I know that speculation can sometimes be extremely irresponsible. However, I think it's OK as long as you acknowledge that it's speculation and don't try to hide other possible interpretations of the data. So with that, let me say that I'm putting the following out there as a possible avenue to explore, rather than as something anyone should believe is true without further evidence. Ayone who wants to see speculation on the other side can google "Ace of Spades HQ" or "Gateway Pundit," and anyone who wants to see straight reporting can check out Politico or Tommy Christopher at Mediaite.
So, with that in mind, let me present some interesting facts, which may or may not be related.
(1) First of all, two Twitter users @patriotusa76 (who is the only person who retweeted the original tweet from Weiner's account) and @goatsred were tweeting about "sex scandal pictures" of Congressman Weiner several weeks ago:
Interestingly, all of the speculation thus far has focused on @patriotusa76, but @goatsred is the person who initially announced that there would be a "pics/cheating scandal" with a "powerful NE Dem," which he later changed to focus exclusively on Weiner. There's also some evidence, that I won't get into here, that @goatsred has been in communication with Andrew Breitbart and Dana Loesch about this story (for the record, I don't think Breitbart or Loesch had anything to do with hacking the account or photoshopping anything: I point this out only to note that @goatsred might be involved in shaping the story).
(2) Since this current story broke, neither @patriotusa76 nor @goatsread have said anything about the previous scandal they alluded to, despite the fact that they were pushing it online for weeks. You'd think they would be saying, "this is only the tip of the iceberg. We've got a real scandal" if this was completely unrelated to what they were talking about previously.
(3) As has been documented extensively, it's possible to post a yfrog photo onto someone else's account (which can automatically send a "at" message to someone on Twitter if done the right way) without knowing that person's password. Thus, if would not have been difficult for someone to post a photo to Representative Weiner's account.
(4) I find all of this espcially interesting in light of the following facts: Congressman Weiner has consistently denied that he sent the tweet; however, earlier today he said that he "couldn't say with certitude" whether the picture was a photo of himself. So he knows that he didn't send the photo, but can't (or won't) say that it's not of him.
So, putting all this together, we have a couple people who claimed several weeks ago to have "scandelous" photos of Representative Weiner. We know it's very easy for an account to be hacked. And now we have a photo posted on his account that he says he didn't post but might nevertheless be a photo of him. Is it possible that this same photo was the "scandelous" photo being discussed several weeks ago? If so, that doesn't necessarily say anything about Weiner. Perhaps it was an innocuous photo take from his computer or phone, or perhaps it's something that he's ashamed of. But it certainly is rather interesting set of facts, in my opinion.
As noted above, I don't think anyone should believe that these events are connected without further evidence. However, I do think it's an avenue worth investigating. Perhaps while reporters are lamenting how Weiner isn't answereing their questions enough, they might also consider asking questinos of other people.
On interfering with elections
2 hours ago