June 18, 2011
— Ace Just a sum-up of what we don't know. Which is a lot.
First up, no one ever mentions this, but this is beyond the doubt the most diligent and incisive reporter on this whole mess.
By the way, who is that guy who threatens him? Media? Or one of Weiner's body-men (staffers who act partly as bodyguards)?
Second of all, I spoke on a blog podcast with Stranahan and Andrew Breitbart and a guy called AG_Conservative last night, archived here.
Key revelation: Andrew Breitbart has heard of me, but doesn't read me, though he does read the comments.
1. They've Always Been Fake. This is the theory bought into by NYT reporter Jen Preston and Lee Stranahan. Not only are Betty and Veronica fake, but so are the various "people" who spoke up for them -- friends, family were also fake. Add in Lee Stranahan's ever-present hypothesis that Patriot is also fake and you've got six fake online personas.
Why This Theory May be True: Well, the NYT cannot actually locate Betty and Veronica.
Also, the IDs provided by Betty and Betty's mom are fake. And the high school Betty claimed to go to, Hollywood High School, has no record of Betty or Veronica (by their supposed real names)
Why This Theory May Be False: Is failing to locate a Twitter user using a handle like "starchild111" such a big deal? They also can't locate Patriot. In fact, I would imagine they can't locate a large number of Twitter users who don't use their real names, absent a subpoena for Twitter's records.
Also, people continue being baffled that people might not want to play a starring role in this hot ghetto mess of a story. Apparently the completely missed The Smoking Gun's vicious hit-job on Mike Stack, carrying water for the "hack" theory.
Every time someone in this story chooses to not be well known, Stranahan and the left says "Oh that is terribly suspicious."
Is it? Every name that gets thrown out there is immediately seized upon by the left for trashing.
Do they not realize this? Or are they ignoring this?
Basically this boils down to "absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence." What is being postulated here is that single reporter (or a couple; I think another one tried, too) failed to track down these girls based on meaningless clues (the handle "starchild111") and false clues (false biographical details), ergo, they don't exist.
2. They Were Real, But Submitted False Names and IDs and Details of Their Lives to Tommy Christopher.
Another theory discounted completely by Jen Preston and Lee Stranahan.
Fake IDs are are easy for a teenager to get, and while you usually don't get matching Mom and Daughter sets, you certainly could.
In this theory, the people involved here are real, and want to get part of their story out (Weiner never did anything wrong/Breitbart told us to lie), but also do not wish to become the punching bag for the left and the media. So they give Tommy Christopher fake names. But they themselves are real, and are more or less what they represent themselves to be.
Why This Theory Might Be True. For one thing, it's less Spycraft than the last one. For another thing, again, no one seems to be willing to give credence to the idea that no one wishes to be exposed and scorned and ripped to shreds by the leftists blogs and their allies the liberal media.
Why This Theory Might Be False. Well, the Jen Preston and Lee Stranahan theory is that if you fax a fake ID, and if you claim to go to a high school you don't go to, you must be fake from the jump.
I think there is a lot of over-reading here. If a high schooler wishes to remain anonymous, and is called upon to name a high school she attends, what type of high school is she likely to name?
How about one she's heard of in TV and movies and gossip columns? How about one of the most famous and, presumably, glamorous high schools in the universe? How about, in short, Hollywood High School?
3. The people are real, but parties unknown began speaking for them in an effort to kill the story.
This is my pet theory, which I'm big on, simply because I made it up.
In this theory, the people are real, but an unknown party contacts them and says "Let me handle this; you just go away and delete your accounts and speak of this never again; I will talk to Tommy Christopher and kill the story, at least as far as your involvement in it."
This is the "Fixer" theory.
Why This Theory May Be True. In her press conference, Ginger Lee said she felt compelled to come forward and tell the truth because an unknown party "threatened" (her word, I believe) to release a false statement in her name regarding her communications with Weiner.
As I keep asking: If this guy made a threat to do this with a living, breathing person, why is inconceivable that he might have put out a false statement under other people's names, previously?
Why This Theory May Be False. Not sure, except it seems to some to be a little Out There on the plausibility scale.
However, I think most of the theories sort of fare poorly in terms of pure plausibility. I think all of the theories are implausible to some extent.
Some people say, "How could someone do this with the girls out there and alive and a threat to pipe up and contradict the false statement?" Well, I answer: "Someone appears to have been willing to run this same risk with Ginger Lee."
In that case, the bluff was ineffective, as Ginger Lee decided "The hell with this cloak and dagger nonsense" and gave a press conference.
But the fact seems to be (if we believe Ginger Lee, which I do) that someone thought this was a good bet. Maybe a bet he'd made before, and won.
My Big Question No Matter What The Theory Is. Motivation. What is it?
We have changing motivations here, evidenced by changing agendas. Initially, Veronica chats with Mike Stack, appearing to fan the flames of interest in Anthony Weiner's dealings. She claims that maybe Weiner has inappropriate communications with her friend Betty, but her friend Betty doesn't want to talk about it. Veroinca does not provide (to our knowledge) any concrete information or even fleshed-out allegations. Just general "there's smoke here" stuff.
Then, Veronica (I think) tries to get Breitbart and Loesch to pursue the story even harder after the errant dic-pic.
Then, Betty and her mom get in touch with Tommy Christopher, and claim that there's nothing to the story, at least nothing to the Betty angle of the story, and that Weiner behaved perfectly appropriately, and further, that Breitbart and Dana Loesh tried to get the girls to lie about their dealings with Weiner.
See, this is an odd change of direction to me. Obviously Jen Preston suspects this is a right-wing sting operation. Okay, fine. That's not terribly implausible. We all know there is a certain type of political operative that does dirty tricks.
But then why this sudden reversal of field here, and the clearing, rather than implicating of Weiner, and attempting to push a theory beloved by the left and also spread around (via phone calls to supporters) by Weiner himself? That this is all a "rightwing conspiracy" hatched out of Breitbart's Hate Machine?
Why does everyone suddenly start pushing the opposite agenda than the one they had just days before?
Some will say, "But Ace, it always seemed that Veronica was more on Team Expose The Story, and Betty was always on Team Deflate The Story."
Well, yes, but according to the Jen Preston/Lee Stranahan theory, neither of these people exist, and are, in fact, simply fake personas, probably created by the same person (or same small group of people with the same agenda).
So why is there a schism between these fake people who are really just constructs employed by the same shady political operative(s)?
Why the lightning-fast switch from the agenda of Getting Weiner to Saving Weiner and Getting Breitbart?
Posted by: Ace at
09:06 AM
| Comments (279)
Post contains 1402 words, total size 8 kb.
The whole "Betty & Veronica" story hasn't made a damn lick of sense since day one. Patterico, you, no one is writing in English about why any of this matters or why should we care.
Weiner was an ass. Weiner is gone. Story is over, right?
Tell us why we should care Ace, in English. Small words please.
Posted by: No thanks at June 18, 2011 08:49 AM (gVqQ3)
Posted by: USA at June 18, 2011 08:52 AM (6Cjut)
Posted by: USA at June 18, 2011 08:55 AM (6Cjut)
I get that Ace is Mulder, but who's playing Scully here? Please say Christina Hendricks.
Posted by: The Man Between The Cans at June 18, 2011 08:55 AM (TCyyS)
Weiner sent pictures of his junk to multiple women on multiple occasions, some of whom are adults, clearly NOT political operatives, and have come forward on their own. Nobody forced or "entrapped" him into doing this. He came out and admitted he did wrong, and then resigned over it.
Whether or not some of the players who helped bring this scandal to light are or are not political operatives is an interesting question, but its ultimately a minor one.
Even if they were, it doesn't change all that much.
Posted by: looking closely at June 18, 2011 08:55 AM (6Q9g2)
Posted by: Miss Marple at June 18, 2011 08:56 AM (Fo83G)
Agree with #4. Betty and Veronica could be Rove and Cheney for all I care, and it still wouldn't make a damn bit of difference.
A second though, why does Breitbart give a space for Stranahan on his websites, when you have Stranahan indirectly setting Breitbart up here? I mean, he might not come out and say "Breitbart had some create these fake names" but his theory is going to lead people in that direction
Posted by: Rich at June 18, 2011 08:56 AM (dlZa6)
Posted by: phoenixgirl handbag snob at June 18, 2011 08:57 AM (eOXTH)
Posted by: quilly mammoth at June 18, 2011 08:57 AM (avIjo)
You can create all the fake online persona you want, to entrap a creep but you can't make the creep bite unless he wants to bite.
Posted by: moflicky at June 18, 2011 08:58 AM (aGp+K)
Posted by: Auntie Fraud at June 18, 2011 08:58 AM (MuE3I)
It's like someone read Ender's Game and is recreating the Peter/Locke and Valentine/Demosthenes subplot.
Posted by: DrewM. at June 18, 2011 08:59 AM (sPao2)
1. We could have foreign agents taking out congressmen. This is important, even though we hate Weiner.
2. We could actually have some really smart GOP operatives (I know that's a stretch but it gives me hope).
3. The democrats, if they created Betty and Veronica, are showing a scary talent for turning their scandals against people on our side. This is REALLY important.
