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.

Granted things are different when you're not a public figure, but even so, handling this as you did left no public records the paparazzi could get into. So again, the cure may be worse than the disease.
 
What facts would those be?
Listen to the sound bites of 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.
You are stuck with this straw argument. I've not seen the posts here demanding to know the details of his personal life. It's all about his apparent coverup. What better revenge could he get than finding and suing the evil right wing nuts/Breitbart if they were responsible for this "prank"? Instead he doesn't bother contacting the authorities and gives weaseling answers about it.
 
Instead he doesn't bother contacting the authorities and gives weaseling answers about it.

He can sue the sludge monsters and demand discovery of the chain of web traffic in civil court. That does not require police involvement.
 
Which police department should one call?

I'm sure my local city police department would have no clue of what to do. Nor would the state troopers.

Do you call the police department where the servers that have the account information are located? The police department where a suspected hacker lives?

If people are that naïf of the ways of the world, they can seek advice. Say by phoning the office of their local Member [heh! I said member] of Congress. The staff of any Congressman, who wasn't a complete knob, should maintain lists of the appropriate agencies to help the bewildered.
 
Forgive my Twitter ignorance, but how can a tweet be simultaneously from Rep. Weiner (or a hacker impersonating him) but not from his Twitter account?
It was neither from his account nor from the distinguished gentleman.
 
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.

Uh, no that's not public embarassment. Had there been any actual monetary damages or harm to your reputation the "fuzz" would indeed investigate.
 
Last edited:
If people are that naïf of the ways of the world, they can seek advice. Say by phoning the office of their local Member [heh! I said member] of Congress.

Or you just hire a lawyer and do it civily and sue the mentally and sexually deficient drongos for anything that can be squeezed out of their worthless hides. You don't need a criminal complaint to do discovery.

The staff of any Congressman, who wasn't a complete knob, should maintain lists of the appropriate agencies to help the bewildered.

I wonder what Ryan's constituents do when they need help from a grown-up.
 
Forgive my Twitter ignorance, but how can a tweet be simultaneously from Rep. Weiner (or a hacker impersonating him) but not from his Twitter account?

Did you even bother to read the evidence I posted? Or do you normally pose idiotic questions?

There was no hacking involved. The Tweet came from an account other than Weiner's.

GB
 
Last edited:
Did you even bother to read the evidence I posted? Or do you normally pose idiotic questions?

There was no hacking involved. The Tweet came from an account other than Weiner's.

GB

You: "There was no hacking involved."
Weiner: "I was hacked."

You: "The Tweet came from an account other than Weiner's."
Your Link: "...Twitter account of Rep. Anthony Weiner..."

I'm simply trying to reconcile what you claim is evidence against reality, and so far it's not looking very good for you.
 
He can sue the sludge monsters and demand discovery of the chain of web traffic in civil court. That does not require police involvement.
It doesn't mean they should be excluded either and it's a lot faster and cheaper for the police to do it, plus he has the PR of saying the police are investigating.

If the investigation turns up that the account wasn't hacked as Weiner claims, but that the photo was spoofed by some other method, that another plus for him. The contortions and rationalizations as to why he wouldn't do the logical thing are truly entertaining. The gift keeps on giving.
 
Did you even bother to read the evidence I posted? Or do you normally pose idiotic questions?

There was no hacking involved. The Tweet came from an account other than Weiner's.

There are two possibilities:

1. You have proven that Representative Weiner is completely innocent and every journalist in the USA and Weiner himself have missed this conclusive evidence.

Or

2. You have failed to do the requisite due diligence and are making a fool of yourself.

Guess which it is.

ETA: Here's a hint:

Weiner says he was watching a hockey game Friday night when he noticed the offending tweet, deleted it and told his followers he'd been hacked. All that happened, Cordes reported, before the 21-year-old student the tweet was addressed to even saw it.
 
Last edited:
The tweet was deleted before the person it was addressed to even saw it.

Here's a question, why is there a big deal about this then?!
 
You: "There was no hacking involved."
Weiner: "I was hacked."

You: "The Tweet came from an account other than Weiner's."
Your Link: "...Twitter account of Rep. Anthony Weiner..."

I'm simply trying to reconcile what you claim is evidence against reality, and so far it's not looking very good for you.

Nice work Hannity.

:confused:
 
You: "There was no hacking involved."
Weiner: "I was hacked."

You: "The Tweet came from an account other than Weiner's."
Your Link: "...Twitter account of Rep. Anthony Weiner..."

I'm simply trying to reconcile what you claim is evidence against reality, and so far it's not looking very good for you.

(CNN) -- A weekend controversy involving a lewd photo posted on the Twitter account of Rep. Anthony Weiner is a "prank" caused by a hacker, Weiner told CNN on Monday. Weiner, a New York Democrat who is one of the leading liberal voices in the House, blamed the photo on a hacker who got control of his social networking accounts.

