There’s been a lot of noise and very little real reporting about the Weiner story, so this is worth noting:
The truth, though, is that it is possible that the Weiner-wiener incident was pulled off by pranksters who knew how to manipulate yFrog into posting a photo to Weiner’s account. yFrog, like many other image services, allows users to send a photo to a specialized e-mail address made for that person’s account; when the service receives the message, it gets posted automatically and then tweeted out to the world.
The yFrog e-mail addresses given to users aren’t public, but they also aren’t hard to crack with some patience and some brute force. As noted by the Daily Dot, the format includes the user’s twitter name, a period, and a random word between five and six characters @yfrog.com (for example, mine might be something like [email protected]). And because yFrog apparently accepts submissions to those secret e-mail addresses from any account, any prankster who has guessed the random dictionary word could send a photo to Weiner’s account as if it were from Weiner himself.
In other words, it’s very easy to spoof the imaging service that was used to distribute the Weiner dick pic. I hesitate to use the word “hack” in this context, because it implies that some skill is involved, when all that’s required is a grudge and some perserverence.
Since “hacking” yfrog is clearly very easy, I’m at a loss as to why Weiner is being so goddam evasive and mealy-mouthed about the whole incident, instead of just trotting out a couple of nerds to explain the weakness of yfrog to the press. I’m not saying the story would have gone away, but it would have gone down a different path entirely, one that’s a hell of a lot less interesting than “I can’t say with certitude” that it isn’t me.
MarkJ
I’m reminded of the Louis CK interview with Donald Rumsfeld in which Rumsfeld will not outright deny that he is an alien from another planet. I’m beginning to think that everyone in DC has an aversion to definitive statements.
dpcap
@MarkJ:
Man… there’s not enough boldface for this statement.
mws
And here we see the difference between the Left and the Right. Sarah Palin could drown Trig in a bathtub and the Right would defend her. Our guy uses different words than we might so we abandon him with concern trolling.
Rosalita
He just keeps stepping on his own weiner. Like you said, he should just say he was hacked and move on.
cathyx
Maybe it is his.
Douglas
He’s been very clear on that he didn’t send the photo – and very unclear about the photo itself.
My impression is that he (and/or his advisors) are worrying that the photo might’ve been based on a real photograph (small cutout from a normal photo, maybe photoshopped etc.) – so if he denies it and, just coincidentally that comes out via some completely unrelated websites, that would turn into “Weiner lies about photo, what else has he to lie about?!?” in our brilliant national media.
cat48
Not having any “certitude” makes him look guilty of something to the press. The beatings will continue until there’s more
“certitude” from him or a new shiny object appears.
Personally, I could care less either way what happened.
Winston Smith
It might be a photo he took. The people behind this telegraphed it for a couple of weeks. Perhaps they got a hold of a naughty picture that Wiener took and then figured out a way to smear him with it.
Now he’s in a weird spot where he can’t really deny its his photo, but he can deny that he sent it. Unfortunately, that doesn’t sound very credible, even if it’s true.
J Edgar
Weiner had gone a lifetime, and years as public figure, putting up with “weiner” jokes. Figuring out the “serious” position on this must be
harddifficult. See what I mean.arguingwithsignposts
I really do wish this story would DIAF. The weiner jokes, the breathless reporting on absolute innuendo and rumor, the latest evolution of Kerning. Like there’s nothing of importance going on in the world. Sigh. As someone mentioned in an earlier thread, it’s this summer’s shark attacks/gary condit.
jon
My guess as to his aversion to telling the truth is that he has no fucking clue what the truth is, and he’s being asked to explain something he has no understanding of. It’s kind of frustrating to have to explain the work of others when you don’t know what they did, how they did it, where they got their work, and when they did it. Even more frustrating when you don’t really know who they are.
Typical Breitbart smear: make someone explain something inexplicable after the release of something that’s been manipulated.
cleek
Occam suggests an answer: Wiener’s acting strange because it’s his pic. he sent it. and he’s just hedging, hoping the media will get bored and move on.
bkny
the fact that breitbart is freaking and distancing himself from that dan wolfe dude sorta makes me think ‘hmmmmm’…
Joey Maloney
@Douglas:
That’s kinda what I’m thinking, too, but he (or someone) really has to figure out a better way to play defense against that scenario.
Like simply answer the question you want to answer, rather than the question that was asked. “Is that your junk?” “My account was hacked, here’s how we think it happened, it’s an outrageous smear and extremely interesting that it happens just as I’m putting pressure on Clarence Thomas to come clean about his wife’s lobbying blah blah blah…” “Why won’t you just say whether or not that’s your junk?” “Because what’s really important is Clarence Thomas’ potential conflict of interest blah blah blah…”
Do it like that and it becomes a GOOD thing that the newsninnies won’t stop asking the question, because every time they do you get more tape of you making your point.
But what the hell do I know?
nitpicker
His Facebook account was hacked, too, which could mean someone got into his email as well. The way I think this went down is Weiner was joking around with his wife, having some fun and someone got ahold of the picture and waited for the opportunity to make up shit about him. So Weiner’s probably stuck in the weird position where he’d have to say it is, indeed, his LBJ and saying he didn’t send it to that girl.
