Bizarre, Congress, Politics

Weiner Roast: He Lied, But Was It a Criminal or Ethical Violation?

Well, as you probably know by now, Rep. Weiner was . . . well . . . less than frank. (ok, I have used up my one allowed pun). I do not see a basis for criminal allegations, but Weiner is likely to face an ethics investigation. Minority leader Nancy Pelosi has called for an ethics investigation. There does appear to be grounds for such a charge, though the House has historically not used its rules to punish members for reprehensible acts committed in a members’ personal life.

Weiner was careful to avoid calling for an investigation for two very good reasons. One was that he was lying and the other is that he would have to lie to investigators (which is a commonly charged crime under 18 U.S.C. 1001, as in the case of John Edwards).

Calling for an investigation is a smart move. It deflects blame from the House leadership for failing to act and, if cleared, lessens the scandal by confirming that it is a personal matter. Both Republicans and Democrats on the Ethics Committee have an interest in narrowly construing the rules, which they have historically done. I have been a long critic of the congressional ethics rules and process.

Weiner’s conduct is baffling, bizarre, and utterly reprehensible. He only “came clean” when reporters located a host of pictures sent to as many as six different women, including the picture showing himself in full face with a handwriting note reading “Me” with an arrow pointing at his face. To magnify the disaster for Democrats, he not only degraded himself but resurrected the image of Andrew Breitbart.

Weiner was careful to note that he did not use congressional resources in the matter — though obviously his staff has been busy with the scandal for a week. In some ways it has the same profile as the scandal involving Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), though Ensign not only slept with the wife of a former aide but used his authority to find a job for her husband. However, a comparison shows more serious acts committed by Ensign in terms of his engaging in proscribed conduct. The Senate ethics committee recently found substantial evidence to support allegations that Ensign: (1) conspiracy to violate, and aiding and abetting violations of the post employment contact ban, 18 U.S.C. § 207; (2) false or misleading statements to the Federal Election Commission regarding a $96,000 payment; (3) unlawful and unreported campaign contribution and violations of federal law and a Senate Rule prohibiting unofficial office accounts; (4) spoliation of documents and potential obstruction of Justice violations; (5) gender discrimination; and (6) violation of his own senate office policies.

Weiner in comparison does not appear (thus far) to have used official resources. The photos appear to have been sent from AnthonyWeiner@aol.com on his BlackBerry .

Some use of staff to deal with such controversies is allowed. The House rules tend to focus narrowly on insular aspects of a member’s use of campaign and congressional resources. The only violation at this time would appear a broad view of personal misconduct that undermines the integrity of the House. Rule XXIII, Clause 1, of the House Code of Official Conduct states that “a member . . . officer or employee of the House shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.” However, such a standard for prosecution would require the Ethics Committee to multiple its work 100 times over. The problem with applying such a general rule is that it can be used to punish members for lifestyles that the majority finds unacceptable. Such morality codes often raise serious problems for free speech and association. In Weiner’s case, he has made the matter more serious by lying repeatedly for over a week and alleging potentially criminally conduct by his accusers. He insistence that he was “the victim” involved attacking both reporters and critics to try to extinguish the scandal — which of course had the opposite effect. Lying is nothing new for members of Congress but this record would make Joe Izuzu blush.

Source: CNN

Jonathan Turley

151 thoughts on “Weiner Roast: He Lied, But Was It a Criminal or Ethical Violation?”

  1. Elaine,
    i agree with you and Mike S. This story is creepy, but I do not see anything illegal in his actions. The voters in his district should decide if he stays in the House or not.

  2. Not only do I think Vitter should resign, I wish he would resign.

  3. Lotta & Mike,

    I admit to having mixed feelings about the Anthony Weiner situation. The thought that he may have sent a picture of his exposed genitalia to a young college student gives me the creeps.

  4. Elaine,

    Thank you for the Greenwald post. He puts this whole freak show in its proper perspective. There is no there, there, from the perspective that it is any of the public’s business.

  5. Thank you so much Elaine for the Greenwald posting. He seems to have captured the dynamic of this particular event perfectly.

    The coverage and outrage over Weiner’s peccadilloes has made me increasingly angry over the last day for just the reasons Greenwald captured but I was not able to in any concise way. The sanctimonious posturing of the Republicans, Democrats and media is ridiculous.