Posted by: Miss Marple at June 18, 2011 08:59 AM (Fo83G)
Posted by: nevergiveup at June 18, 2011 08:59 AM (7wmOW)
Ace -
Just finished listening to the podcast a little while ago...
I would never have guessed you were the Baritone in the ewok tabernacle choir.
Posted by: garrett at June 18, 2011 09:00 AM (hzjZo)
Posted by: phoenixgirl handbag snob at June 18, 2011 09:01 AM (eOXTH)
Posted by: Charles Johnson at June 18, 2011 09:01 AM (FYwGn)
Posted by: Meremortal at June 18, 2011 09:02 AM (7FgWm)
#16, none of the matters unless you have a slimeball congressman willing to engage in the activities. Maybe the operatives are foreign, or GOP insiders, or Dems. It still doesn't make a damn bit of difference w/o the loser-pervert congressman. And because of that, that will ALWAYS be the only story that matters in these situations.
I mean if all foreign operatives have to do is pose as some fake teenage girls to get a congressman to act like an idiot, than are we really afraid of the foreign operatives or are we afraid of the bozos we've been electing? I much more afraid of the latter.
Posted by: Rich at June 18, 2011 09:02 AM (dlZa6)
Posted by: DrewM. at June 18, 2011 12:59 PM (sPao2)
Assume that they are faked by two different parties and suddenly a lot makes sense. One fake created by, say, Mike Stack to generate more interest in his claim that Weiner was sexting and one created by another entity to counter that and to attack Breitbart.
Posted by: quilly mammoth at June 18, 2011 09:03 AM (avIjo)
By his own admission, he was repeatedly engaged in sexually inappropriate chat while married, and he sent out pictures of his genitals to multiple individuals multiple times.
Partisan or not, people were already noticing this inappropriate behavior, and he was leaving a lot of retrievable electronic evidence behind.
So again, girls or no girls, Weiner eventually would have been caught and outed.
Posted by: looking closely at June 18, 2011 09:03 AM (6Q9g2)
Posted by: Zimriel at June 18, 2011 09:04 AM (yb01D)
Then voila! the story is not true, the people do not exist! Credibility takes a huge hit.
When Weiner had the Typo from Hell, then it turned into a counter-sting; the intent was to muddy the waters, draw Breitbart in (thus the "we've been asked to lie by Breitbart and Loesch" charge) if only by his needing to defend himself, then reveal that the whole hullabaloo was based on the creation of - well, that's the part where I get stuck.
Who perpetrated this? No clue.
However, in both scenarios, the intent is to hack away at the credibility of the dextrosphere.
Sorry for the really long comment.
Posted by: Dianna at June 18, 2011 09:04 AM (mKMj1)
Ported from last post where nobody read it:
87 "Who could it be? If not anti-Weiner conservatives, how about one of his potential rivals for the NYC mayor's race?"
Too complicated. First you'd have to be well enough connected to know the rumors, savvy enough about new media to execute the plan (and only someone who's been burned like this REALLY knows how bad it is), and then to throw suspicion off yourself you'd have to publicly defend Weiner while offering such ridiculous excuses for his behavior that the media couldn't help but turn him into a buffoon.
That said, enjoy the steak knives, Anthony.
Posted by: AlecayAldwinbay at June 18, 2011 09:05 AM (G7Jng)
Post #16 explains the bigger picture.
If someone is trying to turn this against the Right, I'd like to know who's doing it, and what tactic they're using.
Posted by: Zimriel at June 18, 2011 09:07 AM (yb01D)
Posted by: ace at June 18, 2011 09:10 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: shiggz at June 18, 2011 09:11 AM (mLAWK)
Posted by: phoenixgirl handbag snob at June 18, 2011 09:11 AM (eOXTH)
Posted by: ace at June 18, 2011 09:12 AM (nj1bB)
4 Here is what I don't get: how is ANY of this interesting or important?
The whole "Betty & Veronica" story hasn't made a damn lick of sense since day one. Patterico, you, no one is writing in English about why any of this matters or why should we care.
Weiner was an ass. Weiner is gone. Story is over, right?
Tell us why we should care Ace, in English. Small words please.
Posted by: No thanks at June 18, 2011 12:49 PM (gVqQ3)
The shadow figures tried to derail the story. That's why they need to be investigated.
Posted by: Temper Tantrum at June 18, 2011 09:12 AM (bAL0J)
Posted by: Rich at June 18, 2011 09:13 AM (dlZa6)
Posted by: The Great Satan's Ghost at June 18, 2011 09:14 AM (UrPTC)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at June 18, 2011 09:15 AM (eOXTH)
That idea that the right side of the blogosphere is the target is very much on my mind.
Posted by: Dianna at June 18, 2011 09:15 AM (mKMj1)
Posted by: Brian at June 18, 2011 09:17 AM (m05GV)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at June 18, 2011 09:19 AM (eOXTH)
The coed it also too much involved in this.
She hasn't come clear if the dick pick was a joke , or why she got it.
Didn't G.Lee say she didn't get or send pictures from wiener?
Coed speculated he missent the dick tweet when it was supposed to go to G.Lee.
Posted by: Temper Tantrum at June 18, 2011 09:19 AM (bAL0J)
I mean if all foreign operatives have to do is pose as some fake teenage girls to get a congressman to act like an idiot, than are we really afraid of the foreign operatives or are we afraid of the bozos we've been electing? I much more afraid of the latter.
Posted by: Rich at June 18, 2011 01:02 PM (dlZa6)
I sort of expect pervs of all sorts to be playing around on the intertubes doing all sorts of pervy stuff. That doesn't bother me nor does their identity (Iran Quds, Mossad, Putin's FSB, Repub "operative", etc.). What does bother me is that an elected official of the United States has betrayed the trust placed in him to behave in a manner befitting his office., and people are making excuses for him.
Posted by: Hrothgar at June 18, 2011 09:19 AM (yrGif)
Posted by: The Man Who Would Not Be King at June 18, 2011 09:19 AM (QTr+K)
Posted by: lan sing at June 18, 2011 09:19 AM (YHrQZ)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at June 18, 2011 09:21 AM (eOXTH)
Posted by: Jim Treacher at June 18, 2011 09:22 AM (QTr+K)
Yeah, just look at what they do here.
Posted by: lan sing at June 18, 2011 09:22 AM (YHrQZ)
Posted by: Damiano at June 18, 2011 09:22 AM (3nrx7)
This would be the equivalent of dealing with a woman who spent an evening talking about how cute you are, flirting, dropping hints, only to yell at you when you decide to take things to the next obvious step. So, you decide, okay, that sucks, but I still like this chick, she's funny...let's talk some more...so she starts caressing your arm...so, you think:
You: "hey, wait a minute, would you be interested in..."
Her: "No, a--hole, what did I just say?"
You: "Okay, it's just that you were rubbing my arm, I thought..."
Her: "No, why can't we just talk! Why do have to think about nothing but that? Why do you always think about that?"
You: "It's just that I thought you were hinting..."
Her: "No!!!!!"
You have to admit that makes it frustrating for commenters too.
Posted by: AD at June 18, 2011 09:23 AM (G6N+V)
Posted by: twiceblessedmom at June 18, 2011 09:24 AM (HjxoE)
You have to admit that makes it frustrating for commenters too.
Posted by: AD at June 18, 2011 01:23 PM (G6N+V)
He was worried about people attacking him with lawfare, but after this Nyt story broke things changed. probably.
Posted by: Temper Tantrum at June 18, 2011 09:26 AM (bAL0J)
Posted by: mike at June 18, 2011 09:26 AM (KsI1l)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at June 18, 2011 09:27 AM (eOXTH)
Posted by: fluffy has no Clue at June 18, 2011 09:27 AM (4Kl5M)
Can't even have a real discussion with people like that. There's no possible common ground. It's all about power to them.
Posted by: Clubber Lang at June 18, 2011 09:28 AM (QcFbt)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at June 18, 2011 09:29 AM (eOXTH)
Oh, don't sell yourself short, ace. I thought that the most key revelation is that your inspire longing in Breitbart for the erections he had as a younger man.
"Ace did get all breathy when Breitbart said that...I'm sure if there had been video, we would have seen Ace grooming his coat. Perhaps, even, blushing. Though it's difficult to tell when an ewok is blushing.
Also, it's a sign of potential interest when an ewok grooms himself. It shows the desire to be looked upon as attractive and parasite free."
Posted by: Tonya Reiman at June 18, 2011 09:29 AM (hzjZo)
Posted by: lan sing at June 18, 2011 09:30 AM (YHrQZ)
Jeff B was talked out of his contention that B&V were setting up a huge takedown of Breitbart which was to transpire by getting him to bite on an underage girl story and then discrediting it and thus the entire dicpic story. I say it's the best theory yet. Immunization: creating a small lookalike illness then knocking it out in order to create an army of defenders against the big illness.
Posted by: arhooley at June 18, 2011 09:30 AM (njKCi)
"It doesn't matter.".
Posted by: The Man Who Would Not Be King at June 18, 2011 01:19 PM (QTr+K)
Yup!!! The nyt is pushing it...discounted. Not because they aren't "right leaning", because they lie regularly and most journolists run with it...ain't playin.
