Saturday Massacre: Pelosi, Israel, Wasserman Schultz call for Weiner to resign

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That doesn't change the fact he has done nothing that would warrant a resignation. Unless you're a prude.

[Lunar]

That doesn't change the fact he has done nothing that would warrant a resignation. Unless you're a prude.

So, to his tens of thousands of supporters who believed in him and defended in him during the onset of this scandal, only to discover that he lied to them again and again, are prudes?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That doesn't change the fact he has done nothing that would warrant a resignation. Unless you're a prude.

So, to his tens of thousands of supporters who believed in him and defended in him during the onset of this scandal, only to discover that he lied to them again and again, are prudes?

What else would they be?

[Mr. Morden]

I would really love to hear Time Kaine and Ed Rendell (and other Dems calling on Weiner to resign) explain why Bill Clinton shouldn't have resigned over his behavior.

The reason Bill Clinton didn't need to resign, even though Al Gore really wanted him to, was because he was El Presidente, and nothing short of impeachment would remove him from office.  

Weiner doesn't have the power of the Chief Executive and can maybe face some Congressional penalties, so fighting and staying in the HOR will be tough if he faces the sanctions.  He might decide it is better to be a wealthy lobbyist than a HOR.  

Well of course the reason he didn't resign is because he didn't have to.  That's why I said "should".

EDIT: I mean, look, these are the actual words used by Tim Kaine, regarding Weiner:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If that's what Kaine thinks, then was he also in favor of Clinton resigning back in 1998?

the difference between then and now is that Kaine is now a National figure for the DNC and has to protect the Dem Congress seats and national Democrats without sideshows.  Back then he was a nobody just trying to move up the ladder and keep his head down.  Sure maybe Clinton should have resigned but that would have been historically epic and may have done more damage to Democrats image (like Nixon resigning) but Clinton stayed and now has high approvals. 

Again, that's not what I mean.  I'm sorry for being less than clear. 

You're talking about the actual reasons for folks like Kaine and Rendell having different reactions to this than to Clinton.  But that's obvious.  The *actual* reason is political expediency.  I'm talking about their *stated* reasons for asking Weiner to resign.  The stated reasons don't make any sense, and I was just musing that it would be fun if a reporter called them on it.  This column might explain what I mean better than how I've said it:

http://www.slate.com/id/2296605/

[CitizenX]

That doesn't change the fact he has done nothing that would warrant a resignation. Unless you're a prude.

So, to his tens of thousands of supporters who believed in him and defended in him during the onset of this scandal, only to discover that he lied to them again and again, are prudes?

Where were these tens of thousands of supports?  I watch MSNBC and the Daily Show when I can and everyone was pretty skeptical of his whole story from the beginning.  Jon Stewart was dumping on him from day one.

What channel were you watching?  You should watch something with less liberal bias.

[patrick1]

That doesn't change the fact he has done nothing that would warrant a resignation. Unless you're a prude.

So, to his tens of thousands of supporters who believed in him and defended in him during the onset of this scandal, only to discover that he lied to them again and again, are prudes?

Where were these tens of thousands of supports?  I watch MSNBC and the Daily Show when I can and everyone was pretty skeptical of his whole story from the beginning.  Jon Stewart was dumping on him from day one.

What channel were you watching?  You should watch something with less liberal bias.

Dailykos and the entire echo chamber went to bat for him claiming a Breitbart forgery.  The media completely held back. I could find hundreds of examples and many of them on this very forum.

[Lunar]

That doesn't change the fact he has done nothing that would warrant a resignation. Unless you're a prude.

So, to his tens of thousands of supporters who believed in him and defended in him during the onset of this scandal, only to discover that he lied to them again and again, are prudes?

Where were these tens of thousands of supports?  I watch MSNBC and the Daily Show when I can and everyone was pretty skeptical of his whole story from the beginning.  Jon Stewart was dumping on him from day one.

What channel were you watching?  You should watch something with less liberal bias.

I would disagree.  I seem to remember Jon Stewart criticizing the allegations against Weiner on three different angles on Day 1 of the story -- saying that there's evidence that the image could have been photoshopped, saying that only one person is alleged to have seen this tweet, etcetcetc.

I talked to a fair bit of people during the ongoing coverage of the scandal, and a lot of NYC progressives rushed to defend him on the hacking story and felt betrayed afterwards, IMO. But from my own conversations, I haven't discussed it with tens and thousands of people.  

But read stuff like this and imagine how the people who write this stuff and the hundreds of commenters must feel?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/29/980400/-Breitbarts-

I read a lot of blog posts like that.

