Weiner To Resign

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) will resign today from his seat in Congress. In addition to the political pressure from his own party, Weiner had a couple of strong legal reasons to resign.

I have disagreed with those defending Weiner or opposing his resignation. I could care less about his bizarre fetish with exhibitionist acts. However, he engaged in a pattern of lies that included alleging criminal acts of hacking by others and attacking the media. He is further accused of harassing women with these pictures. I cannot understand the view that a member who showed such utter dishonesty and poor judgment should be forgiven because he is “good for the cause” or a loyal liberal. I agree with the double standard shown in the response of cases like Senator Vitter, but that does not relieve Democrats or liberals of their duty to hold their leaders accountable.

Weiner had two strong legal reasons for resigning. As mentioned in earlier posts, the greatest danger of criminal conduct is his alleged coaching women to lie if contacted by investigators. Yesterday, another woman stepped forward to say that she was pressured to lie by Weiner. Notably, the woman yesterday also said that her efforts to discuss political issues were met by responses from Weiner to get her to engage in sextexting. By resigning Weiner reduces (the admittedly low) chances for a criminal investigation.

Second, Weiner was likely to be investigated for this misconduct and there are risks of claims of false statements as well as the creation of new evidence that could be used against him. This includes possible civil litigation. It also includes possible investigation of Weiner for harassment of women who were contacting him to discuss his work as a congressman. It also includes incidents where Weiner could be charged with using official resources in engaging in this conduct.

By resigning, Weiner shuts down the main threat of investigation that he is facing. The result of that investigation would have likely made it difficult for him to secure a new position — or to come back later and run again as a “healed” individual. The new photos show that this was not a few racy shots but pictures taken from various locations, including the House gym and his office. It also includes claims by women that they tried to get Weiner to discuss his political work and views — not his body parts.

Source: Politico

188 thoughts on “Weiner To Resign”

  1. Roco,

    Are you really Byron? your writing styles and the points you make are exactly the same. If so, man what has happened to you? You didn’t really froth at the mouth so much and were somewhat loveable in your own way. I sincerely hope, that if it is you, that there has been nothing that intervened personally, to make you tip like this. You are now almost cultlike in your belief system.

  2. @Roco: None of that is true, you are a liar. Progressive ideas work fine. No matter what the tax rate, the idea that somebody with a take-home pay of $300K would give it up for a take-home pay of $12K is simply idiotic. If that $300K is after an 70% income tax bite, he will still do the work because $300K is better than $12K on welfare, no matter how much the welfare pisses him off.

    You are a liar, and a poor one. You are innumerate. You are so self-centered it may actually be a disability.

  3. “Choices, that is what capitalism is all about. Seems to me you don’t know shit from shinola and it gets more obvious with each passing post.”


    You are so damned naive that it becomes laughable. Capitalism is strictly about profit, nothing else. Choices are to be limited to the extent possible. See the history of Microsoft and what happened to Wordperfect and Lotus 123, both choices eliminated by MS, replaced by inferior products, so that they could increase their bottom line. It is you who “Doesn’t know……………..”

  4. Tony C:

    “blah, blah, blah, Marxism good, capitalism bad, blah, blah, blah.”

    It has been destroyed by the idea that government can be all things to all people and support you from cradle to grave. It cannot, at some point the people who make the money start wondering if it is worth it and go on welfare themselves or just go to another country or just put their money offshore.

    I did answer your points.

    Obama is not a sociopath and neither is Bush. Bush II was a compassionate conservative (read mostly progressive) and Obama is a progressive. Lets see, economy is screwed up and we have had back to back progressives with a left wing congress from 2006 until 2010. Hmmmm, I see a pattern.

    Progressive economic ideas dont work. Once you [progressives] admit that keeping your brother only puts us all in the poor house, we can move on and start having some prosperity.

  5. @Roco: The economy was destroyed by pretty much every President and Congress since Lyndon Johnson, favoring the rich over everybody else. The only respites from that have been due to interparty and intraparty power struggles between sociopaths. I had high hopes for Obama, but he inherited a mess from Bush II and then fucked it up even worse, and all my hope for a non-sociopath in that office have been dashed.

    As for your comments, you remain relentlessly self-centered, so much so that combined with your complete ignorance of economic history and the facts of business that I find it too much work to bother conversing with you. My points have been made for others with more brains to digest, and that means you have no further value to me as a foil. Answer my points specifically or I will just reiterate this message until you get it.

  6. Tony C:

    the cases you describe above would be possible if your boy Obama wouldn’t have screwed up the economy so badly with his progressive ideas. I think Chavez wouldn’t have screwed it this badly.

