Weinergate

[Ravi]

Now that you have established the Clinton rule book of political ethics for Democrats, what is the one for Republicans?

The rule book is exactly the same for everyone.

Sen Craig, for instance, committed a crime in a public bathroom, and was a hypocrite for his previous stance on homosexuality, thus fitting two of the criteria.

Since when is making a pass on someone a crime?

It depends on what state you are in. I never thought he should have been busted for a criminal act. But pointing out his hypocrisy was a valid thing to do.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Since when are CNN and the New York Daily News "extreme left web sites"???

Seriously dude, seek help.

Since when are they extreme right?

"dude". man up when one of your leaders gets caught

Blaming the right for this is falling into the "tin foil" hat theory of politics - "I see Republicans everywhere"

When did anyone claim they were extreme right? You claimed they were extreme left.

Are there only 2 categories of media now? "Extreme left" and "Extreme Right"?

Again, seek help.

Adjust that hat

I did not claim CNN or Yahoo were anything

I only said Dana Bash is no conservative

 

[Vast LWC]

Since when is making a pass on someone a crime?

It is a crime, in that state. 39 other men were arrested on the same charges (lewd conduct in a public place and disorderly conduct) in the three month period surrounuding the Senators arrest.

The police had an ongoing sting operation in that airport for just that type of behavior.

 

[Vast LWC]

Adjust that hat

I did not claim CNN or Yahoo were anything

I only said Dana Bash is no conservative

Post #318:

Insane, is still trying to push the same fake story from the extreme Left websites.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Since when is making a pass on someone a crime?

It is a crime, in that state. 39 other men were arrested on the same charges (lewd conduct in a public place and disorderly conduct) in the three month period surrounuding the Senators arrest.

The police had an ongoing sting operation in that airport for just that type of behavior.

Right,,
Just like the police are investigating internet crime all the time

 

[Ernie S.]

What part of "THE WOMAN WHO RECEIVED THE PICTURES KNOWS IT WASN'T WEINER AND KNOWS WHO IT WAS" do you not understand?

There are two people who have any possibility of being harmed here: The woman, and Anthony Weiner.

If they both believe the incident to be a prank by a third party then it is none of your business whether they want to pursue the matter, or not. Period.

So the woman knows it wasn't Weiner's junk... that just leads to more questions. Like when has she seen it?

1. who cares?
2. maybe she knows who's it is? ya think?

You sure as shit cared when the Larry Craig story came out.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Adjust that hat

I did not claim CNN or Yahoo were anything- my statement still stands as true

I only said Dana Bash is no conservative

Post #318:

Insane, is still trying to push the same fake story from the extreme Left websites.

Still wrong, on this and so many other things.
That was in reference to the "theory" of right wing hacks doing this to this poor Rep Weiner- an idea pushed by groups like Daily Kos etc

I still never said CNN and Yahoo were extreme anything


But we digress

Did you watch that video of Weiner?
That is where the problem is

Most people see that and realize, something is up; he is not behaving like an innocent man. This could be the reason' it does not go away

 

[jillian]

So the woman knows it wasn't Weiner's junk... that just leads to more questions. Like when has she seen it?

1. who cares?
2. maybe she knows who's it is? ya think?

You sure as shit cared when the Larry Craig story came out.

actually, you weren't here then. and i ALWAYS say i don't care who sleeps with whom. in larry craig's case, it was the rightwingnuts demanding he quit. but then again, he ran on a good ole radical religious right platform, so his people were cranky with him. and when you spend your career trying to marginalize gays, it's always pretty unfortunate when you turn out to be one.

i just thought his lies were a joke.

 

[rdean]

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

AW looks looks kind of skinny and hairy to me. Are you sure that's his leg? Skin looks kinda "young". Just sayin'

 

[Vast LWC]

Right,,
Just like the police are investigating internet crime all the time

And what would the crime be?

Even if Weiner had sent this, which he didn't:

If the woman makes no complaint, there's no crime, because the picture was not an "unwanted" transmission.

It's not a crime for two consenting adults to send lewd pictures to each other over the internet.

 

[Ernie S.]

1. who cares?
2. maybe she knows who's it is? ya think?

You sure as shit cared when the Larry Craig story came out.

actually, you weren't here then. and i ALWAYS say i don't care who sleeps with whom. in larry craig's case, it was the rightwingnuts demanding he quit. but then again, he ran on a good ole radical religious right platform, so his people were cranky with him. and when you spend your career trying to marginalize gays, it's always pretty unfortunate when you turn out to be one.

i just thought his lies were a joke.

