ABC Pulls a Dan Rather: Page was 18, not 16

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Termagant
O Really???

What about the imbalance of power and authority in this relationship? This is a congressman, who has definate authority over pages, making what were apparently unwanted sexual innuendo and verbal (typed) advances. So it is not as innocuous as some heterosexual couple cybersexing.

Unless the end goal of some gay rights crusade is so chickenhawks can go after high school students they have authority over....

This would be a good point to throw in a Clinton reminder, but I would just be called a hack etc etc for reminding everyone of the power he had over the intern who got on her knees in the White House pantry.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
People keep saying this, but where is the evidence? I've only seen transcripts of a conversation between foley and the 18 year old.

You clearly haven't made that much effort to follow all these details since they are all over CNN with interviews with the other former pages for instance.

Here's a couple of examples.

But Vivyan says shortly after he left Capitol Hill, the Congressman initiated contact with instant messages. Vivyan says he was 17 at the time, a minor.

"The conversation turned sexual almost immediately," said Vivyan.

It went on for years according to Vivyan... emails, brief phone conversations, instant messages.

He says after his tenure as a page, when he was about 19, he returned to Washington and was invited to Foley's house. He says he brought another page with him, to make sure things didn't get out of hand.

"He ordered pizza, offered us beer which we declined, because at the time we were both minors," said Vivyan.

The other former page who went with Vivyan that night, Josh Abrons says he doesn't recall alcohol being present. Vivyan and Abrons both say nothing inappropriate happened.

But Abrons also says Foley had exchanged instant messages with him after he left the page program but while he was still a minor.

Abrons says he initiated contact with Foley but only to talk about politics. He says Fole did talk politics and...

"He did make explicit references, he talked about his anatomy-- his own and other people's, he did enjoy talking about sex frequently. And he did ask if I was attracted to him physically."

Neither Abrons nor Vivyan could provide copies of their alleged communications with Foley from that time. Vivyan showed us correspondence he said he had with Foley later.

Abrons and Vivyan say they made it clear they weren't interested in physical relationships with Foley.

But why didn't they report this contact to authorities?

"For a 17-year-old to receive instant messages from a member of Congress is quite something, and you do not want to burn that bridge with a Member of Congress," said Abrons.

http://www.volunteertv.com/home/headlines/4312647.html

These are different messages than the other pages that had been talked about earlier.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
More amazing BS behind this story, from a link on the Drudge page.

The e-mails from Foley to the 16 year old were posted on a site called "Stop Sex Predators" at 11:06 AM
Foley E-mails

All of 19!!!! minutes later a link to that blog shows up at dailykos
with the text

I have been reading with interest the various discussions with regard to Congressman Mark Foley. I am a White House Intern and have been in personal contact with Congressman Foley on numerous occasions.

Today I Googled Congressman Foley and came upon this website:

http://www.stopsexpredators.blogspot.com/

I was just shocked by what I found. I am especially upset by the dismissive attitudes I found on the web from those who know about Congressman Foley's bad behavior in Washington. I'm sure his conservative base in Florida would not approve of him sending these suggestive and leading emails to underage interns.

Congressman Mark Foley Emails to Intern
Go Google Mark Foley today and you will not see a link to this web site any where in the first 10 pages. Another web site says you won't see it in the first 20 pages!!! And yet amazingly 19 minutes after the story is posted this person went to "google" and found this magic web site!!!!!

The Bogus Blog Behind Foley's Fall

I guess I don't see how this is an "expose." I noticed the same thing you're describing earlier today, though I had not seen the Radar story. It certainly looks like this was deliberately leaked. What I don't see is how that particularly matters, since it now seems amply clear that Foley, by his own admission, made some major transgressions. If your objection is that it was leaked for political gain, that's politics. Until and unless there is REAL evidence (rather than thirdhand supposition) that a Democratic politician or politicians knew Foley had engaged in criminal conduct (and, BTW, it is not at all clear even now that he did) and deliberately withheld it for political reasons, I don't see that the logistics of the leak itself are especially relevant.

I know, though, that you'd like nothing better than to see this somehow turn against the Democrats, as improbable as that seems, and that you'll keep trying to make that happen to the extent you can.

 

[ProfJohn]

Just to provide balance and to show that I am not a total Republican hack.
The Hill is reporting that the source of the e-mails is a "long time" Republican.

