Congressman Weiner's inappropriate tweet

[Brainster]

As Rep Weiner's "suspicious" behaviour is not criminal, I am much more concerned about Breitbart and his crew's suspicious behaviour.

Anyone who buys any of the Rubbish that Breitbart puts on his website deserves to be deluded.

Don't look now, but your confirmation bias is showing.

 

[Noztradamus]

I wonder what Ryan's constituents do when they need help from a grown-up.

I saw what you did there.

 

[TraneWreck]

Let me ask the anti-Weiner coalition one more time what they think this e-mail means:

I have ALOT of personal problems I didn’t want to go into--but as I become the focus of this I am more and more afraid this will all come out. I want to tell you why I haven't talked on the phone yet...

...I am screwed. If this comes out along with everything I'm dealing with here -- I don't know what to do.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/weinergate

That is from Dan Wolfe, the fellow that was harassing the recipient of the tweet for some weeks leading up to the incident, who mentioned a coming scandal for Weiner multiple times, who was the only person that captured the tweet before it was taken down, and who told Breitbart that "We have more."

Now please, someone explain what he's talking about when he says, "if this comes out." Additionally, explain why Breitbart would publish that email detailing Mr. Wolfe's personal problems. Looks like he's trying to cover his ass to me, maybe you guys can up with some fresh new opinions on that. I know you won't be directly thinking about penis, so less fun, obviously, but this would seem to be fairly important if you want to continue calling this a scandal.

 

[Ziggurat]

Looks like Congressman Weiner has a very tech-savvy ally

Apparently not tech savy enough.

 

[leftysergeant]

Don't look now, but your confirmation bias is showing.

Confirmation bias is believing that something against a politician you don't like is true even if the information only comes from the BigPerjury.com cess pool.

 

[Neally]

I am much more concerned about Breitbart and his crew's suspicious behaviour.

GB

Then you should be doubly suspicious as to why Weiner wouldn't report the incident to the police rather than the smoke and mirrors way he's handling it.

 

[leftysergeant]

Then you should be doubly suspicious as to why Weiner wouldn't report the incident to the police rather than the smoke and mirrors way he's handling it.

Since it is not known that Weiner did anything unethical, but that the sludge monster and some supportive lunatic did act like baboons, there is no reason to criticise Weiner for any of his actions.

 

[TraneWreck]

Anyone without a blindly hard left bias would question Weiner's suspicious behavior.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann

I know this is a long article and because it's informative there's a 0% chance you will read it, but "suspicious behavior" is quite literally one of the silliest, most frivolous reasons someone can concoct for scrutinizing another human.

The article I linked details the execution of an innocent man in Texas. Science quite clearly exonerated him, as you will see, but neighbors and by-standers testified in trial that this person exhibited "suspicious behavior" as he stood outside the burning house where his children were trapped. Dumb people in Texas considered that sort of testimony to be much more compelling than the scientific investigation of the fire.

Humans do not react uniformly, especially in the midst of crisis. Obviously Weiner's situation is not nearly as drastic as Willingham's, but the rule remains: if all you're basing your position on is someone's "suspicious behavior," odds are you're full of ****.

The Palin "birthers" cite her "suspicious behavior" as reason to think some conspiracy took place. Both are equally idiotic. There's no reason to pay attention until something of substance is produced.

 

[ZirconBlue]

I tend to agree here, provided it is understood that "prior relationship" is a fairly loose term and could just mean "flirted online" to the point where he felt comfortable showing her a photo of a left-leaning member of Congress.

Good one!

I understand that Breitbart is out to get Weiner

This one, too!

 

[A Laughing Baby]

The way this has been playing out to me is that Weiner took a picture like that at some point in his life, maybe to send to a girlfriend or something else illicit, and that picture ended up in the hands of the Loesch/Breitbart crew who crafted a narrative around it and made it happen. It definitely seems that Weiner has at least taken a picture like that before, at least from his non-denials. But really, I don't really care when politicians have affairs unless they're either actively condemning others moral behavior or advocating traditional marriage, etc.

