Rational people see this as solicitng sex from a minor. Rational people don't want elected officials to get away with commiting crimes. Rational people don't scapegoat democrats when their favorites get caught with their hand up the cookie jar. Rational people don't come back on a poster who admitted a mistake and apologized. But you're not rational, are you?
The emails Hastert knew of were NOT soliciting sex from a minot.
Of course, rational people do not want elected officials to get away with committing crimes, but can you tell me what crimes were committed? The initial correspondence involved an innocuous exchange with a 16 year old who under D.C. law is not considered a minor. We have no idea about the age of the correspondents in the steamier exchanges which Hastert did not see, but as one talks of college I think it's safe to say we are not talking about a minor.
I apologize if I offended you, but you must see if you allow yourselves to be driven from supporting the party by these "all stink no think" stories, you can expect to see ginned up stuff like this over and over and over again.
How likely is the ABC story that overnight after it printed the innocuous emails, they received the salacious IM's dated years before? Not very, I say. And what does that mean? To me it means that if those are true, people held on to evidence that would have forced the leadership to remove and replace Foley and protect other pages for purely political reasons. Think about THAT.