The Foley’s Follies affair gets more and more interesting the more information we see about it.

Most interesting has been the amount of bile and hatred and sheer panicked hysteria (not to mention quite a few death threats, but that’s par for the course on the “tolerant” left) that immediately came from liberals upon learning of Wild Bill’s discovery that IM Boy Toy wasn’t quite as young as the Democrat October Surprise Campaign (fully supported and endorsed, as always, by their wholly owned subsidiary, the MSM) would have you believe.

It’s been hard to make heads or tails of, really. It’s hard to think clearly when your head is spinning from seeing liberals gay-bashing like it’s going out of style, getting worked up in a lather over an aging man’s pursuit of a much younger individual. It’s surreal, we tell you. When did liberals become the Guardians of Proper Morality?

It must have happened sometime AFTER they gave standing ovations to a Democrat who’d actually had sex with a 17-year-old male page and proceeded to re-elect him 6 times. It must also have been sometime after they couldn’t get enough of whining about the “persecution” of Bill Clinton, all because of something that “wasn’t even sex.”

Dipping cigars in pussies and having your boner licked — NOT sex.

Exchanging consensual IMs with a page half a continent way — DEFINITELY sex. Most vile, too.

We wonder when the liberals will start insisting that we MoveOn.org about Foley. But we’re not holding our breath. He is, after all, guilty of being an immoral bastard while Republican, something that is ALWAYS unforgivable. If he’d been a Democrat, they’d have given him a medal and paid for his and the page’s wedding in Massachussetts.

Thankfully, being an anti-Idiotarian means never having to change your standards depending on political expediency, so we have it much easier.

Was what we know that Foley did, as opposed to what the liberals claim that he did, legal or not? Well, we’ll be the first to admit that we thought so initially, and we’ll also have to admit that we were as vicious as anybody in describing his actions as “pedophilia.” Some of that was lack of concrete evidence, some of it was due to righteous disgust and indignation. But we’re not so sure anymore. About the legal issue, that is, as in “can he go to jail for it?”

But whether he goes to jail or not, whether he’s a pedophile or not, he’s still a disgusting pervert, an abuser of his office and a disgrace to the already disgraced office of being a Representative of the House. And he’s gone, and good riddance to bad rubbish.

Meanwhile, the liberal propaganda machine continue slamming their dicks in the door:

The blog Passionate America has revealed the identity and published a photograph of an alleged victim of disgraced Rep. Mark Foley in a post that was pulled and later re-posted with additional information.

RAW STORY can verify that the young man in question is not the Congressional page from the emails that originally surfaced; with that in mind, a direct link to the Passionate America post is not provided here.

Well that’s certainly good of you to tell us, particularly considering that, at no point, did Wild Bill state that the page was the author of the emails, he was a party to the IM chat that ABC has been promoting breathlessly, timing it perfectly with the liberal blogs.

We must assume that the “raw” in “raw story” means “unresearched, with our heads up our asses.”

RAW STORY has learned that the recipient of the Foley emails is currently 17 (and was 16 at the time of the correspondence).

Good for you. But what exactly does that have to do with the IM chats that Wild Bill are talking about?

We already know that the MSM are deliberately conflating the “overly friendly” email asking for a picture and the quite explicitly sexual IM chats. That’s because if they didn’t, there’d be no story there, the story that the wholly owned by the DNC media are pushing being that Hastert “knew and didn’t do anything”, and he only knew about the email. At least that’s the only allegation for which there’s even a shred of evidence. And you simply can’t push a story about sexual predators being shielded by evil Republicans based on an email asking for a photograph, so you choose instead to pretend that they’re one and the same, hoping that nobody will notice.

Obviously “The Raw Story” got the memo.

Passionate America contends that the young man they identified took part in some of the instant message conversations obtained by ABC news. In those messages, the boy explicitly identified himself as being under the age of 18.

