Hard Day For Weiner

Looks like the Weiner had a hard day today. Anthony Weiner, DEMOCRAT, Congressman from New York held a press conference today and the result was that the coverup is worse than the crime. Perhaps he is not familiar with Watergate. In any event, for those who do not know, here are the brief points. Last Friday a Tweet went out from Anthony Weiner and it showed him in his underwear with a bulge displayed. Weiner stated that his account had been hacked and instead of calling for a criminal investigation, he enlisted the services of a lawyer.

For a week, Weiner has maintained that someone accessed his account and played a prank because of his name. He said he did not know if the picture was of him (it was, the thing was pointing to the left).

Andrew Breitbart published the photo and evidence began to emerge that it was likely Weiner who posted the picture though he still held firm to his hacked story.

Then, a person sent pictures to Breitbart and said they were from Weiner. Breitbart has been publishing the less risque ones throughout the day. Breitbart claims to have an X-Rated picture that he has no intention of publishing (thank you).

Now back to the press conference. After a week of denials and attacks on Breitbart (with claims he was the hacker) and after a week of the left wing blogosphere defending Weiner, he admitted today that he was the one who sent the original photo. Weiner went further in saying that there were other pictures out there and that though most of them were sent before he was married, some were sent after. He stated that he would not resign and that it was up to his constituents to decide if he should stay in office (though I think Democrat leadership might have something to say about it).

Weiner was not as gracious toward Mark Foley when his scandal broke and neither was Nancy Pelosi who, though silent now, was all over the affront to women everywhere when Foley was caught in his sex scandal. The reality is, if Weiner were a Republican he would be getting bashed by the political left and their writers in the Main Stream Media. These people would be going nonstop until he resigned.

But Weiner is a Democrat and Democrats don’t have problems with sex scandals and lewd behavior so long as it is their fellow Democrats involved. When Republicans are involved their righteous indignation fills the air.

There are people who I have no problem watching while they are having problems like this. Weiner is not one of them. I do not care for him or his politics but I felt sorry for him while he was giving his press conference. I think I have more compassion for him than he showed toward Foley but in the world of politics things are different.

I think resignation is something he has to decide but I would like him held to the same standard as he and his fellow Democrats have held Republicans to. If it was all about the culture of corruption when Foley was on the hot seat then it should be nothing less with Weiner. His fellow Democrats should go after him with the same vigor they pursued Foley.

But that, of course, is wishful thinking. Weiner will be treated more like Barney Frank and Bill Clinton and less like Foley because he is a Democrat.

And the sad thing is he will probably (if he is still around) get reelected. At least he will offer some stiff competition.

The coverup was much worse than the crime. If he had come forward and said he sent a prank photo to someone and it was inadvertently sent to all of twitter but he took it down when he realized then he would have been the subject of ridicule for a few days and something else would occupy the thoughts of people around the country, Instead, he lied about it and blamed it on some unknown hacker and then he allowed his minions to go after Breitbart, who happened to be 100% right the entire time.

Now that he has brought this upon himself there will be a lot more photos that emerge as more folks come out of the woodwork and if some of those photos are vulgar then he is toast. Let’s face it, Breitbart might not publish the vulgar ones but someone will.

And the sad thing is that there were people defending him all last week and some of them will continue to make him the victim…

**LATE BREAKING: Pelosi will call for ethics probe (funny word there) to determine if Weiner used government resources. Decision on future will be up to him and constituents. He really backed her into a corner on this one…

Related:
ABC
Real Clear Politics
NBC New York
CBS New York
Radar Online

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

34 Responses to “Hard Day For Weiner”

  1. Adam says:

    “And the sad thing is that there were people defending him all last week and some of them will continue to make him the victim…”

    First of all let me say that these actions embarrass the office and the party and the lies to cover it up bring the judgment of Weiner and his whole staff into question. It’s utter nonsense. Resignation shouldn’t be out of the question but he probably won’t given that it’s more of the ethical/moral affront than criminal.

    “His fellow Democrats should go after him with the same vigor they pursued Foley.”

    Really? Foley was a pedophile and a sex predator. He had a history of such actions going back at least 10 years with Pages. Weiner is just another idiot politician cheating on his wife but not breaking any laws by doing so.

    If Congress finds him in violation of ethics laws or whatever that’s a different story but the point still stands. Don’t pretend Foley and Weiner are anything alike other than they were both in Congress with a sex scandal. The parallel stops right there.

