Skip to comments.
Three More Former Pages Accuse Foley of Online Sexual Approaches
ABC News Blog ^
Posted on 10/05/2006 2:45:06 PM PDT by mmyers
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 321-338 next last
To: Shermy
His conduct with inferiors would get him automatically fired if Congress were run like an average American corporation.
First, it's not run like any other institution. They exempt themselves. Second, there is no proof of any of this. The only Jordan IMs were with an adult male (over 18) who was a former page. The messages with the 16-year-old were not actionable per the FBI. Ross clumsily intermixed in a deliberate attempt to mislead people about the timeline and that it was one page, not two different ones, who were being emailed (page 2, legal) or IMed (page 1, also legal because over 18 at time of cybersex)
Now we have three anonymous accusers of unknown motive or party affiliation or even proof they exist outside Brian Ross' fevered imagination, and these three new accusers are all saying they must remain anonymous but they weren't pranking and they were underage. But there is no proof. They won't face Foley to accuse him.
I think Brian Ross is inventing these new accusers out of thin air. We can already prove he has fabricated everything he has accused Foley and the GOP of so far.
Ross and ABC are running out of lies. Time to hound them into their graves after suing them into oblvion for libel and slander.
To: soccer8
If Foley was doing this stuff in 1998 then Clinton needs a subpoena to determine what he knew about Foley and when he knew.
To: edzo4
183
posted on
10/05/2006 3:29:17 PM PDT
by
Bigh4u2
(Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
To: Howlin
I wonder if ABC have been receiving any emails from past pages about Democratic Congress people.
Probably not, IMO. My theory is that Foley's only crime is perving while Republican. I cite Studds and Frank as evidence to back up my theory.
To: mmyers
They independently approached ABC News after the Foley resignation through the Brian Ross & the Investigative Team's tip line on ABCNews.com.
oh, that's reliable. an anonymous tip over the internet.
185
posted on
10/05/2006 3:29:45 PM PDT
by
smonk
To: George W. Bush
Seems
Michelle Malkin is believing anything that ABC/Brian Ross writes. She's usually right on. Wonder what's up with this?
186
posted on
10/05/2006 3:31:04 PM PDT
by
vadkins
To: madprof98
YOU are assuming that other Congressmen knew about these sleazy IMs and that has not been proven. They are swarming Hastert to get anything close to an admission of this, but they are fishing. From Drudge's report today I could surmise that at least one boy thought it was a joke, a rite of passage to get "hit" on via IM by Foley. That was wrong. He was preying on pages in an even more disgusting way than clintoon hit on interns. This story is over......Foley is exposed and out, to keep leaking this to the media is possibly "outing" these young men -- something the dem base will not like.
If the dems think the voting base of the conservatives is so wussy that they will run from the Republican party or national security because of this they are really desperate.
187
posted on
10/05/2006 3:31:12 PM PDT
by
tioga
To: smonk
Prostitution is a far more respectable occupation than journalism in today's world.
188
posted on
10/05/2006 3:31:13 PM PDT
by
NinoFan
To: Howlin
How would the three pages he talked to today know whether or not those IMs were pranks or not. Bingo.
These pages were fed talking points. I don't know who coached them from the Dem aisle, but using the word "prank" hours after a Drudge story the MSM itself had NOT reported on is a dead giveaway. Unless they can prove these pages are linked to Drudge's site 24/7 they've just torpedoed this new story they put out. They are idiots.
Thank you for the poll update. So I guess they have been getting justifiably hit for reporting that nonsense then.
189
posted on
10/05/2006 3:31:32 PM PDT
by
Soul Seeker
(Kobach: Amnesty is going from an illegal to a legal position, without imposing the original penalty.)
To: George W. Bush
"also legal because over 18 at time of cybersex)"
If I'm not mistaken, the Supreme Court struck down the federal ban against Internet sex talk with minors, unless an actual rendezvous is planned and there is intent on carrying it out. The talk itself, if it is just titillating, is not a crime. So the page could have been 13 and it would have been legal, if there was no talk of meeting for actual sex.
To: valkyrieanne
"These pages were not his "inferiors." The Louisiana person who was sixteen at the time (subject of relatively innocuous e-mails) never worked for Foley,"
So what?
"and Foley did not send him e-mails until after the Louisiana teenager stopped being a page and returned to his home state. Notice in the story that the unnamed seventeen-year old (at the time) page says that Foley contacted him after he returned to his (unnamed) home state."
Foley was a US Congressman, not a state official.
Think on this: you're young and you summer intern for General Motors. After you leave one of the board of directors contacts you like Foley was doing. And on a GM computer? Sexual harassment on GM's dime.
191
posted on
10/05/2006 3:32:36 PM PDT
by
Shermy
To: mmyers
These are verbal accounts only? No actual e-mails to examine?
BTW, why fail to mention what state the seventeen-year old came from? Could it be because the age of consent in that state is ... drumroll... seventeen?
To: soccer8
To: rightinthemiddle
Anyone can come forward at this point. How many gays are Democrat and wouldn't mind throwing a monkeywrench into the election?
To: Shermy
Think on this: you're young and you summer intern for General Motors. After you leave one of the board of directors contacts you like Foley was doing. And on a GM computer? Sexual harassment on GM's dime. So what indeed. The sexual harassment laws are out of control.
How do you know what computer(s) Foley used, btw?
To: mmyers
None wanted their names used because of the sensitive nature of the communications. Why?. More crap.
196
posted on
10/05/2006 3:34:21 PM PDT
by
Logical me
(Oh, well!!!)
To: Steve_Seattle
And the guy involved was an adult...Foley was wrong, but give it up. They didn't mind when Clinton actually DID an intern not much older than this page. But some dirty talk is suddenly the crime of the century? Please. That giant clicking sound you're hearing are Americans tuning out the hysterical and partisan overreach on this by the Democrats and their media puppeteers.
197
posted on
10/05/2006 3:34:27 PM PDT
by
MikeA
(Foley has resigned. Bin Laden has not. That is what 's at stake in this election, not some pervert.)
To: Shermy
Just because we think Foley is a creep doesn't mean we all have to lay down and let the macacas do anything they want. It doesn't mean we don't fight back. It doesn't mean we don't expose their lies.
198
posted on
10/05/2006 3:35:02 PM PDT
by
ichabod1
(Political Correctness is communist propaganda writ small.)
To: edzo4
![](http://media.phillyburbs.com/2006/07/11/RATHER0.jpg)
hold on dan's typing them up now....
Dang, look at that keyboard. Dan's finally mastered Wordstar on C/PM-80.
To: mmyers
Foley is despicable and no excuses are possible.
More revolting things will probably come out and the GOP is well rid of him.
These 16 years old young men are not blameless, but the real blame always lies with the adult in position of authority. No excuses.
200
posted on
10/05/2006 3:35:19 PM PDT
by
Cincinna
(HILLARY & HER HINO WANT TO TAKE OVER YOUR COUNTRY !)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 321-338 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson