PDA

View Full Version : So it begins... Louisiana Senator apologizes for being a whore.


Sam Hall
07-09-2007, 11:06 PM
Lawmaker’s number on escort service list
Sen. Vitter apologizes for ‘a very serious sin in my past’

WASHINGTON - Sen. David Vitter, R-La., apologized Monday night for “a very serious sin in my past” after his telephone number appeared among those associated with an escort service operated by the so-called “D.C. Madam.”

Vitter’s spokesman, Joel Digrado, confirmed the statement in an e-mail sent to The Associated Press.

“This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible,” Vitter said in the statement. “Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there — with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way.”

The statement containing Vitter’s apology said his telephone number was on old phone records of Pamela Martin and Associates before he ran for the Senate.

Deborah Jeane Palfrey was accused in federal court of racketeering by running a prostitution ring that netted more than $2 million over 13 years, beginning in 1993. She contends, however, that her escort service, Pamela Martin and Associates, was a legitimate business.

Vitter, 46, a Republican in his first Senate term, was elected to the Senate in 2004. He represented Louisiana’s 1st Congressional District in the House from 1999 to 2004.

Vitter and his wife, Wendy, live in Metairie, La., with their four children.

Palfrey’s attorney, Montgomery Blair Sibley, told the AP, “I’m stunned that someone would be apologizing for this.” He said Palfrey had posted the phone numbers of her escort service’s clients online Monday, but he did not know whether Vitter’s number was among them. Vitter’s statement was sent to the AP’s New Orleans bureau Monday evening.

Palfrey’s Web site contains 20 compressed files of phone records, dating from August 1994 to August 2006. No names are listed, only phone numbers. Palfrey wrote on the Web site that she believed a disk containing the records had been pirated, and wrote that she was posting the records “to thwart any possible distorted version and to ensure the integrity of the information.”

Silas Lee, a political analyst and pollster in New Orleans, spoke Monday about the possible political impact on Vitter.

“In the short term, I think the issue will dominate the discourse for a few days and weeks, and though he’s up for re-election in 2010, it should dissipate by then,” Lee told WWL-TV in New Orleans.

“But for some of his very conservative constituents, it might not be as easy. In their mind and eyes, they may not be able to forgive. The majority may overlook it in time depending on his job performance and how sincere voters believe he wants them to forgive him.”

Earlier this year Palfrey, 51, of Vallejo, Calif., asked the Supreme Court to delay the criminal case against her — a request the court denied in May. Her attorney had argued that it was unfair to proceed against Palfrey because her assets remain seized in a civil forfeiture case, meaning she lacks the money to hire an attorney of her choice.

Randall Tobias, a senior official in the State Department, resigned in April after ABC News confronted him about his use of the escort service. He admitted that he had hired women to come to his Washington condo and give him massages but denied that he had sex with the escorts.

Palfrey threatened for months to release her client list, which led prosecutors to accuse her of trying to intimidate potential witnesses.

Contending that her escort service was legal, Palfrey revealed details of its operation on ABC’s news magazine “20/20” on May 4. At the time, ABC said it could not link any information provided by Palfrey to members of Congress or White House officials but did find links to prominent business executives, NASA officials and at least five military officers.

Prosecutors contend that Palfrey knew the 130 women she employed over 13 years were engaged in prostitution. She claims that she operated a “legal, high-end erotic fantasy service” and that the women signed contracts in which they promised not to have sex with clients. The service charged a flat rate of $275 for 90 minutes, she said.

Palfrey pleaded guilty to pimping charges in 1991 and was sentenced to 18 months in a California prison.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19685977/

recxjake
07-09-2007, 11:08 PM
REPOST

Gracie Dean
07-09-2007, 11:16 PM
We need a U.S. Senator who will stand up for Louisiana values, not Massachusetts’s values. I am the only Senate Candidate to coauthor the Federal Marriage Amendment; the only one fighting for its passage. I am the only candidate proposing changes to the senate rules to stop liberal obstructionists from preventing an up or down vote on issues like this, judges, energy, and on and on.” stated David Vitter.

HolmeZz
07-09-2007, 11:24 PM
Well, as long as God forgave him.