Slightly off topic, but I think the guy who handled a situation like this the best, strangely enough, was the one who was "hiking the Appalachian trail." When it came out, instead of lying his ass off, he came out and said "I love this woman, I'm going to do what I can to make it work, sorry if that bothers you." That takes a certain degree of understanding of the situation.

 

[Neally]

Since it is not known that Weiner did anything unethical, but that the sludge monster and some supportive lunatic did act like baboons, there is no reason to criticise Weiner for any of his actions.

The left, right, and non-affiliated security experts all are criticizing the way Weiner is handling the event, with good reason.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Let me ask the anti-Weiner coalition one more time what they think this e-mail means:


That is from Dan Wolfe, the fellow that was harassing the recipient of the tweet for some weeks leading up to the incident, who mentioned a coming scandal for Weiner multiple times, who was the only person that captured the tweet before it was taken down, and who told Breitbart that "We have more."

Now please, someone explain what he's talking about when he says, "if this comes out." Additionally, explain why Breitbart would publish that email detailing Mr. Wolfe's personal problems. Looks like he's trying to cover his ass to me, maybe you guys can up with some fresh new opinions on that. I know you won't be directly thinking about penis, so less fun, obviously, but this would seem to be fairly important if you want to continue calling this a scandal.

I don't know how to fit the linked email into the whole ordeal.

My related question is this, though:

If we go with the assumption that Dan Wolfe gamed yfrog, and sent the pic either by guessing or somehow obtaining the proper email address (not very difficult as shown in other posts) - HOW did he get the pic in the first place ??

If it's not a Weiner weiner pic - I assume he would deny it. If it might be him, how did Wolfe acquire it to send it ?

 

[A'isha]

Apparently not tech savy enough.

His assertions about posting via a Blackberry app only are problematic in the light of this.

In short, the expert in forensic image analysis who helped the AP determine that the "dead Bin Laden" image being sent around was a forgery, says that the data associated picture posted on Weiner's yfrog account is inconsistent with the images he actually did upload through his Blackberry. And, in fact, it's inconsistent with having been taken with any of the 15,000 cameras in the expert's database.

In other words, the picture doesn't look like it was taken with and uploaded through Weiner's Blackberry (or, at least, not without something else being done to it along the way that altered the metadata). And if it wasn't, then the above blogger is incorrect about how the picture got to both Weiner's yfrog and Twitter, meaning it's still entirely possible it was posted by someone else via the yfrog exploit.

EDIT: Or, of course, a picture taken by Weiner either via Blackberry or some other camera, then having something done to it to alter the metadata. However, the picture wasn't uploaded via the Twitter Blackberry app, since the Weinergate image wasn't tagged the same way other yfrog images were that were uploaded that way. And if it wasn't done that way, the possibility still remains open that it was done via the exploit.

 

[Brainster]

Let me ask the anti-Weiner coalition one more time what they think this e-mail means:


http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/weinergate

That is from Dan Wolfe, the fellow that was harassing the recipient of the tweet for some weeks leading up to the incident, who mentioned a coming scandal for Weiner multiple times, who was the only person that captured the tweet before it was taken down, and who told Breitbart that "We have more."

Now please, someone explain what he's talking about when he says, "if this comes out." Additionally, explain why Breitbart would publish that email detailing Mr. Wolfe's personal problems. Looks like he's trying to cover his ass to me, maybe you guys can up with some fresh new opinions on that. I know you won't be directly thinking about penis, so less fun, obviously, but this would seem to be fairly important if you want to continue calling this a scandal.

No particular surprise, the answer lies in the part you forgot to quote:

If my ex-wife's attorney got a hold of a call with me recorded on it, they'd have a field day with that. I want to try to avoid (sic).

Not sure why they'd be able to use a phone call with him recorded on it, but the guy definitely comes off as paranoid when you add the bit about him being worried about Clinton's connections.

This story is not about Dan Wolfe, and it's not about Breitbart, no matter how many times you try to shift the focus.

 

[A'isha]

This story is not about Dan Wolfe, and it's not about Breitbart, no matter how many times you try to shift the focus.