This Wolfe guy is shitting his pants right now, clearly realizing what he’s gotten himself into and if he had some good, ol’ fashioned, honest Republican knowledge of Weiner’s countertops (so to speak), you know he’d gladly be on Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, et al.
Douglas
Only if you ignore several facts (that he has denied he sent it, the whole Breitbart connections, that in several interviews he’s been talking about how images could be manipulated etc.), as usual when people start applying Occam’s razor to, well, almost bloody everything.
Not to mention, just denying that it’s his pic (and then deleting any copy he has) would probably end it faster.
Makes sense though if he’s worried that a third party might somehow “prove” that it is his. Which is where that whole mentioning of image manipulation comes in.
eastriver
Okay, here’s a possible explanation:
Congressman Weiner, a bright man, is trying to leverage this for maximum damage to the other side. He stretches the scandal out, playing coy and vague, until the ENTIRE WESTERN WORLD has seen the Dick Pic and is clued in on what’s going on. THEN, while everyone’s watching, he reveals the definitive proof that it was a malicious hack.
dr. bloor
Weiner is an idiot. He’s probably a victim, too, but idiots are better news stories.
Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal
@Winston Smith:
plus that cock appears to be huge, i mean denying its his could cost him as many votes as admitting it.
there i said it.
cleek
@Douglas:
innocent people do not act generally guilty, especially aggressive, outspoken people like Wiener.
Mark B
Honestly, I don’t think facts would have helped in this case. There are still people who believe the US government blew up the WTC ten years ago. Do you think they would understand a simple explanation about how you can easily spoof email to post a photo?
And another thing. It’s probably not wise for him to posit specific theories about the mechanism used to post the photo. He’s not an expert, it’s best to let other people do that. If he gave a theory about HOW it happened, and that specific theory turned out to be incorrect, it would make it appear that he did it, even though there are lots of other ways it could have happened. It’s best for him to say that he didn’t do it, and he doesn’t know how it happened. Specifics are best left for other people.
Shygetz
@eastriver: If that’s what he’s doing, he’s a bigger idiot than I thought. Everyone will remember that time that Weiner’s weiner was plastered all over the front page for two weeks. No one will remember that page 12 story that ran two days later where Weiner claimed to have proof that this hacker did it, the hacker denies it, we report you decide.
Joey Maloney
@eastriver: He’s doing an Obama rope-a-dope on them? How long before we have that pic on mugs and tshirts?
MarkJ
@Joey Maloney: This is a plausible explanation. I’ve taken pictures of myself from that angle accidentally while fiddling with the controls on my digital camera. I wasn’t in boxer briefs at the time but it’s entirely possible that the picture is sort of real, though somewhat altered, and that the person who hacked the acount got ahold of it and forwarded it to one of his followers to damage him.
However, I still stand by the statement that people in DC have and aversion to definitive statements. Unless they’re completely guilty – then they issue a definitive denial. Which is then proven false. Then cue the tearful apologies.
maya
The photo holds an important clue; specifically, gray colored shorts or underwear. Most guys do know the type and color of cod piece armor they wear, don’t they? White being the prevalent color, gray less so. So it would appear that Weiner does possess that type of coverage or else he could have denied it emphatically on those grounds. Therefor, he most likely did take that photo.
Now, what does one do with superfluous photos on whatever electronic/digital tweeter hand-held thingy they own? That may have been what was appropriated by “patriotusa76”. Weiner was an idiot to even take much less keep that photo around on something he could easily misplace at some AIPAC engagement.
dr. bloor
@MarkJ:
“That’s right Anderson, I accidentally took that picture of myself. I just happened to be in my underwear with a stiffy at the time. And it didn’t occur to me delete it right afterward. Or that it might be a bad idea to send the file somewhere it might be hacked.”
Yeah, you’re right. That sounds much better.
ppcli
@cleek: I’m not sure that’s true, at least in a case like this. Guilty people have the advantage of knowing exactly what happened, so they can craft a cover story that they can stick to that will be an alternate explanation for the facts that have come out and also for the facts that might. An innocent person in this situation genuinely doesn’t know what happened, and so is in the position of repeatedly saying “I don’t know”. (Especially because the innocent person, knowing only that he’s been caught in a trap, will suspect that there are further landmines laid out on the path of his anticipated denials.)
WereBear
Weiner speaks like someone who has been prepped by a lawyer. Probably the smartest thing to do.
Nutella
Why? The kid who hacked Palin’s email did it by guessing the answers to the security questions from public information in her biography. Guessing the URL from public information about its structure is pretty much the same thing.
ETA: And if the kid’s hack was bad enough to send him to jail, so is this one.
Suffern ACE
Can’t deny the photo. It is cropped. The full picture is of him doing a line of coke off the breasts of woman who is the wife in his “weekend family.” I have no proof of that, but it makes as much sense as anything else I’ve been hearing.
danimal
You can tell it’s a Dem weiner pick because there are no wetsuits or sex toys in the background.
