Talk:Mark Foley scandal/Archive 2

message: As of 5:00PM Eastern Time, the Talk page had reached 100k.  I moved all prior discussions to an archive here.  Please be sure to check there for past discussions.--Bibliophylax 21:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick recap of some key prior discussions: a consensus emerged against naming any of the pages, at least as long as this isn't in the mainstream press.  A weak consensus was reached that the appropriate name for the entire scandal is "Mark Foley scandal" (even though others are involved).  And there were repeated reminders that this article must avoid libel, so all additions should be NPOV and with a reliable source--including characterizations like "pederasty," "ephebophilia," "sexually explicit emails," and even the term "underage.". And the article survived AfD.--Bibliophylax 21:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, but the page was underage. He was/is 16.  dposse 21:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Your link undermines your statement. The boy was not a minor by the rules of DC and therefore not underage. Kyaa the Catlord 22:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I wasn't involved in the discussion and think it is a pretty picky point.  But the concern was that "underage" is an ambiguous term not completely synonymous with minor.  Since 16 is the age of consent for sexual relations in D.C. and most of the U.S., the pages were actually not underage in that sense.  It's pedantic, but it was discussed.--Bibliophylax 22:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I tried to clarify the issue in the lede Msalt 02:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. Thank you. I had tried to fix it before, and failed. Derex 04:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved to archive

message: "Foley has issued a statement saying he has never had sexual contact with a minor, was himself molested as a teenager, is gay, and is an alcoholic" I'm not a native speaker but I came to this page not knowing anything, and on first sight it was unclear to me wether the negation also is valid for the rest of the sentance, i.e. "F. is *not* gay". Maybe someone could phrase this less mistakable ? thanks. 85.178.16.224 23:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: done. he's gay. 150.203.23.30 23:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ambiguous? 

message: As we now know the page was 18 at the time of the emails and neither a minor nor under the age of consent on DC.  Why do some editors here keep reverting the more precise description of him as an 18year old to "teenager?"  This looks like deliberate biased political posturing and appears to be intended to confuse the reader into thinking the page was a minor.  If we can't resolve this I'm going to add a POV template to the article. --138.162.5.12 16:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the discussion below under the  header "Multiple pages, multiple ages" JoshuaZ 16:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it was "never a question." As noted by the existing text I provided a citation for, the headline of the Brian Ross report that really broke this story says "Foley Resigns Over Sexually Explicit Messages to Minors" (fn 5).  I have seen many, many references in the press to minors, underage, etc. and I think it's important to clarify it.  The point about his internet seduction vulnerability is well take though, not to mention an incredible irony.Msalt 02:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's be careful when clarifying since the fact that one was not a minor does not alter the others' status. Also, significantly, if that had been an excuse it would have been used, but he never disputed the claim that he corresponded with minors. Haiduc 03:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Although I agree with the fact that there is no issue within the confines of Age of Consent, it should be noted that such actions can still fall under 'corrupting a minor' if they're still under 18.  I do feel this should be brought up in the article, to clarify any media reports which may have attempted to confuse readers into believing that he performed an act against someone under the age of consent, which up to this point, 16 is the lowest age mentioned. LogicX 03:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I presume Foley is being investigated under the Internet Safety Act, part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. That, as far as I can make out from http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/L49HR4427ChldprotBB072006.pdf , refers to acts with minors, i.e. those below 18. If I'm correct so far, then the age of consent in DC or anywhere else is irrelevant. The article should focus its legal discussion on 18 as the key age, use "minor" as a standard US legal term and give actual ages where appropriate. Bondegezou 16:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good research, thanks.  However, given that this IS an encyclopedia, don't you think a paragraph stating some basic facts about this murky issue -- such as how being a minor differs from the age of consent, how federal rules differ from state rules, etc. -- might be appropriate?  I think that for us to make a decision as to what the proper standard for age in this case, when no one from the FBI to the House Ethics committee appears to have done so, is way beyond our role and verges on OR.Msalt 18:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The most NPOV way to do things is to give the pages' ages and to note that there is relevant legislation concerning under-18s (i.e. minors). It is verifiable that Foley is under investigation and he is under investigation because the individuals were under 18, so that should be said. A wider debate about ages and different legislation pertaining to different ages seems irrelevant here and can be handled by linking to minor (law) or age of consent. (Although an expansion of what is said under minor (law), to explain how in some areas of the US the age of consent can differ, seems a good idea.) I don't think there's a need for the article to explicitly tackle a misunderstanding of events unless that misunderstanding is widely reported and I haven't seen any reporting that talked about acts illegal because of the age of consent. Bondegezou 19:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor matter 