This still does not explain that if these letter were given to the media in July why all of a sudden the story blew up a month before the election.

Also the story does not explain the source of the sexual IMs. And it correctly points out that the person who created the stopsexpreditors web site is not returning e-mails and is hiding their identity.

Longtime Republican was source of e-mails

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Termagant
O Really???

What about the imbalance of power and authority in this relationship? This is a congressman, who has definate authority over pages, making what were apparently unwanted sexual innuendo and verbal (typed) advances. So it is not as innocuous as some heterosexual couple cybersexing.

Unless the end goal of some gay rights crusade is so chickenhawks can go after high school students they have authority over....

This would be a good point to throw in a Clinton reminder, but I would just be called a hack etc etc for reminding everyone of the power he had over the intern who got on her knees in the White House pantry.

In all fairness, she testified under oath that she began the flirtation with President Clinton, and she was 22, not 17. But by all means keep up the irrelevant Clinton references if it blows your skirt up.

 

[UberNeuman]

ah, if Monica were only 16 then Clinton would - so to speak - be in like Flynn....

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ProfJohnHow many other revelations like this one are going to come out in the next few days?

Gasp! How many blogs will we believe as gospel truth?!? :roll:

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought Drudge had a pretty good record on the things he posts being true. Am I wrong about this? Can anyone back up their allegations with proof that he is wrong more often than not?


I notice from Wiki that he broke the Monica story, but he was wrong some other stories... anyone else have proof of him linking incorrect stories?

This is who Drudge is
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n...:2006-05,GGLG:en&q=drudge+foley+beasts

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Just to provide balance and to show that I am not a total Republican hack.
The Hill is reporting that the source of the e-mails is a "long time" Republican.

This still does not explain that if these letter were given to the media in July why all of a sudden the story blew up a month before the election.

Also the story does not explain the source of the sexual IMs. And it correctly points out that the person who created the stopsexpreditors web site is not returning e-mails and is hiding their identity.

Longtime Republican was source of e-mails

I heard through the grapevine that Valerie Plame leaked the story. Paybacks a bitch sometimes.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: DonVito

A network source explains, messages with the young man and disgraced former Congressman Foley took place before and after the 18th birthday.

In related news, a douchebag blogger has published this kid's name and pictures - not surprisingly, our friend ProfJohn has linked to it . . .

Here Don since you are so worried about douchebag bloggers, here is a nice link that details some of the dirty tricks against Foley by the radical gays
PROOF THAT DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVES WERE AFTER MARK FOLEY SINCE 2004

The gay left have been going after this guy for years because he commited the crime of beign Republican and being in the closet. I would not be suprised to see if in the end these types of people are the ones who leaked the e-mails and IMs etc.

I grow tired of this subject, so until there is something new to talk about I shall move on
Everyone has already made up their minds, so anymore posts without new evidence is wasted time.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Here Don since you are so worried about douchebag bloggers, here is a nice link that details some of the dirty tricks against Foley by the radical gays
PROOF THAT DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVES WERE AFTER MARK FOLEY SINCE 2004

The gay left have been going after this guy for years because he commited the crime of beign Republican and being in the closet. I would not be suprised to see if in the end these types of people are the ones who leaked the e-mails and IMs etc.

I grow tired of this subject, so until there is something new to talk about I shall move on
Everyone has already made up their minds, so anymore posts without new evidence is wasted time.

This is completely, 100%, irrelevant to this discussion, and a weak effort on your part to justify your own aiding and abetting of the outing of Foley's victim. You have not in any way shown that the "radical gays" are "Democratic operatives," or, for that matter, that they have any formal connection to the Democratic party whatsoever. The members of the Westover Baptist Church are self-identified Christians - does that make them "Christian operatives"?

In what sense are you a "professor"?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

I grow tired of this subject, so until there is something new to talk about I shall move on
Everyone has already made up their minds, so anymore posts without new evidence is wasted time.

You grow tired, now that you've thrown innumerable grenades, including linking to a blog that outs Foley's victim, without making a single legitimate point.

I say again, in what sense are you a "professor"?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This would be a good point to throw in a Clinton reminder, but I would just be called a hack etc etc for reminding everyone of the power he had over the intern who got on her knees in the White House pantry.

Wow, blaming Clinton for this gay guy going after underage boys.

