Three More Former Pages Accuse Foley of Online Sexual Approaches

Three more former congressional pages have come forward to reveal what they call "sexual approaches" over the Internet from former Congressman Mark Foley.

The pages served in the classes of 1998, 2000 and 2002. They independently approached ABC News after the Foley resignation through the Brian Ross & the Investigative Team's tip line on ABCNews.com. None wanted their names used because of the sensitive nature of the communications.

"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 BLOTTER RECOMMENDS READER DISCRETION STRONGLY ADVISED: Foley's Exchange with Underage Page Foley Instant Message Chat While Waiting for a House Vote Click Here to Watch This Week's Brian Ross Investigates Webcast The page told ABC News he was interviewed this week by FBI agents who had a six-page list of questions about Foley and the exchanges.

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.

All three pages described similar instant message and e-mail patterns, with remarkably similar escalations of provocative questions.

"He didn't want to talk about politics," the page said. "He wanted to talk about sex or my penis," the page said.

The three new verbal accounts are in addition to two sets of sexually explicit instant messages provided to ABC News by former pages.

An online story on the Drudge Report Thursday claimed one set of the sexually explicit instant messages obtained by ABC News was part of a "prank" on the part of the former page, who reportedly says he goaded the congressman into writing the messages.

"This was no prank," said one of the three former pages who talked to ABC News today about his experience with the congressman.

You said -- "Was there any sex involved -- I mean did Foley diddle any of these youngsters -- or is this all about emails and instant messages?"

Pedophies are convicted on the basis of just writing e-mails and/or IMs to "supposed" victims (who are actually adult male cops). They never get to the "action" part, before they are arrested.

Regards,
Star Traveler

You said -- "If he got unsolicited pervy IMs from a "stranger," why wouldn't he just block that user from being able to contact him? That is standard practice to avoid unwanted IMs."

You don't know the mindset of the younger highschool crowd, then. They will "play along" with these kinds of anonymous IMs, because they know they could be getting spoofed from some of their friends, playing a prank on them. So, they'll go along, trying to trick the other side into revealing something that will clue them in to who is doing this to them.

Their mentality is to "go along" and be just as "outrageous" as the anonymous person, just to see what will happen.

That's how it goes...

Regards,
Star Traveler

Re: you #316.

You're right, not legally a predator. The guy was very careful. (and I've learned a bit more since my earlier post.)

I now think of Foley more as a troll. From what I've read so far, he never tried to arrange a physical liason with anyone under 18.

The "cybersex IM's" with Edmund apparently occurred after he was 18 - consenting adults. Not my cup o' tea, but not my business.

But the thing is, this Congessman WAS a textbook-case pervert, and apparently many leaders in his party knew that and didn't much care about it, just so long as he could win elections.

Where on earth do you even get that? Apparently many leaders knew? What are you basing that on?

As far as National Review goes; you do understand that some of those people would wet their pants at the drop of a hat?

Actually, I spoke to one former (male) page who said that Brian Ross had sex with him in the back seat of Ross' car in New York City when the page was 17, but he really didn't want his name used, so I can't tell it to you. But trust me, I wouldn't say such a thing on the Internet unless it were completely, 100% true...

You don't say. I talked with a former page who witnessed Brian Ross's wife having something to do with a Shetland pony. The page was deeply embaressed by this and since he was underage at the time, he doesn't want his name reveled.

His conduct with inferiors would get him automatically fired if Congress were run like an average American corporation.

IIRC, corporations weren't too concerned about these things until people started winning multi-million dollar sexual harrassment suits. Then, within weeks, everyone scurried and had a firm anti-sexual harrassment policy.

Also, since congressmen aren't "hired," the analogy is weak.

simulated pedophilia with the high probability of actually doing the real thing.

Republicans have to start calling Dems (and some Reps) on calling this pedophilia, a clinical term for sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Attraction to teenagers (whether of legal age or not) is ephebophilia, or more colloquially -- "chicken-hawking."

Remember how fluid the concept of "child" is for Dems: they'll refer to a 14-year-old "woman" who needs the right to an abortion, and moan about the "children" killed by gun violence, when a huge proportion of them are teen-aged drug dealers and gang members.