How’s this for a simple explanation? It’s his pic and he didn’t send it. Assuming his wife didn’t know about the pic, he would want to keep the circumstances surrounding the pic as vague as possible.
Finally, who the hell cares? This has no bearing on public policy, the tweet was taken down within minutes, the pic itself was fairly tame, there were no identifiers on the pic, no laws were broken, etc, etc. Who, besides Mrs. Anthony Weiner, should give a damn? Help me understand.
13th Generation
Wow. Judging by most of these comments, no wonder brietbart gets away with the shit he does.
You all are aware of Photoshop, right?
Chris Andersen
Is anyone actually watching what Weiner is saying. His whole body language suggests that is he is having a blast pulling people’s legs on this. He is being “evasive” only in the sense that he is incredulous that anyone is treating this like a serious story and thus he is purposely tweaking the nose of those who are pursuing it.
And the fact that some on the left are falling for it just shows how pathetic they are.
cleek
@13th Generation:
WTF does Photoshop have to do with anything?
if it’s Wiener’s crotch (which Wiener’s non-denials strongly suggest that it is), any enhancements are irrelevant. the important fact is that it’s Wiener’s junk.
Kirk Spencer
What Douglas said.
Re-read the various articles asking Rep Weiner about this, and notice the core question.
“Is it your weiner?” gets the vagueness and uncertainty.
“Did you do this?” gets a solid negative.
It’s focusing on counter tops.
Yevgraf (fka Michael)
Weiner did something at some point with a picture of his junk – just not involving this incident. That’s why he’s being evasive.
danimal
I liked it better when Fox used the “child saved after falling in a well” stories to distract people. Even the “blond bombshell MISSING” stories were more interesting.
This story is just junk journalism…
d. john
“I can’t say with certitude.”
I examined the statement, tried to put myself in Rep. Wiener’s position.
You know, I can’t think of a situation where confronted with a photo like that, where I *couldn’t* say with certitude that said pic was or was not me. I’d know. If nothing else, I know what kind of boxers I wear. heh.
Then again, I don’t make a habit of photographing my junk. Nor are other people in the habit of photographing my junk.
Maybe Rep. Wiener has so many photos of his junk that “he can’t say with certitude”. To me, that says something nearly as disturbing as the story itself.
Frankly, I’d be completely willing to believe this was a hack job. Was totally prepared to see Brietbart exposed as a liar yet again.
I’m not saying Brietbart’s story is true.
But I am saying, that the only reason I suspect there is any truth to it is because of Rep. Wiener’s remark.
whoops. =)
And I like Rep. Wiener – in fact, he’s one my favorite reps. He’s smart, an entertaining speaker, and doesn’t take any shit. Usually. I want to believe him. Even now, I’m happy to give him the benefit of the doubt – esp considering the source of the accusations.
But man, what in the hemorrhaging fark possessed Rep Wiener to take an easily debunkable smear, and lend it credibility with his wishy-washy half-denial? geez. I expected better from him. He’s generally smarter than that.
Cheers.
hell's littlest angel
I assume Weiner is saying what his lawyer is telling him to say. In other words, he’s behaving intelligently.
And mws @ 9:36 — very well said.
artem1s
I don’t know, maybe endless years of special prosecutors and tell all magazines delving into politicians’ underwear drawer just so they can say ‘got ya!’? Making a definitive statement of any kind is an outright challenge to be proven wrong. Certain people just will not let go once they have targeted some one for destruction. NO ONE has a completely pristine life and even if you are pretty close crazy people have shown themselves willing to photoshop and hack their way into infamy to make their target of rage look bad.
It’s pretty clear someone wants to neutralize the Congressman. Speculating about why he won’t produce the long form doesn’t help him unless he’s got a Bin Laden in his pocket to pwn the attackers with.
Gin & Tonic
@cleek:
I don’t get it. Why is that important? He denies unequivocally that he sent it.
LongHairedWeirdo
Hold on a moment. Is this really hard to figure out?
You’re in Congress. A nasty person gets a picture that could be you in your underwear with a stiffy. Meaning, you let someone take such a picture in the past. And, if you’re like most humans, the people you’d let take such a picture are numbered among those you trust.
Is it *really* surprising that you’d be confused as to whether and how someone got that photo? Wouldn’t you want to play it awfully safe by *not* saying it wasn’t you, in case the person who had it was going to insist it was? As for why he wasn’t more forthcoming, I just learned about the yfrog sourcing myself – maybe he wasn’t sure how they got things in his twitter feed until that was explained.
The fact of the matter is, he’s dealing with a situation in which someone may have obtained an intimate photo of him, meaning he doesn’t know who to trust, and someone played a despicable trick on him, and, in today’s world, even potential allies might decide “why is he being so mealy mouthed about this?” which sounds a lot like “what is he hiding?”
He’s under a great deal of stress – I hope you’re proud for being part of the problem – and probably confused and angry that this has happened, and is probably trying hard to find out what, exactly, happened.