Just when I think Republicans can't go any lower.

 

[1EZduzit]

ProfJohn's a Professor like Foley's a Democrat.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

I grow tired of this subject, so until there is something new to talk about I shall move on
Everyone has already made up their minds, so anymore posts without new evidence is wasted time.

You grow tired, now that you've thrown innumerable grenades, including linking to a blog that outs Foley's victim, without making a single legitimate point.

I say again, in what sense are you a "professor"?

Don I made the point two days ago that the story behind how this came to light would eventually become part of the big picture, and we see that happening with the news that the sexual IMs were to an 18 year old, and that fact was left out.
Sure he met him when he was 16/17 and sent him suggestive IMs at 17, but they should have said that the sexual IMs happened when the guy was 18, unless they didn't know that, in which case they are awful reporters.

I don't care about Foley, he is gone, let the courts deal with him and may he get the help he needs.

I am just wondering if the "timing" of this story was done for political reasons, an October surprise. If that is the case then shame on the people who did that. And if no Democrats had anything to do with this story at all then they have nothing to worry about right? Plus, if all this turns out to be much ado about nothing then you can use this against me for months and months, happy?

Criminally it looks like nothing will happen to Foley; at the most they may get him to plead guilty to some misdemeanor crime like sending salacious information to minors on the internet or something like that.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I will ask a third time: in what sense are you a "professor"?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This would be a good point to throw in a Clinton reminder, but I would just be called a hack etc etc for reminding everyone of the power he had over the intern who got on her knees in the White House pantry.

Wow, blaming Clinton for this gay guy going after underage boys.

Just when I think Republicans can't go any lower.

Dave, learn to read in context. The guy I was responding to talked about "the imbalance of power and authority in this relationship" I pointed out the hypocrisy of that allegations by bringing up Clinton.

Every time we bring up Clinton, all you do is complain about us bringing up Clinton, are not capable of doing more than that? If what I said in regards to Clinton was wrong then prove me wrong.

The fact is this is a sex scandal, and therefore will be compared to other sex scandals, Clinton had a sex scandal, Mel Reynolds had one etc, that is life deal with it.

 

[aidanjm]

This scandal isn't even a scandal. The "boy" was an 18 year old man. The only reason this relationship between Foley and the young man can even be called a "scandal" is the existence of different standards for gay and straight relationships. A 50 year old guy in a sexual relationship with an 18 year old woman might be described as sad or pathetic, but I doubt it's going to be labelled "pedophilia". What a fvcking joke.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This would be a good point to throw in a Clinton reminder, but I would just be called a hack etc etc for reminding everyone of the power he had over the intern who got on her knees in the White House pantry.

Wow, blaming Clinton for this gay guy going after underage boys.

Just when I think Republicans can't go any lower.

Dave, learn to read in context. The guy I was responding to talked about "the imbalance of power and authority in this relationship" I pointed out the hypocrisy of that allegations by bringing up Clinton.

Every time we bring up Clinton, all you do is complain about us bringing up Clinton, are not capable of doing more than that? If what I said in regards to Clinton was wrong then prove me wrong.

The fact is this is a sex scandal, and therefore will be compared to other sex scandals, Clinton had a sex scandal, Mel Reynolds had one etc, that is life deal with it.

Are you capable of defending any point without bringing up Clinton? In fact are you even capable of defending any point you try to make? To win an argument, which I assume you are trying to do, you must provide what we call EVIDENCE and FACTS to support your claims.

There is absolutely no reason to bring up other sex scandals when we are talking about this one. You only do that to DIVERT attention away from Foley in a pathetic attempt to diminish his behavior. Again just because Clinton had a sex scandal DOES NOT MEAN it is acceptable to bring it up whenever a sex scandal occurs. You are only doing this because you are a pathetic right wing parrot who has nothing to counter the facts about what is going on now.

If you really are a professor I'd be ashamed to take any of your courses.

 

[UberNeuman]

I just love watching the folks on the "right" flopping around like fish on dry land... Keep on spinin'................

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
This scandal isn't even a scandal. The "boy" was an 18 year old man. The only reason this relationship between Foley and the young man can even be called a "scandal" is the existence of different standards for gay and straight relationships. A 50 year old guy in a sexual relationship with an 18 year old woman might be described as sad or pathetic, but I doubt it's going to be labelled "pedophilia". What a fvcking joke.

