David Vitter: The GOP's Weiner Problem

[lakhota]

Republicans Calling For Anthony Weiner Resignation Backed David Vitter's Reelection

WASHINGTON -- As Republican calls for the resignation of Democratic New York Rep. Anthony Weiner mount, the party is being forced to confront its own uncomfortable reality: sitting Senator David Vitter of Louisiana.

Vitter was discovered to have regularly used the prostitution service of Deborah Jean Palfrey, also known as the D.C. Madam, after details of an investigation into Palfrey's service were leaked to Hustler magazine.

Vitter admitted to using the Washington, D.C.-based prostitution service in July 2007. Even so, 27 prominent Republicans gave a total of $161,700 to Vitter's 2010 reelection effort.

One of those Republicans was John Cornyn, the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Cornyn called on Weiner to resign Wednesday. In 2009, he gave Vitter $10,000 and as chair of the NRSC directed another $42,800 to his campaign, according to Federal Election Commission records.

House Speaker John Boehner has yet to weigh in on Weiner, but if he does, he may have to answer questions about the $5,000 he gave to Vitter in 2010. Boehner was one of only three House Republicans to donate to Vitter's campaign.

In July 2007 Vitter admitted, first in a letter and then at a press conference, to have used Palfrey's prostitution service when he served in the House of Representatives from 1999 to 2004. Vitter was also revealed to have scheduled prostitution appointments during House roll call votes. Vitter had previously denied having an affair and paying for prostitutes, citing family problems for his withdrawal from a bid for the Louisiana governorship in 2002.

After the Palfrey revelations, a New Orleans-based prostitute, Wendy Yow, came forward and revealed that Vitter had regularly used her services after he was elected to the House in a special election to replace Rep. Bob Livingston, who retired to become a lobbyist after revealing his own affair.

Vitter continues to deny any involvement with Yow or other prostitution services aside from the D.C. Madam. Yow, however, passed a polygraph test administered by Hustler.

On Monday, Weiner admitted that he had sent a lewd picture to a follower of his Twitter account and then lied about it to the public and the media. He continued to explain that he had engaged in inappropriate online conversation with at least six women over the past few years. No money changed hands and no laws were broken.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Preibus has led the calls for Weiner to step down. On Wednesday he assailed the Democratic response to the scandal: "If Nancy Pelosi was serious about draining the swamp ... there are certain times that leaders need to step up and make a difficult decision to tell their own that they should leave."

On Tuesday, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) stated, "I don't condone his activity. And I think he should resign." Cornyn echoed Cantor's call on Wednesday.

Other lawmakers who may be thinking twice before calling for Weiner's resignation include Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), John Barrasso (R-Wyo), John McCain (R-Ariz.), John Thune (R-S.D.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo), Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Dave Camp (R-Mich.), Louie Gohmert (R-Texas). Each contributed to Vitter's reelection campaign.

Democratic leaders, including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), have called for an ethics investigation into Weiner's social media use. House rules state that lawmakers "shall behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House." Others, including former Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine, Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.), the top recruiter for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), have called on Weiner to step down.

An ethics complaint against Vitter was dismissed after the Senate Ethics Committee ruled that the alleged violations occurred prior to his tenure in the Senate and, thus, the committee did not have authority to investigate or punish the senator.

While Weiner has postponed an upcoming fundraiser with Matt Damon, Vitter continues to raise money. He held a Wednesday night fundraiser hosted by lobbyists.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/09/david-vitter-anthony-weiner-_n_873393.html

[marshabar1]

Oh yeah, Weiner's weiner is a GOP problem. Of course.

[hello fromWarsaw]

....................

[cereb]

Jun 9, 2011 22:29:56 GMT -5 @marshabar1 said:

Oh yeah, Weiner's weiner is a GOP problem. Of course.

Seriously?

[NoMoreLunacy]

Who cares about either Weiner and Vitter? What's their record on spending cuts? I checked, and both are beefed up on pork. Both need to go.

[NoMoreLunacy]

This message has been deleted.

[Deleted]

There is a difference. Vitter got busted publicly for something he had done 7 years or so earlier that was already resolved with his family. So I read, but can't remember where. Weinerman got caught in the act, so to speak. I'm not saying that is okay, just that it is different. I wasn't following politics then, don't know what I would have felt. BUT-- the weiner pic is all over now, and that is no fun and games. It's really disgusting that a married man was sending that pic out to women.

[NoMoreLunacy]

If Weiner got a prostitute today and also cut spending by a billion giving it out in tax cuts I would vote for him tomorrow. What he is doing in his private life is none of my business. But what he is doing in public with MY money is totally my business. Republicans would rather have us get excited about sex scandals while they keep doling out pork. Nice trick.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

The Weiner issue isn't the sex. It's that Mr. Wiener slandered a private citizen to cover his arse.

