I wrote this as an update to the post below, but it's "Classic Ace," by which I mean it's smug, gloating, lecturing, hectoring, dickish, prickish, arrogant, condescending, superior, and douchey.

It's all those things. It's also kinda right.

I love how we're all wingnutz because we've been out of the house enough to know how human beings behave. Like if they're seriously victimized in a malicious crime, they tend to get rather angry. They don't toss off casual jokes about it and try to change the subject right away.

They dwell. They vent. They use ALL CAPS or shout in real life. They make threats of furious consequences.

They do not say "Hacked!," like "Jinx, buy me a coke!"

Do any of these guys know why detectives always want to tell the next of kin of a murder victim that the victim has been killed?

They want to see the reaction. Whether it's normal or off, whether it's genuine or counterfeit. Whether the person is out-thinking himself and trying to guess at how he's supposed to take the news, and guessing wrong.

Are they overdoing it? Are they underdoing it? Are they saying one thing but showing, emotionally, a completely different state?

Are they, simply, play-acting?

Did these guys ever watch Law & Order? You don't even have to talk to people just to watch Law & Order.

Any of this ringing any bells? How people? Are supposed? To really? Respond?

But we're wingutz. Because we figured out that if you were seriously victimized with bad intent, you'd be angry about it, and probably call the FBI.

Oh, and probably that's the first thing on your mind, not the part about the Tivo eating your hockey game.

This isn't because Weiner is dumb. It's because people don't act well, usually, when they've been caught doing something wrong. They panic. They lie, and what's more, they don't lie well.

Because they're kind of in shock. Right?

Is this making any sense?

Did any of Weiner's passionate defenders ever stop to just ask if Weiner was acting like any of the various human beings they have known, or perhaps had at least heard stories about?

Here's a little experiment if you don't believe me, or are unfamiliar with the emotion of justifiable rage. Go tell a friend that some teenagers just keyed the words "SAD LOSER" into his car.

You know what his reaction will not be?

"#Keyed! It happens!"

Yes, that will not be his reaction. But if you're unconvinced, try it.

Oh, and also be prepared for your friend to be extremely angry at you just for throwing that heart attack at him.

You know Weiner's best play after he made this mistake? To say, in all caps:

THIS IS A MAJOR BREACH. YOU HAVE JUST ENLISTED YOURSELF INTO A WORLD OF PAIN YOU'LL REGRET FOR TEN YEARS, CHIEF.

That's a real reaction. If he had said that, I wouldn't have dogged him. Because my thought would have been, "Uh-oh, someone on the right just hacked a Congressman and this is going to be embarrassing. Now we've got a real hellstorm coming our way. Better back off...!"

But he out-thought himself. Because he was conflicted. He was trying to play it two different ways -- one, claim a hack, which requires an angry response.

But that will drive attention to it, right?

So, two: A lighthearted dismissal in hopes everyone will just blow it off.

So this is the problem. He's got two different reactions going here, all mixed up, and isn't committing to one or the other, because he's trying to get the good benefits of one (claiming a hack) while also getting the good benefits of the other (making it just go away).

But since he's trying to do both, he winds up with neither. They don't make sense together. If it was a hack, he shouldn't be playing it down. If he's playing it down, he should't claim it was a hack.

He did both. It makes no sense. It never did.

And this may not be as persuasive as Charles Johnson's and Daily Kos' "smoking-gun" technical proof, but this sort of thing actually identifies a lot of murder suspects who are eventually proven guilty.

His Pantomimes were all mixed up. Pick one Pantomime and commit to it. Don't mix and match Pantomimes like you're ordering Chinese.

He's not dumb. He's probably a good liar. If he had time to think about this and compose himself, he might have picked the right Pantomime and stuck with it, and who knows, maybe gotten out of it.

But he didn't have time. He had a couple of minutes. He was panicking. He went with two Pantomimes that just don't go together. Like, ever. In 100,000 years of human history, the words "I HAVE JUST BEEN CRIMINALLY VIOLATED!" have never been genuinely followed by, "And hey, anyone catch the score in the Bruins game?"

Content Warning, but you've all seen it.

Gotta commit to a lie. Or just commit to the truth. more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:40 PM | Comments (378)
Post contains 1163 words, total size 7 kb.

1. A low-paid staffer, who will soon go on to a prize posting in the Obama Administration, after the media furor dies down, did it as a big goof, and I was protecting him, because I'm that much of a hero

2. I was Tweeting it to my wife, whom I love so very much; how dare you intrude into the sanctity of a marriage

I like 1.

Lee Stranahan Talks WeinerGate on Cam & Company Show: Just about right now. It's on Sirius/XM Patriot 125, but you can also watch live at that link. Over Now.

Come On, Now It's Too Much: The Weiner wedding officiated by... oh, it's too much.

More: At McCain's, Jeffrey Toobin of course was dismissive of the story. Plus lots of other stuff.

Apart from Dana Bash, CNN Still On Team Weiner: Quote: "in Weiner's defense...the person behind this is andrew breitbart who has made a practice of targeting democrats..." I don't know who said it; just picked it off Twitter.

Ah, I should have guessed. In fact, I did guess, but didn't want to go with a guess. TRScoop confirms it was Jeffrey Toobin.

Oh! How Could I Have Forgotten About Charles Johnson?! Um, that question answers itself, doesn't it?

How could I have forgotten about a nobody who was only relevant back when Britney Spears was still kinda hot?

So I'll cut myself some slack on this oversight perfectly functioning sight.

But if you want to know what Charles Johnson has been up to lately:

Stupid.

That's what he's been up to, stupid.

Yet Another Andrew Breitbart Smear Falls Apart

Fraudster is fraudulent

Charles Johnson

As soon as I heard about the “scandal” involving Rep. Anthony Weiner, and saw it being pushed like crazy by fraudster Andrew Breitbart, I knew it would turn out to be yet another phony story.

And thatÂ’s exactly what happened. If you havenÂ’t heard about the latest Breitbart scam, hereÂ’s a pretty good summary (but they should check the spelling of their headline): Brietbart to use SEX SMEAR on Rep. Anthony Weiner.

In a nutshell, someone apparently hacked into WeinerÂ’s Twitter and yfrog (a picture-hosting Twitter app) accounts, posted a lewd photo, then sent a screenshot of it to a student in Seattle. Wingnuts, of course, refuse to believe that Weiner didnÂ’t post it himself.

(Update: there was no hacking involved. The photo was never posted to WeinerÂ’s account. Someone may have photoshopped a screenshot of a yfrog page to make it look like it came from WeinerÂ’s page.)

(Update 2: the story changes again - apparently WeinerÂ’s yfrog account really was cracked, and the image was posted there.)

The New York Times has a report, and I have to ask: when will the media stop treating Andrew Breitbart like a legitimate “conservative” source? The article doesn’t even mention the numerous other frauds perpetrated by this right wing attack dog.

That's what I use updates for, too -- to become even more and more wrong and dumb.

When I don't think I'm stupid enough on the first try, I'll drop in a few bonus moron-updates to get even stupider.

Oh, I missed this. He's not finished being stupid in the post so he adds an extra stupid cherry on top with the postscript:

ALSO SEE:
BreitbartÂ’s #TwitterHoax - How It Went Down (updated w/ smoking gun)

And that link? Is to the Daily Kos.

Well, that about wraps him up, huh?

He had ya fooled for a while there, huh? You know, I've never really gotten around to asking LGF'ers what the hell the attraction there was.

I remember I used to be jealous of everyone wanting to be a Lizardroid or whatever. I was like, wow, this guy really commands respect.

Then I'd read his blog and... uh... ooohhhh.... let's just say the pixels successfully stuck to the screen.

Eh, I won't razz you guys. I used to like Star Wars, before The Great Suckening.

Posted by: Ace at 06:39 PM | Comments (326)
Post contains 665 words, total size 4 kb.

If you enjoyed Ace's super-blogging over the holiday weekend, now might be a good time to kick in a little donation for him. Even $5 or $10 helps keep the lights on in Little Endor. He's too proud to ever ask so we have to occasionally do it for him. And trust me - you do not want to see an ewok in a depressive funk

Murder By Country

Contrary to most Europeans' views the US is not murder central, and actually has a pretty low homicide rate compared to to the rest of the world. In fact I recall reading someplace (alas I can't find the link now) that if you were to exclude a handful of certain notorious 'urban' areas from the US statistics, our homicide rate would be the same as Canada and the UK.

