Patterico's Pontifications

6/11/2011

My Chat With Gennette Cordova (By Aaron with Skeptical Updates from Patterico) (UPDATE: Gennette Appears in Comments and Refuses to Answer Patterico’s Questions)

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 9:05 pm



[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.  Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]

That’s right folks, a true rarity on my part.  I am about to do original reporting. As you guys know I have argued (based solely on information that was in the public domain), that Gennette Cordova, intended recipient of the Tweetpic seen around the world, was very likely an online paramour with Rep. Weiner.  And you can read this old post where I made the case, as well as this one where I noticed that the New York Times claimed that she did not share all the information she had.  That word “claimed” will become relevant in a moment.

In the Twitterverse, I had frankly hectored her a little about it with sarcastic comments about the coincidences lining up.  But at some point along the way I suspected she felt a little besieged and that my approach was not productive.  And I think she felt she honestly wanted to tell me and Patrick how she felt we might be going wrong on the Ethel story in a way that might prove frankly prescient.  Anyway, one way or the other, I convinced her to chat with me by DMs and basically I had a long discussion with her about the whole thing.

Now judging credibility is a difficult thing to do by text chat.  I can’t see her expression and I can’t hear the tone of her voice.  But what she shared with me was a plausible and consistent story that I frankly find convincing.  Yes, barring any surprising developments, I take back my opinion that she was Rep. Weiner’s online paramour. Of course I am absolutely convinced he was seeking that kind of relationship, and I think that infamous Tweetpic was his attempt to move in that direction, but I don’t think she was reciprocating.  All she was, was political admirer of his that attracted his attention.

But I would rather let you look at the actual conversation.  Now, I am not going to quote every typo, etc.  I am going to clean this up to be more readable.  And when the delays in twitter make us talk past each other, I moved around questions and responses to pair them up better.  Read and judge for yourself.

Now this started off with me publicly challenging her (here and here) based on the claim, found in this New York Times article, that she had refused to provide them copies of all of her exchanges with the Congressman.

That prompted her to finally agree to follow me, allowing me to send her direct messages, writing:

Cordova:

I’m following you. And you can ask the Times reporter. I showed him everything I had. How would I have every conversation?

I am confused though as to why you think I care whether or not you believe my story about Anthony Weiner. I’ve been truthful this whole time.

I can’t help it if there are people who desperately want to believe we had an inappropriate relationship.

Tell me this… what would I stand to gain from lying about this?

Worthing:

The New York Times said you didn’t share all you had: “But Ms. Cordova would not make all of her interaction with him available for review.” Are they wrong? Inaccurate?

Cordova:

We talked for a long time. I told the reporter it was all I had. So technically he was wrong but I don’t think the mistake was made intentionally.

But I digress. What would I stand to gain from lying?

Worthing:

Well, regarding the Times reporter, I guess that is he said/she said, and thus a wash.

And for why… well, I think it is very normal and very human to want to stay out of this limelight.

And then we cross-talked a little because there is a delay in messages.  I asked her: “By the way, you also felt that the “Ethel” story was definitely wrong.  Do you know something not in the public record, or is that your own assessment of Patrick’s evidence?”  That question got lost in the shuffle until later.  And because of the delay she apparently briefly thought I dodged the question of what she would gain from lying.  But then the conversation got back on the rails again:

Cordova:

But I’m in the limelight more than the other girls. Papers are still inaccurately reporting that I’m one of the six.  Why wouldn’t I make some money if I could?

Worthing:

I don’t think it’s hard to understand why a person would rather not be his admitted paramour.  It depends on what is more important to a person.

Cordova:

Okay. That’s fair. Well I wish I had something more salacious for all of you.

Worthing

Look, I based my assessment on 3 things:

1)      You did call him your boyfriend.  Joke or not you have to admit that is a big coincidence.

2)      My view of human nature. Yes, it’s possible for Weiner to be that stupid especially when thinking with the lower head. But it seems unlikely.

and

3)      That time-in-Seattle tweet of his you retweeted. Again it’s kind of a weird coincidence.

Can you see from my perspective how suggestive that all is?

Cordova:

I do. I realized when everything happened exactly how it would look. Question about the “boyfriend” tweet, because there’s an obvious generational gap (people my age say stuff like that all the time): did you think I said it because we were involved in online flirting?

