He said no, and we still believe him. There's something here that's not being disclosed; we don't know what that is, but we've still got the faith, and so, apparently, does Rachel.
It's just too perfect: The penis pic with the puerile Weiner joke element (the right has a stunted, male-centric sense of humor); the immediacy and exquisite timing of Breitbart's subsequent post (Wiener's alleged wiener pic was up and deleted in minutes, but Breitbart had it posted almost simultaneously) Weiner's savviness, and Breitbart's assholinessness and past disregard for accuracy. All this indicates to us that it's bullshit.
There's is something missing, here, but if we're wrong about this, we'll say so. Stay tuned.
(Funny how the toughest questions are asked by those the right flag as liberals: Luke Russert, Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart. While Rachel noticeably blushed, Fox News twink Bret Baier seemed too embarrassed to ask direct, specific questions if they were about sex parts).
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
He's sure honest, isn't he? I wonder how Breitbart got hold of something that was taken down almost immediately?
I wonder when media and the right will get back to more important issues than Weiner's weener?
Posted by: joanie | June 02, 2011 at 08:07 AM
It is funny. All of this attention to one little prick and his little prick. The guy ought to just fess up to his trying to impress some young woman with his little penis. He meant to push private send and sent to all of his followers by mistake.
The only real issue should be compensation for the college kid that is dropping out of school to escape the situation. She is the one that has been screwed over by the narcissist Weiner.
(Oh, and talking about his little tool with Rachel Maddow on national TeeVee with hundreds of people watching has to be one of the most humiliating things a man could ever go through)
Posted by: chucks | June 02, 2011 at 08:17 AM
Are you a pecker-checker Chucks? How do you know it's even his if the account was hacked?
The real issue is the not so Brightbart and his constant attempts at creating scandal in which he has a dismal record proving including bugging a senator's office, the whole ACORN pimp thing in which he was found to have doctored that video and the Shirley Sherod framing in which he is now being sued. Both he and O Keefe should have their bank accounts drained.
Posted by: Coiler | June 02, 2011 at 08:54 AM
Coiler, you can't drain Breitbart or O'Keefe's bank accounts, not for any length of time. They're too useful to their wealthy patrons.
The other reason I tend to think it's bullshit, besides the several BlaM posted, is that as with every other such manufactured scandal, it comes at a time extremely convenient for national Republicans. Here the Congressional R's are, threatening (much to Wall Street's horror) to trigger an economic meltdown by refusing to allow the debt ceiling to be raised unless Medicare is gutted - an utterly toxic position with the public as well, if polling and the NY special election are any indication. Voila! Time for a massive distraction. It's a very familiar pattern that really ought to insult anyone's intelligence, left or right.
As BlaM said, it's too perfect.
Posted by: Pete | June 02, 2011 at 09:34 AM
Old Andy B fully and honestly presented the Shirley Sherod video right up front. He will win that in court if it ever gets that far.
Weiner can put the whole issue to rest if he just would request a police investigation. He doesn't want that for some odd reason. His account was never hacked. He just screwed up and sent it to everybody instead of the the individual that he wanted to impress.
ACORN is a corrupt organisation. Why do you continue to deny it Coiler? Silly kid.
Breitbart is not the problem here. Weiner and his clumsy efforts to avoid his transgression is issue.
Posted by: chucks | June 02, 2011 at 09:34 AM
Hmmmmmm. If this was someone from the right, he or she would have been done for. No excuses, nothing, convicted. Progressives sure like to convict, but if it's one of their own.........
Posted by: Mr. Moderate | June 02, 2011 at 09:46 AM
Pete, Congress has already gutted half a trillion dollars from Medicare under Peelosi, Reid and Obama and their Obamacare crap. How much have you bitched about that?
Congress as it is now is using the bully pulpit to get the Spendocrats to spend less.
How much debt is too much? How much debt should we leave for future generations? I believe we have about screwed our kids, grand-kids and great-grands enough.
What do you propose the Republicans do? Trust that the Dems will cut spending after lifting the debt limit?
Posted by: chucks | June 02, 2011 at 09:47 AM
Seems to me that chuck may relate in some way to Weiner. Hmmm, let's see what possibly could that way be?
