I think the Drudge story, based on the blogger, is that the IM sex during a house vote took place after he was 18. So no crime there. 2 consenting adults. ABC claimed it he was under 18.
But the IM relationship started before the page's 18th birthday.
Exactly. An IM friendship isn't a crime. The sexual aspect didn't start until after he was 18. That also makes it no crime. Weird and creepy? Yes. Crime? No.
Apparently another bombshell is about to burst regarding how long the Dems held on to this info. This might not turn into the scandal they had hoped for. :)
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.
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?
I guess I'm being stupid here, but I thought this whole mess was because the congressman had approached a child who was 16 years old. Now I hear the guy was either 18 or almost 18. I'm having a hard time getting excited over an 18 year old man who can't figure out how to handle unwanted advances from an old man. I thought I read the age of sexual consent was 16. Would some smart person please explain what is going on to me?