Posted on 10/04/2006 5:12:16 PM PDT by jrooney
A posting of an unredacted instant message sessions between Rep. Mark Foley and a former congressional page has apparently exposed the identity of the now 21 year-old accuser...
ABC RELEASED TRANSCRIPT OF ONE CHAT BETWEEN FOLEY AND A MAN WHO WAS 18 AT THE TIME OF THE INSTANT MESSAGE EXCHANGE.... NETWORK STATED THE MESSAGE WAS TO 'UNDER AGE' TEEN... DEVELOPING...
ABC ONLINE GLITCH LEADS TO IDENTITY OF FOLEY ACCUSER; FEATURED IM EXCHANGE WAS WITH 18 YEAR OLD
(Excerpt) Read more at drudgereport.com ...
Same guy. He was pretty good most of the time, but he went NUTS today!!
But the first IM was before he was 18- that was the one that made Foley resign. Finding out that he continued this "relationship" past his eighteenth birthday isn't a big deal. The first IM released on Friday the accuser clearly states that he is 17 going on 18, and it included explicit sexual language, although it's unclear whether it would be illegal or not. If the accuser was really 17 during the first IM, it is not a big deal if the boy had turned 18 by the other IMs- maybe so legally, but in public opinion the first IMs was quite sexually explicit by itself.
Makes me ill that Arkansas Universities are just as liberal infested as the Looney elite Universities.
The glitch as a few days ago and wild bill caught it. ABC has since removed it from view, of course. :)
Or are they saying he was really turning 19 when he claimed he was turning 18. Did they find an independent birthdate from page records or something?
Now don't you go getting all philosophical on me, airborne.
I believe the cybersex itself didn't start until AFTER the "kid" was 18.
We are not saying that this guy is good. But even being bad doesn't make one a criminal unless he specifically broke a law on the books.
ABC corrected the "glitch" (the posting of one of the IMs using the former page's aol chat name) about 5 minutes after posting it. But the folks at PassionateAmerica.com had already captured the name, and figured out who it is.
His birthday is 2/23. The salacious ims are time stamped in April, 2 months after he turned 18.
In more ways than one...
Read what Drudge has posted, no scoop killing there. In fact it is already proven that ABC lied about his age on the IM's released, and now havent provided proof on the before part of anything.
nah negron is a better candidate
I don't get this either: did those doing this investigation miss what the person said in the IM about his (under)age, or are different IM's/pages at issue here?
The first thing that came to my mind was why would Foley resign so quickly if he only IM'd with adults??
Could be there are other IM's showing underage recipients?
Could be he was very embarrased that he was IM'ing during a House vote?
Do not get your hopes up to high yet, fellow Freepers.
See how this plays out.
"Legal age may be 18, but regardless of age, this whole thing is still creepy. Monica was well over 18, too."
and you didn't find that creepy????
Very true....
Red herring? What are you talking about. I mean if the kid was 18, then what's the problem?
Which then leads to the question of whether using the internet to make arrangements with a 17 year old to have a sexual liason after his (or her) 18th birthday constitutes solicitation of sex from a minor under the statue Foley sponsored as a House bill.
I think that would be a really tough sell both to juries and for the prosecutors to appelate judges: if the person in question showed up for the tryst, he or she would be a consenting adult.
Of course, and the true bigger story is which Democrats knew about this, when, and how they held onto it for maximum political damage. They are the ones screaming about Hastert not acting sooner and endangering the kids in the Page program. But as is becoming known, and should be the center of our attention, is that some Dems knew the full extent over a year ago and endangered the kids by not saying anything.
I am pointing out that while some of the IM exchanges may have occured after this page's 18th birthday, it is also fact that some occured before his 18th birthday. ABC is at fault for claiming the later exchanges occured with a minor, when they did not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.