AWL
Unlike almost everyone else in the media, Jon Chait decided to do some journalism and contacted a forensic analyst for his take on the photo. Take a wild guess what he found?
mutt
I thought his line that he didnt know if it was his wiener or not HILARIOUS. Think about it. Skinny little policy nerd gets accused of possessing what appears to be a shlong of gargantuan proportions. A behemoth! If you didnt know, you might think it was some gigantic missile under winter camo net. Now- think of all those Repubs who take a wide stance on the issues……what goes thru THIER head when they see our scrawny lil NY Wiener glides thru the halls of power? Toe tapping? Probably that level of staccato sound hadnt been heard since the Maxims were unleashed on the Somme! As close as our Dear Leaders ever get to the sound of gunfire!
“Gee”, he says, I know I have a choad you Repubs could only DREAM about, and probably do, and certainly such magnificent examplars of Alpha male attributes- such a scepter as to rule kingdoms! MIGHT be mine, but its under the underwear, straining to burst its bonds, there. So maybe its someone ELSES……Im sure- present company excepted-SOMEONE ELSE possesses such an astounding instrument…..I mean, I know such extraordinary, awe inspiring members DO exist elsewhere….they must. so, therefore, I cant say for sure its mine. Sure as hell aint YOURS, Boehner.
elm
If Breitbart is involved, it’s certainly a manufactured scandal.
LongHairedWeirdo
Fuck you, you Puritanical asshole. If a private citizen likes photographing himself in underwear, it’s his own fucking business.
Gin & Tonic
@AWL: Not just “a forensic analyst”, but someone who is one of the world’s leading experts on digital imaging. Seriously. Prof Farid is one of the brightest lights in the field.
Cris
I can’t get past the ejacqui bears.
Gin & Tonic
And in actual news, John Edwards was indicted for misusing campaign funds.
sixers
I miss the good old days(4 days ago) when people here were so damn sure Wiener was being framed and there was no way that was a picture of his dick. Breitbart they screamed! There will be a federal investigation and he will be exonerated! This place can turn into the left’s version of the corner sometimes.
I’d vote for him tomorrow because I agree with his politics but he’s handled this terribly and looks like shit.
But this place never mocks sex scandals because its a personal issue and who’s business is that, right? Except Mark Sanford.
d. john
@Chris Anderson,
That may explain it. Wiener loves to yank people’s chains.
If so, in this case, I think it is backfiring.
cleek
@AWL:
yay! we’re now at the kerning stage.
d. john
@LongHairedWeirdo:
God, you are a fucking idiot.
I’m the last person you’d call puritanical, had you ever met me.
Try reading my post in context.
How’s being a moron working out for you?
Update: Because you are dumb, I’m editing to clarify.
Anyone who has so many pictures of there junk that they can’t determine if one is phony or not has issues.
It’s not about puritanical shit.
It’s about narcissism – you absolutely pathetic fuckwit.
jinxtigr
The poor guy. In the news day after day for having a huge cock.
hehehehehehe…
Palin’s in the news day after day for being an idiot. I think the huge cock is much more useful than that :)
I know JUST HOW HE FEELS ;D
“Oh, please don’t talk on TV about my huge massive cock for another week. Here, I’ll kind of sort of deny it only not, to make sure you don’t talk about it any more. Is that good for you?”
Paul in KY
@Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal: That’s what I wondered about. The dick in question (in picture) is alot bigger than his, so he’s torn about denying it.
It would be pretty insane if that was his motivation for the vague denials.
d. john
anyway, I’m headed out, I’ll clown on any trolly responses when I get back.
Admiral_Komack
@dr. bloor:
It’s either his talleywhacker, or it ain’t.
Poopyman
The guy’s 46 years old. He’s been married less than 2 years. He seems like a regular guy, as Stewart’s anecdote about sharing a summer cottage indicates. He’s been around, maybe more, maybe less. There’s a non-zero probability that somebody at some point took a picture of his junk. And now there’s a pic that maybe he just doesn’t know if it’s of him or not.
And @maya: A stroll through the men’s department of the nearest department store will tell you that white is no longer the dominant color of undies. It hasn’t been (IIRC) for some time.
Immanentize
I think it is about police and prosecutors telling him to stay vague while they figure out the issues. No statements of “certitude” is always the first thing a prosecutor wants from a victim if teh goal is indictment.
Then again, maybe Weiner is just a foolish fellow….
Poopyman
@d. john:
No, that’s next week, when the video surfaces showing Weiner lighting his farts.
Admiral_Komack
@Paul in KY:
It’s the “That’s not my junk ’cause my junk is tiny” defense.
Admiral_Komack
What’s Weiner’s opinion of the pubic option?
Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal
@Paul in KY:
i don’t think there is anything at all too deep about weiner’s non-denial.
its a andy kaufmanesque laugh at the coverage and the audience, he is making brietbart et al look stupid for pointing and laughing at the guy with the huge shlong that has young women wanting to be his girlfriend on twitter.
Admiral_Komack
@d. john:
You sure that’s a chain he’s yanking?
