Congressman Weiner's inappropriate tweet

[Cobalt]

Well this was funny, now it's just.....................

I don't know.

 

[uk_dave]

It's a good thing Weiner didn't tweet "pull it"

 

[tyr_13]

Interesting piece on Patterico this evening, pointing out that the story being told by the teenaged girls following Weiner doesn't quite add up.



There's quite a bit more and I'm not sure I follow all of it, but it closes with some interesting information:



I know, "Lalalalala I can't hear you lalalala Breitbart lalalalal."

So an adult did something that at the time a teenager didn't like, but upon reflection she characterizes as a favor, and this is unusual somehow?

Maybe there is more to that part of the story, but nothing so far that doesn't add up for me.

EDIT: Oh, and maybe Breightbart does have some information that's important, and maybe he's bluffing. Maybe he's making stuff up again. Until he actually presents his evidence, there is no reason to take his word for it.

 

[AlBell]

The laughable part is if The Weiner was a Republican, our large contingent of lefty loons would be frothing at the mouth demanding he resign.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Yes, I think I follow that. (Cannon argues that Weiner had created a yFrog account, since he was able to immediately go to yFrog and delete the picture that had been posted in it. Is this in dispute?)

Well, what is in dispute is the necessity to 'create' a yfrog account.

Prior to May 27th, all of the pictures Weiner had posted to his account were sent via Blackberry. (Or so I've seen posted; is that incorrect?) That's one reason Cannon mistakenly thought that would have been true on the 27th as well. If Weiner had previously been posting pictures via Blackberry rather than TweetDeck, wouldn't that have created the yFrog account already?

This is my understanding of how yfrog work(ed):

You could post to pictures to yfrog linked to your twitter account by
1) creating an account which is your twitter name + yfrog 'secret' word and using email. You would just email the picture to your.twitter.secret@yfrog

If someone knew your twitter name and secret word, they could send a picture to that email address and it would appear in your twitter stream with no tweet attached, just the yfrog link.

This was demonstrated here and other places.

2) Using twtter for blackberry, tweedtdeck, or other twitter clients, you can also post pictures to yfrog ( or twitpics, or bit.ly or other image hosts )

The use of these other clients does not require the creation of a yfrog account to post images to yfrog. These apps use Oauth and twitters API to authenticate the user to TWITTER.
IOW - twitter for blackberry does not create a yfrog account for the user in the format listed in (1) - but authenticates the user with their own twitter password and Oauth to post an image to the users twitter stream. IE the yfrog app gets permission from twitter using the twitter API to post yfrog url with the picture to the users twitter stream.

This is the reason I brought weiners interview with cnn earlier, when he said:
"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."

He did not authenticate with a user name/password to yfrog, by his own admission. That's because integration/authentication is 'baked in' to many twitter clients. Including twitter for blackberry and tweetdeck.

See this image to demonstrate what I am talking about.

One more question: can you cite me a source (other than Gooding's blog post) which states that if you upload a picture to yFrog via TweetDeck it does not automatically generate a tweet the way it does if you do not use TweetDeck?

I understand Gooding seems to be claiming that -- but Gooding's writing on this is not clear. What Gooding appears to actually demonstrate is that he was able to upload a picture to yFrog with TweetDeck without generating such a tweet. That's not the same as establishing it's impossible to generate such a tweet when you use TweetDeck; what it establishes is that it's possible not to generate such a tweet when you use TweetDeck.

That Gooding was able to find a method to upload a picture via TweetDeck without generating a tweet certainly is relevant to the discussion. But I'd like to be clear that this means pictures uploaded by TweetDeck never generate this kind of tweet. Who says that, and how do they know?

If I understand your point (and I am not sure I do, entirely) - You are questioning the difference in whether there is just a URL linking to the yfrog picture, and whether there is a tweet attached ?

As I understand it, posting a picture via the your.twitter.secret@yfrog email would only create the link, not a tweet attached to it. But this would be the same if you posted only a picture with no tweet attached via twitter for blackberry or tweetdeck - so I am not sure of the relevance.