message: The final excerpt at the stopsexpredators posting
differs from the version of that message at the bottom of
the citizensforethics pdf
even though both look like images of pieces of paper with email headers blotted out.
The citizensforethics image says 
:how are you weathering the hurricane....are you safe…send me an email pic of you as well....
but the stopsexpredators image capitalizes "How" and says "send me a pic of you"
What's the deal?  --NealMcB 15:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe, maybe they were e-mails to two separate people? :) Ashibaka tock 16:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources differ on "an email pic" 

message: Not a single reference to Studds in the whole article...how telling. 75.2.216.63 16:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can add it in if you want, if you can find a relevant area of the article. It is listed in the "See also" section at the bottom right now. Ashibaka tock 16:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Telling in what? It's fine in the see also section, as Ashibaka said. We don't go into the articles of every hurricane and link them to the "precedents" set by every other hurricane. Jeez. Oh no wait, sorry, you're right. See Also is just a euphemism for vast left-wing conspiracy. Professor Ninja 23:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Not really, the Studds scandal was the Democrat version of the Foley scandal. It's really neat to compare the aftermath of the two, but we don't have a reliable source to base entry into the article of this type of comparison yet. I look forward to someone in the media doing exactly that. But I don't hold my breath.... Kyaa the Catlord 01:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Studds precedent

message: Could we please stop adding the contrast between Studds and Foley? The claimed source doesn't say what is claimed and it has OR and POV issues (since no one else but on Wiki has made the comparison). JoshuaZ 16:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, until a reliable source picks up on this obvious dichotomy, we need to avoid adding this information. Source first. Kyaa the Catlord 16:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, if you would kindly remove it then, since I'm at my maximum number of reverts. (and before anyone comments, yes I know 3RR is not an entitltement). JoshuaZ 16:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not there right now. If I see it, I'll remove it. Kyaa the Catlord 16:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Studds 

message: Just to keep people abreast of the developments, another page, Tyson Vivyan, has stepped forward to say that he received sexually suggestive messages from Foley as early as 1997. Ex-Page Says He Got Messages From Foley. "Vivyan, 26, told The Associated Press that Foley began sending him instant messages about a month or two after his nine-month stint as a page ended in June 1997." FCYTravis 18:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For background, the age of consent in Georgia is 16 and Vivyan was over this age.  Thus sex with this boy in Georgia or Washington DC (the two locations in the press article) would not have broken any local law. Kyaa the Catlord 18:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, but legal and ethical are two different things entirely. FCYTravis 19:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If the majority of this was due to ethics violations, I'd be cool with it, but it isn't. People are wrangling over the legality of his emails and instant messages. They're calling for him to be tried and have already done so in the media. Kyaa the Catlord 19:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No-one is claiming that Foley had sex with Vivyan, so the legality or not of such an act in any state is irrelevant and does not need to be brought up. Foley is under investigation by the FBI and Florida state authorities, so it's not just "People" or "the media" but law enforcement agencies and absolutely should be reported. Bondegezou 20:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New report 

message: Since there don't seem to be any specific points that are in dispute, I'm removing this tag. If there are disputed points, perhaps they could be listed here and we can fix whatever is a problem. Lee Hunter 18:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll start this:
1. Fox News's total of 45 seconds of "oops, we mislabelled Foley as a Democrat." This is not notable. Fifteen seconds of screen text over the span of 24 hours is nothing. It certainly isn't a subliminal attempt to make people think Foley's a democrat, that's sheer speculation. Also the source of this is a blog which quotes another, terribly POV blog as its source. Kyaa the Catlord 19:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. It seems quite tangential to the article. I've removed that paragraph. --Lee Hunter 19:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality disputed tag

