means misdeed, not a criminal category, so Congress should have a prerogative to expel members who have committed a wrong that is not technically illegal. Even if impeachment should only be used for illegalities, Congress should have the right to pressure him to leave, as happened here.
Wow. I really like your application of the Impeachment Clause. I haven't heard about this and it's really cool (the "misdemeanor" as misdeed). I wish the major news networks hired more people like you as political commentators!
Post a Comment