Was there any sex involved -- I mean did Foley diddle any of these youngsters

If there was ever any sex, no one's reported it. And apparently his MO was to email -- first "over-friendly", then more suggestive, and -- if he had found a cooperative correspondent (whether gay or prank) -- even more suggestive.

Frankly, from what info is available, it doesn't sound like he found many takers. He's pathetic, but apparently no coercive.

Attraction to teenagers (whether of legal age or not) is ephebophilia, or more colloquially -- "chicken-hawking."

"Chicken Hawking" is the keystone of the homosexual lifestyle. Homosexuals aren't born, they are recruited and turned into homosexuals - male and female. If Foley's claims of abuse are true, this is exactly what happened to him. He is merely repeating the cycle. Despite all the efforts by the left to convince us all that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, it is not. This is a very public example of the predatory nature of homosexuals.

You can bet your bottom dollar Barney Frank has "recruited" young teens.

Evidently the pages who were involved in the "prank" knew that. Surely the man's colleagues knew it as well.

Sounds like a big jump from pages to assume colleagues knew. His colleagues probably knew (if they thought about it all) that he was gay, but apparently he had an adult "partner" -- per Howie Carr reading from the New York Daily News, a dermatologist or something.

And except for the former page that received the 2005 emails, I've seen nothing to suggest that any of the pages reported anything to anyone in authority -- just in typical adolescent fashion snickered about it themselves.

You can bet your bottom dollar Barney Frank has "recruited" young teens.

I don't know. But I would think it more than likely there are others in Congress who have (I'm not really up on who's gay in Congress). That has to be why the Dems were opposed to Freeh investigating -- I think the Repub leadership wanted a full investigation of any abuses in the page program -- and the Dems are determined to keep it to Foley.

Pedophies on the Internet are convicted just for their communications, *wthout* laying a hand on any of their "victims" -- because many of their "victims" are older *adult male cops* and not 13-year olds or 17-year olds.

Actually I just heard a report about this and the opposite is true. Judges are throwing cases out and convictions are being overturned on appeal, because even though the scum may have thought they were chatting with a 13 year old, if they were really communicating with an adult cop no criome has been committed. The story was about the Dateline stings in particular.

The problem with the Dems (and their loyal minions), is that they have no guiding principles...they are just into power-grabbing. Reminds me of a line from a song from Billy Price:

"A man's gotta stand for something, or he'll fall for anything."

You're right, not legally a predator. The guy was very careful. (and I've learned a bit more since my earlier post.)

Lots of people got so angry at how ABC manipulated this to make it look illegal. And it is immoral.

Rush and the blogosphere have done a great job with exposing the truth here. If we pull this election out, they'll get most the credit.

I don't know. I heard this on the Kimmer radio show yester coming home from work. This guy has been trying to get anyone and everyone to interview him... too convenient. My guess is the MSM doesn't want to investigate this side of the story because investigation is something foreign to them. Apparently if you want something really investigated and the truth revealed you have to get the Pajamahadin to do it....

You said -- "Actually I just heard a report about this and the opposite is true. Judges are throwing cases out and convictions are being overturned on appeal, because even though the scum may have thought they were chatting with a 13 year old, if they were really communicating with an adult cop no criome has been committed. The story was about the Dateline stings in particular."

Well, that is certainly interesting. I'm sure the cops are going to say that this makes their "business" more difficult. Others are going to say that this is "coddling" criminals and giving them "rights" that the rest of us don't have (for other sorts of minor or major infractions that some others might get into, in life).

And that's going to create sort of a "furor" with those who are trying to stop this kind of "enticement" over the Internet.

I guess we'll see how it will pan out. It's the first I've heard of that. I'll have to check into it further.

Regards,
Star Traveler

Not entirely true. I read an analysis that indicates this is a real legal gray area when there has been no attempt to meet with the person being communicated with. In those instances, there is almost never any prosecutable crime. The e-mails or communications act as evidence to prove intent when a meeting occurs, not as a prosecutable crime in and of itself. The law is different when such communications occur with a child under 16 in which case attempt to disseminate obscene material to a minor laws kick in. But at 16 and above such laws no longer apply when they're in the form merely of communication, or at least it has been deemed not to apply.

That's not to say Foley isn't sleazy and that it's not good he's resigned. Just stating the law as I understand it.

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.