Weiner roast

Don't understand. Weinie lied but not under oath; Weinie didn't - as far as we know - actual physically violate any of these woman and none of these women - so far - worked for him. And the majority is calling for him to resign. But there was a guy who did lie under oath and who did physically violate a subordinate in the most vile way possible on public property. Those of us who wanted him gone were criticized because we were invading his private life. Strange, so why the difference? It seems Weinie's problem is either a.) that the office he disgraced is not high enough or b.) anti-Semitism. Which one do you Clinton defenders who are after Weinie pick?