Weinergate

[WillowTree]

Now that we've seen the picture it makes even less sense. It looks like a professionally posed picture. Very stylized.

I think whoever is responsible for this should go to jail.

Why? As I recall when Mrs. Palin's computer was hacked you blamed her for being stupid.. Hypocrite much?

Oh, I didn't say he wasn't stupid.

You wouldn't know a wiener if it smacked you in the face.

LOL, couldn't resist.

specially not one the size of his izzzzz

 

[Neotrotsky]

Now that we've seen the picture it makes even less sense. It looks like a professionally posed picture. Very stylized.

I think whoever is responsible for this should go to jail.

Why? As I recall when Mrs. Palin's computer was hacked you blamed her for being stupid.. Hypocrite much?

UPDATE:

he DM'd (private messaged) a porno actress

as well, coincidence I'm sure...

So far this may pass the "smell test" of the Left and the MSM, one does have to wonder if his many stories would pass the "Spouse test"



Then again he did introduce a Bill to stop sexual harassment on college campuses - maybe he was doing research...
Ironic, to say the least,,,,,

 

[theDoctorisIn]

And Scooter Libby was convicted of less than that.

And so was Al Capone and Pee-Wee Herman.

Wait.. did you have a point?

Actually Al Capone got convicted on tax evasion. But only after numerous attempts to get him failed.

Yeah, the point is that sexually harassing a subordinate is enough to get any CEO fired (see, Stonecipher, Harry). And when you lie about to a grand jury and attempt to cover it up you get into trouble.
I didnt bring up Clinton. Some libtard did to deflect from the real issue, which is Anthony's Wiener.

You'd be pretty hard pressed to make a case for "sexual harassment" - there's no need to be a drama queen.

He broke no laws by sleeping with Lewinsky.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Really the truth is "Who cares?"

But because the Dums have made this kind of nonsense the basis for their attacks on the GOP it is delightful to see them hoist by their own petard.

And that's the point.

The Dems have played this game for a long time. It's quite amusing to see Karma Bitch Slap them.

Oh you mean like the time they impeached a President for a blow job?

Oh wait..that was the republicans.

I am not ever going to let this go. YOu guys know the truth, and your continual lying about it wont make the truth go away.

Clinton was impeached for suborning perjury in a civil rights case to which he was the defendant.

No one cares about the blow job. Least of all Hillary.

 

[Publius1787]

It appears that Rep. Weiner may have sent a naughty pic to a woman on Twitter.

He's claiming his account was hacked, but that's a lame excuse.

This evening a photo surfaced on Congressman Weiner’s yfrog account and in his verified Twitter timeline of a man in his underwear with an erection. The photo was reportedly sent to a woman on Twitter. We’ve protected her name and her account, which was at one time verified to be active but has since been deleted after the photo in question was deleted. Coincidentally, the rest of the photos in the congressman’s alleged yfrog account were also deleted around 11 p.m. eastern.

Weinergate: Congressman Claims “Facebook Hacked” As Lewd Photo Hits Twitter - Big Journalism

OOOOOWWWWWW SNAP! http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/05/its-on-breitbart-confronts-anthony-weiner/

 

[Shooter]

He broke no laws by sleeping with Lewinsky.

No. But he did when he lied under oath to a federal grand jury.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

He broke no laws by sleeping with Lewinsky.

No. But he did when he lied under oath to a federal grand jury.

Yes, I know. Hence the impeachment. As I said before:

Clinton was impeached about lying to a federal grand jury about a blow job.

He was acquitted, too.

 

[elvis]

He broke no laws by sleeping with Lewinsky.

No. But he did when he lied under oath to a federal grand jury.

Yes, I know. Hence the impeachment. As I said before:

Clinton was impeached about lying to a federal grand jury about a blow job.

He was acquitted, too.

as was O.J.

 

[Neotrotsky]

He broke no laws by sleeping with Lewinsky.

No. But he did when he lied under oath to a federal grand jury.

Yes, I know. Hence the impeachment. As I said before:

Clinton was impeached about lying to a federal grand jury about a blow job.

He was acquitted, too.

legally speaking ...