    Weiner should stay because, like Vitter, he can.

  6. The joys of repressed voyeuristic titillation
    BY GLENN GREENWALD
    Salon, 6/7/2011
    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/06/07/weiner/index.html

    Excerpt:
    There are few things more sickening — or revealing — to behold than a D.C. sex scandal. Huge numbers of people prance around flamboyantly condemning behavior in which they themselves routinely engage. Media stars contrive all sorts of high-minded justifications for luxuriating in every last dirty detail, when nothing is more obvious than that their only real interest is vicarious titillation. Reporters who would never dare challenge powerful political figures who torture, illegally eavesdrop, wage illegal wars or feed at the trough of sleazy legalized bribery suddenly walk upright — like proud peacocks with their feathers extended — pretending to be hard-core adversarial journalists as they collectively kick a sexually humiliated figure stripped of all importance. The ritual is as nauseating as it is predictable.

    What makes the Anthony Weiner story somewhat unique and thus worth discussing for a moment is that, as Hendrik Hertzberg points out, the pretense of substantive relevance (which, lame though it was in prior scandals, was at least maintained) has been more or less brazenly dispensed with here. This isn’t a case of illegal sex activity or gross hypocrisy (i.e., David Vitter, Larry Craig, Mark Foley (who built their careers on Family Values) or Eliot Spitzer (who viciously prosecuted trivial prostitution cases)). There’s no lying under oath (Clinton) or allegedly illegal payments (Ensign, Edwards). From what is known, none of the women claim harassment and Weiner didn’t even have actual sex with any of them. This is just pure mucking around in the private, consensual, unquestionably legal private sexual affairs of someone for partisan gain, voyeuristic fun and the soothing fulfillment of judgmental condemnation. And in that regard, it sets a new standard: the private sexual activities of public figures — down to the most intimate details — are now inherently newsworthy, without the need for any pretense of other relevance.

  9. Blouise mom is hanging in there, thanks for asking. I’m leaving her with my sister for a few days. Off to New York tomorrow.

  11. Mespo-

    You said, “I am keenly UNaware that one may compartmentalize character.”

    I agree with you, but politicians seem able to do it with ease. As one of them once famously said, “It depends on what the definition of “is” is.” In his case, “is” was defined as a dry cleaning job that didn’t get done.

  12. “I am keenly UNaware that one may compartmentalize character.”

    Mespo,

    The ability of us humans to compartmentalize, rationalize and justify our behavior is legion. The problem for all of us at times is that we don’t even know when we are doing so. “Character” itself is open to interpretation since in our personal self definition of what we perceive to be our own character, we may in fact be limiting our own choices in responding to different situations.

    I have always tried to live up to my own ethical standards of behavior, but sometimes that can and has led me astray. For instance, I can remember firing an excellent employee for what was an understandable (situationally) lapse of judgment, that viewed from a strict procedural standpoint was a firing offense. I have often thought regretfully about my actions and I believe that though I was correct in a procedural sense, it was too harsh and unmerited. Isn’t that what the “equity” concept in common law is about? Must we always convict people whose hunger led them to steal a loaf of bread? I present this as a question to be pondered, rather than a refutation of antthing.

  15. a new euphamism has entered the American lexicon of manual manipulation:

    Twitter your Weiner

  17. Weiner must resign. It is not just his treatment of women but the fact that he lied and did so for ignoble personal reasons to escape embarrassment. Had he lied for a valid reason such as for example asserting that a nation that the US wants to invade and which has no weapons of mass destruction actually does have weapons of mass destruction he could be forgiven the lie.

    Likewise, were he a decent Republican politician he could be forgiven both the sexual misbehavior and the lie. Decent Republicans accumulate Christian righteousness credit points by such things as espousing family values to other people and by doing what they can to prevent poor Black women getting abortions with the result that their unwanted fetuses grows up to shoot white policemen and end up in death row in Georgia. If caught a Republican cash in some of these points to exonerate him of both the sexual deviance and any related related lying.

  18. The supplemental list of parties that can be sued for sexual harassment is an enlightened expansion of the law I think. The listed parties are all in a position to offer or imply some material gain or benefit to be denied in exchange for sex which is also a component of legally defined sexual harassment. Good to know if you’re in California.

Comments are closed.