Admiral_Komack
@Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal:
I don’t think it’s working…
hell's littlest angel
I was tempted to tell d. john not to be such a self-righteous jerk when I realized that all the internecine bullshit going on in this thread is probably exactly what Breitfart was aiming to foment.
WarMunchkin
To me, it seems to all be about “Is Anthony Weiner a slut?”. That’s the real issues — not so much is that a picture of him but did he take a photo of himself in his underwear.
And then there’s the whole Jake Tapper/Obama smoking aspect of it that politicians not being forthright about sexual/personal stuff is a huge matter of public interest (as opposed to, say, wall street not being forthright about it’s financial dealings).
Admiral_Komack
@LongHairedWeirdo:
…and if it’s uncovered (so to speak), somebody’s got some ‘plaining to do.
Paul in KY
@Admiral_Komack: See how diabolical the Repubs are! To deny it, he has to say ‘The member in the picture differs significantly from mine in both length & girth, and unfortunately I must conclude it is not mine’.
Gad, they are evil!
Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal
@Admiral_Komack:
really?
i think its working pretty well.
Paul in KY
@Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal: Yeah. But to the scolds a 46 year old married congressman isn’t supposed to have young female twitter fans (unless they are churchy & pray for him & his wife).
shortstop
@Chris Andersen: Um, no. People don’t risk massive and permanent damage to their political careers and the important work they’re doing to counter a gigantically corrupt Supreme Court justice because they think it’s fun to fuck with the media for days at a time.
justanotherjones
@ Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal
I agree. I’ve seen his recent interviews and I’ve heard friends say how “evasive” he’s being. I don’t think he’s being evasive. I think he’s being careful. And having some fun. I think it’s a damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t kind of a thing.
Villago Delenda Est
The pandering ratings whores of the MSM care. Because it attracts eyeballs of the cretinously stupid, who their advertisers want to sell to. It means money for the Ferengi Controlled Infotainment Networks, and money, as Randy Newman once eloquently told us, is all that matters in this fucked up country of ours.
shortstop
@cleek: Is that the important fact? I thought the only important fact was whether or not he sent the photo.
#1 — it’s Weiner’s junk — seems pretty obviously to be the case. #2 –who sent the photo — is still up for grabs.
Paul in KY
@justanotherjones: I think he’s being too cute (if what you say is what he is doing).
Americans (in general) don’t do nuance & irony.
Thank God us BJers do, though.
Sentient Puddle
@Nutella:
I really wish we had a better taxonomy for computer vulnerabilities, but that doesn’t really seem comparable to me. Palin’s email breach was due to her own lax security practices, and can’t really be pinned on Yahoo. A “hack” generally implies a system vulnerability. That’s closer to what we see with yFrog here, but the vulnerability here was so fundamentally gaping that you could exploit it with some basic programming knowledge. And a “hack” generally implies something a tad bit more advanced.
sixers
@justanotherjones:
He’s just having some fun embarrasing his wife in front of the whole world! Thats the ticket.
cthulhu
@Winston Smith:
This is my theory as well. Based on the stuff at TSG, it would appear that hackers got the pics first and then sent one out. That Weiner might have had such pics in the first place does not bother me one bit and doesn’t relate to his job in Congress.
arguingwithsignposts
Everybody just chill. CNN is all over john edwards’ indictment and casey anthony’s trial atm. Weinergate is ovah!
cleek
@shortstop:
it’s the important fact w/r/t the picture itself. photoshop adds nothing to the (likely) fact that it’s the eponymous wiener in the picture. so what if someone tweaked it? could’ve been Wiener himself.
JPG metadata? meh. there are a billion programs that can change metadata. (i’ve written several – my company sells toolkits to do it)
maybe.
i will be 99% unsurprised if it turns out to be Wiener himself.
jinxtigr
@sixers: Embarrassing his wife? They’re New Yorkers and Democrats, not wetsuited fundies.
She’s like “Yeah. I get that any time I want, baby. Life’s GOOD.”. Embarrassed my ass.
Villago Delenda Est
@Sentient Puddle:
Expecting the lazy twits of our corporate media to bother to understand that words mean shit is like railing against the tide coming in.
They take great pride in displaying their ignorance and stupidity at all times. It’s what got them their gigs in the first place.
Villago Delenda Est
@cleek:
If Jon Stewart is to be believed, that’s not Weiner’s junk. Stewart spent a summer with Weiner, at the Jersey Shore, a few years back, along with some other friends, and according to Stewart, who has seen Weiner in similar attire at the beach, even accounting for shrinkage, that’s not Weiner. :P
Gin & Tonic
@Sentient Puddle:
It can be pinned on Yahoo, which used (I don’t know if they’ve changed this) default security verification questions that are easy to answer if you are a public figure and people know things about you. “What was the name of your high school” or “What is the name of your pet” are not difficult questions for an unauthorized person to answer. I don’t blame Palin at all here. More knowledgeable people provide fake answers to those kinds of questions, so they are less vulnerable to this exploit, but it’s not Palin’s fault that she wasn’t conditioned to do that.
