It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Foley Page Possibly Identified

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   
According to this source, the page who was the object of Foley's emails was Jordan Edmund, who is currently a 21 year old student at UC Berkeley.

Mark Foley page identified: Jordan Edmund

Oddly, this is all that's left of the original report.

search.blogger.com

This is supposedly a cache of Edmund's blog:

EDMO!


[edit on 2006/10/4 by GradyPhilpott]




posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Grady, the original report is hyperlinked on that second link you listed.

I cached the whole thing, onto a word doc, just in case.

But it's a very interesting conclusion. All the research is there as well.
It's not going to be pretty at ABC.com over the next few days!



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   
hmm,

Now, check this out.

Bogus Blog

This is beginning to look like a set-up.

They knew Foleys proclivities, and took advantage. ?

the original accuser was "of age", and this pseudo-blog built just as things were ramping up to the "big announcement"..

Of course Foley admitted to being a scumbag. at this point, I still think he is.

But the Democratic party's "snoopy Dance" might be a little premature.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   
As close as I can get to the Passionate America blog is the banners. Everything else is blank. At least, someone can get it.

I too think the scandal is doing little more than making the Democrats look like minless vultures.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 05:38 AM
link   
This "scandle" had partisanship written on it in big bold letters from the getgo. Neither party is exactly innocent when it comes to attempting to bone the pages. A few years back there was a Dem. whose last name was Studds (appropriate, no?) who apparently felt it was his right to "educate" a page whilst on a trip to Spain, or Portugal. This slime was reelected on a number of occaisions.

Methinks the Dems. may want to hold off on the happy dance lest they become too hypocritical. Vultures is about right.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 09:10 AM
link   
I just found out that the victim was 18 at the time.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   
I finally got the blog to load.

passionateamerica.blogspot.com

A very interesting story, especially this:

abcnews.go.com...


[edit on 2006/10/5 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Revelations are coming out that will blow this transparent attempt at spin to kingdom come. Nice try but no cigar!

Stay tuned kids!!



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
Revelations are coming out that will blow this transparent attempt at spin to kingdom come. Nice try but no cigar!


Could you be just a little more explicit? Which "trasparent attempt to spin" are you speaking of?



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   
I thought this thread was an attempt to De-spin, what has already been spun.
Thats my take on it.

ABC posted an IM conversation, reportedly between Foley, and a minor.
But it looks like this was no minor, at the time of the conversation.

stay tuned, for sure!



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   
This is a repost of what I wrote in a different thread, because it looks like things have moved over here instead, and I felt this important enough to bring into the conversation. Sorry, I hope this isn't considered a faux pas.


Originally posted by spacedoubt
MY point here was to say that this LURID exchange may have taken place with a person who was over age. But was presented by ABC as a conversation with a minor.


Yeah, that doesn't really change my stance. Sexual harassment is wrong, and I don't cotton to it.

Now, before I get replies of "sometimes it's not as simple--" let me just say, yeah, I know. I'm not talking about something like an appreciative whistle, or calling someone cute, ugly, or asking someone on a date. There's varying degrees of all those things and some can harmless and flattering, some can be inappropriate and offensive, and I've got a lot of forgiveness as far as normal human worker interaction is concerned, so please don't think I'm on a holy quest against office sexuality. I just want to make that clear.

But what Foley is doing in those IM's, is out and out badgering an employee, over and over, about sex, his attraction to the employee, and steering the conversation constantly back towards sex. It is bluntly obvious that the employee is uncomfortable with the conversation and trying to change the subject. Granted, I only read to page 3, but by the time he began getting graphic, the charge was obvious.

Any manager, in any company would lose his job with such proof, no matter if he was even the CEO, such behavior is just flat-out unacceptable in the business world. I would, to be honest, fully recommend to anyone in such a situation to file suit to ensure that such a thing not happen again.

Now, add to that the creepy eww factor of the fact that, whether or not the kid was 18, he was still a dirty hypocritical old man trying to pick up a school kid and what you have here is a person I have zero sympathy for.

Now, note how everything I specifically pointed out is independant of sexual preference, or alcoholism. Two issues of which Foley is attempting to make the center of media focus instead of what the true offense is: aggressive sexual harassment against a school-aged employee.

(edit: new addition as of this post after reading what was in this thread.)

Let's even say age didn't enter into the picture. It is still aggressive sexual harassment against an employee, and this man is a public servant, where the standards I expect are supposed to be at least a base model of professionalism.


(edits: shoulda proof-read my own stuff before I hit post...)

[edit on 10/5/2006 by thelibra]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by whaaa
Revelations are coming out that will blow this transparent attempt at spin to kingdom come. Nice try but no cigar!


Could you be just a little more explicit? Which "trasparent attempt to spin" are you speaking of?





Flash, just out on MSNBC, three other pages come out with more tales of Foley and his pedophilia.


Are these pages just more pranksters? It's the "prank" and "he's 18" references that are the attempt at spin. Isn't it obvious?


WATS for Libra

Stay tuned even more pages are going to testify in regards to this "crime" and it's accompanying cover up.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   
www.cnn.com...

Page still being reported as 16 at the time of the "sick" emails.

Just figured I'd post this, since there was some debate about the kid's age at the time of Foley's sexual aggression on the kid.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   
The emails were sent to the page when he was sixteen. The parents described them as ambiguous and to date they have not been released. It was because of these emails that Hastert was advised to intervene and ask Foley to stop emailing the page. Foley stopped and until the Instant Messages were exposed on Friday, everyone was happy.

If whaaa is right, the whole case will bust wide open soon and we'll all know more, but until that happens, this is about all the rest of us know.


In the fall of 2005, as soon as Congressman Alexander became aware of the e-mails received by our son, he called us. He explained that his office had been made aware of these e-mails by our son and that while he thought the e-mails were overly friendly, he did not think, nor did we think, that they were offensive enough to warrant an investigation.

Rather, we asked him to see that Congressman Foley stop e-mailing or contacting our son and to otherwise drop the matter in order to avoid a media frenzy. He did so. If we had any other knowledge or evidence of potential impropriety, we would have asked for the matter to be treated differently. For instance, we were not aware of the instant messages that have come to light in the past few days.

These instant messages, which have only recently surfaced as a result of the news of the ambiguous e-mails received by our son, are separate matters.

www.cnn.com...


The entire statement can be read in the link above.

[edit on 2006/10/6 by GradyPhilpott]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join