Posted by: NfromNC at June 18, 2011 09:31 AM (kR57Q)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at June 18, 2011 09:31 AM (eOXTH)
Posted by: ace at June 18, 2011 09:31 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: razor419 at June 18, 2011 09:32 AM (+O7IR)
Posted by: MostlyRight at June 18, 2011 09:32 AM (/2XxW)
Posted by: Joanie (Oven Gloves) at June 18, 2011 09:33 AM (y/+eD)
Posted by: ace at June 18, 2011 09:33 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Damiano at June 18, 2011 09:33 AM (3nrx7)
Maybe I'm missing something, and that it was someone with authority who called so it's OK, but I find that pretty scary.
This whole thing is so confusing.
Posted by: Theresa D. at June 18, 2011 09:34 AM (zviG6)
Posted by: Chris R at June 18, 2011 09:34 AM (QiNmA)
Posted by: ace at June 18, 2011 09:35 AM (nj1bB)
Their agenda is to prove, or at least speculate, a vast rightwing conspiracy.
No need to speculate.
It took down my husband and forced me into claiming Jewish roots in order to secure a seat in the Senate.
Posted by: Her Thighness at June 18, 2011 09:35 AM (hzjZo)
Posted by: ace at June 18, 2011 09:36 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: ace at June 18, 2011 09:38 AM (nj1bB)
"I fully understand your frustration with some commenters (especially with the occasional out of line s--t, though also with the threat of getting sued in the case of Ginger Lee)"
. . . .
Posted by: AD at June 18, 2011 01:23 PM (G6N+V)
Posted by: AD at June 18, 2011 09:38 AM (G6N+V)
It seems to me that a man (or fuzzy little humanoid) with access to a Time Machine could solve this riddle in no time.
I'm beginning to think that Ace might not be an Ewok, but a shape-shifter.
Posted by: garrett at June 18, 2011 09:39 AM (hzjZo)
I'm beginning to think these rumors were pretty widely known. Me too. I just like the steak knife speech. --Not Really Alecay Aldwinbay
Posted by: mrobvious at June 18, 2011 09:40 AM (G7Jng)
no one with a body buried under his garage floats a false rumor about a body buried under his patio.
How do you know they won't keep digging?
But it's such a perfect use of a strawman. I'm looking around on google . . .
Posted by: arhooley at June 18, 2011 09:40 AM (njKCi)
Posted by: Chris R at June 18, 2011 09:41 AM (QiNmA)
Posted by: mrobvious at June 18, 2011 09:42 AM (G7Jng)
"I fully understand your frustration with some commenters (especially with the occasional out of line s--t, though also with the threat of getting sued in the case of Ginger Lee)"
Posted by: AD at June 18, 2011 01:38 PM (G6N+V)
BTW, this is my first time commenting on this thing--the part about getting commenters to stop speculating and going over the line--so you haven't been involved in arguments with me on this.
Posted by: AD at June 18, 2011 09:42 AM (G6N+V)
Posted by: ace at June 18, 2011 09:42 AM (nj1bB)
no one with a body buried under his garage floats a false rumor about a body buried under his patio.
Anyway, if this has never actually been done, I'm so using it in a mystery novel.
Posted by: arhooley at June 18, 2011 09:43 AM (njKCi)
But then, I think it reads all so much better if the Betty & Veronica identities were intended as a false-flag operation/sting of the right wing blogosphere from start to finish. It doesn't require changes in motivation, it only requires changes of line and tactic, and that's easy.
The left does not want to dig into that. They will embarrass their own (at a guess).
Posted by: Dianna at June 18, 2011 09:43 AM (mKMj1)
Posted by: razor419 at June 18, 2011 09:43 AM (+O7IR)
If i understand this story correct , Breitbart had already other sources giving him wiener pictures before the tweet dick happened?
Posted by: Temper Tantrum at June 18, 2011 09:43 AM (bAL0J)
Posted by: ace at June 18, 2011 09:43 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Damiano at June 18, 2011 09:44 AM (3nrx7)
Posted by: ace at June 18, 2011 09:44 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Tutu at June 18, 2011 09:46 AM (O6j1h)
Posted by: Chris R at June 18, 2011 09:46 AM (QiNmA)
Posted by: SlaveDog at June 18, 2011 09:47 AM (9fDAi)
Posted by: ace at June 18, 2011 01:44 PM (nj1bB)
He had the Boxer pic...but was unable to prove /verify either its source or subject at the time of the 'tweet seen round the world'.
Right? Someone had tipped it to them a week or two earlier...
At least that's what I thought I heard on the podcast.
You might have missed it, because Breitbart was speaking and you were probably touchiing yourself at the time, ace.
I know I was.
Posted by: garrett at June 18, 2011 09:49 AM (hzjZo)
Posted by: Ken Royall at June 18, 2011 09:51 AM (9zzk+)
Posted by: ace at June 18, 2011 09:51 AM (nj1bB)
You're accused of a serious crime. Your undercover operatives make up a similar crime and implicate you in that. Your accusers bite on crime #2 and start making hay of it, mixing details of the two crimes together in their reporting. Your operatives then reveal the entire crime #2 case to be bogus. Your accusers are now discredited.
It wouldn't fly in a court of law, but it might in a media war.
Posted by: arhooley at June 18, 2011 09:55 AM (njKCi)
Posted by: Chris R at June 18, 2011 09:56 AM (QiNmA)
Done in by someone on the inside? One of AW's own people?
Posted by: lan sing at June 18, 2011 09:56 AM (YHrQZ)
Posted by: Glenn Beck at June 18, 2011 09:57 AM (x9YN5)
Early on, I asked this question: Who was watching Weiner, and why? IMO, Weiner was on the dOpe's hit list for opposing teh dOpe on issues from the left. Those guys found alot more than they were hoping to find to whack the weiner, and all the players in the Comic Book meme, Betty, Veronica and family and friends did not want the national spotlight. The story morphed out of control, with certitude that weiner was whacked, teh dOpe's guys were told to put an end to it, more damage was being done than was useful.
End of conspiracy theory a/k/a Chicago politics.
Posted by: Shame The Shameless at June 18, 2011 09:57 AM (dCEna)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at June 18, 2011 09:58 AM (NITzp)
Posted by: razor419 at June 18, 2011 09:58 AM (+O7IR)
Posted by: ace at June 18, 2011 09:59 AM (nj1bB)
If I typed faster, we could have more Sat. grill talk...
Posted by: Shame The Shameless at June 18, 2011 09:59 AM (dCEna)
Betty is a young girl and in hiding, for obvious reasons, but is a real person.
Weiner is real, too. Real fucking stupid, because right in the middle of all this he sends out his tent pic to the public, "stimulating" interest in the story amongst Breitbart et al that already were looking into Veronica's previous work.
It's not a good theory, but it's a theory.
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at June 18, 2011 10:00 AM (lN56Y)
I am not sure what difference it makes except that the New York Times is trying but failing to make Weiner a victim. I'm shocked.
Weiner admitted to having inappropriate tweets, emails whatever with 6 different women people. We know 3 of them at least are real, if the other three are fake I am not sure how that helps Weiner, in fact it makes him look like more of a wreckless dumbass.
Posted by: robtr at June 18, 2011 10:00 AM (MtwBb)
Posted by: ace at June 18, 2011 10:01 AM (nj1bB)
104
You're accused of a serious crime. Your undercover operatives make up a similar crime and implicate you in that. Your accusers bite on crime #2 and start making hay of it, mixing details of the two crimes together in their reporting. Your operatives then reveal the entire crime #2 case to be bogus. Your accusers are now discredited.
It wouldn't fly in a court of law, but it might in a media war.
Posted by: arhooley at June 18, 2011 01:55 PM (njKCi)
A bit like the Sharrod media defense. Breitbart forced her from her job!!
Desperate and stupid , but very John Edwards.
Posted by: Temper Tantrum at June 18, 2011 10:02 AM (bAL0J)
Who was watching Weiner, and why?
Weiner is one of the most caustic Democrats on the Hill. Often employed as an attack dog by the likes of Pelosi and Schumer.
Do you think his demeanor within his district was any better than his public personae?
He was tutored in the art of the shakedown by Chuck E. Schumer.
There are bound to be dozens of people watching him and waiting for a sign of weak sauce.
Posted by: garrett at June 18, 2011 10:02 AM (hzjZo)
Posted by: Damiano at June 18, 2011 10:02 AM (3nrx7)
Posted by: Chris R at June 18, 2011 10:03 AM (QiNmA)
Posted by: ace at June 18, 2011 10:03 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: ace at June 18, 2011 10:05 AM (nj1bB)
That's the giant hole in this theory. Because Betty went along with that in hopes of getting an "in" with Weiner? She was obsessed? I'm thinking that V and B didn't know each other except by Twitter, and met as followers of The Weiner.
The fake "Betty" ID stuff could simply be parents protecting the kid.
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at June 18, 2011 10:06 AM (lN56Y)
Posted by: The Great Satan's Ghost at June 18, 2011 10:06 AM (UrPTC)
I'm suddenly suspicious of a certain Weiner-tenacious Elvis Costello fan who keeps mentioning that Andrew "Breitbart Hoax" Breitbart doesn't read his site.