But let's examine the totality of the two scandals since moral equivalence is all the left has in its defense is, "But, but, but...David Vitter did it, too!"

He is the only Republican ever caught in a sex scandal who didn't resign immediately or lose his reelection, but of course his scandal was very different from every other one I can think of. The DC madam released his name -- I'm sure there were a lot of Democrats on that same list but their names weren't released -- and what we found out was that seven years earlier he had gone to a prostitute twice; told his wife about it, apologized to her, confessed to her, confessed to God. She has forgiven him, the marriage had continued, and seven years later we find this out. As soon as his name, David Vitter's name was released from the DC madam's list he went straight out, apologized, admitted it; held a press conference. He's standing there with his wife saying, "I told her seven years ago. He didn't turn around and start denouncing the press and claiming he'd been hacked. Vitter did NOT slander a private citizen to cover his arse.

[zipity]

Unless you also believe the story of the Louisiana prostitute Wendy Yow who claims to have been hiring on a number of occasions by Vitter.

But let's examine the totality of the two scandals since moral equivalence is all the left has in its defense is, "But, but, but...David Vitter did it, too!"

You seem to be missing the point, it's not about moral equivalence it's about glass houses. If you live in one, as both parties do, you should know better than to throw stones. Both these guys screwed up. If either of them used government resources to (phones, network access, offices) to commit their stupidity they should get a congressional slap on the wrist after which it's up to their constituents to decide what to do. Beyond that "there's nothing to see here, move along".

[ed1066]

The Weiner issue isn't the sex. It's that Mr. Wiener slandered a private citizen to cover his arse.

I notice both you and I have covered this fact many times on the board, but the libs have their heads in the sand (or the gutter) and can't see past the sexual aspect of the story. It's like trying to teach pigs how to do ballet, they just plain don't get it...

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 10, 2011 8:15:09 GMT -5 zipity said:

Unless you also believe the story of the Louisiana prostitute Wendy Yow who claims to have been hiring on a number of occasions by Vitter.

But let's examine the totality of the two scandals since moral equivalence is all the left has in its defense is, "But, but, but...David Vitter did it, too!"

You seem to be missing the point, it's not about moral equivalence it's about glass houses. If you live in one, as both parties do, you should know better than to throw stones. Both these guys screwed up. If either of them used government resources to (phones, network access, offices) to commit their stupidity they should get a congressional slap on the wrist after which it's up to their constituents to decide what to do. Beyond that "there's nothing to see here, move along".

Everyone is missing the point. The issue isn't sex. At issue with Congressman Weiner is that he SLANDERED A PRIVATE CITIZEN to cover his arse. He needs to be held accountable for that. Not for cyber shtupping some underage babe.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 10, 2011 8:15:11 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

The Weiner issue isn't the sex. It's that Mr. Wiener slandered a private citizen to cover his arse.

I notice both you and I have covered this fact many times on the board, but the libs have their heads in the sand (or the gutter) and can't see past the sexual aspect of the story. It's like trying to teach pigs how to do ballet, they just plain don't get it...

They're doing it on purpose. The more salacious the story- the easier it is to use it to distract not only from the real issue of Mr. Weiner's slander of a private citizen to cover his arse-- but no doubt to hide the myriad other things they have cooking.

[zipity]

Everyone is missing the point. The issue isn't sex. At issue with Congressman Weiner is that he SLANDERED A PRIVATE CITIZEN to cover his arse. He needs to be held accountable for that. Not for cyber shtupping some underage babe.

Not true. There are multiple aspects to this, attacks from the right and defense by the left revolve around the content of the picture and in that realm a congressional investigation needs to determine if government resources were used. As for you're claim of an "underage babe" if that turns out to be true then Weiner committed a felony. If it comes out that Weiner lied to federal investigators then he committed a felony.

You only want to focus on a possible charge of slander, which to date has not yet been proven. Weiner made some statements, if those statements were just inaccurate no harm no foul, however if Weiner used those statements in a focused attempt to destroy the reputation of that citizen then you'd be right, Weiner slandered the citizen. If the private citizen believes he was slandered then its up to the citizen to file a civil suit against Weiner. Lawyers will need to prove that Weiner intended to slander the citizen as opposed to just making a false statement about the citizen. The fact that Weiner issued a public apology to the citizen would definitely be considered when trying to determine if Weiner was really out to 'get' that citizen or if he was just wrong when he made statements about the citizen. So to only focus on slander is to completely miss the big picture of what's going on here.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Slander is proven. Weiner acknoweldged it when he apologized to Andrew Beitbart. That's settled fact. What remains is whether or not the Congress, and more importantly We The People are going to stand for it.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 10, 2011 8:58:26 GMT -5 zipity said:

Everyone is missing the point. The issue isn't sex. At issue with Congressman Weiner is that he SLANDERED A PRIVATE CITIZEN to cover his arse. He needs to be held accountable for that. Not for cyber shtupping some underage babe.