Three weeks away from being 18, to be exact, which doesn’t quite meet the standard for a pedophilia charge. Statutory rape, yes, if sex is involved, but hardly pedophilia. But thanks for finally getting back to the actual subject, now that you’ve done what you can to confuse anybody daft enough to trust you as a news source.

However, even if he is now 21, the man identified could still have been as young as 16 at the time of the messages. ABC has stated that they are in possession of chat logs from as much as five years back.

Then where’s the evidence? It’s not like they’ve been stingy with it in the last few days, after all. ABC can state, for all that we care, that they are in possession of chat logs going back to the invention of Teh Internets. Put up or shut up.

Also, The Hill, obviously recognizing that the pre-election campaign they and their friends in the MSM launched on behalf of their masters in the DNC are about to blow up in their faces, are busy trying to whitewash themselves:

The source who in July gave news media Rep. Mark Foley’s (R-Fla.) suspect e-mails to a former House page says the documents came to him from a House GOP aide.

See? No Democrat involvement there. Our “source” (Jason Leopold, is that you?) says so!

Well, that settles it then.

Of course, it doesn’t settle why you sat on it right up until a month before the midterms. It also doesn’t settle why you didn’t choose to run with it until an obviously fake front blog that nobody read on Blogspot did, followed 12 minutes later by the Daily Kos.

But do keep digging. For one thing, it’s quite amusing, but the best part is that the more you dig, the more your already tangled tale gets even more messed up, making it so much easier for everybody else to locate the rope that will hang you.

Which, considering that you’re trying to nail every Republican in Washington for perpetrating a coverup, is so richly ironic that you just have to savor it.

16 Responses to “What a Tangled Web”
  1. Alan K. Henderson Comment by Alan K. Henderson UNITED STATES

    Today I blogged a question about the Foley scandal (emphasis added):

    There’s a fact relative to the Mark Foley case that catches my eye. The LA Times reports:

    Former Republican Rep. Mark Foley’s electronic messages to congressional pages may have been vile, despicable and outrageous, as colleagues and critics have declared.

    But was his conduct illegal?

    If Foley had sex with a page in the District of Columbia, it wouldn’t be a crime. In the capital, the age of consent is 16, as it is in many states. That, coincidentally, is the minimum age to be a page.

    Can somebody tell me who it was that lobbied the District of Columbia to lower the sexual age of consent to 16?

  2. Alan K. Henderson Comment by Alan K. Henderson UNITED STATES

    Oops, those blockquotes didn’t work as expected. You probably figured out that everything after the first sentence is from my post.

  3. LC Scott Comment by LC Scott UNITED STATES

    Alan, if what I have read around the net tonight is true .Then congress set the age of consent almost 100 years ago.

    That brings a question to mind.
    Just how old is the Page program anyway?

  4. juandos Comment by juandos UNITED STATES

    That brings a question to mind.
    Just how old is the Page program anyway?

    For more than 150 years, messengers known as pages have served the United States Congress. Currently, approximately 100 young men and women from across the nation serve as pages at any given time. Pages must be high school juniors and at least 16 years of age. Several incumbent and former Members of Congress as well as other prominent Americans have been congressional pages.

    Senator Daniel Webster appointed the first Senate page in 1829. The first House pages began their service in 1842. The first women were appointed as pages in 1971.

  5. LC Scott Comment by LC Scott UNITED STATES

    Thanks Juandos
    It does make me wonder about the age of consent being 16 even more.

  6. Unregistered Comment by LC + IB Gutshot UNITED STATES

    That’s an interesting coincidence that the minimum age to be a Page is 16, which just-so-happens to match the legal age of consent.

    The bottom line is that the DuNCes don’t really want to see Foley go to jail. Well, unless the picture of him being led to jail would help their election run. I doubt that.

    Don’t be surprised if the “investigative journaljism” by the MSM stops pretty soon. The Dems have gotten their political capital, more information (as we have seen from our conservative blogger friends) only works against them. That’s why they put the “there’s more” spin on the original story just hoping that America would take it for granted that all the i’s have dots and t’s have been crossed.