    How many companies are there that engage in dangerous work? Quite a few, when the economy is good you do have that option. When it sucks due to progressive economic policies you don’t and have to put up or shut up.

    And yes, when a supplier cannot perform you typically go look for another to take their place. You are kidding around right?

    And yes when I buy something and I don’t get treated properly, I usually don’t go back to the store.

    Where I live, you pretty much do have an infinite number of choices, Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Kohl’s, Saks, Neiman Marcus, Lord and Taylor, Sears, Penny’s, Target, and then all of the smaller retailers who sell some of the things the bigger companies sell.

    For restaurants? Holy shit, I could eat at a different one every day of the week for 10 years and still be going strong.

    Choices, that is what capitalism is all about. Seems to me you don’t know shit from shinola and it gets more obvious with each passing post.

    I may be in heaven but with what you wrote you are definitely in hell.

  7. @Mike: I am inclined to think he just a failed individual that prefers to blame others for his inability to achieve anything significant in life. The free market mythology lets him play the victim.

    The main reason, I believe, that people cling to provably wrong beliefs is that their self-worth is tied up in those beliefs. So rejecting the belief system means, in essence, declaring one’s self a failure, a worthless being. There is no excuse any more, no place to point the finger and pretend that one is a valiant martyr struggling under an oppressive rule.

    The only way out of that dilemma is stubborn stupidity and a resolute refusal to discuss anything that might ultimately threaten his belief system. He would really rather NOT know the truth, because he is pretty sure the truth will not treat him kindly.

  8. It is official,I have confirmed that he has had his Brit Milah (Bris), so he is a Hebrew National.

  9. “It is like the economic version of heaven, and just as realistic.”


    It is a fairy tale and he takes the myth so seriously, despite the fact that almost anyone’s day to day experience would prove it fallacious. Is it possible he lives in some small, idyllic home town where the realities of most lives don’t exist, or is it just that he is so supremely naive?

  10. SwM,

    Thank you for linking the Hertzberg article. He brings concise clarity to this whole occurrence. th Weiner sin he alludes to, but doesn’t spell out, is if he was going to take the fall, you’d think he’d have had a better time doing it.

  11. @Mike: On the employer side, employee side, and supplier side, Roco imagines the impossible circumstance in which everybody is infinitely flexible.

    If an employee doesn’t like his life being endangered by his employer? He can always find an employer that uses comprehensive safety measures!

    If a business doesn’t like the supplier being constantly late or out of stock? He can always find a supplier that will do it right!

    If a customer doesn’t like the service of a company? He can always find another seller that treats him right!

    Infinite choice for everybody. Nobody is ever unhappy or backed into a corner and forced to do anything they don’t want to do. It is like the economic version of heaven, and just as realistic.

  12. AY,

    I was referring to the “free land” but must have done so unclearly.
    The “free land” was for those railroad Robber Barons, far more profitable than running their railroad.

    When we see the natural gas industry’s glowing commercials today about the need to develop this resource, they don’t include the fact that if we give them their way they will also gain control of most of the nations water supply.

  13. Roco,

    I’ve got to say that this is so simplistic, that it is astounding.

    “If you cannot trust the individuals you do business with, you will find someone else from which to buy your goods and services.”

    It is the limited conception of a small businessman, who’s need for materials, etc. are localized, with many suppliers. The larger a business gets, or the more isolated an area it is located in, the luxury of finding other suppliers is highly limited. You keep talking rote “pie in the sky” mythology, ungrounded by reality, that relates to something that has never existed, nor can, nor will.

  14. Mike S.,

    Please do not forget that they also gave them free land…because they needed it….

  15. @Roco: You CONSTANTLY make the mistake of thinking that business is REPEAT business. A real estate agent can screw every customer they get, because the vast majority of their customers will use them ONCE, and never again. There is no repeat business. The same goes for a car salesman; almost NOBODY uses the same car salesman twice. Or watch salesman, or buys wedding rings more than once from the same person or buys most anything more than once. Or roofing service, I have bought that three times in my life and never from the same guy twice. Or a TV, about once every five years. For many of the purchases we make, we won’t be using that same business again for months or years. If they rip us off, we won’t be going online, or suing them, or doing anything effective whatsoever to publicize the rip off. Before we use them, almost nobody tries to search out if they have ever ripped anybody else off, either.

    Besides food, which I think includes restaurants we frequent once a month or more, there is very little we buy repeatedly. For some of what we buy repeatedly, like sewer service, electricity, and potable water, it would be essentially impossible for vendors to compete to provide us service.