Ugly Duck
07-09-2007, 11:25 PM
Dang... yet another sicko perverted Republican sex-maniac prevert! The GOP is lousy with these vermin!

http://images.fotosearch.com/bigcomps/IGS/IGS449/IS631-061.jpg

memyselfI
07-10-2007, 05:39 AM
This is gift of the Clinton/Lewinsky saga...

and it is a gift that keeps on giving. The CONS can't keep their pants on and off in the right places. ROFL

Duck Dog
07-10-2007, 07:35 AM
The replies on this repost reads like a who's who of brain washed idiocy. I hope you all say the same shit when Dems names start popping up.

Radar Chief
07-10-2007, 07:49 AM
The replies on this repost reads like a who's who of brain washed idiocy. I hope you all say the same shit when Dems names start popping up.

I’m actually a little amazed you expected anything more than preprogrammed responses from the DU sheeple here. ;)

penchief
07-10-2007, 09:02 AM
I’m actually a little amazed you expected anything more than preprogrammed responses from the DU sheeple here. ;)

You guys gotta be kidding me. The hypocricy on the right is unbelievable. I have no doubt that there are plenty of democrats on that list. But it's the right wing that has tried to make sex and personal morality the most important issues in our democracy. They tried to overthrow a president because of a blow job. And they were pretty high and mighty about their moral superiority while doing it.

I personally don't care about someone else's private sex life. I do care about the sickening level of hypocricy that surrounds the politicization of someone else's private sex life. You guys brought this on. I would have been much happier if the whole Clinton thing had never happened. But some of those same people who were thumping podiums and bibles during the Clinton witch hunts are some of the biggest hypocrites this country has ever seen.

I'd like to see this kind of crap go away but I'm also not adverse to seeing hypocricy exposed. It just might help open some eyes about the way we choose our leaders and the way lip service has played a major role in the usurpation of the people's power.

Radar Chief
07-10-2007, 09:45 AM
You guys gotta be kidding me. The hypocricy on the right is unbelievable. I have no doubt that there are plenty of democrats on that list. But it's the right wing that has tried to make sex and personal morality the most important issues in our democracy. They tried to overthrow a president because of a blow job. And they were pretty high and mighty about their moral superiority while doing it.

I personally don't care about someone else's private sex life. I do care about the sickening level of hypocricy that surrounds the politicization of someone else's private sex life. You guys brought this on. I would have been much happier if the whole Clinton thing had never happened. But some of those same people who were thumping podiums and bibles during the Clinton witch hunts are some of the biggest hypocrites this country has ever seen.

I'd like to see this kind of crap go away but I'm also not adverse to seeing hypocricy exposed. It just might help open some eyes about the way we choose our leaders and the way lip service has played a major role in the usurpation of the people's power.

And everything is always the fault of these omnipotent “you guys”. Thanks for the predictability penchief. :thumb:

Cochise
07-10-2007, 09:48 AM
It's funny how when a Senator from the same state was found to have a freezer full of money and was on tape taking bribes, no one cared. But this guy - string him up.

Not that I'm on his side. I wish the voters would replace him with someone with integrity. If you ask me, if your wife can't trust you then voters shouldn't either.

Radar Chief
07-10-2007, 09:50 AM
It's funny how when a Senator from the same state was found to have a freezer full of money and was on tape taking bribes, no one cared. But this guy - string him up.

Not that I'm on his side. I wish the voters would replace him with someone with integrity. If you ask me, if your wife can't trust you then voters shouldn't either.

The problem is he didn’t bite his bottom lip while claiming to “feel their pain”. ;)

Baby Lee
07-10-2007, 09:52 AM
And everything is always the fault of these omnipotent “you guys”. Thanks for the predictability penchief. :thumb:
penchief prays fervently that someday you finally manage to see the world with his peculiar acuity.

penchief
07-10-2007, 10:27 AM
And everything is always the fault of these omnipotent “you guys”. Thanks for the predictability penchief. :thumb:

You're right. I shouldn't have put that in there but it does seem like "you guys" do an awful lot of justifying and enabling when it comes to this issue. It's not hypocritical on one's part to point out gross hypocricy like that practiced by the republicans over this issue.

penchief
07-10-2007, 10:35 AM
It's funny how when a Senator from the same state was found to have a freezer full of money and was on tape taking bribes, no one cared. But this guy - string him up.

