ABC Pulls a Dan Rather: Page was 18, not 16

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Indisputedly 17 years old? Oh, you mean he was one year older than the age of consent for heterosexual or homosexual sexual activity in DC? What is "clearly being revealed" here is that a good many Democrats are willing to exploit homophobic biases for political gain. The manufacture of this "scandal" has nothing to do with the well being of the young man involved, and everything to do with elections in 5 weeks time.

Ok, so you definately ARE defending Mark Foley. You're a classic example of how low some GOP supporters will sink in their misguided efforts to support the GOP. This has almost nothing to do with the fact Foley is gay, its about his position of power and how he went after underage individuals. (Even when going after individual who turned 18 he clearly did so in a way where he was abusing his position of power.)

Mark Foley has rather clearly violated a number of laws, including possibly some of those he helped write designed to catch internet preditors. The laws say a variety of things about how you can communicate with pages under 18, and Foley didn't confine his communications to individuals while they remained in DC so that 16 and older age of consent definately doesn't apply in all cases.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Foley's actions were mildly inappropriate at worst. The so-called "boys" were actually young men who are legally able to screw whoever they want. Since when is being attracted to an 18 year old "pedophilia"?

We already established that the page in question started receiving these questionable communicating with the page while he was still 17. That called "enticing a minor". We also have established that MANY of these individuals were under 18 when he started his graphic communications, any Foley could be in legal trouble in many of these cases.

In Florida for instance, its illegal to send any information over the internet that can be considerable harmful to a minor. That gives Prosecutors considerable leeway if they want to go after Foley if either the minor receiving the message or Foley was in Florida when one of these communications was sent. Foley apparently is also going to have to worry about the laws in a number of other states. We're technically not talking aboiut pedophilia, since that only applies to children who are not sexually mature at all, but we are talking about preditory behavoir towards minors in this case, and possibly other charges such as providing alcohol to a minor depending on how this develops as well as probably sexual harassment charges.

 

[aidanjm]

It's interesting that you assume I would support the Republican party. This 'scandal' is just another chance to score partisan points for people like you. Actually it has everything to do with the fact Foley is gay. If he was sending those instant messages to an 18 year old woman, he would be characterised as a sad old lech and the thing would blow over in a day. Instead, he is characterised as a "pedophile". The instant messages are characterised as "foul" and "disgusting". How interesting that (based on the IM conversation) the young guy appears to be enjoying himself to some extent. I believe he even comments that he has an erection. Of course, unlike a female of 18, he isn't entitled to be sexually aroused because that would be "foul" and "disgusting" in the eyes of Democrats such as yourself.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
It's interesting that you assume I would support the Republican party. This 'scandal' is just another chance to score partisan points for people like you. Actually it has everything to do with the fact Foley is gay. If he was sending those instant messages to an 18 year old woman, he would be characterised as a sad old lech and the thing would blow over in a day. Instead, he is characterised as a "pedophile". The instant messages are characterised as "foul" and "disgusting". How interesting that (based on the IM conversation) the young guy appears to be enjoying himself to some extent. I believe he even comments that he has an erection. Of course, unlike a female of 18, he isn't entitled to be sexually aroused because that would be "foul" and "disgusting" in the eyes of Democrats such as yourself.

You appear to be paying no attention to the important details of this situation or ignoring them entirely.

We now have had many of these individuals come forward, with many of them rejecting Foley's advances and still receiving graphic messages and at least most of them being under 18 when they intially started receiving these messages. He would have been forced to resign regardless of the fact he was gay or straight in this situation. There also is his spectacular hypocracy in this situation which is noteworthy. I personally would have had an equal problem with a straight man behaving this way towards female interns that are this age, although I do relish how upset the religious right is going to be with the Republican Party over this.

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
It's interesting that you assume I would support the Republican party. This 'scandal' is just another chance to score partisan points for people like you. Actually it has everything to do with the fact Foley is gay. If he was sending those instant messages to an 18 year old woman, he would be characterised as a sad old lech and the thing would blow over in a day. Instead, he is characterised as a "pedophile". The instant messages are characterised as "foul" and "disgusting". How interesting that (based on the IM conversation) the young guy appears to be enjoying himself to some extent. I believe he even comments that he has an erection. Of course, unlike a female of 18, he isn't entitled to be sexually aroused because that would be "foul" and "disgusting" in the eyes of Democrats such as yourself.

As usual, you are trying to turn this into a gay rights issue. The current details state that he made the first advances when the page in question was a minor. If the page had been female and underage the senator would be in just as much trouble, especially due to his particular duties in congress.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Termagant
O Really???

