Congressman Weiner's inappropriate tweet

[Ziggurat]

So the reasoning is circular now.

Weiner claims it was just a prank and not serious enough to call for a complaint.

His actions are not consistent with THAT claim either. If it's serious enough to hire a security firm to investigate, it's serious enough to tell the cops about.

And yet again, I think it's far more likely that Weiner would prefer his private matters to be kept private (that maybe there was something going on he doesn't want the whole world to know about) even at the cost of passing up a chance to investigate a crime of which he was the victim.

That horse left the barn days ago.

 

[johnny karate]

His actions are not consistent with THAT claim either. If it's serious enough to hire a security firm to investigate, it's serious enough to tell the cops about.

Or just the opposite. Perhaps Weiner doesn't believe this is a serious enough incident to involve law enforcement, but would still like to get to the bottom of it in light of the intense public scrutiny. Therefore, he hires a private security firm.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Or just the opposite. Perhaps Weiner doesn't believe this is a serious enough incident to involve law enforcement, but would still like to get to the bottom of it in light of the intense public scrutiny. Therefore, he hires a private security firm.

It appears that no account was hacked and therefore no law was actually broken.

Weiner's only recourse is to hire PI's to investigate Breitbart to get enough evidence to sue the hell out of him.

GB

 

[leftysergeant]

I've told you this before: it doesn't matter if they're aware of the story, they won't start an investigation unless there's a criminal complaint.



Yeah, um... no. That's not a credible excuse. Not for Weiner.

What has that to do with it? We know already that the man has a pair of big brass ones. Maybe he figures it would be more profitable to go after the "journalist" from the cess pool through civil action.

 

[Peephole]

American politics is so disgusting.

 

[leftysergeant]

Which has nothing to do with my quote. This event has persisted simply due to the way he has handled it and his evasive answers.

It has every bloody thing to do with the quote. You have no right to know anything in his private life that does not include domestic abuse or taking indecent liberties with children.

The only reason that the sexual depravity of a Newt, or Wide-stance Craig or Diapers Vitter is any of our buisness is that the sorry drongos want to impose their supposed morals on us. Weiner doesn't.

Role-play it:

Husband recieves tweet at work.

Wife:Just wanted to know if you were thinking of be.

H:Of course I was.

W:What are you thinking of?

H:[See attachment.]

Is it any of our business?

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Look folks, there's a VERY simple explanation for Weiner's behaviour. He knows that Breitbart is responsible, but he can't publicly accuse Breitbart without evidence.

And he can't call for a criminal investigation because no law was actually broken; no accounts were actually hacked. His only recourse is a private investigation to gather enough evidence to sue Breitbart.

Occam's Razor people.

GB

 

[Dr. Keith]

Occam's Razor people.

Don't think so. No manscaping in the pictures.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Or, he tweeted his weiner on purpose just to try to get Breitbart in trouble.

 

[JohnnyG]

More importantly, would investigating and prosecuting the hackers cause you a greater amount of public embarrassment, strain on your marriage, legal and PR fees and even terminal harm to your career?

Only if the report was fraudulent.

Generally, if the "cure" is more harmful than the disease, you don't take the cure.

There is no reason to believe that is the case here.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Only if the report was fraudulent.

No way is that true. If Weiner had in fact been having a flirtatious or even consensual sex relationship with the coed, even if he did not send the photo but was the victim of a prank or a hack, investigating the incident (possible crime) could in fact cause him far more harm than the crime did itself.

There is no reason to believe that is the case here.

True, but the argument that his inaction can only be explained by his guilt (over having sent the photo, that is) is refuted by the possibility that his inaction can be explained in other ways. And there's no reason to believe that what I proposed is not the case. At any rate, it's enough to show that his inaction could have more than one explanation. And all those possible explanations need not include his sending the photo to the coed.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Look folks, there's a VERY simple explanation for Weiner's behaviour. He knows that Breitbart is responsible, but he can't publicly accuse Breitbart without evidence.