Not that I'm on his side. I wish the voters would replace him with someone with integrity. If you ask me, if your wife can't trust you then voters shouldn't either.

Nobody asked me. I cared. I'd like to know what else he was guilty of. They all need to be accountable when it comes to issues directly related to good governance and corruption. But a person's private life should be left private unless that person commits a crime or violates the rights of others.

I think the thing that is really pertinent when it comes to the issue of hypocricy is the gross abuses of power by this administration. When considering that they swept into office on the coat tails of a manufactured scandal that placed personal morality on top of the priority list, I would have to say that is mighty hypocritical. Now that they are in power they have no regard for anything, including the law or the standards that they held the previous administration to.

penchief
07-10-2007, 10:35 AM
penchief prays fervently that someday you finally manage to see the world with his peculiar acuity.

No. I'm just asking for a little objectivity.

Cochise
07-10-2007, 12:30 PM
Nobody asked me. I cared. I'd like to know what else he was guilty of. They all need to be accountable when it comes to issues directly related to good governance and corruption. But a person's private life should be left private unless that person commits a crime or violates the rights of others.

I think the thing that is really pertinent when it comes to the issue of hypocricy is the gross abuses of power by this administration. When considering that they swept into office on the coat tails of a manufactured scandal that placed personal morality on top of the priority list, I would have to say that is mighty hypocritical. Now that they are in power they have no regard for anything, including the law or the standards that they held the previous administration to.

Is it in the news? Has he resigned from Congress? Is he getting pressure from the Democratic leadership to do so?

Yeah, I know, Bush sucks, that's the excuse for everything.

Duck Dog
07-10-2007, 01:30 PM
No. I'm just asking for a little objectivity.


From whom? UD, HolmZz or meme?

Baby Lee
07-10-2007, 01:36 PM
From whom? UD, HolmZz or meme?
C'mon now, pen just wants us all to rebuke those who have raped our cherished ideals and embrace those who love the people and put them first. How difficult is this to understand?

trndobrd
07-10-2007, 01:46 PM
C'mon now, pen just wants us all to rebuke those who have raped our cherished ideals and embrace those who love the people and put them first. How difficult is this to understand?


Do I need to be at the Peabody in Little Rock to do all this embracing and loving?

penchief
07-10-2007, 04:54 PM
From whom? UD, HolmZz or meme?

No, from the 25% that won't face the fact that they've been had.

penchief
07-10-2007, 05:02 PM
Is it in the news? Has he resigned from Congress? Is he getting pressure from the Democratic leadership to do so?

Yeah, I know, Bush sucks, that's the excuse for everything.

It's been in the news on a couple of shows I listen to. Look, I'm all for cleaning up the entire bunch of them. It's just that we should be in crisis mode right now. This administration keeps ramming its agenda down our throats. The clampdown is in progress. They answer to no one. At what point is enough enough?

At what point will the rest of you say enough is enough? At what point will patteeu say enough is enough?

Baby Lee
07-10-2007, 05:08 PM
No, from the 25% that won't face the fact that they've been had.
penchief X!!

penchief
07-10-2007, 05:45 PM
penchief X!!

Please, call me Z in honor of my Zorro complex.

penchief
07-10-2007, 05:48 PM
C'mon now, pen just wants us all to rebuke those who have raped our cherished ideals and embrace those who love the people and put them first. How difficult is this to understand?

You're getting warmer.

stevieray
07-10-2007, 06:16 PM
No, from the 25% that won't face the fact that they've been had.

because we all know it's a just a popularity contest.

penchief
07-10-2007, 06:23 PM
because we all know it's a just a popularity contest.

It's not about popularity contests. Bush has already won all the popularity contests. It's about consequences. It's about something much more serious than rhetoric. I hope that recognition strikes you in a meaningful way someday.

Adept Havelock
07-10-2007, 07:10 PM
Please, call me Z in honor of my Zorro complex.


How about DQ...for all the tilting at windmills?

Sancho! My Armor!

:p

Besides, Z was an ant voiced by Woody Allen. Do you really want to be associated with that?

penchief
07-10-2007, 07:14 PM
How about DQ...for all the tilting at windmills?

Sancho! My Armor!

