This has been percolating for months and most of the national media ignored it until the memos broke and there was a documented there there. Maddow being the only exception.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Oh hey look, media preparing the battle space for 2016. Declarations of critical hit all around!
My fun game for today is comparing and contrasting this media approach to scandal to John Edwards impregnating his jump-off while his wife was dying of cancer.
That scandal broke in the Enquirer, so the media's initial reaction was deservedly dubious.
The media then tore him the hugest asshole that has ever been torn, because it turned out that there was credible evidence he was a philandering fuck with a wife suffering with cancer, and he abused campaign funds to fuel the mistakes of his affair.
Credible evidence for Christie's scandal just dropped yesterday. So the media is ravenous. And I would say Christie's multi-hour press conferences and mea culpa tour going on right now points to it being a pretty big deal, even if wildly different from what Edwards did.
The reporter shopped credible evidence around to various more reputable news outlets, all declined. Once the story broke, it was ignored by the major media until the volume of evidence made it impossible to do so. People had been looking the other way on the Edwards business for a while by the time the Enquirer finally made enough noise to get heads turning.
My point here though is mainly: a sliver of a shot at nuking a Republican's chances early? Dive right in. A scandal that might destroy a Democratic golden boy? Nope, that's for the rag sheets.
Well, apparently this story has been brewing for at least a month, and people were looking the other way the entire time.
It was only when the volume of evidence (i.e. the e-mails) came out that this story broke. Hell, if the quotes weren't so fucking juicy, there wasn't a body & missing kid, and there wasn't shit going on otherwise in the news it probably wouldn't have gotten a fraction of the national attention that...say, the Weiner text message scandal got.
This story was also largely ignored by everyone other than Rachel Maddow, it's been asn ongoing story for about a month and is just now blowing up because the trail of evidence leads all the way to the governors office.
This is hardly a case of the lamestream liberal media looking to jump on a negative story about a conservative.
Has anything actually linked to Christie yet, btw?
E-mails from his #3 putting this whole thing together?
It's literally being run out of his office. Hell, you would probably make the same argument if the e-mail had been sent by his admin assistant instead of Christie's personal e-mail account, typed with his own fingers.
My point here though is mainly: a sliver of a shot at nuking a Republican's chances early? Dive right in. A scandal that might destroy a Democratic golden boy? Nope, that's for the rag sheets.
The press gave the Dubya administration a free pass for ages and at the government's worst they still held back against going after Dubya for his shitty governance.
Oh hey look, media preparing the battle space for 2016. Declarations of critical hit all around!
My fun game for today is comparing and contrasting this media approach to scandal to John Edwards impregnating his jump-off while his wife was dying of cancer.
That scandal broke in the Enquirer, so the media's initial reaction was deservedly dubious.
The media then tore him the hugest asshole that has ever been torn, because it turned out that there was credible evidence he was a philandering fuck with a wife suffering with cancer, and he abused campaign funds to fuel the mistakes of his affair.
Credible evidence for Christie's scandal just dropped yesterday. So the media is ravenous. And I would say Christie's multi-hour press conferences and mea culpa tour going on right now points to it being a pretty big deal, even if wildly different from what Edwards did.
The reporter shopped credible evidence around to various more reputable news outlets, all declined. Once the story broke, it was ignored by the major media until the volume of evidence made it impossible to do so. People had been looking the other way on the Edwards business for a while by the time the Enquirer finally made enough noise to get heads turning.
My point here though is mainly: a sliver of a shot at nuking a Republican's chances early? Dive right in. A scandal that might destroy a Democratic golden boy? Nope, that's for the rag sheets.
Blagojevich was arrested at his home by federal agents. And nobody was even killed in that scandal.
I mean as long as we're tossing out single data points without making a line.
I think you are feeling persecuted with little to back it up.
Oh hey look, media preparing the battle space for 2016. Declarations of critical hit all around!
My fun game for today is comparing and contrasting this media approach to scandal to John Edwards impregnating his jump-off while his wife was dying of cancer.
How many people died from that?
How many children went missing from that?
Is one of these things purely an example of bad social moral values and another actively harming many, many people as political revenge?
