The whole Weiner incident was apparently the work of some jackass who has Reagan as his twitter icon:
Twitter users, however, focused on tracking down the source of the dramatic crotch shot. Many on the social networking site accused user “patriotusa76” as the hacker.
But “patriotusa76,” whose name is listed as Dan Wolfe, insists he’s not the prankster – and maintained that it was Weiner who blasted the photo.
Wonkette has the picture, which is pretty tame.
West of the Cascades
Hmmm – a picture of Andrew Breitbart’s face is more lewd and offensive than that photo.
geg6
@West of the Cascades:
Well, you said everything I was gonna say, so all I can say is…
THIS.
dr. bloor
I like that Weiner has an attorney looking into where this came from for the purpose of filing charges. They need to make as many of these asshats as uncomfortable and intruded upon as they possibly can.
boonagain
What do you wanna bet that there are many more pics on Breitbart’s cell that are more offensive than that one (besides his face)?
aimai
@dr. bloor:
But, but, but I was assured by the right wing bloggorati that the proof that Weiner was guilty lay in the fact that he hadn’t “notified the authorities” and wasn’t threatening to sue. Now what am I supposed to believe?
aimai
YellowDog
Some of the RWNM is already asking why this was not turned over to the FBI, saying that hiring an attorney is the same as an admission that Weiner did send the photo. For all we know, it has been or will be turned be over to the FBI. More to the point, I agree with dr. bloor that attacking this on multiple fronts will help put a stop to this type of intimidation. Daily Kos has pointed out the suspicious way in which this photo came to light. Civil suits put the KKK out of business, but, since turds float, they turned up somewhere else in another form.
bemused
I would say this latest swiftboating is one of the most pathetic, ridiculous smear attempts ever and reeks of desperation but the goober base will fall for anything.
shortstop
@West of the Cascades: Even when it’s photoshopped to take 40 pounds off.
Clearly, Weiner is lying about having hired an attorney. Otherwise, he’d release the name so the person could receive death threats and home visits from the ranks of highly stable and rational Breitbartians.
Guster
I’m thinking about starting a website called thatsmycock.com.
aimai
What’s weird to me is the pathetic quality of the photo–I mean, I guess not quality but nature. Really? This is supposed to be erotic to someone? This is supposed to be scary to someone? This is supposed to be pornographic to someone? You see worse (and better) in any underwear ad on the subway. What was stopping the person from sending something more graphic, or more vile, or more scary? I actually don’t think O’Keefe (for example) or Breitbart were actively involved in this other than as conduits but there is something arcane about the photo–the grey underwear, the lack of actual genital organs, that reminds me of O’Keefe’s supposed “sting” of the woman journalist, the one that revolved entirely around the bizarre notion that O’Keefe exposing himself as a juvenile sex offender with bizarre fantasies would lead to the reporter being disarmed and humiliated as a reporter. The whole thing seems so weirdly imagined. I mean, if you are going to fake something why not fake something shocking? (That being said I do think it was entirely a fake because its so incredibly stupid, and that’s their hallmark.)
aimai
YellowDog
@aimai: You’re right–the picture is pretty juvenile. At least Brett Favre got down to business.
aimai
I should also add that one of the things Weiner is doing that has attracted a lot of hate from the usual quarters is calling for Justice Thomas to recuse himself from matters pertaining to the ACA. Anyone want to bet that Ginny Thomas is really PatriotUSA? –Just kidding. Or am I?
aimai
Bender
So if you report something, then you’re the cause of “the whole incident?” You’re like a Scooby-Doo villain — meddling kids! AND, REAGAN! OH NO!
I think Wiener sending a boner-shot to his co-ed follower might be a more accurate cause of “the whole incident.”
Seriously though, it is wonderful to see the national media giving Wiener (D-NY) his privacy during this trying time. You know, they’d do the same for a (R-NY) like Chris Lee.
aimai
@Bender:
Bender, you appear unaware of the fact that Gawker put four weeks into investigating the Chris Lee case and had absolute proof of it before they went forward with public accusations. Get back to me when Breitbart et al are able to pur four weeks of honest work into anything.
aimai
Gramsci
Oh, TMZ Segretti, you are almost as cutting edge as the PGA Tour announcer saying “You da man, dawg!” and “He got game!”– maybe even “Nine-irons ain’t shit but hoes and tricks!”
If the Twitter hack is now not already dead, it’s got at most a couple of mentions in “Life in These United States” left.
piratedan
in an earlier iteration of this issue, the GOS has a nice timeline breakdown of events. The aforementioned patriotusa76 was prescient enough to predict this possibility two weeks ago and strangely enough, the only one to “see it” go down when it actually took place. Weiner had noted prior to the incident that he had been “hacked” and viola, its like magic that the incident took place and patriotusa76 is the ONLY user to have “noticed” it.
so…. in the humble opinion of many… bullshit is called and as of yet, the only media outlet giving this any credibility (and that word was used on purpose) is Andrew Breitbart (shocker!). The same media outlet that pimps the Clarence Thomas fan club. Three guesses as to who Congressman Weiner was questioning publicly just last week.
Emma
Aimai: Exactly. When I finally saw the photo, I thought that’s it? haven’t these people been out of their basements lately? Or for that matter, watch television?
Gretchen
@animai: it all makes sense now – it does sound very Ginny Thomas-esque.
Just Some Fuckhead
We can solve this pretty easily by comparing Rep. Weiner’s erected weiner with the picture in question. House Republicans should get right on this hard.
eric
@aimai: which raises the question: are you gonna call ginny and apologize if it is weiner’s wiener? ;)
Gretchen
@aimai – sorry I spelled your name wrong – you’re still onto something.
shortstop
@Emma: You know what totally turns straight women and gay men on? White undershirts. Yeah, that’s right. I’m here to help, GOP.
Bender
Come on, just admit that you want to believe it’s fake because you don’t want to see a far-left Democrat exposed as being an married idiot who sends a co-ed pictures of his boner. You’re having the same reaction as the MSM.
kay
@aimai:
The last time the Breitbart strike force appeared here they were vowing to pursue justice for AA famers, re: Pigford.
What happened to that? Now they’re chasing some 21 year old?
Because that’s what the Sherrod smear was about, we were told. Conservatives pursuing justice for the AA farmers who had been wronged by liberals.
Alex S.