Posted by: Sarah | June 02, 2011 at 11:04 AM
"Pete, Congress has already gutted half a trillion dollars from Medicare under Peelosi, Reid and Obama and their Obamacare crap. How much have you bitched about that?"
That's a blatant falsehood and a repeated dog whistle, right wing crock o' shit. It's no wonder you're fawning over Breitbart.
Posted by: slingshot | June 02, 2011 at 11:11 AM
Slingshot is demonstrating they are in the lib prog echo chamber. As you are trying to peddle the claim that "Congress has already gutted half a trillion dollars from Medicare under Peelosi, Reid and Obama and their Obamacare crap." is not true, you are the one peddling the excrement.
If Breitbart were a lefty, those bitching about him here would have a wet dream, because he has steel balls.
Posted by: South King County | June 02, 2011 at 02:31 PM
Chucks..you must not have a Twitter account. There is no "private" setting. It's not like email where you can do a send or send all.
One of the bits of information that came out earlier, but I have not seen repeated, is that one of AB's little trolls asked if it was possible to hack into a y-frog account. The dates on those tweets were from awhile back, so this has been in the works for awhile.
As Rachel pointed out last night, it is extremely easy to post as someone else on twitter and to hack into a Facebook account. As valuable as social media is to politicians, if they use it wisely, it may have reached a point where it is unwise to be on the webs where people can do you some real damage.
A favorite pastime of angry high school delinquents is to scan a yearbook photo of a teacher or principal and then photoshop that head onto an existing and usually embarassing photo (think nude) and then post it on MySpace or Facebook.
It sends shivers of delight up the spines of 1st Amendent lawyers.
Posted by: sparky in Republicanland | June 02, 2011 at 03:19 PM
Insightful information sparky, thanks for sharing. I've always been skeptical of the social media potential and thus I use it sparingly.
Posted by: Sarah | June 02, 2011 at 03:47 PM
this just in:
"The blog Cannonfire, which closed the case yesterday on the so-called "Weinergate" affair when it demonstrated conclusively how anyone could use a simple technique to publish any picture they wanted to another person's Twitter stream, now reports that yfrog.com has disabled the e-mail service that enables such exploits."
Posted by: sparky in Republicanland | June 02, 2011 at 04:14 PM
No, as usual (ob non-political issues) Sparky, you are right. I do not use twitter. The thought of following somebody does not appeal to me.
I really don't care about Weiner beyond his being a rat bastard commie with a big mouth. It is entertaining to watch hi Texas Two Step around the "is that a picture of you" question. The guy is an idiot. Just honestly answer the question. It would pass long before election time even if he is a bit of a creep. Democrats don't care about character. They only care about taking money from those that have more money than they and giving it to those with less. He'd still get re-elected.
Posted by: chucks | June 02, 2011 at 04:27 PM
What if the answer is: "Yes, those are my shorts. No, that is not my weenie."
What have you learned?
Posted by: joanie | June 02, 2011 at 06:12 PM
Yep, just realized Sparky did set you straight. Hmm, there's a self-named rat bastard on this blog who admits to being conservative. Creep? Wonder what that is all about? And now "honesty" is renamed the "Texas Two step" - doesn't that just about say it all when it comes to the right?
Posted by: joanie | June 02, 2011 at 06:32 PM
Not so sure it's "honesty." After lawyering up, it sounds more like Weiner was advised to be noncomittal about the pic...just in case.
Interesting that NBC news has totally ignored the story...I wonder if they would have done the same had the victim been a republican. Nah, I'm not really wondering...
Posted by: Radio Queen | June 02, 2011 at 06:51 PM
After lawyering up, it sounds more like Weiner was advised to be noncomittal...
Not arguing but wondering where you got that information. "Sounds like..." Are you assuming or guessing?
Yes, "victim" - I agree. I wonder if they will identify the assaulter determine the motive? Got any ideas on that, Queen?
Posted by: joanie | June 02, 2011 at 06:57 PM
"There's is something missing, here, but if we're wrong about this, we'll say so."
