Will Anthony Weiner get his 10 years in Prison?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting info in this report. I still think Weiner is execrable, but...

* Girl was 16, not 15, so over the age of consent in NC
* She made the first contact with Weiner
* She lied about she and her family being Clinton supporters
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/334511-report-girl-in-weiner-sexting-case-lied-to-damage-clinton#.WSMRa9vYu1U.facebook

She is a f!cking scumbag and her parents are as execrable as Weiner. Wow. They lied to get more $ from a tabloid and her dad, a practicing attorney, negotiated for payment for the girl, for the family and Sydney Leathers - known before this came out.

Her parents' actions made no sense before (selling story), but it makes sense if that's true.

This info is directly from Louise Mensch. I'm not sure how accurate it is. If it were true why would he not fight and force the 16 year old to appear in court?

Weiner is a perve and he is the root cause of the Comey letter etc. He helped put 45 in the White House. Good riddance. May he fade from notoriety forever.

because the fact that she's 16 and closer to 17 not 15 is legally irrelevant. 16 is 16. She is a minor. WTF, I'm amazed at how so many people lack even the most basic understanding of the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He doesn't deserve prison for this. The girl he texted with was off a stint of pursing a teacher, and sought out Weinber.
Just like his other bims, she and her folks sold the story to a tabloid. He should have to register as a sex offender, which is life-ending for him, and ended his marriage and will mess with his custody, but prison is ridiculous.

I don't understand your point. Why doesn't he deserve prison time? I used to be a teacher. Several underage girls came on to me. That makes no difference. I was supposed to be the mature one. I would have deserved prison if I had taken any of these girls up on their offers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How come Weiner is getting a few years and this guy gets 20?


http://nypost.com/2017/05/18/secret-service-agent-who-sexted-teens-from-white-house-headed-to-prison/

To be honest, I think it's a fair question. They both pleaded guilty.

My guess it is that the secret service guy had multiple counts against him. It may also depend on the jurisdiction. The fact that he was in the secret service may have been a factor. Apparently, prosecutors were seeking life in prison, which seems a little extreme. Why bother pleading when you're going to have the book thrown at you either way? I feel weird for defending a guy who sent dick picks to underage girls.

Secret Service people have it rough. Several were fired recently for hiring prostitutes in a country where prostitution is legal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting info in this report. I still think Weiner is execrable, but...

* Girl was 16, not 15, so over the age of consent in NC
* She made the first contact with Weiner
* She lied about she and her family being Clinton supporters
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/334511-report-girl-in-weiner-sexting-case-lied-to-damage-clinton#.WSMRa9vYu1U.facebook

She is a f!cking scumbag and her parents are as execrable as Weiner. Wow. They lied to get more $ from a tabloid and her dad, a practicing attorney, negotiated for payment for the girl, for the family and Sydney Leathers - known before this came out.

Her parents' actions made no sense before (selling story), but it makes sense if that's true.

This info is directly from Louise Mensch. I'm not sure how accurate it is. If it were true why would he not fight and force the 16 year old to appear in court?

Weiner is a perve and he is the root cause of the Comey letter etc. He helped put 45 in the White House. Good riddance. May he fade from notoriety forever.

because the fact that she's 16 and closer to 17 not 15 is legally irrelevant. 16 is 16. She is a minor. WTF, I'm amazed at how so many people lack even the most basic understanding of the law.

You're right obviously that this is federal (under 18 equals guilt) and that age of consent only matters with physical acts.

That being written, if this was some sickness where a conservative family used their 16, not 15, year old as bait and sought payment from tabloids and not help from legal authorities, I hope the family is outed. I read the Daily Mail piece and thought it was so strange they did not call police themselves, and that on he girls letter to Weiner, she, a "fan," sneered that Huma was really married to Hillary. To hell with that disgusting family, and what a shame
If people want to play scum games with a broad impact, they should all win scum prizes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He doesn't deserve prison for this. The girl he texted with was off a stint of pursing a teacher, and sought out Weinber.
Just like his other bims, she and her folks sold the story to a tabloid. He should have to register as a sex offender, which is life-ending for him, and ended his marriage and will mess with his custody, but prison is ridiculous.