[CitizenX]

Dailykos and the entire echo chamber went to bat for him claiming a Breitbart forgery.  The media completely held back. I could find hundreds of examples and many of them on this very forum.

Hhhmmm... okay.  I guess thats the problem I get my news from more traditional outlets.  Like I said most people on MSNBC were saying how odd his explanation was on day one.  And his friend in real life and one time vacation housemate Jon Stewart was making fun of him.  You can go watch his show.  Its posted on the internet.

You know I tend to avoid all this internet and blog stuff as primary sources.  I like stuff with a little more journalistic integrity and vetting.  Traditional news outlets were skeptical from day one and ran the story constantly.  I've watched them for days and did not see thousands or hundreds or even tens of people supporting him.  Everyone from Morning Joe to Hardball to the Daily Show were saying something was fishy and making fun of him.

[Keystone Phil]

BRTD must be a closet Republican operative. Why else would he want this to continue to be front page news?

[Lunar]

Dailykos and the entire echo chamber went to bat for him claiming a Breitbart forgery.  The media completely held back. I could find hundreds of examples and many of them on this very forum.

Hhhmmm... okay.  I guess thats the problem I get my news from more traditional outlets.  Like I said most people on MSNBC were saying how odd his explanation was on day one.  And his friend in real life and one time vacation housemate Jon Stewart was making fun of him.  You can go watch his show.  Its posted on the internet.

You know I tend to avoid all this internet and blog stuff as primary sources.  I like stuff with a little more journalistic integrity and vetting.  Traditional news outlets were skeptical from day one and ran the story constantly.  I've watched them for days and did not see thousands or hundreds or even tens of people supporting him.  Everyone from Morning Joe to Hardball to the Daily Show were saying something was fishy and making fun of him.

Well, my original point was that thousands of his supporters felt duped and betrayed, not reporters in the press.

[patrick1]

Dailykos and the entire echo chamber went to bat for him claiming a Breitbart forgery.  The media completely held back. I could find hundreds of examples and many of them on this very forum.

Hhhmmm... okay.  I guess thats the problem I get my news from more traditional outlets.  Like I said most people on MSNBC were saying how odd his explanation was on day one.  And his friend in real life and one time vacation housemate Jon Stewart was making fun of him.  You can go watch his show.  Its posted on the internet.

You know I tend to avoid all this internet and blog stuff as primary sources.  I like stuff with a little more journalistic integrity and vetting.  Traditional news outlets were skeptical from day one and ran the story constantly.  I've watched them for days and did not see thousands or hundreds or even tens of people supporting him.  Everyone from Morning Joe to Hardball to the Daily Show were saying something was fishy and making fun of him.

As Lunar was saying above, you are wrong.  The traditional, vetted media approached this thing with lamb skin gloves.  He sent something on Friday night before Memorial day. Only Tuesday were people even asking serious questions. By then many were trying to pull the Breitbart angle- even among some in the traditional media.  Stewart would have savaged him if he was a Republican or not a friend. He held his punches and I cant blame him for that given his friendship.  I think most realistic people saw through his lies, however, most partisans fell in line and refused to believe the story.

[Lunar]

I can't really blame people for defending Weiner either.  

1) A lot of people don't understand how Twitter works, especially regarding the direct message system and how easy it is to publicly tweet something meant to be private.

2) For those who did know how Twitter works, what Weiner was actually trying to do (direct message an uploaded photo from a blackberry 100% privately) is IMPOSSIBLE.  YFrog photos are publicly accessible, even if you don't publicly send out the link.

So it's not hard to be suspicious.  Weiner was guilty of, in effect, of both being the Congressman who possibly best understood how Twitter works and simultaneously being a complete idiot and not knowing how Twitter works.

Someone emailed me the Breitbart BigGovernment link right as soon as he published it before Memorial Day Weekend, but I didn't give it any credibility until I saw more of the mainstream media reporting on it.  

And hell, some of the later defensive evidence posted on blogs (and picked up by mainstream reporting/political blogs like Ben Smith, Liz Benjamin etc.) was compelling -- that the photo was taken with a different camera than all of Weiner's past uploaded photos and whatnot.

[CitizenX]

That doesn't change the fact he has done nothing that would warrant a resignation. Unless you're a prude.

So, to his tens of thousands of supporters who believed in him and defended in him during the onset of this scandal, only to discover that he lied to them again and again, are prudes?