    “…and then he allowed his minions to go after Breitbart, who happened to be 100% right the entire time.”

    For the first time…what? Ever? Breitbart is a serial liar who just finally got one right. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day though.

    • Big Dog says:

      Breitbart has been right nearly every time.

      And Foley went after a person who was 18 and that is not a child. Not that I condone it (and you will recall I called for him to resign) but the facts in the case show the person was 18. Didn’t a Democrat have sex with a minor male and receive a standing ovation from Democrats? Yes he did. And Foley never had sex so even if the person was under 18 he would not fit the definition of pedophile unless the page was prepubescent. That would be the technical definition of a pedophile, like Mohammad of Islam fame.

    • Blake says:

      Adam- Have you seen the latest pix of Weiner’s, well, weenie? That is porn, and easily eclipses Foley’s follies, not to excuse Foley in any way, but Republicans routinely purge their ranks, Liberal Dems rarely do. Look at Charlie Rangel, for God’s sake.

  2. Adam says:

    “…and neither was Nancy Pelosi who, though silent now, was all over the affront to women everywhere when Foley was caught in his sex scandal.”

    Also, I fail to see where Pelosi thought the Foley scandal had anything to do with women. Foley was all about the 16 year old boys.

    • Big Dog says:

      When she said as a mother and a grandmother she was talking about the Republicans allegedly covering up for Foley. That coverup, to her, was an affront to mothers and grandmothers, which happen to be women. If that were not the case, why say it?

      Perhaps you could address the real issue now that this has been cleared up, unless you have some other reason she used those words…

      • Adam says:

        “And Foley went after a person who was 18 and that is not a child.”

        Don’t forget. Foley went after multiple boys ages 16 and on up into adulthood. This is a man just smart enough to wait until they were of legal age to actually engage a physical relationship but it didn’t begin at those ages.

        “Didn’t a Democrat have sex with a minor male and receive a standing ovation from Democrats?”

        I guess I’m not up to speed on that one but nothing surprises me with people in power.

        “Breitbart has been right nearly every time.”

        I think you have that one backwards. He’s a scum bag and an opportunistic gas bag.

        “That coverup, to her, was an affront to mothers and grandmothers, which happen to be women.”

        You and the daily caller miss her point entirely. It wasn’t the female aspect of being a mother and grandmother that she was speaking from. It was as a parent and grandparent of the kind of children creepy bastards like Foley get after.

          • Adam says:

            So Studds had a sexual relationship with a minor legally old enough to consent? You made it sound like he got an ovation for the sex act and not an ovation for decades of service. Studds’ actions were wrong and he admitted as much but how does that compare to the Foley case either? It gets closer than Weiner’s case but it’s still a far-cry from the decade long series of creepy actions by Foley.

            • Big Dog says:

              I never said he got the ovation in Congress or what it was for, only that Democrats gave it to him. You can claim it was for his many years of service and perhaps so, but it ignored what he had done and the ovation was designed to say we don’t care how badly you behaved and we don’t care that you molested a child, you are OK with us.

              Why is it that Foley was a pedophile (I have already told you why that can’t be) when the person involved was 18 and any others that were alleged by Democrats were, as you say, old enough to consent but Studds was OK because he did it with the exact same kind of person. And Studds actually had sex which would make it statutory rape.

              I can’t figure how you can differentiate between the two. Both are sleaze balls but it proves what I have always said, Republicans call fo rpeople to go when they do these kinds of things (as I did with Foley) but Democrats will make excuses.

            • Adam says:

              “…we don’t care that you molested a child, you are OK with us.”

              The kid was 17 and legally able to consent. It was not molestation or statutory rape. I didn’t suggest Foley molested or raped anyone either. Those are each clearly different things.

              “I can’t figure how you can differentiate between the two.”

              Again, there was at least a 10 year record of inappropriate behavior toward multiple Pages and eventually actual relationships with some after they were out of the program. You think that is similar to Studds who had a single relationship with a legally consenting 17 year old?

              It was not Studd’s relationship itself that was the problem but the fact that it was with a subordinate and it got him censured. Foley’s pattern of behavior was so inappropriate that it cost him his job. You can’t just ignore facts to pretend two things are equal to further pretend the GOP and Dems handle these things differently.

            • Adam says:

              Also it’s pretty rich to suggest the GOP handled Foley better since they covered it up for many years including then Speaker of the House and the current Speaker of the House. I guess if you cover for sex predators in your ranks you get high ranking positions of power in the GOP.

