On the Sixth Day of WeinerGate, My True Love Gave to Me

Remember when John Ensign paying off his mistress was the lead story for six straight days?

And Weiner is offering increasingly bizarre and unconvincing responses to the media.






136 replies
  1. 1
    Lolis says:

    Why is Weiner talking about it all?

  2. 2
    Paul in KY says:

    I haven’t seen the member in question, but was it so bodacious that he’s like ‘Yeah, yeah, it could be mine…’?

    Otherwise, he sounds too evasive for me here. I heard Mr. Stewart roasted him a bit last night.

  3. 3
    Mattminus says:

    I admire his ability to keep making dick jokes in response to the whole thing.

    Really, though, who fucking cares?

  4. 4
    Cat Lady says:

    Who cares. This whole country is fucking retarded.

  5. 5
    Trentrunner says:

    For you Sully non-readers, today he deigned to address this scandale du jour, by pleading for tolerance for “complex human beings.”

    In Sullyspeak, “complex human beings” is ALWAYS code for “Please don’t bother me AGAIN about the fact that I solicited unsafe sex back when I was lecturing others not to do it.” (Google “Sullivan milky loads” if you want the deets.)

    Hypocritical fucker. (Or fuckee, as the case may be.)

  6. 6
    meander says:

    And remember when there was 24/7 coverage of
    revelations that Sen. Vitter called prostitutes from the floor of the House of Representatives? And constant calls that he resign? No? Me neither.

  7. 7
    Han's Solo says:

    Whoever it is in the picture has nothing to be ashamed of.

    Weiner didn’t send the tweet and there is nothing wrong with either wearing underwear or taking pictures of underwear.

    I think what is really going on here is that the media is trying to prove how stupid they are. Look, we got the hint when you started chasing Sarah Palin around the North East. We now know how stupid the media is, they can stop showing off.

  8. 8
    JonF says:

    Weiner should just shut up and hope that there’s verifiable evidence of hacking. There’s a lot of fishiness with the image that was tweeted(no one saw it but this conserv activist, Weiner’s BB didn’t tweet or transmit it, it appears to have been altered), he should let that do the talking.

  9. 9
    jacy says:

    May I chime in with another resounding “Who cares?”

  10. 10
    Zifnab says:

    And Weiner Clinton is offering increasingly bizarre and unconvincing responses to the media.

    We played this game in the 90s. It only took six years and a dozen Congressional investigations into everything from real estate to suicide to nail the President as a man who once got a blow job from a White House intern.

    Weiner shat all over the media. Now the media is out for revenge.

  11. 11
    Seth says:

    I thought there was proof of hacking?

    No.

    How about this. It makes the technical case for the ability to hack yfrog.

    http://cannonfire.blogspot.com.....but-i.html

  12. 12
    Adrienne says:

    Oh good GOD. I’m tired of hearing about this already. It’s a fake scandal. People send peen pics everyday and the girl was over 18. It’s dumb, but really not that egregious. Can we move on?

    (Further, of COURSE it was hacked. Apparently it was sent via “Direct Message”. The ONLY way anyone other than the sender or the receiver could have gotten the image was by hacking one of their accounts. End of story.)

  13. 13
    Pancake says:

    He’s dead forever in his NYC district, a basically Republican one, and he’s likely forever dead as far as a run for NYC mayor is concerned. As Gleenwald so elegantly put it, “Good riddance!”

  14. 14
    cbear says:

    Unfortunately, and as much as I was hoping it was James O’Keefe on the grassy knoll with the boner in his hand, it appears as if the lone wiener theory may turn out to be true.
    Drats.

  15. 15
    dpcap says:

    To those of you who are saying it isn’t a big deal: it is a big deal if it’s sexual harassment.

  16. 16
  17. 17
    Jay in Oregon says:

    And Weiner is offering increasingly bizarre and unconvincing responses to the media.

    That’s the part of the story that’s interesting to me because it makes no sense. If it’s not his pig in a blanket in the picture, just fucking say so!

  18. 18
    Joseph Nobles says:

    I’m now thinking this is an actual picture of AW. He made it for someone before he got married. That person or someone else who got it or stole it from the original person busted him like this. That patriot76 doofus probably had something to do with the setup.

    I hope that’s the case. Because every time I hear AW talk, I buy less and less of what he’s selling. What was that they said about the original Gate? It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up.

  19. 19
    taylormattd says:

    Really? I find his answers to be both understandable and far more honest than the usual fare.

    The guy obviously has, or at least thinks he may have, at some point in his life, taken an underwear pic.

    So he’s not pulling the typical politician line and categorically denying it.

    But the real story here is that it has become increasingly clear the photo was altered and posted by someone who wasn’t him. You may not have seen this, but now even Brietbart’s former employee is saying it sounds like a hit piece.

  20. 20
    PeakVT says:

    Just in case anyone forgot our trolls never know what they are talking about, the PVI is D. 5+ for Weiner’s district.

  21. 21
    Lojasmo says:

    @Pancake:

    Boy, I hope this is Not snark.

    Ny-9 is D+5.

    STFU.

    Edit: beat by a minute. /fail

  22. 22
    J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford says:

    @Pancake:

    He’s dead forever in his NYC district, a basically Republican one,

    It’s hard to find good trolls nowadays.

