Sixteen-Year-Old Who Worked as Capitol Hill Page Concerned About E-mail Exchange with Congressman

ABC News ^

[muawiyah]

They published the "good stuff" later ~ you'll have to find another thread to catch up on it.

Mostly standard homosexual pickup lines and so forth. Guy was cruising the net for conveniently available House pages.

[Tax-chick]

Yes, I've been pinged! With the new information since last night, it's now clear that he was pursuing sexual relationships - at least online, if not in person - with teenage boys.

[muawiyah]

Let's say he was set up, and he's gay anyway, and this isn't the first time.

Guy's gotta' go ~ one too many pervs in the Congress.

[go-dubya-04]

How's that "Dems set him up" Theory working out for ya?

[RightOnline]

"I believe very strongly in innocent until proven guilty."

As do I. However, I trust my guts on such things. Guess this time I was right; the weasel resigned today...........he didn't just drop out of the race, he resigned his office. Guess there was plenty of "there" there.

[mom4kittys]

You were right! I was giving him the benefit of the doubt before those IM"s became public.
I could see myself asking a kid about their birthday and making small talk about what they had been doing. I am on a message board that has a demographic from 8 to 80 and every age in between--we all talk to the younger ones that way and yes we ask for pictures. Nothing shameful about it. I guess I just needed more info.

[lowbridge]

How's that "Dems set him up" Theory working out for ya?

Just fine. I still stand by it. My "set up" theory had nothing to do with whether or not he was guilty or innocent of preying on the kid.

My "Set up" theory had to do with the possibility that the kid contacted Foley on the Dems behalf. And even if that wasnt the case, I still get the feeling that the Dems were indeed still involved somehow. For example: Has anyone checked into how the news media (particularly ABC) got the story in the first place?)

And don't ever act sarcastic towards me ever again. This was your first warning, big nose. /Monty Python

[go-dubya-04]

"Who are you calling Big Nose?!" And remember, Blessed are the Cheesemakers. ;-)

If the dems set him up, then I say "Good for them!" Have you read the rest of these emails? This guy is a total predatory sicko who should have his penis cut off. He is a disgusting pervert who should have been taken down by the Republican leadership years ago but they were too gutless and/or concerned about holding onto their power to keep innocent pages safe from this monster. Shame on them!

[lowbridge]

This guy is a total predatory sicko who should have his penis cut off. He is a disgusting pervert who should have been taken down by the Republican leadership years ago but they were too gutless and/or concerned about holding onto their power to keep innocent pages safe from this monster. Shame on them!

I completely agree. Dont get me wrong. I'm not excusing his (perverted) actions even if he was set up. But I would love to see a Dem set up fall flat on its face every now and then.

[lowbridge]

He is a disgusting pervert who should have been taken down by the Republican leadership years ago

But Democrats are attempting to make hay by alleging that the Republican leadership may have known about the inappropriate emails and covered them up for months. Their hope, no doubt, is to discourage turnout by disillusioned evangelical and other voters sensitive to moral issues. But the emerging background detail suggests that this is simply not the case, and that an attack strategy has been devised by parties anxious to damage the GOP and swing the coming election.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5907

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1711649/posts

[Enchante]

HOLD ON!! Is ABC's account of the initial milder emails to the kid in LA in conflict with what they've said in the past 24 hours about when/how they learned of the more graphic IMs?

I'm going to have to review all the details on many threads because I think I just saw a huge inconsistency in ABC's claims about what they knew and when..... (but there are so many balls in the air I might be the one mixed up). I thought that ABC's VP of something just said that they never saw the really nasty IMs until after they published their article on the emails to the 16-17 yr. old page in Louisiana..... yet THIS article (which seems tob e the first one??) has the quote "sick sick sick sick...." (though there are not nearly as many sicks as appeared in later articles!!).

IIRC, the "sick sick sick 12-13 sicks" came from a comment on the IMs (which were indeed very graphic), and NOT to the original emails to a DIFFERENT page which were pretty mild (how can you say "sick sick sick....." to the initial emails unless you already know there's a lot more graphic stuff behind them? If this thread has the original ABC article about the more innocuous ("overly friendly") but non-explicit emails, didn't ABC just claim today that they never saw the nasty IMs until more pages got in touch with them about the first email article???

The young man forwarded that e-mail to a congressional staffer saying it was "sick sick sick sick sick."