Given how desperate House members normally are to fill the coffers for reelection, the amount of scandal cooties on that cash must be near biohazard levels. Pelosi also went ahead and published her letter calling for a House ethics investigation of Weiner, just to give him an extra little nudge towards the door from the top.
For a guy who was so quick to pick up on cues from his lady Twitter followers, he sure is slow to take a hint about resigning.
Weiner has said he would “welcome and fully cooperate” with the probe. However, a senior Democratic aide said Pelosi’s letter was not required, and her releasing it was more of a political move.
“This certainly adds pressure for him to go,” said the senior Democratic aide, who spoke on condition of not being identified…
By Tuesday afternoon, two House Democrats from competitive districts announced they were donating campaign contributions from Weiner to charity.
A spokesman for Rep. Betty Sutton, D-Ohio, said she will make a $1,000 donation to local charities instead of keeping the campaign contribution from Weiner.
Minnesota Democratic Rep. Tim Walz also decided to give to charity the $3,000 he received from Weiner.
And yet, and yet, another poll of New Yorkers out tonight shows him doing surprisingly well. His mayoral ambitions are finished, of course — 56 percent say he shouldn’t bother running — but 51 percent think he should keep his House seat versus 30 percent who say he shouldn’t. The latter would be a huge problem in a primary or even the general election if the election were held next month, but assuming there aren’t too many more “check out this bulge” e-mail transcripts still to be revealed, that number will ebb in time. Some local Democratic leaders are sticking by him for now too. All he needs to do is lie low, be contrite, and wait for this to fade away and he’ll be well positioned to run for reelection — until, er, the alleged X-rated photo that he sent to one of his lady friends surfaces and kills his campaign in its tracks.
Via Breitbart TV, here’s crack CNN reporter Wolf Blitzer explaining how, after interviewing Weiner, he really did believe his story that the Twitter account was hacked but the now-infamous underwear pic might have been of him anyway. Which, of course, was one of the most insane aspects of Weiner’s version of what happened, as Ace pointed out in about 20 different posts. It would make sense that Weiner accidentally tweeted a bona fide picture of himself; it would also make sense, in theory, that a hacker inserted a picture of some other man into his Twitter stream to frame him. But why would someone who had an actual photo of Weiner in his skivvies go to the trouble of trying to break into his account to post it when that person could have released the photo in other ways? For that matter, if the goal was to frame Weiner with an embarrassing photo of an unidentifiable man, why not use a much more graphic/embarrassing photo swiped from some porn site somewhere on the Internet? Makes no sense. And yet Wolf was convinced. Go figure.