  23. 23
    El Cid says:

    What we need to know is, if it isn’t Weiner’s penis, then whose penis is it?

    This is crucial to the story, and our media intend to keep hold of this story and not let go, whether or not they’re rubbing somebody wrong, or the various details begin to become harder and harder to follow.

    At some point, whoever the owner is, they’re going to stop holding back and issue a significant release so that this story can come to a climax.

    Then, and only then, can the media relax this important pursuit of news which satisfies the public’s need to keep watch on what’s happening behind closed doors when the powerful are involved.

  24. 24
    MattR says:

    @dpcap: Given that nobody has claimed any sort of harrassment, I guess that means it is no big deal.

  25. 25
    BAM says:

    Do most guys have pictures of themselves in underwear? I’m not a guy so I have no idea. This is a serious question – no snark. Do the men commenting here have these type of pics? It wouldn’t even occur to me to take naked or semi naked pics of myself and then put them somewhere that could be hacked. John Cole, are there any pics of you out there in your skivvies? Doug J? Mister Mix?

  26. 26
  27. 27
    Nate Dawg says:

    @Adrienne:

    It wasn’t sent via Direct Message. DM’s can only be seen by the sender and receiver. This was allegedly seen by a third party, so it was a normal tweet, directed at another person. Read up on twitter if this confuses you.

    Also John, you should really read up on this before spouting off. There was absolutely no need to “hack” the twitter account as Charles Johnson and others have demonstrated that anyone may send a tweet linking to a linked yfrog account simply by MMS’ing a picture to a yfrog email address. The level of sophistication to pull this off isn’t very high, and seeing as this is exactly what the tweet was–a linked picture on his yfrog account–it seems likely that this was the breach, rather than actual hacking.

    Two things make me doubt Weiner though:

    1. The tweet before the tweet-in-question said something like “That’s 545 in Seattle”, referencing the time of his appearance on MSNBC. Why did he send this tweet? Strange considering the tweet-in-question was directed toward a girl in Seattle. Now if she had asked was time his appearance was in Seattle specifically, that would answer the question, but her twitter account has been deleted so there is no way of knowing.

    2. Why is Weiner evading the question of whether that is his crotch? Do you own gray boxer briefs? And have you ever snapped a photo of your crotch with a hard-on? That should be easily answered…..

    Strange how he should have an airtight alibi with the yfrog security hole but for some reason won’t categorically deny that he is in the photo.

  28. 28
    El Cid says:

    What we need to know is, if it isn’t Weiner’s p_ee_niz, then whose p_ee_niz is it?

    This is crucial to the story, and our media intend to keep hold of this story and not let go, whether or not they’re rubbing somebody wrong, or the various details begin to become harder and harder to follow.

    At some point, whoever the owner is, they’re going to stop holding back and issue a significant release so that this story can come to a climax.

    Then, and only then, can the media relax this important pursuit of news which satisfies the public’s need to keep watch on what’s happening behind closed doors when the powerful are involved.

    ************

    Forgive the repost. I forgot the moderation patrol

  29. 29
    Lojasmo says:

    @El Cid:

    It is mine.

  30. 30
    John Cole says:

    @Nate Dawg: I have read up on it. You can do the yfrog thing, but you need the string of letters to do it. Tommy Xtopher and some wingnut at Red State demonstrated.

  31. 31
    Jay in Oregon says:

    @dpcap:

    I’m not saying that Weiner should get away with sexually harassing someone, if he did send the pic and it was unsolicited. But for God’s sake, the person who started this witch hunt is Andrew Breitbart, one of the least credible people in American politics. If I were in Weiner’s place, I’d deny that the picture is mine, point to the evidence that the tweet was faked or that his Twitter account was compromised, and let it go.

  32. 32
    Whiskey Screams from a Guy With No Short-Term Memory says:

    Google “Sullivan milky loads” if you want the deets.

    @Trentrunner: OH GOD IS THERE A TOOL I CAN USE TO EXTRACT MY BRAINS QUICKLY

  33. 33
    MattR says:

    @taylormattd: I pretty much agree with this. I have not seen all of Weiner’s interviews, but he strikes me as someone with little technical know-how who doesn’t want to make any definitive statements that might come back to bite him. It also seems like he currently thinks this was a prank as opposed to an attempt at ratfucking (If you believe that, it explains why he did not go to the authorities since that could lead to a harsh penalty for the prankster)

    @John Cole:

    I have read up on it. You can do the yfrog thing, but you need the string of letters to do it.

    Figuring out that string of letters is trivial.

  34. 34
    Joseph Nobles says:

    Here’s a GOS link about some of this:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/.....Breitbarts

    The way patriotusa76 somehow knows 2 weeks earlier about an impending sex scandal involving photos and a Dem congressman is a lot more eye-raising to me than Weiner mentioning what would have been a non-sequitur reference to Seattle.

  35. 35
    Old Dan and Little Ann says:

    The MSM is just one big episode of “A Current Affair” or “Inside Edition.” What a fucking joke.

  36. 36
    jeff says:

    @Pancake:

    Queens and Brooklyn are not predominantly Republican.

