Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I-Messages Obtained by ABC News Cast Doubt on Claims from Foley's Lawyer

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
stevedeshazer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-03-06 08:14 PM
Original message
I-Messages Obtained by ABC News Cast Doubt on Claims from Foley's Lawyer
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/instant_message.html

<snip>

Foley, who checked into an alcohol rehabilitation facility in Florida, also "reiterates unequivocally that he has never had sexual contact with a minor," Roth said.

But instant messages obtained by ABC News do reveal that Congressman Foley met with an underage page in San Diego, a meeting which they spoke about in an instant message exchange from April, 2003.

<snip>

He denied, however, that Foley ever offered to provide alcohol for teens at his Capitol Hill apartment.

But according to an instant message provided to ABC News by a former page, Foley did make such an offer to a former page in April, 2003.

---

Hmmmm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BattyDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-03-06 08:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. So this means a Republican LIED????
I'm shocked! :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-03-06 08:17 PM
Response to Original message
2. Did Foley lie to his innocent lawyer?
Or is the lawyer a lying sack o' pasture pastry?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevedeshazer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-03-06 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. It's deliberate obfuscation in my view.
It's easier to hide in muddied waters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Gardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-04-06 05:20 AM
Response to Reply #2
11. The lawyer is doing what he gets paid for
Covering for his piece of shit client. I'm sure he is getting paid very well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-04-06 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
18. innocent lawyer
:rofl:

Lawyers routinely bend the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-03-06 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
4. Awwwww, here is comes, people !!!!
" .... I did not have sexual relations with that boy ... the page ...."


Payback's gonna be a BIOTCH, you evil Repukelicans !!!! :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-03-06 08:39 PM
Response to Original message
5. So Foley is lying to his lawyer. Hmm. I guess the "no sex " claim is not
worth a whole lot then, is it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
central scrutinizer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-03-06 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. it looks like the "no sex" claim is just as reliable as the "alcoholism"
defense - that is both seem to be complete lies
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pachamama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-03-06 09:47 PM
Response to Original message
6. Nice try Foley!
Notice - his lawyer said that he didn't have sexual contact with a minor - But he didn't say a "teenager or a page" (he's getting into the legal definition of "minor" and if the page was 17 and a minor is being defined as 16 or younger....

I think they are doing damage control and trying their darndest to deflect all the storm coming at them...

Not going to work....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-04-06 12:13 AM
Response to Original message
8. This is solicitation of a minor
Foley is going to be arrested.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Up2Late Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-04-06 03:38 AM
Response to Original message
9. How are they getting these IMs? I haven't used IMs in years, but...
...I thought IMs didn't stay around very long.

Is AOL giving up IM messages "on demand" now too!?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-04-06 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. They can be saved
and frankly those boys were probably encouraged to save them due to the harassing nature of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doctor_garth Donating Member (124 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-04-06 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. yes they can be saved
AND altered afterward, so Foley's lawyers can claim that as well.

How do we know for sure these guys were underage? And isn't 17 the age of consent in many states?

The more we talk about this, the less time we spend talking about Bush's war crimes and assaults on the Constitution and Treasury.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-04-06 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Consent is complicated and so is this case
Edited on Wed Oct-04-06 12:39 PM by blogslut
First off, who enforces the law? Foley supposedly sexually solicited young men over the Internet. In what state did the crime happen? If say, it was in Florida, where Foley resides, consent is 18. If the charges come out of the state of Loiusiana, where one page lives, consent is 17. If the charges are brought out of DC, consent is 16. There are also the parental permission riders that often appear with consent legislation - meaning parents must consent as well.

As for your quip about AOL im histories being altered after the fact, we are not positive that the IM software Foley used was indeed AIM. It could have been Yahoo or MSN - programs that automatically collect a history file. The way to prove authenticity with those programs would be to open the application and click the particular history of the particular contact/IM Buddy.

As for AOL chat history, apparently AIM doesn't do history logging. Therefore, the most common method to save AIM chats would be to copy/paste into a text editor or word processing software and save. Those type files can be altered after the fact, however, the original dates of their creation - not so easy to spoof. As well, there are many software programs - easily available over the web - that can save AIM history files automatically. In theory, one could prove the authenticity of the IMs by opening such a program and displaying a saved history log from a particular contact/IM Buddy. Another way to prove authenticity would be to save screen captures of the actual AIM chat windows.

What gets lost in this (coming) RW debunking of the IMs is that, more than one page saved these IMs for three years. Obviously they thought the messages from Foley were signifigant enough to protect for prosperity: Saved through hard drive crashes and formats. Saved through file corruptions, viruses and spyware installs.

ON EDIT: I see they wingnuts are debunking the emails. Cute. I bet someone has a master copy.

Anybody got any info on the stopsexpredators site? I have seen the blog but being a blogspot page, there's no way to do a WHOIS lookup.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-04-06 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. "The more we talk about this, the less time we spend ..."
It's five weeks to an Election Day that could give Democrats in Congress subpoena power and control of investigative Committees. For the last six years, the mainstrean media haven't provided much coverage for the Iraq fiasco, the Republican assault on the Constitution, $200 million a month in corporate bribery of Congress, etc. Democrats don't have microphones big enough to reach mmillions of voters, and therefore must rely on mainstream media coverage of our issues.

Is it reasonable to believe Kouric, Gibson, or Williams will turn into Keith Olbermanns on the serious policy issues over the next month, because of anything we might do on the serious policy issues of 9-11 hysteria?

On the other hand, mistakes Tony Snow, Denny Hastert, and Dubya himself already have made on the Predatorgate Coverup offer the possibility that THIS scandal story will last longer than a week. Once a media feeding frenzy has started over Predatorgate, then it may be possible to extend the national debate to other forms of corruption of Congress, to the folly of trusting the professed "family values" of Republicans, and to all the other major issues in getting our country back.

In this context, don't you think Predatorgate Coverup is worth spending a few days on? IMO, we may need to reframe all our other issues in Predatorgate Coverup terms if we want them covered before Election Day.

IMO, if the Predatorgate Coverup still is at the top of talk show agendas on Sunday, then the coverup story likely has "legs" until Election Day. Next week, it may be possible to start expanding the national debate to other issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doctor_garth Donating Member (124 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-04-06 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. "Democrats don't have microphones big enough to reach millions of voters"
Edited on Wed Oct-04-06 02:09 PM by doctor_garth
Wrong. Look what happened to Clinton, who finally got some guts and told that neocon interviewer off.

If Hillary, Kerry, Dean, Kennedy had any balls and spoke the truth, like BUSH IS A WAR CRIMINAL, A LIAR AND AN ELECTION THIEF, they would get all microphones turned to them, believe you me. And voters would listen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-04-06 03:59 AM
Response to Original message
10. this lawyer, despite his hopes, will NEVER get another job as a result of
working for fondling foley.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ouabache Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-04-06 05:23 AM
Response to Original message
12. only an alcoholic would offer alcohol, not a pedophile, right?
I just think they are trying to build a case for alcoholism over pedophilia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArmchairMeme Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-04-06 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
13. legal questions
What is sexual harrasment in the workplace? Is that now legal?
Isn't Foley considered management and the page considered to be a worker?

Is is illegal to offer liquor to minors?

Did the Repug congress quietly slip in legislation to make these things retroactively legal? Or will that be on the agenda in Jan.?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov 03rd 2024, 07:54 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC