Johnson on the Weiner: You Wingnuts Are Crazy For Not Believing… Wait, What is the Official Story Again?
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
You know, this doesn’t need a detailed fisking. Johnson has achieved such an absurd level in his lack self-awareness, very often he fisks itself. A case in point is his reaction to the Weinergate scandal. You don’t need to follow every detail, although I would recommend this post that gives a pretty good summary and of course co-guest-blogger Lee has been all over it this weekend. But you don’t have to have all that background, because as I said, the lameness of the post is obvious on its face:
If you haven’t heard about the latest Breitbart scam, here’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 Weiner’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 didn’t post it himself.
And of course if you go to the link, you get… wait for it… a Dailykos post all about how supposedly the screenshots from Big Government et. al. were fakes. Yes, really.
But as of now (and don’t bother to delete this Charles, because I have a screenshot) the very next line says:
(Update: there was no hacking involved. The photo was never posted to Weiner’s account. Someone may have photoshopped a screenshot of a yfrog page to make it look like it came from Weiner’s page.)
(Update 2: the story changes again – apparently Weiner’s yfrog account really was cracked, and the image was posted there.)
I mean what more needs to be said? He criticizes everyone who doesn’t believe in the latest story as “wingnuts.” You would think he would allow us to wait until they picked one story before expecting us to believe it blindly. You know, because politicians never lie, particularly when it comes to sex.
The self-delusion continues in the next post where he pretty much defames Jim Hoft, a.k.a. the Gateway Pundit, writing:
And that nitwit is, of course, Jim “Dim” Hoft, who manages to misspell a two-syllable word in his headline: Gennette Was Not Alone… Weiner’s Twitter Friends Include Pages of Young Lucious [sic] Fans | The Gateway Pundit.
Hoft has posted eight photos of women he claims Rep. Weiner is following on Twitter, along with their names; he’s calling out the right wing attack dogs to harass them…
It’s an amazingly sleazy, creepy, and blatantly sexist post, even for the monumentally dense Jim Hoft.
Of course mere opinions can’t be defamatory, so calling him sleazy or creepy is not actionable, and of course his crack about his spelling is true (and irrelevant). But he makes two other allegations: 1) that he is “calling out the right wing attack dogs to harass them, and 2) that it is a “blatantly sexist” post. Except, well, click on the link. His characterization is completely false. There is no one single word in the post where he asks anyone to harass these women. That might be the foreseeable result, but it is not his words. And there is nothing at all sexist—let alone blatantly so. It simply notes that there is a certain trend among the women Weiner has been following, in that there is a disproportionate number of young and attractive women. Indeed, it’s worth noting that Weiner also followed a porn star and she claimed weeks ago to get a direct message* from him. By the way, she got the direct messge on March 13, and what, pray tell, was she blogging about that day…?
As for what I think of the scandal… On one hand, “I was hacked” is the desperate plea of every person caught doing something inappropriate with their computers. But that doesn’t mean it is never true, and let’s face it, politicians are probably uniquely targeted by hackers, in part because someone might then use that hack to embarrass them. On the other hand, politicians are not known for their marital fidelity, either. Still, there is one nagging problem I have with this story…
How the hell do you accidentally send a direct message to the world? I don’t know what platforms Weiner was using, but every single platform I use makes it so it is positively impossible to confuse a direct message with general message broadcast to all of your followers. I won’t say it is impossible to accidentally do that sort of thing on all platforms, just that it seems to be difficult to me. Like if I was in my browser, it is impossible to convert a direct message to a broadcast by accident. The same is true in my Blackberry.
Also I find it to be of little importance that the photo was apparently taken with a different camera than most of his tweeted photos if that is even the case (this is ultimately coming from DailyKos after all). If you were going to send pornographic pics to women who were not your wife, do you think he would use the family camera and risk it being preserved in the camera even after you thought you deleted it? I know enough about computers to know that items you think were deleted can often be retrieved.
Still the most damning thing about all of this, is this. They have not called the police, but they have called a lawyer. And there is this damning part from a Daily Caller article:
Several questions still remain unanswered, however. For instance, TheDC has asked [Weiner spokesman Dave] Arnold at least four times if the man in the photo was Weiner. Arnold has not answered.
Which leaves open the possibility for Clintonian evasion: something like, “I did not send that photo to that girl, but I did have that photograph on my computer.”
I won’t pretend to know of a fact whether Weiner sent it, but bluntly I am not going to believe his denials until backed up with a closed criminal investigation. And why he doesn’t want one is beyond me.
* For those who don’t know, a direct message is a special kind of tweet that is only between you and the recipient and not viewable by the world at large. It’s like an email, only you still have to keep it to 140 characters.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]