It is the ultimate example of voters getting the representatives that they deserve. A recent poll shows 56 percent of constituents of Anthony Weiner want him to remain in office. I spoke on the Weiner scandal on CNN last night.
For years, Democrats have been criticizing the blind loyalty shown to politicians from Tom DeLay to David Vitter. Yet, in New York, voters want to retain a politicians who spent a week piling lie upon lie over the sending of lewd photos. In addition, some of the women complained that they only wanted to talk politics — making (if true) Weiner a type of virtual flasher. He then alleged that a crime of hacking was committed and attacked media — calling them foul names and blaming them for the scandal. Despite this record, the voters want Weiner to continue to speak for them. Weiner only admitted his lies when pictures emerged showing him and confirming his role. Stories have now emerged suggesting that he contacted at least one woman to try to convince her to lie.
What exactly does it take? Just because you like his politics and he attacks people you dislike does not excuse a member in such despicable conduct. When people complain about Congress being a cesspool, they need to consider how their own blind loyalties contribute to that problem.
Weiner is now saying that his wife is making him stay in office, though others have suggested that he needs this job. In the end, it is up to the voters to determine the minimal level of honesty and integrity required to be their representative in Congress.
Sources: NY Post
Weiner has not been under oath, and it is also not true that Weiner lied for “personal gain.” He received no tangible property or cash as a result of his lie.
He’s trying to protect his paycheck. If he was in a private sector job he would have already been terminated.
I said earlier that POSSIBLE criminal charges could be filed. This was before Delaware investigators concluded their investigation. That investigation is now officially closed with no criminal charges filed.
@Roco: They are both the same.
No, they are not, and saying they are is like saying that calling somebody a jerk is the same as punching them in the face. One is legal, the other is assault. It is entirely legal to be duplicitous, a spoken lie to the press is entirely legal, but signing a legal statement you know is false is a crime. The CEO punishment is not for being duplicitous, it is for committing a financial fraud in writing. It was not illegal for Clinton to engage in extra-marital sex, it was not illegal for him to lie about it, his crime was lying about it under oath.
Weiner has not been under oath, and it is also not true that Weiner lied for “personal gain.” He received no tangible property or cash as a result of his lie.
For another example, you are lying when you claim these two acts are equal, but you are not committing a crime by doing so, even if you mislead people or gain the respect of some idiots or gain some satisfaction out of misleading people.
I can repeat this tutorial as often as it takes for you to get it. The acts you describe are not equivalent in the least. Not all duplicity is a crime, not all lies are a crime, if they were you’d be in prison.
My position at the beginning of this matter was that Rep. Weiner should resign because the scandal, regardless of associated moral or legal issues, would destroy his effectiveness in the House. Subsequent events have certainly borne that out. There is really nothing of substance to debate on the issue.
Tony C:
“@Roco: Bleat about principle all you want, defrauding investors is a crime, lying to the press is not a crime. It is too a false equivalency, a lie to the press, about a personal matter, is not a signed official statement to an investor about a financial matter. The latter is criminal fraud, the former is not. One is the equivalent of stealing money, the other is not.
I was not the one that chose to equate them, you were.”
And in that statement lies your problem. They are both the same. Duplicity is duplicity, it doesn’t matter. Weiner lied to deceive, to cause others to be deceived. He lied for personal gain. What he did was really very bad and he should resign.
In either case, the CEO or Weiner, they both lied for personal gain and they lied to cause you to be deceived.
It is not about sex at all. Just as it wasn’t about sex with Bill Clinton. He should have just come out and said, “yeah I got some in the Oval Office, not my finest hour and I am sorry.” He didn’t he lied about it, in fact didn’t he perjure himself?
Weiner should have fessed up instead of conspiring with his staff to deceive and to implicate another person. Who does that except a scumbag? You keep thinking it is about sex, that makes it simple and no big deal. But it is a big deal.
Stanley Kurtz:
Liberalism nowadays may be the last great holdout of old-fashioned prejudice. By telling themselves they’re against group hatreds of all kinds, and dismissing their opponents’ arguments as nothing but bigotry in disguise, liberals grant themselves license to despise. They swear, mock, and hate with a clean conscience, never guessing they’re turning liberalism itself into an outpost of bigotry in reverse. The flip side of liberal guilt is this hidden license to hate.
The greatest targets of this wave of liberal bigotry of late have been Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. By joining the pariah class of conservatives, Palin and Bachmann turn themselves into legitimate outlets for the left’s suppressed prejudice against women. That yields shock when Palin’s emails show her to have been a good governor and an admirable person, or when Bachmann shines in debate.
(This thread would be plaintiff’s exhibit B (The palin/Revere thread is Exhibit A hands down). It’s not just prejudice against women (as the Weiner episode shows, lefty feminists are quick to adandon their principles when it is politically expedient) it’s also a class-based prejudice/hatred, as the attacks against Palin show.)
@Bdaman: Could you be more wrong?
A) According to the Post article this girl is a citizen of Delaware and 17. By Delaware law (See 764(a), 765(a)), so even if Weiner sent explicit pictures to a 17 year old in Delaware, if he had reason to believe they were invited then the cutoff age for that being a misdemeanor in Delaware is if she were under SIXTEEN. She is 17, and actually of age to engage in sexual intercourse with men up to 21 years of age (4 year peers). But no sexual contact is alleged by anyone, no sexual pictures are alleged by anyone, and her age has nothing to do with anything even if he did send sexual pictures; for that hypothetical she is an adult like any other, and if he hypothetically sent them with reason to believe the pictures were invited, he would not be breaking the law then, either.