He was impeached (found guilty) but not removed (punished) by congress. Since a sitting President can not be "handled" by the general legal system until he leaves office. This would be no different if a President committed some type of other felony. Only congress could remove him from office, if and when they did then he could be handled by the legal system itself when he leaves office. Clinton was such an example.

If he was really "acquitted" as you say then there would have been no reason for him to have to cut a deal AFTER he left office. He was not acquitted by anyone; he was not removed from office but he was impeached. Had he been removed, he would have to cut a similar deal with the prosecutor after leaving office. In fact, even if he was not impeached, the legal system could still deal with him after he left office. The constitutional process does nothing to alleviate the politicians' guilt; it only deals with the potential removal process.


Acquitted means - To free or clear from a charge or accusation.

The Left then as now has tried to obfuscate the whole Clinton issue with things like oral sex is not sex; he got acquitted. etc.
Sadly, Clinton will forever in history be marked as a President who got impeached for committing perjury.

 

[Care4all]

No. But he did when he lied under oath to a federal grand jury.

Yes, I know. Hence the impeachment. As I said before:

Clinton was impeached about lying to a federal grand jury about a blow job.

He was acquitted, too.

legally speaking ...

He was impeached (found guilty) but not removed (punished) by congress. Since a sitting President can not be "handled" by the general legal system until he leaves office. This would be no different if a President committed some type of other felony. Only congress could remove him from office, if and when they did then he could be handled by the legal system itself when he leaves office. Clinton was such an example.

If he was really "acquitted" as you say then there would have been no reason for him to have to cut a deal AFTER he left office. He was not acquitted by anyone; he was not removed from office but he was impeached. Had he been removed, he would have to cut a similar deal with the prosecutor after leaving office. In fact, even if he was not impeached, the legal system could still deal with him after he left office. The constitutional process does nothing to alleviate the politicians' guilt; it only deals with the potential removal process.


Acquitted means - To free or clear from a charge or accusation.

The Left then as now has tried to obfuscate the whole Clinton issue with things like oral sex is not sex; he got acquitted. etc.
Sadly, Clinton will forever in history be marked as a President who got impeached for committing perjury.

the house "impeaches"....which means they CHARGED the president of a crime.... the Senate, is the jury in the impeachment proceeding, with the Supreme court chief justice as the Judge residing over the trial.....an acquittal is a not guilty verdict.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Yes, I know. Hence the impeachment. As I said before:


He was acquitted, too.

legally speaking ...

He was impeached (found guilty) but not removed (punished) by congress. Since a sitting President can not be "handled" by the general legal system until he leaves office. This would be no different if a President committed some type of other felony. Only congress could remove him from office, if and when they did then he could be handled by the legal system itself when he leaves office. Clinton was such an example.

If he was really "acquitted" as you say then there would have been no reason for him to have to cut a deal AFTER he left office. He was not acquitted by anyone; he was not removed from office but he was impeached. Had he been removed, he would have to cut a similar deal with the prosecutor after leaving office. In fact, even if he was not impeached, the legal system could still deal with him after he left office. The constitutional process does nothing to alleviate the politicians' guilt; it only deals with the potential removal process.


Acquitted means - To free or clear from a charge or accusation.

The Left then as now has tried to obfuscate the whole Clinton issue with things like oral sex is not sex; he got acquitted. etc.
Sadly, Clinton will forever in history be marked as a President who got impeached for committing perjury.

the house "impeaches"....which means they CHARGED the president of a crime.... the Senate, is the jury in the impeachment proceeding, with the Supreme court chief justice as the Judge residing over the trial.....an acquittal is a not guilty verdict.

The constitutional process deals with removal from office only not the guilt or innocence of the crime in question. There was enough evidence to impeach him; but the Senate felt the crime in question was not enough to remove him. Even if they removed him, he would still have to deal with legal system after he left office.

Sorry but that is the way it is.... removal or non-removal from office do not equate to the level of legal culpability in a crime


If one is insistent on using the term "acquitted", it be better to say "he was acquitted from being removed"

The politician still has to deal with legal system after he leaves office.
Innocent men do not need to cut deals with prosecutors to keep from going to court.

If the non-removal was sufficient as a "not guilty" then Clinton would not have to have cut any deal with them.

 

[Care4all]

legally speaking ...