I thought it was possible that Weiner did it, but now it seems that it was a fake, once again. I could not believe that someone would be pathetic enough to watch Weiner’s Twitter account for several months and then make some non-controversy about it, but apparently that is the case. I mean, if you really wanted to wreck his career, you would not do it during Memorial Day weekend, and you would accuse him of something more vile. An internet affair of two consenting adults? Boring.
aimai
@Bender:
Why would I admit to that? It would be incredibly stupid. I’ve learned my lesson from watching married Republicans from Governors to Senators to Congressmen: a wedding ring is no substitute for actual morality. However, to do those gentlemen justice they come from a party where marriage is seen as a pen(al) institute, a prison from which no one should ever escape. In general, I expect a more evolved attitude from my Democratic representatives since the Democratic party neither requires them to enter into loveless marriages in order to run, nor fake heterosexuality, nor stay married if they don’t choose to. The liklihood that the newly married Weiner has a fetish for sending dull pictures of his underwear to strangers is not 0, but close to. But you run your concerns about marriage past Newt Gingerich, David Vitter, John Ensign, John McCain, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Governor Appalachian Trail and etc.. and you might find yourself on the right side of cynicism
Steve
If you can get a prison sentence for hacking Sarah Palin’s email password, I’m not sure what would make this case different.
kay
@piratedan:
I think it’s weird that none of the online sleuths refer to the woman’s own incredibly detailed, definitive statement.
It doesn’t matter, at all, what the person who is supposedly involved in this says.
Seems like she might be an important “witness” in the
“investigation”.
She may as well shout into the wind. They’re moving on w/out her!
aimai
@Steve:
Yes, but if Weiner ends up being able to prove his twitter account was hacked by a particular person watch the right wing turn on a dime and stop complaining that Weiner was at fault for letting his twitter account be hacked (which, I understand from reading a few of these guys is identical to letting the launch codes slip into Communist hands). Instead they will averr that its pathetic that Weiner couldn’t protect his twitter account and even more unmanly that he resorts to the brute force of law to punish some harmless joker. Its how they roll.
arguingwithsignposts
@Bender:
I see Ye Olde Troll Bender is back for another round. Re: your “point” above, c.f., John Edwards. He’s been pretty roundly driven out of Democratic politics since his shenanigans. On, the other hand, aimai answers the rest of your “point” above. IOW, IOKIYAR.
shortstop
John Cole, I hope you’re paying attention. The only people still using the word “coed” are superannuated (in body and/or mind) wingers and you. I’m just sayin’.
aimai
@kay:
It is weird. Occam’s Razor would indicate that there are only three possibilities:
1) she’s a victim of Weiner sending her this thing
2) she’s a victim of a right wing smear attack
3) she was complicit in Weiner sending it to her so she’s not a victim but he is a guy with a little on the side or some erotic fantasies he’s not sharing with his wife.
She asserts that its (2) and that is either true or false. But it can’t be ignored.
*Sorry, that’s not Occam’s Razor, of course. Occam’s Razor would enable us to choose among these three possibilities the most elegant and spare solution.
aimai
arguingwithsignposts
All in all, if Weiner’s acct. was actually hacked, it’s not like Twitter doesn’t keep IP records about who’s posting when, see, for instance, the recent case where they had to turn over info about an anonymous poster in the U.K. because of a super-injunction. If someone did hack the acct., it would be very easy to prove.
wonkie
The “tell” that this is another Rethuglican smear is the adolescent decision to attack someone named Weier with a peis shot. It’s so O’Keefe, so Breitbart. so typical of the sophomoric mentality of people who take Ayn Rand seriously.
A side ote: the college student follower of Weier who supposedly was the target of the croch shot (which she ever saw) reported that she has been harrased for weeks o her Twitter feed–by Dan Wolfe. He set her multiple tweets which she saved harassig her over an affair she supposedly was havig with Weiner. She lives in Seattle and has never met Weiner. Or Wolfe for that matter.
shortstop
@arguingwithsignposts: But you need the help of a lawyer to get those records. A lawyer that someone waited until the end of a holiday weekend to hire and whose name, home address and social security number someone highly suspiciously didn’t release.
Ash Can
@Bender: It would help if the people reporting this were the least bit credible, wouldn’t it? Since you choose to believe them, you’re left looking like you don’t have the sense to come in out of the rain. But by all means, keep digging. It’s entertaining.
aimai
@wonkie:
Wonkie, your “n” keystroke seems to be missing. Weird. At first I thought you were trying to make some kind of graphic/visual statement by leaving the n’s out. But your points are really good.
aimai
Jon O.
I’m just counting time until we see that Dan Wolfe is either a friend of or alias for James O’Keefe.
piratedan
@kay: I hear ya Kay, but in the views of those attempting to plant the smear…. “that’s just what we would expect you to say” appears to be the active MO that they’re trying to peddle. She’s already been subject to the ratfucking mob that travels on twitterdom on behalf of Andy’s pals and while many of us see Breitbart and his ilk for what they really are, this is just another lame attempt to paint some kind of false equivalency. Strange that I don’t recollect that Anthony Weiner ran as a family values Democrat or that he’s indicated some kind of moral or ethical high ground from which to govern.
Felinious Wench
Something we seem to be missing. Which goes back to Occam’s Razor.
This picture was visible to 40,000 Twitter followers. There are two explanations for this:
1. Rep. Weiner accidentally posted it to his Twitter account. Not likely. As we’ve discovered lately, if the man wanted to send lewd shots to a woman, somehow I think cell phone would be more likely. Or e-mail. And I sure as hell hope it’s more lewd than this one.
2. Someone wanted 40,000 Twitter followers to see this picture and think Rep. Weiner would actually be stupid enough to send out a “lewd” photo through TWITTER.
Scenario 2 is a bit more likely.
What kills me is how the right wing was stupid enough to fall for this. Their knowledge of the Intertubes appears stunted. Twitter for passing lewd photos? Really? By a Congressman?
It’s so juvenile it’s ridiculous.
edit: 45,000 Twitter followers.
Bender
Oh, come on, you’re arguing against cartoons now. Grow up. There are plenty of revered divorced Republicans (in a thread with Reagan mentioned in the post, you should’ve had a clue), and a vast, vast majority of Democrats campaign with their smiling families, talking about “family values,” too. You’re just looking for a slightly more sophisticated way to say “IOKIYAD.”
Well, prepare to be perpetually disappointed in your Democratic leaders then (remember Jim McGreevey?). You won’t find your mythical “evolved attitude” anywhere amongst them (and of course, the GOP doesn’t require any of the cartoonish things you assert, either).
wonkie
I know about the missig n key. My dog whacked it off my keyboard. Now I have to really pound that key to get it to register.
Ash Can
@Felinious Wench:
See Bender’s unintentionally revealing comment somewhere above — it’s not so much being stupid enough to fall for it as it is wanting it to be true. They eat Breitbart’s stuff up because he makes things they so want to be true appear true. Then they ignore the inevitable debunking because, emotionally, they can’t handle it.
Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal
wow, i feel like a perv, i saw the pic a few nights ago.
Judas Escargot
@Jon O.:
Why don’t we all go ask him on twitter. At the same time? :P
Lol
The picture had to be unambiguous and tame because anything else would have had identifying information that could have ruled out Weiner.
Felinious Wench
@Ash Can:
I mean, seriously. Do these people know nothing about Twitter and how it works? Do they not think a sitting Congressman might have a moment where they’d think “you know, this might not be a good idea.”
Come on.
schnooten
Another absurdity:
Weiner’s a bit savvier than this. If I understand correctly, he allegedly tweeted this picture to her publicly. The dude understands twitter hashtag jokes. Why would he have tweeted the picture publicly instead of Direct Messaging her? He knows how twitter works.
Nemesis
@wonkie: evidence of her dalliance with Weiner….she tweets he is her boyfriend.
Solid evidence my arse. People tweet silly shit all the time.
OKeefe and breitbart get off on the destruction of public figures and entities with bullshit bogus “evidence”. Its the lack of real evidence that makes their attacks sooo satisfying.
wonkie
I don’t think she had a dailliance with Weiner. Or he with her.
Served
On top of all of the evidence that this is phony, I would add that most “public figure” accounts are open to that person as well as staffers. Why would Rep. Weiner send this pic through a shared Twitter account instead IM or a private e-mail?
I’m suspicious because only one person seems to have seen the tweet in question. The Twitter client for Mac doesn’t delete tweets until you re-open the program, so someone else could have seen the offending tweet in a 3rd party program and captured it. For instance, John Cole accidentally tweeted his password the other day. He deleted it, but it was in my feed well after he did so.
Sorry to use that example, but this case just doesn’t make any sense at all.
aimai
@Bender:
I’ll give you McGreevy but since its well known that Reagan himself would be considered a RINO by today’s tea partiers for his tax raising ways alone I doubt if Reagan’s example really cuts in your direction. There’s no doubt that a divorce in the past is clearly more acceptable to the “outlaw divorce” crowd of theocrats running the far religious right than a recent divorce. And, of course, as Franklin Graham has indicated even Newt’s divorces don’t disqualify him from being a potential Republican “family values” standard bearer. But that is merely to argue that the Republican party as a part believes in Republican exceptionalism: do as we say/not as we do. That, in fact, is the explicit message of the neo-cons like William Kristol, Gertrude Himmelfarb et al who have all argued for a victorian morality for the massess and lip service and public deference only for the ruling classes. Degeneration of the type leads to Kathryn Lopez at NRO arguing for the child’s pathetic vision of a nun like self abnegation for everyone. But no one pays attention to her. She’s just chum for the massess.
aimai
OzoneR
Doesn’t matter. Weiner is outspoken and the New York media hates that. They’ll ride this right until he’s too damaged to run for mayor.
When his political career is ruined, are we going to accuse him of not fighting hard enough?!?!
rea
I would be somewhat more inclined to believe that the two had an affair if there were any evidence that the two had ever been on the same side of the continent at the same time. Just sayin’ . . .
shortstop
@Served: I can’t believe you passed up that chance to make hilarity fucking ensue.
Mnemosyne
@Bender:
Fix’d. Out of curiosity, Bender, can you please explain for us why it is that the only person who (allegedly) saw this picture live on the Twitter feed and took a screenshot of it before it was deleted just happens to be the same guy who’s been Twitter-stalking the supposed recipient for over a month accusing her of … wait for it … having an affair with Weiner? That seems pretty convenient, don’t you think, that he’s the one person who stumbles upon proof of the affair?
Nah, it must be that Weiner and the woman were having an affair, because otherwise that would mean that Breitbart is lying to you. Again. For the hundredth time. And you were stupid enough to fall for it. Again. For the hundredth time.
Also, the wingnuts wishing that Weiner will file a lawsuit should be careful what they wish for.
shortstop
@aimai:
This is a cornerstone of the creed of The Family/the C Street gang, is it not?
kay
@piratedan:
I know that’s the standard for internet sleuthing, but it isn’t my standard and I don’t think anyone else should accept it either. Why are we accepting Andrew Breitbart’s ethical standards? Jeez. Surely we can do better than that.
Who decided this woman wasn’t credible? Right wing internet warriors? Not me. I don’t go along with that.
If she says it isn’t true, it isn’t true until someone puts something up to prove her a liar.
It just makes me mad how we’re gathering all this “physical evidence” and completely ignoring her.
“Shut up and sit down! Your statements are getting in the way of what internet pundits might imagine about your life! Besides-what is your motive here? ”
I don’t think it’s supposed to go like this.
Bender
Thanks for describing the ad hominem fallacy for us.
Of course, the people defending Weiner haven’t proved to be any more credible, have they?
Remember when Kos said their P-shop EXPERTS had PROVED that Evil Brietbart had faked the tweet because some pixels were more degraded than… oh, wait. Weiner said the tweet was genuine, just that he didn’t send it. Ooop! Never mind…
Look, reason this is really interesting is the MSM vs. New Media aspect. The “crime” here is miniscule (though not to Weiner’s wife, perhaps). There would be no upside for the GOP if the boner-pic were Weiner’s. The seat is not in danger of going GOP. It’s classic “cover-up is worse…”
Weiner is a media go-to guy, he’s a left-of-left liberal, he’s from New York, and he’s a Democrat, so the MSM have many reasons to protect him. It’s not that the MSM haven’t heard of the story — rather, they (note the “I hear its a fake” Tweet from Kurtz) are just credulously accepting his press releases as fact — JOURNALISM! — without investigating.
The questions are pretty freaking obvious to anyone who’s not a C-student Journo major: To name a few, why is a married Rep. mutually following a Seattle co-ed who calls him her “boyfriend,” and then time-checking Seattle in a post 30 minutes before a boner-shot is sent from his account addressed to the co-ed in Seattle (the assumption by the Weinergaters is that it was supposed to be a PM and he cocked it up… so to speak)? And 4 minutes later, he’s tweeting about a hockey game? Did he really wrest control of his account back from that Genius Hacker (who would’ve changed the password to protect his access as Genius Hackers do) in 4 minutes, without so much as mentioning it? (It was 20 minutes later that he said his facebook got hacked, contrary to what was posted in this comment thread above — and if his FB acct was hacked, why no damage there?)
You can see every Tweet from your acct — why didn’t he see the boner tweet and think “Hmmm, what was that picture sent from my Yfrog account? I didn’t do that”?