Really, given what's actually known, the lefty-sting/righty-watchdog accidental-stream-crossing + confused-lefty-coverup theory is the least presumptuous.
It explains why no motive-centric unification of the narrative works. The characters in the story would all be personifications of [?]'s series of separate and changing motives—except for Weiner, Breitbart, the giant-titted chick, and the guy who caught the accidentally published picture. They only know what's been shown to them.
If so, imagine: What's been shown to Weiner is incoherent, right-but-wrong, and kinda scary, in a North by Northwest-y way. His weirdly shifting attitude about all this might have been the sanest possible reaction.
Maybe he finally bailed when someone told him who [?] is.
Posted by: oblig. at June 18, 2011 10:07 AM (xvZW9)
Posted by: Chris R at June 18, 2011 10:07 AM (QiNmA)
Posted by: ace at June 18, 2011 10:07 AM (nj1bB)
The reason this is important is this little prick anounced he "will" resign, as far as I know he hasn't done so. Anyone believe this guy isn't above deciding not to.
"See....like I said it was all a set up" and stick it out. Already MSM is pushing his possibility of regaining his reputation, they will do anything to protect their own and if they can take down some right blogs in the process all the better.
Posted by: kehoe at June 18, 2011 10:07 AM (misOa)
Posted by: lan sing at June 18, 2011 10:08 AM (YHrQZ)
Posted by: meep at June 18, 2011 10:08 AM (gqJGk)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at June 18, 2011 10:09 AM (NITzp)
108
Early on, I asked this question: Who was watching Weiner, and why? IMO, Weiner was on the dOpe's hit list for opposing teh dOpe on issues from the left. Those guys found alot more than they were hoping to find to whack the weiner, and all the players in the Comic Book meme, Betty, Veronica and family and friends did not want the national spotlight. The story morphed out of control, with certitude that weiner was whacked, teh dOpe's guys were told to put an end to it, more damage was being done than was useful.
End of conspiracy theory a/k/a Chicago politics.
Posted by: Shame The Shameless at June 18, 2011 01:57 PM (dCEna)
The democrat Chicago crew wanting to own Weiner as their bitch, stealing him from the clintons.
Posted by: Temper Tantrum at June 18, 2011 10:09 AM (bAL0J)
Posted by: ace at June 18, 2011 10:09 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Dumb_Blonde at June 18, 2011 10:10 AM (q1/Wn)
AW: This was an evil Republican plot to bring down a public servant.
Reporter: But was your dick.
AW: I wouldn't have sent that picture if I knew it wasn't a hot young chick.
Reporter:
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at June 18, 2011 10:11 AM (lN56Y)
Posted by: ace at June 18, 2011 10:11 AM (nj1bB)
Do you even need Betty and Veronica to make a stinky Wiener?
As hard as he clung to his seat before resigning, he didn't bail over fake chicks.
Posted by: Marybel at June 18, 2011 10:11 AM (Hic+o)
Posted by: Chris R at June 18, 2011 10:11 AM (QiNmA)
Posted by: Chris R at June 18, 2011 10:12 AM (QiNmA)
Posted by: razor419 at June 18, 2011 10:12 AM (+O7IR)
Posted by: ace at June 18, 2011 10:12 AM (nj1bB)
He was tutored in the art of the shakedown by Chuck E. Schumer.
There are bound to be dozens of people watching him and waiting for a sign of weak sauce.
Posted by: garrett at June 18, 2011 02:02 PM (hzjZo)
Maybe so, but the inital story has a of so-called "right wing" adults, aka goatred and patriot et al., monitoring weiner... why were they called out as
"right wing" other than to deflect attention to it being an Indo... er, inside job?
Posted by: Shame The Shameless at June 18, 2011 10:13 AM (dCEna)
Posted by: Dumb_Blonde at June 18, 2011 10:13 AM (q1/Wn)
Veronica hinted about this, but we don't know at this point if she was guessing, bluffing, or knew stuff. We're not really sure she's even a real person.
Posted by: ace at June 18, 2011 02:07 PM (nj1bB)
Yeah but we never did, TC said it was all lies and the cops checked into Weiners communications with a real underage girl and didn't find anything.
If Weiner was communicating/following a fake 16 yo that isn't any different than Weiner following a fake 16 yo set up by the FBI or Chris Hanson. For all we know it was Chris Hanson.
Posted by: robtr at June 18, 2011 10:13 AM (MtwBb)
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at June 18, 2011 10:15 AM (lN56Y)
This story is all about coming up with some tortured post-hoc justification to let them "win" blog post comment thread arguments.
Posted by: Trimegistus at June 18, 2011 10:17 AM (bgWyF)
Posted by: razor419 at June 18, 2011 10:17 AM (+O7IR)
Posted by: Chris R at June 18, 2011 10:17 AM (QiNmA)
I always wondered why it's illegal to talk dirty to a 52 year old cop pretending to be a 15 year old girl.
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at June 18, 2011 10:18 AM (lN56Y)
The democrat Chicago crew wanting to own Weiner as their bitch, stealing him from the clintons.
Chi-town and Co hate the clintons, vice versa. So, they wanted a smack down of weiner. Schumer was a hildebeast supporter too, maybe that's why he's been so silent. ?
Posted by: Shame The Shameless at June 18, 2011 10:18 AM (dCEna)
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at June 18, 2011 10:18 AM (lN56Y)
Did he think no one would care about the latter, just because she's just at the age of majority?
Posted by: ace at June 18, 2011 02:01 PM
I wouldn't put Weiner in control of the "operatives." These could be those kinds of unhelpful helpers like the nutroots who were demanding an FBI investigation at first. You could just hear Weiner screaming silently, "SHUT THE FUCK UP."
Also, I'm not saying that no one would care; just that Weiner's buddies could get the MSM to scream "BREITBART IS A LIAR" loud and long enough to get people to dismiss all of his claims.
Mind you, I'm mostly playing advocate here.
Posted by: arhooley at June 18, 2011 10:19 AM (njKCi)
Posted by: Chris R at June 18, 2011 10:19 AM (QiNmA)
Posted by: troyriser at June 18, 2011 10:20 AM (mU1zA)
Posted by: ace at June 18, 2011 10:20 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at June 18, 2011 02:18 PM (lN56Y)
Meh, it's no different than any other stings the cops do, like giving a jihadi fake explosives and stuff.
Posted by: robtr at June 18, 2011 10:21 AM (MtwBb)
---------------
no, that was ethel
Who in that generation is named Ethel - that is a name prior to the 1930's
Posted by: lan sing at June 18, 2011 10:21 AM (YHrQZ)
Posted by: Dumb_Blonde at June 18, 2011 10:21 AM (q1/Wn)
Posted by: Chris R at June 18, 2011 10:21 AM (QiNmA)
It's because that's who those fuckers at the NYT are. It is what they do.
But don't worry, the gray old lady won't get far with this chasing-the-vapors stuff. They are not that willing to just make stuff up.
But hey, what did they do with the McCain-and-the-blonde-lobbyist thing?
As for B & V, you ain't seen nothing yet. Wait until Sy Hersch at the New Yorker writes a hundred-thousand or so words on it. We'll see some smoke and mirrors then, for sure.
Facts? We don't need no steenking facts!
Posted by: I'm in a New York state of mind at June 18, 2011 10:21 AM (4sQwu)
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at June 18, 2011 10:21 AM (lN56Y)
Posted by: rdbrewer at June 18, 2011 10:23 AM (c/khY)
Anyone remember the adage, that truth is stranger than fiction?
Weiner may have been in the x hairs of several people, the underwear pics were known, others suspected.... I think the comic book characters were collateral damage, or unintended loyal democrats consequences that were drawn into the spotlight, and now their existence is being questioned to help them fade into oblivion.
If I recall, one of the messages expressed a very clear desire to remain nameless and out of the spotlight.
I just wonder how you question the existence of people who had their home shown on Foxnews with police records of responding to an alleged incident and Fox reporters sitting in the kitchen when the cops got there.
How do you make that go away?
Posted by: Shame The Shameless at June 18, 2011 10:24 AM (dCEna)
Posted by: Chris R at June 18, 2011 10:24 AM (QiNmA)
Posted by: Chris R at June 18, 2011 10:25 AM (QiNmA)
"Nope. As I said no one with a body buried under his garage floats a false rumor about a body buried under his patio."
Ahem.
Posted by: texasmurderlawn at June 18, 2011 10:26 AM (G7Jng)
Posted by: lan sing at June 18, 2011 10:26 AM (YHrQZ)
I just wonder how you question the existence of people who had their home shown on Foxnews with police records of responding to an alleged incident and Fox reporters sitting in the kitchen when the cops got there.
How do you make that go away?
Posted by: Shame The Shameless at June 18, 2011 02:24 PMThat was the one girl we know to be real: Ethel.
Posted by: arhooley at June 18, 2011 10:27 AM (njKCi)
Posted by: WeekendAtBernankes at June 18, 2011 10:28 AM (xLA6w)
Posted by: Paul Stanley at June 18, 2011 10:28 AM (jGXQI)
why were they called out as
"right wing" other than to deflect attention to it being an Indo... er, inside job?