Worthing:

Now you’re making me feel old.  Lol.  I don’t think calling him your bf makes it automatically he really is, especially when celebrities are involved but sometimes a boyfriend is really a boyfriend.

Can I ask, was he following you on twitter at that point, when you made the bf comment?  Or did that come after?

Cordova:

No. He wasn’t following me. We had never communicated at that point. Also, I feel like if I had been involved with him I’d be even less likely to publicly tweet something like that. I have a live in boyfriend of three years.

Worthing:

I bet you anything then Weiner followed you because you called him his boyfriend. I really think his entire twitter thing was about stroking his ego.  I thought this person’s analysis of the Weiss transcript was spot on. [I linked here.]

Cordova:

That could be true. I’m not defending him. In fact, I’ve been very dissatisfied with the media’s suggestions that I’ve defended him.  I never once backed a hacking story, like it was reported. And I never lied for him. He has his issues but I’m very different from the women who he actually was involved with.

Worthing:

Yeah, I think people were confused on the timeline when they called you a liar.

Like they didn’t know that Weiner had only kept that tweet up there for 5 seconds.  [Lee has made that claim on twitter based on what Dan Wolfe, a.k.a. PatriotUSA76, had said.]  So only a person constantly checking–like Wolfe, or whatever his real name is–would have seen.  Anyone who was out doing other things wouldn’t have seen. Especially at 9 on a Friday night.

Cordova:

I never saw the tweet. Also, if we were having an inappropriate relationship it would have probably been in his best interest to admit it. One more online affair can’t hurt him. But looking like a predator, which I felt the Times piece did, can hurt him.

Worthing:

Let me ask you this. Looking back in 20/20 hindsight, do you think he was trying to get you into a relationship like he did with Weiss?  Like was there anything that sounded innocent at the time, but took on new meaning now all this happened?

Cordova:

I hate to speculate. So I’m not sure. He wasn’t inappropriate with me, though. Our talks were about people like Wolfe.  I was intrigued by them. I still am. I’ve watched closely. I’m considering writing a piece on it.

And then I engaged in speculation about another twitterer that frankly I am not going to republish—and it’s off topic anyway.

Worthing:

By the way, did Rep. Weiner ever say anything about wearing a superhero’s cape and tights in your DMs? If you recall?

Cordova:

Hahaha. WTF? Are you serious? No. He did not.

Worthing:

He did use that cape and tights routine with Weiss, for what it’s worth. But then they had a different relationship.

By the way, you didn’t happen to have anything that showed when Rep. Weiner first followed you?  Like my twitter account tells me when I get a new follower. did you maybe keep that email? (That’s assuming you have twitter set up like I do, obviously.)

Cordova:

No. My Twitter notifications were disabled. Dan Wolfe [a.k.a. PatriotUSA76] probably knows though. Anyway, you’re not so bad. Glad we chatted.

Worthing:

Well thanks. I got the feeling you felt a little besieged. And I probably contributed to that, which was stupid of me.

Cordova:

No need to worry. I’m a tough girl.

Worthing:

Yeah, I suspect you are.

I did have one question I wanted to circle back to. I think it got lost in the shuffle…  You said last night that Patrick was wrong about “Ethel.” Was that just your assessment of the facts we knew? Or do you know something we don’t?

Cordova:

Something you don’t. Same with Betty and Veronica. I’ve paid attention for months.

Worthing:

“Something you don’t.” Would you care to elaborate? I know Patrick would want to know if he was wrong.

Cordova:

Before I decide if I’m going to do that… I’d like to ask, do you truly believe that the screen shot they have is that girl “talking dirty”?

Worthing:

The honey mustard thing? A 69 is pretty dirty…

Cordova:

Another generational gap, sigh. Anyone my age could look at that and see that a friend posted that on her Twitter.  It’s very common. A friend leaves their Twitter or Facebook up and you write something embarrassing.

Worthing:

So you’re saying its one of her friends goofing?  Talking dirty just as a joke. and Patrick is misinterpreting that as her joke?

Cordova:

Right. You make it as embarrassing as possible. I’ve seen worse. Honey mustard as lube though… such an obvious joke.  Google it. It’s very common.

