Other than Drudge saying it, where is the proof he was 18?
They tracked back his ID to his page bio I think.
The Passionate America blog deciphered the "unredacted" screen name, Lolakana223, leading back to the former page, now 21. The 223 part of the SN is his birthday, so he was 18 and 2 months when the exchange purportedly occurred.
"Other than Drudge saying it, where is the proof he was 18?"
You can find out who he is here:
San Diego HS gradute in 2003
http://www.floppingaces.net/
http://passionateamerica.blogspot.com/
There's a working link at Post #13 above.
More careful work by guys in pajamas. The proof is that we know who Foley's correspondent in the IM's was, his birthday, and the date of the IM's, all from public sources ably traced on Passionate America.
Where was the proof he is 16? I found it rather curious from the get go that the person kept replying to Foley's personal questions.
See update VI and link from there:
http://www.macsmind.com/wordpress/
http://passionateamerica.blogspot.com/2006/10/meet-jordan-edmund-one-mark-foley.html
I don't know what info may be reliable or not, but this blogger at "Passionate America" claims to have tracked down the identity of the recipient of the really salacious IMs and claims the guy was 18 y.o. then and is now 21 y.o.
People have pointed out that the age of consent in D.C. is only 16 y.o. anyway, but if any of the correspondence was carried on outside of D.C. then it may be highly relevant if the recipient was in fact 18 y.o.
Again, I have no idea whether his info is really accurate or not, or if he is really justified in revealing the guy's identity, but since this has become a big political scandal with careers being wrecked, possible criminal investigations, etc. it certainly is relevant to know if the recipient was 18 y.o. at the time.
Foley is still a scumbag trolling young males less than 1/2 his age, but it's quite a different matter before the law and before Congress if the IM recipient was NOT a current page and was NOT under 18 y.o.
Anyway, what was Hastert supposed to do, demand to review all of the personal correspondence of a member of Congress?
Hell, the Demagogues won't allow that even for known terrorists, but now they want to treat a member of Congress as though he has zero right to privacy..... interesting.
As I've said, Foley is still scum, but this may come back to bite the MSM and the Demagogues big-time.
Read the link at #13. Scroll wwwwaaaaaayyyyy down on the page.
The IM's.