ABC ONLINE GLITCH LEADS TO IDENTITY OF FOLEY ACCUSER; FEATURED IM EXCHANGE WAS WITH 18 YEAR OLD

The Drudge Report ^ | 10-04-06 | Drudge

[petercooper]

Hey ABC!

[traderrob6]

"Odd. What would the kid be doing that is illegal? This smells."

You're right. The last thing a 17 year old is worried about is doing something illegal. Besides the minor would be guilty of nothing...very stinky indeed.

[longtermmemmory]

Now watch the MSM try to dump this story double quick and try and reboot the Woodward fairytale book

[Guenevere]

bttt

[George W. Bush]

He's been digging hard. Maybe a little motivated by the extremely vicious attention the libs have been heaping on his sexual persona (which is a little mysterious).

And now he breaks this one. Revenge is so sweet for the Mattster.

I've suggested several times that the 'boy' might be eighteen. So fun to see my lucky guess come true.

And now, what becomes of the Dim's big Foley scandal? A big nothing. Even if Foley did do something with some other underage male, the phoniness of this main charge is what people will remember. And it will cast doubt on anything else Foley is accused of.

[beaversmom]

If that's him, Foley should have resigned. His taste is as bad as Clinton's.

[jrooney]

Not surpising but amazing. There will be a huge wave that comes crashing back on the donks and ABC for this.

[Enchante]

[uncorrected text]: "ABC News now has obtained 52 separate instant message exchanges, which former pages say were sent by Foley, using the screen name Maf54, to two different boys under the age of 18."

HA! Nice try, ABC-frauds, you can run but you can't hide, your original uncorrected words have been preserved in cyber-space...... clearly ABC was trying to make people believe that Foley was sexually propositioning minors, but from what I've read it may well turn out that the only sexually explicit IMs were to an 18 y.o.

Foley is still scum, as so many here have noted, but the whole hypocritical "protect our children against molestors" theme of the Demagogues and the MSM may have gone down the tubes tonight.

[b4its2late]

Brian Ross must be soiling his drawers about now.....

[ClaireSolt]

When an investigation does not yield conclusive evidence a media/law enforcement colusion will run a story hoping that people send in new leads. Brian Ross says this happened here.

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

Will the President retract his statement? Will the dems and their allies in the media retract or do what they usually do, just drop it?

[Nuc1]

I think I understand what you are looking for.

The pages age is currently 21 yrs, 7 months, 11 days. Sources; the pages biography provides birth date. Individual has been found and is 21 + some months old.

The pages IM had the page's birth date of 2/23 as a part of the online name.

This means that the page was 18 on 2/23/2003.

The "bad" IMs were sent by Foley in April of 2003.

Thus the page was 18 years and approximately 2 months old when the "bad" IMs were recieved.

There. I think that is it. I don't think Matt or anyone is attacking the victim. Hope this helps. I gleaned this from about 400 posts. I am going to bed now and let my eyes uncross.

Please pass my thanks on to your son for his service. If you ain't Armored Cav, You Ain't! Unless you are in nuc subs of course. :D)

[woofie]

Nevermind....

[jrooney]

Bingo.

[Soul Seeker]

Oh, I think talk about sitting this one out died the minute the Dems sunk this low.

They would have been better served not to a) infuriate conservatives and b) trash their own base.

Now, game's on and I'm voting straight Republican. Thank the Dems' sleaze for that turnaround in my, and I strongly suspect many, attitude(s).

Oh, and ABC lied huh? Well well...maybe rather & mapes will soon have company.

[38special]

The MSM hasn't caught on yet because they're still running the full-on blitz on Republicans.

[riri]

ah jees, this almost semlls like a Rove Runner moment. You know what your enemies going to do before he knows what he is going to do. And you use it to your advantage.

[George W. Bush]

Drudge also has noted how ABC Brain Ross called this person "under age".

So is Brian Ross and ABC liable for a malicious libel/slander lawsuit from Foley? I'd love to see it. I don't care about Foley but I'd enjoy seeing the libmedia taught a good lesson about libelling Republicans to drive them from office.

[mwl1]

I wish I could agree, and I hope you are right.

I don't believe the ABC confession provides much exculpatory evidence for Foley or the GOP handling of this matter.

Hope I'm wrong and missing something big.

[Alia]

Hmmm...the month of August has Huffington Post saying: House Democrats have been examining many of the Administration's failures affecting our Gulf Coast citizens. As everyone who lives there and has volunteered or visited already knows, in order to rate the Administration's performance, there needs to be a grade lower than "F."

'course that was in contextual reference to "Katrina". Or this one from a linked webpage to Huffington post. The author is taking bets on what "dirty tricks" Republicans have planned.

It's entitled "October Surprise, 2006:

snip:

(5) Nancy Pelosi caught with child porn. Or drugs. Or WMD. Or something. Odds: 250-to-1 House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is stopped at a TSA checkpoint in an airport and a cursory check of her laptop computer reveals graphic and disgusting child pornography -- apparently filmed (and participated in) by Pelosi herself. Later reports that the TSA screener has a doctorate in Computer Science from M.I.T. are quickly hushed up.

...

OK, the odds are high, but this has been the basis of the Republican party's attempt to "nationalize" the election in their favor: "Nancy Pelosi is dangerous; and America would go to Hell in a handbasket within two weeks of her becoming Speaker of the House." So framing her for some heinous crime isn't completely outside the realm of possibility. It is pretty far-out, though, which is reflected in the odds.

(5a) Widespread GOP smear campaign based on wiretapping Democratic candidates. Odds: 50-to-1 A remarkably well-orchestrated and simultaneous Republican smear campaign across dozens of congressional races, all with information gathered through wiretapping political opponents. Since Congress has basically abdicated all responsibility for wiretapping to the White House, what's to stop them from using such information politically? How the information was gathered would naturally not be made public until after the elections, so the outcome would be a fait accompli.

Oh my, Perhaps it was July that the dems knew....