            • Big Dog says:

              Allegedly covered up. Ignored, perhaps but that is different htan a coverup

              And we do not know of the past of Studds. We do know that both of them did the same thing regardless of how many times and we know that either all of them were of consenting age or none of them were. We know that your side does not expect Democrats to leave for doing wrong. Weiner, Rangel, Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and on and on and on…

              Hell, you break the law you get jobs with Obama or you have meetings to influence his policies. Geithner, Ayers, and on and on and on…

  3. Blake says:

    Breitbart was right- and has been right a majority of the time, and Weenie should have kissed his feet.
    The person I feel sorry for is his wife- she has to live with this porn puppet who is a legend only in his own mind-
    I think more is to come- you never lead with your best material, and Andrew has some more he can send out.

    • Adam says:

      “Breitbart was right- and has been right a majority of the time…”

      I see you too haven’t been paying attention to all the times Breitbart has been caught lying. If Breitbart were on the left still you’d call him fat and a liar but since he has turned to the dark side you give him the selective memory treatment and praise everything he does.

      • Big Dog says:

        No, Breitbart has been CALLED a liar by the left but he was right on ACORN he was right about the thugs showing up to disrupt TEA Party gatherings and he was right about the N word NOT being used toward the Congressman. He was right. He has been off the mark but is right more than wrong. Just because you claim he lied or claim he has been caught does not make it so. Refuting something by saying it dod not happen or ignoring the facts is not a refute at all.

        • Adam says:

          Media Matters has a well documented record of Breitbart lies but I don’t expect you to click the link. Well documented sources of right wing nonsense all end up on the trash heap around here.

          • Big Dog says:

            Medica Matters is a George Soros lie machine. It has been wrong many, many times and spins things as well as takes them out of context. The goal of MM is not to dispel conservative lies, it is to call them liars no matter what. Soros has a goal and it involves lying about things.

            • Adam says:

              You are aware that Soros is not behind MM? Soros did give funding to MM a year or so back but I guess he figured, “Hey, if everyone in the world has been lying for years to say I back MM then I might as well go ahead and donate to their cause.” Media Matters is exactly what it says it is. It doesn’t get everything right, no. But just remember that it is as valid as the partisan think tanks and right wing rags you get your talking points from. Media Matters is an excellent archive of your side’s complete and utter nonsense.

            • Big Dog says:

              You are aware that even if Soros does not directly fund them as with the money directly given last year that he is still the one funding them if they receive his money by proxy? The Tides Foundation, The Open Society Institute and many other Soros funded organizations funnel money to MM. It comes from Soros regardless of how many hands it goes through.

            • Big Dog says:

              And if Media actually Mattered then MM would be concerned about the lies and history of Obama as well as the utter nonsense of the left. It is not Media Matter for America it is Media Matters so long as it fits our agenda.

  4. Adam says:

    “Allegedly covered up. Ignored, perhaps but that is different than coverup.”

    Almost a dozen members of Congress knew about it and said nothing. Call it what you want but I fail to see how ignoring this is better than covering it up.

    “We do know that both of them did the same thing…”

    How? There is no evidence to suggest Studds’ case was anything but a single inappropriate relationship between consenting individuals. If I’m wrong then point out that evidence. You seem keen to ignore Foley’s long history to write it off as if it were one offense more like Studds. This is wrong and you know it. Foley made numerous unwanted advances toward minors over a decade’s time. It’s completely different. Had Foley been caught doing what Studds had actually done then he might still be in Congress other than for the fact that your side hates most homosexuals and would probably refuse to vote for one.

    “The Tides Foundation, The Open Society Institute and many other Soros funded organizations funnel money to MM.”

    So which organizations have “funneled” such money? How much is it? What percentage of all of MM funding does it make up? See, I don’t doubt Soros has given to MM. I could assume one of Soros’ organizations has given. What no one seems to tell me is how much, who it was, and what the impact was.

    • Big Dog says:

      I do not know if Foley made advances to minors. The person in question at the time was 18. If he made advances to those who were the same age as those Studds actually had sex with and they consented to the discussion, what is the problem, using your defense of Studds.

      It is like saying that if you rape a 30 year old it is better than raping 25 17 year olds. How do we know the ones Foley contacted did not consent to the conversations?

      I think they were both creepy and should have been run out of town. Coverup would mean that someone knew and went to lengths to hide the information including manufacturing evidence. If the leadership was told and had specific evidence but ignored it it would be different than knowing about it and hiding the evidence. That would be the difference between a coverup and ignoring.

