Wednesday, October 04, 2006
ABCnews Had You Fooled (Foley Update)
From the Drudge Report:
"ABC ONLINE GLITCH LEADS TO IDENTITY OF FOLEY ACCUSER
FEATURED IM EXCHANGE WAS WITH 18 YEAR OLD
Wed Oct 04 2006 20:32:06 ET
A posting on ABCNEWS.COM of an unredacted instant message sessions between Rep. Mark Foley and a former congressional page has exposed the identity of the now 21 year-old accuser.
The website PASSIONATE AMERICA detailed the startling exposure late Wednesday.
ABCNEWS said in a statement: "We go to great lengths to prevent the names of alleged sex crime victims from being revealed. On Friday there was a very brief technical glitch on our site which was overridden immediately. It is possible that during that very brief interval a screen name could have been captured. Reviews of the site since then show no unredacted screen names."
SEX CHAT WAS WITH 18 YEAR OLD
On Tuesday ABC news released a high-impact instant message exchange between Foley and, as ABC explained, a young man "under the age of 18."
ABC headlined the story: "New Foley Instant Messages; Had Internet Sex While Awaiting House Vote"
But upon reviewing the records, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, the young man was in fact over the age of 18 at the time of the exchange.
A network source explains, messages with the young man and disgraced former Congressman Foley took place before and after the 18th birthday.
Developing..."
ABCnews is really ticking me off. First they Leak this Foley case and have most of us under the impression that it was internet sex with an underage boy. And now, Oops, they find out the kid was in fact 18 during the chats. So that destroys all legal arguments in this story. But even worse, by accident ABCnews released the name of the kid! Now they've ruined two lives and gave us false presumptions on a story without all of the facts!
I know my last post was quite controversial, but after this, it all must make sense to you. What this website has done is just despicable.
Go back and read through my last article with this news in mind.
This is an intrusion on privacy. It would be one thing if the kid was 16 and unwilling, but that's not the case. The transcript proves that the discussion was consensual, and now we know he was 18 when he had it. So the whole thing is completely legal, and therefore none of our business.
"ABC ONLINE GLITCH LEADS TO IDENTITY OF FOLEY ACCUSER
FEATURED IM EXCHANGE WAS WITH 18 YEAR OLD
Wed Oct 04 2006 20:32:06 ET
A posting on ABCNEWS.COM of an unredacted instant message sessions between Rep. Mark Foley and a former congressional page has exposed the identity of the now 21 year-old accuser.
The website PASSIONATE AMERICA detailed the startling exposure late Wednesday.
ABCNEWS said in a statement: "We go to great lengths to prevent the names of alleged sex crime victims from being revealed. On Friday there was a very brief technical glitch on our site which was overridden immediately. It is possible that during that very brief interval a screen name could have been captured. Reviews of the site since then show no unredacted screen names."
SEX CHAT WAS WITH 18 YEAR OLD
On Tuesday ABC news released a high-impact instant message exchange between Foley and, as ABC explained, a young man "under the age of 18."
ABC headlined the story: "New Foley Instant Messages; Had Internet Sex While Awaiting House Vote"
But upon reviewing the records, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, the young man was in fact over the age of 18 at the time of the exchange.
A network source explains, messages with the young man and disgraced former Congressman Foley took place before and after the 18th birthday.
Developing..."
ABCnews is really ticking me off. First they Leak this Foley case and have most of us under the impression that it was internet sex with an underage boy. And now, Oops, they find out the kid was in fact 18 during the chats. So that destroys all legal arguments in this story. But even worse, by accident ABCnews released the name of the kid! Now they've ruined two lives and gave us false presumptions on a story without all of the facts!
I know my last post was quite controversial, but after this, it all must make sense to you. What this website has done is just despicable.
Go back and read through my last article with this news in mind.
This is an intrusion on privacy. It would be one thing if the kid was 16 and unwilling, but that's not the case. The transcript proves that the discussion was consensual, and now we know he was 18 when he had it. So the whole thing is completely legal, and therefore none of our business.