Where were these tens of thousands of supports?  I watch MSNBC and the Daily Show when I can and everyone was pretty skeptical of his whole story from the beginning.  Jon Stewart was dumping on him from day one.

What channel were you watching?  You should watch something with less liberal bias.

I would disagree. I seem to remember Jon Stewart criticizing the allegations against Weiner on three different angles on Day 1 of the story -- saying that there's evidence that the image could have been photoshopped, saying that only one person is alleged to have seen this tweet, etcetcetc.

I talked to a fair bit of people during the ongoing coverage of the scandal, and a lot of NYC progressives rushed to defend him on the hacking story and felt betrayed afterwards, IMO. But from my own conversations, I haven't discussed it with tens and thousands of people.  

But read stuff like this and imagine how the people who write this stuff and the hundreds of commenters must feel?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/29/980400/-Breitbarts-

I read a lot of blog posts like that.

This is what drives me nuts about politics in the United States.  Even if there is video tape evidence completely to the contrary there are those in the Republican party (ie Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Donald Trump) that will just stick to their fantasy no matter what.  Death panels anyone?

Please, anyone that doubts my observations regarding the coverage of this matter please watch the Daily Show episode here... http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-may-31-2011-jimmy-fallon.  The clip in question starts about 8 mins in.

The passage you speak of was Stewart presenting the pros and cons.  You just presented the pros and twisted the one con Stewart listed into a pro statement for Weiner.  Stewart clearly states that one of the things that casts doubt on the Congressman's story is that the picture did NOT appear to be photoshoped.  He starts into these pros and cons about 12 min 50 secs into the clip.  And by the way the "fact" that Stewart dwelled on as supporting Weiner's story was that when they shared a beach house in Deleware he had no recollection of Weiner having a "package" that big in his swim trunks.  As you laugh at the jokes at Weiners expense and hear the concern in Stewart's voice remember this is his friend who has a vested interest in hoping for the best and he still gives the story a pretty rigorous going over.  Is this liberal bias???

Its like Lewis Black said, "When are Democrats and Republicans going to agree about what they are both looking at."  I paraphrased but you get the point.

[Lunar]

What exactly is the argument here?

I saw the episode a few times, but I was only paraphrasing above. As soon as Stewart says "Liberal and conservative blogs" at about the 5:00 minute mark in the video below, he seems to make those arguments to me:
http://www.capitaltonight.com/2011/06/jon-stewart-not-the-weiner-i-remember/

But even if he didn't, who cares? Jon Stewart isn't relevant to the point I was originally making about Weiner's supporters feeling duped and resentful. You were the one who brought Stewart up, I don't really care.

[CitizenX]

What exactly is the argument here?

I saw the episode a few times, but I was only paraphrasing above. As soon as Stewart says "Liberal and conservative blogs" at about the 5:00 minute mark in the video below, he seems to make those arguments to me:
http://www.capitaltonight.com/2011/06/jon-stewart-not-the-weiner-i-remember/

But even if he didn't, who cares? Jon Stewart isn't relevant to the point I was originally making about Weiner's supporters feeling duped and resentful. You were the one who brought Stewart up, I don't really care.

Yes, of course once I post video tape evidence that what you said was factually incorrect... You say, "Who Cares!"

Interesting how you went from "he said it was photoshoped" to "he seems to make those arguments."  Pretty slick.  Unfortunately he quite clearly states the picture does NOT appear to be photoshoped.

If you are just going to hear and see what you want no one can have a constructive discussion with you.  I can't argue with the voices in your head.

Everyone else watch the clip and decide for yourself.

[Lunar]

You keep accusing me of verbal gymnastics, yet you ignore what I keep bringing up in every single post: What Jon Stewart said has nothing to do with what I said about Weiner's supporters. I never was talking about the press, you inserted that into the discussion.  

I mean, sure, I misquoted him partially above, I think. I don't see why you're like all excited about it though.

[patrick1]

What exactly is the argument here?

I saw the episode a few times, but I was only paraphrasing above. As soon as Stewart says "Liberal and conservative blogs" at about the 5:00 minute mark in the video below, he seems to make those arguments to me:
http://www.capitaltonight.com/2011/06/jon-stewart-not-the-weiner-i-remember/

But even if he didn't, who cares? Jon Stewart isn't relevant to the point I was originally making about Weiner's supporters feeling duped and resentful. You were the one who brought Stewart up, I don't really care.

Yes, of course once I post video tape evidence that what you said was factually incorrect... You say, "Who Cares!"