Not true. There are multiple aspects to this, attacks from the right and defense by the left revolve around the content of the picture and in that realm a congressional investigation needs to determine if government resources were used. As for you're claim of an "underage babe" if that turns out to be true then Weiner committed a felony. If it comes out that Weiner lied to federal investigators then he committed a felony.

You only want to focus on a possible charge of slander, which to date has not yet been proven. Weiner made some statements, if those statements were just inaccurate no harm no foul, however if Weiner used those statements in a focused attempt to destroy the reputation of that citizen then you'd be right, Weiner slandered the citizen. If the private citizen believes he was slandered then its up to the citizen to file a civil suit against Weiner. Lawyers will need to prove that Weiner intended to slander the citizen as opposed to just making a false statement about the citizen. The fact that Weiner issued a public apology to the citizen would definitely be considered when trying to determine if Weiner was really out to 'get' that citizen or if he was just wrong when he made statements about the citizen. So to only focus on slander is to completely miss the big picture of what's going on here.

Sorry, but no. A sitting member of The United States House of Representatives that slanders a private citizen, acknowledges the fact by apologizing to that citizen is guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and can be removed from office- and should be removed from office.

We all know his public acts. We don't need a lawsuit and civil lawyers and a judge. Weiner works for us. We're the boss. And he should be done.

[zipity]

Slander is proven. Weiner acknoweldged it when he apologized to Andrew Beitbart. That's settled fact. What remains is whether or not the Congress, and more importantly We The People are going to stand for it.

Weiner acknowledged that he was wrong, slander had to do with intent, look it up. As I said if it was slander it's up to Beitbart to bring the suit, not congress.

Sorry, but no. A sitting member of The United States House of Representatives that slanders a private citizen, acknowledges the fact by apologizing to that citizen is guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and can be removed from office- and should be removed from office.

We all know his public acts. We don't need a lawsuit and civil lawyers and a judge. Weiner works for us. We're the boss. And he should be done.

Ok you feeling better now. It's good to rant once in a while. Now try to calm down and do a couple of internet searches and you find theirs a difference between being factually wrong and slanderous. If I believe someone name Jim broke the law, I can say "Jim broke the law". If I was wrong, I can show it by saying "I was wrong about Jim". Unless you can prove that the intent behind my original statement was to do harm to Jim or his reputation, you can not prove slander.

As for "we're his boss", unless you live in his congressional district you're wrong about that also. His constituents can recall him or vote him out in the next election but if you're not a constituent you can't do bupkis. I don't disagree that he should be gone.

[Deleted]

I read an article that Weiner is at odds with Bible thumpers, something like that. That would really piss me off if I was a liberal, non Bible thumper that is disgusted with this guy.. just saying.

[Mkitty is pro kitty]

Reply #9:

You seem to be missing the point, it's not about moral equivalence it's about glass houses.

Reply #10:

I notice both you and I have covered this fact many times on the board, but the libs have their heads in the sand (or the gutter) and can't see past the sexual aspect of the story.

Reply #11

Everyone is missing the point. The issue isn't sex.

Since message #9 came first, is there anyone out there that isn't convinced that conservatives love to use "libs think..." strawman scripts?

both you and I have covered this fact many times on the board

I don't know what happened elsewhere, but why don't you read all the posts here so we can be on the same page, specifically this one.

Slander is proven.

Link to Breitbart vs Weiner with Breitbart winning, please.

We don't need a lawsuit and civil lawyers and a judge.

Hate the Constitution much? Does the Sixth Amendment ring any bells? Obviously none of the liberty kind.

[Deleted]

The GOP's Weiner Problem

Wouldn't penicillin fix the problem?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0611/Weiner_I_apologize_to_Andrew_Breitbart.html

June 06, 2011


Categories:
Congress
.
Weiner: 'I apologize to Andrew Breitbart'

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) doled out his first apologies to his wife and his constituents, but also apologized to the media and to Andrew Breitbart specifically during a long and rambling press conference in which he seemed determined to answer every last reporter’s question.

Breitbart had demanded an apology a few minutes before from the same podium, where he climbed after Weiner did not show up on time to his own press conference.

“I’d like an apology from him,” Breitbart said. “This was his strategy, to blame me…so I’m here for some vindication.”

