Meet Jordan Edmund One Mark Foley Instant Messanger

Passionate America ^ | 10/4/06 | Wild Bill

[Gribbit]

Mark Foley is a scumbag! Mark Foley is a scumbag! Mark Foley is a scumbag!

Now that that is out of the way I will reveal how I (and a few others) discovered Jordan Edmund was one of the former house pages that participated in sexually explicit instant messages with Rep. Mark Foley. Also I will explain to you why I believe it necessary to reveal Jordan Edmund's identity. You may not agree with my decision, but I hope to explain my reasoning by the end of this story.

Read More HERE!

[fhayek]

I am precariously close to fifty. My point was more in the realm of the court of public opinion. If you are 18, you are considered (for all intents and purposes) an adult. If someone sends a salacious IM, you are expected to be able to deal with it. Not so with a 16 year old. Everything I have been hearing is that Foley was hitting on 16 year olds. If this guy is 18, it kind of shoots a lot of the story out of the water. I am not, however, saying that Foley isn't a pervert. But there is much perversion in this world that is nevertheless legal.

[blogblogginaway]

Added to Drudge headline...........

ABC RELEASED TRANSCRIPT OF CHAT BETWEEN FOLEY AND A MAN WHO WAS 18 AT THE TIME OF THE INSTANT MESSAGE EXCHANGE.... NETWORK GAVE IMPRESSION MESSAGE WAS TO 'UNDER AGE' TEEN... DEVELOPING...


http://drudgereport.com/

[Paine's Ghost]

I find it appalling that Freepers are trashing this kid and trying to prove that he was 18 and not younger. I agree with you 100%.

Foley is a sick dirt-bag regardless. But the charges are against the "party in power" for not protecting America's kids. If it turns out that the kid was of legal age, and not even a page at the time of the engagement, then there was probably nothing anyone could have done to stop this behavior. Actually, doing so would be regarded as interfering with the private affairs of two loving men. That was Gerry Studd's defense, even though the page was underage.

[Dolphy]

I still find it wrong even if the kid was 18 and I would expect that no FReepers will bother him (we ought not attack him either - we don't really know his involvement - he may have been keeping these so that something would be done about Foley etc.)

I suspect we'd find a lot of things "wrong" if we knew of the private sex lives, internet or otherwise, of our elected officials.

I still don't understand why a straight teenager would have put up with Foley for more than one inappropriate message. There may be a great explanation, I just don't know what it is.

[batter]

One last thought before I go:

While I know FReepers are really going after the MSM/Dems on this issue we do need to make it abundantly clear that we do not condone Foley's behavior in the least and are happy to see him go. We're just angry at yet another liberal ploy to fool the American people with false reporting (ie using the 'underage' hammer, calling for Hastert's head etc), particularly given they may have had this stuff for quite a while (plenty of time to verify dates etc).

[Sarah]

At least a Whit. (politically, not gross-out factorly)

[Jean S]

Well said, I agree with you 100%.

[Sarah]

What doesn't jive? Republicans are all straight?

[Sarah]

'Added to Drudge headline.....'

Drudge rules, N'est-ce pas?

[YdontUleaveLibs]

It is still sick, but it isn't even illegal to use the internet as a 50 yr old to chat with an 18 year old and even meet the 18 year old to have sex. I don't think there is a huge difference between 18 and 16 but I still don't want 16 year olds meeting 50 year olds online and meeting for sex at 18 they have the legal right to do it if they want to.

[be4everfree]

The MSM will drop this story as fast as they dropped the Plamegate story when Armitage spoke up.

If they continue with the story they run the risk of exposing some Dems.

[eddie willers]

My point was more in the realm of the court of public opinion.

So was I and here is where we differ in opinion and I may very well be wrong....but I believe that most people, over 40, think a 52 year old man hitting on an 18 year old is no different than a 16 year old.

And people over 40 vote!

The only think we can do is stress that IMs are different than Emails and that we did the right thing at the right time.

Anything else just keeps it in the news

[MaineVoter2002]

US House of Representatives
Washington, DC US
House Page
Office of the Clerk
September 2001- June 2002

[LASVEGASBRETT]

What I do not understand is why the kid did not use the ignore button? To me this sounds like some kind of set up

[REDWOOD99]

I'm over 40. There's a HUGE difference.

[trumandogz]

The timing.

[Eva]

That Berkely political science students are Republican.

Also I'm sure that the kid was a victim. It sounds more like Foley was the victim of a bad joke, the kid made a fool of him, and roped him into a sting. Not that he didn't deserve, but the kid doesn't need protection either.

[Sarah]

16 is not legal, 18 is. Hitting on subordinates is a different problem, but there is a real (legal) distinction here, and that is not negligible.

[cynwoody]

If it turns out that the kid was of legal age, and not even a page at the time of the engagement, then there was probably nothing anyone could have done to stop this behavior. Actually, doing so would be regarded as interfering with the private affairs of two loving men. That was Gerry Studd's defense, even though the page was underage.

Gerry Studds got a standing ovation from the Dems. His Masshole constituents reelected him to five more terms. His page interaction was (a) genuinely underage (the page was 17) and (b) physically consummated, not limited to salacious messages. He and his lovely bride, Dean T. Hara, were married in the first week of gay marriage availability in Massachusetts.

Democrat attacks on Mark Foley amount to gay bashing. Gay bashing is a mortal sin in the Church of Liberalism. They should be ashamed!

[vrwcagent0498]

And gay-bashing.

Good point.