OzoneR
@arguingwithsignposts:
well luckily for Weiner, there’s another threatening progressive voice in trouble
Chris Andersen
@shortstop:
1. Where is the evidence of massive and permanent damage to Weiner’s career? Does anyone in his district even care about this?
2. Yeah, it distracts from his pursuit of Thomas. But that would be the case regardless of Weiner’s handling of it.
3. Time and time again we see cases where politicians are twisted into knots in their attempt to respond seriously to ridiculous scandal. Weiner is taking a different approach. He is openly mocking the media’s obsession with this. Yeah, it draws it out. But it would be drawn out anyway so why not make a larger point in the process?
Frankly, I’m disappointed that so many liberals are actually falling for the trap of thinking that Weiner could put this matter to sleep with a more serious response. That simply isn’t the media world we live in.
OzoneR
@Chris Andersen:
Brooklyn here, they don’t care about the picture, they care about the response and the response is damaging, and he was already not really popular to begin with.
Citizen_X
@Cris:
Whew! Somebody else had that reaction.
ornery
Media pipes a tune, Cole and the commentariat sing it.
Every. Damn. Time.
aimai
Maybe someone has said this way upthread but I take it that Weiner, like many people of a certain age (he’s 45 so grew up with lots of media and internet and photosharing exposure) can’t say for sure that there isn’t some embarrassing photo of himself from his college years floating around. Combine digital cameras, phone cameras, drunken frat boy hijinks, and yfrog like social media and you have a recipe for disaster for a whole lot of people. There are pictures of me, none compromising, floating around from my teenage and college years but since they predate digital media there is zero chance that they will ever surface. Also, I’m a private citizen who led and leads a boring life without enemies. But the younger generation has both more shit out there, and (in Weiner’s case) more enemies.
I guess what I’m saying is that since the absurd picture is utterly boring and technically non lewd I would’nt be surprised if it is Weiners, as it were. Over the next decades a whole lot of joke shots that are no big deal when you take them and share them with friends are going to surface as weapons in the hands of political enemies. What makes this shot “obscene” or “lewd” is the implication that Weiner sent it to a young woman. But its not obscene or lewd in any technical sense anymore than Chris Lee’s photo was. And remember, what did Chris Lee in was not the photo but the purpose adduced behind the photo.
aimai
Joey Maloney
@Gin & Tonic:
What kind of fucking idiot gives accurate answers to those questions? You pick nonsense that for one reason or another can you easily remember. The nickname of that girl you hated in first grade, or something.
sixers
@jinxtigr:
You are totally in her head I’m sure. I have no idea what “wet suited fundies” means but I’m sure it’s accurate! She’s probably cool with her husbands dick pics being shown on the evening news with the implication that he may have been sending this out to women besides her. You should write a book on how women feel. title: I’m fucking clueless.
Morgan
One thing I don’t think I’ve seen explained is how the fuck-up happened if it was, in fact, sent by Weiner.
A quick look through his feed shows he uses the web site, the Blackberry client, and TweetDeck. The suggestion is that he meant to DM her but accidentally tweeted it with @GenetteWhatever instead.
DMs and tweets are completely separate in the web client. I don’t know about the BB client, but all the mobile clients I’ve tried on Android completely separate DMs and tweets. TweetDeck seems the most likely option since, in the web app at least, the same box is used for both tweets and DMs. However, you have to click ‘Message’ to send a DM and then you don’t use the @, you just type the person’s name. He’d have to have thought he clicked the Message button but not done so (without noticing the big ‘Message’ symbol was missing) and then used the @ even though he thought he was sending a DM instead of a tweet. I suppose this is technically possible if he had never sent a DM through TweetDeck, but it still seems like a stretch.
Any other ideas on this?
Gin & Tonic
@Joey Maloney:
>90% of the Yahoo user base, I’d bet.
I’ve made much of my living in infosec for a while now, and seen lots of people doing lots of stupid things, of course. But there’s a big difference between “idiot” and “average person not conditioned to thinking of vulnerabilities.”
Joey Maloney
I suggest the difference between “idiot” and “public figure who ought to at least have an advisor who knows better” is quite a bit smaller.
MattR
@cleek:
Maybe it is just me, but it seems that there is a bit of difference between a world renowned forensic expert looking at a document to make a determination about its authenticity and some random schmucks on the Internet who think they are experts doing the same thing.
@aimai:
I need to introduce you to this thing called a scanner. There are plenty of pictures of me floating around on facebook from the 80’s and 90’s that somebody could manipulate if they wanted. But I agree with your general premise.
I also thought that Weiner had pretty much admitted that was not his actual weiner (making an “i wish” type joke)
boss bitch
Weiner did take that picture. That is his penis. Maybe he’s too embarrassed to say that he took a pic of his junk and then manipulated the image himself on photoshop for kicks. Maybe he took and sent it to his wife, but I believe that he took that pic. That’s why he’s so mealy mouthed. Or his wife took it.