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

You'd think you'd get tired of having to eat it, Kitty? ;D

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

And least no one forget Sen Bob Packwood (R) from Oregon, way, way back in the 90s, was accused of allegations of sexual misbehavior. Note I say allegations. Packwood, a repubic resigned.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Ok you feeling better now. It's good to rant once in a while. Now try to calm down and do a couple of internet searches and you find theirs a difference between being factually wrong and slanderous

Wow, just wow. Weiner denied releasing the photos, refused to acknowledge the photos were of him, or that he sent them to a girl or girls and blamed Andrew Breitbart for hacking his account (a federal crime) and releasing the photos.

He KNEW all of the above were false claims against Andrew Breitbart. He knew Breitbart had him dead to rights, and he was being a vindictive bastard because he thought he'd get away with it.

The damage to Breitbart's reputation was intentional. It was not incidental due to some 'factual error'. Jeeze.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Someone correct me but wouldn't Weiner be a sexual predator?

[Deleted]

A predator? Probably not. Just a plain old azzhole.

[SweetVirginia]

Jun 10, 2011 0:19:25 GMT -5 @krickitt said:

There is a difference. Vitter got busted publicly for something he had done 7 years or so earlier that was already resolved with his family. So I read, but can't remember where. Weinerman got caught in the act, so to speak. I'm not saying that is okay, just that it is different. I wasn't following politics then, don't know what I would have felt. BUT-- the weiner pic is all over now, and that is no fun and games. It's really disgusting that a married man was sending that pic out to women.

Krickitt, Vitter was illegally paying hookers, with tax funded income, to diaper him like a baby, and have sex with him, while he was MARRIED. Just because that happened 7 years ago or because you were not following politics at that time does not make Vitter's illegal act any less heinous. I agree that there is a difference, but the difference is, Vitter's illegal sexual act was worse than Weiners. That said, I think Weiner is a dog, he is a liar, and I think he is mental. I do not t think he is fit to serve.

[Deleted]

The DIFFERENCE, Sweet, is that he was past it, long past it, YEARS past it, when he got nailed for it. Am I wrong? He was not caught in the act. I'm not defending the asshole, just explaining the difference, since people want to compare..

[lakhota]

Jun 10, 2011 18:11:39 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

And least no one forget Sen Bob Packwood (R) from Oregon, way, way back in the 90s, was accused of allegations of sexual misbehavior. Note I say allegations. Packwood, a repubic resigned.

Shortly after Senator Robert Packwood (R. OR) was reelected to his fifth term in the Senate, the Washington Post published a story it had been sitting on since before the election, but did not run because Packwood denied the charges. The story was based on allegations by a female lobbyist and 10 former female staff members who had worked for Packwood, all claiming they had been repeatedly sexually harassed by the Senator. One woman, Julie Williamson, said he had tried to pull her clothing off her when she worked for him in 1969. Others, who wished to remain anonymous, claimed he would grope them, kiss them on the lips, or force his tongue into their mouths. Packwood's denials only resulted in additional complaining women coming forward, until there were 26 complainants filed, with complaints spanning two decades of behavior. When it was learned that Packwood had kept an oral diary, in which every morning he recounted the events of the previous day, the Senate Ethics Committee wanted to see what had become of this 8200-page document, dating from the 1960s. Packwood said it included accounts of consensual sexual relationships with members of his staff and lobbyists, and of the sexual activities of other members of the Senate and House, which he was entitled to keep private. Packwood fought all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court for his right not to turn over the diary, but lost. One mystery woman, a well-known person, pleaded through an attorney that her privacy be protected, lest her name be revealed in Packwood's diary. With the diary in the hands of the Senate Ethics Committee, Packwood was in trouble for more than his sexual activity. The diary showed him trading political favors with powerful businessmen, and other members of the Senate. The Senate Ethics Committee, to the surprise of Packwood and others in the Senate, not to mention the public, recommended he be expelled from the Senate. Before that happened, he resigned. When last reported, the former senator was earning close to a seven-figure annual income as a Washington lobbyist.

writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/congsexscandals.html

[lakhota]

In November 1998, Rep. Robert Livingston (R. LA) was the overwhelming choice of his House colleagues to succeed Speaker Gingrich. But the Speaker-designate stunned his congressional peers and official Washington by admitting that he had "strayed" during his marriage, and not only would he stand down as Speaker, he was resigning from Congress. Livingston's departure was forced by publisher Larry Flynt's announcement that four women had admitted to having sexual liaisons with Livingston during the past 10 years, these women having come forward in response to Flynt's full page advertisement in the Washington Post to pay $1,000,000 for such information. After talking with Mrs. Livingston, however, Flynt agreed not to reveal the names of the women.

writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/congsexscandals.html

Thank you, Larry Flynt.