Why would a hacker hack your Yfrog account to post a boner-in-undies pic anyway? Why wouldn’t a hacker just post a link to a much more lewd pic from the internet, and eliminate the need to first hack Weiner’s Yfrog to post a pic to it, and then link a Tweet to that pic?
Why would a Congressman who’s been hacked erase all the evidence, including every pic in his Yfrog acct? Isn’t it a serious matter for the authorities? Victims call cops (but the guy who reported the Tweets hasn’t been contacted yet), perps call lawyers (Weiner is consulting with his as to what to do next).
These are just a few obvious questions that the MSM have decided are not worth asking. Instead, they have written pap articles like “Lewd Photos posted on Rep’s Hacked Twitter.” Evidence of the “hack?” Weiner said so.
Perhaps the MSM are behind the scenes, asking questions, trying to piece back together the evidence that Weiner and the co-ed destroyed (it might take them a while to find it, because it’s not on DKos or Media Matters — most MSM drones probably have never heard of Patterico or Ace of Spades, where it’s all screencapped). Who knows, perhaps they’ll find The Real Hacker!
Served
@shortstop: He realized it pretty quickly, and tweeted with true Cole stoicism: “Well, guess I have to change that password.”
BlueMonkey
1. Anthony Weiner doesn’t preach sexual morality for others from his perch in congress. Whether he did or did not tweet this picture (or whatever else he does with Anthony Jr.) does not matter. Even if he did do this (which I’m pretty sure he didn’t) he’s not a hypocrite like ALL of the GOP pervs.
2. If it breaks on (notso)Breitbart it’s guaranteed to be a load of crap.
Mnemosyne
Of course, the real (and depressing) reason Bender is taking a victory lap this morning is that he knows that it’s not true and, more importantly, it doesn’t matter that it’s not true. Most people will only see the headline making the accusation and will never see the follow-up that it was all a hoax.
Breitbart was able to smear Weiner with a Photoshopped picture and the MSM will do absolutely nothing to make Breitbart pay for punking them once again.
kay
@kay:
They’re hanging her with her statement, right?
“My boyfriend”. THAT’S credible, but her detailed denial is NOT credible.
How does this double standard work in reality-land? I’m not getting it. If she’s a liar, why wasn’t she lying about the “boyfriend” part?
If I accept the” boyfriend” tweet as part of my “evidence” I have to at least consider the denial, right? Seeing as they came from the same person, with the same real or wholly imaginary motive?
Gramsci
Wow, Bender managed to slip in an OJ reference. That’s some quality Breitbart boilerplate right there.
Bender
Good question. But logically, if the pic was seen — in the few minutes that it was up — by 10 people, and 9 of those people followed Weiner because they were Weiner-backers and only one of them was a Weiner-hater… who do you think would’ve reported it?
To help, think what would happen if Mitt sent something similar and 9 of the 10 people who saw it were Mitt’s staff and friends, and the 10th was DougJ. Who would report it?
Weiner has mutually followed teenage girls, porn stars, and co-eds. PatriotUSA thought that was creepy (obv. he hates Weiner for some reason and trolls his Twitter) and has called him and the girls out on it. He denies being a hacker and says he hasn’t been contacted by authorities in any investigation, despite being named by many lefties as being the obvious suspect.
Felinious Wench
@Bender:
Anyone who thinks it took a genius to hack a Twitter account doesn’t know much about Twitter.
Tell you what, Bender. I’ll keep my theory. You keep yours. We’ll give this story another week and see how the facts shake out. If Rep. Weiner really was stupid enough to do this, I will apologize to you, happily, and bow to your greater wisdom.
Bender
@Mnemosyne:
Thanks for your thorough answering of all the obvious ques — oh, no, wait. I thought you were contributing something. My bad.
OzoneR
@Mnemosyne:
If only Anthony Weiner was a true progressive fighter and took control of the message. AMIRITE?
And of course this is my email box this morning
With friends like these…
Bender
@Felinious Wench:
You should really tell that to Twitter. They have a few users who might think your info to be vital! Thanks for your public service!
Mnemosyne
@Bender:
Congratulations — you have just proved that the movie star I refer to as my future ex-husband George Clooney is actually, in real life, married to me. How much do you think I’ll be able to get in alimony?
Just emphasizing your idiocy here. If the Genius Hacker didn’t act in the exact way that you think he should have, that means there was no hack because arglebargle Yfrog?
Yes, I can’t imagine why someone who was just smeared by Breitbart would delete everything so your guys couldn’t do more panty-sniffing. That’s a real mystery.
And don’t forget, the fact that Ms. Cordova deleted all of her personal information from the internet after she, her family, and her friends all received harassing phone calls is proof — PROOF, I tell you! — that it’s all true. After all, if she was innocent, she would be happy to have random assholes call her, her family, and her friends in the middle of the night.
Bender
@BlueMonkey:
The IOKIYAD and ad hominem fallacy exacta! You guys are on fire!
Felinious Wench
@Served:
A person who understands Da Twitters! Thank God!
Mnemosyne
@Bender:
Who are those other 9 people who saw the picture live? Oh, wait, they exist only in your imagination, because no one else has come forward to say they saw it. Sorry, I forgot about those troubling hallucinations you’ve been having.
And a guy who hates Weiner and trolls his Twitter just happens to be the only one who sees and screencaps the picture. He should probably make sure to buy a lottery ticket today just in case his lucky streak of just happening to be in the exact right place at the exact right time continues. He could totally be a millionaire by tomorrow!
kay
@Mnemosyne:
Just remember: your tweets are conclusive evidence that you’re on the level, but a newspaper interview can be completely disregarded.
The difference is MOTIVE . What’s in her HEART, and who better to judge the character of this completely ordinary person that they just started hounding yesterday than internet conservatives?
Christ, but these people are corrosive. Lowering the bar, every day, in every way.
Felinious Wench
@Bender:
I’m an information security analyst, dumbass, and I’m not on Twitter as a result. And you’re just flashing your ass now.
One week. If it even takes that long for them to find the person. Again, if I am wrong, I will bow to your superior wisdom.
Bender
Let me be clear, it’s not the “crime” (and yes, I think Vegas would make Fat-Fingered Twitter Cock-Up as a prohibitive 2:7 favorite). It’s nothing to me — I assume that all Congressmen/women are living like it’s the last days of Rome. Sending a boner-pic-in-undies is quaint, if anything.
I just think it’s unprofessional that the media won’t ask any questions (yet?) and reports “Hacked Twitter” like it’s an established fact. I also think it’s hilarious that Weiner is so convinced that he’s smarter than all of you. I mean, he’s not trying to bullshit Republican voters, is he?