Places to avoid: Honduras and Jamaica. With a whopping 60 annual murders per 100,000 people they make central Africa seems positively Amish in its tranquility.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:59 PM | Comments (595)
Post contains 900 words, total size 8 kb.

Did I not just say we were entering the "please respect my family's privacy" phase of this?

Looks like that tantrum of mine was utterly unnecessary, eh? CNN had the bomb and was about to blow it up.

Of course, no Democratic sex scandal is complete until Amanda Marcotte embarrasses herself. Like, claiming the NYT -- which actually spun for Weiner claiming that maybe he had a "staffer malfunction" --- was sexually harassing him by blaming the victim.

Her headline is that the NYT is picking on Weiner for wearing a skirt that's too short. See, like a rape victim.

The New York Times really takes the cake this morning by demonstrating that anyone, even a man, who is victimized by sexual harassment is eligible for victim-blaming. Their argument is that Weiner brought the sexual harassment onto himself (and this poor young woman, apparently) by wearing his opinion skirt too short. Also, by being a social networking slut.

...

I wish I could say this is the first time that I've heard that victims of sexual harassment deserve to be abused because they dare to have a presence online and they aren't ladylike or mincing. Granted, I never thought that the person accused of slatternly use of social networking bringing sexual harassment onto zirself would be a dudely congressman from New York, but okay. It just shows that "she had it coming" is incredible versatile.

In a way, it makes sense. Much of the mainstream media, and especially much of the New York Times, views Democrats as symbolically female. Therefore Weiner can be dinged, in their minds, for unladylike behavior. But still, it's kind of strange.

And of course, the closing paragraph is about how, even though the victim has been punished by a cranky old asshole who uses sex as a weapon against people he doesn't like, the victim isn't going to learn his lesson, roll down his skirts, cross his legs, and shut the fuck up.

...

Unabashed! Unashamed! Weiner is such a slut. Doesn't he know that Democrats who don't keep their opinions to themselves deserve to be buried under penis pictures?

I suppose we should be grateful, at least, that the author of this piece, Ashley Parker, didn't blame the other victim in this, the young woman who received the penis picture.

Mm-hm. That's a perfectly reasonable reaction to this story: Anthony Weiner, rape survivor.

Exactly, Ms. Marcotte. Nailed it, dude.

I Believe In Weiner: Democrats circling up the wagons to guard the rape victim.

Posted by: Ace at 04:56 PM | Comments (423)
Post contains 437 words, total size 3 kb.

Ben Stiller is now some kind of top administrator with a hospital, and has two kids with wife Teri Polo. Difficulty for his marriage presents himself when a cute pharmaceutical rep, played by Jessica Alba, comes in to flatter and flirt.

Meanwhile, her husband's dad, the imposing ex-spook Robert DeNiro, tells him the family has always needed a patriarch, and asks Bill Stiller to be "the God Focker."

Owen Wilson then shows up, making Ben Stiller jealous with his perfection and his strong ongoing friendship with his wife. more...

Posted by: Ace at 04:27 PM | Comments (64)
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

Vid up at Mediaite; thanks to Drew.

I have linked it below, because I need it on my site, but do Mediate a favor and like everyone whose last name begins A-L click on the link above, everyone else watch below.

It's already good. I might get "hacked" myself right now, if you know what I'm sayin', and I think you do.

My dick is so hard right now it's yelling at me to "let me make a point about the debt ceiling."

Dana Bash? Is this the video?

Dana Bash sure sounds pretty unsatisfied with Weiner's answers.

But this is from earlier, and people seem to be talking about a more recent package.

Thanks to DebForFreedom on Twitter; but I'm still looking for a more recent one.

Florida Congressman Demands Investigation Into Cybersecurity Issue Raised by Weiner Hack: Uh huh. Yeah yeah, that's what I want investigated too, the... "cybersecurity issue."

From StarChamberMaid.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 02:13 PM | Comments (618)
Post contains 206 words, total size 2 kb.

Doesn't he get lobbied by FaceBook and Twitter?

If he wanted an investigation of this nefarious hacker, couldn't he just pick up the phone and call people eager to please him and tell them to find this horrible Teabagging hacker?

Wouldn't that investigation occur post-haste and on the snap?

Look, I actually apologize to everyone I jumped ugly on.