What about the imbalance of power and authority in this relationship? This is a congressman, who has definate authority over pages, making what were apparently unwanted sexual innuendo and verbal (typed) advances. So it is not as innocuous as some heterosexual couple cybersexing.

Unless the end goal of some gay rights crusade is so chickenhawks can go after high school students they have authority over....

This would be a good point to throw in a Clinton reminder, but I would just be called a hack etc etc for reminding everyone of the power he had over the intern who got on her knees in the White House pantry.

I think you are in love with Bill Clinton. It is shocking the the level of obsession you have over an affair. I am a Republican but think it is atrocious that Clinton had to even answer questions about his affair. You have claimed the "moral" high road before and now attack the democrats instead of focusing on Foley. Suddenly Foley who has resigned in shame and is in rehab is doing all that because he had sexual im's with an adult? Sounds odd.

Ridiculous. You say you have morals yet you continually bring up Clinton obsessively. Where is your forgiveness and moving on if you are so moral? Your continued blind attacks on the "left wing" are hypocritical. I have said from the beginning that this should be about one man. If the democrats really wanted this to take on a life of its own they would have released it (as you "left wing" :roll: God I hate these arbitrary terms that do nothing but polarize and conversation) only two weeks before the November election.

I could just as easily slam my (I presume our) party for sitting on this as you are the democrats. Neither party is a bed of roses (and to my mind have become way to similar in substance different only in appearance).

I want the posters in here who would not lie if they were in Clinton's shoes to raise their hands. Yes, what he did is a more to this Judeo-Christian patriarchal/mysoginistic culture but if you honestly state that most Republicans wouldn't do the same thing then I call you hypocrite and liar.

This is not about Clinton
This is not about Clinton
This is not about Clinton
This is not about Clinton
This is not about Clinton
This is not about Clinton
This is not about Clinton
This is not about Clinton
This is not about Clinton
This is not about Clinton
This is not about Clinton
This is not about Clinton
This is not about Clinton
This is not about Clinton
This is not about Clinton
This is not about Clinton

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
http://drudgereport.com/flashmfa.htm

The identity of the page was revealed (accidentally) by ABC, whoops.

Drudge has learned the page was over the age of 18 when the lewd IMs were written. I still think this stinks, the guy needed to go, but tell me, how is this worse than Bill Clinton, who actually had sex with a person serving under him?

WHICH Page? There were numerous. They were all 18? haha. You guys. So desperate.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: DonVito
I will ask a third time: in what sense are you a "professor"?

I guess this isn't being answered, huh?

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Probably not in the same sense you are a lawyer? Maybe he's the guy from Gilligans Island? Which kind of wrecks things for me, I actually liked that guy. Those radios he made out of coconuts were amazing!

 

[Craig234]

WHICH Page? There were numerous. They were all 18? haha. You guys. So desperate.

You do understand that this is damage control mode for the republicans - they're throwing out things like 'he was 18' in order to get some of their base to fall for it and not be as upset. It's not really aimed at those who check their facts and look at the ages of other pages.

I see it a lot from them - they just repeat repeat repeat some simple line, er lie, using their big media machine and it keeps enough voters misinformed.

See the Al Gore election, for example. 'Did you know he said he invented the internet? What a liar he is.' Even many democrats questioned Gore's honesty for a while.

How do you run against an honest, clean guy who will continue policies he's been VP of which gave the nation 8 years of prosperity and mostly peace, ending the deficit, when your own camaign is simply the raw pursuit of power, willingness to trash America's reputation as a moral nation and to bankrupt the country by redirecting trillions away from most Americans to the few most wealthy? You spend a hell of a lot on a campaign to say the other guy is a liar, apparently. And the republicans almost won that way.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: DonVito
I will ask a third time: in what sense are you a "professor"?

I guess this isn't being answered, huh?

I believe this is the answer to your query.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I grow tired of this subject, so until there is something new to talk about I shall move on
Everyone has already made up their minds, so anymore posts without new evidence is wasted time.

I want my two minutes back from having to suffer through your previous posts.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: aidanjm
This scandal isn't even a scandal. The "boy" was an 18 year old man. The only reason this relationship between Foley and the young man can even be called a "scandal" is the existence of different standards for gay and straight relationships. A 50 year old guy in a sexual relationship with an 18 year old woman might be described as sad or pathetic, but I doubt it's going to be labelled "pedophilia". What a fvcking joke.

You clearly can't handle the truth.

The page was indisputedly 17 when he started receiving innapropriate messages, and as noted a wide array of pages received simular messages while underage. The complete moral bankrupcy of a large potion of the currently elected Republican Party and their diehard supporters is clearly being revealed here.

