Posted on 10/05/2006 11:50:13 AM PDT by kcvl
Edited on 10/05/2006 1:00:50 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
>XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU OCT 5 2006 2:53:48 ET XXXXX
CLAIM: FILTHY FOLEY ONLINE MESSAGES WERE PAGE PRANK GONE AWRY
**World Exclusive**
**Must Credit the DRUDGE REPORT**
According to two people close to former congressional page Jordan Edmund, the now famous lurid AOL Instant Message exchanges that led to the resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.
According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, goaded an unwitting Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of political operatives favorable to Democrats.
The primary source, an ally of Edmund, adamantly proclaims that the former page is not a homosexual. The prank scenario was confirmed by a second associate of Edmund. Both are fearful that their political careers will be affected if they are publicly brought into the matter.
The prank scenario only applies to the Edmund IM sessions and does not necessarily apply to any other exchanges between the former congressman and others.
The news come on the heels that Edmund has hired former Timothy McVeigh attorney, Stephen Jones.
Developing...
LOL
Couldn't we just somehow....find out.....somehow, if they are made of wood ?
Well at least it's keeping the liberals busy. They're out looking for more pages. The first ones are not working out well.
I don't recall that I said anything about Hasert in the past but I'll say something now so you go right ahead and put my name on 'THE LIST'. Dennis Hasert is a royal jerk.
He went to the floor for that thieving lying crook Jefferson. Declaring they were above the law and we could just lump it if we didn't like it. You're ok with that?
Y'all sound as bad as the dummies tombstoning(i think that's their phrase) people that don't agree with your way of thinking. Can you all not see how you look on this side of the monitor? I don't think so because if you did you'd stop sounding like brownshirts. Put their name on a list...Lord help us all if this is what FR has come down too. A select few taking it upon themselves to purge people.
I don't know how many have caught the several little post lost in the over thousand post on this thread just what some of y'all are up too.
So what ya gonna do ban me because I don't care for Hasert?
pbrown
I don't think I ever mentioned "keeping Foley" either...just who's misrepresenting who?
I stated that Foley had been represented as a great guy. From where do I draw this assertion?
"What was known, was that unlike others, he was KIND to ALL interns; boys AND girls."
"Nobody, NOBODY, who knew that he was a closeted homosexual, had EVER said that he went after young boys, teens, nor interns."
[responding to me saying that Foley used the Page program as a way to hit on young men] "FOLEY WAS NOT DOING THAT!"
Thanks. Now it all makes sense regarding the hiring of a criminal attorney.
That's another point that the MSM have been distorting through this whole discussion. "Underage" or "minor" (i.e. under 18) do NOT mean the same as "unable to legally consent to sex" (which varies state by state, from 15 to 18 usually.)
Also, the AOC in Washington, DC is 16.
Anyway, to my knowledge NO ONE has come forth who was 16 at the time who can show anything that is sexually compromising (the Louisiana former page's e-mails that he received when 16 don't count - the FBI already looked at them and found no laws were violated.)
Seriously? Someone should send them a wringer and see if they publish.
Age of consent for the Internet is 18
Bill Crystal on Fox now saying that this whole thing will not change a single vote. He has seen emprical studies and we are not getting beat, this was polls taken when the story broke. This was on the generic congressional ballot.
It's just that I've read so many "ban gays from Congress" posts in the past 24 hours (unlike yours, most of them probably serious) that I just reacted. Sometimes it's hard on the web to tell "tone of voice," so I did miss it.
This is driving me crazy.
It's HASTERT!
Three new pages step forward
By Michelle Malkin · October 05, 2006 06:07 PM
One was interviewed by the FBI this week, reports ABC News, which said the agents had a six-page list of questions about Foley and the Internet exhchanges:
"I was seventeen years old and just returned to [my home state] when Foley began to e-mail me, asking if I had ever seen my page roommates naked and how big their penises were," said the page in the 2002 class.
The former page also said Foley told him that if he happened to be in Washington, D.C., he could stay at Foley's home if he "would engage in oral sex" with Foley.
...The second page who talked with ABC News, a graduate of the 2000 page class, says Foley actually visited the old page dorm and offered rides to events in his BMW.
"His e-mails developed into sexually explicit conversations, and he asked me for photographs of my erect penis," the former page said.
The page said Foley maintained e-mail contact with him even after he started college and arranged a sexual liaison after the page had turned 18.
The third page interviewed by ABC News, a graduate of the 1998 page class, said Foley's instant messages began while he was a senior in high school.
"Foley would say he was sitting in his boxers and ask what I was wearing," the page said.
"This was no prank."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/three_more_form.html
Hat tip: Allah Pundit, with comprehensive coverage
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/05/foleymania-thursday-all-purpose-thread/
Reference, please?
I always found it hard to believe that folks would punish a congressional candidate because of Foley's actions.
"ringer" ~ bet one of them is.
They also mentioned that these pages may have been 18 which makes them consenting adults. I think Fox knows about all this Drudge stuff but is waiting for better facts so as not to look foolish. Hannity mentioned it briefly last night on his show, I expected alot more on it, but he mentioned it quickly and never elaborated. Give him time, he'll come through.
I may have asked a stupid question in your mind..
BUT, why post something if you have no idea what you are "feeling"...I thought this was about facts...not "feelings"???
Is this thread about feelings then??
you may have thought my question was dumb...but I am looking for facts..not feelings.
Laws can only really regulate "behavior", not "state of being", or "belief".
You have not responded on what you said in your post #1883. It's not wise to speak of someone elses' reading abilities when you can't even defend your own post.
I'm dropping it - you already proved my point.
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.