There's is: let me help you out. Weiner took a photo of Lil' Anthony's struggle to release itself from the bonds of a pair of Walmart briefs. Weiner liked the photo so much that he added it to his Weiner Collection; collection as in a part of the whole Weiner.
Did Weiner intend to pass his pretty penis picture to some Seattle bimbo? Not likely. More likely is that someone in Wiener's circle of trust knew that he had a penchant for photographing his own prick and saving the pics to hard drive.
The Weinermeister has said that he did not send that photo to the Seattle bimbo and I believe him. He also says that he can't state "with certitude" that the underwear, bony legs and mild hard-on aren't his ... meaning he's taken such a photo of himself, or someone else has.
Look to Weiner's former lovers - male or female - within his circle of trust and you'll discover why Weiner doesn't want this "hacking/prank" investigated.
This is a little case of "progressive eats progressive." (ew!)
Posted by: Dogmandeux | June 02, 2011 at 07:10 PM
So you completely dismiss the possibility of it being adobe-shopped? You are that certain?
Posted by: joanie | June 02, 2011 at 07:18 PM
Why look at his "former lovers"? Right wingers get off on this kind of stuff.
Posted by: Coiler | June 02, 2011 at 07:30 PM
You mean the layered look like the long version of the long form of Barry's birth certificate ? heheheh
Posted by: KS | June 02, 2011 at 07:30 PM
Barry White? You guys spend a lot of time not focusing on the economy.
Posted by: Coiler | June 02, 2011 at 07:34 PM
I would "lawyer up" too, not out of fear, but I would sue the ass off the person who hacked my account. I don't think he sent it on Twitter to the girl in Seattle. But, I wonder if it is a picture he sent to his wife in an email. When will people understand that if pictures and words are sent out to the webisphere, it has the potential to be sent to the world by nefarious types. I think the rule is..would you want your mother to read it/see it.
I spend a huge part of the year talking to kids about the illusion of privacy on the Net.
Posted by: sparky in Republicanland with crappy TV | June 02, 2011 at 07:48 PM
Weiner immediately hired a lawyer--it's been widely reported. Why would he do that if he just thought he'd been pranked? As to his legal advice, of course I'm speculating--but then, aren't we all? But honestly, what man wouldn't remember if he'd had his picture taken in his undies--regardless of the condition of his manhood? Dogmandeux's theory is actually just as plausible as everything else out there. Time will tell.
And Coiler, when was the last time Hood actually posted a story about the economy for us to discuss?
Posted by: Radio Queen | June 02, 2011 at 07:50 PM
When was the last time the republicans had any ideas about it?
Posted by: Coiler | June 02, 2011 at 07:53 PM
Prez BO, silly goof. The maggots of the media sure spend a lot of time on Weiner's pic.
It would help the numbnuts of the left aka the media if Weiner comes clean. Even if it's found out he took a picture of himself, the Dems will do a circle jerk around him, whereas the GOP would have chewed him up and thrown him out.
Posted by: KS | June 02, 2011 at 07:53 PM
Yes. I completely dismiss the possibility that a potentially photo shopped image of a guy's undies changes the fact that Weiner can't completely certify that he's not wearing them.
Posted by: Dogmandeux | June 02, 2011 at 07:55 PM
This is the greatest case of self-implosion politics I've ever seen. Weiner basically admitted that, yes, that photo could be me---as if he has a whole drawer-full of photos of his GROIN! For former Mayor Ed Koch to say, "I think he's in trouble" is the understatement of the moment!!!!
Posted by: JimF | June 02, 2011 at 07:57 PM
"media sure spend a lot of time on Weiner's pic.
It would help the numbnuts of the left aka the media if Weiner comes clean."
Posted by: KS | June 02, 2011 at 07:53 PM
So you're guilty of being like the media?
Posted by: Coiler | June 02, 2011 at 08:01 PM
You know, Sparky, I agree with everything you said. But I also think adults should know better than to make assumptions about politician's or anyone's personal life. And a personal email to a lover isn't any of our business nor does it mean it's contents are anything but normal. Only the right seems to make everything a trip through the gutter, sewer and "toilet" of life. And does Breitbart have a constant twitter feed into his dark den of disgust? That's the part I don't get.
