Congressman Weiner's inappropriate tweet

[Ziggurat]

His enemies have hired hackers. They saw what happened to some doofus Republicon who sent an inappropriate picture. Sounds like the kind of trick that should work.

If that's what happened, then somebody committed a serious crime. They should be caught and punished.

So why aren't you calling for a police investigation? Why isn't Weiner calling for a police investigation? Doesn't that strike you as being even just a little bit at odds with your (completely unsupported) theory?

Trouble is, nobody can prove that that is actually Wiener's junk in the whitie-tighties.

That was never the relevant question. Regardless of who is in the photo, the relevant question is who sent it.

 

[Tricky]

If that's what happened, then somebody committed a serious crime. They should be caught and punished.

So why aren't you calling for a police investigation? Why isn't Weiner calling for a police investigation? Doesn't that strike you as being even just a little bit at odds with your (completely unsupported) theory?

If that's what happened, I suspect it will be. I'm pretty sure we haven't heard the last of this. I'm guessing the truth will be a mixture of Congressman naughtiness and vindictive exploitation of same. But we'll see.

 

[Ziggurat]

What was the guy who hacked Palin's email charged with?

Computer fraud and obstruction of justice.

 

[Brainster]

Here's a debunking

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/29/980400/-Breitbarts-#TwitterHoaxHow-It-Went-Down

Attempted debunking. There are any number of questions left:

1. Why was a congressman from New York following a 21-year-old coed from Seattle's tweets? Weiner, like many famous people has far more people who follow him (about 45,000) than he follows (fewer than 200).

2. Why did Weiner mention in an earlier tweet that day about an appearance on Rachel Maddow's show what the time would be in Seattle?

3. Why has Weiner not gone to the police to report criminal hacking and/or identity theft? Instead he's hired a lawyer.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So why aren't you calling for a police investigation? Why isn't Weiner calling for a police investigation? Doesn't that strike you as being even just a little bit at odds with your (completely unsupported) theory?

I realize you're just asking questions, but do you think that Weiner's not calling for a police investigation is evidence that he's guilty of sending this photo to a coed?

It seems to me his response is reasonable:

"If I were giving a speech to 45,000 people, and someone in the back threw a pie or yelled out an insult, I would not spend the next two hours of my speech responding to that pie or that insult. I would return to the things that I want to talk about," Weiner said in response to a question about whether he sent the lewd photo to a Seattle woman.

Also his lawyer says it was a prank. I rather agree with you that if Breitbart did this, that it's a crime, but I don't think considering it a distracting prank is unreasonable or a sign of guilt.

 

[Tricky]

3. Why has Weiner not gone to the police to report criminal hacking and/or identity theft? Instead he's hired a lawyer.

This one's a no-brainster brainer. (JK, Brainster )

Before you do anything, talk to a lawyer to see what will happen if you do it. Especially true for celebrities and politicians.

 

[Brainster]

This one's a no-brainster brainer. (JK, Brainster )

Before you do anything, talk to a lawyer to see what will happen if you do it. Especially true for celebrities and politicians.

And my guess is that the lawyer told him about the penalties for filing a false report with the police. Hence his current stance which is "Haha, what a prank, yeah I've heard the wiener jokes all my life."

But as this story in New York Magazine indicates, he's not going to get away with it for long:

But what's clear is that Weiner is only inviting more suspicion on himself by the way he's handling the attention. During an encounter with reporters earlier today, Weiner refused to answer any questions about the incident, including whether that was his own package in the photo, why he contacted a lawyer instead of law enforcement, and why he was following the college student on Twitter in the first place. Instead, he pointed reporters to his previous statements (which don't actually address those questions) and expressed his desire to move on to more important business.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And my guess is that the lawyer told him about the penalties for filing a false report with the police. Hence his current stance which is "Haha, what a prank, yeah I've heard the wiener jokes all my life."

Could be.

But it could also be that he was afraid of it being seen as a petty-minded overreaction. (Someone trying to make it a big deal only because he has the authority of a Congressman.)

 

[mortimer]

This is a whole lotta nothing. If he's married, it should be left to the two of them to deal with.

 

[Ziggurat]

I realize you're just asking questions, but do you think that Weiner's not calling for a police investigation is evidence that he's guilty of sending this photo to a coed?

It's circumstantial evidence, but yes.

Also his lawyer says it was a prank.

No. If he didn't do it, it's a crime. This is NOT the equivalent of a heckler in a crowd, and while I wouldn't spend time on a pie thrower, that's absolutely a crime and I'd sure as hell want the POLICE to spend time on it (which is usually what happens). Unless this was someone within his own office that he wants to go soft on (I wouldn't in his place), then treating this as a mere prank is a serious mistake. The whole point of getting a verified Twitter account is so that people can trust that it's really you, because it's important for a congressman to be able to communicate with his constituents. Letting hackers exploit or undermine this public trust for a sitting congressman is not acceptable.