:p

Besides, Z was an ant voiced by Woody Allen. Do you really want to be associated with that?

Hey, I can relate to DQ, too.

stevieray
07-10-2007, 07:34 PM
It's not about popularity contests..


yes it is..to the point that you'd use said opinion poll as a means to feel the need to put the 25% percent down and feel validated in your rhetoric against them.

Logical
07-10-2007, 07:45 PM
It's funny how when a Senator from the same state was found to have a freezer full of money and was on tape taking bribes, no one cared. But this guy - string him up.

Not that I'm on his side. I wish the voters would replace him with someone with integrity. If you ask me, if your wife can't trust you then voters shouldn't either.

1st of all he is being prosecuted and I believe he was re-elected by the people of his state after the money was found in the freezer. I also believe he is no longer in congress (by the way I think it was a Rep not a Sen but I could have that wrong). So I don't really see your point.

penchief
07-10-2007, 07:54 PM
yes it is..to the point that you'd use said opinion poll as a means to feel the need to put the 25% percent down and feel validated in your rhetoric against them.

But when you're talking about corrupt leadership and unjust wars, the peoples' sentiment about their government's activities is very relevant.

Elections might be popularity contests but the same cannot be said about the people's opinions when it comes to substantive issues directly affecting their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Logical
07-10-2007, 07:58 PM
But when you're talking about corrupt leadership and unjust wars, the peoples' sentiment about their government's activities is very relevant.

Elections might be popularity contests but the same cannot be said about the people's opinions when it comes to substantive issues directly affecting their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

You truly are wasting your time arguing with Stevie, he has become a seagull poster here in DC and just wants to provoke you. Don't expect real reasoned arguments from him. He quit providing those in DC years ago.

stevieray
07-10-2007, 08:15 PM
But when you're talking about corrupt leadership and unjust wars, the peoples' sentiment about their government's activities is very relevant.

Elections might be popularity contests but the same cannot be said about the people's opinions when it comes to substantive issues directly affecting their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.


keep selling your fear and baseless claims, otherwise direct your attention to the dem congress who can't seem to make your charges hold water.

stevieray
07-10-2007, 08:16 PM
You truly are wasting your time arguing with Stevie, he has become a seagull poster here in DC and just wants to provoke you. Don't expect real reasoned arguments from him. He quit providing those in DC years ago.

I pray for your broken heart, Jim.

penchief
07-10-2007, 08:39 PM
keep selling your fear and baseless claims, otherwise direct your attention to the dem congress who can't seem to make your charges hold water.

Baseless claims? You know what? I wouldn't be so hard on this administration if they would just come clean about one single solitary thing. But when total secrecy is their standard operating procedure, even those people who possess blind faith have to start wondering.

What does it take to piss you off? What does it take to make you suspicious of these guys? Name one thing they've come clean on. Now think about all the things they've been dishonest about. Are you kidding me?

We hired them to safeguard our principles but they're taking a giant crap all over those principles in order to impose their eco-political will over the rest of us.

Logical
07-10-2007, 08:40 PM
I pray for your broken heart, Jim.Thanks Stevie, sincerely, because I know you mean that in the best possible way.:thumb:

KC Dan
07-10-2007, 09:16 PM
1st of all he is being prosecuted and I believe he was re-elected by the people of his state after the money was found in the freezer. I also believe he is no longer in congress (by the way I think it was a Rep not a Sen but I could have that wrong). So I don't really see your point.
He is a Rep, he is STILL in Congress (won erelection despite his crime) & is even on some ironic committees.

http://www.house.gov/jefferson/biography.shtml

"Jefferson is an active and senior member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee and its subcommittee on Trade. He is also a member of the House Committee on the Budget."

Now, ask Peloisi - Does this make sense?

WoodDraw
07-10-2007, 09:23 PM
He is a Rep, he is STILL in Congress (won erelection despite his crime) & is even on some ironic committees.

http://www.house.gov/jefferson/biography.shtml

"Jefferson is an active and senior member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee and its subcommittee on Trade. He is also a member of the House Committee on the Budget."

Now, ask Peloisi - Does this make sense?

The website is wrong - he was stripped of all committee assignments, as Pelosi publicy called for.

