Why do the New York Dems want Weiner to stay?

[The Rabbi]

Plame affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Civil suit
According to testimony given in the CIA leak grand jury investigation and United States v. Libby, Bush administration officials Richard Armitage, Karl Rove, and Lewis Libby discussed the employment of a then-classified, covert CIA officer, Valerie E. Wilson (also known as Valerie Plame) with members of the press.[2][25]
The Wilsons also brought a civil law suit against Libby, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Richard Armitage, in Wilson v. Cheney.[26][27] On July 19, 2007, Wilson v. Cheney was dismissed in United States District Court for the District of Columbia.[28] On behalf of the Wilsons, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed an appeal of the U.S. District Court's decision the following day.[29]
The civil suit was dismissed on July 19, 2007. In dismissing the suit, United States District Judge John D. Bates states:
The merits of plaintiffs' claims pose important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials. Defendants' motions, however, raise issues that the Court is obliged to address before it can consider the merits of plaintiffs' claims. As it turns out, the Court will not reach, and therefore expresses no views on, the merits of the constitutional and other tort claims asserted by plaintiffs based on defendants' alleged disclosures because the motions to dismiss will be granted...The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory. But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush Administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials. Thus, the alleged tortious conduct, namely the disclosure of Mrs. Wilson's status as a covert operative, was incidental to the kind of conduct that defendants were employed to perform.[30]
Judge Bates ruled that the "plaintiffs have not exhausted their administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which is the proper, and exclusive, avenue for relief on such a claim." Bates ruled that the FTCA outlines the appropriate remedy since the FTCA "accords federal employees absolute immunity from common-law tort claims arising out of acts they undertake in the course of their official duties," and the "plaintiffs have not pled sufficient facts that would rebut the [FTCA] certification filed in this action."[30]
The Wilsons appealed that decision the next day. On August 12, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the District Court's ruling in a 2-1 decision.[31]
Main article: Plame v. Cheney#Appeal
The Wilsons have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their appeal of the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling. On May 20, 2009, the Justice Department, in a brief filed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Assistant Attorney General Tony West, and Justice Department attorneys Mark B. Stern and Charles W. Scarborough, took the position that, "The decision of the court of appeals is correct and does not conflict with any decision of this Court or any other court of appeals,...Further review is unwarranted." Melanie Sloan, an attorney for the Wilsons and the executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, released a statement that read, "We are deeply disappointed that the Obama administration has failed to recognize the grievous harm top Bush White House officials inflicted on Joe and Valerie Wilson...The government's position cannot be reconciled with President Obama's oft-stated commitment to once again make government officials accountable for their actions."[32]
According to the brief filed by the Justice Department:
"Petitioners allege that Novak's July 14, 2003 column publicly disclosed Ms. Wilson's covert CIA employment and that that disclosure 'destroyed her cover as a classified CIA employee.' Petitioners, however, allege that Novak's source was Armitage, and do not allege that any of the three defendants against whom Mr. Wilson presses his First Amendment claim-Cheney, Rove, and Libby-caused that column to be published. In the absence of factual allegations that Mr. Wilson's alleged injury from the public disclosure of his wife's CIA employment is 'fairly traceable' to alleged conduct by Cheney, Rove, or Libby, petitioners have failed to establish Article III jurisdiction over Mr. Wilson's First Amendment claim."[33]
On June 22, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court announced, without comment, it would not hear an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling.[34] According to a statement issued by CREW, the Supreme Court decision brings "the case to a close." In the statement, Melanie Sloan responded to the ruling:
"The Wilsons and their counsel are disappointed by the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case, but more significantly, this is a setback for our democracy. This decision means that government officials can abuse their power for political purposes without fear of repercussion. Private citizens like the Wilsons, who see their careers destroyed and their lives placed in jeopardy by administration officials seeking to score political points and silence opposition, have no recourse."[35]

One of the dozens of crimes that Bush and company should have been removed from office for but hailed by Conservatives as "smart policy".

I didnt see Bush mentioned anywhere there. Sore loser much?

 

[Sallow]

The direction this thread is going is pathetic. I don't think I've seen a bigger collection of blatant party hacks in one thread. Can we all just agree that BOTH sides are filled with liars, cheaters, and deviants of all kinds?