I am burned out.

This is an emotional thing at this point.

No, this is not the biggest story in the world. It is not as big as 200 other stories. I get that.

But it is a story.

I made it my crusade because the bigger stuff is beyond me. I understand that. I have tunnel-vision on my own tiny piece of the news here.

I get that.

But it is a story.

Biggest story? No. But pixels are cheap; they won't run out anytime soon.

And I don't understand, at this point, why it is is being treated as almost beneath mention.

I think I need a break.

Open blog, for a while. Will be back later.

Oh: If he was compromised on this, should he sit on committees overseeing companies that now kinda-sorta have leverage over him?

Like -- if my suspicions are correct, and there is no hacker prankster coked-up staffer having an epileptic fit and randomly dialing Weiner's passwords with his tongue -- wouldn't Twitter know that and have evidence of that?

Wouldn't that put Twitter in a rather good position in future meetings with Rep. Weiner?

Just asking.

Posted by: Ace at 01:38 PM | Comments (192)
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

I agree now too.

I thought it was news when a Congressman tweeted a picture of his erection to a 21-year-old coed, but I've been reliably informed this is all just a misunderstanding not worth pursuing.

Carry on.

Via Thanks to StarChamberMaid.

Byron York Notices That Weiner's Non-Responsive Answers Aren't Very Convincing: But he's wrong, this is not a story.

As the distinguished gentleman Rep. Weiner says, it's time to "move on" from this "distraction" which we are "loathe" to pursue any further.

Also Noticing: Taranto, but this could have happened to anyone, and who are we to judge?

Move on, stupid bloggers. This is not a story.

Let's Give Rep. Weiner A One-Free-Boner Pass

Because God knows he'd do the same for you.

Some video of the fair-minded, honest Rep. Weiner below. I could link a thousand of these.

But he's a nice guy. Let's go soft on him. Let's give him every benefit of the doubt.

It's the right thing to do.

Like the NYT says, spinning on its own authority, this was probably just some unnamed staffer pulling a prank.

Yeah, that's it. That must be it. We've gone from hack on Friday, prank on Sunday, "staffer malfunction" from the NYT on Monday, and pretty soon we'll be entering "Please respect my family's privacy," so yes, let's just continue to pretend none of this has happened.

Welcome to 72 hours ago. Let's set the WayBack machine to Friday at 10:00 pm.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:37 PM | Comments (312)
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm spinning this off into a main post. If I'm going to call people out, I should do it prominently.

This is my problem.

Some people took some chances and developed this story and kept it alive and discovered stuff and advanced it.

And now, the story is all but proven. Did you see Weiner saying he was "loathe" to pursue this?

That happened. That wasn't a dream.

And yet even still we are getting the brush-off from the establishment voices of the conservative press.

Yesterday I had to talk to a friend, another blogger covering this, who was feeling nervous and upset and exposed on this. I had to give him a little bucking up.

That was our weekend.

How was yours?

Now that the weekend is over, can we stop with this CYA bullshit?

You don't need to claim you know the answers.

How about this-- does the evidence lean in a certain direction?

Can we stop the almost monolithic conservative establishment press embargo?

Do we get to take off some time now, or are we expected to continue to be the only ones covering this?

With no encouragement, no congratulations, no support, and no approval?'

Oh and by the way the Make Believe Media is reading into this reluctance the go-ahead to embargo it, too, which is what they desperately wish to do.

They know he's lying-- but they have decided the best course of action is to wait for smoking gun, absolutely unchallengeable proof, which is a very sweet standard for Representative WeinerShot.

And with the entirety of the conservative establishment press cheerleading the liberal press on not covering this, you guys are all enabling them to bury it.

I don't get it.

I just don't get it.

Honestly: If you have questions, if you need to be caught-up, write to me, I'll answer them.

I am answering questions for liberal-leaning media outlets which seem more interested in this than our conservative press.

I hate calling people out, and I have avoided it, but does anyone at National Review read the news besides Jonah Goldberg? Update: And the indespensible Jim Geraghty, who did a lot on this in his Monday Morning Jolt.

How about the Weekly Standard? Love you guys, but we who've been covering this are becoming extremely unfond of your absence. Is this to be the extent of The Weekly Standard's coverage?

What the hell is going on?

