Foley had internet sex while awaiting House vote
posted at 2:17 pm on October 3, 2006 by Ian
Brian Ross conveniently gets ahold of yet another chat between Foley and a former page. What. A. Surprise. For some reason I get the idea we will be seeing a “brand new” chat transcript every day until November 7.
Here‘s an excerpt of the exchange.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
The Dems realize they are going nowhere trying to run against the Republicans on national security, the economy, jobs, etc. So, it is time to dig deeper into their magic bag of tricks. Bring out your sex scandal… Holding these revelations until election time shows that this is all they have left.
Mallard T. Drake on October 3, 2006 at 2:24 PM
Ah, the best is yet to come…just wait. I hope Menendez is ready for the assault.
SouthernGent on October 3, 2006 at 2:24 PM
Errrr…I meant Kean, dangit!!
SouthernGent on October 3, 2006 at 2:25 PM
What goddamned pigs they are. Milking it for all it’s worth.
Allahpundit on October 3, 2006 at 2:27 PM
So any guesses as to who on the Dem side is holding the baton for this? Brian Ross is a willing participant, as are most of the MSM, this is their playbook,we caught them red-handed before but they keep coming up with more insidious maneuvers.
bbz123 on October 3, 2006 at 2:32 PM
Anyone who didn’t see this coming may need to clean the rosy-tint off their eyes.
Yes, Foley did it to himself, and honestly so did the Republican leadership–whether or not they saw the IMs. They should have brought it to light back when they first noticed something strange going on, and or ousted Foley then and there so it wouldn’t be coming up now. The Democrats, however, saw the gold pot without the leprechaun guard and decided to take full advantage of it. And I can’t say I blame them–although, those who DID cover it up until now to be used as a political advantage need to be thrown to the spotlight and punished right along with Foley. I have a slight suspicion that Pelosi may be involved.
The Democrats are desperate, and are a dog backed against a wall facing the Dogcatcher. This year, and the upcoming Presidential election they’re going to do everything and anything in order to gain control. If you think this is worse, you’ve not seen anything yet.
I can only hope the Democrats responsible for hiding this get brought forward and punished… or that Rove has a really good October Surprise.
Enoxo on October 3, 2006 at 2:39 PM
The headline states Foley had internet sex during vote. What I read was all about meeting for a drink; no sex. If this is what ABC considers sex, then maybe I do have a sex life after all!
bopbottle on October 3, 2006 at 2:41 PM
-bopbottle
They edited out the supposed cybersex, it occured where this sentence was placed.
The exchange continues in which Foley and the teen both appear to describe having sexual orgasms.
Enoxo on October 3, 2006 at 2:42 PM
Thanks Enoxo, I will go back and look at them again.
bopbottle on October 3, 2006 at 2:44 PM
I wrote on my site about this too. This is a key piece of evidence to where the logs may be coming from-
BelchSpeak on October 3, 2006 at 2:48 PM
Geez. I’m already sick of this story. Now, we have to hear about all the details. I DON’T WANT TO HEAR ALL THE DETAILS! It’s disgusting and creepy. The man’s resigned, the authorities are looking into it. Let’s move on, right? But, alas, they’re gonna run it into the ground.
Thanks, Congressman Foley, for being an irresponsible loser. Thanks, ABC, for broadcasting this crap into people’s living rooms. I’m sure the parents of America ‘preciate that. Way to be “real journalists”. And thanks, Bill Clinton, for making the lurid details of politicians’ sexual exploits become commonplace in our culture…for the kids.
CP on October 3, 2006 at 2:53 PM
Internet sex? And I’ve wasted all these years reading blogs!
RedWinged Blackbird on October 3, 2006 at 2:57 PM
Sort of puts me in mind of Starr releasing his report in Sept 98 with all its graphic sexual content–which content was entirely gratuitous for the purpose of the House’s hearing.
But of course, how could this be?? Republicans milking something like this??? Naaaah.
honora on October 3, 2006 at 2:59 PM
Where are these kids parents when they were having these IMs at home? It’s not an excuse for Foley’s behavior, but crap I used to freak out about my parents being around the house when I had normal conversations with people I went to school with… But these kids were talking all the same crap that Foley was. Again, I know they’re kids and I’m not trying to excuse anything, but something doesn’t sit right here. They had to choose to save these IMs, and again, why are they coming out 3 years later, not back then if the outrage is truly to be about Foley’s behavior rather than an important election? Are these kids, now adults, prepared to come out and say “I was the sick little bastard talking dirty to Foley”? Again, this is no excuse, but keep in mind these aren’t dying kids getting fed Jesus juice by Michael Jackson… it seems like something was seriously wrong with Foley’s “buddies” to begin with.