Worthing:

And you are saying she left her computer on, didn’t log out of twitter and so it 100% looks like she wrote it.

Cordova:

I highly doubt she tweeted that. But that’s just my opinion.

So then after that I noted that right now on Google all the honey mustard lubricant references were now linking to Patrick’s post (later she explained that she meant me to Google the practical joke she was describing) and then I asked if I could reprint this conversation.  I will note for the record that I had to clean up my text much more than hers, embarrassingly enough.

My gut at this point says she is telling the truth, and thus the most likely story is that Weiner had intentions toward her, and maybe right then he was trying to “reel her in” when he accidentally tweeted that pic to the world.  Reasonable minds can disagree, but that is my assessment.  But as they say, I report, you decide.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

SKEPTICAL UPDATE BY PATTERICO: “I have a live in boyfriend of three years,” says Ms. Cordova.

Yeah, what could she possibly have to gain by denying flirting with Weiner?

UPDATE x2 BY PATTERICO: Because I know Gennette is reading this, let me ask if she wants to answer my questions. She might be telling the truth, but it’s going to take more than this to convince me.

Here are a few that I don’t really expect an answer to:

1) You tell Aaron:

And you can ask the Times reporter. I showed him everything I had. How would I have every conversation?

Commenter soren notes that the NYT article said:

Ms. Cordova provided a portion of her communications with Mr. Weiner to The Times, in which they messaged back and forth about the online detractors and their tactics. But Ms. Cordova would not make all of her interaction with him available for review.

How do you resolve this apparent contradiction?

2) Did you come up with the “someone grabbed Ethel’s phone” theory on your own? Have you talked to Ethel about it?

3) How often did you talk to Ethel before this scandal? How about after? How about Betty and/or Veronica? How about Rep. Weiner?

4) Did you tell Rep. Weiner you lived in Seattle before that famous tweet?

5) Would you agree to have Twitter release all your DMs with Congressman Weiner?

6) If you are telling the truth that you did not flirt with Weiner, then how would you characterize his sending you that picture? Reckless? Bad judgment? Sexual harassment?

7) You say “WTF” to Aaron re the idea that Weiner would talk “cape and tights” with you. So: what is your reaction to the fact that he talked about “tights and cape shit” with a 17-year-old?

I eagerly await Ms. Cordova’s response. But I don’t really expect to get one.

UPDATE x3 BY PATTERICO: Gennette has appeared in comments and seized on a random comment from a random commenter as an excuse not to answer my questions. Now there’s a shocker!

210 Responses to “My Chat With Gennette Cordova (By Aaron with Skeptical Updates from Patterico) (UPDATE: Gennette Appears in Comments and Refuses to Answer Patterico’s Questions)”

  1. Patrick

    to be fair, she did admit i was right, that she had a reason to lie. just not the one you just mentioned.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  2. If she’s telling the truth (And I admit, she doesn’t really sound like a liar to me either), that actually ticks me off even worse.

    It stands to reason that many of Weiner’s female admirers are far better people than the sort who would be interested in cyber sex with a married congressman. People who want to support Weiner for his politics rather than for the honey mustard stuff.

    They deserve better than to be associated with nastiness. If it’s true that Ms. Cordova simply was supporting a politician generally, and then was followed because she looked like an easy mark, that’s pretty awful for her. Just for trying to be involved in the political process, her name is greatly damaged.

    And while Patterico’s point is right… she has something to gain if she’s lying, I think that would just be fake but accurate.

    Some of the women following and followed by Weiner probably did not want to engage in cybersex or be caught up in this awful nastiness. Weiner was using his political celebrity to groom attractive young women. Cordova is attractive and young, but she also seems intelligent and motivated to be a journalist. If she’s telling the truth, she must really hate Anthony Weiner for treating his female supporters like sex objects.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  3. dustin

    right. yeah, he was basically attempting to sexually harass her at the very least.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  4. I’m skeptical of the honey mustard as joke reference. It’s been talked about widely for a while, and I’ve yet to hear anyone offer that point.

    But I guess I just did, so maybe she’s right.

    Can anyone tell me if they have ever heard that ‘joke’ before?

    Also, I encourage Ms Cordova to write up a story explaining what she knows that exposes the error in our thinking. She wants to be a journalist, and that’s a damn interesting story.

