When Tucker Carlson defended senators and prostitutes

[MastaG8r]

They are different stories.

One guy patronized a local escort service in Washington DC, without involvement of anyone but himself and the service.

The other guy patronized prostitutes in the Dominican Republic at the home of (and presumably at the expense of) a wealthy campaign donor, raising obvious and legitimate questions as to whether this donor expected or received any undue influence in the U.S. Senate in return for such favors.

Even ABC News, which seems to be trying a little too desperately to discredit the prostitution allegations, had to admit the following:

While the allegations about the prostitutes may have been discredited, the Senator still faces an ethics inquiry into his relationship with that donor who provided Menendez with private plane flights and for whom Menendez allegedly intervened to help obtain contracts.

Menendez has already been forced to amend his financial disclosure statement to account for the flights and reimburse the donor for $58,000.

What ethics inquiry did David Vitter face? Was there more to his story than just the prostitution angle, like there is with the Menendez story?

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Not true, that is a left wing hit piece on the DC. Tucker stands by the story and he said so. As I said before bogus



http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/06/re...itution-claim/

Hit piece? Hyperbole does not befit you.

Even if DC stands by its story, there are still some real questions about the veracity of the women's claims and whether they were paid to lie and thus whether the behaviors in question actually ever happened, especially in light of ABC passing on the story. Remember, it was people in the DR contacting media folk to push this story.

It might turn out that there are some legs to it a after all, but your certitude belies verifiable facts.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by jdrgator

Hit piece? Hyperbole does not befit you.

Even if DC stands its story, there are still some real questions about the veracity of the women's claims and whether they were paid to lie and thus whether the behaviors in question actually ever happened, especially in light of ABC passing on the story. Remember, it was people in the DR contacting media folk to push this story.

It might turn out that there are some legs to it a after all, but your certitude belies verifiable facts.

Except that woman who claims anything was not one of the two interviews the DC published. That is the problem the DC published interviews with underage prostitutes. . From my link:

The Washington Post quickly connected that affidavit to The Daily Caller’s Nov. 1, 2012 report, in which , women said on videotape that they were paid to provide sexual favors to Menendez. But de los Santos’ statement Monday appears to describe a different interview that was never published.

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Except that woman who claims anything was not one of the two interviews the DC published. That is the problem

Well we don't really know if that is true, which is a major point, but given that ABC also claims to have interviewed the same women as the DC, and they found their stories questionable, I still don't see where your certainty comes from. At best we are dealing with a few prostitutes in a different country who may or may not have been paid to read a script.

So what do we know as fact?

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by jdrgator

Well we don't really know if that is true, which is a major point, but given that ABC also claims to have interviewed the same women as the DC, and they found their stories questionable, I still don't see where your certainty comes from. At best we are dealing with a few prostitutes in a different country who may or may not have been paid to read a script.

So what do we know as fact?

That Menendez has serious ethical issues and we know that two underage prostitues said they were paid for sex by Menendez.

[squigator]

Originally Posted by jimgata

Her we go again. No way to defend the actions, so attack the messenger.
Tucker Carlson is not a major player on the national scene and why would anyone get upset about what he thinks?
The liberal press is not going to publish anything detrimental againt a dem if they can help it. When caught with their cover-up, they then print something, to cover their ass.

You must have missed this, Jimgata:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...ypocrites.html

Tucker made their hit list with his honest and direct losers/toadies comments.

Go, Tucker!

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

That Menendez has serious ethical issues and we know that two underage prostitues said they were paid for sex by Menendez.

again, the two in the video were not identified as underage

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

That Menendez has serious ethical issues and we know that two underage prostitues said they were paid for sex by Menendez.

He might have serious ethical issues. We do know these alleged prostitutes said what they said but we don't know as fact whether what they said is factual or whether they were being paid to say it or whether the DC actually verified who these women were. Big, big differences.

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

They are different stories.

One guy patronized a local escort service in Washington DC, without involvement of anyone but himself and the service.

The other guy patronized prostitutes in the Dominican Republic at the home of (and presumably at the expense of) a wealthy campaign donor, raising obvious and legitimate questions as to whether this donor expected or received any undue influence in the U.S. Senate in return for such favors.

Even ABC News, which seems to be trying a little too desperately to discredit the prostitution allegations, had to admit the following:



What ethics inquiry did David Vitter face? Was there more to his story than just the prostitution angle, like there is with the Menendez story?

ABC was so desperate to discredit that even though when they were contacted and after investigating the claims that they didn't run the story or speak up until the new allegations about the original story came up? Weird.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by rivergator

again, the two in the video were not identified as underage

You seem to be denying the underage prostitute thing

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

You seem to be denying the underage prostitute thing

No, but follow this closely.
In November, Daily Caller posted a video of two women who said they were prostitutes who had sex with Menendez. There was no mention of underage. That's why you can't really use it as a reason Carlson ran that story.
In January, Daily Caller posted emails in which an anonymous source claimed that sex with one of the prostitutes started when she was 16.

I don't have a clue what he did. Neither do you. But if he had sex with a 16-year-old, it'd make him a scumbag. And a criminal if it's against the law there, though I guess they'd have to prove he knew.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by rivergator

No, but follow this closely.
In November, Daily Caller posted a video of two women who said they were prostitutes who had sex with Menendez. There was no mention of underage. That's why you can't really use it as a reason Carlson ran that story.
In January, Daily Caller posted emails in which an anonymous source claimed that sex with one of the prostitutes started when she was 16.

I don't have a clue what he did. Neither do you. But if he had sex with a 16-year-old, it'd make him a scumbag. And a criminal if it's against the law there, though I guess they'd have to prove he knew.

