However, Foley, still thought he was contacting a young boy...even if it were a prank or not. Same as when a person is attempting to hire a hooker and the hooker turns out to be a cop. The cop wasn't a hooker...but the guy thought it was.
The intent was there...even though the hooker wasn't a real hooker.
Not sure what this "prank" aspect really accomplishes. Someone explain.
A young man, you mean.
Glad to help.
"Not sure what this "prank" aspect really accomplishes. Someone explain."
The "prank" claim was introduced to the discussion by that high-powered defense attorney hired by Jordan Edmund. I assume it's intended to show that Edmund wasn't blackmailing Foley, and wasn't gay.
For one thing, it calls into question the statement that Foley was the one who initiated the sex part of the chat. The IMs might have been redacted to only show those parts that implied that it was Foley who started the sexual talk. Any IMs that ABC produces now will be questioned (were these pages in on the prank)?
It doesn't help Foley, at least as a republican. We wouldn't elect someone who would talk like that to a young boy, even an 18-year-old.
BUT, if there are no other IM messages, what it means is that Foley was NOT a predator trying to woo pages to him -- instead, a PAGE was trying to woo HIM. If the page instigated the lurid exchanges, it means that Foley was NOT a predator, and therefore there was nothing to "protect".
Unless the democrats want to argue that a gay man just can't be trusted.
I'll try this on some of my value voters people, and see what they say.
These are people who in 2000 didn't vote for Bush after they found out about the DUI, and who didn't care about WHo set this up or why it came out now.