      The question is, what evidence was there and was it deemed credible at the time?

      It is funny to me if a skinhead group donates 10 grand to Ron Paul all you libs say it means he supports that ideology and is funded by them. When Soros and his foundations give millions to MM you make no association.

      Soros and his foundations have funneled money to MM. How do you detrermine the influence? The lies MM has fabricated and the things it deliberately takes out of context would indicate it is influenced by the backers who have the same agenda.

      • Adam says:

        “How do we know the ones Foley contacted did not consent to the conversations?”

        I’m starting to think you haven’t looked into the Foley case at all and you’re simply repeating what you know from memory. You seemed to think it involved some sexual embarrassment at first or something to do with women. I’d advise you to take a look at the case. It goes far beyond simply an 18 year old. Comparing Foley to Weiner or Foley to Studds is invalid.

        “Soros and his foundations have funneled money to MM.”

        Again I ask you to show me which groups gave the money and how much it was and what percentage that was of MM total operating costs. You repeat this enough so surely you know, right?

        • Big Dog says:

          I did read the Foley case. A lot of the carges were dropped or never further pursued because of lack of evidence. The email (non physical contacts) were with people all 16 or older. There were alleged physical contacts and all persons allegedly involved were between 18 and 21.

          Therefore, any sexual contact Foley might have had was with people of consenting age and actually adults. Studds had sex with a minor who was old enough to consent though the issue of statuatory rape was never addressed.

          Weiner and Foley sent creepy communications to people.

          The issue with Foley involved alleged sexual contact AFTER the pages left the program and AFTER they were adults.

          Though Foley is not alleged to have engaged in sexual relations with pages during the time of their service, he allegedly entered, on at least two occasions, into sexual relationships with ex-pages. Wiki

          All of it is creepy but they are similar in nature. Weiner sent unsolicited messages as did Foley and Foley allegedly had sex with former pages who were adults. Studds had sex with a page who was a minor but it was determined he could consent.

          Want to bet Adam, that if you have sex with a 16 or 17 year old girl the law will not care that she is old enough to consent and will charge you with stautory rape?

          • Blake says:

            Adam- What BD says is true, at least here in Texas- a 18 year old boy was caught having sex with my step daughter and he was charged with stat. rape- she was 14 at the time, and we pressed for the max- he got three years- now, I do not think what he received was fair, but at least he got a chance to see what rape was like from the other side.

          • Adam says:

            “A lot of the charges were dropped or never further pursued because of lack of evidence.”

            Which investigation was that? The one in Florida where critical evidence was denied to investigators in the case? Or another one?

            Notice how in the case above that the evidence preventing charges was not at the same time putting doubt on the fact that Foley was in contact multiple Pages with IM and Email over a series of years. To compare to Weiner you’d need to suggest his contacts were with women under a certain age and not simply adult women. I don’t know the ages of those targeted so I can’t say.

            “Want to bet Adam, that if you have sex with a 16 or 17 year old girl the law will not care that she is old enough to consent and will charge you with statutory rape?”

            Correct me if I’m wrong. I was under the impression that statutory rape only applied in the case of sex with a person legally unable to consent such as someone under a certain age or of a certain mental capacity.

            In the case Blake mentions 14 is not legal age to consent in Texas. In DC this is 16. But again the question was never about statutory rape and I’m pretty sure most of the Pages were legally able to consent. The point is simply that Foley had a history of targeting young boys with unsolicited sexually explicit comments and questions.

            • Big Dog says:

              Well, the case of statuatory rape is based on the jurisdiction and in some of them they involve an age of consent as well as an age difference (between the adult and the minor) so I will concede that it might not be the case.

              With regard to Weiner, he sent UNSOLICITED photos to people regardless of age. Foley sent emails (I think they were not solicited but the text of some seem to indicate a two way dialogue) The people Foley sent them to were of legal age to consent. He never had sex with any that were under 18. So he did the same as Weiner (sent unsolicited stuff to people old enough to consent to receiving it) and he did differently than Studds in that he waited until they were no longer pages before being physical.

              And one thing to remember, Foley KNEW the age of the people. Weiner did not. He only knew how old they said they were so he could have been sending that stuff to minors and he admitted as much when he said AS FAR AS I KNOW they were all adults.