I rather agree with you that if Breitbart did this, that it's a crime

There is zero reason to think Breitbart did it, even if Weiner didn't.

but I don't think considering it a distracting prank is unreasonable or a sign of guilt.

If you want to treat it like a prank, then you don't need your lawyer at all.

And if you want to treat it like a crime (which is the only sensible response), you don't need to talk to a lawyer first either. You never need a lawyer when you are the victim, as he purports to be, and delaying calling the cops is pretty much never going to help catch the culprits. But if you want to know how much lying you can get away with, then a lawyer can be quite handy and the last thing you want to do is involve the cops.

Lawyering up doesn't prove that he's guilty, but it is suggestive. If he's not, then he's handling this badly. Very, very badly.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

this story in New York Magazine indicates, he's not going to get away with it for long:

But what's clear is that Weiner is only inviting more suspicion on himself by the way he's handling the attention. During an encounter with reporters earlier today, Weiner refused to answer any questions about the incident, including whether that was his own package in the photo, why he contacted a lawyer instead of law enforcement, and why he was following the college student on Twitter in the first place. Instead, he pointed reporters to his previous statements (which don't actually address those questions) and expressed his desire to move on to more important business.

But he already has responded to these questions, hasn't he?

Even if he was doing something inappropriate with the coed, there's no one alleging he committed a crime, is there?

I'd be more interested in his possibly "inappropriate" private life if he were one of the people going around claiming gay marriage was a threat to marriage and working to limit women's reproductive choices--that is one of the politicians who hypocritically try to insert government into people's private lives.

Even if this incident were the worst it could be for Weiner, it's not like Watergate or the Iran-Contra scandal. It's not even as if he were trying to have sex for money in a public bathroom.

 

[leftysergeant]

Actually, until we see what sort of tweets and images the alleged "victim" was sending out, we have no idea whether or not the image was even inappropriate.

 

[TraneWreck]

Just out of curiosity, for our Conservative commenters, what does Breitbart have to do to make you skeptical of his claims?

Because this story originated from the Breitbart empire, I immediately assumed it was nonsense. Time has shown it to be entirely nonsense. This is episode 1,987 of "Breitbart offers preposterous lie, conservatives gobble it up, then look foolish."

 

[tyr_13]

You never need a lawyer when you are the victim,

Hey Zig, I'd like you to meet the twenty-first century US. I'm surprised that you two have apparently never met before. It seems like you have a lot to talk about.

 

[leftysergeant]

Not if that picture is any indication.

Size matters less than whether or not they work. I know most of the right-wing blathermeisters have problems in that area, like that deaf junky down in the compound in Florida, and maybe that oranged-skinned freak weeping on the podium.

 

[BenBurch]

... conservatives gobble it up, then look foolish."

But not to each other. They still believe all of it so they feel not foolish, but smugly superior.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No. If he didn't do it, it's a crime. This is NOT the equivalent of a heckler in a crowd, and while I wouldn't spend time on a pie thrower, that's absolutely a crime and I'd sure as hell want the POLICE to spend time on it (which is usually what happens). Unless this was someone within his own office that he wants to go soft on (I wouldn't in his place), then treating this as a mere prank is a serious mistake. The whole point of getting a verified Twitter account is so that people can trust that it's really you, because it's important for a congressman to be able to communicate with his constituents. Letting hackers exploit or undermine this public trust for a sitting congressman is not acceptable.

Credit card fraud is also a crime, but the two times in my life I was the victim of it, I just contacted the bank (actually for one, the bank contacted me because they suspected a charge was fraudulent). I never called the police or called for an investigation.

Again, if Weiner did do what is alleged, it's not a crime, right?

If he didn't, I think it's reasonable for him to be concerned about looking like a cry-baby.

As someone suggested, the truth might be somewhere in between the two. He may have been having some kind of relationship with the coed that some people consider "inappropriate" (but apparently not the 2 consenting adults involved), AND the photo could have been sent by the hacker and not by Weiner. If that were the case, he would certainly prefer the whole thing be ignored.

 

[Ziggurat]

Actually, until we see what sort of tweets and images the alleged "victim" was sending out, we have no idea whether or not the image was even inappropriate.

Who is this "we"? The image was at the link in my original post. Anyone who followed that link would have seen it.

 

[Noztradamus]

Tool

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Who is this "we"? The image was at the link in my original post. Anyone who followed that link would have seen it.

You misread lefty's post, I think. He was talking tweets from the coed. It could be that sending this photo was appropriate (that is, welcome).

But some people would find it inappropriate anyway because he's a married man.

ETA: I think lefty is trying to determine whether or not the woman could even be considered a victim of anything. I think from the statements she's made, the answer is no. If anything was going on between them, it appears that it was consensual (or welcome).