Congressman Weiner's inappropriate tweet

[Puppycow]

John Stewart is a personal friend of Weiner, apparently, but he pretty much had to cover this on his show:

The Daily Show, June 2

 

[leftysergeant]

Pay attention. Its been pointed out multiple times that the left, right and non-partisan security experts all agree that Weiner has not handled a security breach as it should have been handled. Unless at some point down the road, Weiner comes up with some unexpected revelation that would explain his irrational handling of this, he has justifiably raised suspicions.

What "security experts" are you citing?

Except that he has discussed it and made remarkably equivocal statements and handled the response with smoke and mirrors rather than someone concerned about having been hacked.

Or maybe he is waiting for that worthless little excuse for a man who did the stunt to say "Uh-uh! THat wasn't how it happened" and expose something that only the low-life who actually faked the tweet would know.

Amusing how sometimes the left demands an end to speculation, insisting on hard core, verified proof, except when condemning someone on the right...

The burden of proof is on the two right-wing sewer critters. They are of such poor moral character that it is unreasonable to believe anything good that anyone may say about them or anything bad that they may say about anyone else.

We on the left have no reason to feel the least bit ashamed of Anthony Weiner. We have a real man here.

You all are stuck with the sewer critters and Diapers Vitter.

 

[Dancing David]

Below are a few:



-http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0602/Anthony-Weiner-Twitter-hack-What-he-should-have-done

Um I recall your quote used the term 'security experts', what did you mean by that?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I notice that a lot of non-skeptics like to post semi-cryptically, rather than spell things out clearly. If one's main interest is in winning a debate, that's understandable and a good strategy. If one's main interest is in trying to discern what is true and what is false, it's decidedly unhelpful.
<>
Joseph Cannon does a good point-by-point refutation of Gooding's arguments in his June 2 post

So - sticking to facts and trying to be clear and concise:

I think Cannon does a poor job of refuting Goodings technical accuracy.

Gooding made the point that an app (using tweetdeck as an example) can utilize yfrog without ever signing up for a yfrog account. This is correct and true.

Cannon then takes this to mean:

"From those words, Gooding thinks that he has proof that Weiner changed all of his usual Twitter habits and used an app called Tweetdeck. Unbelievable!"
and
"Did Weiner sign up for a Yfrog account? Yes. Indisputably."

Twitter and yrfog both support ouath/xauth, which lets you sign into twitter and lets third party apps use the twitter api using your account with providing your password. This is how tweetdeck works. This is how *many* twitter related apps works.

Just because tweetdeck is not available on BB does not prove Wiener signed up for a yfrog account, -- BB twitter clients *ALSO* use oauth to authenticate to third party apps.

The fact that Weiner deleted the image also does not require knowing anything about yfrog if the BB twitter client just uses oauth/xauth and utilizes yfrog as an image asset server.

There are lots of smears, speculation and innuendo going on both sides.

I still curious how someone ended up with that pic of Wiener (if it is indeed him) so that could 'hack' his yfrog account and post it...

 

[TraneWreck]

Pay attention. Its been pointed out multiple times that the left, right and non-partisan security experts all agree that Weiner has not handled a security breach as it should have been handled. Unless at some point down the road, Weiner comes up with some unexpected revelation that would explain his irrational handling of this, he has justifiably raised suspicions.

No, just no. This is the same stupid argument, no matter how hard you try to mask it.

No reacting well is evidence of nothing. I'm actually glad you linked all that stuff from the security experts, I learned something. My guess is that if you polled Americans, especially those over the age of 40, less than 5% would know the proper steps to take when hacked.

Just because someone behaves wrongly, that doesn't mean they behave "irrationally" or "suspiciously." Weiner's behavior is perfectly consistent with 1) not knowing what to do, and 2) being a human being.

We behave unpredictably. There is nothing Weiner could have done to rebut the "behave suspiciously" argument, because whatever he did, you would criticize it. If he followed the procedure the links you provided outlined, you would just be bitching about something else.