  37. 37
    Guster says:

    It’s my cock.

    Not my knee, though.

  38. 38
    Nate Dawg says:

    @MattR:

    It is trivial. The string of letters is very short and limited, and it even uses repetitions of strings! (Same “password” is generated for multiple users).

    Several people have created a script that can generate it quickly, because yfrog had no “lock out” feature.

    @John Cole

    Sorry, misunderstood the hacking part of your commentary. Just thought that the yfrog security hole was such strong exculpatory evidence it should have received more weight from you. But then again, there’s really no incentive to go balls-to-the-wall defending AW when he won’t even deny the photo is of him.

    The way I see it

    1) The photo is his and he sent it.

    OR

    2) The photo is not his and he did not send it.

    Those two possibilities are much, much more likely than

    3) The photo is his but someone else sent it.

    That’s too much to swallow, pardon the pun.

  39. 39
    JonF says:

    @John Cole: Unless Weiner is a master hacker, the supposed picture didn’t come from him or his blackberry.

  40. 40
    JonF says:

    http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonath.....gate-photo

    Anthony De Rosa of Reuters has already shown that the Weinergate photo’s metadata don’t match the metadata of another photo known to have come from the congressman’s Blackberry. I sent both photos to Farid, who analyzed them. Farid confirmed that the photo known to have come from Weiner’s camera was “inconsistent” with the controversial photo. In fact, Farid says, the photo appears not to have come from a Blackberry at all. But here’s the even stranger part: The controversial photo does not match any camera in Farid’s database, which consists of about 15,000 kinds of cameras, phones, and tablets.

    What does this mean? One possibility is that the photo comes from a model so recent, it isn’t yet in Farid’s database. Judging from the photos on the congressman’s yfrog account, he does not own such a model. (The model of camera from which Weiner’s yfrog photos were taken would have led to a match in Farid’s database.) Another possibility is that something about the photo was tampered with, causing it not to match up with any model in the database.

  41. 41
    A Humble Lurker says:

    Yeah, after looking at all the talk (the girl in question saying she never saw it and has been harassed by the creep who did, demonstrations of how easy it is to hack these things, Breitbart, etc.) seems likely that he didn’t send the picture, but isn’t sure if it isn’t some long ago thing he did and forgot that someone stole.

  42. 42
    JenJen says:

    OK. I haven’t paid much attention to this nontroversy, mainly because as soon as I heard that notorious smearmongerer with zero credibility Breitbart was behind it somehow, I tuned out.

    But… as someone who spends an inordinate amount of time on Twitter, this story isn’t making any sense to me. It seems to me that to buy into the claim that Weiner sent that pic to some follower, you’d have to know little or nothing about Twitter. Did anyone besides the guy (patriot something?) who re-tweeted it ever even see the original tweet? Anyone at all? Weiner has almost 60,000 followers; it’s impossible for me to believe that this one person is the only person who saw the original tweet come through. If nobody has a screencap of the original tweet, then I call bullshit. And why did the original re-tweeter do the old-fashioned “RT” thing instead of clicking the “retweet” button? I mean, I can fake RT anything the old-fashioned way.

    Anyhow. Not to get too into the weeds over Twitter, but it doesn’t make any damned sense.

  43. 43
    Lojasmo says:

    This is stupid. Though I expect the lamestream media to cover it, no left of center blogger should feed the trolls.

  44. 44

    maybe weiner is trying to have a “long form” moment, by stretching out the debunking and debriefing, until he gets the best play.

  45. 45
    Joseph Nobles says:

    @Nate Dawg: “Those two possibilities are much, much more likely than

    3) The photo is his but someone else sent it.

    That’s too much to swallow, pardon the pun.”

    I agree. I offer the possibility only out of quiet desperation.

  46. 46
    Adrienne says:

    @Nate Dawg: Ummm, I actually have a twitter account, and I’ve had one since late 2009 so I’m MORE than familiar with the mechanics of DMs vs regular tweets vs replies and who can/can’t see what. I’d heard it was sent via DM, which is why I posted what I did. If that’s not the case, I’ll retract/revise my statement. However, your response was a more than a little dickish (pun intended) though, so, kiss my ass.

  47. 47
    John Cole says:

    Do most guys have pictures of themselves in underwear? I’m not a guy so I have no idea. This is a serious question – no snark. Do the men commenting here have these type of pics? It wouldn’t even occur to me to take naked or semi naked pics of myself and then put them somewhere that could be hacked. John Cole, are there any pics of you out there in your skivvies?

    No. I see myself naked every day,and would never inflict that kind of horror on an unsuspecting internet. I have a conscience.

  48. 48
    jeff says:

    @Trentrunner:

    His sentiment is the right one, in my opinion, and hardly hypocritical. I don’t even want to hear about why you are so fascinated with his sex sins.

  49. 49
    Nate Dawg says:

    @Adrienne: Sorry to be Dickish, but why would anyone have seen the tweet at all if it was sent via DM? If you know what DM’s are, then that would mean this wasn’t sent via DM.

  50. 50
    shortstop says:

    @A Humble Lurker: Yes. Or he knows for sure it’s his picture and doesn’t want to lie by denying it since he doesn’t know what info will come out in the end.