No I wasn't here, but your posts from back then still are.

 

[jillian]

You sure as shit cared when the Larry Craig story came out.

actually, you weren't here then. and i ALWAYS say i don't care who sleeps with whom. in larry craig's case, it was the rightwingnuts demanding he quit. but then again, he ran on a good ole radical religious right platform, so his people were cranky with him. and when you spend your career trying to marginalize gays, it's always pretty unfortunate when you turn out to be one.

i just thought his lies were a joke.

No I wasn't here, but your posts from back then still are.

and?

again, in craig's case, it was the rightwingnuts who wanted him out.

but as far as i'm concerned, it's not about the sex in that case... it's about the disgusting hypocrisy.

you know, like newt gingrich and henry hyde pushing for clinton's impeachment when they were screwing around on their wives...

 

[Trajan]

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

Oh wait..that was the republicans.

I am sure that getting blow jobs from a staffer in the White House is fine with a bottom feeder like you, but Clinton was impeached for lying under oath to a Federal Grand Jury and obstruction of justice. He should be serving time.

for lying about an affair at a deposition he should never have been forced to take?



let me know when he lies to start a war.

so he gets a pass because he should not have been deposed? why yes of course.

as a 'lawyer' that you actually said that perplexes me....

 

[Trajan]

apparently he has not asked the fbi to investigate, *shrugs* why not? that begs the question in that if he attests to a hack and its found to be a lie, hes cooked.

I don't think he should lose his seat either, the voters will decide that....and of course hes not a hypocrite becasue he never said he wouldn't electronically flash someone....

he also never tried to impeach someone for having an affair while having one of his own. nor did his electoral platform profess some type of religious 'purity'.

wow, you rose like a brook trout to that one...

 

[jillian]

I am sure that getting blow jobs from a staffer in the White House is fine with a bottom feeder like you, but Clinton was impeached for lying under oath to a Federal Grand Jury and obstruction of justice. He should be serving time.

for lying about an affair at a deposition he should never have been forced to take?



let me know when he lies to start a war.

so he gets a pass because he should not have been deposed? why yes of course.

as a 'lawyer' that you actually said that perplexes me....

the question never should have been asked. whether he "had sex with that woman" or not was an irrelevancy.

and yes, when every other president in history was not forced to sit for deposition in a CIVIL matter? yes, it should have awaited the end of his term. but scalia and the rightwingnuts on the court did their job. how's that?

 

[shintao]

Now that you have established the Clinton rule book of political ethics for Democrats, what is the one for Republicans?

In any case, it is foolish for a public figure to play on Twitter, or send emails, etc. Seems Palin went through this same thing last year.

That said, the encryption programs are available, and these guys should be using them.

 

[gautama]

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

Well, by all means, let’s presume him guilty until proven innocent.

Don't be a naive idiot.

There's enough circumstantial evidence that would convict scum like him.....and on a higher level an OJ turd.....except for the PC, and Obamarrhoidal opinion (In OJ's case add Black Racism) which turns justice on its head.

 

[elvis]

apparently he has not asked the fbi to investigate, *shrugs* why not? that begs the question in that if he attests to a hack and its found to be a lie, hes cooked.

I don't think he should lose his seat either, the voters will decide that....and of course hes not a hypocrite becasue he never said he wouldn't electronically flash someone....

he also never tried to impeach someone for having an affair while having one of his own. nor did his electoral platform profess some type of religious 'purity'.

he wasn't impeached for having an affair. he was impeached for lying to a grand jury about the affair.

 

[Sallow]

apparently he has not asked the fbi to investigate, *shrugs* why not? that begs the question in that if he attests to a hack and its found to be a lie, hes cooked.

I don't think he should lose his seat either, the voters will decide that....and of course hes not a hypocrite becasue he never said he wouldn't electronically flash someone....

he also never tried to impeach someone for having an affair while having one of his own. nor did his electoral platform profess some type of religious 'purity'.

he wasn't impeached for having an affair. he was impeached for lying to a grand jury about the affair.

 

[elvis]

for lying about an affair at a deposition he should never have been forced to take?



let me know when he lies to start a war.

so he gets a pass because he should not have been deposed? why yes of course.

as a 'lawyer' that you actually said that perplexes me....

the question never should have been asked. whether he "had sex with that woman" or not was an irrelevancy.

and yes, when every other president in history was not forced to sit for deposition in a CIVIL matter? yes, it should have awaited the end of his term. but scalia and the rightwingnuts on the court did their job. how's that?

I'll be sure to use that defense if I want to lie to a grand jury. "the question shouldn't have been asked".