And he can't call for a criminal investigation because no law was actually broken; no accounts were actually hacked. His only recourse is a private investigation to gather enough evidence to sue Breitbart.

Occam's Razor people.

GB

This too is plausible.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Or, he tweeted his weiner on purpose just to try to get Breitbart in trouble.

The evidence proves otherwise. The tweet didn't come from Weiner's account.



GB

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The evidence proves otherwise. The tweet didn't come from Weiner's account.

There's also that point. He may have been confident that proof that he didn't send the photo would be forthcoming even without any official investigation (whose findings would potentially ALL become public records).

So demanding he call for an official investigation is sort of like a perverse insistence on the long form of Obama's birth certificate even after his citizenship was clearly proven.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

His actions are not consistent with THAT claim either. If it's serious enough to hire a security firm to investigate, it's serious enough to tell the cops about.

How do you draw that conclusion? If that conclusion holds true, why are private investigators ever used?

Basically, your claim is that Weiner hasn't responded to questions to your satisfaction. He's not being accused of any crime. The "inappropriate" behavior has already been proven not to be his doing.

That horse left the barn days ago.

Says you. I still think if he seems to be protecting his privacy, it's probably because he fears worse damage to his name than has already occurred. Contrary to what you're saying, you can always make public what is now private, but calling for a public investigation might be letting a horse out that can never be put back in. (Or maybe the better metaphor is about not being able to put a genie back in a bottle?) Remember, what is still private is by definition what you and I don't know.

 

[Ziggurat]

Look folks, there's a VERY simple explanation for Weiner's behaviour. He knows that Breitbart is responsible, but he can't publicly accuse Breitbart without evidence.

Even assuming Breitbart did it, how can he possibly know that? Obviously, he can't know that. You're just making **** up.

Occam's Razor people.

Indeed. The obvious answer is the obvious answer.

 

[Ziggurat]

Basically, your claim is that Weiner hasn't responded to questions to your satisfaction. He's not being accused of any crime.

Of course he isn't being accused of a crime. If he sent the pic, it's not a crime. That's obvious. So why are you even stating what everyone knows and what is not under any dispute?

The only way he could commit a crime here is if he files a false police report. Which is part of why it's so significant that he isn't filing a police report.

The "inappropriate" behavior has already been proven not to be his doing.

No, it hasn't.

Says you. I still think if he seems to be protecting his privacy, it's probably because he fears worse damage to his name than has already occurred.

And what, exactly, could be worse than what's already happening? This argument is unpersuasive, to put it mildly.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Even assuming Breitbart did it, how can he possibly know that? Obviously, he can't know that. You're just making **** up.



Indeed. The obvious answer is the obvious answer.

Breitbart is a known liar who targets liberals with bogus smear campaigns. He broke the "story." He has motive and opportunity. And the tweet did NOT come from Weiner's account; proving Breitbart a liar yet again. He's the #1 suspect.

I have presented evidence for all of the above.

The only people on this thread who are "making **** up," are the people speculating wildly without any evidence to back their **** up.

GB

 

[What Slayde Says]

Did the hackers actions cause you public embarrasment, strain your marriage, cost you legal/PR fees, and potentially harm your career?

Yes. The hacker sent email messages with malware links to all my contacts. That qualifies as public embarassment. Incurring legal/PR fees was Rep W's choice to make, so I don't see how that matters. Strain on the marriage and career "damage" are subjective and difficult to prove unless he gets divorced or loses an election.

Even if the hack caused me all the grief you mention, I doubt the fuzz would do much about it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, it hasn't.

Holding out for the long form, eh?

And what, exactly, could be worse than what's already happening? This argument is unpersuasive, to put it mildly.

I've already answered this question several times. What could be worse than what's already happening is the disclosure of something private that currently remains private. That's what protecting one's privacy is pretty much all about.

So far what's out that has damaged his reputation is a lie. That you reject the debunking of the lie is beside the point.