How do we know this? Because that's what your ilk did with Planned Parenthood, ACORN, and SHirley Sherrod. In all of those cases, nearly everyone targeted behaved EXACTLY as they should. The workers at ACORN and PP talked to the sting participants trying to obtain information, then called the cops when they left.

Go read the threads on that. Everyone claimed that they shouldn't have let them leave, or the minute they got the sent of impropriety, they should have done a citizen's arrest or some nonsensical *********.

It's a dumb, dumb argument you're advancing, one that is quite honestly childish. By the way, did you read the New Yorker link? My spidey sense says, no way.

 

[Brainster]

No, just no. This is the same stupid argument, no matter how hard you try to mask it.

No reacting well is evidence of nothing. I'm actually glad you linked all that stuff from the security experts, I learned something. My guess is that if you polled Americans, especially those over the age of 40, less than 5% would know the proper steps to take when hacked.

Just because someone behaves wrongly, that doesn't mean they behave "irrationally" or "suspiciously." Weiner's behavior is perfectly consistent with 1) not knowing what to do, and 2) being a human being.

And unfortunately for Weiner, there are no people sympathetic to his political views telling him what to do.

 

[Noztradamus]

And unfortunately for Weiner, there are no people sympathetic to his political views telling him what to do.

They appear to be too busy explaining there were valid reasons for what, absent his denial, may well be his gentleman's appendage appearing in the interwebz, and blaming someone else.

 

[Neally]

Or maybe he is waiting for that worthless little excuse for a man who did the stunt to say "Uh-uh! THat wasn't how it happened" and expose something that only the low-life who actually faked the tweet would know.

Or maybe he's waiting, hoping that it blows over before it is proven that he sent the tweet publicly by mistake.

What "security experts" are you citing?

Um I recall your quote used the term 'security experts', what did you mean by that?

Mr. Koretz, CEO of Mykonos Software, a vendor that secures websites and applications. Security expert David Koretz. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0602/Anthony-Weiner-Twitter-hack-What-he-should-have-done

Just because someone behaves wrongly, that doesn't mean they behave "irrationally" or "suspiciously." Weiner's behavior is perfectly consistent with 1) not knowing what to do, and 2) being a human being.

Aww, poor retarded Weiner, could and can't figure out what to do, despite being lawyered up.

There is nothing Weiner could have done to rebut the "behave suspiciously" argument

Except answer the questions without equivocation, and act rationally by calling the police when you've been hacked. What a never ending gift of entertainment from the Weiner defender and apologists!

And unfortunately for Weiner, there are no people sympathetic to his political views telling him what to do.

Exactly.

Even the Dems are becoming increasingly frustrated with his antics, yet the defenders here keep grasping at straws: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/03/house-democratic-leadership-privately-push-weiner/

 

[tyr_13]

Except answer the questions without equivocation, and act rationally by calling the police when you've been hacked. What a never ending gift of entertainment from the Weiner defender and apologists!

I have never known anyone personally who has EVER called the police because they were hacked, and I've known lawyers who were hacked.

Acting like calling the police is the very first, obvious thing than a person who was hacked would do is pretty suspicious. In fact, I'd say you're behaving suspiciously all around. Like a hacker apologist. Are you a hacker?

 

[davefoc]

To be serious for a moment, why all the partisan interest in this tiny scandal? It's not clear that Wiener did or didn't do something which was minor. Have Wiener's critics considered how they'd fare if they had the same kind of scrutiny that Wiener is under?

I guess the blood in the water here is either that this is part of some larger scandal or just that he might be caught in a lie. I wish it weren't so, but all politicians lie, probably more than an average citizen, so catching him in a lie here might be a little embarrassing for him but it wouldn't exactly be a unique situation for a politician. As to the possibility of a larger scandal, where's the evidence? Is there a trail of young hot babes that have been pestered by Wiener with double entendre jokes? Has a mistress or a prostitute come forward? Perhaps it is time to curb some of the enthusiasm for this scandal until something actually scandalous emerges.

Meanwhile, why not entertain yourself with the Edwards' scandal? Now that is a real scandal with mistresses, out of wed lock child, lots of sleaziness, indictments, bizarre toadies, etc.

One problem with the Edwards' story for the right wing partisans is that one of their memes seems to be that there is some sort of grand liberal media conspiracy to protect Democratic candidates. The Edwards' story doesn't exactly support that notion. So maybe tiny scandals like this are better because it is always possible to hypothesize that the reason it's a tiny scandal is that the liberal media isn't pursuing the truth to protect their left wing allies.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Weiner should just change the (d) by his name to an (r) and then Fox News will just leave it alone.

 

[Brainster]

To be serious for a moment, why all the partisan interest in this tiny scandal? It's not clear that Wiener did or didn't do something which was minor. Have Wiener's critics considered how they'd fare if they had the same kind of scrutiny that Wiener is under?

Yes, in fact, I have. Which is why I don't send pictures of my package around the internet.

 

[Brainster]

Even the Dems are becoming increasingly frustrated with his antics, yet the defenders here keep grasping at straws: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/03/house-democratic-leadership-privately-push-weiner/

In fairness, quite a few of the posters on this thread who were defending Weiner in the beginning have come around to the sensible viewpoint and (mostly) abandoned the thread. It's the Johnny-come-lately types who are holding their fingers in their ears and saying lalalalala I can't hear you lalalala Breitbart lalalalala. Like Joe Cannon, they are inventing ever-larger conspiracy theories instead of applying Occam's Razor.

The simplest explanation is that Weiner sent the photo, saw that it had gone out publicly and deleted the tweet, but a guy who hates his guts saw it and did a screen cap. Weiner lied at first but has decided that the lies will catch up with him if he continues and hence he refuses to answer any more questions. He didn't contact the cops because he knows making a false statement to the police or FBI is a crime. He hired a private security company to investigate because said private security company, knowing the check will clear, will issue a report exonerating him and his defenders will claim the affair is settled.

 

[Neally]

I have never known anyone personally who has EVER called the police because they were hacked, and I've known lawyers who were hacked.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy and Argument By Vehemence with the caps fallacy.

 

[johnny karate]

Yes, in fact, I have. Which is why I don't send pictures of my package around the internet.

Well, you should be all set then. Because actually sending pictures of your package around the internet is clearly and absolutely the only way you could find yourself being accused of doing so.

 

[Brainster]

An IM interview with "Dan Wolfe". It's long and rambles a bit, but it does fill in some of the blanks. I am sure that both sides will find something to verify their pre-existing biases.

 

[johnny karate]

Weiner lied at first but has decided that the lies will catch up with him if he continues and hence he refuses to answer any more questions. He didn't contact the cops because he knows making a false statement to the police or FBI is a crime. He hired a private security company to investigate because said private security company, knowing the check will clear, will issue a report exonerating him and his defenders will claim the affair is settled.

Your glib and inaccurate version of Weiner's reaction - and complete glossing over of his accusers' behavior and history - seems to indicate that if anyone has their head in the sand it's you.

For starters - and it's pretty sad this has to be so adamantly and repeatedly stated on a skeptic's forum - nothing Weiner has done is proof of guilt. Nothing.

Secondly, your characterization of Weiner as someone who "lied at first but has decided that the lies will catch up with him if he continues and hence he refuses to answer any more questions" doesn't follow from what actually happened.

One of the oddest things he's done is refuse to deny the picture is of him. So if he's a liar who was just scrambling to cover his ass, why not simply lie about that as well?

And furthermore, once you tell a lie, it's out there. Refusing to tell the lie again doesn't change that. If Weiner did what he's accused of, he's still a liar if he denied it once or a hundred times. So his refusal to talk about it anymore is in no way an indication he was lying. It might just be an indication he doesn't want to talk about it anymore.

Also, you seem to be implying a report issued by Weiner's security firm wouldn't be subjected to scrutiny. Do you assume the firm will issue a statement merely saying "He didn't do it" and all his defenders will be satisfied? What reputable security firm would do that? In order for him to be exonerated, the report will need to offer proof to that effect. So the idea that this is part of some cover-up (conspiracy indeed) is ludicrous.