And, again, nobody knows what happened.
Posted by: joanie | June 02, 2011 at 08:03 PM
Joanie, as one adult to another: remember this quote?
"My sources are individual men who have had sexual encounters with the Senator. I am willing to spend the rest of my life in prison to protect their identity."
Here's the link
http://blatherwatch.blogs.com/talk_radio/2006/10/hypocrisy_watch.html
Posted by: Dogmandeux | June 02, 2011 at 08:24 PM
Well, Queen, as long as you recognize it's a theory. And theories are a dime a dozen.
And judging from the reaction and assumptions being made, "sounds like" acquiring the advice of a lawyer was a smart move.
Frankly, Coiler, there's an interesting article in Huffpo about the letter Boehner read signed by 150 economists. I'd rather talk about the economy myself. But it's not as juicy and won't bring the conservatives to the blog. Seems they like smut better.
Posted by: joanie | June 02, 2011 at 08:32 PM
It's all Twitter's fault- LMAO..., so sez Greg Gutfeld;
WeinerGate: Where’s Twitter?
by Greg Gutfeld
On Tuesday, Congressman Weiner suffered a meltdown to end all meltdowns. To recap: it happened after a lewd photo of a dude’s crotch was sent to a Seattle co-ed from Weiner’s Twitter account. Weiner claims he was hacked. But instead of contacting authorities, he lawyered up.
When reporters asked if he sent the photo, he lost it.
So the question is, why?
Well, he assumed the press would let the scandal blow over – a consequence of inhabiting a protective bubble the press affords liberal politicians.
The problem with that bubble – it can burst when the press sees a story too good to ignore.
Sadly, the Congressman can’t see out of the bubble, and see what’s coming. Spitzer could have warned him.
Hence, the mortifying performance. Weiner looked like a deer in the headlights, trying to joke with the headlights.
The panicky bob of his Adam’s apple seemed to be sending Morse code to his friends in the media: “Why! Why! why! I’m one of you!”
It all screams “guilty!” – a whiny tantrum directed not at a hacker – but the media, his allies.
Too pompous to resign, we’re witnessing finessed damage control. As I write this, Weiner is trying to orchestrate this mess into separate bite-size interviews, with enough time in between for counsel.
It’s like a sausage dictating how it should be cooked.
In the MSNBC interview, Weiner calls the whole thing a prank, “not a federal case.” But, like I said last night, it is a federal case. If, indeed, the account was hacked.
Drew at Ace of Spades makes a good point: if Weiner says it was a prank, then he’s saying he knows the motivation, and likely, the origin.
Could it have been an angry spouse, tired of her hubby flirting with porn stars? Someone should ask her.
After all, Weiner still won’t deny that it’s him in those shorts.
But a bigger question remains: why isn’t Twitter filing charges? Twitter was the entity who got hacked. Sure, Weiner is a bigtime Congressman, but Twitter is a huge company – their servers were presumably hacked – they have standing to file charges.
It’s as if I left a suitcase full of unicorn Hummel’s at your house, and a burglar broke in and stole that case. Sure, I can file charges, but really, you should.
So I ask – where the hell is Twitter in all this?
Posted by: KS | June 02, 2011 at 08:35 PM
Rather than have me guess what you're trying to say, just say it. I don't see the point. Are you equating these two individuals?
Posted by: joanie | June 02, 2011 at 08:35 PM
Ad for Ed Koch, New Yorkers are sophisticated. They know the difference between an erotic relationship between a man and his lover and illegal public demonstrations of lewd conduct. Most of us do.
In fact, this may endear Weiner to his costituency if they believe it's true. He's only been married about a year, she's beautiful and they are both great people who show their affection.
But nobody knows for sure. Think the worst if you must - but I don't see any "worst." Except that somebody victimized him and his privacy and a young woman nobody knows.
Now who do we know that does that sort of thing?
Posted by: joanie | June 02, 2011 at 08:47 PM
he lawyered up.
Hahahahahahahahahaha. I thought better of you, Queen.