I don't understand your point. Why doesn't he deserve prison time? I used to be a teacher. Several underage girls came on to me. That makes no difference. I was supposed to be the mature one. I would have deserved prison if I had taken any of these girls up on their offers.

He definitely deserves prison, if it hadn't been this teenager (whether she initiated it or not), eventually it would have been something else. He is a sexual predator, their behavior escalates, as we clearly see with Weiner. He wasn't going to stop until serious rock bottom. Because losing his job in Congress, in a hugely humiliating way, wasn't enough. Running for mayor, filming a documentary and getting caught again, on camera, on film, that is then distributed, wasn't enough. Putting his marriage and parenthood in serious jeopardy, wasn't enough. It isn't a victimless crime, and he should thank his lucky stars that the girl never sent him any nude pictures, because then he would have a very serious child porn charge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He doesn't deserve prison for this. The girl he texted with was off a stint of pursing a teacher, and sought out Weinber.
Just like his other bims, she and her folks sold the story to a tabloid. He should have to register as a sex offender, which is life-ending for him, and ended his marriage and will mess with his custody, but prison is ridiculous.

I don't understand your point. Why doesn't he deserve prison time? I used to be a teacher. Several underage girls came on to me. That makes no difference. I was supposed to be the mature one. I would have deserved prison if I had taken any of these girls up on their offers.

He definitely deserves prison, if it hadn't been this teenager (whether she initiated it or not), eventually it would have been something else. He is a sexual predator, their behavior escalates, as we clearly see with Weiner. He wasn't going to stop until serious rock bottom. Because losing his job in Congress, in a hugely humiliating way, wasn't enough. Running for mayor, filming a documentary and getting caught again, on camera, on film, that is then distributed, wasn't enough. Putting his marriage and parenthood in serious jeopardy, wasn't enough. It isn't a victimless crime, and he should thank his lucky stars that the girl never sent him any nude pictures, because then he would have a very serious child porn charge.

+1 all so very true

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He doesn't deserve prison for this. The girl he texted with was off a stint of pursing a teacher, and sought out Weinber.
Just like his other bims, she and her folks sold the story to a tabloid. He should have to register as a sex offender, which is life-ending for him, and ended his marriage and will mess with his custody, but prison is ridiculous.

I don't understand your point. Why doesn't he deserve prison time? I used to be a teacher. Several underage girls came on to me. That makes no difference. I was supposed to be the mature one. I would have deserved prison if I had taken any of these girls up on their offers.

He definitely deserves prison, if it hadn't been this teenager (whether she initiated it or not), eventually it would have been something else. He is a sexual predator, their behavior escalates, as we clearly see with Weiner. He wasn't going to stop until serious rock bottom. Because losing his job in Congress, in a hugely humiliating way, wasn't enough. Running for mayor, filming a documentary and getting caught again, on camera, on film, that is then distributed, wasn't enough. Putting his marriage and parenthood in serious jeopardy, wasn't enough. It isn't a victimless crime, and he should thank his lucky stars that the girl never sent him any nude pictures, because then he would have a very serious child porn charge.

+1 all so very true

But why did this girl ask him to skype with her thru twitter as soon as they met after his sex scandal with porn star sydney leathers? She was hitting on a 50 yr old man and knew about the scandal before she messaged him

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He doesn't deserve prison for this. The girl he texted with was off a stint of pursing a teacher, and sought out Weinber.
Just like his other bims, she and her folks sold the story to a tabloid. He should have to register as a sex offender, which is life-ending for him, and ended his marriage and will mess with his custody, but prison is ridiculous.