Suffern ACE
@danimal:
Just guessing, (and I know you were snarking), but the reason you don’t see the sex toys is that this photo was never meant to be sexual in the erotic “come to me, baby” fashion, but sexual in the “fuck you, I’m flippin’ you the bird literally” fashion.
If public personalities are any judge, it just seems more likely that Weiner sent a crude “fuck off!” photo at some point than the idea that he is in the habit of sending unsolicited photos to young women. I’m guessing that he was hacked, but that he sent this photo to someone else at one point. Stupid guy though. Sending a moon shot would have sent the same message to the original recipient and wouldn’t have been to easy to separate from its original intent.
Just hazarding a guess. Anthony has always seemed more crude than sexy…
boss bitch
Your Amateur Anthony Weiner Detective Work Sucks
http://gawker.com/5807965/your-amateur-anthony-weiner-detective-work-sucks
d. john
@Suffern ACE: Definitely passes the smell test. Sounds like a Wiener move.
*still* I guess we’ll never be sure.
I’m just floored that he wasn’t definitive about whether or not it was his cock, which suggests it probably was.
I may not be the biggest perv on this board, but I know I’m in the running. Still, if a pic of my cock got out, I’d be able to identify it as mine, or as a fraud. Just sayin..
Even I don’t have the library sized archive of pictures of my cock that it would take for me to not be sure. And there are pornos out there with me in them… geez.
It’s probably Wiener’s wiener. And I think you could be right about how it ended up originating in the first place.
Jay in Oregon
We are talking about the party that managed to turn an investigation of Bill Clinton sexually harassing a woman into an investigation of Clinton having consensual sex with another woman, and then turned that into an impeachable offense because he lied about it.
I can come up with all sorts of rationalizations why Weiner’s not flat-out saying that it’s not him in the picture. Maybe he took the picture and sent it to his wife as a gag. Maybe he took the picture and sent it to a completely different mistress as a gag. Maybe one of Brietbart’s gremlins found a goofy picture of a half-naked Weiner on his Facebook page, went out and bought a matching set of underwear, and stuffed it with a sock. (It’s also entirely likely that Weiner is a sexist douchebag who sent one of his fans a picture of his junk, one who is so mortified by the act and the resulting publicity that she just wants it all to go away.) The fact that we’re even having this conversation pisses me off.
The one thing that bugs me the most about this story is that Breitbart may yet claim another scalp or two; both Weiner and the alleged victim of being sent a picture of Weiner’s weiner.
d. john
It is a rather nice looking specimen, even through the boxers)
Not ashamed to say so either, I’ve seen and touched plenty in my time. Occupational hazard of being bisexual I suppose.
They’re neato. I’m not knockin the corollary either – poon is fun too, but I digress.
If I were Rep Wiener,
I’d have been like,
“Yeah it’s my coq. it’s sexy huh – Wanna touch it?”
Heh.
I suppose that’s one of many reasons why I’d never be elected to public office in my lifetime.
Cheers!
d. john
@boss bitch: And you are certain because?
I think your affair with the man is the bigger story here.
Do tell.
shortstop
@d. john: You keep thinking that the reason he’s not saying it’s not his is because he’s not sure, and extrapolating from that that he has thousands of photos of his cock lying around.
The reason he’s not saying it’s not his is because he doesn’t want to be on record as saying that.
d. john
@boss bitch: your link sucks.
For all the snark, they did not make the case that the photo was absolutely Wiener’s cock.
The only reasonable conclusion to draw is they we don’t know for sure.
You lack critical thinking skills. There was absolutely no proof in that entire diatribe. Just a lot of bullshit and snark. You apparently don’t know the difference.
Your grade: F (for fail)
sukabi
@Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal: that’s kind of my thought as well… really what guy would deny that he had a huge d!ck? some men stuff their pants with socks to look that well endowed.
what’s he going to say, “No, that’s not me, I’m hung like a hamster.”
he answers that way the idiots in the press will ask for a pen!s lineup to make sure he’s not lying.
d. john
@shortstop: @shortstop: You are right.
I am extrapolating. I don’t have evidence to do otherwise.
And, please before you criticize me for speculating, please clean your own house first:
“The reason he’s not saying it’s not his is because he doesn’t want to be on record as saying that.”
That’s speculation too.
The only difference between you and I, is I admit it.
sukabi
ok, moderation hell….
@Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal: that’s kind of my thought as well… really what guy would deny that he had a huge d!ck? some men stuff their pants with socks to look that well endowed.
what’s he going to say, “No, that’s not me, I’m hung like a hamster.”
he answers that way the idiots in the press will ask for a pen!s lineup to make sure he’s not lying.
Mnemosyne
@d. john:
The link wasn’t actually that bad, despite the snark. They did come to the conclusion that there was something fishy going on since an actual expert analyzed the file.