OzoneR
@Bender:
Oh Jesus Christ, pay attention to the coverage before you say something, NO ONE is stating it an established fact, NO ONE, it’s still the same “he said/she said” bullshit.
Judas Escargot
@Bender:
At last: We finally know O’Keefe’s BJ handle! :P
aimai
@Bender:
Bender, that’s a stupid lie. No one is saying that it would be OK if Weiner had done it. And even I don’t argue that its *impossible* for someone like Weiner to have done it. We’ve just argued that it is highly unlikely that Weiner did it given that a) he has 45,000 twitter followers none of whom saw it, b) the supposed recipient didn’t receive it and doesn’t think its at all likely, c) the only person who claims to have seen it, and saved a screen shot, has shut down his operation and made his own posts on the matter secret, d) its highly unlikely that *any* person, Democratic or Republican would be so stupid in using a public twitter feed.
If you have to lie about what you are reading right here, in this thread, it really doesn’t make it much of an “ad hominem” your other bullshit argument, to say that you are either stupid or lying about everything you post. By the way, its not, technically, an “ad hominem” to say that the source of a smear is unbelievable because of previous lies. Its an ad hominem to say that Breitbart’s assertions can’t be believed because he’s an asshole. But not to argue that Breitbart’s assertions can’t be believed because he’s previously shown himself to be a deceptive smear artist. When you adduce a person’s history that’s not an ad hominem. Especially when the entire validity of his position rests on an unverifiable chain of evidence (Breitbart, as usual, can’t demonstrate conclusively who knew what when with this fictitious tweet).
aimai
BlueMonkey
@Bender
Thanks for not responding to the actual premise of the comments. Yutz.
Ash Can
@aimai: People such as Bender aren’t too well acquainted with the concept of truth in general.
Walker
If you don’t understand basic logical fallacies, you should not lecture everyone about them.
When the reliability of a premise is based on the authority of the person making said premise, then questioning the authority of that person is not an ad hominem.
aimai
Here’s the relevant portion of Schmitt’s argument (italics mine):
Bender
@Felinious Wench:
Of course, Twitter has been hacked before, but too many things here aren’t consistent with a hack (like why is it addressed @the co-ed who called Weiner her boyfriend rather than just Tweeted? Why would a hacker address a career-bomb to the one person who probably wouldn’t mind receiving a boner-pic from Weiner — a person who said fictional hacker already knows follows Wiener INTENTLY?). Weiner posted four minutes after the “hack,” pulled down the Tweet himself, deleted all his Yfrog pics, etc., never notified Twitter, and never stopped using Twitter.
It’s not behavior that’s particularly consistent with a Congressman who’d been hacked and had a lewd career-bomb pic posted on his account, is it? It is rather more consistent with the behavior of a guy who shart-Tweeted a private message that linked to an embarrassing pic in his Yfrog, found out about it the next time he looked at his Twitter, and said “SHIIIIIIIIIIIIT!”
I realize that your defense of Weiner is “no one could be so stupid.” I have seen evidence to the contrary.
The Tragically Flip
So I linked my twitter to yfrog, and I can’t see any sign of privacy settings in yfrog. It appears to me everything you send is available publicly to anyone who browses you.
Anyone know different?
I also don’t see any DM option in YFrog.
It’s getting harder for me to believe that Weiner would post an intimate image to a publicly viewable site, and could confuse DM with public tweets. They’re not easily confusable in any venue for sending Tweets I can find.
The Tragically Flip
@Bender:
This is bizarre. These “questions” are self evident in the hacker scenario, because these choices would be what makes the whole scheme plausible. If Weiner’s twitter feed just randomly posted a picture of a male in underwear, not to anyone in particular, the oddness of that would make the whole thing obviously a hack, but this possibility that he was flirting with a groupie over DM makes it plausible.
MattR
@Bender:
I know you are a troll, but I am trying to figure out if you are really this stupid. How is addressing the tweet to a specific individual in any way inconsistent with a hack? If the purpose of the hack was to intimate that there was a relationship between Weiner and the co-ed, then of course the hacker would personalize the tweet.
Gravie
Trolls & right-wingers are constitutionally incapable of ever letting anyone else have the last word.
Bender
@aimai:
Ummm, I even linked to the post to which I was responding:
From Blue Monkey: “Anthony Weiner doesn’t preach sexual morality for others from his perch in congress. Whether he did or did not tweet this picture (or whatever else he does with Anthony Jr.) does not matter. Even if he did do this (which I’m pretty sure he didn’t) he’s not a hypocrite like ALL of the GOP pervs.”
How is this not IOKIYAD? If Weiner (or sub any Dem name) does something like this, it’s OK because he doesn’t “preach” about it like a Republican (who can’t stop talking in Congress about not posting dong-shots on Twitter, those guys! Weiner no doubt campaigned on the rights of married people to Tweet pics of their boners to co-eds.)
And? So? He admits that the Tweet was sent. It was sent. It was available for 40K to see it. What’s your point: that his Twitter followers don’t all live attached to their Blackberries so that they wouldn’t see his dinner-hour Tweet that was up for 4 or 5 minutes before he yanked it (no pun)? And that fewer still would click through to the Yfrog pic, esp. since it was addressed to someone who was not them, and there was no text to the Tweet at all? Granted.
Bender
@MattR:
I see your point. So in this scenario, it wasn’t a generic hacker trying to embarrass Weiner, it was specifically PatriotUSA (still not contacted by law enforcement) who hacked in and sent a tweet that was supposed to look like Weiner sharted a PM to the co-ed from Seattle, rather than Weiner sharting a PM to a co-ed from Seattle.
That’s a good answer. One question down, 50 more to go.
AnderJ
How about a nice cup of DNFTT? Anyone? It’s nice and warm!
Served
@The Tragically Flip: YFrog is just an image-hosting service that links with Twitter.@The Tragically Flip: Plus, this patriotusa guy had been harassing the woman over Twitter for having Rep. Weiner follow her. Makes it suspicious that the tweet was sent to her.
Bender
@Walker:
Nonsense. The whole basis for the ad hominem fallacy, the whole reason it is a fallacy, is that we must treat every proposition as completely independent from the person making it.
I can’t say, “DougJ said the sky is blue, so obviously, it’s not true.”
You can’t say, “Breitbart reported the Tweet, so obviously, it’s not true.
kay
@Served:
I thinks that’s my favorite part of the whole story.
How PatriotUSA was harassing the college student for contacting a representative.
Oppressive government speech controls…oh, wait.
Don’t you tread on him, Obama.
Bender
Troll? Moi? Look, punkass, I was at BJ before you (before DougJ, before Cole’s tragic brain injury, etc.). I’ll be here after you.