I don't understand your point. Why doesn't he deserve prison time? I used to be a teacher. Several underage girls came on to me. That makes no difference. I was supposed to be the mature one. I would have deserved prison if I had taken any of these girls up on their offers.

If you take them up on their offer yes but weiner didnt touch the girl. He was also sexting several other older women when he flirted with this one. Also if the girl was acting like an adult drinking and sexing she is more likely to make immoral choices than an adult who does not.

[Anonymous]

Anthony Wiener and Huma are the oddest couple in American politics. In what faith, if any, are they raising Jordan? Do the grandparents decide?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting info in this report. I still think Weiner is execrable, but...

* Girl was 16, not 15, so over the age of consent in NC
* She made the first contact with Weiner
* She lied about she and her family being Clinton supporters
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/334511-report-girl-in-weiner-sexting-case-lied-to-damage-clinton#.WSMRa9vYu1U.facebook

She is a f!cking scumbag and her parents are as execrable as Weiner. Wow. They lied to get more $ from a tabloid and her dad, a practicing attorney, negotiated for payment for the girl, for the family and Sydney Leathers - known before this came out.

Her parents' actions made no sense before (selling story), but it makes sense if that's true.

This info is directly from Louise Mensch. I'm not sure how accurate it is. If it were true why would he not fight and force the 16 year old to appear in court?

Weiner is a perve and he is the root cause of the Comey letter etc. He helped put 45 in the White House. Good riddance. May he fade from notoriety forever.

I don't think The Hill is in the business of copying Louise Mensch without verification.

[Anonymous]

He is index the root cause of the Comey letter.

He also caused his own downfall from congress, with no one else to blame but himself.

He also had an insurmountable lead in the NYC mayor's race, until he alone caused his own downfall.

Yet still, a few die-hard democrats - on this site and elsewhere - toil to defend this predator.

Why is that?

Is it now "party over predators" ??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He is index the root cause of the Comey letter.

He also caused his own downfall from congress, with no one else to blame but himself.

He also had an insurmountable lead in the NYC mayor's race, until he alone caused his own downfall.

Yet still, a few die-hard democrats - on this site and elsewhere - toil to defend this predator.

Why is that?

Is it now "party over predators" ??

The Comey letter was classified until Jason Chaffetz removed the "c" markings and put it on his twitter feed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He doesn't deserve prison for this. The girl he texted with was off a stint of pursing a teacher, and sought out Weinber.
Just like his other bims, she and her folks sold the story to a tabloid. He should have to register as a sex offender, which is life-ending for him, and ended his marriage and will mess with his custody, but prison is ridiculous.

I don't understand your point. Why doesn't he deserve prison time? I used to be a teacher. Several underage girls came on to me. That makes no difference. I was supposed to be the mature one. I would have deserved prison if I had taken any of these girls up on their offers.

If you take them up on their offer yes but weiner didnt touch the girl. He was also sexting several other older women when he flirted with this one. Also if the girl was acting like an adult drinking and sexing she is more likely to make immoral choices than an adult who does not.

You are talking about things the girl did that, you feel, make her partially responsible for Weiner's behaviour and thus, you seem to feel, that sonce she is partially responsible, Weiner doesn't deserve harsher or any punishment.

Most sexual crimes involving minors don't work on the theory of "contributory negligence" (which is reallly a concept that applies more to torts than crimes anyway). The basic understanding in the law is that minors do not have the capacity for informed consent to certain sexual behaviours. For example, possession of a naked picture of a minor is child porn whether or not the minor consented to the taking and giving of the photo, i.e. that even their apparent willing involvement cannot be read as "consent". Some crimes are "statutory" in the sense that they do not require an analysis of intent or consent. It's straight up, if you do the crime you get the time. Soliciting a minor online is such a crime.