I think they’re making fun of the left’s version of the amateur Kerning Kommandos more than anything else.
grandpajohn
@Jay in Oregon: hell CNN has already convicted him its” Weinergate” and the coverup is worse than the crime so why didn’t he just go ahead and confess
This is just another media constructed event to aid and abet the star shitslinger Breitbart and make headlines, funny nobody in the media is asking the guys who knew about the event before it happened to explain THEIR inconsistancies and prior knowledge of events. Unless something is done to return our MSM back to a state of sanity, we will become a third world nation within 20 years.
shortstop
@d. john: I’m not criticizing you for speculating. We’re all speculating here. I’m just trying to get you off the recurrent notion that his saying he doesn’t know whose photo it is necessarily means that he’s got a giant gallery of personal pee-pee shots.
d. john
@Mnemosyne: I don’t disagree with your statement. I disagree with bitchboss’ conclusion.
I guess I should have left out the “your link sucks”
It was a snarky retort to the title of the article.
The article itself makes a good point about KK..
Here’s the thing you should understand about me.
I love schadenfreude. It’s why I follow politics in the first place.
Do I take this story seriously? Hell no!
Does it change my opinion of Rep Wiener? Yes!
I think (if it is his coq) he’s sexier than I gave him credit for.
Would it change my vote (if I were a constituent).. no. I’d just be more certain of my cast for Wiener.
That said, I *do* think his “certitude” remark did him some damage – it plays right into brietbart’s bullshit.
What I *think* he should have said (and in true Wiener form)
“Guys, this came from Brietbart’s camp. The man is a serial liar. The fact alone should be enough to shut all of you bobbleheads up. – and also, my cock is bigger than the one in the photo, and my boxers are more colorful than that. Get bent.”
Or something like that. =)
I don’t take this story seriously, doesn’t mean I won’t comment on it.
Kirk Spencer
@boss bitch: wait. The gawker guy poo-poos the yfrog because people can’t remember their own login security code? And we’re supposed to take that seriously?
Especially when he sorta agrees there really is a weakness just a bit later (in his comment that yfrog is going to fix it)?
Argument FAIL.
victory
Am I the only one, I did not read through all the posts here, who, after reading this post, tought of the kid who “hacked” Palin’s email by correctly guessing the password?
Jay in Oregon
@victory:
Didn’t something similar happen when Paris Hilton’s BlackBerry account was compromised? IIRC, the security question was “What is the name of your favorite pet?” which anyone who pays attention to Paris Hilton can tell you…
UncertaintyVicePrincipal
@mws:
Yep.
http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2011/06/02/thursday-night-basset-blogging-169/#comment-76256
The ease with which even supposedly non-rabid-right-wing bloggers and zines jumped on the “oooh, he sounds guilty!” bandwagon simply astonished me.
Once again, it boils down to Andrew Breitbart throwing enough mud around that some of it, somehow, amazingly, sticks on his target instead of him, and he wins, again, because the country is populated by gullible, easily-manipulated morons.
d. john
@shortstop:
My speculation was an attempt to parse Wiener’s words at face value. When I do, I can’t help but conclude the size of his personal penis pic portfolio has gotten out of control.
d. john
@shortstop:
my last alliteration was lost in moderation.
To retry:
My speculation was simply a straightforward attempt to take Wiener’s statement absolutely at face value.
When I do, I can’t help but conclude that size of Wiener’s Colossal Collection of Coq Close-ups has almost certainly gotten out of hand.
Nate Dawg
Unfortunately, sounding innocent is more important than being innocent.
If he’s even 80 percent certain this isn’t a photo of him, he should deny it categorically.
Does he *want* to get re-elected?
ruemara
You know, I still don’t care. And I don’t really like Anthony Weiner that much.
Calouste
@sixers:
I think that title is already taken for Todd Palin’s autobiography.
Robert Waldmann
I think I must be confused. I don’t understand why any hacking at all is necessary. Everyone seems to agree that the link went out Weiner’s twitter stream, but the only evidence is a *.jpg which is alleged to be a screen capture (of a twitter feed) and another *.jpg which is alleged to be a screen capture of a yfrog page. I have read the confident assertion that the alleged yfrog screen capture was photoshopped (I can’t just the expertise of the person who asserted this was proven by saving one more time from acrobat as jpg and looking at the change due to the most recent save).
IIRC patriotUSA76 the person who claims to be a screen capturer also asserts that the tweet was deleted after 1-5 seconds (not something one would know without updating the twitter feed).
I just tweeted and deleted. What did I tweet ? I think there is no way to know.
Not to get all cocky about my geeky, but I just logged onto twitter with two different browsers. Tweeted again (same tweet which I think there is no way to know what it was). Then deleted it with one browser. To my no surprise at all, twitter did not reach into my hard disk and edit the temporary file showing the tweet feed with the temporary tweet. It is not at http://www.twitter.com anymore, but it is still on my screen.
Now I go to another page then hit the back arrow to return to my twitter feed. OK the twitter feed reloaded so it wasn’t there anymore.
catperson
My personal theory, which has no basis except that I enjoy it, is that Huma got drunk and decided to prank one of his groupies. So it’s him in the pic. He didn’t send it, but doesn’t want to throw Huma under the bus, since it wouldn’t end the rumors anyway.