Irony Calling…

Greenwald:

[I]n-person, actual sex between Foley and a 16-year-old page would be perfectly legal in D.C. and in most places in the U.S., but it seems that it is a criminal act for Foley to discuss or solicit sexual acts with the same page over the Internet.

Why?

[U]nder the so-called "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" (of which Foley was a co-sponsor), along with 18 U.S.C. 2251, discussion or solicitation of sexual acts between Foley and any "minor" under the age of 18 would appear to be a criminal offense…

Republicans drew the line of age of consent at 18 when, with overwhelming support, they enacted the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006," which the President signed into law (with Mark Foley standing behind him). By definition, then, they consider the acts in which Foley apparently engaged to be criminal. They even enhanced the penalties for this conduct. For those purposes, it doesn't really matter what states have designated as the age of consent because House Republicans have declared it to be a federal crime to solicit or discuss sexual acts with someone under the age of 18.

Wah wah wah. I believe, friends, that’s what we call being hoisted by one’s one petard. What a stupendous intersection of their convenient disregard for states' rights when it suits them, their hubristic compulsion to pass all manner of nonsensical legislation in order to claim—yet again—how they protect families, and their hypocritical, perv-rife ranks.


In the end, the legality of Foley’s misdeeds informs whether the GOP, who knew what he was doing, but decided not to pursue it (in part, they say, because his victim’s parents didn’t want them to, which doesn’t explain their reluctance to protect other underage pages from being targeted by Foley), were simply engaging in an unethical cover-up or a criminal conspiracy. It’s difficult to understand how Speaker Hastert, for example, is not guilty of abetting actions made illegal by legislation enacted by his own party.

(Photo via.)