message: Drudge has the siren up. This article may need a major rewrite soon. - Crockspot 18:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To quote a meme: "Someone set us up the bomb!" Kyaa the Catlord 19:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Teh Rove is a genius, eh? Get rid of a RINO congressman, AND make the Democrats look like homophobes in a single stroke. I'll have to slip a twenty into his Fitzmas card this year. Crockspot 19:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you meant AND make the Democrats look like homophobes anti-child molestors? Surely the political kiss of death. Whether the IM's are true or not, the leadership's failure to investigate Foley make them look like the party of pederasty. Derex 00:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Teh Rove? I don't think Comrade Karl had anything to do with this one. There is a great number of Log Cabin Republicans out there as well. And quite a few libertarian gays who find the Right more friendly overall to their views. But this is terribly off topic. Kyaa the Catlord 19:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know, I was just looking for an excuse to post "Teh Rove". It makes the moonbats bark in the distance, like Frau Blucher in Young Frankenstein. :) Crockspot 19:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Should be interesting few hours. --198.185.18.207 19:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting, but I'm a bit skeptical. If this were accurate why wouldn't Foley's lawyer have said so earlier? JoshuaZ 19:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Possibly because Foley was unaware that he was being played? He may know as much about this breaking story as we do. Time will tell, so I suggest we all take two steps back, and three deep breaths in regards to this article. Crockspot 19:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Savvy lawyering? Foley may have just been handed a libel suit in a gilden envelope. Kyaa the Catlord 19:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, we are to believe that Foley resigned because . . .? And all the other messages? And all the warnings to the Republicans over the years? All pranks?! How convenient!. Haiduc 19:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was finally freed from the closet? He was freed from the obligation handed to him by the Republican leadership to run when he didn't really want to (see Thomas Reynolds). He didn't have to lie anymore about his orientation? This may be a godsend for the man. Kyaa the Catlord 19:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  (edit conflict) Doubtful, Foley is a public figure and this easily meets the criteria necessary for it to not be libel. Furthermore, it is hard to see why he would have resigned if Drudge's claim is accurate unless there were yet other emails or issues. We also don't know the circumstances of the "prank" even if it were a prank, if Foley typed the IMs not knowing that the page in question was joking that would still be pretty serious. But this is getting very offtopic. We should probably wait it out and then modify as necessary. JoshuaZ 19:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The guy was outted on the National news. You don't think he's going to freak out and isolate himself? Seriously... Kyaa the Catlord 19:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And don't forget that Foley did not even want to run for reelection. He was basically arm-twisted into running again by the party leadership. He probably wasn't even aware of the "prank" until he read Drudge an hour ago. - Crockspot 19:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not saying he didn't participate in the chats willingly. I'm saying that maybe he was goaded into some of them by pages who were getting a chuckle out of it. What I am really enjoying is the possibility that this will eventually play out in the press as Foley being run out of Congress by Democrats for being gay. Crockspot 19:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: To the majority of republicans, being gay is innapropriate. We shouldn't read too much into Foley's lawyer's remarks. Kyaa the Catlord 19:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: There have been 0 edits concerning this report on Drudge. It doesn't appear like we're jumping to post information posted to what is basically a blog to the article, we're patiently waiting it to be sourced reliably. I don't need to point out all the other blogs which have been used as sources on the article without this nod to WP policy. Kyaa the Catlord 19:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely no blogs should be used as sources. They should be ruthlessly rooted out. They are not reliable sources. "Blogs" by major media organizations are an exception, so long as they are pitched as they present news rather than commentary (as with the Washington Monthly for example.) Those aren't really blogs in the traditional sense of the word, they just use the name as a marketing device for real-time news with a more informal presentation style. Derex 00:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For sources, I still say these should not be used. If they want to be taken seriously and with the same credibility their mainstream news stories are taken, they need to undergo editorial scrutiny. A blog is a blog and we should refuse these ones just like we refuse blogspot, livejournal, myspace and all the billion other blogs out there. Kyaa the Catlord 01:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The general reason for us to refuse blogs is that A. they generally don't have editorial scrutiny, as you mentioned, but also B. there is often no way to tell who is behind the blog - anyone can fire up BlogSpot in 15 minutes or so. However, a blog operated by a major news organization such as a reputable newspaper or television network can be a reliable source, because we know who's behind the blog (posts are signed with real names) and we can generally assume that there is a level of editorial scrutiny put into their postings. FCYTravis 01:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chats were a prank?

