Congressman Weiner's inappropriate tweet

[Ziggurat]

Okay, hold it right here. If this act was done more or less in public, shopuldn't a few thousand people have seen it and said something?

Nope. Even though it was public, by default only people following both Weiner and that woman would have seen that tweet. Which wouldn't have been a few thousand people, because most people following Weiner would have no reason to follow that woman as well.
http://blog.twitter.com/2008/05/how-replies-work-on-twitter-and-how.html

 

[TraneWreck]

This just in, "OJ Simpson not guilty of murder," says OJ Simpson.

I'm trying to imagine people less credible than Breitbart.

 

[Ziggurat]

You really don't much understand what lawyers do.

I know what lawyers tend not to do: they tend not to file false police reports. Which is why I don't think his lawyer has been in contact with law enforcement. And reporters have been asking law enforcement about it, and so far they've all said that they've gotten no contact. Note that they haven't said that they won't comment on the matter, they've denied any contact.

 

[Unabogie]

This just in, "OJ Simpson not guilty of murder," says OJ Simpson.

I'm trying to imagine people less credible than Breitbart.

1. Stephen Glass
2. Richard Nixon
3. That guy on SNL who said "Morgan Fairchild, yeah, that's the ticket!"

 

[leftysergeant]

Nope. Even though it was public, by default only people following both Weiner and that woman would have seen that tweet. Which wouldn't have been a few thousand people, because most people following Weiner would have no reason to follow that woman as well.

Bull feathers. His enemies would be checking all his contacts. They would be following her and him both. I would not be surprised if gutter boy was getting feed from the thugs that the Chamber hired to watch the net activity of their enemies.

 

[leftysergeant]

1. Stephen Glass
2. Richard Nixon
3. That guy on SNL who said "Morgan Fairchild, yeah, that's the ticket!"

Nixon actually intended to do good, in large part. He actually told the truth on occassion.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

I think it may be the network where I am, but I can't go back any farther on Tweetcongress than Jack Kingston saying yesterday that he voted against a clean raise on the debt ceiling. I'll keep trying throughout the day, though.

 

[Brainster]

A screencap on a blog isn't going to cut it for me, but since you've established that you're going to say "it's on this thing but I'm not going to be bothered to look for it myself," I'll go look for it.

From what I can see at TweetCongress there is no other way to get it, than to just keep hitting the more button on the representatives page. Here's his personal tweet screen, but unfortunately they only show the four most recent tweets.

 

[TraneWreck]

I know what lawyers tend not to do: they tend not to file false police reports. Which is why I don't think his lawyer has been in contact with law enforcement. And reporters have been asking law enforcement about it, and so far they've all said that they've gotten no contact. Note that they haven't said that they won't comment on the matter, they've denied any contact.

The second sentence does not follow from the first.

Weiner says it was a prank. If you take a deep breath for a moment and consider the implications of that claim, it's fairly obvious how 1) he could be innocent of the HORRIBLE CRIMES that you suspect of him and 2) why he would not wish to press charges or pursue a criminal case.

But the countdown to irrelevancy of this story is moving along. You've got a couple of more days, so please, let's hear some more unhinged suspicions.

 

[Brainster]

This just in, "OJ Simpson not guilty of murder," says OJ Simpson.

I'm trying to imagine people less credible than Breitbart.

Right now, Anthony Weiner.

 

[TraneWreck]

Right now, Anthony Weiner.

We had the sanctimony, we just needed the hyperbole. It had been hinted at earlier via the THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS ISSUE argument, but thank you for expressing it more clearly.

We have achieved a category 1 right wing non-scandal scandal. It's just hit hurricane strength, but looks like it will dissipate over the Atlantic before reaching land.

 

[leftysergeant]

I know what lawyers tend not to do: they tend not to file false police reports. Which is why I don't think his lawyer has been in contact with law enforcement. And reporters have been asking law enforcement about it, and so far they've all said that they've gotten no contact.

Last I heard, the FBI has said NOTHING AT ALL.

We thus have no idea what Weiner is doing as far as law enforcement actions.

 

[HoshizoraZankou]

I think it may be the network where I am, but I can't go back any farther on Tweetcongress than Jack Kingston saying yesterday that he voted against a clean raise on the debt ceiling. I'll keep trying throughout the day, though.