Some sexual behaviour the law does think a minor can consent to - sex above a certain age but below age of majority as long as the partner is within 4 years. There are lots of reasons the law views this as OK. But deciding a 16 y.o. is be able to consent to sex with a 20 y.o. is far different than sexual talk between a 16 yo and a 50 yo. Legally, we say that the 50 yo is really the one in that situation who has the burden to turn away the minor, no matter how manipulative, enticing or willing. Because as a community we say that the 50 yo is capable of knowing his duty and acting on it, whereas the minor is not old enough to make rational jusgments and act on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He doesn't deserve prison for this. The girl he texted with was off a stint of pursing a teacher, and sought out Weinber.
Just like his other bims, she and her folks sold the story to a tabloid. He should have to register as a sex offender, which is life-ending for him, and ended his marriage and will mess with his custody, but prison is ridiculous.

I don't understand your point. Why doesn't he deserve prison time? I used to be a teacher. Several underage girls came on to me. That makes no difference. I was supposed to be the mature one. I would have deserved prison if I had taken any of these girls up on their offers.

If you take them up on their offer yes but weiner didnt touch the girl. He was also sexting several other older women when he flirted with this one. Also if the girl was acting like an adult drinking and sexing she is more likely to make immoral choices than an adult who does not.

You are talking about things the girl did that, you feel, make her partially responsible for Weiner's behaviour and thus, you seem to feel, that sonce she is partially responsible, Weiner doesn't deserve harsher or any punishment.

Most sexual crimes involving minors don't work on the theory of "contributory negligence" (which is reallly a concept that applies more to torts than crimes anyway). The basic understanding in the law is that minors do not have the capacity for informed consent to certain sexual behaviours. For example, possession of a naked picture of a minor is child porn whether or not the minor consented to the taking and giving of the photo, i.e. that even their apparent willing involvement cannot be read as "consent". Some crimes are "statutory" in the sense that they do not require an analysis of intent or consent. It's straight up, if you do the crime you get the time. Soliciting a minor online is such a crime.

Some sexual behaviour the law does think a minor can consent to - sex above a certain age but below age of majority as long as the partner is within 4 years. There are lots of reasons the law views this as OK. But deciding a 16 y.o. is be able to consent to sex with a 20 y.o. is far different than sexual talk between a 16 yo and a 50 yo. Legally, we say that the 50 yo is really the one in that situation who has the burden to turn away the minor, no matter how manipulative, enticing or willing. Because as a community we say that the 50 yo is capable of knowing his duty and acting on it, whereas the minor is not old enough to make rational jusgments and act on them.

True. When I was 13 I was sexually harassed by a 70 yr old. All he got by the liberal judge was a restraining order which was kind of hard to follow considering he was a next door neighbor! The judge just excused him as feeling he was too old and that his culture (asian) was different and that they didn't allow that here. However when I was sexually harassed I wore a thick sweater and high waist jeans. The 16 yr old girl in this case dressed sexy and asked weiner to skype with her after finding out about his sexting scandal with pornstar sydney leathers and flirted with him. Now he gets 20 years without never touching her and her provoking me. Correct me if i'm wrong but that just doesn't make sense despite what the weirdo system dictates is legal or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He doesn't deserve prison for this. The girl he texted with was off a stint of pursing a teacher, and sought out Weinber.
Just like his other bims, she and her folks sold the story to a tabloid. He should have to register as a sex offender, which is life-ending for him, and ended his marriage and will mess with his custody, but prison is ridiculous.

I don't understand your point. Why doesn't he deserve prison time? I used to be a teacher. Several underage girls came on to me. That makes no difference. I was supposed to be the mature one. I would have deserved prison if I had taken any of these girls up on their offers.

If you take them up on their offer yes but weiner didnt touch the girl. He was also sexting several other older women when he flirted with this one. Also if the girl was acting like an adult drinking and sexing she is more likely to make immoral choices than an adult who does not.

