He didn’t say what the dachshunds were doing with the hot dogs. 
Here’s a Smoking Gun story about the apparently bizarre guy who sent the Weiner story to Breitbart, and seems not to really trust Breitbart either.
If Weiner were a Republican, I doubt you would be as willing to accept his version of events at face value, or jump to his defense.
He clearly has something to hide. Apparently he has been taking pictures of his crotch that his wife doesn’t know about.
It may not be illegal, it’s still a sex scandal.
You have got to be kidding.
If he were a Republican, I would say the same thing.
ETA calling it a “sex scandal” is absurd.
Via what crystal ball exactly do you know his wife didn’t know about any existing pictures?
I’m thinking this is actually a cropped version of a photo he may have shared with his wife. He can’t deny it’s him, because it may well be, but he can’t say for certain because, well, you can’t see his face.
It’s a pretty big weiner, what if he says, 'Yeah, it’s me, but it was a full body shot and only sent to my wife, someone cropped it and redirected it after hacking my account." And then it turns out it’s not his junk.
That would be a whole new scandal jerk circle, now wouldn’t it? Everyone would be saying, “I knew his junk wasn’t that large! Jon Stewart was right!”
Wouldn’t he look even worse, trying to claim a bigger penis as his own?
Let me ask, could you identify your own junk from such an angle? Let’s assume you posed for a dozen shots, full body, in your drawers, so you know they exist, everything but the junk has been cropped out. Would you be able to say with certainty that it was your junk? I mean, lots of people must have the same drawers as you, right? So could you tell, or not?
Taking pictures of your crotch = sex? Have there been allegations of actual sex or sexual harassment? The woman he allegedly tweeted them to doesn’t seem to think so. Nobody else has come forward to say “hey, he sent me pictures of his crotch last year” either. Hell, when Paladino sent out the horse porn emails, I don’t think anybody called it a “sex scandal”. thank god.
Also, how do you know his wife doesn’t know about them? At this point, if there are pictures of Weiner’s actual crotch out there, we don’t have any proof of who they were taken for, as he’s claiming he didn’t send such pictures to anybody.
Right now, all we have is some paranoid right wing blogger with alleged screencaps, Breitbart publicizing them, and Weiner’s clumsy statements that make it sound like, even if this is purely a made-up stunt to smear him as he claims, he’s at some point taken photos of his crotch for some reason. Which is stupid if he did, but not a sex scandal. If more comes to light about whether he DID or WHY he might take pictures of his crotch, and it wasn’t for his wife, then maybe you can call it that.
and really, those are about the least sexy crotch pictures I’ve ever seen. Yugh
He’s been pretty unequivocal about saying he didn’t send the picture, but clearly thinks it at least might be him. That would be kind of strange unless he knew he’d had his picture taken in underwear. I believe he also used the word, “prank,” which might indicate that it was a staffer or somebody. It might possibly even have been his wife, which would explain why he doesn’t want the FBI hammer coming down. On the other hand, if he knew it was his wife, he wouldn’t be paying for a private investigation.
I’m thinking it probably was a real pic from his computer, and he knows it, but somebody else got into it and he doesn’t know who.
When someone on the internet says you have a massive schlong what are you supposed to say in reply? “No, sorry mine’s much smaller!” :dubious: It’s an unwritten rule of being a man: if benevolence (or malevolence in this case) exaggerates the size of your equipment, let the rumors stand. Don’t fight to prove you have a smaller penis than everyone is imagining.
In any case, when CNN interviewed him he said something along the lines of “unfortunately John Stewart might have had it right” which I took to mean “more Anthony, less Weiner.”
He also said something like, “the picture does not look like me for embarrassing reasons.”
Ray, if someone asks you if that’s a photo of your massive schlong, you say “YES”!
Well, Rep. Weinberg got around to calling the Capitol Police. Problem is he called them on a reporter from the New York CBS affiliate.
I think that was a bad move. Really bad.
I think it was exactly the right move. Good for him. He can’t let these fucking hyenas harrass him like that. This bitch walked into his office. He doesn’t owe these animals anything. She’s a muckraking jackal who needs to mind her own business instead of harrassing crime victims.
I agree. Not just bad but stupid.
To be clear, I agree with Mr. Moto. It was a seriously dumbshit move to call the cops on a reporter who had already left.
