I'm apologizing for nobody.
And prepare to live with the results of your viewpoints.
I'm perfectly willing to say that he should not be condemned by anybody before there is proof.
Maybe you should read the texts of his five (so-far) emails. Tell me he isn't a pevert.
I've read them. However, you A. Know they are real? You don't know for sure. Electronic things can be faked. B. Know he sent them? Emails don't have fingerprints. C. You know a 16 year-old recieved them? And that he intended for a 16 year-old to recieve them? You don't know that.
You seem to be having trouble with a very simple problem: proof.
I'll make this clear once more, although you seem to just want to argue and seem to overlook whatever I say anyway in an attempt to get what you want out of it:
I BELIEVE FOLEY IS GUILTY. I don't think he would have resigned if he wasn't, and there were rumors before that. But until there is something a bit more substantial then what we have, which is an incomplete, one-sided story, it would be totally out of line for someone in Blunt's position to just assume guilt and condemn him.
Get lost.
Aww, did I upset you?
Anyhow, I'll leave whenever I damn well please.
Goodnight.