younger kids should wait till they are 18 before they have sex so they don't get pregnant or get diseases

A gay man has contact with other gay men after they are 18, where is the outrage of the gay community over the persecution of a gay man? Oh yes , he's a republican. This is another example of bias.

Do we beat a dead horse longer before an election?

Cunning and vile. The person who is making the laws to "protect children" is actually doing so to protect his own interests? He gets rid of the gray zones. He makes things very clear as to what is permissible and not, and this, in essence, protects him and other predators. Are there any words in the English language to adequately describe what has been going on here?

So, what you're saying is that no crime was committed. It was consenual sex. The young man was as gay as Foley?

Wow, talk about invasion of privacy.

Gee, Brian, where are you on Harry Reid's land deal and his 'amended' ethics disclosure?

I thought Christopher Hitchens has it right in his op ed in the WSJ. The pages that were e-mailing "dirty writings" with Foley were smarter iand it's possible, Foley is more victim than these pages. Kids today has lost their innocence from movies, Internet and video games. Many young people find it easier to lie and feel no compuction about it. Foley was wrong to participate in this dopey stuff, but is he worse than Barney Franks, Gary Studds or Mc Greevey who has been extolled on Oprah Winfrey's program? It just happens that Foley is a Republican and we have a double standand in dealing with these issues with Republicans.

So to date there's no evidence of a crime committed? Isn't that interesting.

What a joke this has become. The media outght to be measured on the ratio of gallons of ink to significance.

This case and the Plame case would have a ratio approaching infinity, meaning they've wasted everyone's time.

Sad.

What is quite clear is that we need to outlaw ALL homosexual activity, not just with minors. This is now SO clear, everyone should see it.

I was wondering why you are not pressing Harry Reid like you are Foley. I understand that you want to destroy Foley, but he has already resigned and is being investigated. Reid however has not resigned and is not being investigated for his money scandal. I have written ABC News about this very thing and little to nothing has been said. I am an independant voter and seeing what I am seeing, it is the Democrats that do nothing about their own scandals when the GOP take care of their own. Who then is corrupt? I guess I will vote GOP this time just because I cannot stand double standards. By the way, after seeing what you are doing, you are BIASED.

I see no difference between thie guy, Stubbs and Barney Frank - and Bill Clinton for that matter. All of them used their position of power to abuse people much younger than themselves, when they should have been keeping it in their pants.

Jerks!

Well duh! You know, an actual crime might have been worth investigating, but right now all we have is a "sex scandal" and a congressman who appears to have played completely within the law.

I guess now we'll have to pass new laws that say if you're over 18, you can't even discuss sex with someone under 18 - age of consent laws notwithstanding.

I see no difference between thie guy, Stubbs and Barney Frank - and Bill Clinton for that matter. All of them used their position of power to abuse people much younger than themselves, when they should have been keeping it in their pants.

Jerks!

I find it odd that we know there was a problem with Foley and this entire Page scandal, yet Ross continues to obscess about this story. He has obvious ulterior motives and this is politically driven. People are tired of reading the same junk, daily, as Ross tries to probe into the mind of a Homosexual. Bet he wouldnt have done this with Mel Reynolds (who, by the way was pardoned by Clinton)! How about the mind of a sex attic ex-president? Where's your probing on that one, Brian??

I hope the FBI has expanded the questioning to include those other than Foley. Foley has already admitted (by his actions) guilt so the invertigation is a waste of time unless they 'know' of someone other than Foley. How many democ'rats are now in hiding or will be when they start questioning the young ladies. Democ'rats haven't been known for waiting until 'legal' age.

When will ABC tell us who fed them the IM transcripts?

Was it Dan Rather?

What a waste of time this has been. He's a creep. He's gone, thank God. Makes me wonder if all homosexual men act in this manner.

The big story here is that ABCNes has put the FBI on a gay witchhunt. I'm sure GLAD isn't really glad about this has turned out.

When did you first know about this and why did you wait until just before the election before publishing? Who in the Democratic Party forwarded this information to you? How much and in what type of currency are they paying you? Since obviously you are on the payroll.

The legal age of consent in the District of Columbia is 16. The article seems to suggest that, had Mark Foley had sex with these boys before they turned 18, he would have been breaking the law. Perhaps there is another law related to the contact method (IM's/emails) that sets an age limit at 18/"minor"? If there is, it would be nice if the article were to mention it specifically. But as it is, had Foley just met these boys and had sex, in the District of Columbia he could have legally done that as long as they were 16 or older. Dan Crane and Gerry Studds both had sex with 17 year old pages, and Gerry Studds remained a Congressman for another 5 terms.