    Worthing:

    By the way, did Rep. Weiner ever say anything about wearing a superhero’s cape and tights in your DMs? If you recall?

    Cordova:

    Hahaha. WTF? Are you serious? No. He did not.

    Worthing:

    Little thinks like this make me a bit skeptical. I mean, what would be ‘wtf’ worthy or unserious in asking if Weiner said something he said to other people? She’s very defensive, but I think that could just as easily be because of what Aaron calls her being besieged.

    Some of Weiner’s followers and followed were not there for sex. I just cannot believe 100% of them appreciated that kind of thing, and he probably had some way of filtering them. If Cordova isn’t what many think she is, that’s unfair and she’s doing the right thing by talking about it.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  5. And we start off with a lie on the first message…

    ” I’m following you. And you can ask the Times reporter. I showed him everything I had. How would I have every conversation?”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/nyregion/weiners-pattern-turning-political-admirers-into-online-pursuits.html

    Ms. Cordova provided a portion of her communications with Mr. Weiner to The Times, in which they messaged back and forth about the online detractors and their tactics. But Ms. Cordova would not make all of her interaction with him available for review.

    I think she’s completely full of crap… I have a list of 6-8 reasons I posted a couple days ago that I’ll dig out again after I actually finish reading this. I will give her credit for being open, yet I still don’t believe her.

    soren (303eda)

  6. soren

    she disputes that statement. read on. i confronted her with it and she says they were wrong.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  7. Dustin

    well, there is this, for instance.

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Changing-your-friends-status-when-they-forget-to-log-off/326923118060

    So it happens.

    Besides you are an old fuddy-duddy like me… :-)

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  8. she disputes that statement. read on. i confronted her with it and she says they were wrong.

    Do you believe her? She deleted her twitter account, how did she still have these messages left?

    soren (303eda)

  9. God help us all if this represents the future of a great nation.

    Of course, it doesn’t, but can I still be embarrassed by an immature, almost college-educated specimen?

    Ag80 (1bc637)

  10. i think she took it off line, didn’t delete

    i talked to her by the exact same account.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  11. Because I know Gennette is reading this, let me ask if she wants to answer my questions.

    She might be telling the truth, but it’s going to take more than this to convince me.

    Here are a few that I don’t really expect an answer to:

    1) How do you resolve the contradiction Soren points out?

    2) Did you come up with the “someone grabbed Ethel’s phone” theory on your own? Have you talked to Ethel about it?

    3) How often did you talk to Ethel before this scandal? After? How about Betty and/or Veronica? How about
    Rep Weiner?

    4) Did you tell Rep. Weiner you lived in Seattle before that famous tweet?

    5) Would you agree to have Twitter release all your DMs with Congressman Weiner?

    6) If you are telling the truth that you did not flirt with Weiner, then how would you characterize his sending you that picture? Reckless? Bad judgment? Sexual harassment?

    7) You say “WTF” to Aaron re the idea that Weiner would talk “cape and tights” with you. So: what is your reaction to the fact that he talked about “tights and cape shit” with a 17-year-old?

    That’s a start. If we get credible answers to those questions I will eat my hat.

    I just bought one a couple of weeks ago!

    Patterico (9a9b30)

  12. Come on – IMHO she is lying through her teeth.

    Plus, remember, she is a journalism student, and when all of this broke she said (with regard to “hack” journalists) that perhaps she should reconsider her desired profession.

    So a wannabe journalist gets an unsolicited photo of a US Congressman’s bulging briefs and she rushes to bury everything.

    Why would she bury a wonderful scoop of a lifetime? Unless she was part of the story…

    You got spun.

    kjl291 (1b539b)

  13. She acquired a live-in boyfriend when she was 14 !?

    I find that hard to believe. Started boinking him when she was 14, yes. That he moved in then … oh, I can imagine it, a visiting Scandinavian student maybe, and who might not be jealous … but it seems so unlikely.

    I’ve heard before Weiner came to prominence of various condiments being used, but not honey-mustard. I always thought the entire category was a joke.

    htom (412a17)

  14. Cordova said “He wasn’t inappropriate with me, though.”

    I’m curious about how she defines inappropriate … because whatever they talked about led Weiner to tweet her a lewd photo of himself. Was his tweet completely unexpected and at odds with their prior discussions, or does Cordova still think he intended to send it to someone else? Or is this another generation gap moment that, amazingly, Weiner has somehow managed to bridge?