And the final arbiter, apparently, is a man who runs a blog called "The Daily Gut."
OMG.
Posted by: joanie | June 02, 2011 at 08:52 PM
Huh?
Posted by: Radio Queen | June 02, 2011 at 09:09 PM
As the right weighs in on Weiner’s "Man Hammer" the rest of us are concerned about the dubious situation of the hack.
looks like someone is about to be exposed.
Posted by: Zim | June 02, 2011 at 09:32 PM
Brietbart has a lousy track record. His confederates are willing to look just as stupid as he is.
Posted by: Coiler | June 02, 2011 at 09:51 PM
And also his followers.
Posted by: Zim | June 02, 2011 at 09:53 PM
Yes...that is what I was referring to above, but there was a set of Tweets sent out regarding the feasibility of hacking into y-frog.
I think that guy's problems with his soon to be exwife will seem small in comparison if he is blamed for everything. And just like he did with O'Keefe,when things get hot, AB will step away as if he had nothing to do with it whatsoever.
Posted by: sparky in Republicanland with crappy TV | June 02, 2011 at 09:56 PM
...and which administration fired Ms Sherrod without listening to the tape?
because it is such good satire, look at john stewart's take.
Stewart opines, Breitbart is the most straight forward in this entire mess
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | June 02, 2011 at 10:06 PM
'Rachel to Weiner, are you a creep?'
Sooooo, if it turns out to be his photo that he sent...
The whole thing is so ridiculous and he could have made this all go away awhile back by doing two things: Deny and have law enforcement investigate the hacking.
I feel very badly for his wife.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | June 02, 2011 at 10:13 PM
Looks like the mother of the recipient isn't too happy with Congressman Weiner:
“I’m really upset. I feel like he’s a person of power and influence, who can make a statement and make all this go away,” Carol Mizuguchi said, blasting Rep. Anthony Weiner for his continued snarky sidestepping.
“As her mother, I’m really upset,” Mizuguchi told The Post. “I’m pissed off at that.”
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | June 02, 2011 at 10:22 PM
Interesting. Immediately after Radio Queen posted her 9:09 pm comment "Huh?" I posted a five word comment ... and it's been deleted, apparently by Michael Hood.
My comment was there for ten short minutes and then it was gone, replaced by Zim's post.
I know when I'm not welcome. I won't litter this forum with my assumed free speech again.
Posted by: Dogmandeux | June 02, 2011 at 10:22 PM
Sherrod is a loser. Breitbart got her goat and stood his ground against her race baiting rants and lawsuit threats- bwahahaha. He told her to bring it on.
I am convinced that sparky does not get what motivates AB and you know Joanie with all her bluster has no clue.
Even John Stewart even has his doubts about his bud - Tony Weiner.
Is NYC really stupid enough to elect this creep
mayor ? the mere fact that the electorate are mostly Democrats, the answer could well be a resounding "yes"
Posted by: KS | June 02, 2011 at 10:27 PM
KS
I would also say that the Obama Administration acted foolishly. The above listed Stewart link is spot on.
Great Satire but also a lot of truth to it.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | June 02, 2011 at 10:32 PM
A reporter for the New York CBS affiliate went to the Weiners office to ask a few questions. What happened you ask. His staff calls the Capital Police on her.
I think the guy is trying to emulate Bill Clinton to get street cred with libs. Tony just isn't a politically savy as the Bill.
Posted by: chucks | June 03, 2011 at 12:12 AM
he lawyered up.
Hahahahahahahahahaha. I thought better of you, Queen.
And the final arbiter, apparently, is a man who runs a blog called "The Daily Gut."
OMG.
Posted by: joanie | June 02, 2011 at 08:52 PM
Huh?
Posted by: Radio Queen | June 02, 2011 at 09:09 PM
OK, I had to google "The Daily Gut" to find out what it was. And while I was at it, I googled "Anthony Weiner Lawyers Up." Seems I'm not the only one to use this common term. The Daily Beast & Politico were at the top of a list...
Who's making assumptions???
Posted by: Radio Queen | June 03, 2011 at 05:37 AM