"Look, this is a prank and not a terribly creative one," Weiner told CNN in an exclusive interview Monday, adding: "I was hacked. It happens to people. You move on." However, Weiner's spokesman, Dave Arnold, said the congressman has retained an attorney to look into the situation.
"We've retained counsel to explore the proper next steps and to advise us on what civil or criminal actions should be taken," Arnold said in a statement. "This was a prank. We are loath to treat it as more, but we are relying on professional advice."

The Capitol Police and FBI told CNN they're not currently investigating.
The website biggovernment.com, run by conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart, first reported the photo of a man's lower body in underwear being posted on Weiner's Twitter account in connection with a tweet to a Seattle woman.

The woman, identified as a 21-year-old college student, subsequently issued a statement to the New York Daily News in which she said she never had met Weiner though she followed him on Twitter and had once jokingly referred to him as her "boyfriend" in a tweet. She indicated that the post had come from someone other than Weiner, and added that "this person had harassed me many times." "I am not sure whether or not this letter will alleviate any future harassment," said the statement by Gennette Nicole Cordova, published Sunday by the Daily News. "I also do not have a clear understanding as to how or why exactly I am involved in this fiasco. I do know that my life has been seriously impacted by speculation and faulty allegations. My reputation has been called into question by those who lack the character to report the facts."
Breitbart, who has been involved in questionable tactics against Democrats and liberals in the past, said in a statement that the case warrants further investigation.

"What we know is that a link to a lewd photo was published from a sitting congressman's Twitter account, directed at a female recipient, whom he was 'following,' but visible to everyone," Breitbart's statement said. "Two broad possibilities exist: (1) the congressman's Twitter account (and perhaps other accounts) were hacked, or (2) the congressman or someone with authorized access to his Twitter account sent the photo."

Breitbart called for "forensic analysis to determine the veracity of Congressman Weiner's hacking allegation, which certainly bears criminal implications," as well as further investigation of other women linked to Weiner through Twitter.

Weiner called the story a "distraction" and insinuated political opponents were trying to use it to deflect attention from their own troubles.
"Look, you've got the Republicans who are playing games with the debt limit, you've got a Supreme Court justice who's refusing to recuse himself despite conflicts of interest, you have a health care act that's under siege. You know this is a distraction," he told CNN. "I get it."

After the photo was posted and then taken down, Weiner tweeted about it over the weekend, including one that said his Facebook account had been hacked. "Is my blender gonna attack me next?" the tweet said.

The photo and others posted on Weiner's account have been taken down, and Cordova also has removed her Facebook and Twitter accounts. In her letter to the Daily News, she said she recognized the Twitter account of the tweet that sent her the photo. "Friday evening I logged onto Twitter to find that I had about a dozen new mentions in less than an hour, which is a rare occurrence," Cordova's letter said. "When I checked one of the posts that I had been tagged in, I saw that it was a picture that had supposedly been tweeted to me by Congressman Anthony Weiner. The account that these tweets were sent from was familiar to me; this person had harassed me many times after the congressman followed me on Twitter a month or so ago. Since I had dealt with this person and his cohorts before I assumed that the tweet and the picture were their latest attempts at defaming the congressman and harassing his supporters." [

Last year, Breitbart posted online a heavily edited and incomplete video of a speech by U.S. Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod that suggested she refused to offer her full help to a white farmer. Sherrod was forced to resign, but a full version of the speech showed that Sherrod had assisted the farmer, who later came forward and credited Sherrod with helping save his farm.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack later apologized to Sherrod, and President Barack Obama called her.

Sherrod has filed a civil suit accusing Breitbart of defamation, false light and infliction of emotional distress, according to a statement issued by the law firm representing her.

CNN's Dana Bash and Kiran Khalid contributed to this story.

Ask CNN! They are generally considered to be a "Neutral" media outlet.

GB
 
Last edited:
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

No, they tweet most definitely came from Rep. Weiner's account. The picture was most definitely on Rep. Weiner's yfrog account. There is, however, a verified exploit that someone other than Rep. Weiner could have posted the tweet/pic. And it's pretty clear that this exploit was used.

But it was used on Rep. Weiner's account, not someone elses. And you talk about people making things up...
 
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

Then why doesn't he ask Twitter to confirm this?

I'm afraid there's another very simple explanation for Weiner's behaviour, which actually is more consistent with his behaviour, and that is that he stepped on his own weiner and is desperately trying and failing to come up with an excuse that is both plausible to supporters and non-falsifiable.
 
Then why doesn't he ask Twitter to confirm this?

I'm afraid there's another very simple explanation for Weiner's behaviour, which actually is more consistent with his behaviour, and that is that he stepped on his own weiner and is desperately trying and failing to come up with an excuse that is both plausible to supporters and non-falsifiable.

Your "simple" explanation is simply wild speculation.

I posted the complete article for everyone to see with the relevant passages highlighted.

GB
 
Did you even bother to read the evidence I posted? Or do you normally pose idiotic questions?

There was no hacking involved. The Tweet came from an account other than Weiner's.

GB

You may be correct. Indeed that appears more likely now than before. You have not "proven" anything, however.

In fact, it appears that you are likely wrong that the tweet came from an account other than Weiner's.
 

Back
Top Bottom