Congressman Weiner's inappropriate tweet

[TraneWreck]

Correct. It follows from Weiner's behavior.

Why did you say, "that is why" to start the second sentence then? Odd sentence construction coming from you. Any time you use "that," even when it seems to indicate an immediately preceeding phrase, are we to assume you mean "Anthony Weiner's behavior" from now on?

What else is he going to say if he did it but doesn't want to admit it?



He's the one claiming a crime occurred, not me.

So this is what your case amounts to? It's an exercise in hilarious circularity.

Again, lets assume it's all true, despite the statements by both Weiner and the woman who received the picture. We have a man consentually sending a picture of his dong to a woman.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Worst case scenario, it's between Weiner and his wife.

 

[johnny karate]

The beauty of how this is being spun is that even if Weiner is completely exonerated, we can still criticize him for his poor handling of the situation.

Well played, Right Wing Echo Chamber. Well played.

 

[leftysergeant]

What is yfrog? Is it publicly viewable? That means it is totally hackable. You want to embarrass someone? Hack his album, substitute an offensive photo for an innocuous one, wait for him to link it to someone, then erase it.

You don't even have to mess with Twitter.

And who posts something and takes it down within an hour?

The more you look at it, the stranger this all looks, and the less certain it is that Weiner sent THAT particular picture.

 

[lomiller]

Wrong. The kid that hacked Palin was convicted of a felony. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin_email_hack

Wrong again. Palin's hacked account was a Yahoo email.

Government account or not it still potentially gave the hacker information relevant to national security. In this case there is no reason to think that anything could have been taken so there is no particular reason to suspect the situation is similar to that incident.

As I said before, this type of hack occurs all the time and you are wowfully ignorant of you think hacking someone’s account is illegal when there are no extenuating circumstances.

 

[Ziggurat]

Again, lets assume it's all true, despite the statements by both Weiner and the woman who received the picture.

What on earth do you mean by the highlighted portion? Let's assume she's telling the truth. In that case, she's in no position to determine who sent the tweet.

We have a man consentually sending a picture of his dong to a woman.

If she's telling the truth, she never consented to anything of the sort.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

I'm really most interested in whether it is real.

So, I'd like to know if any of our resident Skepchicks have any experience with receiving Weiner photos.

I've never received a Weiner photo, but I do have a picture of Ducky's ass.

 

[johnny karate]

/thread

 

[TraneWreck]

What on earth do you mean by the highlighted portion? Let's assume she's telling the truth. In that case, she's in no position to determine who sent the tweet.

She has said that there was no relationship of any kind between her and Congressman Weiner.

I suppose there's a chance that Weiner randomly mails out pictures of his dong to twitter followers, but that's pretty absurd.

If she's telling the truth, she never consented to anything of the sort.

Assuming the worst case scenario involves assuming that both parties are lying. I don't know what you're arguing.

 

[Ziggurat]

She has said that there was no relationship of any kind between her and Congressman Weiner.

I suppose there's a chance that Weiner randomly mails out pictures of his dong to twitter followers, but that's pretty absurd.

There's no reason to think that it was random, even assuming no relationship. His possible motives in picking her (rather than someone truly random) are rather obvious.

 

[Brainster]

She has said that there was no relationship of any kind between her and Congressman Weiner.

I suppose there's a chance that Weiner randomly mails out pictures of his dong to twitter followers, but that's pretty absurd.

Yes, indeed, that does seem pretty absurd. So, now what do you think that says about the veracity of the young woman's statement?

 

[A Laughing Baby]

I just want to point out something. I don't know if you guys have noticed this, but the Rep in question's name is Weiner. Weiner. Get it???

 

[sarge]

I just want to point out something. I don't know if you guys have noticed this, but the Rep in question's name is Weiner. Weiner. Get it???

There was a mildly humerous, completely sophomoric series of posts with nothing but plays on his name and the subject of the photo in question. I think they got it.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The beauty of how this is being spun is that even if Weiner is completely exonerated, we can still criticize him for his poor handling of the situation.

Well played, Right Wing Echo Chamber. Well played.

Reading through the JREF Sarah Palin's Email Hacked thread I see the left-wing doing the same thing. Though they were criticizing her before she reacted. According to them, it was her fault she got hacked (which I sort of agree with).

Looks like the Right Wing Echo Chamber picked up a few tricks from the last election...

 

[A Laughing Baby]

There was a mildly humerous, completely sophomoric series of posts with nothing but plays on his name and the subject of the photo in question. I think they got it.

It was sarcasm based on everyone I know making "member of Congress" jokes.

 

[TraneWreck]

There's no reason to think that it was random, even assuming no relationship. His possible motives in picking her (rather than someone truly random) are rather obvious.

Picking her out for flirting, yes, picking her out and randomly sending a cock shot with no prior interaction, not so much.

Yes, indeed, that does seem pretty absurd. So, now what do you think that says about the veracity of the young woman's statement?

It makes me think she's telling the truth and that Weiner didn't send the shot.

 

[AlBell]

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

If the weiner wasn't a Democrat he would have already resigned in disgrace.

 

[Neally]

I am unaware of the provision that says that an IT guy that makes sure a Congressman's computer is clear of viruses has to report that to the public.

I never claimed there was. It would be a scandal if something was found and not reported to the police.

Why would the prank necessarily involve hacking?

I can't think of any way to send a tweet with someones account without having access to their password. Can you?

Government account or not it still potentially gave the hacker information relevant to national security. In this case there is no reason to think that anything could have been taken so there is no particular reason to suspect the situation is similar to that incident.

Same with Weiner. It is well known that he uses Twitter to communicate publicly and privately, just like Palins Yahoo account. Could easily fall under USC Title 18. That would be up to the courts to determine, but the point is that he didn't even report it.

 

[leftysergeant]

If the weiner wasn't a Democrat he would have already resigned in disgrace.

Bull feathers. We only throw our people under the bus for known moral degeneracy.

You all are still stuck with Diapers Vitter.

 

[TraneWreck]

I never claimed there was. It would be a scandal if something was found and not reported to the police.

You report all your viruses to the police? Your worry was that Weiner could have something on his computer that is an on-going security breach. This could be taken care of by IT people without the public becoming aware. Hell, it could be reported to the police and you wouldn't know. All we know is that the Capitol police are not investigating, we do not know what information they have.

I can't think of any way to send a tweet with someones account without having access to their password. Can you?

No, but I can think of ways to get a password without hacking...

 

[HoshizoraZankou]

So, is the upshot of this that there is no evidence beyond the word of the world's least ethical blogger that the tweet even occurred?

That's what I'm seeing. All we have is the retweet from this @patriotusa76 on the 27th and the screencap that Breitbart posted of the actual tweet on TweetCongress. Both, along with the yfrog page, could have been created without the tweet ever existing in the first place.

Has anyone analyzed Breitbart's screencap? Is there any way to know if that was altered?