If you guys have some reason to believe this is fake -- an opinion not shared, by the way, in the liberal media -- please tell us so so that we do not further expose and embarrass ourselves.

And if you don't -- STOP THE EMBARGO.

We're Used To... embargoes from the liberal media establishment.

Having to fight the conservative establishment media establishment is one too many fights for me.

I was informed by a reporter that the story could only get cooking on Tuesday, when DC came back to work, and so I thought if we kept the story going by today the cavalry would come in.

But there is no cavalry. Still the same twenty bloggers covering it.

If you want the story to be buried, it will be buried, because I think I speak for a lot of us in saying we're about to give up. It's one thing to get the finger from the liberal media; it's another thing to get it from our most prominent champions.

If there's some reason the conservative press wants to run interference for the noxious anteater Anthony Weiner, fine, you're about to win.

We did our part.

Edited: I had a freak-out and threw a guy I know a little and like a lot under the bus.

A subsequent post notes that Goulding was addressing only the question of the technical side of things, not the circumstantial case, and that his conclusions were limited to the technical side. As he found the technical case did not prove one thing or another, he limited himself to that conclusion.

I have apologized to Nathan Goulding by email.

Posted by: Ace at 11:53 AM | Comments (308)
Post contains 707 words, total size 4 kb.

Oh, and of course, no police involvement in an alleged hack on a Congressman.

Several questions still remain unanswered, however. For instance, TheDC has asked Arnold at least four times if the man in the photo was Weiner. Arnold has not answered.

TheDC also asked Arnold if there will be an official investigation into who might have hacked WeinerÂ’s accounts and how it was done. Arnold has not answered that question either.

I suspect the picture is actually of Andrew Breitbart's junk, and I feel safe in making that claim, because he doesn't read the actual posts.

Please don't repeat my allegation in the comments.

Did You Mean to d Me or to @ Me? I've had it confirmed, why I didn't just check myself is a mystery for the ages, that Twitter has a short-code for private and public messages.

To send a private message, you hit "d," then space, and then the handle.

To send a public one, you hit "@" and the handle.

I had heard that but didn't know that for sure. I don't know this tech stuff all you kids are so into.

I send my dic pics via the God Blessed United States Postal Service, in a discrete brown parcel marked "Grandma's Birthday Surprise."

So this is probably just a case of him excitedly hitting the more-often-used "@" when he intended to add the less-used, but sexier, "d." And thus the tweet went public rather private.

By the way, I was going to do a post on this,and maybe that's too tough, but for the love of God everyone in the liberal media knows he's guilty -- that's the word I get -- so Conservative Establishment Media, it is "safe" for you to start doing your jobs.

I don't want to call out my confreres but this is getting ri-goddamn-diculous. The entire Conservative Establishment Media has a tighter embargo on this than CNN, for crying out loud, apart from Jonah Goldberg's two mentions and Carl Cameron finally "breaking" the story on Fox an hour ago.

Can we man up here, Ladies?

Or do we actively wish to be scooped by N frigging P frigging R?

Iowahawk: Justice 4 Weiner.

Oh, and over the weekend, Jonah Goldberg tweeted a Carsenio-style Answer Then Question.

Answer: Anthony Weiner.

Question: Who had a different Memorial Day weekend than he expected?

Hot Air Tepidly Breaks Embargo: Linking Weiner's "I don't want to talk about this outrageous crime that has been perpetrated against me by Teabagger hackers even though I could get ten viral YouTube videos out of it which is all I'm about" interview.

And then...

IÂ’m still not convinced much of any particular explanation, but WeinerÂ’s response raises a lot more questions than it doesnÂ’t answer.

Really?

I don't get it.

Thanks very much for the link and recommendation that people come here -- honestly -- but I do not understand this whole attitude.

No one believes him. Not even the liberal media.

It is safe to say so.

I understand caution. I do. I understand fairness.

But facts are facts, and the facts all pile up on the same side of the street.

It is not "innuendo" to note this. It is not "innuendo" to note the facts here point to a specific conclusion.

The facts are the facts. The facts are not to be blamed, or treated dismissively, simply because they imply a conclusion that is rather bad for Weiner.

This is nuts.

Posted by: Ace at 10:13 AM | Comments (479)
Post contains 661 words, total size 4 kb.