Even completely ignoring what he did, he openly and repeatedly lied to his constituents. In my mind, that makes him unfit to hold any type of public office. And I hold all politicians on both sides of the isle to that standard. You lie openly and repeatedly, you're out.

Reagan and Bush lied openly..not about sex..but about issues of relevance.

Nobody on the right, ever, suggests they should have been removed from office.

 

[Sallow]

Plame affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Civil suit
According to testimony given in the CIA leak grand jury investigation and United States v. Libby, Bush administration officials Richard Armitage, Karl Rove, and Lewis Libby discussed the employment of a then-classified, covert CIA officer, Valerie E. Wilson (also known as Valerie Plame) with members of the press.[2][25]
The Wilsons also brought a civil law suit against Libby, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Richard Armitage, in Wilson v. Cheney.[26][27] On July 19, 2007, Wilson v. Cheney was dismissed in United States District Court for the District of Columbia.[28] On behalf of the Wilsons, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed an appeal of the U.S. District Court's decision the following day.[29]
The civil suit was dismissed on July 19, 2007. In dismissing the suit, United States District Judge John D. Bates states:
The merits of plaintiffs' claims pose important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials. Defendants' motions, however, raise issues that the Court is obliged to address before it can consider the merits of plaintiffs' claims. As it turns out, the Court will not reach, and therefore expresses no views on, the merits of the constitutional and other tort claims asserted by plaintiffs based on defendants' alleged disclosures because the motions to dismiss will be granted...The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory. But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush Administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials. Thus, the alleged tortious conduct, namely the disclosure of Mrs. Wilson's status as a covert operative, was incidental to the kind of conduct that defendants were employed to perform.[30]
Judge Bates ruled that the "plaintiffs have not exhausted their administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which is the proper, and exclusive, avenue for relief on such a claim." Bates ruled that the FTCA outlines the appropriate remedy since the FTCA "accords federal employees absolute immunity from common-law tort claims arising out of acts they undertake in the course of their official duties," and the "plaintiffs have not pled sufficient facts that would rebut the [FTCA] certification filed in this action."[30]
The Wilsons appealed that decision the next day. On August 12, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the District Court's ruling in a 2-1 decision.[31]
Main article: Plame v. Cheney#Appeal
The Wilsons have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their appeal of the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling. On May 20, 2009, the Justice Department, in a brief filed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Assistant Attorney General Tony West, and Justice Department attorneys Mark B. Stern and Charles W. Scarborough, took the position that, "The decision of the court of appeals is correct and does not conflict with any decision of this Court or any other court of appeals,...Further review is unwarranted." Melanie Sloan, an attorney for the Wilsons and the executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, released a statement that read, "We are deeply disappointed that the Obama administration has failed to recognize the grievous harm top Bush White House officials inflicted on Joe and Valerie Wilson...The government's position cannot be reconciled with President Obama's oft-stated commitment to once again make government officials accountable for their actions."[32]
According to the brief filed by the Justice Department:
"Petitioners allege that Novak's July 14, 2003 column publicly disclosed Ms. Wilson's covert CIA employment and that that disclosure 'destroyed her cover as a classified CIA employee.' Petitioners, however, allege that Novak's source was Armitage, and do not allege that any of the three defendants against whom Mr. Wilson presses his First Amendment claim-Cheney, Rove, and Libby-caused that column to be published. In the absence of factual allegations that Mr. Wilson's alleged injury from the public disclosure of his wife's CIA employment is 'fairly traceable' to alleged conduct by Cheney, Rove, or Libby, petitioners have failed to establish Article III jurisdiction over Mr. Wilson's First Amendment claim."[33]
On June 22, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court announced, without comment, it would not hear an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling.[34] According to a statement issued by CREW, the Supreme Court decision brings "the case to a close." In the statement, Melanie Sloan responded to the ruling:
"The Wilsons and their counsel are disappointed by the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case, but more significantly, this is a setback for our democracy. This decision means that government officials can abuse their power for political purposes without fear of repercussion. Private citizens like the Wilsons, who see their careers destroyed and their lives placed in jeopardy by administration officials seeking to score political points and silence opposition, have no recourse."[35]

One of the dozens of crimes that Bush and company should have been removed from office for but hailed by Conservatives as "smart policy".