I just assumed we all knew that Ace was 'Patriot', working for Breitbart, under the orders of Justice Thomas - who was doing a favor for his wife.
Mrs. Thomas gave the order to #Hack.
...but now that you mention it, I guess I was assuming he (patriot) was an evil reich winger.
Posted by: garrett at June 18, 2011 10:30 AM (hzjZo)
Posted by: Chris R at June 18, 2011 10:30 AM (QiNmA)
Posted by: toby928™ at June 18, 2011 10:31 AM (GTbGH)
After some small consideration, the "Shenanigans By Betty and Veronica" look like 2 or more sub-plots, maybe initially completely uknown to each other (or the rest), and that are now starting to collide or have collided.
Throw in a few (reactive ... desperate ... not thought-out at all) attempts to distract attention / discredit Brietbart / the Right / ...
The badboy at the end of the video ("If you ever do that again, you'll never walk.") suggests to me that some powerful people, or at least people who really want to be players, have been involved in this for some time. This just screams "no plan", "make the guy (whom ever) shut-up", ... lots of reactive actions, no thoughts.
If there's really a single theory, I don't see it, at least not yet.
It looks like chalkboard time. Perhaps a time-line of things-we-knew-and-when and who-said-what-and-when will clarify events. This should make a nice .gif, after all June any month is the season for .gif-fing in DC ...
Posted by: Slab Manley, The League of Ugly Shirted Gentlemen at June 18, 2011 10:31 AM (HgVL4)
Posted by: Weiner's Weinergate Advisory Team at June 18, 2011 10:31 AM (3nrx7)
Keep up the good work, ace, king of ewoks. Getting behind the story is where the real dirt and stuff is. Remember how those who knew stuff in the clinton years were given sublte hints suggesting that they re-think their testimony?
If you get a dead hobo on your porch or something, tweet a pic FAST, and not in DM.
Posted by: Shame The Shameless at June 18, 2011 10:32 AM (dCEna)
Posted by: razor419 at June 18, 2011 10:33 AM (+O7IR)
Posted by: ace at June 18, 2011 10:35 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: ace at June 18, 2011 10:37 AM (nj1bB)
But I don't want what could be termed "original defamation" originating here.
So you are not denying that you are this 'patriot76' person?
Posted by: garrett at June 18, 2011 10:37 AM (hzjZo)
That's why I think Betty is real. The parents are working like hell to hide her, and I don't blame them one bit. Any underage girls that got anything inappropriate are the actual victims here, regardless of their or their parents' politics.
Somebody upthread speculated there are multiple actors with multiple goals here. That sounds "truthy". Real life gets complicated real quickly.
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at June 18, 2011 10:38 AM (lN56Y)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at June 18, 2011 10:39 AM (NITzp)
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at June 18, 2011 10:40 AM (lN56Y)
Also known as the "Men Trying to Get Laid" strategy.
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at June 18, 2011 10:41 AM (lN56Y)
Posted by: ace at June 18, 2011 10:42 AM (nj1bB)
No, but they have. Over and over.
Posted by: sarah p at June 18, 2011 10:42 AM (YHrQZ)
Posted by: smittywood at June 18, 2011 10:42 AM (emJa4)
Minor League Baseball Team Takes Advantage Of Weinergate With Special Boxers Giveaway
Posted by: momma at June 18, 2011 10:46 AM (nWikJ)
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at June 18, 2011 10:47 AM (lN56Y)
I think this is a good point, but it does founder on one objection: nobody PURELY RATIONAL does this. But people aren't always purely rational evaluators of their own self-interest, especially people who are arrogant, smug, and have been getting away with outrageous shit for years and years without any hint of repercussions. Also, people can be stupid and take stupid risks that "seemed smart at the time." Weiner is actually already proven to be a perfect example of this, what with his incredible recklessness in tweeting dic-pics in the first place. So I don't know why it's totally out of the question that this guy, who obviously was way out on a limb with crazy antics AND behavior (he's always been a weirdly intense, strange guy), would have done this scheme. Sure, as you put it, it ended up piquing media interest in related stories, but this is a guy whose prior experience with the media had nothing to do with the realities of tough investigative reporting. He thought he OWNED the press (because in many ways he did), and that they would behave as he wanted them to do.
I'm still drawn to the simple logic of "nobody draws attention to something fake that might raise similar charges that are true" but I think it's also quite possible that this was one of those schemes that "seemed like a good idea at the time."
And by the way, Ace, I listened again to what Stranahan said to you on the radio about the timeline. I WAS CORRECT, I THINK, AND YOU WERE WRONG. Unless Stranahan is simply misspeaking (and it's possible, this is all very byzantine), he said that while B&V had made some sort of perfunctory contact with Mike Stack etc. before the dic-pic broke, that they HAD NEVER BROACHED THE SUBJECT OF WEINER SEXTING THEM until AFTER the dic-pic was sent. If that's true -- IF -- then I'm returning to my original theory, because it suddenly becomes much more plausible: the B&V false-flag accounts originally started as a way for Weiner to keep tabs on his enemies...and then once the dic-pics were tweeted and Weiner (or his team) were desperately looking for a way out, a way to get around this, they came up with the strategy of trying to get Breitbart et al. to pursue the FALSE story about underage sexting, perhaps bite down hard and discredit themselves, and in doing so divert attention away from the real 'crime' here.
And it's not so crazy because Weiner (in his panicked, not-super-rational frame of mind) could have convinced himself that it would work. In his mind, it would've played out like this: "If I keep stonewalling, and stalling, people will run out of questions to ask. The right-wing bloggers will go crazy, but I can divert them onto the more juicy 'underage' thing, and let them discredit themselves. Once that happens the MSM, which loves me, will declare me a 'victim' or allow me to go on the offensive if necessary, but will let it die away either way."
Why did he think this? Because he had no real reason to believe yet that more pictures were going to come out. I mean, he surely was desperately afraid of that, but then he knew his goose was cooked if that happened no matter what, so the rational move (from his warped perspective) was to just play the game as if those other pics weren't going to come out. Which is why, no doubt, he went to such trouble to coach the Other Women to cover for him.
Posted by: Jeff B. at June 18, 2011 10:48 AM (hIWe1)
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at June 18, 2011 10:48 AM (lN56Y)
Posted by: Dr Spank at June 18, 2011 10:56 AM (k0TKJ)
Kinda gives me the creeps.
Posted by: lan sing at June 18, 2011 10:56 AM (YHrQZ)
Why would right-wing moles try to sell the story that Breitbart was trying to get them to lie, though?
It just doesn't make any sense at all that way.
Posted by: Adjoran at June 18, 2011 10:58 AM (VfmLu)
These "Bookers" are a bunch of hard copy Luddites who want to drag us back to the days of burning witches!
Posted by: Jim Treacher at June 18, 2011 01:22 PM (QTr+K)
I take offense, good Sir. I take offense, indeed.
Posted by: Book Geek at June 18, 2011 10:58 AM (1+OO5)
Posted by: phoenixgirl handbag snob at June 18, 2011 01:01 PM (eOXTH)
Right?
They're just angry that he mocked Weiner. They weren't going to ask any questions at all, they were just mad that Weiner couldn't get his "dignified" press conference as befits a nobleman of his stature.
One more thing: I am still thinking about Weiner's "humble beginnings" bit where his dad's a lawyer (on the GI Bill, big whoop) and his mom's a schoolteacher.
Now maybe somebody growing up in New York looks with envy on the Wall Street bankers' kids, but in most of America, schoolteachers get a pretty good deal and lawyers make (entirely too much) money.
Anthony Weiner grew up, at worst, upper middle class and I have to wonder how many of his constituents think of themselves as honest working-class folk with their Master's degrees and Starbucks lunches.
Posted by: AmishDude at June 18, 2011 10:59 AM (73tyQ)
Posted by: WeekendAtBernankes at June 18, 2011 10:59 AM (xLA6w)
Posted by: AmishDude at June 18, 2011 10:59 AM (73tyQ)
I do not think he acted like a disgraced man. He was arrogant. Just my take though.
Posted by: lan sing at June 18, 2011 11:00 AM (YHrQZ)
This explains David Brock, certainly. Other examples come to mind; on the Right, I suppose there was that straw-grabbing we (yeah, me too) engaged in during the last weeks of the 2008 campaign.
Brock, Kos, and Johnson are desperate. To them any weapon is good if it comes to mind. Since a general rule of life is that the first weapon one reaches for is not going to work, that's how they end up discrediting themselves.
Posted by: Zimriel at June 18, 2011 11:02 AM (yb01D)
"... the possibility that Anthony Weiner's attempts at pushback may have included some guys ..."
... which leads me to speculate further.
I think that filing all the data/rumor concerning the 16/17/21 y.o.s, for later use, is a good plan. Excluding the questions of defamation, false light, etc., at this moment the data seems to lead to a National-Enquirer-esque inestigation and result: I think it leads nowhere (unless you get money for N.E. sales), at least now. Weiner sent pictures, and ... so what?
So, we've seen them, and implicitly where they were taken. What are the odds that NO ONE caught Weiner in the act, or knew that he was photographing himself? Chris Dodd palled-around with Ted "Swimmer" Kennedy for years, and never heard anything incriminating? Eric Massa .....