    Anon (fdd243)

  15. I honestly have a very hard time believing that Weiner just out-of-the-blue sent a picture of himself to someone he’d had no reason to believe would receive it well. Perhaps he meant to send it to someone else (is that a working theory?), but if he meant to send it to her, there had to have been a reason.

    Even a creep like that has to have a reason.

    I still don’t think she’s being forthcoming, but (it goes without saying) I could be way off.

    designczar (382560)

  16. htom

    cordova is not 17. i think she is 20.

    and i take it to mean that he boyfriend lives with her now, but not necessarily all three years.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  17. But I’m in the limelight more than the other girls.

    That quote is your whole story. The woman has been going on for days how awful this is but yet never stops talking to reporters or people on twitter about it. She’s full of crap. When somebody plays a joke on you like that you delete it. Nobody leaves it, I don’t care what generation you are.

    RocksEm (5241c6)

  18. Sorry but she is still hiding something.

    Cordova:

    Something you don’t. Same with Betty and Veronica. I’ve paid attention for months

    What has she paid attention to for months? Also why did she try so hard to cover her electronic tracks if she really had nothing to hide? Her original Twitter account would have clearly shown the facts that she was a wronged individual and a victim of Rep. Weiner. Live-in boyfriend or not.

    Now moving on to her views on the “Ethel” tweets in question, now we are to believe that “Ethel” was pranked on May 3rd and also on May 22? May 3 is the first BDH reference and May 22 is the “69 BDH Honey Mustard…”

    Joe

    Joe Smith (54c0c1)

  19. I’m glad you had an interesting conversation with her, Aaron. I’m not going to even try to guess what the truth is or isn’t with her because to me Gennette seems one of the smartest and most savvy of the bunch.

    However, we all need to keep in mind that she is a student. And not just any student, but a woman studying to be a journalist. She is part of a very big national story and she is an aspiring journalist. That’s a potent and unique combo. So, I believe it only makes sense that if there is an article to be written or a bombshell to be revealed, she is going to be the one to author it under her own byline and for money. While she is obviously being pleasant and cooperative, face it–she’s not going to give the scoop and the glory to the NYT or to Aaron Worthing or anyone else. She has good reason to keep things close to the vest which may have nothing to do with lying or having been coached.

    elissa (95e7be)

  20. Anyone who thinks the interaction between these two went straight to Weiner’s wiener pic is just er, not with the program. This wasn’t Weiner’s first rodeo, as we all unfortunately know, after all. That being said, it doesn’t mean Ms. Cordova is lying or has done anything wrong.

    All we knew before this post was that Ms. Cordova had never met the Congressman in person and did not feel his messages to her were inappropriate. That’s about it. An enormous range of possibilities remain. Maybe it was meaningless chit chat. Maybe they shared a #Beiber obsession for hours every night. Who knows what their relationship was like, but clearly they knew each other, in the sense many of us ‘know’ people on the internet. Again, that makes Weiner a liar, not her.

    But I can assure you that, as a pol and a narcissist, Weiner has plenty of practice sizing people up for what kind attention and praise-garnering behavior he can get away with, including (if not especially) online with young women. Whatever the nature of their relationship, he was confident sending her a photo of his member would not blow up in his face.

    Ms. Cordova doesn’t owe anyone the details of her discussions with Weiner or a description of their relationship. Her general approach of generally being quiet has generally served her well. (Sorry to Weiner-block, Journo-boys.)Ms. Cordova’s actions aren’t beyond reproach and I could definitely come up with criticism (did she say before that they never DM’d – oh, nevermind), but, unlike the Congressman, she truly owes us nothing – not even the truth.

    Lizbuddie (133456)

  21. Now moving on to her views on the “Ethel” tweets in question, now we are to believe that “Ethel” was pranked on May 3rd and also on May 22? May 3 is the first BDH reference and May 22 is the “69 BDH Honey Mustard…”

    Good question. Gennette? Pranked twice?

    Need to go ask/tell Ethel first?