This bridge closure is honestly one of the most disgusting scandals I've ever heard about in recent US politics. I mean, there is literally no excuse. Christies people did this for no reason at all other than revenge. There were no benefits, no ulterior reasons, just revenge pure and simple. People should go to jail for a LONG time over this, since if things like this are allowed to occur then a functional democracy can't survive.
I just don't think I've ever heard of anything even close to as bad as this recently. Even if the IRS thing had been absolutely true, its not as bad as this. Even if Bengazi has been true its not in the same ball park. At least those ones have (even if true) varied stories and a possible logical chain of action which led to the event. This is just a disgusting abuse of power.
There's a twisted sort of logic behind it, if you're coming from the perspective that bullying / intimidation is a means of accruing political capital. Won't endorse my campaign? Oh, oops, look at that terrible misfortune that came your way. Perhaps we could prevent that from happening next time if you act more like a team player.
Think of it like a protection money racket.
Yeah, but as governor there are plenty of ways you can do that in ways that aren't so stupidly backwards.
Sorry, those streets won't get repaved until next year. Yeah...about that grant to improve your water system. "Sorry Mr. Mayor, you'll need to make an appointment...you had an appointment? Well, it's not on my calendar...how about May?" Etc, etc, etc.
That abuse of power gives you some deniability and gets the message across. This kind of abuse of power is worthless, because without the story breaking that this was intentional, everyone's just going to accept the completely plausible 'traffic study' explanation.
No argument here, but let me put it this way:
If you were a mayor in New Jersey and had reason to believe that your streets might be subject to a 'traffic study' if you don't do exactly what the governor wants, would you not more or less always do what the governor wants?
There are lots of ways to get to the same place, of course, but any given avenue is going to have it's own drawbacks and look insane in it's own way, so I don't think Christie's chosen vehicle looks especially crazy when you grant that he was going to do something to intimidate / bully a rogue mayor (or a mayor that he perceived to be a rogue element, anyway).
Has anything actually linked to Christie yet, btw?
E-mails from his #3 putting this whole thing together?
It's literally being run out of his office. Hell, you would probably make the same argument if the e-mail had been sent by his admin assistant instead of Christie's personal e-mail account, typed with his own fingers.
In all fairness it is absolutely within the realm of possibility that Christie is too incompetent to manage the people working directly for him.
I don't find this likely mind you, but there is a slim chance he's just a colossal screw up rather than just evil. Or maybe both! I'm sure time will tell.
Has anything actually linked to Christie yet, btw?
E-mails from his #3 putting this whole thing together?
It's literally being run out of his office. Hell, you would probably make the same argument if the e-mail had been sent by his admin assistant instead of Christie's personal e-mail account, typed with his own fingers.
In all fairness it is absolutely within the realm of possibility that Christie is too incompetent to manage the people working directly for him.
it hasnt been directly linked to christie and as far as I'm aware the media has reported such
the media is reporting this one because it's one of the most boneheaded attempts at corruption in a while, there's no couched language or winks and nods its
There's also the pretty plausible possibility that Christie is such a detached, idiotic oaf that he really didn't think through the consequences of causing a major traffic jam. "Eh, it'll just annoy those Buono voters. Teach them a lesson,"
Oh hey look, media preparing the battle space for 2016. Declarations of critical hit all around!
My fun game for today is comparing and contrasting this media approach to scandal to John Edwards impregnating his jump-off while his wife was dying of cancer.
That scandal broke in the Enquirer, so the media's initial reaction was deservedly dubious.
The media then tore him the hugest asshole that has ever been torn, because it turned out that there was credible evidence he was a philandering fuck with a wife suffering with cancer, and he abused campaign funds to fuel the mistakes of his affair.
Credible evidence for Christie's scandal just dropped yesterday. So the media is ravenous. And I would say Christie's multi-hour press conferences and mea culpa tour going on right now points to it being a pretty big deal, even if wildly different from what Edwards did.
The reporter shopped credible evidence around to various more reputable news outlets, all declined. Once the story broke, it was ignored by the major media until the volume of evidence made it impossible to do so. People had been looking the other way on the Edwards business for a while by the time the Enquirer finally made enough noise to get heads turning.