Anthony weiner is an interesting example of a politician: smart, forceful, skilled at debate, master of networking, extremely influential and connected, ... and completely unqualified to do ANY other job. He has NO experience at anything other than being a politician (or a staffer, and at 47, ....), so where does Weiner go from here? He has no law degree, no corporation to return to, implicitly, no multi-million dollar fortune on which to retire. Lobbyist? Re-election? Weiner was infuential, connected, powerful ... hmmmmmmmmmmm
Did any other users of the Congressional Gym know about Weiner's "Kodak Moments", and how long did they know? Weiner was infuential, connected, powerful ... hmmmmmmmmmmm
With enough digging, analysis and planned publication, I see a lot of powerful people reacting badly, and wthout much planning ... "Every man for himself", only no one will shout it.
Comedy ensues ...
Posted by: Slab Manley, The League of Ugly Shirted Gentlemen at June 18, 2011 11:03 AM (HgVL4)
Posted by: Dr Spank at June 18, 2011 11:05 AM (k0TKJ)
As I've said, this only makes sense if the "Getting Weiner" part of it was really only being pushed as a false-flag by people who really wanted to defend Weiner by getting his enemies to chase after false (and self-discrediting) allegations. Once that didn't seem to be working, then the whole "Breitbart tried to get us to lie" was just an attempt to confuse the Media Narrative, to throw sand in the gears of the MSM's reporting on this story, to raise doubts about Breitbart's trustworthiness, etc. Remember what Breitbart himself revealed: he had sources telling him that all along during the Memorial Day weekend post-dic-pic that Weiner and his team were working a strategy of "Blame Breitbart" aka "Can You Really Trust This Guy?" One way to have accomplished that would have been to get him to bite on the underage-girls story. Once that didn't seem to take root, then hey, just try to get Tommy Christopher to float allegations that he was attempting to frame Weiner and get the girls to lie.
This is actually not that arcane or labyrinthine, in terms of reasoning.
And once again, Ace, as for your point about how a guy with a body under the patio doesn't float a fake story about a body under the garage...well in normal circumstances, with time for reflection, sure it's true. But in a panic situation, without real professionals or other people Weiner took counsel with to tell him it was a dumb idea? He might have just glommed onto the "make this about fake charges of underage sexting" because it was already out there. It was a preexisting narrative that was already written, already had people interested in it and potentially willing to bite at it. So he went with it, despite the fact (and, in his mind, maybe BECAUSE) it was so close to the real problem.
Posted by: Jeff B. at June 18, 2011 11:05 AM (hIWe1)
Posted by: Joanie (Oven Gloves) at June 18, 2011 11:05 AM (y/+eD)
The libs don't control the memory holes anymore.
Posted by: AmishDude at June 18, 2011 11:11 AM (73tyQ)
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at June 18, 2011 11:11 AM (bysik)
Posted by: Dr Spank at June 18, 2011 11:12 AM (k0TKJ)
What if Weiner is purely incidental? Not someone to be either condemned or saved, just a tool or prop?
Posted by: Dianna at June 18, 2011 11:19 AM (mKMj1)
Also -- and on this one I have to say pace Ace -- it works. Despite what he says, the "hide the body under the patio by diverting attention to the false claim of a body under the garage" works extremely well (outside of a criminal investigative context, of course). It works all the fucking time in fact, and I know because I've done it myself (obviously not in these sorts of horrible ethical contexts). The whole "disguise this terrible thing by getting people to bite on another even more horrible thing you're innocent of" tactic requires only that you be utterly brazen, very desperate, and completely confident in your ability to talk your way out of any situation. And guess what? It works a lot of the time. It didn't work this time, in part because Breitbart & Co. were more circumspect than the Black Hats hoped, but MOSTLY because of a force out of the control of Weiner or anyone on his team: Broussard coming forward with the pictures.
After getting off the bandwagon last night, I'm climbing back on again more firmly. I don't think Ace's counterargument about how dumb it would be to try and divert attention from the dic-pic to a fake underage girl story holds water. In retrospect we can say it didn't work, but that's only because, in retrospect, it didn't work this time. It wasn't necessarily fated to not work. And even if it was, it still might have been the "only good move" Weiner or his team could think to make at the time.
Posted by: Jeff B. at June 18, 2011 11:25 AM (hIWe1)
This was actually a psyops operation to protect Weiner. He is being moved to a top secret hybridization facility, where his semen will be used to breed with alien females. Huma is a hybrid too, but the Greys need many more.
Posted by: Richard C. Hoaglund at June 18, 2011 11:25 AM (7FgWm)
Posted by: not the droid you seek at June 18, 2011 11:26 AM (xc/va)
Posted by: AmishDude at June 18, 2011 11:28 AM (73tyQ)
Posted by: WeekendAtBernankes at June 18, 2011 11:29 AM (xLA6w)
I think the aspiring journalist has a bigger part in this whole story. Didn't she allude to the fact that she knew something worthwhile about Betty and Veronica? And that she had been watching them for a while. And was thinking of writing her own story. She has insinuated herself into this story more than the others in my opinion but by a very underhanded way.
Also I'm starting to wonder if maybe Weiners account was hacked. But for some reason he does not want to have the FBI involved so he bites the bullet and cops to sending the pic. It seems mighty suspicious that so many people were closing in on him and he makes the mistake with the public tweet.
Posted by: tier at June 18, 2011 11:29 AM (hdrht)
Ultimately I think it would have fallen apart no matter what (because the sexting w/the blackjack dealer and Broussard's pics would have come out eventually) but it was the best play for Weiner to make at the time, and it makes sense that he would have done it.
Posted by: Jeff B. at June 18, 2011 11:31 AM (hIWe1)
IIRC there was a group that was watching Weiner and was unhappy about his tendency to follow attractive young and younger ladies and, IIRC, they were not not shy about saying what they were doing.
Is it therefore improbable that some small group of progressives set out to trollhunt and screw with the first group, and had little or nothing to do with Weiner (other than knowing he was the target of the first group)?
Posted by: The Cad at June 18, 2011 11:32 AM (agD4m)
Posted by: Kennedy Smith at June 18, 2011 11:36 AM (B29JY)
Ace, you're pet theory is almost right. (Or that's my pet theory anyway).
Just to Occam-ize it a bit, you don't even need a fixer (well, other than the PR guys we know were involved). Weiner's PR people were contacting the, um, players to get them to release a statement.
Say, these two didn't want to play along. Or they're underage and just didn't want the spotlight. So the PR guys set it up through a third party. That way they get the statement out, but the names remain protected. The whole fake ID thing is an afterthought - when TC gets pressure to prove that he vetted the sources, so he has to try to cover it.
Posted by: Spade at June 18, 2011 11:36 AM (GUVkm)
Posted by: goddessoftheclassroom at June 18, 2011 11:45 AM (ZeWVX)
Did he think no one would care about the latter, just because she's just at the age of majority?
Posted by: ace at June 18, 2011 02:01 PM (nj1bB)
You're right, that's a crazy theory because from the beginning, Weiner has been playing the Billy Dale game. That is, he can't be seen to be imperfect. He never would have made the mistake of asserting that there was a hack. The Billy Dale reference is to the head of the White House Press Office at the beginning of the Clinton administration.
They had the right to fire him because he wasn't a civil service employee. But they didn't want the 1-2 news cycles showing them to be heartless in kicking an old man out of his job.
Posted by: AmishDude at June 18, 2011 11:45 AM (73tyQ)
1) Weiner wasn't liked by the pols for his hogging of TV time (Even Schumer has bruised ribs fighting for camera time with Tony)
2) Weiner wasn't liked by the pols in the DCCC because even though he was in a safe seat, he didn't donate campaign cash to the other Dem Reps.
3) Weiner wasnt' liked, so why let him get a shot at mayor of the Big Apple
4) Some insiders knew of his preversion, and didn't want him to risk loosing the Mayoral Election by this coming out, when they think the Dems should have this election in the bag.
5) An insider knew of the preversion, knew Weiner would get roasted, and wanted to get Breitbart in the crossfire...
Excuse me while I take some more crazy pills and come up with the next five...
Posted by: phreshone at June 18, 2011 11:50 AM (T3vCe)
Jeff B at #206
Also, Weiner may have been lying to his staff about the whole thing. So when the idea was broached to trap Breitbart with the young girls, he could hardly object.
Posted by: Molon Labe at June 18, 2011 11:50 AM (pcly4)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 18, 2011 11:52 AM (lGFXF)
>>>EXCEPT
>>>For the part where Weiner confessed to flashing his dick to various whores online and resigned. And the pictures of him in bra and pantyhose. And the part where he betrayed his pregnant wife.
Well duh. (Except for the pics of him cross-dressing -- that was just a dumb college play he was in and it shouldn't be held against him.) Of course Weiner was guilty. He's gone now. This is all about unpacking the interesting subtexts and cross-currents in this scandal. I mean, wouldn't YOU find it interesting if it turned out that, as part of Weiner's attempts to deflect and parry the scandal, he or or his team tried to run a false-flag operation in order to discredit Breitbart and his other persecutors and take the heat off of him? You're telling me that you don't consider that to be a somewhat interesting angle?
