« Cynical 'homophobia' by Dems | Main | Getting away from Foley, then Infatida -- in France »

October 04, 2006

Indecent Foley and the 18* y/o of infamous IM's

"Eighteen year old?" You ask.

Yep* [updated - the first im was when former page was 17 years + 345 days old. Other IM's, specifically the infamous "Congressional vote delayed by cybersex" exchange took place when said ex-page was 18 years + 2 months old. Facts that would be materially taken in consideration by any issuing DDA when contemplating filing charges.]

Reminiscent of the Dan Rather fraudulent memo scandal, ABC provided the IM transcripts in .pdf form ... and eagled-eyed Wild Bill spots one line where the "anonymous teen's" screen name is revealed. The blogger then does the deep digging, connecting the dots, and revealing that ABC has played it fast and loose with asserting "internet sex with a high school student."

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Technorati: , , ,

Posted by Darleen at October 4, 2006 09:17 PM


This is really shameful, Darleen. I thought you were better than this. The very first IM from the kid says "im not 18 till feb 23." Do you understand that, even if he's 21 in 2006, he may not have been 18 during the entirety of 2003?

Posted by: Josh at October 5, 2006 07:50 AM

Josh is correct. this is entirely beside the point. Foley abused his position by pursuing several (not just one) Congressional pages -- it would be like a college professor coming on to a student in his class. This doesn't make the scandal less scandalous.

And what about Hastert and others who knew about this months or even years ago and did not take action? You have chosen to avoid that aspect altogether, Darleen.

Posted by: Brad at October 5, 2006 07:57 AM

I don't think she's defending Foley's actions. I'm not really sure what the point of this post is, but now that I've made it clear that the premise is entirely mistaken, hopefully once she sees it (still early on the West Coast) she'll at least get rid of the page's name and the link to that Wild Bill scumbag.

Posted by: Josh at October 5, 2006 08:32 AM

Yes, I hope she does the right thing and deletes the link. The boy was 17 when the IM sessions began - and maybe even younger if you look at ABC's recent comments. Outing this poor kid was a really terrible thing for her to do.

Posted by: derek at October 5, 2006 12:08 PM

Hey Darleen, you know the mouseover of the link still shows the kid's name, right? So, your actions are still despicable.

And since you are on a roll, why don't you go ahead and link to that Druge headline? I mean, why not grab that anchor and hold on tight!

Posted by: fiver at October 5, 2006 03:48 PM

Hey Darleen, you know the mouseover of the link still shows the kid's name, right?

Mouseover, nothing. Kid's name is right in the technorati tags.

Posted by: Josh at October 5, 2006 04:39 PM


Why is Wild Bill a scumbag for doing what ABC didn't?

(I've haven't been on my 'puter since yesterday morning... no access to the net from work and I had the twins last night)

Brian Ross by dribbling out the IM's, by not going to the source and vetting it, by not contacting Edmund and getting his side has led to others trying to get a handle on this story.

What Foley did was morally, ethically wrong. But it remains that these explicit cybersex IM's were both consensual and began when Edmund was 17 years + 345 days old. And the whole "Foley has cybersex and delays a vote in Congress" bit was when he was 18.

Posted by: Darleen at October 6, 2006 06:48 AM

Why is Wild Bill a scumbag for doing what ABC didn't?

Generally it's thought of as scummy to release information about minors when adults use them for sexual purposes.

Michelle Malkin understands this, why don't you?


But it remains that these explicit cybersex IM's were both consensual and began when Edmund was 17 years + 345 days old.

At least you admit that the headline of your post, and the first few lines, are lies. I'd ask you to fix the post but apparently calls for decency fall on deaf ears around here.

Posted by: Josh at October 6, 2006 07:26 AM

Darleen seems to be taking some unwarranted flack here and that is hypocrisy plain and simple, one poster even posted a link for MM’s dissent on releasing this mans name.

However I note that MM makes that decision for you, and does not credit Wild Bill at http://passionateamerica.blogspot.com/ as the Blogger who uncovered this information, so you can make your own decision, while at the same time uses this information herself and links to Drudge.

So lets get real Jordan Edmonds is a man, he is not a child, if you read the IM’s you know that he freely participated in them, and if you have a reasonable amount of common sense you will question why he held on to them for 3 years. And if you do just a little research you will find that there are a lot of questions, and facts about this little fiasco that the news is not reporting. Or do you think it is just a coincidence that after his identity was released he hired a criminal DEFENCE attorney?

Normal Politics aside, I object to any one for any reason trying to deliberately change the course of an election based upon falsehoods so if this turns out to be an orchestrated scandal there should be prosecutions!

But don’t demean Darleen for relaying information to you so you can make an informed decision!

Posted by: witch at October 16, 2006 03:02 PM