Something tells me you would not be holding this standard if the person in queston was, lets say Rubio.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Something tells me you would not be holding this standard if the person in queston was, lets say Rubio.

And something tells me that you would.

BTW, with all this talk of underage girls, does it matter that the FBI has not found any evidence during their investigation of that matter? Should we really be accusing somebody of that when the law enforcement agency charged with investigating the matter did not find evidence to back that claim?

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

You seem to be denying the underage prostitute thing

Highlands if I didn't know better I'd think you are new to the riverdance game. You stuck out your ankle with the "underage" angle so now that's the part that'll get chewed on to the exclusion of all else.

The topic of this thread is supposed to be, what's the difference between the Vitter and Menendez stories? If they're essentially identical then it would indeed make Tucker Carlson look pretty bad for being dismissive of the former but not the latter. But they're not identical, and it's not because of the age of the prostitutes involved.

The difference was begrudgingly acknowledged by ABC News in the course of trying to discredit the Menendez prostitutes:

While the allegations about the prostitutes may have been discredited, the Senator still faces an ethics inquiry into his relationship with that donor who provided Menendez with private plane flights and for whom Menendez allegedly intervened to help obtain contracts.

Menendez has already been forced to amend his financial disclosure statement to account for the flights and reimburse the donor for $58,000.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

And something tells me that you would.

BTW, with all this talk of underage girls, does it matter that the FBI has not found any evidence during their investigation of that matter? Should we really be accusing somebody of that when the law enforcement agency charged with investigating the matter did not find evidence to back that claim?

I'm sorry, is the investigation over?

[HudsonGator]

So, what have we learned?

If you are a Democrat, the Vitter story illustrates the hypocrisy of Tucker Carlson, and if you are a Republican, the Menendez story (when it was actually a story) is somehow much worse.

Vitter broke the law, and perhaps what is even more unforgivable, Vitter was for years the "family values" guy, while at the same time he was seeing prostitutes.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

So, what have we learned?

If you are a Democrat, the Vitter story illustrates the hypocrisy of Tucker Carlson, and if you are a Republican, the Menendez story (when it was actually a story) is somehow much worse.

Vitter broke the law, and perhaps what is even more unforgivable, Vitter was for years the "family values" guy, while at the same time he was seeing prostitutes.

Were Vitter's escorts paid for by a wealthy donor who then expected political favors from Vitter in return?

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

Were Vitter's escorts paid for by a wealthy donor who then expected political favors from Vitter in return?

Good question, we don't really know since he has refused to answer one single question about it other than to admit a "serious sin."

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

Highlands if I didn't know better I'd think you are new to the riverdance game. You stuck out your ankle with the "underage" angle so now that's the part that'll get chewed on to the exclusion of all else.

The topic of this thread is supposed to be, what's the difference between the Vitter and Menendez stories? If they're essentially identical then it would indeed make Tucker Carlson look pretty bad for being dismissive of the former but not the latter. But they're not identical, and it's not because of the age of the prostitutes involved.

The difference was begrudgingly acknowledged by ABC News in the course of trying to discredit the Menendez prostitutes:

While the allegations about the prostitutes may have been discredited, the Senator still faces an ethics inquiry into his relationship with that donor who provided Menendez with private plane flights and for whom Menendez allegedly intervened to help obtain contracts.

Menendez has already been forced to amend his financial disclosure statement to account for the flights and reimburse the donor for $58,000.

Maybe you should go back and read the Daily Caller's original story. You know, the one headlined:

Women: Sen. Bob Menendez paid us for sex in the Dominican Republic [VIDEO]

The one that began:

Two women from the Dominican Republic told The Daily Caller that Democratic New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez paid them for sex earlier this year.

The one that included the video of the two women. And then see if you think the Daily Caller thought it had a story about:
1. A senator with some financial questions and possible illegal influence over contracts.
(or)
2. A senator who had sex with prostitutes.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by rivergator

Maybe you should go back and read the Daily Caller's original story. You know, the one headlined:


The one that began:


The one that included the video of the two women. And then see if you think the Daily Caller thought it had a story about:
1. A senator with some financial questions and possible illegal influence over contracts.
(or)
2. A senator who had sex with prostitutes.

You accused Carlson of hypocrisy for treating the Vitter story differently than the Menendez story. My response to that was that they are different stories. The Vitter one is about immorality, but the Menendez one is about immorality plus - more significantly - potential corruption.

All this is from the Daily Caller story linked from your link:

It is known that Sen. Menendez has been a regular visitor to the Dominican Republic. On at least one occasion, according to a news account, Menendez has been a guest at the Casa de Campo home of a friend and campaign donor named Salomon Melgen, an ophthalmologist and owner of an eye clinic in Florida.

Melgen has donated $14,700 to Menendez’s campaigns since 1993, with the bulk of it coming since he became a U.S. Senator, according to Federal Election Commission data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Melgen also appears to have lent Menendez the use of his plane on several occasions.

Menendez’s 2012 public schedule shows no events listed for Easter or the following three days. Aircraft records obtained by TheDC show that Melgen’s plane left Florida the morning of Easter Sunday this year, stopped at the Teterboro private airport near Menendez’s home in New Jersey, and flew on to the Dominican Republic.

Two days later it returned to the United States from a private airport near Casa de Campo.

This story has always been about a Senator being wined, dined and (allegedly) entertained in much less respectable ways by a wealthy donor, with the obvious concern being, what did the donor receive from the Senator in return?

If it was simply a matter of Menendez using an escort service in the D.C. area like Vitter did, the story would've been much less newsworthy and you'd be justified in calling Carlson a hypocrite for dismissing one and pursuing the other. But that's not the case. Is it, river?