Posted by: Jeff B. at June 18, 2011 12:05 PM (hIWe1)
Why has no one brought up the possible that Christian militants were behind this?
Posted by: Shelia Jackson Lee at June 18, 2011 12:05 PM (Ifa6n)
But someone else might try to "help" this way, not realizing that there actually is a body under the garage.
Posted by: toby928™ at June 18, 2011 12:08 PM (GTbGH)
jeff.b , there's a some infor from mike stack about betty veronica on one of the patterico treads.
post 91 "timing weinergate , nikki..."
Posted by: Temper Tantrum at June 18, 2011 12:11 PM (bAL0J)
Posted by: Joejm65 at June 18, 2011 12:12 PM (4T8VW)
Also there seems to be some info about Bettys tweets (about prom etc.) but I haven't heard much about Veronica's tweets. Was she following Weiner, also?
Posted by: tier at June 18, 2011 12:13 PM (hdrht)
Posted by: Torquil Jorgensen at June 18, 2011 12:14 PM (k0TKJ)
Can you betray someone to whom you never promised fidelity? It's kind of a philosophical riddle, like if a Democratic Congressman is caught lying, does the MFM report it?
Posted by: Doesn't get out much at June 18, 2011 12:14 PM (JEvSn)
What is the sound of one hand fapping.
Posted by: Anthony's Wiener at June 18, 2011 12:26 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Jenny Sanford at June 18, 2011 12:28 PM (NdE8F)
Betty and Veronica may not go to Hollywood High School, but there is very little evidence that they aren't teenaged girls or don't actually exist. Any parent who wants to protect their child from media glare would have faked IDs and identifying information, like the high school they attended. Again, how do we know that they supposedly attended Hollywood High except for the claims of Tommy Christopher? Did one of them say so on Twitter? And how do we know Betty's true name is Nikki Reid, which suspiciously similar to the name of a famous actress in the Twilight movies popular with teenaged girls? Can real twitter names be changed after the fact? Anyway, people use fake names on the Internet all the time - for perfectly legitimate privacy reasons.
The simplest explanation is often the correct one. There may be no grand conspiracy, fake accounts or even fixers here. It might just be a case of panicked parents trying to protect the real life identities their teenaged daughters by speaking with a partisan progressive journalist who unintentionally puts words in their mouths to protect a big Weiner.
Posted by: cinyc at June 18, 2011 12:31 PM (8dcFp)
What, more Weiner jokes? will Ace ban himself?
And the part where he betrayed his pregnant wife.
You're assuming that he's the father. I'm thinking, absent a paternity test, that is...how shall we say? I'm not willing to bet the farm on it.
Not if the Mrs. Weiner spent any time "alone" with Billy Jeff...
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at June 18, 2011 12:32 PM (1hM1d)
How about the NYT is pushing the Rightwing Conspiracy theory? How about maybe that snap judgment should be challenged?
Some of you seem to have this odd belief that if the right-leaning press doesn't say it, it doesn't exist.
Posted by: ace at June 18, 2011 01:10 PM (nj1bB)
>>> Yes it's disgusting, but it's no more disgusting than anything else the NYT publishes about the right. Personally, I thought their blood-libel towards the right over the Giffords shooting was the bar for disgusting behavior.
The NYT and the rest of the collective will push this, but it's the DEFAULT for them. It can't be countered even with the truth, because they don't care.
Posted by: Trump at June 18, 2011 12:34 PM (hK2Ya)
The simplest explanation is often the correct one. There may be no grand conspiracy, fake accounts or even fixers here. It might just be a case of panicked parents trying to protect the real life identities their teenaged daughters by speaking with a partisan progressive journalist who unintentionally puts words in their mouths to protect a big Weiner.
Posted by: cinyc at June 18, 2011 04:31 PM (8dcFp)
They're apparently untraceable anyway.
It looks more like a hoax in a time sensitive media bluff.
Posted by: Temper Tantrum at June 18, 2011 12:44 PM (bAL0J)
You're assuming that he's the father. I'm thinking, absent a paternity test, that is...how shall we say? I'm not willing to bet the farm on it.
You're assuming she's really pregnant.
Posted by: AmishDude at June 18, 2011 12:47 PM (73tyQ)
Jeff B-- With respect to all your posts on this thread, I agree. I think you are very close to the truth about this being a Weiner instigated covert cover up using a combination of an attempted sting, misdirection of blame, and a compliant media to save his butt and job. I, too, have come to most of those same conclusions independently.
Weiner appears to be a sick and strange man. For the rational people here trying to make the rational argument that he would not have done such and such I say, look at his public actions and interactions over the past three weeks. He did not present himself as a person in full possession of reality or in acceptance of his true situation. Who knows what the world looks like from inside his own mind.
Posted by: Ratskeller at June 18, 2011 12:57 PM (NSf/v)
Because the blog feeding frenzy on Betty and Veronica had already begun, with someone on Daily Kos posting the teens' supposed real names, and Tommy Christopher was supposedly asking for proof that these people are who they said they were - in the form of some ID. Tommy Christopher's article put down that feeding frenzy for a while, and chastised those who were using real names. If the simplest theory is correct, the parents partially faked some ID, photoshopping out crucial identifying info because Tommy Christopher asked for it but they still wanted to maintain some anonymity.
I doubt Betty and Veronica are truly untraceable - or, at least, would have been totally untraceable when the Twitter pages were still up but most of us didn't know their real names. I don't know whether Betty and Veronica were prolific tweeters, but if they were, a good detective would be able to get clues by who they were following and seemingly innocuous things they said to considerably narrow the search down.
Posted by: cinyc at June 18, 2011 12:58 PM (8dcFp)
Okay, I thought of something last night that I've been rolling around in my head most of the day.
The Betty/Nikki twitter account was set up last September per the NYT, but Stranahan says it was in July. Weiner was married in July. He said in his confession press conference that he had been doing this for 3 years, and that he had told his wife before they were married.
Okay. Is it possible that the Betty twitter account was set up by Huma last year just to keep an eye on her hubby? He seemd to hide pretty well his private messages to the porn star and the cheerleading coach in GA. Didn't those start sometime around August last year. At least one of them?
Then in March iirc is when GC started showing up in public tweets with him, right? Around that time is when Betty started tweeting about asking him to be her prom date. Since that account was set up in September, why did it not really go active until March? Well, that's when it appeared teh weiner was tweeting more ardently with GC, and some other women.
It's also around the time that weiner put out his little message that if you wanted him to follow you, just answer yes to his #yesfollowme tag. Was that a way for him to try to cover for following women he was sending DMs to and sexting, because he only chose to follow specific types of women/girls? We know that he didn't start to follow everyone that requested it.
Then thinking his ass is covered because of his "follow me" message (remember that he brought that up in one of his press conferences as his excuse for following GC) he continues with his dicpics and sexting thinking he was covered. He just fucked up and inadvertantely sent that one pic that got his ass caught.
Okay, here's the answer to the Betty debacle. Once the dicpic gets out, he has a chat with Huma, and finds out that she's the one that was watching him through the Betty account and sending him the tweets to see if he would respond with sexting and dicpics. Maybe she was suspicious from the beginning that he hadn't quit. So, he has to come clean to her because she knows the dicpic is his.
Then comes the attempts at coverup. That's where the lawyer/security team comes in. They contact everyone they know of to try to quiet them not knowing that the porn star/blackjack dealer (don't know which first) are already thinking they may have to try to cover their own asses just to protect themselves. And because they feel threatened by the weiner/security team.
Thinking they can set up Breitbart or "members of the right wing consipiracy" (because the really bad pics hadn't come out yet) they use the Betty identity to contact Mike Stack and Breitbart, but they don't fall for it. So, their next plan is to contact Christopher, because he works with what some (not many) think is a center right online media blog. TC has been to bat for Weiner from the beginning, so they figure (correctly) that TC will be sympathetic to teens girls being used to try to take down weiner by Breitbart and it's all a right wing conspiracy. By steering the coverage to that, they can deflect from teh weiner and maybe he can save his job, because after all, all he did was sext/send dicpics to consenting adults, and this whole thing is something that he just has to work out with his wife and was nothing illegal. And, it's just so fucking awful that the right wing is going after a democratic congressman that is a threat to them because he's so successful at calling them out.
Then, all the really bad pics start to come out, the porn star jumps in, the blackjack dealer outs herself, and people start to really dig into it all. With all that and the MFM and the Dem Party getting into it, he has no choice but to resign. All his efforts at cover up failed, and here we are.
Oh, the fake IDs sent to TC. Nothing a security firm/fixer couldn't mock up in no time flat, right?
Okay, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Posted by: Steph at June 18, 2011 01:08 PM (AkdC5)
If the "Nikki Reid" name is linked (if indirectly) to the Twilight series (or, as was floated on another thread, to a soap opera character), could there be similar clues to fabricated identities in some of the other names - for example, I saw in one source that the father of "Nikki" was named John Reid, an allusion which anyone who grew up in the Fifties or Sixties would recognize.
I know, it's ludicrous and unlikely, but everything about the Betty and Vernoica saga is so out there to begin with....