    The MSM is still living in the 70’s. Is it any wonder that Woodward has popped back up into the spotlight after 30 years of relative silence?

  7. MoMinuteMan Comment by MoMinuteMan UNITED STATES

    Can somebody tell me who it was that lobbied the District of Columbia to lower the sexual age of consent to 16?

    Now I can’t find the site where I read that congress passed the law almost 100 years ago, I did a google for some combination of the words “washington d.c. age of consent laws” and it was one of the top returns. And after being up all night I don’t have the brain power to fool with it now, but this time I did find this…

    http://tinyurl.com/qmppt “Washington D.C. - Age of Consent Laws”

    The definitions of “Child” and Consent”:

    (3) “Child” means a person who has not yet attained the age of 16 years.
    (4) “Consent” means words or overt actions indicating a freely given agreement to the sexual act or contact in question. Lack of verbal or physical resistance or submission by the victim, resulting from the use of force, threats, or coercion by the defendant shall not constitute consent.

    It goes on to define “Sexual Act” and “First and Second degree child sexual abuse”, and “Aggravating circumstances” and the only definition of “Abuse” under the age of 16 is:

    (2) The victim was under the age of 18 years at the time of the offense and the actor had a significant relationship to the victim;

    And “Significant Relationship” is defined as:

    (10) “Significant relationship” includes:
    (A) A parent, sibling, aunt, uncle, or grandparent, whether related by blood, marriage, or adoption;
    (B) A legal or de facto guardian or any person, more than 4 years older than the victim, who resides intermittently or permanently in the same dwelling as the victim;
    (C) The person or the spouse or paramour of the person who is charged with any duty or responsibility for the health, welfare, or supervision of the victim at the time of the act; and
    (D) A teacher, scout master, coach, recreation center leader, or others in similar positions.

    If Foley “legally” falls into one of those catagories, I don’t know. Maybe “C” or “D”. But I’ll leave that to the lawyer types out there.

    But, I do get the impression that our government has been full of closeted freak sex fans for a LOOONG time…

    And I still think this is just a desperate democrat attempt to divert attention from the fact they have nothing of substance to offer America.

  8. franksalterego Comment by franksalterego UNITED STATES

    So, after watching this faux scandal, perpetrated by The Righteous Crusaders and Courageous Defenders of Gay Rightstm unfold, is there ANYONE, who STILL thinks they should stay home from the polls, this November?

    Hope, I’m not beating a Dead Horse here.

  9. Unregistered Trackback by La Shawn Barber's Corner UNITED STATES

    Foleygate: Citizen Journalism Rears Its Head…

    The blogosphere can be a fun and heady place. It can also be backbiting and libelous terrain. However humble were blogging’s beginnings, the medium has morphed into a powerful display of citizen journalism and captures the essence of free speech…

  10. Unregistered Comment by CKO1986 UNITED STATES

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I’m glad Foley’s not my Congressman.

  11. franksalterego Comment by franksalterego UNITED STATES

    Nobody wants to ask the burning question…

    Why did this “young man” RESPOND to Foley?..58 times.

    jus’ wonderin’

  12. Kristopher Comment by Kristopher UNITED STATES

    So … are the democrats going to support Foley’s right to marry this page?

  13. juandos Comment by juandos UNITED STATES

    Scott asks: “It does make me wonder about the age of consent being 16 even more.

    You know Scott back in 1829 I think 16 years of age was considered to be a full grown adult whether the person was male or female… I think that the lifespan of people in this country at that time was something like 50…

  14. juandos Comment by juandos UNITED STATES

    dim-Dems

  15. Sir Christopher Comment by Sir Christopher UNITED STATES

    you can find Foley in the white pages

  16. mkfreeberg Comment by mkfreeberg UNITED STATES

    Thank you, juandos.