RightWinged on October 3, 2006 at 2:59 PM
Wow. Blame the victim. And in record time.
honora on October 3, 2006 at 3:07 PM
How do we know that these instant messages posted by Ross are factual?
How do we know that Ross isn’t doing “a Rather” with “fake by accurate” forgeries?
What if somebody in Rep. Rahm Emanuel’s office is simply typing up a “dialog” using notepad and sending it on to Ross to republish as “fact”?
WE DON’T!
And that’s the problem!
We DO NOT have a legal “chain of evidence” or even sworn statements that these messages ARE FACTUAL. We have Brian Ross’s word — AND ONLY IS WORD — that these are actual instant messages between Foley and the page!
Rush Limbaugh calls them the POST-KATRINA drive by media.
Remember how Ross and the rest of the broadcasters DELIBERATELY LIED about the conditions in superdome — how they lied about the snipers, the rapings, the killings?
No, I’m not in denial. Until these messages are AUTHENTICATED by a third party I trust, like the FBI, then why should I accept what Ross says at face value?
georgej on October 3, 2006 at 3:14 PM
Something else keeps getting missed too. These kids are all “former” pages. You have to be sixteen as a page. You have to serve a whole year. Sometimes you serve two years. So these former pages, if they are under 18, are just barely under 18. And what is the age of consent in Louisiana, where this so-called “teenager” is from?
BelchSpeak on October 3, 2006 at 3:15 PM
Enoxo, if they tried dropping the hammer on Foley without something more than those emails, it would be decried as an anti-gay witch hunt by those hateful Republicans. There’s nothing there to pursue, unless you think that’s enough evidence to get a warrant and seize his computers to see who else he’s talked to and what’s been said. This is a perfect damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation if you’re playing the perceptions game.
Did Foley, at any point, wag his finger at the American people and proclaim “I did not have nasty IM sssions with that boy!”?
Pablo on October 3, 2006 at 3:20 PM
My God. I will assume you don’t have children. Because if you did and you found these types of messages to your 16 year old, believe me, you would have a whole other kind of reaction.
honora on October 3, 2006 at 3:23 PM
No. But it appears that was his story to Reynolds et al. And not to put too fine a point on it, what’s worse: lying about consensual sex or telling the truth about preying on underaged pages? Talk about Hobson’s choice.
honora on October 3, 2006 at 3:26 PM
I don’t know. Fifty minutes doesn’t sound like record time to me. And he was blaming the parents of the “victim”. In loco victimis perhaps?
kmcguire on October 3, 2006 at 3:30 PM
Honora wrote: “My God. I will assume you don’t have children. Because if you did and you found these types of messages to your 16 year old, believe me, you would have a whole other kind of reaction.”
You’d be correct, too.
But …. Everybody is assuming that these IM posts are not an invention of somebody working for the DNC or the DCCC?
Brian Ross says these IMs are “documentation” — I say, until authenticated by the FBI or one of the parties while under oath, it’s hearsay.
georgej on October 3, 2006 at 3:30 PM
Honora,
Your trolling aside, try to keep up.
They are “former pages.”
They are not 16 year olds. Most likely they are 17 to 19 year olds.
Chatting over IM is not the same as sex.
And my kids would never be able to use the internet without all chat logs, emails, personal websites and other online activity being reviewed and approved by me.
And the age of consent in Louisiana is 17. So that would make this whole conversation, as tasteless as it is, technically legal.
Its all still gross and wrong. But it is legal. And that makes this a violation of privacy.
BelchSpeak on October 3, 2006 at 3:41 PM
BelchSpeak,
The age of consent in Louisiana is 17. I know the former page comes from Louisiana’s 5th Congressional District; rumor has it he’s from the small city of Monroe.
Our congressman heard about this e-mail exchange from a reporter and immediately called the former page’s parents. The parents asked that neither the congressman, nor the Speaker, nor anyone else pursue the matter. Nevertheless, the congressman did alert the House leadership.
Interestingly, the former page initiated the e-mail correspondence with Foley.
Aunt B on October 3, 2006 at 3:43 PM
No, whats really interesting to me is that suddenly all these people kept RECORDS of IM conversations?
Ummmm…. how? and more importantly, why?
Tell me… do any of YOU know either how to, or do you, record your IM conversations??? especially to SEX PARTNERS?
