Rep. Mark Foley's Attorney Cannot Explain Paradox in His Non-Excuse Excuse for Foley's Perversion

Okay, so it turns out that it's Rep. Mark Foley who is the victim here, after all.  David Roth, Foley's lawyer and former singer for Van Halen (no, not really THAT David Roth) could be seen metaphorically wetting his pants when his attempt to make excuses for his client's sexually perverse (and criminal) behavior backfired on him big time.  This happened, mind you, just seconds before Roth went on to say that Foley IS NOT making excuses.

Foley was a drunkard!  Yes, he was also allegedly abused himself as a child, but more to the point, Rep. Mark Foley was a drunkard.  Although rarely seen drinking in public and never seen drunk in public, apparently, it was the booze that made him do it.  There's only one problem.  A paradox worthy of Zeno of Elea.

First David Roth reported that Foley never sent sexually explicit or suggestive messages to any teenage boy unless he was intoxicated.  That statement provided the necessary justification for why Foley checked himself into a rehab center instead of jail.  But then Roth made a costly mistake.  He said that Foley was NEVER intoxicated while on the floor of the House conducting political business.  And here's where that whole wetting of the pants part comes in.  ABC News - desperately trying to make up for their entertainment division's embarrasingly partisan Path to 9/11, I guess - reported an e-mail from Foley in which he said to his young boy victim "I miss you.   We are still voting."  It turned out that Foley actually left the House floor to send these urgent messages.

David Roth could not adequatey answer any of the following questions:  Was Foley really NEVER intoxicated while doing House business?    Was Foley really ALWAYS intoxicated while doing pedohile business?   Does Foley have an evil twin, which would be the only way to make both of Roth's assertions true?