My point here though is mainly: a sliver of a shot at nuking a Republican's chances early? Dive right in. A scandal that might destroy a Democratic golden boy? Nope, that's for the rag sheets.
John Edwards democratic golden boy? Do you remember a different version of the 2008 democratic primary than the rest of us do?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
He was also decrying Democrats for not stepping up for Christie, showing a lack of character even though Christie has worked with them in the past blah blah blah...
Was this from Rush or Christie? Either way Dems defending Christie hurts him more not less to the GOP base.
Rush was comparing this whole thing to the IRS harrassment deal, which was pretty thoroughly disproven to have actually occurred. He did this thing where somehow Obama is a vindictive thug and yet at other times the right loves to portray him as a naive boy in over his head.
He was also decrying Democrats for not stepping up for Christie, showing a lack of character even though Christie has worked with them in the past blah blah blah...
I hope all the conservative radio I listen to doesn't cause an aneurysm. Not that I listen to a ton of it but the amount is more than zero.
I'm kind of surprised that's Rush's angle on this. All the other lesser known tea party guys on the radio have hated Christie for a long time, they're having a field day with it.
No he also was talking about how Christie was bad and he's said that for a while but trying to do so in a way that made Democrats sound as bad or worse than Republicans. Did you know for instance that Democrats would have loved it if have one of their own had done this? You see leftists love macho posturing and tough guy behavior. Which is totally the stereotype applied to Democrats and not Republicans.
Also, Rush said that he, himself, has become a major player in this story because of some comments he made a while back. I do not think that is actually case but Rush is incredibly self important/promoting. It's great how fast he cuts off callers to his show even ones that try to tell him how great he is and why they love him. He can't let anyone else talk!
I tuned into Hannity's show on my lunch break. He was going on and on about how well the governor is handling this and how much he believes Christie and how good a job he did in his press conference. It would have been kind of adorable if it wasn't already established that Hannity is a sniveling little suck up.
Has anything actually linked to Christie yet, btw?
So you're on Team Stupid, then?
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
My point here though is mainly: a sliver of a shot at nuking a Republican's chances early? Dive right in. A scandal that might destroy a Democratic golden boy? Nope, that's for the rag sheets.
Jesus spool..you're better than this. I suspect you're just trolling, but if anyone is interesting in nuking Christie's presidential chances, it's his own party. They're still pissed off he had the gall to be civil to Obama, nad the tea party jagoffs have been after him ever since. The lamestream media has if anything, been completely fawning of Christie up until this morning.
Can we stop playing the scandal analogy and comparison game? Most scandals are going to have variations in their scope, morality, and consequences. I’m not sure we gain anything by continuing on about which scandal is most like this one or which one is worse.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Oh hey look, media preparing the battle space for 2016. Declarations of critical hit all around!
My fun game for today is comparing and contrasting this media approach to scandal to John Edwards impregnating his jump-off while his wife was dying of cancer.
That scandal broke in the Enquirer, so the media's initial reaction was deservedly dubious.
The media then tore him the hugest asshole that has ever been torn, because it turned out that there was credible evidence he was a philandering fuck with a wife suffering with cancer, and he abused campaign funds to fuel the mistakes of his affair.
Credible evidence for Christie's scandal just dropped yesterday. So the media is ravenous. And I would say Christie's multi-hour press conferences and mea culpa tour going on right now points to it being a pretty big deal, even if wildly different from what Edwards did.
The reporter shopped credible evidence around to various more reputable news outlets, all declined. Once the story broke, it was ignored by the major media until the volume of evidence made it impossible to do so. People had been looking the other way on the Edwards business for a while by the time the Enquirer finally made enough noise to get heads turning.
My point here though is mainly: a sliver of a shot at nuking a Republican's chances early? Dive right in. A scandal that might destroy a Democratic golden boy? Nope, that's for the rag sheets.
No, your 'point' here is to attempt to deflect blame from a corrupt governor's office by pointing to something disgusting but ultimately legal that was done by a member of the opposite political party over 7 years ago.
What does Edward being a cheating scumbag have to do with this story?