Claiming the Republican Party is the party of moral values is what's the joke here!

I've been saying for some time that you know the end is near when they start believing their own press. This whole thread is a perfect example of that.

 

[5to1baby1in5]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Here Don since you are so worried about douchebag bloggers, here is a nice link that details some of the dirty tricks against Foley by the radical gays
PROOF THAT DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVES WERE AFTER MARK FOLEY SINCE 2004

The gay left have been going after this guy for years because he commited the crime of beign Republican and being in the closet. I would not be suprised to see if in the end these types of people are the ones who leaked the e-mails and IMs etc.

I grow tired of this subject, so until there is something new to talk about I shall move on
Everyone has already made up their minds, so anymore posts without new evidence is wasted time.

This is completely, 100%, irrelevant to this discussion, and a weak effort on your part to justify your own aiding and abetting of the outing of Foley's victim. You have not in any way shown that the "radical gays" are "Democratic operatives," or, for that matter, that they have any formal connection to the Democratic party whatsoever. The members of the Westover Baptist Church are self-identified Christians - does that make them "Christian operatives"?

In what sense are you a "professor"?

Personal opinion here, but anyone who thinks the release wasn't timed by the Democrats is an idiot. My only question is why now? The turmoil from each of the recent series of Bad News (for republicans) reports usually die down after a few weeks. This would mean that this issue will not be at full boil on Nov. 7th. My guess is that there will be something released towards the end of October to bring anti-Republican sentiment back to the front pages. The question is what!

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
[Drudge has learned the page was over the age of 18 when the lewd IMs were written. I still think this stinks, the guy needed to go, but tell me, how is this worse than Bill Clinton, who actually had sex with a person serving under him?

And you believe Matt Drudge without any corrobrating documenation? :roll: Matt Drudge who blamed any and all of the pageS involved, even assuming they were underage.

Matt Drudge blames the kids for Predatorgate: They are 16 and 17 year old beasts

By: John Amato on Monday, October 2nd, 2006 at 12:24 PM - PDT

(Update below) Here comes Matt "The Eggman" Drudge to (Mr. Predatorgate) Mark Foley's defense. He uses that age old "attack the messenger" conservative technique-only in a creepier way. He says the congressional pages are just as responsible because of Youtube and pop culture and how dare they egg him on like that. They are just 16 and 17 year old beasts after all and not innocent little babies who are engaged in a conspiracy against poor, old Foley. What kind of beast does that make the 52 year old Foley?

The apologists can try to dissemble and divert attention from Drudge's credibility because it's from crooksandliars.com, but if you do, don't forget to post your lame excuses for these direct audio clips of Drudge, himself:

Clip #1:

And if anything, these kids are less innocent ? these 16 and 17 year-old beasts?and I've seen what they're doing on YouTube and I've seen what they're doing all over the internet ? oh yeah ? you just have to tune into any part of their pop culture. You're not going to tell me these are innocent babies. Have you read the transcripts that ABC posted going into the weekend of these instant messages, back and forth? The kids are egging the Congressman on! The kids are trying to get this out of him. We haven't got the whole story on this.

Clip #2:

You could say "well Drudge, it's abuse of power, a congressman abusing these impressionable, young 17 year-old beasts, talking about their sex lives with a grown man, on the internet." Because you have to remember, those of us who have seen some of the transcripts of these nasty instant messages. This was two ways, ladies and gentlemen. These kids were playing Foley for everything he was worth. Oh yeah. Oh, I haven't?they were talking about how many times they'd masturbated, how many times they'd done it with their girlfriends this weekend?all these things and these "innocent children." And this "poor" congressman sitting there typing, "oh am I going to get any," you know?

Clips #3 and 4:

Now, of course, I'd feel much differently if this was an eight year old, a nine year old, a thirteen year old, a fourteen year old, but you start getting into this sixteen seventeen year old zone, and you're going to start arresting him because he only did it on the Interenet, he didn't do it in real life, we have got major issues, here -- The Internet as the boogyman, the Internet as the danger.

They're successfully going to regulate the Internet. That's what this is. They are doing it.

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought Drudge had a pretty good record on the things he posts being true. Am I wrong about this? Can anyone back up their allegations with proof that he is wrong more often than not?

OK. You stand corrected. Now STFU and go stand in the corner like the petulant, pissant lying child you are. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

 

[International Machine Consortium]

I'd like to see a response to that. Put up people.

 

[shrumpage]

CLAIM: FILTHY FOLEY ONLINE MESSAGES WERE PAGE PRANK GONE AWRY
**World Exclusive**
**Must Credit the DRUDGE REPORT**

According to two people close to former congressional page Jordan Edmund, the now famous lurid AOL Instant Message exchanges that led to the resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, goaded an unwitting Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of political operatives favorable to Democrats.

