Skip to content

FBI Begins Investigation into Florida Democrat who Replaced Mark Foley

October 15, 2008

 The Democrat who won the Florida seat that was held by disgraced Republican Mark Foley has been caught in his own little sex scandal. Considering that Foley had to resign in his own sex scandal, if you can call mere inappropriate emails and text messages a sex scandal, this is just too ironic.

 Tim Mahoney “allegedly” paid a mistress of his over $120,000 to keep her from going public, and there are rumors of a second affair. Mark Foley’s seat was not considered in play in 2006 until the scandal broke, and then the calls for his resignation came from both Democrats and Republicans. But when this scandal broke here is what the Democrats said:

Senior Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives, including Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), the chair of the Democratic Caucus, have been working with Mahoney to keep the matter from hurting his re-election campaign

 Suddenly this is a private matter and should not affect the outcome of the election. It’s funny the difference in thinking within the Democrat party depending on which party the perpetrator is in.

 Now the FBI is investigating Mahoney, and justice may be served as he is considering not running for re-election.

The FBI has reportedly begun its own preliminary investigation into an ABC News report that West Palm Beach Congressman Tim Mahoney (D-FL) hired an alleged mistress to work on his official staff and then paid her $121,000 to keep her from going public and filing suit after she was fired.

 But the whole kicker in this is the following:

According to the Mahoney staffers, his secret agreement with the woman, Patricia Allen, began in 2006 when he was campaigning for office, vowing to remove the “ethical cloud” he said had been left over the district by Republican Mark Foley

 This whole affair (pardon the pun) was happening as he was campaigning for Mark Foley’s seat. This whole affair was taking place even as he was vowing to be more ethical than his predecessor. He was saying one thing in public even as he was acting in the opposite manner.

 This man is nothing but a hypocrite.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

3 Comments leave one →
  1. Anim8r's avatar
    Anim8r permalink
    October 16, 2008 9:22 pm

    Wait…
    wasn’t Foley caught with young pages, most males? Many of the incidents involving drugs and alcohol?

    And this involves adults. Certainly an affair, but let’s examine the ethics. One committed adultery, the other attempted and in some cases succeeded in luring young men to imbibe in drugs and alcohol for the purpose of having sex with them. In some cases actually visiting the pages dormitory at night in a state of intoxication.

    Now I am not in any way condoning the man’s behavior but there is a difference.
    Both are wrong, but not the same.

    Like

  2. Steve Dennis's avatar
    October 16, 2008 9:33 pm

    But it turned out that none of these young men were underage, as the way it was portrayed in the media. As far as I know he never succedded.
    Gerry Studds on the other hand, used alcohol to ply a 17 year old boy into sex repeatedly in 1983, was censured by congress but was re-elected several times in Mass. Quite a double standard.
    And by the way, wasn’t Foley trying to engage in a politically correct behavior with his homosexualtiy? The left should have embraced him as a victim.

    Like

  3. Anim8r's avatar
    Anim8r permalink
    October 16, 2008 11:36 pm

    Foley’s homosexuality was never the issue. The issue was abuse of power, position and impropriety. It was not politically correct, Had he met another man at a bar or party or been introduced by friends and had an adult relationship just like any of us do that would have been perfectly acceptable (at least to liberals).

    Yes Studds was caught, and censured. Then his constituents CHOSE to re-elect him. Not a great choice I agree (in fact I don’t really agree with it). But that wasn’t the point. The point was one of degree. Does having an affair with another adult equate with attempting through coercion or narcotics? Does D.C. not consider 17 to be underage? I believe one of the pages in question was 17.

    Like

Leave a reply to Anim8r Cancel reply