Can we stop playing the scandal analogy and comparison game? Most scandals are going to have variations in their scope, morality, and consequences. I’m not sure we gain anything by continuing on about which scandal is most like this one or which one is worse.
But how will I do my scandal math homework?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Can we stop playing the scandal analogy and comparison game? Most scandals are going to have variations in their scope, morality, and consequences. I’m not sure we gain anything by continuing on about which scandal is most like this one or which one is worse.
there is no 'we'. the only person doing that is spool, because that's his MO.
Thread: "Here is a current story about something terrible done by a Republican,"
spool: "Well I would just like to remind everyone that one time 5 to 10 years ago, an unrelated Democrat did something unrelated but also terrible!"
So Christies aid plead the 5th foreshadowing what the rest of his admin people will do. And the feds were referred the case by the port authority. No scandal here gentleman!
Can we stop playing the scandal analogy and comparison game? Most scandals are going to have variations in their scope, morality, and consequences. I’m not sure we gain anything by continuing on about which scandal is most like this one or which one is worse.
there is no 'we'. the only person doing that is spool, because that's his MO.
Thread: "Here is a current story about something terrible done by a Republican,"
spool: "Well I would just like to remind everyone that one time 5 to 10 years ago, an unrelated Democrat did something unrelated but also terrible!"
There are quite a few people comparing it to Edwards, Blagojevich, Benghazi, etc. No need to poke at spool for something he isn't alone in.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
The reporter shopped credible evidence around to various more reputable news outlets, all declined. Once the story broke, it was ignored by the major media until the volume of evidence made it impossible to do so. People had been looking the other way on the Edwards business for a while by the time the Enquirer finally made enough noise to get heads turning.
This is almost exactly what happened with this scandal, too.
Remember, this stuff happened in SEPTEMBER, and it's been really, really obvious since about the fourth day of that traffic jam that something wasn't kosher, and the local papers have been on it. Reporters took their credible evidence all over the place to national news outlets, and they were ignored. Maddow barely gave them the time of day until, what, last month? And even then she didn't get any traction pushing the story.
Then, yesterday, four months after the fact, evidence became impossible to ignore.
Literally the only difference here (looking at only the media reaction and not the scale or comparability of the scandal itself) is that the paper trying to get the noise out there and turn heads wasn't giving this second billing to another Jon Benet Ramsey conspiracy theory and wasn't sold in the checkout aisle of Wal Mart. It was an actual newspaper.
There's no librul mediah agendah here, this is pretty much how scandals break. Aside from the really spectacular ones, most of them stew in obscurity a while until some detail appears or somebody slips up.
John Edwards democratic golden boy? Do you remember a different version of the 2008 democratic primary than the rest of us do?
I bet his has Orcs.
Nah, his is the childish fantasy that engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.
Can we stop playing the scandal analogy and comparison game? Most scandals are going to have variations in their scope, morality, and consequences. I’m not sure we gain anything by continuing on about which scandal is most like this one or which one is worse.
Well, there is a certain aspect of the discussion that is comparing this to other scandals because of how strange it is. Most scandals are either a personal moral failing (knocking up mistress, beejers in an airport bathroom, going to South America with your mistress while your office reports you missing) or have an obvious personal or political gain (Watergate, Blago's bribery, etc).
The actions taken by Christie's office are not only bizarre, but they are almost non-sensical. There wasn't really much of a gain, it's just a childish and pointless abuse of power.
On top of that, it was indiscriminate, endangered a child's life and killed an elderly person.
Of course it's uniquely different than any other scandal, and that's pretty interesting in and of itself.
Can we stop playing the scandal analogy and comparison game? Most scandals are going to have variations in their scope, morality, and consequences. I’m not sure we gain anything by continuing on about which scandal is most like this one or which one is worse.
there is no 'we'. the only person doing that is spool, because that's his MO.
Thread: "Here is a current story about something terrible done by a Republican,"
spool: "Well I would just like to remind everyone that one time 5 to 10 years ago, an unrelated Democrat did something unrelated but also terrible!"
There are quite a few people comparing it to Edwards, Blagojevich, Benghazi, etc. No need to poke at spool for something he isn't alone in.