And I just love the fact that we're not allowed to scrutinize the motives of his accusers, despite the fact that they're established right wing provocateurs and muckrackers.

What a perverted world view and sense of justice it must take to assume someone is guilty until proven innocent.

 

[leftysergeant]

I am sure that both sides will find something to verify their pre-existing biases.

Calling what we are exspressing a "pre-existing bias" is BS.

We had foreknowledge that all involved on the right side are taking the word of a group of worthless sociopaths who have no standing to call a Skid Road drunkard a failure that they did NOT fabricate this affair.

Knowing that the sludge monster and everybody associated with him are worthless to society and out to get anybody who might actually do some good for America means that the burden of proof is on those worthless drongois at BigPerjury.com that they did not manufacture this.

Given the unreliability of anything that comes out of their fetid mouths, the fact that there is any way that they could have manufactured what they are advertising has ab initio stood at about 99.99%.

 

[Brainster]

Your glib and inaccurate version of Weiner's reaction - and complete glossing over of his accusers' behavior and history - seems to indicate that if anyone has their head in the sand it's you.

Okay, what exactly is inaccurate about my version of Weiner's history?

For starters - and it's pretty sad this has to be so adamantly and repeatedly stated on a skeptic's forum - nothing Weiner has done is proof of guilt. Nothing.

Correct. And OJ's not guilty either. There are, however, valid reasons to suspect they are guilty.

Secondly, your characterization of Weiner as someone who "lied at first but has decided that the lies will catch up with him if he continues and hence he refuses to answer any more questions" doesn't follow from what actually happened.

One of the oddest things he's done is refuse to deny the picture is of him. So if he's a liar who was just scrambling to cover his ass, why not simply lie about that as well?

Because he recognizes that if it ever really is established to everybody who isn't saying lalalalala's satisfaction that he is guilty, he will be asked to account for his reasons for every single lie.

And furthermore, once you tell a lie, it's out there. Refusing to tell the lie again doesn't change that.

Correct. But additional lies do change that. When he was asked if that was a picture of him, that was a new question, not something that he had lied about previously.

If Weiner did what he's accused of, he's still a liar if he denied it once or a hundred times. So his refusal to talk about it anymore is in no way an indication he was lying. It might just be an indication he doesn't want to talk about it anymore.

Good luck with that. The media tend not to accept "I don't want to talk about it anymore."

Also, you seem to be implying a report issued by Weiner's security firm wouldn't be subjected to scrutiny. Do you assume the firm will issue a statement merely saying "He didn't do it" and all his defenders will be satisfied?

Yes to the latter, no to the former. They'll issue a report that will have an embossed seal on it, running 125 pages with lots of anecdotes about hackers and identity theft, and citing Joe Cannon's impeccable research, and they'll ignore all the evidence that points to culpability.

What reputable security firm would do that? In order for him to be exonerated, the report will need to offer proof to that effect. So the idea that this is part of some cover-up (conspiracy indeed) is ludicrous.

Well, let's come up with some minimal requirements for that report. I would expect, at a minimum for the security company to establish:

1. Whether the IP address for Weiner's computer/phone/Blackberry matches the IP address for the tweet in question.
2. What activity was going on with Weiner's computer/phone/Blackberry during the hours in question, including any Direct Messages sent from him to other users.
3. Whether there is any evidence that his TIVO malfunctioned that night.

And I just love the fact that we're not allowed to scrutinize the motives of his accusers, despite the fact that they're established right wing provocateurs and muckrackers.

We know the motives of his accusers. They hate the guy. Now the question is whether the accusation has any validity, and there are ample reasons to believe it does.

What a perverted world view and sense of justice it must take to assume someone is guilty until proven innocent.

Legally, of course not. But that doesn't stop me from thinking that OJ killed Nicole. I am sure you are pressing for Obama to step down for killing Osama Bin Laden because he assumed Osama was guilty, even though that had not been established in a court of law.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

No, it's more.. I wouldn't use Evergreen -anything- as a primary source when it comes to anything that has a political viewpoint.

That's a shame. Because it is historically accurate. It just happened to have a handy list to save me the time of listing them all myself.

GB