    And if he didn’t Tweet it, and it certainly looks like he didn’t, why the hell should he have to say whether it’s his photo? It’s not a freaking crime to have underwear shots of yourself in your possession. What else am I supposed to use as a screen saver?

  51. 51
    Nemesis says:

    Instead of muddling his way through countless interviews on Wednesday, Weiner should have simply demonstrated on a basic computer how to do what was done to him. Ive read fairly simple accounts of the process and it seems easy enough to bumper sticker the explanation for the media.

    The focus is on the photo. Of course. The photo is salatious. Explaining the hack/falsification isnt sexy.

  52. 52
    MattR says:

    @John Cole: But can you guarantee that there are no pictures that include you wearing skivvies from your time in college and/or the military – perhaps a random group shot (or one with you in the background)?

  53. 53
    Meg says:

    If he didn’t send that picture to anyone, why does it even matter if it is him in the picture or not?

  54. 54
  55. 55
    Fred says:

    John Galt Cole showing his true colors again. What is the root of all this John? Come clean for a change. Is there some libertarian candidate in his riding you have a boner over? Does Greenwald hate him and therefore loyal servants like you must as well?

  56. 56
    jeff says:

    @MattR:

    With a hardon?

  57. 57
    eemom says:

    to save time and prevent confusion in future sex scandals, I propose that all male Congresspersons be dickprinted.

  58. 58
    Church Lady says:

    @Adrienne:

    The photo was sent “@”.

  59. 59
    shortstop says:

    @JenJen: Some troll was along the other day to explain to us that the obsessed stalker was the only one of tens of thousands to get a screen shot because a) he’s an obsessed stalker, so you’ll have to forgive him obsessively stalking, and of course all of Weiner’s other followers had better stuff to do on a Friday night, or b) the obsessed stalker was the only one of Weiner’s tens of thousands of followers not conspiring to protect the congressman from the truth getting out.

  60. 60
    ruemara says:

    @dpcap:

    And the target of the tweet says she A. never received it & B. believes it was a stalker who is not Anthony Wiener.

  61. 61
    John Cole says:

    @Fred: Fred, you kill me.

  62. 62
    drew42 says:

    And Weiner is offering increasingly bizarre and unconvincing responses to the media.

    Oh. I thought everyone understood by now that Weiner didn’t do it, but loves fucking with the media.

  63. 63
    Comrade Javamanphil says:

    Although I generally abhor the corporate media’s obsession with non-stories since this one has sucked all the air out of coverage of the Grifter field trip through American history and the Mitt v3, the Rebootening, I’m actually inclined to urge them to keep at it until the story inevitably explodes in their face. (Two can play this game, @El Cid)

  64. 64
    flukebucket says:

    @Han’s Solo:

    Whoever it is in the picture has nothing to be ashamed of.

    Nothing to brag about either.

  65. 65
    dpcap says:

    @ruemara: O RLY!? That’s very interesting indeed.

    Of course, now I’m depressed because I doubt any media outlets will even bother to mention this.

  66. 66
    John Cole says:

    @MattR: There is a photo of me an my whole platoon in basic training giving the finger while in our military issue briefs, but no one cares. There is also a picture of me being kissed by a drag queen dressed up as Marilyn Monroe (the drag queen, not me). But in either case, if they were released, I would say “Yep. That’s me.” and that would be the end of the story.

  67. 67
    MattR says:

    @jeff: Assuming the picture was stolen, I think it is safe to assume it was also edited.

    @John Cole: If somebody posted a picture of a schlong in miltary briefs and claimed it was you, would you just admit to it because you know that it might possibly be you? If it was me, I’d say I wasn’t sure one way or the other. (EDIT: More importantly, I would say this shows the ease of having a contradiction between your initial answer (no I don’t take underwear pics) and your clarification that there are actually underwear pics of you out there)

  68. 68
    ruemara says:

    @jeff:

    We have strung up Republicans.

  69. 69
    a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q) says:

    But at least he wasn’t criticizing the President. Who wants to be this will get no play anywhere? It’s barely getting much notice in Ohio.
    Of course, speaking of Ohio, King John I has lower popularity ratings than Lebron James, which takes some doing. Impressive, really.

  70. 70
    Nate Dawg says:

    @Fred: Yah Fred, Cole takes his marching orders from Greenwald. It is known.

  71. 71
    Church Lady says:

    According to a variety of news reports, both the FBI and the Capitol Police have said that they could have the ISP of the sender of the tweet in less than five minutes, if Weiner files a report with them. Why the heck doesn’t he do this? If it was me, I’d want to know who did it, and would want them to face the appropriate legal consequences.

  72. 72
    JenJen says:

    @shortstop: OH! Well, that clears it all up. ;-)

  73. 73
    Fred says:

    @John Cole: Figuratively speaking that is a green light to do more of the same. I am happy to oblige.

  74. 74
    MattR says:

    @Church Lady: Because Weiner is not a vindictive prick like you. He seems to think it was a prank and is treating it as such. That means that the perpetrator does not need to go to jail or have their life ruined just so the media can get a clean wrap up to an insignificant issue.

  75. 75
    kay says:

    @a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q):

    He hates us back, BellaQ. Have you ever seen anyone more miserable in a job?