  5. Adam says:

    Big Dog: “So he did the same as Weiner…”

    Don’t forget that Weiner sent these to random people he was not the boss of. That fact is what got Studds in trouble more so than a relationship that would generally be accepted in most circumstances. Weiner would have caught hell for a bit and been mocked publically for his actions but what has generated the most calls for resignation is that he lied over and over about it publically.

    Foley is like the very worst parts of Weiner and Studds times 10 years worth and that is why I object to it more so than either of the other cases.

    Blake: “That is porn, and easily eclipses Foley’s follies…”

    Really? So you’re ok with Foley targeting children with sexually explicit messages but since Weiner sent a photo of his weiner over the web then that is worse? Come on now.

    “Republicans routinely purge their ranks, Liberal Dems rarely do.”

    In Congress the GOP do a decent job of taking out the garbage. They set it in the party rules so it would make it so. Overall they do a pretty bad job. They haven’t been perfect in Congress. For instance remember Vitter? What about the Republican Govs who had affairs and whatnot and then served out their terms?

    What I find most appalling is how often the Republican in question is doing the very same thing he railed about publicly as a pro-family values, anti-homosexuality crusader that tends to typify the GOP crowd.

    • Blake says:

      If you had actually read my post, you would not ask if I excuse Foley’s actions.
      What puzzles me is your rationale that its OK for the Dems, because they don’t profess family values- that is hypocrisy at its worst. I actually thought better than that of you.

      • Adam says:

        Honestly, I was wrong to suggest you were OK with Foley. I just simply don’t understand, other than your own partisanship, what reason you have to suggest Weiner was worse than Foley.

        I don’t think it’s OK for Dems. I just know that Dems aren’t routinely caught hating gays and proclaiming family values while they’re cheating on their wives while trolling for dates in men’s restrooms. That seems to be unique to your side.

      • Adam says:

        It’s still not the same. Weiner wasn’t targeting subordinates and there is no evidence he was targeting minors with knowledge that they were minors. The article won’t even say he was messaging a 17 year old with sexually explicit messages. Fox will just leave it’s biased readers to decide and we know which one you choose.

        • Big Dog says:

          It is amazing to me how you will bend and contort to defend scum. Unsolicited naked pictures is a bad thing and if the chief of some bank or financial firm did this both you and Weiner would be demanding that he resign for inappropriate behavior.

          As far as the FOX story, you are obviously unable to discern that the article was written early on and made the true claim that the police were investigating and that is all it reported.

          I wrote that it MIGHT just be the same. MIGHT, Adam, means has a probability of. I did not say it was the same, only that it MIGHT be. In your mind that makes me a biased reader to FOX’s shoddy reporting.

          You continue to defend this scum bag. Bad is bad and there are no degrees of it in this matter. He is no better and no worse than any other who has been caught. But then again, you and your ilk defended Bill Clinton for having sex with a subordinate in the workplace and then lying about it. That was OK to you all.

          If a man rapes a 14 year old girl and another rapes a 17 year old subordinate is one crime worse than the next? No. Weiner is a public servant and he used our tax dollars and resources we paid for to have sexual conversations and to send naked pictures to women. I hope he stays in office but your attempt to equivicate shows YOU BIAS.

          Funny you discuss the bias of FOX readers when your bias on the issue is obvious. You defend him when you criticized Foley. You defended Clinton and Studds (obviously not at the time but in retrospect) because they have Ds after their names. If Bush or Reagan had sex in the Oval Office and lied about it you would be demanding more than your side demanded of Clinton.

          If Paul Ryan had been the one caught doing what Weiner did you would be describing it a lot differently than you are now. At least I have called for all of them to go regardless of party. Then again, you are from the party of no morals and no values so it is not surprising that you would dismiss your own.

          • Adam says:

            “Bad is bad and there are no degrees of it in this matter.”

            You’re kidding, right? There are degrees in everything. You’ll say anything at this point to pretend you’re right and that Studds = Foley = Weiner. You want to throw out the many differences simply because the 3 cases have a few things in common. I reject that kind of nonsense and you should too.

            “You defend him when you criticized Foley.”

            Again, since the two cases are completely different I reject your suggestion that I am showing bias by defending Weiner differently than Foley. They are far more different than they are similar so of course I defend them differently.

            “If Paul Ryan had been the one caught doing what Weiner did you would be describing it a lot differently than you are now.”

            If Paul Ryan had been caught it would probably be a gay sex scandal. So yes, I’d be describing it a lot differently I’m sure.