Another page, via the LA Times….

“A former House page says he had sex with then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) after receiving explicit e-mails in which the congressman described assessing the sexual orientation and physical attributes of underage pages but waiting until later to make direct advances.

The former page, who agreed to discuss his relationship with Foley with the Los Angeles Times on the condition that he not be identified, said his electronic correspondence with Foley began after he finished the respected Capitol Hill page program for high school juniors. His sexual encounter was in the fall of 2000, he said. At the time, he was 21 and a graduate of a rural Northeastern college.

“I always knew you were a player but I don’t fool around with pages,” declared one instant message from Maf54, a screen name Foley used in exchanges that have become public involving male former pages.

The former page’s account is consistent with Foley’s assertion that he did not have sexual relations with minors, an issue that will be key to determining whether he committed crimes. The legal age of consent varies from state to state; in the District of Columbia, where the pages live in supervised dormitories, it is 16.”

More pages, no doubt the “page” flood gates are opening. The problem is with the anonymity. The question is just WHO is this page, and how do we know what we are hearing is true?

First, don’t you think that – if true – Foley ‘prowled the halls of congress’ we would have heard something long before now? I mean, the creep was in congress for twelve years. You mean to tell me that this page – now twenty seven – comes forward NOW to tell his story? But there are other flags to his story.

“Yet the former page’s exchanges with Foley offer a glimpse of possible predatory behavior by the congressman as he assessed male teenagers assigned as House errand-runners.

In the messages, Maf54 described how years earlier, he had looked to see whether the former page had an erection in his tight white pants while the then-teenager was working near the congressman. Maf54 also speculated about the sexual attributes of other males in the same page class, including the observation that one young man was “well hung.”

Foley abruptly resigned his House seat Sept. 29, after the disclosure of sexually oriented messages to former pages. Other messages were subsequently divulged, and questions concerning how much House Republican leaders knew about Foley and his interest in pages are being investigated by the House Ethics Committee. Foley is now in seclusion in an alcohol treatment facility, and his lawyer has declined to answer questions about specific pages.

The FBI has begun contacting former pages, and at least one ‚Äî a deputy campaign manager for Rep. Ernest Istook, an Oklahoma Republican who is running for governor there ‚Äî has hired a criminal defense lawyer, according to a published report. Istook issued a statement last week urging the media to protect the young man’s privacy after his name was briefly posted on the ABC News website.

The former page interviewed by The Times said he had not been contacted by the FBI or the House Ethics Committee. He agreed to talk to The Times only if his identity was protected, because of his fear that exposure could hurt his job prospects.”

Note that Edmund hired a “criminal defense attorney’, and I love the “urging the media to protect the young man’s privacy”, yeah, like with threatening letters. I’m all for protecting any of Foley’s “victims”, but this kid sound more like subject than a victim.

Additionally, this page claims that his experience occured during his “junior” year in school while a page which would put it around 1996. Now I have a lot of “legacy software”, and America Online’s “Instant Messenger” for certain in it’s capabities were limited, in fact it wasn’t released until May of 1997. At the very least it wasn’t until version 2.0 that it had close to the capabilities shown here.

Again, I’m not defending Foley, or challenging the vercactiy of any of these witnesses. But if they were this concerned they should have spoken before now, and they should be talking with the FBI, not the LA Times.

UPDATE: Oak Leaf at Polipundit, “Please explain, why did they kill a tree to publish this????”

Heh…