# posted by Cody O'Connor @ 10/04/2006 09:17:00 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
There were other kids. This was NOT the only time he did this. If so maybe there would be something to your argument -- but seeing as he has been doing this for YEARS (and with kids under the age of 18) there ISN'T.
by accident ABCnews released the name of the kid!
No, they didn't. The article YOU QUOTED clearly states that it was his SCREEN NAME, not his actual name.
by accident ABCnews released the name of the kid!
No, they didn't. The article YOU QUOTED clearly states that it was his SCREEN NAME, not his actual name.
"There were other kids. This was NOT the only time he did this. If so maybe there would be something to your argument -- but seeing as he has been doing this for YEARS (and with kids under the age of 18) there ISN'T."
I have seen no proof to that statement. We're still waiting for the facts to come in and as of now the facts point toward his pages being of age. If a story comes out where he had non-consensual cyber sex with an underage then I'll gladly change my opinion, but not until then.
"No, they didn't. The article YOU QUOTED clearly states that it was his SCREEN NAME, not his actual name."
What's your point? Some people have everything from their name to their zip code on thier profile, and it's all accessable to the public. It could still be damaging.
I have seen no proof to that statement. We're still waiting for the facts to come in and as of now the facts point toward his pages being of age. If a story comes out where he had non-consensual cyber sex with an underage then I'll gladly change my opinion, but not until then.
"No, they didn't. The article YOU QUOTED clearly states that it was his SCREEN NAME, not his actual name."
What's your point? Some people have everything from their name to their zip code on thier profile, and it's all accessable to the public. It could still be damaging.
Figures that ABC would report without all the facts in. Of course Foley is still disgusting, but the media clearly isn't doing thier job.
# posted by 
: 10/05/2006 7:00 AM
: 10/05/2006 7:00 AM
Ethics committee ready to probe Foley case. Speaker Dennis Hastert's job is on the line as members of the House ethics committee decide how to launch a credible investigation of former Rep. Mark Foley's salacious computer messages to teenage pageS.
The Justice Department, meanwhile, ordered House officials to preserve all records related to Foley's electronic correspondence with teenagerS. The request for record preservation is often followed by search warrants and subpoenas, and signal that investigators are moving closer to a criminal investigation.
"The children (no "child", or "young man"), their parents, the public, and our colleagues deserve answers and those who covered up Mark Foley's behavior must be held accountable", House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said.
Foley, 52, resigned last Friday after he was confronted with sexually explicit electronic messages he had sent teenage male pageS. (10/5/2006. Larry Margasak, Associated Press Writer)
The Justice Department, meanwhile, ordered House officials to preserve all records related to Foley's electronic correspondence with teenagerS. The request for record preservation is often followed by search warrants and subpoenas, and signal that investigators are moving closer to a criminal investigation.
"The children (no "child", or "young man"), their parents, the public, and our colleagues deserve answers and those who covered up Mark Foley's behavior must be held accountable", House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said.
Foley, 52, resigned last Friday after he was confronted with sexually explicit electronic messages he had sent teenage male pageS. (10/5/2006. Larry Margasak, Associated Press Writer)
I think no one really knows at this point. While your article says plural the ABC one now says singular. I thik there's a lot of confusion right now and arguing is pointless. Can't we all just agree that the guy is a creep and be done with it?
# posted by : 10/05/2006 12:05 PM
: 10/05/2006 12:05 PM
Okay, first off let me just say that Mark Foley has no business being a United States Representative.
I really don't care what age the guy was - I read the actual chat and Foley is one sick guy.
But I definitely see your point. And the real issue, is not with Foley, but with the Republican leadership. The media, naturally, is painting it like they KNEW this was going on with underage kids. If it turns out this report is true of course this makes a big difference.
Post a Comment
I really don't care what age the guy was - I read the actual chat and Foley is one sick guy.
But I definitely see your point. And the real issue, is not with Foley, but with the Republican leadership. The media, naturally, is painting it like they KNEW this was going on with underage kids. If it turns out this report is true of course this makes a big difference.
<< Home