The key piece of information so far is the logs detailed here that show that image was posted via tweetdeck.
"TweetCongress’s software captures all the information Twitter API makes available — including the source application for tweets."
Simply put, if the image was posted via yfrog, whether Weiner had ever had a yfrog account or not, the information would have shown that tweet was posted via yfrog. It wasn't.

Clear now ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Edited by LashL: 

Removed quote of inappropriate content.

I agree that Breitbart, Wolfe et al have a bad history, and prior action certainly cloud the view of them. Wolfe, in particular, seems like quite a piece of work.

It does seem, however, you think them all brilliant enough to frame Weiner.

I've already posted my most plausible scenario consistent with the evidence as to what I think happened.

Would you or someone who thinks Weiner didn't post the pic please be so kind as to present your most plausible scenario of what happened, in light of what evidence we have ?

Please be more specific than 'Wolfe hacked weiner' end of story.

I am not asking for 'proof' - speculation consistent with the facts is fine - I'm just not sure at this point what the plausible scenario is ??

 

[Ziggurat]

EDIT: Oh, and maybe Breightbart does have some information that's important, and maybe he's bluffing. Maybe he's making stuff up again. Until he actually presents his evidence, there is no reason to take his word for it.

It's a safe bet that he's not bluffing. One could object that we can't evaluate either the importance or reliability of whatever it is he's got, and that's certainly true. The info might not be either reliable or important. But I don't think he's ever bluffed before about having something, and there's no reason to think he's doing so now.

 

[boooeee]

The laughable part is if The Weiner was a Republican, our large contingent of lefty loons would be frothing at the mouth demanding he resign.

One of the frustrating things about politics is that it rarely gives you properly controlled experiments. In the absence of proper controls, we fall back on our biases.

This, however, is a rare exception. Congressman Chris Lee was a Republican congressman that recently resigned when it surfaced that he had sent compromising photos of himself to a woman that wasn't his wife.

So, I think you could do a forum search to substantiate your claim above.

 

[Neally]

All breitbarfs are to be sent directly to the circular file. Media people disemmenating them as legitimate news items should not be considered competent in their profession.

Yet you think it's more important to make than to Ryan and Cantor look like idiots than to prevent the crimes against humanity that Breibart is doing?

 

[Noztradamus]

The entire issue is a non-sequitor to politics. It's a shiny stone to distract the moronic majority from the issues that matter.

You are claiming that Obama sending US Forces into the territory of an allied nation to touch Osama bin Laden is an "issue that matters"? OK maybe if Bush had done it, but as it was the Obama Admistration that gave the order, it is hardly likely to be of concern to anyone this side of that guy with the graphic novel supervillan name at Evergreen College.

But to keep the progressive base happy, it may be something the DNC wants to be forgotten. Maybe they decided Weiner had to be sacrificed. Is there anyone connected with the Obama Cabinet who might have access to Weiner's Blackberry and could have done this?

 

[tyr_13]

It's a safe bet that he's not bluffing. One could object that we can't evaluate either the importance or reliability of whatever it is he's got, and that's certainly true. The info might not be either reliable or important. But I don't think he's ever bluffed before about having something, and there's no reason to think he's doing so now.

Fair enough. He doesn't seem to bluff ever about having something, just about how important it is, what it is, and what it means.

Personally I'm going back and forth between, 'Weiner meant to send it only to the coed and instead sent it public because he didn't know what he was doing,' and 'Weiner didn't mean to send it to anyone and only sent it because he didn't know what he was doing.' Although I haven't ruled out a good old hacking, but it obviously wasn't the yfrog exploit that it seemed to be.

 

[TraneWreck]

The laughable part is if The Weiner was a Republican, our large contingent of lefty loons would be frothing at the mouth demanding he resign.

That's because whatever Republican goofball that sent the tweet would probably spend all of his time moralizing on the floor of Congress, berating "atheists" and "secular humanists" and "abortionists" for the moral decay of society.

