Politician Louis N. Magazzu has resigned from his job because he was caught sexting nude photos of himself to a Chicago woman he had never met. Similar to disgraced ex-Congressman Andrew Weiner, this career politician has reacted to after his nude pictures were posted on the internet.
However, this time it was not the national political scene. Louis N. Magazzu was a powerful South Jersey politician. He was serving as Cumberland County freeholder when his opponent, Carl B. Johnson, of Millville, put the pictures up on a website called magazzuwatch.com. However, he was once the chairman of the county Democratic Party. It is hard to tell if this incident tells more about Democrats and their personal lives or the Republicans and their tactics.
Freeholder Director, Bill Whelan, had asked Magazzu to resign three weeks ago after the nude photos first appeared and Magazzu refused. This afternoon the Freelander's office received a letter telling of his resignation. In his letter Louis N. Magazzu wrote, ". . .[I]n my personal life, I did not always demonstrate the wisdom and balance that I expected from myself, and that the people of Cumberland County deserve and have every right to expect. As a consequence, a woman who I have never met personally, but have corresponded with on the Internet for several years, has recently shared some photographs which she requested and that were intended only for her eyes. I did not know that she was working with an avowed political enemy to distribute these pictures."
Magazzu's letter also stated his attorney would be looking into the release of his nude pictures to see if any laws had been broken by their release. He insists that no government services were used in his indiscretions. Should people believe him? Probably so, unless they paid the phone bill.
Is there a trend here with ambitious politicians and their fascination with sending nude photos to women? Maybe this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Is sending nude pictures of oneself more prevalent that one is first to believe? It just does not seem plausible that many women are this excited by nude politicians. The real losers here are the wife and five children of Louis N. Magazzu, as he joins the new ranks of nude models and ex-politicians.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 8
+sigh+
From the article: Magazzu's letter also stated his attorney would be looking into the release of his nude pictures to see if any laws had been broken by their release.
And all of it along the lines of "it was a hacker ... in fact it was Breitbart" (when it was neither).
No matter which side of the aisle guys like this are on, the stupidity required to send nude or compromising photos of oneself (current photos, currently sent by the one in the photos) is monumental.
And in deciding to do that monumentally stupid thing of their own free will, to then blame "a non-existent hacker" or even a real one. Or to blame the one who makes them public ... adds a level of lack of acceptance of self responsibility that is hard to imagine especially in a public servant (no matter how often it happens, it's still hard to imagine anyone can actually think it's a good idea to do it and then to blame someone else for one's own personal silly decision).
If it's a child, or even a mush brained teenager ... maybe it's a mistake in judgement and not an ingrained character flaw.
In a full grown adult, a public servant, it's something much more disturbing.
As for the one who did the actual release to the opposing party... she was carrying on with a guy who is married and she asked for the pictures in the first place; seems like her lack of character was already known by Louis N. Magazzu. And yet he still continued with her and sent her the photos; as a result his stupidity is once again confirmed.
Possibly ... But no matter who or what they are (whether they are innocents themselves, or are in cahoots with someone to 'trap' the guys), the fact is these guys are responsible for how they pursue and/or respond to them. The women may be innocent, or they may be wrong on many levels, but whatever their character, motives, or agenda the guilt and lack of character of the men does not change.
Their legal position might change, the men's character, lack or moral stamina, and facts do not. If you see what I mean.