« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Watchdog Files Ethics Complaint against Senator John
More troubles for Sen. David Vitter (R-LA). Washington, D.C. watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has filed an ethics complaint against him, based on his admitted use of the D.C. Madam's escort service. The basis of the complaint?
Engaging the services of a prostitute violates both District of Columbia and Louisiana criminal law.The Senate Ethics Manual provides that certain conduct may be improper even though it does not violate specific Senate rules or regulations. Such conduct has been characterized as "improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate." This rule is intended to protect the integrity and reputation of the Senate as a whole. The Ethics Manual explains that "improper conduct" is given meaning by considering "generally accepted standards of conduct, the letter and spirit of laws and Rules..."
Whether or not Sen. Vitter is ultimately adjudicated to have broken any criminal laws, the Senate may still discipline him for improper conduct as it has other members in the past.
Unlike in the House, the Senate ethics committee does not require that a member file a complaint in order for it to be heard, so this could potentially become a liability for Vitter.
Update: Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) wants a "full airing" of the prostitute-scandal swirling around Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).
Josh
Zachary
Poor dapper, err diaper, Dave!
July 19, 2007 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
But wait. Senator Holier-than-Thou claimed that God forgave him. Nothing here. Move on.
July 19, 2007 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the D.C. Madam is claiming her escort service is NOT "illegal"? Also, I don't believe that "Senator John" has admitted to "engaging the services of a prostitute" in Louisiana at least. Can we start calling Barney Frank "Representative Anal" now too?
July 19, 2007 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not at all, Billy Pilgrim, IF Senator John violated a law, he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent.
July 19, 2007 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the casual reader, new to the site, Jake D. is a bothersome troll, attempting to set the tone of each story by being an early poster of such drivel. Please read below for more insightful comments.
July 19, 2007 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool, my own little doppelgänger.
July 19, 2007 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of trolls...
http://www.ojr.org/ojr/discussion/142/
July 19, 2007 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please explain to me how Sen. Vitter gets dragged through the headlines for weeks, but Mayor Gavin Newsome's affair gets dismissed out of hand, and Mayor Anthony Villariagosa's affair is brushed off. Your partisanship is blatant, folks.
July 19, 2007 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
United States Senator Vitter, defender of 'traditional marriage' from teh gaii?
Hypocrisy is what it's called.
ht*p://jeffkrimmel.com/2007/07/11/senator-vitter-was-too-vulnerable/
July 19, 2007 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe Gaffney -- from my perspective as a non-partisan political citizen, a federal employee receives pay and benefits out of my taxes. A mayor of a town receives their pay and benefits out of the taxes of the citizens of that town or municipality.
Ergos, if either of the two politicians you mentioned were mayor of my municipality, I would be raising cain about it.
The "do as I say but not what I do" principle also comes into play here with regard to Vitter.
July 19, 2007 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator John
LOL..
careful, though, there's more than one Senator named John who might think you were starting a headline about them, and didn't finish it..
Talk about a bunch of nervous Johns!
July 19, 2007 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The legality of what he did is not the point. It's an ethics complaint. Can anyone possibly claim using prostitutes is ethical? I don't think so.
July 19, 2007 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's an ETHICS complaint, for crying out loud. Can anyone possibly conclude that hiring prostitutes is ethical?
July 19, 2007 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus loves prostitutes...
http://bible-christian.org/prostitute.html
July 19, 2007 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
VickiS:
If what they did was NOT "illegal" then they are simply two consenting adults, right?
July 19, 2007 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
and consenting, and consenting, and consenting, and consenting, and consenting, and consenting, and consenting....
It's not like Vitter only used "escort" services one time. He was a repeat customer and in more than one state.
July 19, 2007 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's think this through, people. Everyone does it. Clinton had consensual, legal sex with a consenting adult. Newt Gingrich had consensual, legal sex with a consenting adult. Mark Foley really really tried having statutorily non-consensual, illegal sex with minors under his employ. Vitter illegally paid to have sex with several consenting adults, apparently in a diaper.
Can we please stop pretending that what Clinton and Gingrich did is any different from the latter two?
July 19, 2007 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gimmegimme -- The difference in the situation re Clinton and how that applies to Gingrich and Vitter is the hypocrisy -- IOW saying one thing but doing something completely opposite of what you tell others to do.
Mark Foley's situation was different because it may have involved him soliciting minors and using his position to troll for minors.
July 20, 2007 7:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and Bill Clinton was not using the Oval Office to troll for interns?
July 20, 2007 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Louise, whose message are you responding to? Don't want to make any assumptions here.
July 20, 2007 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Helen Rainier:
I was responding to your message dated July 20, 2007 @ 7:02 AM. I understand Monica Lewinsky was 21, so not "technically" a minor. However, we don't know if she was the youngest that Bill may have been trolling for, do we? I think it was incumbent upon any person in such a position of power and trust (whether it be as a Congressman or as President of the United States) to not take advantage of the situation.
July 20, 2007 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
When hypocrites like Vitter, who run on so-called family values and point fingers at others, he is particularly fair game for public scrutiny. What an idiot!
July 23, 2007 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink