Congressman Weiner's inappropriate tweet

[Emet]

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

Isn't this the source?

 

[anduin]

That's very witty! Did you come up with that one yourself?
GB

To be fair, I'm on your side on this debate, and I think that your level of reading comprehension is appalling. You seem to miss every nuance in the story and every attempt at sarcasm.

 

[johnny karate]

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

Claiming that he simply lied and then retreated behind the wall of a media shutout doesn't take into account - and in fact conveniently overlooks - the fact that he refuses to deny or confirm if the photo is him. If he's a liar, he would have just lied about that too.

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

There are also valid reasons to suspect he might be innocent.

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.

So his plan is to lie about one thing but not the other? Assuming he's guilty and lying about it, how does that make sense?

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.

Those questions we're all asked sequentially. Are you suggesting that in the space of two or three minutes Weiner decided he should suddenly stop lying because one or two lies might be okay, but if he told just one more lie that would be crossing the line?

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

Then I guess it's a good thing we as a society don't look to the media to determine guilt or innocence in these matters.

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.

It's interesting that you scoff at Weiner's defenders suggesting Wolfe and Breitbart might have been involved in a conspiracy to defame a man they so clearly despise, but are perfectly comfortable suggesting a conspiracy on the part of an independent security firm.

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.

Fair enough. Let's see what they come up with before we just write it off as a whitewash.

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.

There are also ample reasons to believe it doesn't. Starting with the fact that the accusation comes from someone who hates him and has been vocal about his attempts to bring him down.

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.

The OJ verdict is generally considered to be a miscarriage of justice, and therefore an exception to the rule. You're also forgetting he was found liable for wrongful death in civil court. And unless you have videotape of Weiner taking credit for sending the tweet, the analogy to Osama fails.

I'm not suggesting we hold this incident up to the strict standards of criminal law, but rather that an accusation and odd behavior aren't nearly enough to condemn a man. I think there are pieces to this puzzle yet to be revealed, and I will reserve judgment until we have the full story.

 

[EvilSmurf]

3. Whether there is any evidence that his TIVO malfunctioned that night.

The fact he tweeted about his TiVo eating the hockey game long before the inappropriate tweet that he may or may not have sent counts as evidence of that I think.

 

[Nova Land]

I wasn't able to post this morning, due to the forum apparently being down. And I'm running late on other stuff now, so need to post this and run. But the scam has begun to unravel. Both Tommy Christopher at mediaite and Joseph Cannon at CannonFire have good posts explaining who did what in this matter.

There is now a plausible explanation of what happened -- an explanation supported by evidence.

1. A group of right-wing activists decided earlier this year to take down Anthony Weiner. They believed (without any apparent factual basis for this belief) that Weiner was likely involved in sexual shenanigans and began searching to try to uncover some. Two of these conspirators were Mike Stack and Dan Wolfe; apparently there were others.

2. Believing that Weiner might be trying to have an affair with women he was following on Twitter, the conspirators tried to get in touch with some of these women.

3. One person who had signed up to follow Weiner -- and received an auto-generated reply from Weiner thanking her for doing so -- was a minor. She signed up with the full knowledge and approval of her parents. Her testimony and her parents' testimony is provided in detail in the posts I linked to. To protect her privacy, Tommy Christopher is referring to her by the made-up name of Betty.

4. There was improper contact between adults and minors in this scandal -- but not on Weiner's part. The conspirators, falsely believing that Weiner was doing something inappropriate, got in touch with Betty and harassed her repeatedly. Again, this is something for which we have the testimony of the minor and her parents.

5. There was another minor, a friend of Betty, who (to protect her privacy) is being referred to by the made-up name of Veronica. She did not sign up to follow Weiner; but, knowing her friend Betty had, Veronica claimed she had signed up too, in order to give Stack, Wolfe and their co-conspirators what they wanted.

6. Believing they had discovered a scandal involving Weiner, the conspirators next needed a way to make the scandal public. Veronica was not willing to go public with her story (since she was making the whole thing up). Her communications with the conspirators have been found and are available in the posts I linked to.

7. This appears to be what Wolfe was referring to in the weeks preceding the sending of the crotch shot; he really believed they had something on Weiner.

8. Since they couldn't get Veronica to come forward and say Weiner had been sending inappropriate messages to her (since he hadn't) and since they couldn't find anyone else to come forward and say Weiner had been sending inappropriate messages (since he hadn't), the conspirators came up with an alternate way to (they thought) bring the scandal out. They faked the sending of a crotch shot (using the method Joseph Cannon outlined) -- figuring, correctly, that useful idiots on the right would believe it came from Weiner and in the ensuing media frenzy the details of Weiner's (non-existent, but they didn't know this) contacts with Veronica would come out.

Point # 8 is speculation -- but it matches all the available evidence, and does so better than the idea that the crotch shot came from Weiner. There are a number of discrepancies which show that Wolfe lied about the source of the pictures on his computers, and that the pictures are unlikely to have come from Weiner. Again, see Christopher's and Cannon's posts.

It is well-established -- by evidence -- that there was a conspiracy prior to the crotch-tweet to bring down Weiner: the testimony of Betty and her parents, and the screenshots of the DMs from Veronica to "goatsred" (Mike Stack).

It is also established that Stack had the computer skills to have been able to send a fake tweet as if it had come from Weiner -- and that he had previously threatened to take that kind of action against someone else who had offended him:

In one 2009 post, Stack fired back at some of his online enemies, warning them to “be careful of what you say.” He claimed, “I can find out anything about anyone. The software and programs that I have at my disposal, in addition to the people who work in the wi-fi and technology field that I am partnered with make me a virtual cyber detective.” Stack added, “I have other people making me money, so I have all day to have fun here at my little house. Hopefully, you have the same resources the next time you call someone out.”

Christopher is of the opinion that Breitbart was not aware at first that Wolfe and Stack were pulling a hoax with the crotch-tweet and that Breitbart was simply a dupe. I am not convinced of that yet.

 

[Noztradamus]

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

You omitted to mention the presser where he decided to take refuge in audacity and just make wang jokes.

 

[AlBell]

I wasn't able to post this morning, due to the forum apparently being down. And I'm running late on other stuff now, so need to post this and run. But the scam has begun to unravel. Both Tommy Christopher at mediaite and Joseph Cannon at CannonFire have good posts explaining who did what in this matter.

There is now a plausible explanation of what happened -- an explanation supported by evidence.

1. A group of right-wing activists decided earlier this year to take down Anthony Weiner. They believed (without any apparent factual basis for this belief) that Weiner was likely involved in sexual shenanigans and began searching to try to uncover some. Two of these conspirators were Mike Stack and Dan Wolfe; apparently there were others.

2. Believing that Weiner might be trying to have an affair with women he was following on Twitter, the conspirators tried to get in touch with some of these women.

3. One person who had signed up to follow Weiner -- and received an auto-generated reply from Weiner thanking her for doing so -- was a minor. She signed up with the full knowledge and approval of her parents. Her testimony and her parents' testimony is provided in detail in the posts I linked to. To protect her privacy, Tommy Christopher is referring to her by the made-up name of Betty.

4. There was improper contact between adults and minors in this scandal -- but not on Weiner's part. The conspirators, falsely believing that Weiner was doing something inappropriate, got in touch with Betty and harassed her repeatedly. Again, this is something for which we have the testimony of the minor and her parents.

5. There was another minor, a friend of Betty, who (to protect her privacy) is being referred to by the made-up name of Veronica. She did not sign up to follow Weiner; but, knowing her friend Betty had, Veronica claimed she had signed up too, in order to give Stack, Wolfe and their co-conspirators what they wanted.

6. Believing they had discovered a scandal involving Weiner, the conspirators next needed a way to make the scandal public. Veronica was not willing to go public with her story (since she was making the whole thing up). Her communications with the conspirators have been found and are available in the posts I linked to.

7. This appears to be what Wolfe was referring to in the weeks preceding the sending of the crotch shot; he really believed they had something on Weiner.

8. Since they couldn't get Veronica to come forward and say Weiner had been sending inappropriate messages to her (since he hadn't) and since they couldn't find anyone else to come forward and say Weiner had been sending inappropriate messages (since he hadn't), the conspirators came up with an alternate way to (they thought) bring the scandal out. They faked the sending of a crotch shot (using the method Joseph Cannon outlined) -- figuring, correctly, that useful idiots on the right would believe it came from Weiner and in the ensuing media frenzy the details of Weiner's (non-existent, but they didn't know this) contacts with Veronica would come out.

Point # 8 is speculation -- but it matches all the available evidence, and does so better than the idea that the crotch shot came from Weiner. There are a number of discrepancies which show that Wolfe lied about the source of the pictures on his computers, and that the pictures are unlikely to have come from Weiner. Again, see Christopher's and Cannon's posts.

It is well-established -- by evidence -- that there was a conspiracy prior to the crotch-tweet to bring down Weiner: the testimony of Betty and her parents, and the screenshots of the DMs from Veronica to "goatsred" (Mike Stack).

It is also established that Stack had the computer skills to have been able to send a fake tweet as if it had come from Weiner -- and that he had previously threatened to take that kind of action against someone else who had offended him:




Christopher is of the opinion that Breitbart was not aware at first that Wolfe and Stack were pulling a hoax with the crotch-tweet and that Breitbart was simply a dupe. I am not convinced of that yet.

Wow. All that's missing from that narrative is Sarah Palin and maybe the tooth fairy.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Aw, c'mon! Couldn't they drag this out a little longer? I was hoping for a small scale Birther fiasco.

When are supposed thinking conservatives going to learn the very simple truism: If you see anything in the way of a scandal or scoop that has been within four miles of Andrew Breitbart, ... Run Like Hell.

The problem with believing Breitbart is that his credibility is based on having no credibility. Seriously. He claims to have been duped so often that he's either the stupidest person in the world or the worst journalist in history. Ergo, in order to believe his next basket of lies, you have to accept his stupidity, and why would you believe anything from anyone quite this stupid.

 

[johnny karate]

Wow. All that's missing from that narrative is Sarah Palin and maybe the tooth fairy.

Yeah, because when we've seen multiple incidences of right wing provocateurs concocting elaborate schemes to discredit and defame their ideological enemies, it's just so hard to believe that might be the case here.

 

[Brainster]

The fact he tweeted about his TiVo eating the hockey game long before the inappropriate tweet that he may or may not have sent counts as evidence of that I think.

Nope. According to this screen cap taken from Tweet Congress, the Tivo complaint came five minutes after the inappropriate Tweet.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

3. One person who had signed up to follow Weiner -- and received an auto-generated reply from Weiner thanking her for doing so -- was a minor. She signed up with the full knowledge and approval of her parents. Her testimony and her parents' testimony is provided in detail in the posts I linked to. To protect her privacy, Tommy Christopher is referring to her by the made-up name of Betty.

<sarcasm>
Thank god someone is protecting the children.
</sarcasm>

They faked the sending of a crotch shot (using the method Joseph Cannon outlined) -- figuring, correctly, that useful idiots on the right would believe it came from Weiner and in the ensuing media frenzy the details of Weiner's (non-existent, but they didn't know this) contacts with Veronica would come out.

Point # 8 is speculation <>

Cannon does not have the technical savvy to comprehend Goodings arguments as I outlined:
forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7250006#post7250006

Here:
messageboards.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles.php?boardId=38496&articleId=18670063&func=6&filterHidden=true&filterUnhidden=false&filterRead=false

Is a link explaining that at least one BB twitter client uses ouath from your twitter account to post to yfrog - and also contains an excerpt from the wolf blitzer interview :

Weiner:
"And I see this thing pop up. I immediately delete it. OK? I immediately delete the photo - I thought I deleted – I mean, I'm not a hundred percent sure – I deleted the photo and then this – this - without any password or anything, I was able to get into the account where this photograph was hosted somehow."

So, as you can see - he did not authenticate with a user name/password to yfrog, by his own admission.

So the whole 'hack' theory goes out the window with that, IMHO.

 

[tyr_13]

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

You argued that he 'obviously' should have gone to the police because he spoke with a lawyer. I refute that, and you call it an argument from ignorance? Going to the police because of a simple hack that doesn't even get any of your information isn't something someone MUST do because they went to see a lawyer, which is what I was refuting.

There are a lot of reasons to decline going to the police, not all of them involve being involved in something illegal.

____________________________________________________


Maybe it is his picture, and maybe he did send it. There isn't any clear evidence of this, or clear evidence that he was hacked. But I'm going to keep arguing against poor reasoning and taking speculation as evidence. It isn't. I'm seeing way to much of that on both sides, but I'm not about to tackle all of it. This is all pretty much a non-issue anyway.