The primary source, an ally of Edmund, adamantly proclaims that the former page is not a homosexual. The prank scenario was confirmed by a second associate of Edmund. Both are fearful that their political careers will be affected if they are publicly brought into the investigation.

The prank scenario only applies to the Edmund IM sessions and does not necessarily apply to any other exchanges between the former congressman and others.

The news come on the heels that Edmund has hired former Timothy McVeigh attorney, Stephen Jones.

Developing...

From the drudgereport.

 

[Craig234]

Personal opinion here, but anyone who thinks the release wasn't timed by the Democrats is an idiot. My only question is why now? The turmoil from each of the recent series of Bad News (for republicans) reports usually die down after a few weeks. This would mean that this issue will not be at full boil on Nov. 7th. My guess is that there will be something released towards the end of October to bring anti-Republican sentiment back to the front pages. The question is what!

It's extremely unlikely that the democrats had anything to do with the timing. I wish they did, it'd show they had improved at fighting the republicans using their own techniques.

The involvement of democrats has already been debunked on other sites I'm not going to bother finding for you at the moment, but you can get the info.

And by the way you're right, if the democrats were to do that, later in October would be the time. It's the republicans' surprise that's more likely.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: 5to1baby1in5
Personal opinion here, but anyone who thinks the release wasn't timed by the Democrats is an idiot. My only question is why now? The turmoil from each of the recent series of Bad News (for republicans) reports usually die down after a few weeks. This would mean that this issue will not be at full boil on Nov. 7th. My guess is that there will be something released towards the end of October to bring anti-Republican sentiment back to the front pages. The question is what!

Ask Brian Ross.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

CLAIM: FILTHY FOLEY ONLINE MESSAGES WERE PAGE PRANK GONE AWRY
**World Exclusive**
**Must Credit the DRUDGE REPORT**

According to two people close to former congressional page Jordan Edmund, the now famous lurid AOL Instant Message exchanges that led to the resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, goaded an unwitting Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of political operatives favorable to Democrats.

The primary source, an ally of Edmund, adamantly proclaims that the former page is not a homosexual. The prank scenario was confirmed by a second associate of Edmund. Both are fearful that their political careers will be affected if they are publicly brought into the investigation.

The prank scenario only applies to the Edmund IM sessions and does not necessarily apply to any other exchanges between the former congressman and others.

The news come on the heels that Edmund has hired former Timothy McVeigh attorney, Stephen Jones.

Developing...

From the drudgereport.

Doesn't this seem like an absurdly thin excuse by a young man who doesn't want to be publically outed? I feel bad that a jackass right-wing blogger outed Mr. Edmund, but I don't really believe this was a "prank" in any way. Why would he undertake a "prank" like this, and why would Foley agree to it, particularly if he himself knew he had proclivities for flirting with teenage boys? Drudge really is one of the most shameless yellow journalists around.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: 5to1baby1in5
Personal opinion here, but anyone who thinks the release wasn't timed by the Democrats is an idiot. My only question is why now?

What part do you not understand about the concept that the facts and the truth about what happened are what matters, regardless who released them.

There are two separate issues:

1. Foley's actions. The facts that he's gay and that he sent inappropriate pedophiliac messages to underage male pages are already last week's news. He's been sent packing in shame, and the only questions are how much more info will come out about him and how much worse it will get.

2. Actions by Republican leaders. The question, here, is the classics -- What did they know, when did they know it and what did they do about it? Or simply, did anyone cover up what they knew about Foley's behavior in an attempt to avoid political embarrassment.

So far, it looks pretty bad for the Republicans. It's already been established that a Republican was the source of the information, and that Hastert and others have come up with more contradictory stories about when they learned about it and what they did once they knew and followed on with a lot of fingerpointing in other directions.

That sounds a lot more like cover up than openness. Let us know if you have any links to the contrary.

 

[Todd33]

An online story on the Drudge Report Thursday claimed one set of the sexually explicit instant messages obtained by ABC News was part of a "prank" on the part of the former page, who reportedly says he goaded the congressman into writing the messages.

"This was no prank," said one of the three former pages who talked to ABC News today about his experience with the congressman.

Seems like a lot of pages in on this joke, lol. Maybe Drudge can go jump off a bridge now and spare us his continued BS.

 

[johnnobts]

Ask Brian Ross.

____________

Ross already said he held onto the story b/c too busy covering other events at the time... sure brian. he cared about the pages enough to hold on the story till october.