    Also, in a typical week, I use eight different food vendors. If I get food poisoning, how do you propose I narrow that down to one vendor? Magic?

    Also, how about businesses like health insurance agencies, that expect to provide services about once in a lifetime?

    You live in a fantasy world. You have one example and refuse to address any other, because your model FAILS with everything except your ONE example in which all the customers can magically know everything about the vendor and the vendor depends on their repeated patronage for his business to survive.

    You take this one tiny little sliver of the economy, and try to use it to prove free markets can work, if we just let a few people get screwed or killed, then YOU can observe that ruination and destruction of lives to help you make an intelligent buying decision.

  16. “There was a period in our history where markets were mostly free, which was the 19th century. I grant you that they were not totally free.”


    Define “mostly free.” Are we talking about the railroads which were given “free” right of ways that gave them whole huge swatches of land and a monopoly? That whole period was one of boom and bust and the term “Robber Barons” came from then. Why were they “Robber Barons?” They formed monopolies and cartels the opposite of a “free market.” Corporations were assisted by government interference to prevent unionization of workers, thereby keeping workers from engaging in a “free marketing” of their talents.

    “as a liberal/progressive, I would think you would embrace free markets. 19th century liberals did. In fact that was one of the defining points of a 19th century liberal.”

    Roco, someone who is so shackled to his party line, such as you, can conceptualize that someone can not be tied to any political philosophy. I am a political iconoclast, because I believe a partisan political philosophies are bullshit, produced either by misguided idealists, or propagated by sociopath idealogues to cover their naked quest for power.

    I believe in the following:

    All human are in this thing we call life together. The Earth is rich enough for all of us to share in its bounty. All humans have the right to adequate food; water; housing; health care; education;
    the ability to expand to their fullest potential; and the personal freedom to speak and socially interract how they choose. A corrallary to this is that we are entitled to be governed by a fairly representative government, that provides protection and a fair judicial system, not influenced by anything but the truth and guided by the principal of equal protection under the law. The method of how this is brought about can be a mixture of many political philosophies, indeed the key is pragmatism, not dogmatism.

    That I appear to follow more of the progressive, liber politicians is not out of ideological bondage to them, but because to an extent they are much more likely to support most of those things I support. However, I am interested in the results and not the methodology for their achievement. Where we differ is though, I suppose, is you’re not against the results, you believe that everyone is strictly on their own when it comes to acheiving these things.

  17. @anon: and free-reign they’ve had… It’s much worse than many realize …

    Agreed. Free marketers believe in the opposite of reality, that if we just eliminate all regulation, then those people that right now are willing to take the risk of endangering people and sometimes killing them for their own profit will somehow magically develop a new set of ethics and morality. They ignore the fact that, as you say, these people are already effective at their evil craft despite the risks they take to practice it, and despite the fact that consumers can already do today whatever they want in terms of telling the truth of how somebody screwed them, and the sociopaths are still in business and going strong: Word of mouth is ineffective, you need about a million dollars worth of free air time in news reports to have any effect on a multi-national corporation, and the news organizations will only cover the most sensational stories that might get ratings and sell advertising.

    The free marketers are essentially innumerate, they do not understand the ramifications of large numbers. Free markets only have a hope of working in very small populations of a few hundred, where business owners must repeatedly interact with their customers and employees and suppliers, and literally depend upon them for their business and financial survival. Even then they don’t work completely, because long-term subterfuge and short term deceptions can still produce profits while masking responsibility.

    Free marketers live in a magical fantasy wonderland, which would be fine if they weren’t causing so much damage to the rest of us.

  18. Tony C:

    no Bingo at all. If you do not behave ethically and with integrity, you will pretty soon be out of business. Granted some dishonest people don’t get caught by their customers but they are usually found out. You cannot put your hand on the butcher scale indefinitely and hope to retain your customers.

    It is the same for any other business, big or small.

    Any butchers in here to verify that statement?

  19. Thanks for the links, Swarthmore mom. The hypocrisy, while not surprising, is nonetheless quite overwhelming. As the author of the New Yorker article said, “Senator Vitter is still Senator Vitter.”


    “If you give the smart sociopaths free reign, they will enslave you. Literally.”: -Tony C.

    Yes they will… and free-reign they’ve had… It’s much worse than many realize but, as is often the case, until there’s a whistleblower or someone vocal in the media, little will change… in spite of the fact that people are hurting and, even, dying…

Comments are closed.