Some Speculation

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.

Weiner's Interview With MSNBC

Here's the interview from MSNBC with Representative Weiner:


I actually think it's a plausible story. Imagine if you thought it was just a simple prank, then several days later the press starts harrassing you and suggesting that you are having an affair with everyone you follow on Twitter. I can understand his motivations for feeling like he needs to draw a line. And he's absolutely right; the press told him yesterday "if you just answer our questions this will go away," but that is absolutely not true. When he answers the questions, more come up (more on this later). This is not to say that the media shouldn't be asking questions, but I can see why he's frustrated at the process. And, quite honestly, the way the mainstream media has been handling this has been pretty sloppy and irresponsible (with idiotic questions like "why are you following women on Twitter?" when the answer is readily available).

Bretibart Blogger Dan Riehl Baselessly Accuses Weiner's Spokesperson of "Lying"

I've already wrote about why I think it's very likely that Representative Anthony Weiner's twitter account was hacked (though, obviously, the facts are still coming out). But here's some further evidence backing up the claim that Breitbart's bloggers are, predictably, doing an incredibly sloppy job covering the story and trying to use it to attack Weiner.

On Big Journalism, Dan Riehl claimed that Anthony Weiner's spokesperson "lied" twice to the New York Post. However, this claim of "lying" was based only on Riehl's preconcieved notions of what happened. Here's the first claim that Riehl says is a "lie:"

Here’s the first [emphasis Riehl's]:

The tech-savvy congressman saw the picture almost immediately. He had been tweeting about a hockey game just a few minutes earlier.

An analysis of Rep. Anthony Weiner’s Twitter timeline has already been done here at Big Government that clearly shows Weiner’s Twitter account had been publicly silent for 3 hrs. and 24 mins. prior to the Tweeting of the inappropriate image. Consequently, there was no Tweet about a hockey game “just a few minutes earlier.” Therefore, that statement simply isn’t true.

Riehl's claim is that it was a "lie" because Weiner didn't delete the picture "immediately" and hadn't been posting about hockey a few minutes before the picture was posted. Here's the problem. Riehl assumes that the claim that he had been watching the hockey game shortly beforehand refers to the time that the photo was posted; however, an equally and perhaps better way of reading the comment is that it meant that he had been tweeting about hockey shortly before "seeing" the tweet, since the previous setence was: "The tech-savvy congressman saw the picture almost immediately." So there's no reason to believe, unless one has already made up their mind, that Weiner hadn't been tweeting about hockey shortley before seeing the tweet. Furthermore, the term "immediately" is purely subjective. True, it wasn't deleted within minutes, but it was deleted within a few hours and wasn't allowed to fester in his Twitter stream for days.

The second claim Riehl said was a "lie:"

Rep. Weiner’s spokesman then falsely claims that after removing the image in question, Weiner joked about the incident a mere 15 minutes later. Again, from the Post:

Weiner pulled the shot himself, but not before it had been retweeted and screen-grabbed by several followers. Weiner, a voracious user of Twitter, wrote a humorous response about 15 minutes later.

False.

In fact, on his Twitter account, Weiner appeared to dissemble and bumble about for over an hour before firing off the tweet about his Facebook account being hacked. Here’s a recreation of the timeline, starting with the Tweet Weiner claims was sent by an alleged hacker and ending with the “FB Hacked” tweet.

Again, the claim that it was a "lie" was based on the idea that the reference point was when the photo was posted. Again, an equally plausible reference point was the time that Weiner first saw the photo. In that case, Riehl has no evidence to justify his claim that it was a "lie" that Weiner joked about the tweet 15 minutes after seeing it.

The sloppy schmournalists at Breitbart's sites are always happy to accuse people of "lying" without bothering to look for alternative explanations. If they were actually committed to finding the actual facts, they would not be so sloppy.

Update: Weiner was lying. I stand corrected.

The Problem With The Right-Wing's Yellow Journalism on Weinergate

On Friday night, a photo of an erection in shorts was posted on Congressman Anthony Weiner's twitter account, seemingly directed at a woman from Seattle. Weiner posted shortly after telling people that his account was hacked but, unsurprisingly, the goober's from Breitbart's websites are declaring that this is all-but-conclusive proof that Weiner is engaging in scandalous behavior. Unlike a recommended diary at Daily Kos, I don't think that Breitbart photoshopped the photos or that they weren't really posted on Weiner's account. However, I think there are pretty clear reasons to think that the account was hacked.

Basically, the "Weiner is guilty" crowd is arguing for the following idea: Weiner intended to DM (Direct Message) the picture, but accidently sent it publicly. The idea is that it is improbable but not impossible that Weiner would be so sloppy as to send a lewd photo publicly. But the problem with this theory is that EVEN if the message had been sent in a DM, it wouldn't have been private! The photo was posted to RepWeiner's yfrog account. Yfrog is an application that allows you to post photos. It does allow the option of direct messaging: however, any and all of the photos you post on it are publicly available. So even if Weiner sent a DM through his yfrog account, the photo would be available to the public.

At this point the "Weiner posted the photo himself, but meant to DM it" theory becomes completely ridiculous. Because it would mean that he intended to post a lewd photo of himself in a publicly-viewable yfrog account listed under the name RepWeiner. It was already highly implausible that Weiner would be so incompetent as to accidently send a lewd photo publicly but while intending to send it privately, but the idea that he would post a lewd photo under his name in a public forum and then also make the mistake of accidently tweeting it publicly is all-but too implausible to take seriously.

Any honest, sane, ethical purveyors of information will wait for the full facts to come out to make declarations of what ultimately happened; which of course is exactly why the Breitbart bloggers are doing the exact opposite.