I'm not getting anything from before 14 hours and 3 minutes ago (fourth to last available tweet is from Rep. Giffords 11h 28m prior), not nearly far enough to be helpful. The "more" button is simply not giving me any more tweets at this point. I'm willing to bet that that archive simply does not have the tweet anymore, assuming the original ever existed in the first place.

 

[lomiller]

There are tens or hundreds of thousands of cases every day where accounts on publically facing services on the internet are hacked. The notion that police would investigate this is pretty absurd if you ask me, it just doesn’t happen and people thinking special rules should apply here need to give their head a shake.

It’s also highly questionable that there would even be a criminal act here since the serve that was hacked wasn’t government, financial, medical and there was no monetary value associated with any of the acts.

 

[leftysergeant]

I'm not getting anything from before 14 hours and 3 minutes ago (fourth to last available tweet is from Rep. Giffords 11h 28m prior), not nearly far enough to be helpful. The "more" button is simply not giving me any more tweets at this point. I'm willing to bet that that archive simply does not have the tweet anymore, assuming the original ever existed in the first place.

So, is the upshot of this that there is no evidence beyond the word of the world's least ethical blogger that the tweet even occurred?

 

[Neally]

No, it's just stupid.

Unless, wait, you've uncovered a massive scandal, THERE ARE NO I.T. PEOPLE ON CAPITOL HILL!!!!

It would be a scandal if the Congress IT dept. found a breach and didn't report it. We have thus far no reports that Weiner reported the breach to IT or the police. Either massively stupid on his part, or indication that there in fact was no breach.

Weiner says it was a prank. If you take a deep breath for a moment and consider the implications of that claim, it's fairly obvious how 1) he could be innocent of the HORRIBLE CRIMES that you suspect of him and 2) why he would not wish to press charges or pursue a criminal case.

Yet more utter nonsense. A "prank" that involves hacking an account in which no attempt is made to find the source or determine the extent of the security breach is highly questionable. Weiner's hand waving it away and your blind acceptance of it is laughable.

I would not be surprised if gutter boy was getting feed from the thugs that the Chamber hired to watch the net activity of their enemies.

Seems like you've been surprised a lot lately when your false flag conspiracies haven't panned out.

.

 

[Ziggurat]

The second sentence does not follow from the first.

Correct. It follows from Weiner's behavior.

Weiner says it was a prank.

What else is he going to say if he did it but doesn't want to admit it?

If you take a deep breath for a moment and consider the implications of that claim, it's fairly obvious how 1) he could be innocent of the HORRIBLE CRIMES that you suspect of him

He's the one claiming a crime occurred, not me.

 

[Ziggurat]

The notion that police would investigate this is pretty absurd if you ask me, it just doesn’t happen

Yes, actually, it does.

It’s also highly questionable that there would even be a criminal act here since the serve that was hacked wasn’t government, financial, medical and there was no monetary value associated with any of the acts.

None of those things is required for a crime to have occurred, as the above case (which was a yahoo account) clearly indicates.

 

[Neally]

There are tens or hundreds of thousands of cases every day where accounts on publically facing services on the internet are hacked. The notion that police would investigate this is pretty absurd if you ask me, it just doesn’t happen and people thinking special rules should apply here need to give their head a shake.

Wrong. The kid that hacked Palin was convicted of a felony. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin_email_hack

It’s also highly questionable that there would even be a criminal act here since the serve that was hacked wasn’t government, financial, medical and there was no monetary value associated with any of the acts.

Wrong again. Palin's hacked account was a Yahoo email.

 

[TraneWreck]

It would be a scandal if the Congress IT dept. found a breach and didn't report it. We have thus far no reports that Weiner reported the breach to IT or the police. Either massively stupid on his part, or indication that there in fact was no breach.

I am unaware of the provision that says that an IT guy that makes sure a Congressman's computer is clear of viruses has to report that to the public. Perhaps you could link that regulation or statute.

Yet more utter nonsense. A "prank" that involves hacking an account in which no attempt is made to find the source or determine the extent of the security breach is highly questionable. Weiner's hand waving it away and your blind acceptance of it is laughable.

Why would the prank necessarily involve hacking?