Besides, I’ve mentioned about a dozen questions about the “hack” and have received two real answers. Methinks the Juicers just don’t have much food on-hand.
MattR
@Bender: I am making no assumptions about who the alleged hacker is.
@Bender: Nope. While it is ad hominem to say that “because Breitbart says X, it is not true”, that is not actually a fallacy if there is a legitimate rationale to explain why you don’t trust Breitbart (ie. has a history of manipulating facts)
aimai
@Bender:
Wrong. The linked post didn’t say its ok because Weiner is a Democrat. It says that its not as bad because he’s not a purity troll.
Also wrong: if a tweet was sent to 45,000 people and this kind of shitstorm happened there is no way that thousands of them wouldn’t have noticed it after the first incident made it into the bloggosphere. No way.
aimai
The Tragically Flip
@Served:
Right, I get that, but my point was that it appears to be an inherently public service, with no privacy features whatsoever. So it’s a really poor choice for sending private images to anyone, since everyone can browse to your profile and view all the images.
The “he did it” theory hinges on Weiner both fat-fingering the DM/public tweet, and intentionally posting an embarrassing photo to YFrog. I find both premises pretty problematic.
I suppose some will just say he didn’t know, didn’t think etc, but given that Weiner is evidently reasonably tech-savy, this makes the whole “mistaken tweet” theory less likely and the “yes, he was hacked and set up” more likely.
BlueMonkey
@Bender
No, genius, it’s not IOKIYAD. It’s IOKIYNAH. I’m sure you can figure that one out.
I really don’t care what a politician does with his private life, as long long as it’s not in conflict with what he says publicly and it’s not criminal (i.e. breaking actual, not religious laws).
And even if that’s how I personally feel, don’t attribute my personal opinion to others (even if they try to speak for all of us dirty hippies).
Being a d-bag pig is not the same as being a hypocrite or a criminal.
My personal belief is that this is a smear against the congressman and that it is a ham-handed one at best. Not because he’s a dem, but because he doesn’t seem to be an idiot and because the supposed recipient also claims it’s a bunch of b.s.
And yes, I like the guy so my judgement is colored by that (and I never said it wasn’t).
aimai
@Bender:
That, too, is incorrect. We do not need to treat the proposition as independent of the proposer. We might be wise not to do so when we can achieve independent confirmation–for example going outside to check on whether the sky is blue *right now* or not. But we don’t have to accept statements by known liars as true just because we might accept them when coming from trusted authorities. The phrase “a stopped clock is right twice a day” comes to mind on this topic, as well. Its possible that Breitbart might trip and tell the truth on something that he didn’t find politically useful. For example I wouldn’t bother to doubt Breitbart if he told me he was hungry for lunch around eleven o’clock. That’s a subject on which he, presumably, is the expert and I also have no reason to believe that he is putting his vaunted political principles above reality. But really, why on earth would I trust a guy who has lied, or been mistaken, about absolutely every issue for which he has come into the public eye? I’m thinking about Breitbart’s self reported error when, in an excess of rage, spite, and hysteria against presumed anti war marchers he stood on a balcony and proudly *gave the finger* to a group of young people protesting child soldiers and child slavery in Africa. Breitbart himself acknowledges this happened. Frankly, with this kind of interpretive record he and his family should be asking to have him committed before he accidentally swallows his own tongue.
aimai
Bender
@aimai:
Wrong. Look at the words. It says that “IT DOES NOT MATTER” (i.e., “it’s OK”). Because he’s not “like all those Republican pervs” (i.e., “he’s a Democrat).
What could I possibly be wrong about here? If you’re alleging that the Tweet wasn’t really sent, then you are arguing against Rep. Weiner’s own story. The Tweet was sent. It was out there for 4 or 5 minutes. Thousands of people really didn’t notice it in those 5 minutes. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
BlueMonkey
@Bender
The majority of hypocrital pervs are GOP critters.
That’s not my fault.
MattR
@Bender:
I happen to believe that there are more than the two categories – Republican pervs and Democrats. But if you want to assert that all Republicans are pervs, go right ahead.
Bender
@BlueMonkey:
He doesn’t need to be an idiot to fuck up, and of course she’s siding with him — he’s her “boyfriend.” Besides, I don’t think she has any unique insight on this matter at all, really. Only Weiner, Weiner’s lawyers and (if there is one) the “hacker” know what happened for sure.
Bender
@MattR:
Well done!
aimai
@Bender:
Bender, even by your warped logic–for instance, you’ve never heard anyone refer to a public person as “their boyfriend?” in jest?–how does it make sense that the supposed recipient of the tweet, the girl, doesn’t “know what happened?” How can you argue that a public tweet which went out, presumably, to his entire twitter network wouldn’t have been seen by everyone else on the list? You don’t seem to have a good grasp on reality, let alone logic. Even if you sincerely believe that Weiner did this a *whole lot of people* would be in a position to know about it besides Weiner, Weiner’s lawyers, and the hacker. In fact, you think you are in a position to know about it. If you, a person at least ten thousand times removed from the entire situation knows something how on earth can you claim that the most nearly concerned person, the imaginary “girlfriend” doesn’t know anything? I mean, which is it: Weiner’s a perv who sends sick/dull emails to a basic stranger or Weiner’s a perv who sends sick/dull emails to a consenting partner he’s never met on a different coast with her permission? Those two things might seem identical to you but they are really not.
aimai
OzoneR
@Bender:
there is a different connotation when it’s somebody who preaches “family values” and wants to inject policy into the private lives of others (Republicans) vs. someone who has a “live and let live” attitude (Democrats)
It’s called hypocrisy.
BlueMonkey
@aimai
Bender seems jealous. And somewhat incapable of grasping the gray between the white and black.
Mark DeRosa was my Cubs boyfriend until he was no longer a Cub. I have high hopes for Carlos Pena (though they fade as the season goes on).
Bernie Sanders is my Senate boyfriend. My husband is okay with this and I don’t bitch about other gals having Cub and Senate boyfriends so there shouldn’t be a problem.
It’s good that the cons are focusing on this and clutching their pearls and suffering from the vapors. Don’t have to worry about what a disaster they are if they’re focusing on some libtard congress critter’s crotch.
BlueMonkey
@OzoneR
Thank you.
aimai
@BlueMonkey:
“…grasping the grey…” is that some sort of covert reference to the imaginary weiner underwear? I like it. Bender does seem a little obsessed with weiner’s status as having twitter followers who refer to him as their “boyfriend.” Is that because Bender wants the girl, or wants the weiner? Inquiring minds want to know.
aimai
BlueMonkey
@aimai
Ha! I never thought of it that way, but, wow.