Yes there is since he's the only one doing it as an attempt to play the same "The left is just as bad" game he does in every thread ever.
Can we stop playing the scandal analogy and comparison game? Most scandals are going to have variations in their scope, morality, and consequences. I’m not sure we gain anything by continuing on about which scandal is most like this one or which one is worse.
there is no 'we'. the only person doing that is spool, because that's his MO.
Thread: "Here is a current story about something terrible done by a Republican,"
spool: "Well I would just like to remind everyone that one time 5 to 10 years ago, an unrelated Democrat did something unrelated but also terrible!"
There are quite a few people comparing it to Edwards, Blagojevich, Benghazi, etc. No need to poke at spool for something he isn't alone in.
I brought up Blagojevich in order to show that the proposed trend of "Republicans are the only ones the media ever embroils in controversy unless somebody hammers the Democrats forever" is completely wrong and unfounded.
I don't think anybody here has ever defended Blagojevich's actions. I even said that single corruption data points aren't meaningful.
John Edwards democratic golden boy? Do you remember a different version of the 2008 democratic primary than the rest of us do?
I bet his has Orcs.
Nah, his is the childish fantasy that engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.
You know, as much as I hate that he came in here to derail the thread and was successful at it...this post is a bit on the mean side.
+2
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
i posted this in chat
i find it highly implausible that he wasn't aware on some level
John Edwards democratic golden boy? Do you remember a different version of the 2008 democratic primary than the rest of us do?
I bet his has Orcs.
Nah, his is the childish fantasy that engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.
You know, as much as I hate that he came in here to derail the thread and was successful at it...this post is a bit on the mean side.
No Atlas Shrugged joke is too mean.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
i find it highly implausible that he wasn't aware on some level
but i get that admitting this is a career ender
Being involved with this at all is a career-ender. If he was, he gets the choice: save a very small amount of face by admitting the wrongdoing and resigning, or sticking it out to the bitter end and being seen as total goose with no shame.
It's not a great choice to have to make, but them's the breaks when you pull heinous shit as an elected official.
Posts
Well, apparently this story has been brewing for at least a month, and people were looking the other way the entire time.
It was only when the volume of evidence (i.e. the e-mails) came out that this story broke. Hell, if the quotes weren't so fucking juicy, there wasn't a body & missing kid, and there wasn't shit going on otherwise in the news it probably wouldn't have gotten a fraction of the national attention that...say, the Weiner text message scandal got.
This is hardly a case of the lamestream liberal media looking to jump on a negative story about a conservative.
Highest we've officially got is Deputy Chief of Staff. So #3 in the Governor's Mansion.
E-mails from his #3 putting this whole thing together?
It's literally being run out of his office. Hell, you would probably make the same argument if the e-mail had been sent by his admin assistant instead of Christie's personal e-mail account, typed with his own fingers.
The press gave the Dubya administration a free pass for ages and at the government's worst they still held back against going after Dubya for his shitty governance.
Blagojevich was arrested at his home by federal agents. And nobody was even killed in that scandal.
I mean as long as we're tossing out single data points without making a line.
I think you are feeling persecuted with little to back it up.
No argument here, but let me put it this way:
If you were a mayor in New Jersey and had reason to believe that your streets might be subject to a 'traffic study' if you don't do exactly what the governor wants, would you not more or less always do what the governor wants?
There are lots of ways to get to the same place, of course, but any given avenue is going to have it's own drawbacks and look insane in it's own way, so I don't think Christie's chosen vehicle looks especially crazy when you grant that he was going to do something to intimidate / bully a rogue mayor (or a mayor that he perceived to be a rogue element, anyway).
In all fairness it is absolutely within the realm of possibility that Christie is too incompetent to manage the people working directly for him.
I don't find this likely mind you, but there is a slim chance he's just a colossal screw up rather than just evil. Or maybe both! I'm sure time will tell.
