Congressman Weiner's inappropriate tweet

[Puppycow]

What to do when you've been hacked

 

[Puppycow]

Democrats silent, vague, annoyed

Weiner's one-day, pun-laden media blitz a day earlier had only raised more questions about the embarrassing flap when he conceded he wasn't sure whether the waist-down photo of a man's bulging underpants was of him or not. His refusa to involve law enforcement because he said as a member of Congress he shouldn't get special treatment — instead turning the issue over to a private security company he hired — raised rather than answered questions.

 

[johnny karate]

Listen to the sound bites of his evasive answers.

So evasive answers are proof of guilt?

Remind me not to vote for you if you ever run for public office. I'd hate to think what kind of totalitarian regime that might lead to.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

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.

Yes. I concur. Every other story I could find on the subject state without equivocation that it was indeed posted on Weiner's account. the CNN article I found is the only one that is ambiguous.

I was wrong!

I retract my statement that Weiner's account wasn't hacked. Clearly his account was hacked.

I stand by the rest of my statements.

GB

 

[johnny karate]

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

How do you know this hasn't already been done as part of the investigation he commissioned?

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.

Except that his odd behavior doesn't follow from that position. The obvious route would be to offer a categorical denial. Weiner has not done that for reasons that are, at the moment, a mystery.

If anyone can come up with a plausible explanation for why Weiner - assuming he's guilty - would deny knowing the girl, deny having sent the tweet, but not deny the picture is him, I'd be curious to hear it.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

If anyone can come up with a plausible explanation for why Weiner - assuming he's guilty - would deny knowing the girl, deny having sent the tweet, but not deny the picture is him, I'd be curious to hear it.

Assuming Weiner's guilt is speculation. So is attempting to come with a "plausible explanation," given the assumption of guilt.

GB

 

[Bjorn]

Can anyone come up with a good explanation why he's not denying the picture is of him, guilty or not guilty?

 

[Brainster]

Weiner finally calls the cops. But no, not for that:

So CBS 2 political reporter Marcia Kramer decided to go to his office on Capitol Hill to try to get you some answers.

You’ll never believe what happened.

Kramer tried to get an interview with the six-term New York Democrat and as a result had the cops called on her.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Can anyone come up with a good explanation why he's not denying the picture is of him, guilty or not guilty?

Seeing everyone else is wildly speculating; What the hell, I'll give it a whack!

1) The only way to prove it's not him in the picture, would be to publicly expose his junk in his undies.

2) It is him in the picture. Hacked or not.

GB

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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

He also said it was just a prank. So he might be guilty of a very common misuse of the term "hacked".

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Can anyone come up with a good explanation why he's not denying the picture is of him, guilty or not guilty?

Well, he might think he was leaving himself wiggle room, but by the logic of syntactical relationships, his reply, "I wish" really is a denial that it's him.

It's a conventional usage that is short for, "I wish it were." The were is a contrary-to-fact subjunctive. There's no logical way given conventional usage "I wish" is compatible with, "and it is me."

 

[A'isha]

Well, he might think he was leaving himself wiggle room

Judging by that photo, he was mistaken.



...oh, come on. You were all thinking it!

 

[JohnnyG]

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

GB

Thank you for that rule 4 violation. I read it the first time you posted it and it still doesn't provide evidence for your statements.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Thank you for that rule 4 violation. I read it the first time you posted it and it still doesn't provide evidence for your statements.

Yes. I know! That's why I retracted my statement that he wasn't hacked.

And thank you for pointing out the rule 4 violation. If my edit function hasn't timed out, I will delete that part of the post.


GB

 

[Puppycow]

Seeing everyone else is wildly speculating; What the hell, I'll give it a whack!

1) The only way to prove it's not him in the picture, would be to publicly expose his junk in his undies.

2) It is him in the picture. Hacked or not.

GB

Regarding #1, the question isn't whether he can prove it, it's why won't he deny it unequivocally.

"Have you ever beaten your wife?"
"I can't say with certitude that I haven't."

You don't have to be able to prove something to deny it unequivocally.

 

[Brainster]

Can anyone come up with a good explanation why he's not denying the picture is of him, guilty or not guilty?

Because he's taken thousands of pictures of his junk and just isn't sure if this is one of those?

 

[leftysergeant]

Because he's taken thousands of pictures of his junk and just isn't sure if this is one of those?

He may have had the one, as I described a while back, probably only to send to his wife an appropriate time, and was not sure whether it was the same one.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Regarding #1, the question isn't whether he can prove it, it's why won't he deny it unequivocally.

"Have you ever beaten your wife?"
"I can't say with certitude that I haven't."

You don't have to be able to prove something to deny it unequivocally.

Fair Point.

But he doesn't want to be caught out in an outright lie, if it turns out that it is his wiener.

GB

 

[Puppycow]

How do you know this hasn't already been done as part of the investigation he commissioned?

Let's just say I'm not aware of any evidence that he has, and this is a "dog not barking" that seems like it should be barking if Weiner's story is true.

Except that his odd behavior doesn't follow from that position.

There's a simple explanation for his behavior (from a poster on another board):

that's funny. alcohol + smartphone + twitter = ruin.

of course, he won't get police involved because lying to the media, to constituents, is not a crime. lying to the police is. the media can't prove he wasn't hacked.

Simple explanation and the only explanation that is consistent with his behavior.

He's trying and failing to come up with an excuse that is both plausible and non-falsifiable. Unfortunately non-falsifiable also means non-verifiable. And while it might be plausible if he reported it to the police, asked Twitter to confirm his story and answered questions straightforwardly, it just isn't plausible when he won't even say that that's not him in the photo, and that it's "just a prank, ha ha" not worth wasting the police's time over, but worth hiring a lawyer and a private investigator to deal with.

Bottom line:
There are people who could back up his claim, if it were true.
But he has not apparently asked them to do so.

 

[Bjorn]

It looks like someone did a trick to make it look like Weiner posted the picture. My guess would be the guy who predicted it two weeks earlier and has a history of cheating and a history of being "after" Weiner.

But why the hell is Weiner's defense/explanation/lack of them so foolish? It's the only part of the story that makes me think "maybe he did it after all".