    It’s like he’s dragging his ass to work every day, at great personal sacrifice and it’s YOUR FAULT, because he used to have a GREAT FUN LIFE :)

  76. 76
    Fred says:

    @Nate Dawg: He is most certainly a Greenwald fan. They way a naive self centered irrational screaming teenage girl is a fan of Bieber. She would do ANYTHING to get closer to him. Nothing he says or does could possibly be wrong.

    Even if it means supporting a libertarian candidate who opposes child labour and civil rights laws.

    People like that scare me. They strike me as the type you read about in headlines. The ones who nobody ever thought would go postal or be involved in a road rage incident.

    There is something fundamentally wrong deep down.

  77. 77
    shortstop says:

    @JenJen: In more interesting news, how is our darling Stan?!

  78. 78
    JenJen says:

    @shortstop: He is WONDERFUL! He’s sleeping right now, curled up under my feet, and providing me with a lovely respite from his crazed puppy energy. :-)

    In other news, if you’re tired of WeinerGate, check out Trump’s explanation for PizzaGate. As Booman says, we’ve reached peak stupid.

    http://networkedblogs.com/iDSxj

  79. 79
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @Nemesis:

    The photo is salatious.

    Why is the photograph salacious? It’s a guy in shorts.

  80. 80
    Paul in KY says:

    @John Cole: Thank you, sir.

  81. 81
    shortstop says:

    @JenJen: Not that we ever thought Trump was brilliant–not that we ever thought about it at all, really–but the third baseman and I have been asking ourselves how we managed not to know how abysmally fucking stupid he really is. Give Stan a smooch for me.

  82. 82
    shortstop says:

    @John Cole:

    There is also a picture of me being kissed by a drag queen dressed up as Marilyn Monroe (the drag queen, not me). But…if [it] were released, I would say “Yep. That’s me.” and that would be the end of the story.

    No reason not to post it here, then, for the edification of us, your sophomoric troops.

  83. 83
    Shoemaker-Levy 9 says:

    @BAM:

    Closest I ever came to doing that was photographing my piss stream when I was trying to use up a roll of film back in the days before electronic cameras and the internet. No part of my anatomy was in the shot and it turned out so blurry you’d have a hard time figuring out what it was anyway.

    I have no idea why any adult would take a photo like the alleged Weinergate one, and especially a politician or aspiring politician.

  84. 84
    Sly says:

    And Weiner is offering increasingly bizarre and unconvincing responses to the media.

    You can almost never go wrong with dick jokes.

  85. 85
    D-Chance. says:

    Learn this… never tweet your meat.

  86. 86
    Nemesis says:

    @Gin & Tonic:

    Why is the photograph salacious? It’s a guy in shorts.

    You would agree that a pic of boner inside a pair of shorts is in fact more salatious than say, a graphicless verbal explanation of the clumsy prank, right?

  87. 87
    Tsulagi says:

    Guess it would be expected for teabaggers to grab hold of this and ride it for all it’s worth. And then some.

    You would think they’d take a break for air, but no, suckers like Commander EE and the rest of his RS strike force warriors have been frenzied milking it way past the last drop.

  88. 88
  89. 89
    Brachiator says:

    And Weiner is offering increasingly bizarre and unconvincing responses to the media.

    First there was the SNL skit, My D@ck in a Box. Now we have My D@ck in a Tweet. Ridonckulous!

  90. 90
    Mattminus says:

    @dpcap:

    I can’t imagine any situation under which this could be construed as sexual harassment.

  91. 91
    Mattminus says:

    @dpcap:

    I can’t imagine any situation under which this could be construed as sexual harassment.

  92. 92
    dpcap says:

    @Tom Betz: One of the comments there is hillarious!

    I think Weiner did this to set Breitbart up as a means of turning Breitbart state’s evidence and bringing down Roger Ailes.

    And don’t mention William of Occam to me. That guy never shaved anyway.

  93. 93
  94. 94
    JenJen says:

    @Tsulagi: Yep. Which leads me to another part of this “scandal” that I don’t understand: the only time sex scandals are salacious is when the politician in question is a sanctimonious hypocritical douchebag (see: Sanford, Mark; Gingrich, Newt; Tapper, Toe).

  95. 95
    shortstop says:

    @JonF: Everyone must click on this just to laugh hysterically at Weiner’s high-school photo.

  96. 96
    Felinious Wench says:

    @John Cole:

    inflict that kind of horror on an unsuspecting internet

    “Inflicting horror on an unsuspecting internet” should be a rotating tag line.

  97. 97
    rikyrah says:

    the title of this post cracks me up

  98. 98
    Sentient Puddle says:

    Sounds like it’s already been discussed, but here’s a link on how such a hack might work. Key part:

    the format includes the user’s twitter name, a period, and a random word between five and six characters [at]yfrog.com (for example, mine might be something like ejacqui.bears[at]yfrog.com).

    That sort of thing is ridiculously vulnerable to a dictionary attack. Jesus.

    I would imagine yFrog would have the address of the sender logged, so it should be pretty easy to determine if this originated from Weiner.

  99. 99
    Felinious Wench says:

    @eemom:

    to save time and prevent confusion in future sex scandals, I propose that all male Congresspersons be dickprinted.