I didnt see Bush mentioned anywhere there. Sore loser much?

He completely owned that.

 

[Godboy]

Because he's a damn good Congressman...plain and simple.

Good congressmen dont put themselves in the position to be blackmailed. They also dont spend so much time working out, that they only have 1% body fat.

 

[The Rabbi]

The direction this thread is going is pathetic. I don't think I've seen a bigger collection of blatant party hacks in one thread. Can we all just agree that BOTH sides are filled with liars, cheaters, and deviants of all kinds?

Even completely ignoring what he did, he openly and repeatedly lied to his constituents. In my mind, that makes him unfit to hold any type of public office. And I hold all politicians on both sides of the isle to that standard. You lie openly and repeatedly, you're out.

Reagan and Bush lied openly..not about sex..but about issues of relevance.

Nobody on the right, ever, suggests they should have been removed from office.

You mean like saying that a piece of legislation wouldnt add one dime to the deficit? OR that if you like your health plan you can keep it? Or that he would end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Or that he would put all legislation on CSPAN?
Please, no president has lied as much as Obama and gotten a total pass from his adherents.

 

[Sallow]

The direction this thread is going is pathetic. I don't think I've seen a bigger collection of blatant party hacks in one thread. Can we all just agree that BOTH sides are filled with liars, cheaters, and deviants of all kinds?

Even completely ignoring what he did, he openly and repeatedly lied to his constituents. In my mind, that makes him unfit to hold any type of public office. And I hold all politicians on both sides of the isle to that standard. You lie openly and repeatedly, you're out.

Reagan and Bush lied openly..not about sex..but about issues of relevance.

Nobody on the right, ever, suggests they should have been removed from office.

You mean like saying that a piece of legislation wouldnt add one dime to the deficit? OR that if you like your health plan you can keep it? Or that he would end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Or that he would put all legislation on CSPAN?
Please, no president has lied as much as Obama and gotten a total pass from his adherents.

Those weren't lies. Not in the slightest.

It's telling you don't know the difference.

 

[007]

Yeah right......

 

[Synthaholic]

I heard this on Brets show last night.

Redistricting will effecively get rid of Weiner and any problem for the Dems.

While I don't care for Weiners ideology I rather like the guy. He had no problem speaking his mind and defending his beliefs.

I find it hard to believe that he could have been dumb enough to actually put pic of himself anywhere. Jeeze. Thought our Govt leaders were smarter than that. I guess not.

No dumber than being a regular client of prostitutes (Vitter), trying to solicit Gay sex in an airport bathroom (Craig), or sexting underage male interns and pages in Congress (Foley).

All three are Republicans, too!

Thats my point.

How could a Govt official, after seeing how some of his collegues got caught, be that fucking dumb??? The guy should have known better. This shit, sooner or later, gets outed by someone down the line.

I could care which party he belongs to. He's just dumb.

I agree! Totally idiotic. But not criminal. It's between him and his wife, and his career is between him and his constituents.

 

[Synthaholic]

HAHAH, too bad...ya can't blame this on anyone but the little weenie himself. He put the pictures out on THE INTERNET. idiot.

Using this argument, every personal email you sent to a boyfriend, or girlfriend, if that's the way you swing is you putting them on the internet.

Same thing stupid.

I hope when your junk shows up online you find it so fresh and funny.

The biggest difference is that Weiner sent his pick to someone who is neither his girlfriend or his wife, and did so publicly. He then claimed his account was hacked, and tried to pretend that someone hacking the account of a US Congressman was not an incident worthy of law enforcement action. That made me think he knew what happened, and that a friend or relative sent the picture. Still no big deal, but then he went on every major news show in the country telling people he was not there to answer questions about what happened because it was a waste of money to talk about it.

Yet, for you, the problem still lies with Breitbart. And anyone who points out that Weiner was simply wrong about perpetuating the attempted cover up and trying to convince everyone that some reporter hacked his account to make him look bad is a wingnut partisan hack.

He was simply wrong! He has freely admitted that he was simply wrong!!!

But that's no reason to resign.

 

[Synthaholic]

That's a good point. Regardless, he looks like such a buffoon that he should resign. And he did lie about it.

If looking like a buffoon is the standard, then McConnell, Rand Paul, Bob Corker, Eric Cantor, and about 40 others should resign.