He was impeached (found guilty) but not removed (punished) by congress. Since a sitting President can not be "handled" by the general legal system until he leaves office. This would be no different if a President committed some type of other felony. Only congress could remove him from office, if and when they did then he could be handled by the legal system itself when he leaves office. Clinton was such an example.

If he was really "acquitted" as you say then there would have been no reason for him to have to cut a deal AFTER he left office. He was not acquitted by anyone; he was not removed from office but he was impeached. Had he been removed, he would have to cut a similar deal with the prosecutor after leaving office. In fact, even if he was not impeached, the legal system could still deal with him after he left office. The constitutional process does nothing to alleviate the politicians' guilt; it only deals with the potential removal process.


Acquitted means - To free or clear from a charge or accusation.

The Left then as now has tried to obfuscate the whole Clinton issue with things like oral sex is not sex; he got acquitted. etc.
Sadly, Clinton will forever in history be marked as a President who got impeached for committing perjury.

the house "impeaches"....which means they CHARGED the president of a crime.... the Senate, is the jury in the impeachment proceeding, with the Supreme court chief justice as the Judge residing over the trial.....an acquittal is a not guilty verdict.

The constitutional process deals with removal from office only not the guilt or innocence of the crime in question. There was enough evidence to impeach him; but the Senate felt the crime in question was not enough to remove him. Even if they removed him, he would still have to deal with legal system after he left office.

Sorry but that is the way it is....



The politician still has to deal with legal system after he leaves office.
Innocent men do not need to cut deals with prosecutors to keep from going to court.

If the non-removal was sufficient as a "not guilty" then Clinton would not have to have cut any deal with them.

I'm sorry, but you are innocent until proven guilty in this country, and that requires a trial.....including impeachment....

Clinton was ''charged'' with crimes by the house...., the Senate had a trial, where the president has the opportunity to defend himself of what he was "charged" by the House....

What the House 'charged' Clinton with, does NOT mean he was guilty of such charges without a trial...he is given an opportunity to defend himself with the trial of said charges in the Senate, as I stated earlier....and he was ACQUITTED of those charges by the Senate.

no one is found "guilty" without a trial.....you can't just accuse people, including the President, of a crime and also find them guilty in the same breath, without a trial......and THANK GOD for that!

 

[Care4all]

legally speaking ...

He was impeached (found guilty) but not removed (punished) by congress. Since a sitting President can not be "handled" by the general legal system until he leaves office. This would be no different if a President committed some type of other felony. Only congress could remove him from office, if and when they did then he could be handled by the legal system itself when he leaves office. Clinton was such an example.

If he was really "acquitted" as you say then there would have been no reason for him to have to cut a deal AFTER he left office. He was not acquitted by anyone; he was not removed from office but he was impeached. Had he been removed, he would have to cut a similar deal with the prosecutor after leaving office. In fact, even if he was not impeached, the legal system could still deal with him after he left office. The constitutional process does nothing to alleviate the politicians' guilt; it only deals with the potential removal process.


Acquitted means - To free or clear from a charge or accusation.

The Left then as now has tried to obfuscate the whole Clinton issue with things like oral sex is not sex; he got acquitted. etc.
Sadly, Clinton will forever in history be marked as a President who got impeached for committing perjury.

the house "impeaches"....which means they CHARGED the president of a crime.... the Senate, is the jury in the impeachment proceeding, with the Supreme court chief justice as the Judge residing over the trial.....an acquittal is a not guilty verdict.

The constitutional process deals with removal from office only not the guilt or innocence of the crime in question. There was enough evidence to impeach him; but the Senate felt the crime in question was not enough to remove him. Even if they removed him, he would still have to deal with legal system after he left office.

Sorry but that is the way it is.... removal or non-removal from office do not equate to the level of legal culpability in a crime


If one is insistent on using the term "acquitted", it be better to say "he was acquitted from being removed"

The politician still has to deal with legal system after he leaves office.
Innocent men do not need to cut deals with prosecutors to keep from going to court.

If the non-removal was sufficient as a "not guilty" then Clinton would not have to have cut any deal with them.

yes, that is correct that he would still have to deal with the public legal system if they decided to charge him with a crime....