Served
@The Tragically Flip: That’s exactly correct! It’s like posting it on his official page on Facebook or something and then writing on her wall with a link to it. It makes no sense when there are other, more private ways to send a bizarrely unsexual picture.
Mnemosyne
@Bender:
Which, ironically, is exactly what you’re trying to do: divorce Breitbart’s record of fail from this incident so you can desperately claim that this time, Breitbart is right, no, really! Sure, every other “scandal” he’s tried to promote has turned out to be a product of creative editing, but this time he’s telling the truth!
You can say, “DougJ said the sky is blue, but every day for the past month he told me it was green, so obviously it’s not true.” If DougJ then wants to present his proofs that he’s right this time even though he’s been wrong every other time he made the statement, that’s his responsibility.
The burden of proof here is on Breitbart, not on Weiner, because Breitbart is the one making the claim who’s been wrong over and over and over (and over) again. If the Boy Who Cried Wolf has actually seen a wolf, then great — let him show us that this time he’s not lying even though it turned out he was lying every other time he made a claim. Breitbart has no benefit of the doubt left — he’s used it all up by his own actions.
Mnemosyne
@Bender:
Why did someone who maliciously hacked into Weiner’s account send a tweet that would embarrass both Weiner and a woman who PatriotUSA has been harassing for weeks?
Gosh, such a mystery. If only something existed called “motive” that might give us an insight into why someone who wanted to embarrass Rep. Weiner would post a picture purportedly of Weiner’s underpants and send it to someone that PatriotUSA has been trying to claim is Weiner’s secret girlfriend.
But, no, you’re right, no one in this story would be interested in embarrassing Weiner — especially the guy who’s been Twitter-stalking Weiner for weeks — so it must have been Weiner who did it. No other explanation.
asiangrrlMN
@Mnemosyne:
@Mnemosyne:
For these two comments alone, you win the internets.
Honestly, when I heard about this, my first thought was, “Anthony Weiner is not that stupid. He knows the Twitter.” If he wanted to send a private pic of his dick to this chick, he would have.
@wonkie: I thought you deliberately left out the n to get the word through moderation. But, I see another missing n!
Carl Nyberg
@Steve:
I thought prison was a bit extreme in that case.
I haven’t read the law against cyber stalking and cyber bullying lately, but the attack on Weiner and the other victim would seem to be covered by some section of the law.
Carl Nyberg
@BlueMonkey:
Hopefully, the corporate media will notice this.
Northeast Elizabeth
Nothing to see here . . . Weiner sent a dirty picture to a student he was trying to impress and inflicted it upon 45,000 followers instead. He’s suffered enough.
So there’s no genuine dispute about the facts. Weiner sent the pic from his Twitter account. There have been some silly mumbles from various third-party who weren’t in the room with Weiner about a “hacking”, but not even Weiner contends that. He’s never claimed his Twitter account was hacked or denied that the picture was of his underpants.
If a hacker broke into the account of Congressman with top secret security clearance and used it to cyber-rape a young woman that Weiner didn’t know, he’d have the FBI all over it. Instead, he’s lawyered up like a criminal to make it go away. If he was innocent, he wouldn’t waste the opportunity to have every member of the alleged right wing conspiracy rounded up and sent to jail. But he can’t because he’d have to falsely deny to the FBI that he and he alone sent the picture, and would go to jail on a perjury/lying to a federal agent rap.
Bender
@OzoneR:
Nonsense. This whole “family values” argument is pure garbage. It’s the old reliable pap used by Democrats to justify (conveniently!) why Republican indiscretions should be treated more harshly than Democrat indiscretions (somehow it never works the other way around with Democrat tax cheats, does it?).
I’m guessing almost every Democrat in Congress would say that a married dude sending junk-shots to a co-ed is wrong. Not super-wrong, not lose-your-job wrong (though a Republican would likely resign because of it), but not right.
OzoneR
@Bender:
I’m guessing they’re going to say “not my problem” and “I wouldn’t do it but what other people do isn’t relevant,” unlike Republicans who will be quick to proposal laws giving them jailtime in order to pander to the Harper Valley PTA, which is why Republicans should resign when they do these things and Democrats not.
Mrs. Polly
@Bender: This is really quite enjoyable. Bender, your boy has been thoroughly, every which way, busted. Weiner’s name was photoshopped onto the Yfrog picture, as demonstrated here. This brilliantly simple timeline shows that the one and only person who claims to have “seen” the Tweet was harassing both the young woman and the Congressman for weeks, and, like a comic-book mug, dropped big unsubtle hints about what he was going to do. Weiner has a lawyer looking into filing charges.
Clarence Thomas fanboi Breitbart ran with the story on the very same day that corrupt embarrassment Thomas dumped financial filings showing his conflict of interest regarding HCR.
What a bunch of mooks.
Bender
In my opinion, DougJ is just as wrong as you think Breitbart is, over and over and over and over again. So should I reject it out of hand when he says that ObamaCare cuts the deficit? Of course not. You must separate the messenger from the argument. You don’t like the argument? Defeat the argument. Don’t just say that the messenger is a poopyhead so he’s wrong.
Even a convicted criminal can testify in court.
Church Lady
What we do know:
1. The picture was sent. Weiner said so.
2. The picture as address to a specific individual, but instead of using the D for a private tweet, it was sent @.
3. Weiner said his Facebook had been hacked. What the heck does FB have to do with Twitter? I haven’t figured that one out yet.
4. Weiner’s communications guy has been asked repeatedly if the crotch shot was of Weiner. He’s ignored this question, rather than denial.
5. Capital Police have said they have not been contacted. To the best of anyone’s knowledge, the FBI has not been called in either.
6. Weiner’s twitter account has never been taken down so that Twitter can investigate. The IP address that the tweet was sent from would be easily identified by them.
7. With 45,000 followers, why is some random twenty something co-ed in Washington state one of the few (less than 200) people that Weiner follows? Hell, why is he following Ginger Lee, some porn star I’d never even heard of before this?
8. The guy that has been accused of doing the hacking says no one from law enforcement has contacted him. He says bring it on, he didn’t do it.
9. A bunch of reporters confronted Weiner today at the capital, asking questions. His response to every single one was along the lines of “move along, nothing to see here”.
My best guess: His wife was on a trip with Hillary, he was killing time participating in a little innocent “sexting” with a fan, and wasn’t paying attention and hit the @ instead of the D. No crime, just embarrassing and leaving him with a lot to explain to the little woman.
OzoneR
@Bender:
His arguments have been defeated over and over and over again and yet you still hang on his every word.
