Foley, Reid Should Be Investigated, Prosecuted If Laws Were Broken

In his article "Mark Foley Should Ask to Amend His Disclosures", J.J. Jackson argues, tongue-in-cheek, I hope, that former Florida Republican Rep. Mark Foley should simply take a page from Democratic Senator Harry Reid's book and ask for a redo.

Jackson's point, at least as I chose to read it, was that Reid's request for redo is ludicrous, just as the continuing Foley scandal is.

That isn't to say that Foley's actions shouldn't be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Using his position as representative to seduce or attempt to seduce boys who also happen to be congressional pages is just sick.
But calling on Speaker of the House Denny Hastert to resign because of it, or tar and feathering the entire Republican Party because of it, is just stupid. Foley is responsible for his actions. Not the Speaker and not the Party.

The House's Page Oversight Committee and House Ethics Committee have a duty to investigate who knew what and when about the scandal, but the only one who needed to resign over the affair has already done so. Foley resigned the day the scandal broke.

Does it matter if the old-boys-network, Republican or Democratic, protected him? Yes, it does. Voters deserve to know and choose whether they want their member of Congress behaving that way. But in both cases, the key player in the allegations is the only one who has a duty to resign because of the scandal.

Jackson's choice to compare the two potentially legal abuses by members of Congress has drawn all kinds of criticism, but the reality is that both incidences need to be investigated and both should be dealt with appropriately.

If Reid acted illegally, he should be prosecuted. If Foley's instant messages and email correspondence broke federal or state laws in the places where they occurred, he should be prosecuted. No matter how morally repugnant one is versus the other, a crime is a crime and members of Congress should not be presumed to be above the law.

Jackson's critics have argued that there is no real evidence that Reid acted illegally or that his land deal was even "shady." While it's true that Reid's actions may have been perfectly legal, there is no question that he violated Congressional Ethics by failing to report his ownership interest in the limited liability corporation he transferred the land title to.

I know that at many professional positions, failing to disclose information properly on an ethics report is a firing offense. The former head of the Food and Drug Administration Lester Crawford is facing and pleading guilty to misdemeanor federal charges because he got his disclosure statements wrong. So, Reid's decision to "amend" his ethics disclosure is laughable.

Maybe that wasn't Jackson's point, but that's what I took out of his article - his disdain for the double-standard being applied simply because of the label in front of the Congress member's name....Democrat or Republican.

Is Foley's alleged crime more disgusting than Reid's? Yes.

Is it more illegal? Well, since neither has actually been charged with a crime, that's hard to say, but the last I knew there was nothing in the law that says one crime is okay and another is not.

Maybe people missed Jackson's sarcasm and his point that all allegations of crime among our elected officials need to be treated equally and investigated to the fullest extent of the law. Or, maybe I'm just giving him credit for something that wasn't there.

Either way, the bottom line is that Reid shouldn't be allowed to simply amend his ethics disclosures and Foley shouldn't be given a bye for admitting that he intended to use his office to seduce young boys. Both should be investigated and prosecuted if the law was violated.