 

[Neotrotsky]

Again, the impeachment process has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the actual crime. It only deals with the impeaching for possible removal

Many hold onto the non-removal from office as complete and full "legal proof" of his innocence or complete and full proof on being "not guilty". It does neither; his non-removal only show that the level of crime he was impeached for, is not enough for removal, according to Senate at the time.

If fact, it could be possible for a president to be removed from office and then later found not guilty in the actual criminal proceedings. Wouldn't that be a political mess even if it was due to a legal technicality like a hung jury or evidence issues.



CNN:

Clinton admits misleading testimony, avoids charges in Lewinsky probe

President Clinton will leave office free of the prospect of criminal charges after he admitted Friday that he knowingly gave misleading testimony about his affair with Monica Lewinsky in a 1998 lawsuit.

​

Of course, none of this would have been necessary, if he was fully, in the legal sense, acquitted of the crime.

 

[The Rabbi]

Wasn't he convicted in a civil court after he left office?
Wasn't he disbarred from practice as an attorney?

Clinton was not innocent. The Senate lacked the will to remove him.
What that has to do with anything is beyond me.

 

[boedicca]

Weiner's Office has so far refused to confirm if the supposed hack had been reported to the federal authorities:

i]The New York Democrat told POLITICO he thought it “obvious” that his account had been taken over, and he tweeted that his Facebook account had been hacked with the abbreviation “FB hacked.”

A photo of a man’s bulging gray boxer-brief underwear was posted to Weiner’s account with yfrog — an online image-sharing site — on Saturday night, according to biggovernment.com, which is run by Andrew Breitbart. The photograph is from the waist down, and shows no face.

“The weiner gags never get old, I guess, ” the veteran lawmaker emailed a POLITICO reporter in response on Saturday. …

Weiner’s office — generally one of the most press friendly around — did not respond to a request for comment on whether he has contacted federal authorities to report the alleged cyber-attack, which could fall under laws prohibiting cyberhacking and impersonating federal officials.[/i]


Politico: Weiner Has Not Reponded On If He Reported ‘Hack’ to Authorities - Big Journalism


As he claims that three accounts were simultaneously hacked (twitter, facebook, and yfrog), this is something that should be investigated.

 

[Foxfyre]

Wasn't he convicted in a civil court after he left office?
Wasn't he disbarred from practice as an attorney?

Clinton was not innocent. The Senate lacked the will to remove him.
What that has to do with anything is beyond me.

I was opposed to the impeachment and I thought the Senate was right to not expel him. As bad as it all was, I didn't think the offense rose to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. That does not mean I commended him for what he did in any form and I think he greatly offended the prestige and image of his office.

I'm not sure about the civil trial but I do know he was indicted by a grand jury, held in contempt by a federal judge, was barred from pleading cases before the Supreme Court, had his license suspended by the Arkansas State Bar. So he was not innocent of the crime of perjury and obstruction of justice.

But he should not have been impeached.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Wasn't he convicted in a civil court after he left office?
Wasn't he disbarred from practice as an attorney?

Clinton was not innocent. The Senate lacked the will to remove him.
What that has to do with anything is beyond me.

I was opposed to the impeachment and I thought the Senate was right to not expel him. As bad as it all was, I didn't think the offense rose to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. That does not mean I commended him for what he did in any form and I think he greatly offended the prestige and image of his office.

I'm not sure about the civil trial but I do know he was indicted by a grand jury, held in contempt by a federal judge, was barred from pleading cases before the Supreme Court, had his license suspended by the Arkansas State Bar. So he was not innocent of the crime of perjury and obstruction of justice.

But he should not have been impeached.

I mostly agree. I believe it was worthy of impeachment but not removal.
Though I do believe a censure would have been possible and had the same effect, legally but not politically.


Bur we digress, back to the topic at hand



UPDATE:

Some more of "Weiner's Girls" that he followed
Even if his story turns out to be true, he is going to have a hard time passing the "spouse test"



An example of many:


http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.c...lude-dozens-of-young-lucious-hook-ups/melody/

 

[boedicca]

This travesty requires an investigation. Hacking a Congressman's accounts is serious stuff.

 

[Neotrotsky]

This travesty requires an investigation. Hacking a Congressman's accounts is serious stuff.

Yes indeed!

(at least the guy has some good taste in women)