How was she harrassed? Are you accusing the police of improper conduct. What is your evidence that the cops did anything improper or “harrassing?”
Yes, he would. And he hasn’t taken the matter to the police - which might suggest that, unlike when a reporter tries to interview him, he doesn’t see it as a potential crime.
You’re in MPSIMS, not the Pit. Please refrain from calling other posters morons.
No warning issued.
twickster, MPSIMS moderator
Just because a victim doesn’t report a crime doesn’t mean it wasn’t a crime, nor is that an invitation for harrassment from media stalkers.
By the way, if there hasn’t been a crime, then why is the press wasting any time pursuing this?
To those people saying they know what their underwear looks like… I really doubt this was one-of-a-kind custom made underwear. There are probably a million pairs out there that look exactly the same. And the slight bulge in the picture certainly is not going to ID anyone.
No. But it does mean nobody can determine if it was a crime legally, and it means that if there was a crime, the guilty person doesn’t get dealt with. And Weiner suggested something criminal took place.
A credentialed reporter going to the office of a Congressman (and leaving when he won’t talk to her) is not engaging in stalking.
For better or worse, and whatever it says about us as a species, it’s interesting (and pretty funny). The press doesn’t have to decide if a crime was committed.
Because now it seems really fishy, and that there is a probability that the congressman is lying?
This.
I’m a democrat and until this happened I would have gladly voted for Weiner. Now? Uh-uh.
I couldn’t care less if he photographs his crotch in the privacy of his own home, on his own time.
I can’t even really get worked up about him having a moment of poor judgment and sending said pic to an other adult (then instantly seeing the error of his ways and deleting it).
But unless I hear proof to the contrary, I am personally convinced that the man is lying about the incident and also seems to think that his constituents are idiots. Siccing the cops on the CBS news crew is also a big red flag - very unprofessional.
He’s wrecked his shot at the mayorship with the way he has bungled this thing.
What is the basis for saying that he’s lying?
Do you all really not realize why he’s not denying it’s him?
You can take a photo of just about anything, manipulate it via photoshop, crop and enlarge it so that a tiny bit of it is now the entire picture, change the color and the orientation, and render it completely unrecognizable. This “picture” could be of a wrinkle in someone’s teeshirt near a seam line, put together with some white and some skin. If Weiner flat out denies the picture is of himself, and it later turns out that it is even in part a tiny segment of some bigger picture of himself, turned upside and sideways, he’ll be called a liar. When asked if the picture was of him, he repeatedly said that what with photoshop, he couldn’t say for sure.
With what photoshop can do, could any of us say definitively that that picture didn’t originate with us ourselves? I’m a woman, and I couldn’t say for sure that that picture didn’t have some portion of it originating in a picture of me (although I’d certainly guess it wasn’t, since I don’t think I have any pictures of me on the web at all). Here’s the picture. Could you be so certain? You know what photoshop-type programs can do. It’s not like it’s difficult.
As for hacking his account, Rachel Maddow found people on the web who reproduced similar results (a tweet purportedly from someone else linking to a photo the someone else purportedly posted) in, if I’m not mistaken, about 12 seconds. Again, not difficult.
Was it Colbert or the Daily Show last night that had such fun with the pic? … put a conning tower on the bulge to make it a submarine, teeth and fins to make it a shark, and a crown to make it the Statue of Liberty. Really funny.
Nobody said he is. There is a good possibility. THAT is exactly what the reporter was trying to find out.
Of course, there is no use arguing the point with you. If you cannot see the obvious signs that the rest of us do, you have clearly made your mind up that there is no chance of him being anything but as pure as the wind driven snow. Otherwise, you REALLY need to take some human behavior classes, or your daughters are going to be running rings around you when they hit their teens.
Because there is a penis involved. And the guy is called Weiner. And for some reason that I cannot comprehend, the American public is obsessed with any story that even hints of sex.
- DtC
At least he didn’t send a pic of his pecs, we all know how that worked out for Chris Lee.
Wait, Anthony Weiner is married to Huma? The infamous Huma who was supposedly rumored to be Hillary Clinton’s secret lesbian lover back in 2007?
I think I just heard 10,000 Freepers’ heads explode.
Anyway, Weiner is an idiot; he’s conducted a seminar on how NOT to conduct yourself in a potential scandal. He was probably set up, but since he doesn’t just come out and say, “that’s not me” he looks guilty. Even if it IS him, some way, some how, just say it isn’t, you idiot!
I mean, even NPR ran a story yesterday that made him sound guilty. He’s awfully un-media savvy for someone so media savvy.
Additional circumstantial evidence emerges that Weiner has not told the truth:
WEINER’S TALE UNRAVELING - The Daily learns tweet originated from app that pol used the night pic was posted
This article ends with a sensible and tolerably obvious observation:
Malicious hacking is and should be a crime - one that deserves to be investigated. Dio obviously has evidence that this was in fact a crime*, but everyone else seems to lack this certitude. Weiner could settle this quickly if he wanted to; if he doesn’t, it has to look bad.
*I make this charitable assumption based on his continued insistence that Weiner is a crime victim - I’m assuming he would not blather on so tediously without some clear evidence this is so. Why he does not share this is something of a mystery, but I insist it would be ungracious to assume he has only the same information as the rest of this, as that would mean one of our most prolific posters has been behaving quite foolishly.
I see nothing but speculation and wishful thinking in that article. And f Weiner was not the victim of a crime, then there’s no story here at all.
Investigationby Daily Kos readers into the right-wingers that broke the story. There’s a definite whiff of ratfucking.
What’s this “if”? (Or should I say " f"?) You have multiple times flatly stated that he IS the victim of a crime.
And there probably would be a story, focusing on the question: If he wasn’t hacked, why did he say he was?