While the actions of former Rep. Mark Foley are beyond acceptable, it is possible that they were not criminal -- because he was engaged in an exchange with an 18-year-old adult!

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.

Now Democrats and homosexual activists have for years claimed that Rep. Gerry Studd's sexual dalliances with a 17-year-old page were a private matter and acceptable because the boy was above the age of consent at the time. Should this young man prove to be an adult, will they now acknowledge that they would have been making an issue over LEGAL sexual activity by a homosexual -- and that they have been applying a different standard to a gay Republican than to gay Democrats?

Will ABC and Brian Ross admit that they have deceived the American public if the conversations were with an adult rather than a juvenile?

And will pigs sprout wings and fly round the Capitol Rotunda?

UPDATE: MSNBC has this piece on why thre may be no crime (or at least no prosecution) at all in the emails or IMs.

Investigators could consider federal obscenity laws, experts said, but the law prohibiting disseminating obscene material to children applies only to those under 16.

Benjamin Vernia, a former federal prosecutor specializing in such cases, compared Foley’s online conversations with pages to “grooming,” a law enforcement term for the way sexual predators bring along their underage victims. Grooming is a red flag for authorities, Vernia said, but it’s rarely enough to bring charges.

The question for federal investigators is whether FoleyÂ’s online chats ever led to real encounters. One chat transcript suggests Foley and a page had met in San Diego, but the chat doesnÂ’t indicate what took place.

Even if a sexual encounter occurred, however, that wonÂ’t necessarily be enough to lead to charges. It depends on how old the pages were at the time and what the age of consent was in that state.

If a state law was broken and authorities can show Foley used the Internet to facilitate it, that could trigger federal jurisdiction, experts said.

Foley is scum. That is beyond question. But he may not be a criminal -- and this may all be much ado about legal actions with individuals above the age of consent in their respective jurisdictions. This may highlight that the real difference between Democrats and Republicans is that we get rid of our perverts, while Democrats reelect them.

Posted by: Greg at 02:32 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 609 words, total size 4 kb.