message: Just to clear things up -- it doesn't matter who or how old the recipient is. It could be a prankster or an undercover cop. If Foley's intent was to make sexual advances upon a child, it would be a crime. Or has nobody seen that "To Catch a Predator" show on MSNBC? :)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.160.120.185 (talk • contribs) 
:Yes, entrapment is justice. Sensationalism is news coverage. War is peace. Kyaa the Catlord 19:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Crack? Foley is still a sick, sick, sick man... --198.185.18.207 19:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So far the only solid evidence of Foley's "sickness" is his admission to being gay. The ethical violations, the legal violations are still simply allegations. There have been no charges brought, no hearings held, no judements issued. Kyaa the Catlord 19:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it you didn't read the IMs he sent? --198.185.18.207 19:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be a lot of discussion on this talk page about what the laws are and whether Foley's actions were crimes. The age of consent laws don't apply because there was no sex, consensual or otherwise (as far as we know at this point). Besides, the scandal really isn't about the legality of his behavior and never was. It doesn't matter if Foley did nothing wrong--that is not why the scandal is notable. Definitely it seems appropriate to talk about the criminal investigation, especially as that develops, but that is just one small part of the scandal. --Bibliophylax 19:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The (over)reaction to the scandal is also notable. The vast majority of news networks not holding back judgement and making claims that make it appear that there was a crime committed is notable. The fact that because the news networks are doing this, it is being mirrored in this article makes this scrutiny legitimate. Kyaa the Catlord 19:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Overreaction ? Regardless of whether or not it is criminal, it is an unethical act and looks like it was covered up by the House leadership. If this took place in a school district, church denomination, corporation, etc.  in a lot of states it is a legal requirement to report it to the authorities.  And in a school district, church denomination, corporation the person would lose their job...these organizations simply cannot be open to civil litigation anymore....it's unethical and is not tolerated in society.Wayfarers43 16:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that opinion citeable to a notable source? I mean Hastert, for example, not Drudge or Limbaugh. Derex 01:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: On that same point, I think the following section is speculation and not particularly relevant to the article until criminal charges are actually filed.  If someone thinks it is relevant and isn't speculation or original research, feel free to put it back (I pasted it below in case anyone wants to do that)--Bibliophylax 20:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Again enough people. This has ceased to be productive. Any conclusions we draw here will be OR anyways. Let's wait to see what happens. JoshuaZ 20:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess you're right that cybersex and masturbation could be grouped as "sexual activity."  What was meant by that sentence is that there are no allegations of any sexual relations--i.e. no physical, sexual contact between Foley and any pages.  Age of consent ONLY applies to physical, sexual contact--so by discussing it, the article implies there are such allegations.  I think it is important to avoid such false, negative implications by noting there haven't been any allegations of sexual contact.--Bibliophylax 02:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken.  However, I think there are laws on the books criminalizing cybersex with -- and here I hesitate, which is exactly the point -- minors?  16 years olds?  I had the impression that these laws are federal and may use 18 as the age, but obviously I don't really know. Wish someone who did could spell it out -- or I had an encyclopedia I could look it up in.  :-)  Msalt 06:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Legality

message: We now have a stub on Jordan Edmund one of the pages in question. I had initially deleted it due to WP:BIO concerns but undeleted it when more mainstream sources seemed to have picked up on the name. JoshuaZ 20:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jordan Edmund 

message: See Special:Contributions/Edmo for more info. Ha. Only two edits though. --198.185.18.207 21:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: huh? dposse 21:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is Jordan Edmund. Just thought it was interesting that he edited Wikipedia... well, only twice, but it will be there forever. :-) --198.185.18.207 21:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Er, what exactly is your evidence?  "Edmo" is hardly revealing as a username; and as he only made two edits, substituting "Mormon" with "member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints", this is hardly compelling proof that it's the same guy, even if both were to Ernest Istook.  And was this really necessary?  --Saforrest 00:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedian (sort of) behind it... 