    Patterico (1fa238)

  22. Aaron, she claims to be 21 and about to turn 22 in a few days based on her recent tweets.

    JOe

    Joe Smith (54c0c1)

  23. ____________________________________________

    she must really hate Anthony Weiner for treating his female supporters like sex objects.

    But the weird slant throughout all of this is that Weiner also appeared to like sexually objectifying himself. Moreover, if his online chats with Lisa Weiss, the blackjack dealer in Vegas, were supposedly among his more serious attempts to initiate a real relationship, then why would he tell her that he hoped the dude she mentioned she’d be bedding down with had “a big c***”? What kind of guy is going to say something like that? What kind of guy is going to wish that for his competition or rivals?

    Weiner’s apparent cheap thrills in objectifying himself, and the wink-wink banter he’s had in both private and public discussions not only are juvenile, they’re also less than fully heterosexual.

    The guy fits the definition of “pervert” in more ways than one.

    Mark (411533)

  24. Cordova:

    Something you don’t. Same with Betty and Veronica. I’ve paid attention for months

    Our talks were about people like Wolfe. I was intrigued by them. I still am. I’ve watched closely. I’m considering writing a piece on it.

    Did she send the BF tweet to attract Weiner? Was she baiting him to get info for her piece?

    RocksEm (5241c6)

  25. There is I think a decent explanation for the pic from his end: When he said in the press conference that it was a joke, I think that really made sense (in his perverted mind). If the context of their DMs was indeed this purported ‘harassment’ of his young female fans on twitter, then in his twisted mind, that was his “in” to put a dic pic in her face and call it a joke as sort of a cover, like here…this is what I WOULD be doing if this harassment claim was warranted. But I’m not, but heh heh I still got off sending you a dic pic anyway to see if you take the bait. In his wacky mind, it was both a joke and a way to escalate their ‘relationship.’ In her mind, she didn’t get the joke because female non-pervs don’t think that way. IME narcissists tend to think what they know is also everybody else’s reality, so because he already engages this way with others, he doesn’t perceive it as potentially shocking to her; it’s normal behavior for him. So she told NYT she’s still not getting the joke, which makes sense b/c she’s not a narcissistic perv.

    Lisa (294cc8)

  26. At RocksEm’s comment is exactly why I told AaronW that I didn’t want to publish it. I defend myself over private messages, it’s made public and I look like an attention whore.
    I’m done trying to convince you fanatics.

    Gennettec (1a6a68)

  27. Despite my extreme skepticism, anything that gets these folks talking is interesting to me.

    I guarantee you Gennette was talking to Betty and Veronica and Ethel both before and after the scandal. If Ethel ever claims that boyfriend put up the tweet, will that mean Gennette just happened to call this one . . . or that they talked about it? Either way, I’ll remember. And if, as I suspect, she fails to answer my questions after answering Aaron’s — well, I’ll remember that too.

    I also wonder whether she has a journalism job lined up, and if so, when she got it.

    Patterico (1fa238)

  28. I’m done trying to convince you fanatics.

    Guess that means you won’t be answering my questions. Now there’s a shocker!

    Patterico (1fa238)

  29. Gennette, you have very publicly made several statements about all of this. Given that, I think it’s fair to ask questions.

    I say this as someone who doesn’t know whether you are telling the truth or lying.

    But seizing on a single comment made by one commenter as an excuse to dodge the questions of the blog proprietor . . . strikes me as rather convenient. You’ll notice I predicted this. And you’re proving me right.

    Patterico (1fa238)

  30. At RocksEm’s comment is exactly why I told AaronW that I didn’t want to publish it. I defend myself over private messages, it’s made public and I look like an attention whore.
    I’m done trying to convince you fanatics.

    Comment by Gennettec — 6/11/2011 @ 10:08 pm

    Sorry, not to be crude but if you aren’t an “attention whore” why is it a day doesn’t go by without a quote from you on Twitter or in the news?

    RocksEm (5241c6)

  31. RocksEm,

    Never mind all that. I am happy to hear from her.

    Or, I would be. If she were willing to answer my questions.

    Patterico (1fa238)

  32. i think she took it off line, didn’t delete

    i talked to her by the exact same account.