You clearly can't handle the truth.

The page was indisputedly 17 when he started receiving innapropriate messages, and as noted a wide array of pages received simular messages while underage. The complete moral bankrupcy of a large potion of the currently elected Republican Party and their diehard supporters is clearly being revealed here.

Claiming the Republican Party is the party of moral values is what's the joke here!

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: aidanjm
This scandal isn't even a scandal. The "boy" was an 18 year old man. The only reason this relationship between Foley and the young man can even be called a "scandal" is the existence of different standards for gay and straight relationships. A 50 year old guy in a sexual relationship with an 18 year old woman might be described as sad or pathetic, but I doubt it's going to be labelled "pedophilia". What a fvcking joke.

You clearly can't handle the truth.

The page was indisputedly 17 when he started receiving innapropriate messages, and as noted a wide array of pages received simular messages while underage. The complete moral bankrupcy of a large potion of the currently elected Republican Party and their diehard supporters is clearly being revealed here.

Claiming the Republican Party is the party of moral values is what's the joke here!

rofl, in that case, since Leibermann ( dem) supports the war in iraq, the democraps all support the war in iraq! see how that works?

I love how libs use the actions of one man and try to stick it to the whole party.

Keep tryin, libs! something's gotta stick! :laugh:

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: daveymark
rofl, in that case, since Leibermann ( dem) supports the war in iraq, the democraps all support the war in iraq! see how that works?

I love how libs use the actions of one man and try to stick it to the whole party.

Keep tryin, libs! something's gotta stick! :laugh:

Other than showing you can't make a decent argument, I fail to see what your point is here.

We're talking about a scandal where clearly a huge number of Republicans basically knew what was going on with Mark Foley, but choose to look the other way in order to avoid political embarassment.

We also have a wide variety of people in this forum trying to mimize Mark Foley's actions in the most absurd ways imaginable.

Basically this has actually only a tiny bit to do with what Mark Foley did, its about what many elected Republicans and their supporters have done, including in this particular thread.

By the way, I love how you label EVERYONE a liberal who doesn't like Republicans, undermining your own arguments before someone even responds.

 

[Craig234]

Regarding the threads title, lest this right-wing lie be allowed, Rather did a story that was accurate and had plenty of evidence seperate from the controverisial memo. The story was not the memo, it was not a necessary piece of evidence for the story.

Bush got into the guard with preferential treatment (leaving somoene else to go to Viet Nam), he did not show up when he was supposed to at Montgomery AFB (the reward for anyone who saw him there went unclaimed), etc. You have never seen the rest of the evidence disproven for a good reason.

The memo itself was inconclusive, not disproven, according to the republicans who spent millions on the 'official', independant investigation. This was simply the right wing trying to get rid of someone who they had a grudge against, not for lying but for telling the truth about them.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: aidanjm
This scandal isn't even a scandal. The "boy" was an 18 year old man. The only reason this relationship between Foley and the young man can even be called a "scandal" is the existence of different standards for gay and straight relationships. A 50 year old guy in a sexual relationship with an 18 year old woman might be described as sad or pathetic, but I doubt it's going to be labelled "pedophilia". What a fvcking joke.

You clearly can't handle the truth.

The page was indisputedly 17 when he started receiving innapropriate messages, and as noted a wide array of pages received simular messages while underage. The complete moral bankrupcy of a large potion of the currently elected Republican Party and their diehard supporters is clearly being revealed here.

Claiming the Republican Party is the party of moral values is what's the joke here!

Indisputedly 17 years old? Oh, you mean he was one year older than the age of consent for heterosexual or homosexual sexual activity in DC? What is "clearly being revealed" here is that a good many Democrats are willing to exploit homophobic biases for political gain. The manufacture of this "scandal" has nothing to do with the well being of the young man involved, and everything to do with elections in 5 weeks time.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Aegeon
We also have a wide variety of people in this forum trying to mimize Mark Foley's actions in the most absurd ways imaginable.

Foley's actions were mildly inappropriate at worst. The so-called "boys" were actually young men who are legally able to screw whoever they want. Since when is being attracted to an 18 year old "pedophilia"? This is nothing more than a mild case of sexual harrassment in the workplace, inappropriate because Foley was in a position of authority.