I grow more and more anti-LGBTQ by the week. Most coddled and annoying "minority group" to ever exist imo.

To be clear, I am just talking about the gays and trans and "allies" that truly consider themselves a part of that group. Got a gay buddy at work who wants nothing to do with that and hates the negative attention it brings.

Here's what that idiot said:

"The Daily Caller reported the staffer worked for Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin's office. CNN reached out to Cardin's office and was directed to a statement posted by Aidan Maese-Czeropski on LinkedIn.

In the statement, Maese-Czeropski said, in part, "This has been a difficult time for me, as I have been attacked for who I love to pursue a political agenda. While some of my actions in the past have shown poor judgement, I love my job and would never disrespect my workplace"

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/12/16/politics/senate-aide-sex-tape-hearing-room/index.html

I am SURE the GOP will be idiots and not run this event 24/7 in commercials, because they will fall for the " Not wanting to be seen attacking vulnerable/ marginalized groups " BS.

CDUB98 said:

---

IIRC, only one of them, the one with access, worked as a staffer. The other was just there to get a staff.

The staffer resigned his position, but of course then went on a social media victim narrative that he was fired because of who he loved.

---

Was he a victim of a reach around?

twk said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Okay, what's the charge?

---

Public lewdness would work in most jurisdictions, but I have no idea what the laws are in DC on this subject.

---

Wasn't this on a weekend with no public access and locked doors? Had the Congressman decided to take a nap butt naked on the couch, could he be charged?

Shoefly! said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

IIRC, only one of them, the one with access, worked as a staffer. The other was just there to get a staff.

The staffer resigned his position, but of course then went on a social media victim narrative that he was fired because of who he loved.

---

Was he a victim of a reach around?

---

No, he was the catcher who didn't have the GD common courtesy to give the other guy a reach around


/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/258?cb=20140121131556

Walking in Capitol: 20 years in prison

****ing in the Capitol: Not a crime

All the January 6 protesters should have just had a massive orgy and they'd have been fine

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

That's why you should never ever speak to the police in any situation ever. Nothing good can happen.

---

He should face prosecution. I don't give a **** what he told the Capitol Police. Dude is on video in a place he was not authorized to be.

Degenerates do degenerate things and a degenerate government turns a blind eye. None of us would be afforded the opportunity to resign from a private sector job for doing something similar.

J6 people are still in jail for "trespassing."

One more data point that proves we have two systems of "justice."

---

Almost similar to this:

Quote:

---

In the statement, Maese-Czeropski said, in part, "This has been a difficult time for me, as I have been attacked for who I love to pursue a political agenda. While some of my actions in the past have shown poor judgement, I love my job and would never disrespect my workplace"

---

I would be more upset if they had been allowed to keep their jobs. They WERE fired, right?

B-1 83 said:

---

twk said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Okay, what's the charge?

---

Public lewdness would work in most jurisdictions, but I have no idea what the laws are in DC on this subject.

---

Wasn't this on a weekend with no public access and locked doors? Had the Congressman decided to take a nap butt naked on the couch, could he be charged?

---

In Texas, indecent exposure or disorderly conduct for exposing yourself depend on others being present. Public lewdness only requires that you engage in a sex act in a public place. I think aCapitol hearing room is a public place, whether or not it's open to the public at large at any given moment. It's not a domicile or a private office. So, if this happened in Texas, I think it would constitute public lewdness.

twk said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Okay, what's the charge?

---

Public lewdness would work in most jurisdictions, but I have no idea what the laws are in DC on this subject.

---

There are no laws in DC that affect politicians.

torrid said:

---

I would be more upset if they had been allowed to keep their jobs. They WERE fired, right?

---

well, that one dude got pink-slipped for sure

He's not interested in your kids, you're thinking of priests!

CDUB98 said:

---

Quote:

---

it was determined that -- despite a likely violation of Congressional policy -- there is currently no evidence that a crime was committed,

---

As disgusting and lack of any decorum, ethics, morality, etc. as this was, I agree that there was likely no crime as it was not in the public view.

It also speaks to the state of people today that they thought they could do it without any consequence or that it wasn't wrong.

---

I seem to recall pics or video being on the internet, with news articles wall to wall. That's seems pretty public to me!