Logical
07-10-2007, 09:39 PM
He is a Rep, he is STILL in Congress (won erelection despite his crime) & is even on some ironic committees.

http://www.house.gov/jefferson/biography.shtml

"Jefferson is an active and senior member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee and its subcommittee on Trade. He is also a member of the House Committee on the Budget."

Now, ask Peloisi - Does this make sense?
You do realize he committed the offense when the Republicans were in power and they did nothing to him either. Not that this excuses the fact he is still in Congress but I suppose not guilty until proven otherwise stands even in Congress.

Adept Havelock
07-10-2007, 09:41 PM
You do realize he committed the offense when the Republicans were in power and they did nothing to him either.


Um, Logical? I think the issue is who was in power when he was confronted with the offense (i.e. when others found out about it) might be more germane than who was in power when he committed the offense.

Not sure who that was, to be honest.


Oh...and pardon me...."Allegedly committed the offense". That should satisfy the "innocent till proven guilty" bit.

Logical
07-10-2007, 09:48 PM
Um, Logical? I think the issue is who was in power when he was confronted with the offense (i.e. when others found out about it) might be more germane than who was in power when he committed the offense.

Not sure who that was, to be honest.


Oh...and pardon me...."Allegedly committed the offense". That should satisfy the "innocent till proven guilty" bit.It was discovered by at least May of 2006 see the linked article on CNN.comAffidavit: $90,000 found in congressman's freezer

FBI wraps up search of Jefferson's office in bribery probe

Monday, May 22, 2006; Posted: 10:13 a.m. EDT (14:13 GMT) Affidavit: $90,000 found in congressman's freezer

FBI wraps up search of Jefferson's office in bribery probe

Monday, May 22, 2006; Posted: 10:13 a.m. EDT (14:13 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Federal agents searched the Capitol Hill office of a Louisiana congressman under investigation on bribery charges Sunday, while newly released court papers said agents found $90,000 in cash last year in his Washington home.

In a 95-page affidavit used to obtain a warrant for the office search, investigators stated that an August 2005 search of Democratic Rep. William Jefferson's home turned up the cash sum in a freezer.

...http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/21/jefferson.search/index.html

Adept Havelock
07-10-2007, 09:51 PM
Thanks.

Regardless, if guilty, he needs to go.

If not guilty ( :rolleyes: ), he badly needs financial advice. The freezer is not a good place to invest money, IMO.

Logical
07-10-2007, 09:52 PM
Thanks.

Regardless, if guilty, he needs to go.

If not guilty ( :rolleyes: ), he badly needs financial advice. The freezer is not a good place to invest money, IMO.Perhaps he was trying to avoid the Capital Gains penalty. I doubt the IRS will let him get away with that.

Adept Havelock
07-10-2007, 10:08 PM
Perhaps he was trying to avoid the Capital Gains penalty. I doubt the IRS will let him get away with that.

:LOL:

Hmmm...I hear Scooter Libby might have the time to defend him.

edit- The time...but probably not the legal license.

alanm
07-10-2007, 10:25 PM
The replies on this repost reads like a who's who of brain washed idiocy. I hope you all say the same shit when Dems names start popping up.
Doubtful.. since their all God fearing saints. :)

alanm
07-10-2007, 10:33 PM
You do realize he committed the offense when the Republicans were in power and they did nothing to him either. Not that this excuses the fact he is still in Congress but I suppose not guilty until proven otherwise stands even in Congress.
So it was the Republicans fault. They made this guy take bribe money. Got it.

KC Dan
07-10-2007, 10:45 PM
You do realize he committed the offense when the Republicans were in power and they did nothing to him either. Not that this excuses the fact he is still in Congress but I suppose not guilty until proven otherwise stands even in Congress.
Yes Jim, I do understand that repubs did nothing as well. I am sick of all of them. Its controversy, controversy, investigation, investigation after investigation on both sides of the aisle. They have forgotten their main job - Legislate. I only mentioned Pelosi because she is in charge - Now. And, stripping him of committee seats is something but not enough.
For ____ Sake! They found $90,000 in his freezer! He should have been horsecollared out of office. We're not talking about proven guilty before a trial, we're talking about impropriety that should shake any belief that he is fit to hold office whether he is found guilty in court or not. He doesn't have to be found guilty to know that this stinks to high heaven and being involved in any part of this makes him unfit to be in congress.