B) Evidence of listening to an underaged girl is not evidence of speaking to one. Following on twitter is just listening to what somebody says; and Weiner’s motive can be entirely political, not prurient. I can understand wanting to hear an unfiltered version of what the about-to-vote age group is saying, particularly a member of that group he knows is interested in politics.
C) If Weiner likes to imagine himself as a superman in cape and tights, that is also not a prurient interest, and that is not an illegal communication. It appears the girl invented the “Cape tights and shit” line, her cursing or her expressions of sexual interest in Weiner are not his. Adults are not prohibited from engaging underage girls in non-sexual conversation, and that is what Weiner was apparently doing.
D) This is all fabricated breathless bullshit with zero substance. She followed him after a public speech, he followed her, and exchanged a total of five innocuous messages with her, knowing she was 17. Her language and sexual fantasies are not under his control, he can’t be held responsible for them.
We already know Weiner engaged in sexually explicit conversation with young adult women, which was entirely legal. He and they have this obscure right we call “freedom of speech” which protects them. That activity is NOT evidence that Weiner ever engaged in a sexually explicit conversation with a 17 year old, and even if he did, it was not illegal in the state of Delaware where she lives.
Weinergate: Five Is Not Two
http://patterico.com/2011/06/11/weinergate-five-is-not-two/
Now leading the Weiner web sleuthing is Patterico, who earlier today posted a detailed and convincing, though circumstantial, case that there is a very strong possibility that Weiner sent lewd messages and/or images to minors.
Patterico’s post (the third on the subject) is well worth reading (warning: it includes some sordid stuff).
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100091772/conservative-bloggers-exposing-the-sordid-underbelly-of-the-weiner-scandal-that-mainstream-media-will-not-touch/
Evidence That Weiner Was Talking Dirty to Underage Girls? Part 3
Ethel (who rendered her Twitter account private after I published part 2) has been on Twitter since 2009. She looks like a high school girl, and her profile says she loves LeBron James, marching band, and sleeping. She frequently talks about her high school on her feed.
She also has quite a mouth at times. Here is one tweet she sent on May 26, before the scandal came out:
http://patterico.com/2011/06/09/evidence-that-weiner-was-talking-dirty-to-underage-girls-part-3/
Evidence That Weiner Was Talking Dirty to Underage Girls? Part 2
The story changed completely when Weiner confessed on Monday. It became clear that not only had Congressman Weiner sent pictures of himself to women, he had also allegedly coached a young woman to lie. And a transcript appeared of sexually explicit conversations between Weiner and Las Vegas blackjack dealer Lisa Weiss.
But Rep. Weiner insisted that he believed all the girls were of legal age.
Now, there is new evidence to suggest that Congressman Weiner had intimate conversations with an underaged girl.
http://patterico.com/2011/06/09/evidence-that-weiner-was-talking-dirty-to-underage-girls-part-2/
@Roco: Bleat about principle all you want, defrauding investors is a crime, lying to the press is not a crime. It is too a false equivalency, a lie to the press, about a personal matter, is not a signed official statement to an investor about a financial matter. The latter is criminal fraud, the former is not. One is the equivalent of stealing money, the other is not.
I was not the one that chose to equate them, you were.
Mike S.
Great insight into the riots and discord. I learn something new every day here!
mespo,
“I’m having a hard time accepting his betrayal of his pregnant wife as immaterial and passing his actions off as mere lust gone awry.”
I agree. I think the man has a problem.
Mike Spindell:
“Just what do you think of Sen. David Vitter,”
He is a very troubled scum bag and he should have stepped down as well.
How could I say that about Weiner without saying it about anyone in public service who did something like that? I am not partisan in that respect.
But as I said above it is up to the people in his district. If he were a republican in my district, I would work very hard to get him to step down even if a democrat won the seat. Cheating on your wife is a pretty big deal with me, if you cannot honor that commitment/contract there is a very good chance you will respect no contract or commitment.
I don’t know about you, but I would rather have an honest, upright, progressive democrat than a scumbag republican. I may not agree with the person but at least I know when he screws me, he is honest about it. 🙂
http://abcnews.go.com/US/rep-anthony-weiner-treatment-photo-scandal-sex-addiction/story?id=13827354
Mike S:
I forgot to add that the words of Marcus Aurelius continue to chime away in my head that “Never consider anything to be beneficial to you, which could compel you to violate your faith in yourself, to abandon your modesty, to hate anybody, to be overly suspicious, cursing, disingenuous, or to lust after anything which must be hidden behind walls or veils.”
Mike S:
Add my kudos to your on-the-scene account of the riots. Fascinating reading. On the topic of the day, i find myself no closer to tolerating Weiner’s behavior than before. Roco makes the point that trust is the sine qua non of public service. I’m having a hard time accepting his betrayal of his pregnant wife as immaterial and passing his actions off as mere lust gone awry.
“He should step down, he is a scumbag.”
Roco,
Just what do you think of Sen. David Vitter, who used prostitutes to service him (I really don’t want the details of this)while he dressed in diapers? He did commit adultery and surely broke the law. No censure for him, no one in his party calling for him to step down either. While with Weiner we don’t even know if he physically committed adultery.
this is not a false equivalency. It is a matter of principle. The principle that being honest is necessary for the proper functioning of any organization whether a business or the congress.
That Weiner or a CEO would cheat on his wife is an indication of their character. That they would try and deceive is a further indication of their character.
He should step down, he is a scumbag.
@Roco: It is only technically hubris; the fact that Weiner is one of the approximatley 539 out of 110 million adults in this country that actually has a direct vote on national law does indeed make him a very important man. That is just factual. What was his follower doing; asking him over for a beer or something?