As for the lying, I disagree. This stood out for me, over at Alternet.org:

No laws seem to have been broken, no public trust compromised, no campaign irregularities indicated, and there’s been no suggestion that his flirtations interfered with his ability to do his job. The entire rationale for the scandal is that Weiner isn’t living in accordance with strict social mores regarding monogamy, and that’s it. Even the whining about how he lied when initially confronted is hollow. In the past, lying when someone asks nosy questions that are none of their business was considered a socially acceptable white lie. (And really, who among us would be a paragon of transparency with Wolf Blitzer waving a penis picture in our face and saying, “Is this yours?”) The pretense that it has to matter to the public in order for the public to get involved has been dropped.
​

...

pathetic

Explain, please.

 

[Synthaholic]

The direction this thread is going is pathetic. I don't think I've seen a bigger collection of blatant party hacks in one thread. Can we all just agree that BOTH sides are filled with liars, cheaters, and deviants of all kinds?

Even completely ignoring what he did, he openly and repeatedly lied to his constituents. In my mind, that makes him unfit to hold any type of public office. And I hold all politicians on both sides of the isle to that standard. You lie openly and repeatedly, you're out.

I suggest you move to Brooklyn ASAP!

 

[Synthaholic]

Here's a question.... how about his INCREDIBLY POOR FUCKING JUDGMENT?

Give me a break, this guy's a fool.

Well, he did something foolish, I agree with that.

At least he didn't break the law and go to prostitutes, desiring spankings while dressed in a diaper. The Republicans gave that guy a standing ovation!

Sick, twisted freak!

 

[Synthaholic]

Mr. Shaman posted:




She's such a babe!

 

[Synthaholic]

rightwingnuts don't toss their own ... even for outing CIA agents.

but want to get rid of an effective leftleaning congressman?

shocking...



not.

took 3 days I think

GOP Rep. Chris Lee resigns over shirtless photo on Web
GOP Rep. Chris Lee resigns over shirtless photo on Web - USATODAY.com

and no, Rove didn't go...oh wait...

And that was Chris Lee's choice.

 

[Synthaholic]

Let us face something here? NEWT is a likable guy...affable...but his baggage outweighs his momentum.

Oh my God!!!

 

[Synthaholic]

pathetic

Really?

It's absolutely true.

Now we've got a 24 hour media cycle which feeds on these kind of stories. It's like blood in the water for them.

It's OK when Dems lie.
Truly pathetic. Especially since Dems created this nonsense. Remember Bork?

Who said it's OK? No one.

Doesn't mean he has to resign.

 

[Trajan]

One of the dozens of crimes that Bush and company should have been removed from office for but hailed by Conservatives as "smart policy".

I didnt see Bush mentioned anywhere there. Sore loser much?

He completely owned that.

he owned what??

 

[Too Tall]

rightwingnuts don't toss their own ... even for outing CIA agents.

but want to get rid of an effective leftleaning congressman?

shocking...



not.

took 3 days I think

GOP Rep. Chris Lee resigns over shirtless photo on Web
GOP Rep. Chris Lee resigns over shirtless photo on Web - USATODAY.com

and no, Rove didn't go...oh wait...

And that was Chris Lee's choice.

He could have said he was hacked and he was pretty sure the picture was photo shopped. Do that for 8 or 9 days, then admit he lied and it was him with certitude, apologize and state that he will not resign.

 

[Synthaholic]

took 3 days I think

GOP Rep. Chris Lee resigns over shirtless photo on Web
GOP Rep. Chris Lee resigns over shirtless photo on Web - USATODAY.com

and no, Rove didn't go...oh wait...

And that was Chris Lee's choice.

He could have said he was hacked and he was pretty sure the picture was photo shopped. Do that for 8 or 9 days, then admit he lied and it was him with certitude, apologize and state that he will not resign.

Yup. He could have.

Lying to the press over your private life is not a criminal act.

But the 'Lamestream' Media appreciates your support!

 

[Too Tall]

One of the dozens of crimes that Bush and company should have been removed from office for but hailed by Conservatives as "smart policy".

I didnt see Bush mentioned anywhere there. Sore loser much?

He completely owned that.

Richard Armitage was not a part of the Bush Administratin when he outed Plame.