WoodDraw
07-10-2007, 10:49 PM
No member of congress has ever been kicked out before being found guilty. He was reelected by his district, whether he deserved it or not, and should serve until found guilty. He was stripped of all committee assignments. I'm not sure what else should be done - except waiting for the verdict.

Logical
07-10-2007, 10:52 PM
So it was the Republicans fault. They made this guy take bribe money. Got it.No I think the whole stinking crew need to be replaced. I am not in any way partial to either side being less to blame.

KC Dan
07-10-2007, 11:00 PM
No member of congress has ever been kicked out before being found guilty. He was reelected by his district, whether he deserved it or not, and should serve until found guilty. He was stripped of all committee assignments. I'm not sure what else should be done - except waiting for the verdict.
Yeah, that makes it right. What is a congressman is found hovering over a dead hooker's body with a gun. Should he be booted out of Congress before his trial or should he waste a spot in the Congress until his trial is completed?

WoodDraw
07-10-2007, 11:10 PM
Yeah, that makes it right. What is a congressman is found hovering over a dead hooker's body with a gun. Should he be booted out of Congress before his trial or should he waste a spot in the Congress until his trial is completed?

That's a bit extreme and irrelevant. The precedent is there to avoid the embarrassing possibility of kicking out a member only for him to be found innocent. Remember, this guy was reelected by his district after the scandal broke. Generally Congress doesn't like to overrule democratic elections unless there is a guilty verdict. Not unreasonable, even if it means putting up with him.

Now I'll by all means join the he should resign now group, just as I did with Delay and the rest of the large group of former indicted Congressmen.

Cochise
07-10-2007, 11:29 PM
No member of congress has ever been kicked out before being found guilty. He was reelected by his district, whether he deserved it or not, and should serve until found guilty. He was stripped of all committee assignments. I'm not sure what else should be done - except waiting for the verdict.

Maybe not, but I guess then you were against Bob Packwood and Mark Foley being run out of town before conviction?

In Foley's case, he was sent a letter of resignation that he could either sign or be expelled. I guess that wouldn't be appropriate however for a Congressman who was on tape taking bribes?

WoodDraw
07-11-2007, 09:16 AM
Maybe not, but I guess then you were against Bob Packwood and Mark Foley being run out of town before conviction?

In Foley's case, he was sent a letter of resignation that he could either sign or be expelled. I guess that wouldn't be appropriate however for a Congressman who was on tape taking bribes?

Eh, I don't know. I wouldn't be against Jefferson being kicked out by the House. But regardless, neither of those two made much of an attempt to stay in office once things got rough. Packwood more so than Foley, but both more or less openly admitted guilt. In this case, Jefferson is claiming complete innocence and going to trial.

I'm just not crazy about the idea of Congress kicking out reelected members except in extreme cases. This case is fairly extreme, but in general, I don't think it is a bad policy to have. The House is reopening the investigation though, so we'll see what happens.

Cochise
07-11-2007, 11:22 AM
Eh, I don't know. I wouldn't be against Jefferson being kicked out by the House. But regardless, neither of those two made much of an attempt to stay in office once things got rough. Packwood more so than Foley, but both more or less openly admitted guilt. In this case, Jefferson is claiming complete innocence and going to trial.

I'm just not crazy about the idea of Congress kicking out reelected members except in extreme cases. This case is fairly extreme, but in general, I don't think it is a bad policy to have. The House is reopening the investigation though, so we'll see what happens.

I want to cut bait on the Republican because he's immoral and untrustworthy. You ignore your guy's being a piece of garbage because you want his vote in the House. Is it honestly any more complicated than that?

WoodDraw
07-11-2007, 01:06 PM
I want to cut bait on the Republican because he's immoral and untrustworthy. You ignore your guy's being a piece of garbage because you want his vote in the House. Is it honestly any more complicated than that?

I honestly didn't even think of it like that. I wish he'd resign today, think the voters are wrong for reelecting him, don't care if the House expels him, and think his vote is worthless towards what I want the house to do. Have I actually defended him anywhere in this thread? All I've said is that I support some restraint in expelling elected members of Congress.