It's not only about them, no. But they're deeply involved, especially Wolfe. And there's enough oddities about either explanation for what happened (Weiner did it vs. he was framed) to make questions about their involvement absolutely legitimate.

 

[sarge]

So...

1. It has been demonstrated that it is entirely possible to "hack" the accounts and post a picture so that it appears a photo has been sent from an account?

2. The person that received the photo says that the message containing the photo did not come from the Congressmoron, but came instead from someone the recipient recognizes as having harrased her in the past?

3. Both the recipient and alledged sender deny that they have ever met.

4. The person that first noticed the photo is on record as having predicted an embarrasing situation about two weeks before the photo was sent?

5. The sum total of the "evidence" against the congressass is that "He didn't react the way I think he should have"?

 

[Ziggurat]

In other words, the picture doesn't look like it was taken with and uploaded through Weiner's Blackberry (or, at least, not without something else being done to it along the way that altered the metadata).

Sure, but that's not terribly relevant. The relevant question was never where the photo originated, but who sent it. It's not exactly difficult to get photos onto a Blackberry from somewhere other than the Blackberry's camera.

And if it wasn't, then the above blogger is incorrect about how the picture got to both Weiner's yfrog and Twitter, meaning it's still entirely possible it was posted by someone else via the yfrog exploit.

Only if Weiner had enabled posting from yfrog, as that previous link details. Without granting such permission (and Weiner had no apparent reason to, and hasn't indicated that he did), such an exploit is not possible.

If that yfrog exploit is behind this, then his hired "security" should be able to confirm that very quickly. I expect we will not hear any such confirmation.

 

[uk_dave]

5. The sum total of the "evidence" against the congressass is that "He didn't react the way I think he should have"?

I must admit I find it difficult to believe the amount of personal incredulity that has played a part in various postings on this thread.

 

[I Am The Scum]

The way this has been playing out to me is that Weiner took a picture like that at some point in his life, maybe to send to a girlfriend or something else illicit, and that picture ended up in the hands of the Loesch/Breitbart crew who crafted a narrative around it and made it happen. It definitely seems that Weiner has at least taken a picture like that before, at least from his non-denials.

I was thinking something along the same lines.

I must warn my readers that the following post is going to be highly speculative, and, for the most part, should not be taken too seriously.

For both Weiner and Wolfe, we can conceive of what I will call "innocent explanations." If it was the case that either individual was just caught up in some misunderstanding or coincidence or framing, we can imagine what they might say to explain the situation they're in:

That is not me in the photo. I did not take the picture. I don't know who the individual in the photograph is, nor do I know who took the picture.

Well Andy, I was just staying up checking my twitter feed late at night, and I see Weiner has tweeted a picture to somebody. I check it out, and, as we now realize, it was a lewd picture sent to a much younger woman. I figure he must have intended to send it in private, but just got something mixed up (you know how dumb those liberals are, right Andy?) So I quickly took screenshots before he had a chance to delete it. There's really not much more to say.

(not actual quotes)

But neither of these men are saying this. In fact, they appear to be extremely reluctant to go into detail on anything. There's also that curiously specific prediction on Wolfe's part.

So I'm trying to imagine an explanation that reconciles the strange behavior of both parties. Here's what I've come up with.

Some time back (maybe months, maybe years), Weiner takes a picture of himself.
A little over two weeks ago, Wolfe acquires the photo, most likely through nefarious means.
Wolfe contacts conservative activists (possibly Breitbart) to pin it on Weiner.
The activist points out that there's nothing to go on with just the photo. It can't be tied to the congressman directly. That could be a picture of anyone.
A plan is hatched to use a yFrog exploit to make it appear as though Weiner sent the photo.
In excitement, Wolfe tips his hand about the future scandal, and posts about it on Twitter.
Two weeks later, the plan is executed.

Like I said, it's extremely speculative. I don't actually believe that the above scenario is true, because I don't have any good evidence to back it up. However, this is the only way I can really tie it all together.

 

[sarge]

I must admit I find it difficult to believe the amount of personal incredulity that has played a part in various postings on this thread.

Politcal side choosing and reality shows. In this, America takes a back seat to no nation.