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?

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

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?

What goddamned pigs they are. Milking it for all it’s worth.

Allahpundit on October 3, 2006 at 2:27 PM

like we wouldn’t do the same.

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.

Yeah, that was pretty sleazy of him, especially after Clinton did the honorable thing and resigned in disgrace….

oh wait…

nevermind.

Seriously. We’re going to see this stuff trickle out until the election, because that’s the Democrat’s plan. Just released, if you haven’t already heard, are more private messages:

ABC News now has obtained 52 separate instant message exchange…

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…

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

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)

The webmaster’s blog-within-a-blog. Continuously updated, newest items at the top. Please click here to learn more about The Phoenix Project, then click here to see a selection of Old War Dogs merchandise. All sales proceeds go to support The Phoenix…

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.

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.)

Sorry for being so ignorant, old dog etc.

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

I hope you’re right, but don’t be too sure.

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…

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.

Its all still gross and wrong. But it is legal. And that makes this a violation of privacy.

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.

Wow. Blame the victim. And in record time.

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

But of course, how could this be?? Republicans milking something like this??? Naaaah.

Did Foley, at any point, wag his finger at the American people and proclaim “I did not have nasty IM sssions with that boy!”?