    FTW!!!!

  100. 100
    jibeaux says:

    @shortstop:
    It was his twitter photo for a long while.

    I tried my best not to pay attention to this nonsense, but finally I just had to click on the photo link. What I can’t figure out is this — there was no evidence as far as I could tell that he sent this picture to anyone, it seemed very credible to me that he didn’t, student said he didn’t send them, whatever. A big nothing. Then he says that he can’t be sure it’s not him in the picture.
    Assuming he didn’t send anything to anybody but it’s also true that this is a picture of him that is on his computer or phone or in existence or whatever, which isn’t any of anyone’s damn business, why not just deny it and put the whole thing to bed? He’s allowed to have underwear pictures if he wants them or maybe his wife is in that .001% of the female population that likes that sort of thing, and how the hell is anybody going to prove it’s him, forensic sch-long analysis? It would kind of take a level of CSI: Pe-nis exceeding even the countertop inspectors’ abilities, I think.

  101. 101
    Paul in KY says:

    @shortstop: Made me feel a little better about mine (the HS photo, that is).

  102. 102
    John Weiss says:

    I apologize in advance, don’t mean no harm.

    But this bid’ness about Weiner is just too fucking stupid to talk about. I’m outta here.

    Sorry.

  103. 103
    zach says:

    The Mark Sanford thing was *so* much more interesting and mysterious and didn’t get a 10th of this coverage. Admittedly, Sanford isn’t a euphemism for dick.

  104. 104
    OzoneR says:

    @Lojasmo: I have to agree with Pancake, only because I live very close to his district. He was never popular there to begin with, had a narrower than usual reelection last year in very low turnout because Democrats in the district just hate him (they’re not very progressive)

    He perceived as loud, divisive and egotistical. I think he was a shoo-in for Mayor until mid-late 2010, the the wheels came off. I don’t think he wins a Democratic primary now. Ray Kelly is the next mayor if he wants it, if not, its Bill Thompson or Christine Quinn.

    A more popular, beloved Congressman could survive this, or a Republican, but Weiner’s problem is not the picture, it’s that he was already not well liked to begin with.

    But a Republican won’t win his district, another (probably more moderate) Democrat will, though there is a GOP Councilman in Queens that I think could, but the district might not even be there anyway in 2012.

  105. 105
    Valenciennes says:

    This is easily the most depressing country that’s ever existed.

  106. 106
    Judas Escargot says:

    @El Cid:

    What we need to know is, if it isn’t Weiner’s penis, then whose penis is it?

    Perhaps it’s actually a Russian penis. Or Chinese. Or Muslim.

    Mr. President, we must not allow a Penis Gap.

  107. 107
    JenJen says:

    @Valenciennes: Clearly you never visited East Germany? :-)

  108. 108
    JenJen says:

    @OzoneR: Still, in as rough a year for Dems as 2010 was, I’d take that “narrower than usual” victory Rep. Weiner had. He won by 23,000+ votes, and 21.6 points.

  109. 109
    Brachiator says:

    @Valenciennes:

    This is easily the most depressing country that’s ever existed.

    Oddly enough, the North Koreans agree with you.

    According to a global happiness index released in North Korea, the country and its allies are the most cheerful countries in the world. Naturally, the “American Empire” strikes Pyongyang as just plain sad.
    __
    Shanghaiist reports that North Korea’s Chosun Central Television recently came out with a happiness index compiled by local researchers. Their findings? China is the happiest place on the planet, earning 100 points (a perfect score!). At number two is none other than North Korea itself. Cuba, Iran and Venezuela (in that order) round out the top five.
    __
    The United States places dead last, coming in 203rd

  110. 110
    Suffern ACE says:

    @zach: Sanford was in a place very vew national reporters want to go. Weiner’s district is right near where most of them live.

    No one would give a fig about Chris Christie’s helicopter trip either if he didn’t take the ride to the Bergen County suburbs.

  111. 111
    Upper West says:

    @OzoneR: Interesting. I like Wiener’s outspokeness, but as a bike-commuter, I did not like his comment about his plans as Mayor (“I’m gonna rip up all those fucking bike lanes”). So I’m happy if he stays a Congressman.

  112. 112
    OzoneR says:

    @Upper West:

    but as a bike-commuter, I did not like his comment about his plans as Mayor (“I’m gonna rip up all those fucking bike lanes”).

    I have a coworker of mine whos even more liberal than Glenn Greenwald and even he thinks Janette Sadik-Khan should be put in Rikers for being “anti-driver”

    bike lanes are NOT popular in the least in the outer boroughs, except in the neighborhoods closest to Manhattan; Astoria, LIC, Greenpoint, Williamsburg, DUMBO, the Heights, Red Hook, Park Slope.

  113. 113
    Bender says:

    I’ll only say it once: I was right, as per usual. You guys were all wrong. Ignorant, naive, gullible, and wrong.

    It’s like the sun coming up in the east this morning. What are the odds?

    You told me the Tweet was an obvious, proven fake! You were wrong.

    You said it was a hack! You were wrong.

    You said it came from Breitbart, so it had to be fake! You were wrong.