 

[johnny karate]

Links for TheL8Elvis' above post:

forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7250006#post7250006

messageboards.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles.php?boardId=38496&articleId=18670063&func=6&filterHidden=true&filterUnhidden=false&filterRead=false

 

[Brainster]

Brilliant deduction by Cannon! There's just one little problem. Why did Weiner refuse to rule out the possibility that was his package in the photo?

 

[tyr_13]

Brilliant deduction by Cannon! There's just one little problem. Why did Weiner refuse to rule out the possibility that was his package in the photo?

Maybe it is his? Maybe he thinks this entire thing is hilarious? Maybe he wants to draw out the attention being given to the harassment that his critics leveled at some underage girls? Maybe he wants people to think that it's his without lying?

See the problem with speculation? Sure it's valid as speculation, but one little hitch in the hypothesis and a whole new level of speculation gets spun out.

 

[johnny karate]

Brilliant deduction by Cannon! There's just one little problem. Why did Weiner refuse to rule out the possibility that was his package in the photo?

That's a good question that leads to all manner of speculation (see tyr_13's post).

But the one thing we know for sure is that it completely undercuts the characterization of Weiner as a liar trying to cover his ass since he refused to tell that particular lie.

 

[johnny karate]

messageboards.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles.php?boardId=38496&articleId=18670063&func=6&filterHidden=true&filterUnhidden=false&filterRead=false

The only problem with this analysis (and that of George Gooding) is that it makes the presumption that Weiner never used yfrog before the night in question, despite the fact that he didn't say he never used it.

They're just twisting the words of a man who is clearly not tech savy expressing his inexperience with yfrog as a definitive statement that he never used it.

 

[leftysergeant]

Brilliant deduction by Cannon! There's just one little problem. Why did Weiner refuse to rule out the possibility that was his package in the photo?

Maybe he is sure his is bigger than that.

(I wish I could find a link to Richard Pryor's story about what happened to his after he did drug rehab.)

Lots of men do over-estimate what they have. I'm sure the sludge monster over-estimates his. His kind always do.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The only problem with this analysis (and that of George Gooding) is that it makes the presumption that Weiner never used yfrog before the night in question, despite the fact that he didn't say he never used it.

They're just twisting the words of a man who is clearly not tech savy expressing his inexperience with yfrog as a definitive statement that he never used it.

Yes, he clearly is not tech savvy. Most people aren't. That's why things services like twitter make it transparent to end user how thier pictures appear somewhere, they just know they can attach a picture and it gets linked.

You really don't think Wieners own words " I was able to get into the account where this photograph was hosted somehow." aren't a tacit admission that he doesn't know what yfrog is, never used it, and just used a twitter client that used yfrog to host pictures ?

I guess the only way it would be more clear would be if we had a definitive list from Wiener of all the online services he's never used....

Clearly, Twitter and yfrog can provide information on the posting IP address, and whether it matches Weiners previous posts, or is in the assigned address range of his BB. Until Wiener (or authorities) asks them to release this information, we won't have many more facts than the ones that have come out of his mouth.
And by his own admission, he didn't authenticate to yfrog. So that leaves the options that
a) his twitter account was hacked
b) he sent the picture, either inadvertently or intentionally

To me, occam's razor clearly points to b.

As to the rest - Breitbart, Wolfe, non-reporting to the police - etc... That is all speculation.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Yes, he clearly is not tech savvy. Most people aren't. That's why things services like twitter make it transparent to end user how thier pictures appear somewhere, they just know they can attach a picture and it gets linked.

You really don't think Wieners own words " I was able to get into the account where this photograph was hosted somehow." aren't a tacit admission that he doesn't know what yfrog is, never used it, and just used a twitter client that used yfrog to host pictures ?

I guess the only way it would be more clear would be if we had a definitive list from Wiener of all the online services he's never used....

Clearly, Twitter and yfrog can provide information on the posting IP address, and whether it matches Weiners previous posts, or is in the assigned address range of his BB. Until Wiener (or authorities) asks them to release this information, we won't have many more facts than the ones that have come out of his mouth.
And by his own admission, he didn't authenticate to yfrog. So that leaves the options that
a) his twitter account was hacked
b) he sent the picture, either inadvertently or intentionally

To me, occam's razor clearly points to b.

As to the rest - Breitbart, Wolfe, non-reporting to the police - etc... That is all speculation.

All the rest is speculation. Not your speculation in the twelve preceding lines, though?