Mrs. Polly
@Bender: Doesn’t matter. Weiner obviously didn’t do it, as demonstrated above. The hoax announces itself simply through the adolescence of trying to bring down Weiner with a picture of a, heh-heh, weiner.
What a scheevy lot you are! I’m bringing popcorn to Breitbart’s libel trial(s). Do you think there’s a chance that Weiner’s libel suit will be brought in NY? I can make it down to D.C., but it would be so much more convenient if he kept it here. We could go to Chinatown on breaks!
Mrs. Polly
Church Lady seems mighty interested in the groin area of a certain Congressman.
How about them financial filings of Thomas’s, huh? Imagine, he forgot his wife made any money FOR TWENTY YEARS!
That’s even longer than the lovely Ginny waited to demand an apology from Anita Hill for the crime of being harassed by Ginny’s pervy husband.
–Hey, I bet Thomas conferred with Breitbart on how to smear the man who forced him to release his forgotten filings. No wonder those two have an affinity for each other.
You sure know how to pick your heroes, Churchy.
Bender
@Mrs. Polly:
Look, be as credulous as you like. DKos “proved” that the Tweet was faked, too (Pixel Analysis PROVES it!) — just before Weiner said it was Real-but-Hacked.
Bender
@OzoneR:
Wrong again. I never read Breitbart.
Nate Dawg
I’m still shocked it’s even up for debate.
The leg-work has been done to prove conclusively that Weiner did NOT do this.
His account wasn’t even necessarily hacked since no one but patriotusa76 saw the picture in question, and the linked photo he provided as “proof” was a verified forgery.
When you couple that with weeks of patriotusa76 stalking, harrassing, and implying that Weiner was involved with this girl, it really is case-closed.
Bender is a moron who either doesn’t have all the facts and spouts off without them, or is a troll.
Mrs. Polly
Friends, the next time you’re caught red-handed with the evidence of your own misdeeds, why worry? Just take a page out of the Rethuglican playbook and yell, “Why didn’t you call the police on me SOONER! This is highly suspicious!”
This momentary distraction will pass. Let us meanwhile enjoy watching Clarence Thomas sweat–right now his brow is more beaded than a cold, hairy can of Coke.
OzoneR
@Bender:
sure you haven’t, and yet here you are defending him in this specific thread, though I’ve been posting here for over a month and never seen you anywhere else.
Mrs. Polly
@Bender: So if Weiner is your Ultimate Authority on whether his account is hacked, then of course you take his word for it that he is an innocent victim of a smear.
It’s entirely likely that he assumed his account was hacked because the one thing of which he was sure was that he didn’t do it. That’s the first explanation really any of us in similar circumstances would go to.
The Breitbart operation’s icky fingerprints are all over this. Between the fake pimp ACORN story, sexual-harassment-in-and-by-the dinghy, and harassing not only Weiner but a young woman, not to mention equally innocent Shirley Sherrod, it’s obviously Big Government for the dirtbags, by the dirtbags, and of the dirtbags. Hey, I’m going to use that! Thanks, Bender. You’re a piss-poor troll, but a semi-useful muse.
debbie
I think the photo looks like O’Keefe.
terry chay
Many public twitter accounts are set to auto-follow those people who follow them.
Bender
When all you have is a hammer, I guess. If it ain’t Breitbart with you people, it’s the Koch bros and Fox News. They’re the boogeymen you see in every dark corner.
We’ll see. The story appears to be gaining traction, which should (theoretically) bring us closer to the truth.
Bender
@OzoneR:
Woooooooooow! Over a month! That means I’ve only got about 10 years of BJ-cred beyond yours. Way to go!
I’m not defending Breitbart. I have no idea what he’s written beyond what I’ve read here. There are dozens of right-blogs covering this story (and gaining traction with it).
A Humble Lurker
@Bender:
Well that’s nice, but Breitbart has not been wrong over and over again merely in Balloon Juice’s opinion. He’s been proven to have been wrong empirically, not just to have been wrong but to have been lying over and over again.
Mnemosyne
@Bender:
So you think it’s still up for debate whether or not ACORN was fronting for child prostitution rings? Shirley Sherrod’s speech at the NAACP really only consisted of the 5 minutes Breitbart showed and not the 43 minutes the NAACP had on tape? NPR was really planning to take money from jihadists?
This is the problem with living in a fantasy world, Bender. You start to think that your fantasy world really exists, no matter how many facts are against you.
Mnemosyne
@Northeast Elizabeth:
And, yet, oddly enough, the only one of those 45,000 followers who actually saw the picture and took a screencap of it is a guy who’s been twitter-stalking both Weiner and Cordova for over a month accusing them of having an affair. And then the proof just drops right into his lap!
Nope, nothing suspicious about that story at all.
OzoneR
@Bender:
Well, you know what they say about lies.
Jebediah
@Bender:
So why is Vitter still in office?
Northeast Elizabeth
And, yet, oddly enough, the only one of those 45,000 followers who actually saw the picture and took a screencap of it is a guy who’s been twitter-stalking both Weiner and Cordova for over a month accusing them of having an affair.
Not odd at all. The guy was closely following Weiner’s Twitter feed and probably had an alert set up for each time Weiner posted. So of course he’d see it. Plus, he’d been watching Weiner add young women to his “followed” list for months and was waiting to pounce on a misstep. Weiner obliged.
Same thing happened to Spitzer. Made enemies, got watched. Politics ain’t beanball, as they say.
Bender
@Mnemosyne:
Oooooo, you’re not going to like this. You’re wrong. It’s precisely BECAUSE he’s been “stalking” them BOTH that he was one of the very few people able to see it.
A more avid Twitterer than I explained why Weiner’s 40K followers wouldn’t have seen it. It has to do (as I originally suspected, but was talked out of it here — shoulda known not to trust a Ball Juicer!) with the way the BonerTweet was addressed.
Because the BonerTweet was a “reply” to the co-ed (which STARTS WITH @hername), most Twitter software would only allow you to see it IF you followed BOTH Weiner AND the Random Coed from Seattle. Very quickly 40K becomes at most just a few people, including PatriotUSA who, as you noted, follows both. Everyone who follows PatriotUSA could see his Re-Tweet of the BonerTweet because it was not a “reply.”
I should’ve known this, as I follow Stephen Fry, who makes a lot of “reply” Tweets that I can never see unless I go to his personal Twitter page (people could’ve also seen the BonerTweet if they went to Weiner’s personal page, but few people use Twitter like that regularly). I see Fry’s “reply” posts ONLY if he sends then as ReTweets or if it’s a “reply” to another person I already follow.
So you’re absolutely wrong about 40K followers seeing it.