Okay, it’s not a sex scandal yet. But his inability to state whether it’s a picture of him or not is bizarre and leads me to believe there is something more going on here.
I mean, how many photographs of his own crotch has the guy taken that he can’t tell definitely whether this one is or isn’t genuine? At the very least, he should be able to look at all such pictures on his computer or cell phone or whatever and see if this is one of them, or not.
If he can’t do that, it means either:
a) He has taken so many pictures of his crotch and distributed them so widely that they all blend together in his mind, he no longer has access to all of them (yet somehow the “hacker” did), and he can’t be certain whether this was one or not.
b) Someone else (other than his wife, presumably) had an opportunity to take a picture of his crotch, and he can’t be sure that this picture didn’t originate in that manner.
It seems a reasonable assumption that the full story behind A) or B) would involve a sex scandal of some sort.
If everything was on the level, he would issue a statement simply explaining that it was an intimate picture intended for his wife that the hacker somehow found, or that it was categorically not him, or that it might be an old photo of him that an old girlfriend took, or something. But being silent and evasive about it is not doing him any favors.
Your double standard is astonishing. I can’t recall any instance of you so vehemently attacking the media for investigating a scandal involving a Republican politician.
And regardless of whether it deserves to be or not, Weiner has made this into a scandal by his vague and evasive statements. He could have cleared up this up days ago in a single news conference. Instead, his actions are giving the impression that he has something to hide, and it’s perfectly reasonable for the press to investigate what that might be.
How dare she! Why, the gall of that woman! To walk into his reception area and request an interview!
Seeking interviews in person is just good journalism. It’s much harder to ignore someone when they’re asking in person, rather than on the phone.
By overreacting and calling the police he’s only made this much, much worse.
This.
Seriously, how can he not know?
At this point, I don’t believe his Twitter account was hacked. I think a political opponent of the congressman walked through a wide open loophole of Rep. Weiner’s known Twitter photohost, yfrog, and emailed a picture to his yfrog account which was then disseminated via the linked Twitter account.
To wit: yfrog users were given a dedicated email address to which they can send photos, and for any user, there are only 99,999 possible variations on what that email address could be because it was username.FiveDigitPIN@yfrog.com (or something along those lines, TwitPic which is the service I’ve used is even worse, username.FourDigitPin@twitpic.com).
So someone who was interested in tweeting an inappropriate or incriminating photo through a known yfrog user’s account needed only to have access to a sufficient number of throwaway email accounts and the time to send that photo to each of the 99,999 possible addresses. There’s really nothing to lose except the possibility of being shut down as a spammer by the email provider, in which case, spread the dirty deeds over several freebie Hotmail, GMail, and Yahoo accounts. If you’re playing at the level of trying to screw with a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, you’re willing to make a little effort.
A friend of mine replicated the hole day before yesterday, sending a picture of herself holding up a sign saying “My name is _____ and I just “hacked” (user name’s) yfrog account with nothing but a text editor, email and patience.”
That presumes that a.) there was actual hacking going on and not just blunt force against a weak PIN system; b.) that what was hacked was a congressional office computer and not a Twitter/yfrog server; and c.) that Capitol Police have resources to properly (forensically) investigate cybercrime, which remains to be seen.
What scandal? There isn’t any scandal. Weiner was the victim of a crime. When Sarah Palin got hacked, she didn’t get this kind of harrassment from the media jackals.
He had just spent hours talking to the media. She was stalking him. He didn’t know what she was capable of. It was only prudent to call security when an unstable person is stalking him in his office.
Something else to consider, the guy who “broke” this story to Andrew Breitbart (who has proven that he shouldn’t be trusted as far as he can be thrown) has been making accusations about a “sex scandal” involving Rep. Weiner since May 12, well before the tweet (which only he and the woman it was directed toward ever saw) was sent.
His original email to Breitbart – which is on Smoking Gun – and happened within hours of the questionable tweet promises “we have more.” But said “more” has never materialized.
Sounds more and more like a setup. Rumormonger for weeks about a scandal and pull the trigger, using an obvious and relatively simple method – and “coincidentally” on the day when Rep. Weiner is hammering mercilessly on Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from any cases regarding health care reform because of the conflict of interest presented by his wife’s employment.
There have been bolder, blunter, more ridiculous conspiracies in politics (Watergate leaps to mind) but this is cunning in both its execution and its use of so many little esoteric facets as to engender mass confusion and disbelief.