    You said Weiner couldn’t possibly be that stupid! You were wrong. Very, very wrong. Colossally wrong.

    Here endeth the gloating.

  114. 114
    taylormattd says:

    @Nate Dawg:

    And have you ever snapped a photo of your crotch with a hard-on? That should be easily answered…..

    Who cares whether it is easily answered?

    It is a question that should not be asked. Unless, of course, you are Ken Starr or Brietbart apparently.

  115. 115
    les says:

    @El Cid:

    oh god. got a smoke?

  116. 116
    Bender says:

    @meander:

    And remember when there was 24/7 coverage of
    revelations that Sen. Vitter called prostitutes from the floor of the House of Representatives? And constant calls that he resign? No? Me neither.

    That’s how bad Weiner handled this. Vitter copped to his fuck-up on Day One (and many, many big voices from the GOP did say he should resign). See the difference?

    The story would’ve died on the vine three days ago. NO ONE in the MSM was covering it on Monday. Three right-bloggers (and a few hangers-on) were keeping the story afloat by going virtually 24/7 on Twitter and calling the MSM out for their double-standard silence. One of them, Ace Of Spades, almost quit covering the story because most right mega-blogs were hemming and hawing.

    This even broke (for the conservative blogs, at least) on the Friday before a holiday weekend! It was perfect timing to diffuse a scandal! All Weiner had to do was admit to bad judgment or (the Democrats’ favorite) “a botched joke” and it would’ve been a one-day, page B-9 story. Ha ha. Weiner. I get it.

    But he couldn’t do it. He thought he was so much smarter than you guys. He thought he could beat it with his customary stonewalling, change-the-subject bullshit. He thought he could call a network producer a “jackass” on national TV. He thought he could pay a “security firm” to “investigate” and give the media the answer he paid for. He just had to cover-up, and you know what they say about cover-ups.

  117. 117
    Lojasmo says:

    @drew42:

    Everybody but john, unless he is trolling…which I suspect to be the case.

  118. 118
    shortstop says:

    @Bender:

    I don’t know what’s going to come out of this. It seems almost certain that the photo is of Weiner; it’s far less certain that he sent it, and your victory dance is premature. But you know that. You’re taking it now because you’re pretty sure you’re not going to be able to take it later. Kind of like calling on an opponent to concede the election when too large a percentage of the votes are still out.

    I get the old strategy, and I don’t fault you for trying it, but I will laugh my ass off at you for your hamhanded lack of skill at crafting convincing lies about the case of a U.S. senator who actually committed a sex-related CRIME and refused to own up:

    Vitter copped to his fuck-up on Day One

    Right. By hiding in his house and waiting days to first address it, then refusing to admit in his press conference exactly what it was that he had done (referring to it as “it” throughout). In fact, he’s never “copped to it.” Ever. Not then, not now.

    (and many, many big voices from the GOP did say he should resign)

    Absolutely; the College Republicans at the University of New Orleans are indisputably “big voices.” Who else? The members of the GOP Congressional caucus, all of whom refused to give public statements on Vitter but who handed him a standing ovation when he returned? The couple of people who bravely called for his resignation the minute that Jindal was safely in the governor’s office? Profiles in courage!

  119. 119
    Chris Andersen says:

    @Joseph Nobles: I hope that’s the case. Because every time I hear AW talk, I buy less and less of what he’s selling. What was that they said about the original Gate? It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up.

    Really, because every time I hear him talk about it I laugh because he is obviously having a good time poking fun at the media’s obsession with this story.

  120. 120
    Original Lee says:

    My favorite so far is one of his stammering responses to a question about the provenance of the photo: “I don’t recall…its…its….its not familiar to me.”

  121. 121
    Lojasmo says:

    @Bender:

    Wrong about being right = dividing by zero. You win negative three internetz.

  122. 122
    Bender says:

    @JonF:

    Of course no one will cover this:

    What’s to cover? “I cannot answer the questions that I do not have the answers to. I am not sure whether or not this letter will alleviate any future harassment. I also do not have a clear understanding as to how or why exactly I am involved in this fiasco.”

    She doesn’t say anything except “leave me alone,” which is the right thing for her to say. She should know the reason she’s involved, though — Weiner.

    We only learn a couple things: One, even for a J-school student, she’s a bad writer (“When I checked one of the posts that I had been tagged in I saw that it was a picture that had supposedly been tweeted to me by Congressman Anthony Weiner.” Ouch.).

    Two, Ms. Cordova’s definition of “harassment” (Tweeting about her is harassment, sending a picture of your genitals to her is not) is pretty, ummmm, interesting.

  123. 123
    Bender says:

    @shortstop:

    It seems almost certain that the photo is of Weiner; it’s far less certain that he sent it, and your victory dance is premature. But you know that. You’re taking it now because you’re pretty sure you’re not going to be able to take it later.

    This, my friend, is whistling in the dark.

    Right. By hiding in his house and waiting days to first address it, then refusing to admit in his press conference exactly what it was that he had done (referring to it as “it” throughout). In fact, he’s never “copped to it.” Ever. Not then, not now.

    I call bullshit. July 10th, 2007 he was named on the client list. July 10th, 2007 he admitted he had done it.
    You might be thinking about Barney Frank, who solicited male prossies and let one run a prossie ring out of his home. He’s the one who never copped to it.