Posted by: A. Pendragon at June 18, 2011 01:14 PM (XDdB5)
Tommy has emails = IP addresses
Tommy has faxed fake id = can get the location - even if it is a Kinkos, it narrows the geography
Tommy has phone calls
Tommy possibly has a word doc from the mother (or maybe just an email) = metadata
Tommy has email addresses and usernames.
I have a hard time believing law enforcement was given any of this for verification. It's not like those are hard things to follow up on.
Considering the potential criminal element - it makes perfect sense to me that someone would have told the girls - if they are really high school girls - that the whole Weiner thing could lead to the FBI knocking on their door and they tried to cover their own tracks with a letter from Mrs. Betty saying there was nothing to see and don't look any harder or we'll sue you.
Posted by: Ace Tomato at June 18, 2011 01:16 PM (23p1u)
Posted by: seattle545 at June 18, 2011 01:23 PM (VvrOT)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 18, 2011 01:39 PM (lGFXF)
Posted by: Jollyroger at June 18, 2011 01:39 PM (dZD13)
Posted by: chillin the most at June 18, 2011 01:53 PM (6IV8T)
Posted by: Jollyroger at June 18, 2011 01:58 PM (dZD13)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 18, 2011 02:09 PM (lGFXF)
Posted by: Storm at June 18, 2011 02:17 PM (AZFgs)
Posted by: toby928™ at June 18, 2011 02:37 PM (GTbGH)
"except it seems to some to be a little Out There on the plausibility scale"
It's more plausable than A. Weiner, one of the most obnoxious in-your-face member's of congress tweeting his junk "unsolicited" to comely coed(s) and then claiming he was hacked but not wanting any authorities to find the source of the hack.
That is the Out There on the plauibility sacle of a story. Everything else is just icing. Or pudding. Or vodka. Or vodka flavored pudding.
I'm going "Fixer Theroy" full-stop.
Posted by: Nora at June 18, 2011 02:39 PM (VxqUc)
Yeah, I've been suspecting Lee's motives and behavior ever since he started saying that Betty, Veronica, and Patriot don't really exist, without disclosing at all why he thinks so. Now the "news" paper that wouldn't even complete Weiner's "tights and cape shit" quote is mouthing the exact same line. That seems a bit too convenient to me to swallow; besides, he doesn't appear to be even remotely curious about the Betty and Veronica gear shift on Weiner and Breitbart. That's kind of amazing if you believe that B&V are fakes, which is what he has publicly stated.
So why in the Wide Wide World of Sports did he let the New York Times break a story that he has been insinuating is the real deal if he has information regarding the fakery? I think I'm smelling some bullshit here, especially considering that he clammed up tight right after Patterico posted the Betty and Veronica allegations and interview on his blog.
Maybe Lee's got something solid, but he sure as hell hasn't shown any of it thus far. Tommy Christopher basically called him out on this, saying that he himself couldn't reveal certain aspects of the B&V interviews. Tommy, in my reckoning, seems genuinely pissed at Lee's insinuations, which Lee blows off as shoddy fact gathering on Christopher's part. I find it impossible to buy the inference that Lee has been sitting on this story for two weeks just so the NYT could break it for him.
Posted by: Dirty Old Man at June 18, 2011 02:44 PM (uPJN8)
Posted by: Dave (closing thread with dick joke & Monty Python ref. I again add no content) at June 18, 2011 02:56 PM (ibMs2)
nooooooooooooooooooo! this is what i get for only lurking.
Posted by: bettycooper at June 18, 2011 03:27 PM (afM9L)
You're assuming she's really pregnant.
Ah, AmishDude, someone as cynical as me. Already her friends are feeding stories about how "fragile" she is, and how it's terrible this came in that first "precarious" trimester.
I predict she will announce a miscarriage. Precedent? Joan Kennedy's announced pregnancy right when Teddy had his Chappaquidick hearing...followed by a miscarriage the following month.
Posted by: Miss Marple at June 18, 2011 03:28 PM (Fo83G)
Posted by: Weiner's wiener at June 18, 2011 03:33 PM (4zoRn)
Posted by: Surprised leftard at June 18, 2011 03:43 PM (Fw2Gg)
You're assuming she's really pregnant.
Unlike Andrew Sullivan, I'm willing to take her word on that. We'll know conclusively in under 275 days, give or take.
Being a lib, that doesn't preclude her from making a "choice" along the way...
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at June 18, 2011 04:03 PM (1hM1d)
I predict she will announce a miscarriage.
That possiblity has crossed my mind. I was going to suggest a certain "doctor" in Philly who could help her out.
Too bad he's in jail. Or did he get bail?
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at June 18, 2011 04:05 PM (1hM1d)
Posted by: SarahW at June 18, 2011 04:17 PM (Z4T49)
Posted by: madamex at June 18, 2011 04:24 PM (1zsKV)
That assumes the theory is true, of course. And I don't know what to think on that score. But that is a legitimate explanation to the behavior.
Posted by: Matt S. at June 18, 2011 05:35 PM (3rrSV)
I haven't been as thorough in following the timeline and concurrent sequence of events (or the thread comments, for that matter), so obviously others may quickly discount the plausibility of what I'm thinking, or maybe it has already been discussed:
What if there had been an ongoing, potentially criminal investigation into Weiner's behavior and communiques, (by some Federal authority), and obviously because of the errant @ broadcast of the dicpic their investigation had been prematurely blown?
In other words, if an investigation had been blown then why not throw the underage angle out there as bait to facilitate the push to "make this public," and quite possibly kneecap (as an added bonus) Breitbart if he was hasty enough to be the first to run with the unsubstantiated claim?
If I recall correctly, Breitbart never fell for this, hence the mysterious walk back curiously executed by nonentities.
/Conspiracy nose off.
Posted by: Little Holmes at June 18, 2011 06:11 PM (p2IBw)
Posted by: lions at June 18, 2011 07:57 PM (Mp19R)
Posted by: darii at June 18, 2011 08:08 PM (lqjEx)
Posted by: pfeen at June 18, 2011 08:25 PM (DLmfq)
Posted by: ace at June 18, 2011 09:28 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: AmishDude at June 18, 2011 09:35 PM (73tyQ)
Why would we start now?
The seminal problem begins with taking "evidence" at face value when it "originates" with a left wing sympathizer.
So, start over.
Assume Betty and Veronica are real.
Assume further that there is no sting operation.
Assume that Weiner enjoys the adulation of girls of all ages.
Assume that some girls get off on "celebrity attention".
Assume further that Weiner uses words and phrases that leave the door open for double entendre ....waiting to see who walks through that door, so that he can have plausible deniability. Assume that he tries to work the conversation so that that door is picked to walk through. Some go through it, some don't.
Assume further that some parents have not a clue that their kids are having these communications. Or that there is even a hint of stranger danger lurking, because in a vacuum it wouldn't look like that.
Assume that Weiner has a very bad day, the moment he presses the wrong button on a picture of himself to Cordoba.
Assume that the most sympathetic left wing press wants to bury the story, create a distortion, give a head fake, ...hell, assume that Reuters creates headlines calling him a Republican.
Why then, would we believe the "evidence" based upon the reportage of those who have a clear agenda? This "witness" is not unbiased based upon..oh, about 50 years of history.
Take shovel. Dig here.
All the complicated theories could become much less complicated, IF...we find that the "evidence" being presented, is something other than the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Posted by: cfbleachers at June 19, 2011 01:59 AM (oxqER)
I think the real problem with this story is expecting any kind of logic and reason from liberals. It's obvious, to me anyway, that someone was trying to set up Breitbart. Weiner screwed it up by sending the DM public which must have confused the hell out of everyone. Can you imagine the confusion that must have caused to the people thinking they could get Andrew to go with a fake story that isn't fake anymore? Whoa. Wait a minute. Then everybody but Andrew panicked.
Tommy Christopher's angle was to accuse The Right of exposing underage girls to "danger" on the internet by naming them. He had a problem, though. Kos named them, too. Andrew Breitbart didn't name any of the women, not even Gennette who was supposedly 21. Jim Hoft, on the other hand, named them. Ahhh. Now Tommy has his target. Oh, and throw enough insults at Breitbart while you're supposedly defending him for not naming the girls. Tommy's rant against Kos was cute, but since Hoft was his real target anyway Tommy had to at least act indignant with Kos, who everyone knows is a low life jerk.
Did Tommy Christopher make up Betty and Veronica and her mother? Who knows? Is it really that easy to get fake drivers licenses in California that a pair posing as mother and daughter just happen to have some to fax to Tommy? How'd they fax it? Who DOES live at the address given to Tommy? Why would anyone go to so much trouble to have such an peripheral connection to a story? Yeah, the only one who gained anything by the existence of Betty and Veronica was Tommy Christopher. Who is standing by his story with the age old defense that it was "fake but accurate". Ring any bells?
Posted by: Jaynie59 at June 19, 2011 05:52 AM (4zKCA)
Posted by: Nedward at June 19, 2011 10:01 AM (j4jHc)
Posted by: Mystery Fan at June 19, 2011 10:40 AM (zALLO)
Posted by: railwriter at June 19, 2011 12:53 PM (m4hn1)
Posted by: Ïå·®SEO at June 19, 2011 11:05 PM (nd8Zp)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2819 seconds, 407 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: David Icke at June 18, 2011 08:48 AM (yb01D)