If done from the client side that means that ALL these pages were apparently recording their conversations… interesting…
If grabbed from Foley’s side, it had to be some type of monitoring software… which is illegal…
If grabbed from the server, it means that the messeging service is involved, which I find hard to believe….
Or there was a statefull inspection and recording at the various routers in the IT shop in Congress, and elsewhere involved…. large conspiricy there as well…. as I don’t believe these are public records…
Like I said, the amount of information is all the sudden very interesting…
Romeo13 on October 3, 2006 at 4:01 PM
If what Bill Clinton had with Monica was not sex, then how can you have sex over the internet?
Skyfrog on October 3, 2006 at 4:10 PM
I hope you’re right, but don’t be too sure.
honora on October 3, 2006 at 4:25 PM
Romeo 13: I was thinking the same thing, but being something of a Luddite when it comes to technology just assumed I was mistaken. So IM messages are not “saved” unless the receiver, or I guess the sender, actively saves them?
Sorry for being so ignorant, old dog etc.
honora on October 3, 2006 at 4:27 PM
Is it really necessary that the media keep putting out these exchanges??? I mean WE GET IT. He’s a perv and He’s gone.
Rightwingsparkle on October 3, 2006 at 4:41 PM
Romeo13- Regarding the messages, I unravel that mystery on my site here:
By default, most IM programs in 2002 logged history of conversations. I suggested that the most likely scenario of how the logs were retrieved is because Foley did not know to wipe his own logs. And he has certainly had a computer upgrade since 2002. Most likely someone at the House Help Desk recovered the data from his old system, or the new owner of the system recovered the data.
And because he was doing this through the House network, network admins, who legally have the right and responsibility to monitor IDS traffic, could also have seen the data. Any illegality would be to release those IDS logs to the public or private persons that did not have the legal authority to see those logs. (Outside of law enforcement.)
BelchSpeak on October 3, 2006 at 4:43 PM
Btw, I read all my teenagers IM’s. I learned how to save them in DeadAIM long ago. I learned more about what was going on and who they should or shouldn’t hang out with with those IM’s than anything else.
And yes, they knew I read them. But teens are so…ummm…wrapped up in themselves they don’t think to tell their friends to not say certain things.
I advise all parents to do this. Oh the stories I could tell.
Rightwingsparkle on October 3, 2006 at 4:44 PM
What do you mean is it necessary? Hey, we have an election to influence here!!
Sincerely,
The Mainstream Media
(just so I don’t have any misunderstandings like I did with moonbeam earlier, I want to make it clear that I agree with your point rws)
thirteen28 on October 3, 2006 at 5:43 PM
Belchspeak…
Sorry, just searched the 5 computers I have here at home, and not a single one of em has Logging turned on by default… and none of the 4 idfferent IM programs we (me, girlfreind, and our 3 kids) run have logged any IM session in the past 4 years….
Soooo… I still maintain that someone had to turn it on.
Or it was Logged with an add on program, or intercepted at a security point (firewall…)…
Too much infomation suddenly…
Romeo13 on October 3, 2006 at 6:07 PM
I really think Rush dropped the ball along with Sean by treating this solely as a political game when this is more like “get a damn pervert out of congress and into jail”
Defector01 on October 3, 2006 at 6:56 PM
Yeah, that was pretty sleazy of him, especially after Clinton did the honorable thing and resigned in disgrace….
oh wait…
nevermind.
B Moe on October 3, 2006 at 8:13 PM
like we wouldn’t do the same.
pullingmyhairout on October 3, 2006 at 9:42 PM
The perv was already out of congress and there was a request for a criminal investigation before they even had a chance to comment on the issue. So how did they drop the ball by focusing on other aspects of the case that have not been explored yet?
thirteen28 on October 3, 2006 at 10:39 PM
R13 – Every IM client I have ever used has had logging turned on by default. Mind you, this is different from chat software such as IRC clients, etc, but IM clients such as AIM, MSN, Yahoo!, Trillian, and Gaim have logging on by default. It wasn’t always this way, but it has become the norm.
I would be interested to see if the House networks have records of the conversations. Those would be admissible as evidence, considering that the timestamps would not be based on the clock of the computer (IM clients log timestamps based on the computer’s clock, so if your clock is wrong, so are your timestamps).
More importantly, where is the MSM getting all of these IM logs, and how are they (if they are) verifying their authenticity?
theholyhermit on October 4, 2006 at 12:29 AM