    Absolutely; the College Republicans at the University of New Orleans are indisputably “big voices.” Who else?

    I was thinking more of Hannity and Limbaugh, but whatever.

  124. 124
    WaterGirl says:

    @El Cid: Nicely done!

  125. 125
    Felinious Wench says:

    @Lojasmo:

    Wrong about being right = dividing by zero. You win negative three internetz.

    It’s confusion about the original disagreement. I said the account was probably hacked, because it’s not difficult to hack Twitter. What we’re seeing now points to, yes, the account was either hacked, or someone mocked up a fake Twitter page with the image. Rep. Weiner did not post this picture of himself on Twitter, either through a private message or through a public message. It was not a mistake. He didn’t do it.

    Now, whether this picture was actually of him, etc., was not in scope of the conversation. If Bender wants to go down that path, fine. But that’s a different thread than whether or not the account was hacked or the picture faked.

    Carry on.

  126. 126
    lou says:

    I still can’t believe that anyone buys that “boyfriend” bullshite. You really date yourself as an internet dino-saur when you do and I speak as a 50 yo. I have boyfriends, too. Stephen Colbert, Alexander Skarsgard, Tom Colicchio and Viggo Mortensen and often joke with friends on Facebook about it. I don’t tweet about them because my twitter account is a professional one.

    My husband already knows and understands that I will run away with him as soon as Stephen asks.

  127. 127
    Felinious Wench says:

    @Seth:

    http://cannonfire.blogspot.com.....but-i.html

    I will post this again, Seth, thanks. It’s a partisan site, but the technical explanation is sound.

    Edit: Link fail, fixed

  128. 128
    Joseph Nobles says:

    @Chris Andersen: I hope you’re right. If this turns out to be an ex-girlfriend (or an acquaintance of an ex) punking him hard, he’s going to wind up smelling like roses.

  129. 129
    Step2 says:

    Splashing this can of worms across the headlines only pricks the interest of obsessive nuts while doing nothing to fill the need for hard hitting expose. Democrats can look forward to the Fox news unit getting a rise out of it, stalking the suspects and pumping the story over and over until their viewers’ eyes glaze over. Meanwhile, serious news appendages will ignore this low hanging fruit until it peters out and instead keep drilling into stories about the Koch brothers and teabaggers.

    So many euphemisms, so little time.

  130. 130
    Sentient Puddle says:

    @Felinious Wench:

    What we’re seeing now points to, yes, the account was either hacked,

    Just to be clear, no, this would not be a Twitter hack. It’s more a really basic exploit in yFrog that didn’t take much effort to use.

    I feel like this might sound like splitting hairs, but I still see it as a pretty significant difference.

  131. 131
    Felinious Wench says:

    @Sentient Puddle:

    I feel like this might sound like splitting hairs, but I still see it as a pretty significant difference.

    It is. I’ve been using the term hacked for laypeople who don’t want to get a headache. :)

    When people are slamming out code…you know the drill. This shit ALWAYS happens. And everyone is slamming out code in social media right now. There hasn’t been time for it to settle down and the code refactored/architected in the later releases. So…easy vulnerabilities.

  132. 132
    opal says:

    @Bender:

    All we know for certain is that the conservative blogosphere spent an entire holiday weekend staring at some guy’s dick instead of honoring our troops.

    If Reagan was alive today, he’d be clawing in panicked horror at the lid of his coffin.

  133. 133
    Nate Dawg says:

    @opal: THIS!

    @Bender:

    You’re a douche. Your list conveniently left out the major development in Weinergate–the yfrog security hole–which makes the likelihood that Weiner sent out the tweet plummet. Great work there, chief.

  134. 134

    @Judas Escargot:

    the whistle-stopper could come from anywhere in the world, for sure,as such, it was smuggled in a diplomatic pouch, so i would root out the consulate generals.

  135. 135
    shortstop says:

    @Bender:

    I call bullshit. July 10th, 2007 he was named on the client list. July 10th, 2007 he admitted he had done it.

    He “admitted” he’d done what? An unnamed “sin” which he carefully did not connect in either direct wording or implication to the contents of the accusation. He did not then, and he has not ever, admitted that he has been a customer of prostitutes. Ever.

    Do you think he might get around to it when the statute of limitations on his crime runs out? Nope, me neither.

    I was thinking more of Hannity and Limbaugh, but whatever.

    Hilarious, but not really surprising, that you leave all elected GOP politicians out of your list of “big GOP voices” and go for the powers that lead you. Even then, though, you fall flat: Limbaugh downplayed and dismissed the crime for ages, calling it simple adultery. I don’t know whether he finally got around to calling for Vitter’s resignation, but if he did it was loooong after the fact — maybe in his first show after the Jindal inauguration?

    Weak.

  136. 136

    […] in large part because I’m having trouble figuring out why anyone cares. That said, John Cole said something the other day that got me thinking. Remember when John Ensign paying off his mistress was the lead […]

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] in large part because I’m having trouble figuring out why anyone cares. That said, John Cole said something the other day that got me thinking. Remember when John Ensign paying off his mistress was the lead […]

Comments are closed.