Quote:
Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis
Foley was talking about boys' bodies. Maybe, and I emphasize maybe, a coach could get away with that, but here it clearly smells. I assume that your prior employer would not have countenanced a male mentor telling a teenage girl, "My, you've really filled out this summer."
|
Oh come on. He said another boy was fit. There is a difference between that and commenting on a girls' boobs.
Quote:
In domestic violence cases where the defendant is usually less powerful than a congressman, the prosecutor proceeds on the basis of the police report whether or not he has a victim willing to testify.
|
Yeah, if there was a crime committed. There is currently no evidence that a crime was committed in those emails. The only ones of which
Hastert may have been aware. And beyond knowing that they said they didn't want it persued we don't know why they said that to the Congressman looking into it.
You say it is obvious without hindsight. I strongly disagree with that. But then we live in a society where any adult male that takes an interest in children is viewed as a likely criminal (except by the people who actually know him). And this leads to the parents who ask their children be reassigned in school because they don't want a male teacher.
I'm not denying that in hindsight these email were indicators. But I do argue that if you put those emails in a pile of 100 emails from similar relationships where there is no sexual interest involved you would not be able to point to them and say "those are from a guy trying to get his freak on."
Quote:
I would not be so quick to interpret the family's wish not to do anything as making it clear that they felt that there was no harm done.
|
I agree. But I wouldn't be so quick to assume that such a statement was from the parents trying to sell out their kid to maintain connections. And in the face of that request, with arguably innocuous but misinterpreted emails, would you destroy a man's career? Or would you just say "stop emailing the kid?"