message: I'm updating the cite formats for the references in the article. Most of them use the fancy cite news format, but the splattering of blank refs seems to be causing some problems in the references. Kyaa the Catlord 22:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In all honesty, the new cite style sucks (you'll pardon the profanity, but the word choice is appropriate).  •Jim62sch• 23:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It IS a pain in the ass, isn't it? Kyaa the Catlord 00:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep.  Nice to agree on one thing, at least.  :)  •Jim62sch• 00:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tasks at Hand 

message: Is it really necessary to have so much of the chats included in the article? It seems a little explicit for an encyclopedia. It's not like the texts aren't readily available through an external link. - Crockspot 03:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It is. Necessary that is. It's really very little, considering. But, I'll give you credit for being a Republican who cares about teh children. Derex 04:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on, Derex. You've been around long enough to know that's WP:NPA material. This mess is contentious enough as it is.--Aaron 05:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a personal attack there, unless Crockspot's last name is Hastert. But I was bad further up, so your point is well taken. Derex 06:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh heh. Just trying to keep things down to a low boil. Here, have a cookie. Be a good boy. I'm going to bed. (On second thought, I'm not sure I want to type the word "boy" anywhere near this article. Just have the cookie as a responsible citizen of the world, or something. --Aaron 06:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excerpts 

message: I think it needs to be made clear exactly what is meant by "age of consent", if that phrase is going to be used. What it means will depend on the jurisdiction. An age of consent of 16 could mean they can have sex, but only with those between 16 and 18. The age of consent is different from the age at which statutory rape laws no longer apply. What precisely is meant in this article? - Matthew238 05:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is discussed, in the section Controversy, Legal Issues.  (I plan to change it to Legal issues, as every scandal is controversy by definition.)  If you think it's unclear, well have at it.Msalt 05:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes this a bigger legal mess is that local ages of consent are irrelevant once you bring teh Interwebs into it. Federal law prohibits the use of any sort of electronic communication to solicit sex from anyone under 18. It wouldn't matter if Foley was in one room in the Capitol building, the page in the next room over, and the age of consent in DC was six. Once they started using AOL Instant Messenger to IM each other, those communications were being routed through Virginia (at least I think AOL's servers are still mostly in Virginia), which means the data was crossing state lines, which means the Commerce Clause kicks in, which means the feds can go after you regardless. --Aaron 06:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  If you can cite the law and write that up concisely, please pop it into the Legal Issues section of this page.  I think that is important and classically encyclopedic information.Msalt 06:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, except for the one during the vote, we have no idea that these conversations or possible contacts took place in DC. Plenty of top officials live in Virginia or Maryland; I know this personally. Foley may well have also.    Derex 06:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The legal issues mention the age of consent, but, I don't know, the age of consent for DC could be 16, yet a 50-year-old having sex with a 16-year-old could still be statutory rape - statutory rape could mean anyone over 18 having sex with anyone under 18, regardless of the age of consent, which in itself simply refers to the age which the minor will no longer be prosecuted eg. two 15-year-olds having sex might be illegal - the two could be sent to juvy or something. A 17 y.o. with a 16 y.o. is perfectly legal. BUT, a 19 y.o. with a 17 y.o. is statutory rape on the 19 y.o's part. - Matthew238 09:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No one has alleged any sexual contact in DC, or anywhere else for that matter. This consent business is tangential, speculative, and unfairly suggestive of a particular crime. I strongly feel it should not be included. Derex 09:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Age of Consent

message: "There is not any aspect of this matter that is a practical joke nor should anyone treat it that way" - per the lawyer for Jordan Edmund. FCYTravis 07:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drudge update 

message: Surely, we don't need to quote the entire letter? We don't quote Hastert's entire press release, or Pelosi's resolution for an investigation. A brief summary and a link would do nicely. Derex 07:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I summarized it. Derex 08:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A family response 

message: Hey how were the instant messages authenticated by ABC? does any one know? How can be sure they were not fabricated? Was this done using microsoft messenger? or some other IRC program? was it done from a congress IP address? How do we know?
:I doubt they have been, or can be, authenticated beyond personal affidavits. We must therefore be careful about asserting it as fact. It's possible that AOL keeps logs of IP addresses involved in IM's, but I doubt they would release those without subpoena. 
:Nonetheless, it is suggestive that at least 5 pages have come forward about explicit IM's, at least 3 about suggestive emails, and several more have stated that his behavior in DC was highly suspicious and gossiped about. Moreover, the sources seem predominantly Republican. He also has not issued a denial of these very public charges.
:But no, I don't think we can be sure they aren't fabricated. I was very concerned about that possibility when it was only one set of IM's. I'm not any more. Derex 09:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Instant Messages