You are talking about things the girl did that, you feel, make her partially responsible for Weiner's behaviour and thus, you seem to feel, that sonce she is partially responsible, Weiner doesn't deserve harsher or any punishment.

Most sexual crimes involving minors don't work on the theory of "contributory negligence" (which is reallly a concept that applies more to torts than crimes anyway). The basic understanding in the law is that minors do not have the capacity for informed consent to certain sexual behaviours. For example, possession of a naked picture of a minor is child porn whether or not the minor consented to the taking and giving of the photo, i.e. that even their apparent willing involvement cannot be read as "consent". Some crimes are "statutory" in the sense that they do not require an analysis of intent or consent. It's straight up, if you do the crime you get the time. Soliciting a minor online is such a crime.

Some sexual behaviour the law does think a minor can consent to - sex above a certain age but below age of majority as long as the partner is within 4 years. There are lots of reasons the law views this as OK. But deciding a 16 y.o. is be able to consent to sex with a 20 y.o. is far different than sexual talk between a 16 yo and a 50 yo. Legally, we say that the 50 yo is really the one in that situation who has the burden to turn away the minor, no matter how manipulative, enticing or willing. Because as a community we say that the 50 yo is capable of knowing his duty and acting on it, whereas the minor is not old enough to make rational jusgments and act on them.

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
He doesn't deserve prison for this. The girl he texted with was off a stint of pursing a teacher, and sought out Weinber.
Just like his other bims, she and her folks sold the story to a tabloid. He should have to register as a sex offender, which is life-ending for him, and ended his marriage and will mess with his custody, but prison is ridiculous.


I don't understand your point. Why doesn't he deserve prison time? I used to be a teacher. Several underage girls came on to me. That makes no difference. I was supposed to be the mature one. I would have deserved prison if I had taken any of these girls up on their offers.


If you take them up on their offer yes but weiner didnt touch the girl. He was also sexting several other older women when he flirted with this one. Also if the girl was acting like an adult drinking and sexing she is more likely to make immoral choices than an adult who does not.


You are talking about things the girl did that, you feel, make her partially responsible for Weiner's behaviour and thus, you seem to feel, that sonce she is partially responsible, Weiner doesn't deserve harsher or any punishment.

Most sexual crimes involving minors don't work on the theory of "contributory negligence" (which is reallly a concept that applies more to torts than crimes anyway). The basic understanding in the law is that minors do not have the capacity for informed consent to certain sexual behaviours. For example, possession of a naked picture of a minor is child porn whether or not the minor consented to the taking and giving of the photo, i.e. that even their apparent willing involvement cannot be read as "consent". Some crimes are "statutory" in the sense that they do not require an analysis of intent or consent. It's straight up, if you do the crime you get the time. Soliciting a minor online is such a crime.

Some sexual behaviour the law does think a minor can consent to - sex above a certain age but below age of majority as long as the partner is within 4 years. There are lots of reasons the law views this as OK. But deciding a 16 y.o. is be able to consent to sex with a 20 y.o. is far different than sexual talk between a 16 yo and a 50 yo. Legally, we say that the 50 yo is really the one in that situation who has the burden to turn away the minor, no matter how manipulative, enticing or willing. Because as a community we say that the 50 yo is capable of knowing his duty and acting on it, whereas the minor is not old enough to make rational jusgments and act on them.



True. When I was 13 I was sexually harassed by a 70 yr old. All he got by the liberal judge was a restraining order which was kind of hard to follow considering he was a next door neighbor! The judge just excused him as feeling he was too old and that his culture (asian) was different and that they didn't allow that here. However when I was sexually harassed I wore a thick sweater and high waist jeans. The 16 yr old girl in this case dressed sexy and asked weiner to skype with her after finding out about his sexting scandal with pornstar sydney leathers and flirted with him. Now he gets 20 years without never touching her and her provoking him. Correct me if i'm wrong but that just doesn't make sense despite what the weirdo system dictates is legal or not.