So back to Team Evil vs. Team Stupid?
the media is reporting this one because it's one of the most boneheaded attempts at corruption in a while, there's no couched language or winks and nods its
"hey lets abuse our power"
"on it"
John Edwards democratic golden boy? Do you remember a different version of the 2008 democratic primary than the rest of us do?
pleasepaypreacher.net
I tuned into Hannity's show on my lunch break. He was going on and on about how well the governor is handling this and how much he believes Christie and how good a job he did in his press conference. It would have been kind of adorable if it wasn't already established that Hannity is a sniveling little suck up.
I bet his has Orcs.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
So you're on Team Stupid, then?
Only by the slanted and biased media, which I'm sure doesn't count.
Jesus spool..you're better than this. I suspect you're just trolling, but if anyone is interesting in nuking Christie's presidential chances, it's his own party. They're still pissed off he had the gall to be civil to Obama, nad the tea party jagoffs have been after him ever since. The lamestream media has if anything, been completely fawning of Christie up until this morning.
No, your 'point' here is to attempt to deflect blame from a corrupt governor's office by pointing to something disgusting but ultimately legal that was done by a member of the opposite political party over 7 years ago.
What does Edward being a cheating scumbag have to do with this story?
Nothing.
But how will I do my scandal math homework?
pleasepaypreacher.net
there is no 'we'. the only person doing that is spool, because that's his MO.
Thread: "Here is a current story about something terrible done by a Republican,"
spool: "Well I would just like to remind everyone that one time 5 to 10 years ago, an unrelated Democrat did something unrelated but also terrible!"
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/christie-aide-wildstein-pleads-the-5th
pleasepaypreacher.net
He's on team "Your side does it too!".
As he always has been and always will be in every thread.
There are quite a few people comparing it to Edwards, Blagojevich, Benghazi, etc. No need to poke at spool for something he isn't alone in.
This is almost exactly what happened with this scandal, too.
Remember, this stuff happened in SEPTEMBER, and it's been really, really obvious since about the fourth day of that traffic jam that something wasn't kosher, and the local papers have been on it. Reporters took their credible evidence all over the place to national news outlets, and they were ignored. Maddow barely gave them the time of day until, what, last month? And even then she didn't get any traction pushing the story.
Then, yesterday, four months after the fact, evidence became impossible to ignore.
Literally the only difference here (looking at only the media reaction and not the scale or comparability of the scandal itself) is that the paper trying to get the noise out there and turn heads wasn't giving this second billing to another Jon Benet Ramsey conspiracy theory and wasn't sold in the checkout aisle of Wal Mart. It was an actual newspaper.
There's no librul mediah agendah here, this is pretty much how scandals break. Aside from the really spectacular ones, most of them stew in obscurity a while until some detail appears or somebody slips up.
Nah, his is the childish fantasy that engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.
Well, there is a certain aspect of the discussion that is comparing this to other scandals because of how strange it is. Most scandals are either a personal moral failing (knocking up mistress, beejers in an airport bathroom, going to South America with your mistress while your office reports you missing) or have an obvious personal or political gain (Watergate, Blago's bribery, etc).
The actions taken by Christie's office are not only bizarre, but they are almost non-sensical. There wasn't really much of a gain, it's just a childish and pointless abuse of power.
On top of that, it was indiscriminate, endangered a child's life and killed an elderly person.
Of course it's uniquely different than any other scandal, and that's pretty interesting in and of itself.
Only one person is trying to say 'but Edwards'.
Yes there is since he's the only one doing it as an attempt to play the same "The left is just as bad" game he does in every thread ever.
I brought up Blagojevich in order to show that the proposed trend of "Republicans are the only ones the media ever embroils in controversy unless somebody hammers the Democrats forever" is completely wrong and unfounded.
I don't think anybody here has ever defended Blagojevich's actions. I even said that single corruption data points aren't meaningful.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yup, Halperin is still a fucking hack.
You know, as much as I hate that he came in here to derail the thread and was successful at it...this post is a bit on the mean side.
i find it highly implausible that he wasn't aware on some level
but i get that admitting this is a career ender
No Atlas Shrugged joke is too mean.
Being involved with this at all is a career-ender. If he was, he gets the choice: save a very small amount of face by admitting the wrongdoing and resigning, or sticking it out to the bitter end and being seen as total goose with no shame.
It's not a great choice to have to make, but them's the breaks when you pull heinous shit as an elected official.