Ah, OK - he put loyalty to his wife ahead of nothing, but when he lied to protect her (yeah, right), he put his loyalty to her ahead of being truthful.
No, I’m not buying it. He lied to protect himself. Loyalty to government persons (his wife) doesn’t enter into it.
Did he put loyalty to a political party ahead of those moral principles? Did he put loyalty to government persons ahead of those moral principles? Did he put loyalty to government agencies ahead of those moral principles? From what I can see, the answer to all three is “No.”
The Congressional Code pretty much says ‘don’t do anything that reflects poorly on the reputation of Congress.’ Yes, his actions reflect poorly on Congress.
Surely you’ll agree the damage caused by the revelation of his behavior extends beyond him? It definitely affects his party (whence the calls by Dems for his resignation), the people who work in his office, and others. A politician much less savvy than Weiner would comprehend the extensive damage a disclosure would produce, and would thus have far more than personal motivation to lie.
He had the sex rehab card but waited too long to play it. If he would have declared himself a victim who needed help right off the bat, he may have mitigated the damage. He waited until he got backed in a corner. When Palosi and Wasserman said he should go, it was probably too late for rehabbing.
It is normal to hope things will be missed and you could go on with your life. But in this case, he should have known better. The computer gives a record of his actions and it is on the computers of the people he communicated with. It was immature and stupid, but so far not criminal.
Yes, solely himself. The claim that he lied to protect his wife is self-serving and there’s no reason to believe it.
Yes, the damage could extend beyond him to include other people in his political party. Which is why you can’t argue he put his loyalty to his political party ahead of his loyalty to his moral principles or his country. He didn’t think of his political party or other persons in the government at all.
there’s a law against politicians making a jackass out of themselves and cheating on their spouses. Those accused are tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. As his internet lawyer you can dance the texas 2-step as long as you want but at the end of the day Weiner is still a dick in the eyes of the public.
You needn’t be. But the fact that you ignore that these are pictures he took of himself and put out in the public domain indicates you don’t understand what this issue is about. And you needn’t care about that either, but more people are going to care about what you left out than care about the gym attendance of Congresscritters.
Please explain what I should care about. He took pictures of himself in a towel. So fucking what? Is that a crime? Is that making you toss and turn at night? What did I leave out?
I can’t understand why anybody gives the slightest shit about things like this. It has no effect on their own lives at all. There are a lot of real issues going on with Congress, so why is everybody so consumed with scouring the internet trying to find pictures of this guy’s cock? Our priorities are in our ass, and I have exactly the same feeling about Republican peccadillos. It’s a salacious, voyeuristic, disingenuous waste of time. It’s recreational outrage with a partisan edge.
You can care about whatever the fuck you want to care about. Just don’t assume that just because you don’t care about something, other people shouldn’t.
It’s part of the story. People are interested in the story. I find it mildly interesting in a train wreck sort of way.
Seriously, I think that says more about you than anything else. People like gossip. People especially like gossip when it’s about famous people and it’s about sex and it has great humor value. I’ve been laughing about this all week. It’s like going to see a comedy in the theater, only you couldn’t write stuff this funny.
We’re all getting in touch with our inner adolescent. Harmless fun, mostly.
Why should I care? I would care just as much if it was a Republican and especially if he was my congressman.
It tells me there is a screw loose upstairs somewhere or at a minimum someone who can’t be trusted. I don’t care about morality but when you’re flirting with a 17 year old girl on the internet, being a man in his position, I seriously question his judgement.
If nothing else, did it even occur to him of the possibility of blackmail, say by China if they were to discover these photos before anyone else?
He deserves what ever has happened to him at this point just because he’s stupid, not because of morality.
While I find the “leave of absence” to “get treatment” utterly repulsive and transparent, I do find it possible the first smart thing he’s done in a while. He may have waited too long though.
This may have been done before, but most effectively done by Senator Larry “wide stance” Craig. Throw the dogs off the trail and take yourself out of the limelight. And when you come back, hope you’re old news and that the news cycle has moved onto someone
I haven’t seen anything to show that he was “flirting” with that girl. I will, however, note that IMHO there is no appropriate tweeting or online communication that can exist between a male Congressman and an anonymous teenage girl, unless it was related to a civics class the kid is taking in school. And even then, I’d rather he erred on the side of caution when it involves someone he doesn’t know and whose parents he doesn’t know.
As an adult in his position, he should not be doing anything to encourage underage children to strike up online relationships with adults.
Sorry, I was tired when I wrote that. I’m wide awake now and really meant to articulate that his request for a cite regarding the idea of public opinion was rhetorical nonsense. His responses have taken on a Weiner quality to them in this thread.