It's the hypocrisy. Weiner isn't a "family values" goofball, so it doesn't matter. He doesn't pretend like he's morally superior "those" people, so who gives a rip?

I don't care that Vitter was client of the DC Madame. I care that he sanctimoniously demanded that Clinton resign for infidelity while he was banging hookers.

 

[Brainster]

Another opportunity for all Weiner's fans to say lalalalala Breitbart lalalalala I can't hear you lalalalala:

A new woman has come forward with what she claims are photographs, chats, and emails with Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY). These appear to undermine severely Rep. Weiner’s explanations that he was the victim of a “prank” or a “hack.”

The detailed new information suggests that the Brooklyn- and Queens-based representative and the young woman in question were involved in an online, consensual relationship involving the mutual exchange of intimate photographs.

He's mostly teasing it for now, but here's a (safe for work) photo of Weiner proving to the woman that it's actually he talking to her. More to come.

Lalalalalalala!

 

[Snide]

That's because whatever Republican goofball that sent the tweet would probably spend all of his time moralizing on the floor of Congress, berating "atheists" and "secular humanists" and "abortionists" for the moral decay of society.

It's the hypocrisy. Weiner isn't a "family values" goofball, so it doesn't matter. He doesn't pretend like he's morally superior "those" people, so who gives a rip?

I don't care that Vitter was client of the DC Madame. I care that he sanctimoniously demanded that Clinton resign for infidelity while he was banging hookers.

Even so, as boooeee intimates, I doubt there is more than one on this forum, if any, who would actually call for his resignation. But we've come to expect such nonsense from the poster who made the claim.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't care that Vitter was client of the DC Madame.

You should. When a congressman decides to violate the law, he holds the law in contempt. That's not acceptable in someone charges with making laws. Our democratic system depends upon people accepting the law as written, not as they wish it was. If you don't like the way the law is, you work to change it. To simply ignore it is to undermine the basic social contract that holds civil society together, and that's especially unacceptable for someone in his position of power. I realize that this isn't applicable to the Weiner case where no laws were broken, but it's still troubling to see you dismiss the lawbreaking aspect of the Vitter case so casually.

 

[Brainster]

Second photo has a suggestive title.

 

[tyr_13]

Another opportunity for all Weiner's fans to say lalalalala Breitbart lalalalala I can't hear you lalalalala:



He's mostly teasing it for now, but here's a (safe for work) photo of Weiner proving to the woman that it's actually he talking to her. More to come.

Lalalalalalala!

So do we get to see the photos she sent him?

 

[TraneWreck]

You should. When a congressman decides to violate the law, he holds the law in contempt. That's not acceptable in someone charges with making laws. Our democratic system depends upon people accepting the law as written, not as they wish it was. If you don't like the way the law is, you work to change it. To simply ignore it is to undermine the basic social contract that holds civil society together, and that's especially unacceptable for someone in his position of power. I realize that this isn't applicable to the Weiner case where no laws were broken, but it's still troubling to see you dismiss the lawbreaking aspect of the Vitter case so casually.

Oh man, wait until you learn that some Congresspeople, gasp, smoke weed and a few of them even drive faster than the speed limit allows.

Impressive histrionics though. You worked "the basic social contract that holds civil society together" into a statement about hookers. DON'T LOOK BACK, you'll be turned into a pillar of salt!

 

[TraneWreck]

Another opportunity for all Weiner's fans to say lalalalala Breitbart lalalalala I can't hear you lalalalala:



He's mostly teasing it for now, but here's a (safe for work) photo of Weiner proving to the woman that it's actually he talking to her. More to come.

Lalalalalalala!

Truly, the exchange of photographs between consenting adults via the internet is a scourge that must be approached with the gravity of the Bin Laden sting.

 

[Ziggurat]

Impressive histrionics though. You worked "the basic social contract that holds civil society together" into a statement about hookers. DON'T LOOK BACK, you'll be turned into a pillar of salt!

Impressive dismissal of criminal behavior under the guise of not caring about religion.