Interesting how you went from "he said it was photoshoped" to "he seems to make those arguments."  Pretty slick.  Unfortunately he quite clearly states the picture does NOT appear to be photoshoped.

If you are just going to hear and see what you want no one can have a constructive discussion with you.  I can't argue with the voices in your head.

Everyone else watch the clip and decide for yourself.

Oh get real.  Was this the same damning criticism by Stewart that Weiner was trying to jokingly use as a defense the very next day? A defense that consisted of casually putting out sexual innuendo to female reporters? The guy is weird.  The Daily also apparently helped him in the lady department.I hear he liked to imagine himself in his cape and tights frombying a girl to his good buddy Jon. Weiner is a joke.

[patrick1]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/audio/anthony-weiner-makes-lewd-jokes-female-reporter/

So comfortable lying.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I hate contributing to anything relating to this issue, but I found this "dramatic reading" of one of the chat logs on Real Time w/ Bill Maher hilarious: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leeS7IKqBxw

[milhouse24]

I did see a liberal bias especially attacking Breitbart for being the "hacker" and putting up fake photos.  Of course, Breitbart could get into worse trouble if he posts "naked photos" on the website, which could alert NSFW censors on google, and I think there are some other legal issues of posting unspecified/defamatory naked photos by newspapers. 

Like most technologically and culturally savvy people, knew deep down that Weiner sent the photo and had at the very least a few online girlfriends.  But the evidence was very minimal because it was just one photo that only 1 person saw, and sent to Breitbart.  If it was just that 1 photo, and no other women came forward, then Weiner would have survived and could have blamed it on a mysterious technical malfunction.  But the 1 photo was certainly serious enough for the RW to smell blood in the water and take Weiner down. 

But the liberal media, was confused because there was only 1 photo evidence, and you couldn't identify the person in the grey boxer briefs.  So there was no evidence that it was Weiner in the photo or that he specifically sent the link.  Also, if I was Cordova, I would have my lawyer contact Weiner for some "pain and suffering money."  Jon Stewart wasn't sure if it was definitely Weiner in the photo and "Weiner claimed he did not send the photo" so you have to believe him because he was not yet caught in a lie.

But everyone was just waiting for more evidence and the other shoe to drop.  And just as expected, more women came out with more Weiner photos, and Weiner finally confessed.

Lessons learned:  Don't open any e-mails from a guy named Weiner!!!

[CitizenX]

I did see a liberal bias especially attacking Breitbart for being the "hacker" and putting up fake photos.  Of course, Breitbart could get into worse trouble if he posts "naked photos" on the website, which could alert NSFW censors on google, and I think there are some other legal issues of posting unspecified/defamatory naked photos by newspapers. 

Like most technologically and culturally savvy people, knew deep down that Weiner sent the photo and had at the very least a few online girlfriends.  But the evidence was very minimal because it was just one photo that only 1 person saw, and sent to Breitbart.  If it was just that 1 photo, and no other women came forward, then Weiner would have survived and could have blamed it on a mysterious technical malfunction.  But the 1 photo was certainly serious enough for the RW to smell blood in the water and take Weiner down. 

But the liberal media, was confused because there was only 1 photo evidence, and you couldn't identify the person in the grey boxer briefs.  So there was no evidence that it was Weiner in the photo or that he specifically sent the link.  Also, if I was Cordova, I would have my lawyer contact Weiner for some "pain and suffering money."  Jon Stewart wasn't sure if it was definitely Weiner in the photo and "Weiner claimed he did not send the photo" so you have to believe him because he was not yet caught in a lie.

But everyone was just waiting for more evidence and the other shoe to drop.  And just as expected, more women came out with more Weiner photos, and Weiner finally confessed.

Lessons learned:  Don't open any e-mails from a guy named Weiner!!!

You right wingers can watch the weather channel and see liberal bias.  Unfortunately reality is liberally biased.

Where do you prefer to get your information from?  Sarah Palin?  Rick Santorum?  Tells us again the story of Paul Revere's midnight ride?  What were the men on Omaha Beach fighting for again?

Breitbart is a known liar.  Even liars tell the truth sometimes but you would be a fool to trust them without a substantial amount of verification.  Its called journalism!

[Lunar]

DNC Chair just released a statement calling for Weiner's resignation.

Tick, tock..

[Lunar]

Steve Israel too.

[Lunar]

Nancy Pelosi too!

Will Weiner make it through the weekend?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Nancy Pelosi too!

Will Weiner make it through the weekend?

Probably. He is SO enamored with the sound of his voice.