    No you didn’t… she deleted her account… everyone gets an unique twitter ID and her old twitter ID redirects to her old account which has been deleted… he’s a screenshot I took last week that shows this.

    http://postimage.org/image/18p5cobxg/full/

    account/redirect_by_id?id=214687672

    http://twitter.com/account/redirect_by_id?id=214687672

    soren (303eda)

  33. everyone gets an unique twitter ID and her old twitter ID redirects to her old account which has been deleted…

    If she had merely changed her name the redirect_by_id would go there. You can’t “disable” your twitter account.

    soren (303eda)

  34. This is not a fanatical reaction, GeanetteC. You’ve got people giving you the benefit of the doubt here, and that’s how you respond?

    Seems fanatical.

    Were you following this story for months because you really were having some kind of cybersex fling with Weiner? Sadly, some of Weiner’s other ladies had boyfriends. Weiner himself had a live in wife.

    Anyway, you want to be a journalist? You don’t really need to wait until you graduate. You specifically claimed you had inside information shedding dispositive light on Patterico’s claims.

    You have an obligation to provide that information. The people have a right to know. We shouldn’t have to worry about whether or not a congressman was doing what it looks exactly as though he was doing if a journalist has the truth.

    But I don’t think you really know what’s going on, or at least if you do you’re not reliable for one reason or another. You were loudly insisting it was a hacker. You even said you knew which harasser was responsible for it. You were wrong.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  35. Post #28 is an example of why Gennette should have gone on the Today Show done one interview ( she mentioned that she liked Matt ).

    As a journalism student, she should know about getting the facts right the first time and from a direct source when possible.

    I can understand that she is under intense pressure for many sides but the truth is always the fastest way to get beyond this intense interest in her.

    She is still the focus because the story broke based on her. We did not bring her into this, Rep. Weiner did with his two tweets to her on May 27.

    Joe

    Joe Smith (54c0c1)

  36. Patterico,
    Sorry, I upset her because I asked her the same on twitter after cutting her some serious slack for a long period. I asked her one thing only, 2 or 3 times, “Did Weiner ever send you DMs that were appropriate?”. She never answered and I didn’t expect her to. Finally on twitter she admits they did and then immediately deletes it once someone noticed it.

    She wants to clear things up? Set things straight? Release the DMs and it all goes away. Either they were appropriate or they weren’t. No one is going to make a big deal out of some swearing or something at this point. Release the DMs. It’s beyond doubt she saved them.

    RocksEm (5241c6)

  37. Also sending a totally unsolicited pic is an escalation of his compulsion/addiction/whatever just as his behavior was being scrutinized. It’s already interfering with his career and he still can’t stop, which suggests true addiction. So (this is obviously a question for his therapist) if the risk is what is titillating, if that’s the ‘fix,’ eventually the same old risk with consensual partners doesn’t do it for you anymore, and you need to up the ante. That could well be what happened here. Especially if he’s subconsciously determined to self destruct, it fits perfectly. It’s fun to armchair shrink these freaks.

    Lisa (294cc8)

  38. She’s a journalism student about like I’m the King of Moravia.

    This is personal to me when some idiot claims the degree.

    I worked hard in college and as a professional and as an adult.

    There are few good journalists working today. Many can say I no longer qualify, but I am damn sick of amateurs, sycophants and so-called professionals denigrating a job by action that means something to me.

    Ag80 (1bc637)

  39. I don’t think you’re an attention whore, Gennette. I think you’re a part of this story and shouldn’t worry about that.

    Just answer the questions honestly. Even if the truth isn’t shedding the most favorable light on you yesterday.

    I can understand that she is under intense pressure for many sides but the truth is always the fastest way to get beyond this intense interest in her.

    This is the truth, Joe.

    If she’s lied to protect Weiner, then by now she’s had to double down a few times. She thinks she has to keep it up to protect her reputation, and the truth is that she’d have to earn her reputation by showing some personal growth and telling the truth.

    Does she want to be ‘that girl who covered for Weiner’ or ‘that woman who brought the truth to light’?

    If she’s actually in possession of more info as she claims, either way, it’s in her best interest to be a real journalist instead of what merely passes for one on the hard left.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  40. Our fair lady made a fundamental miscalculation: bartering information in exchange for a big break in the MSM only works when said information besmirches a conservative or a Republican.

    And, in loving memory of Clarence Thomas’ ordeal, whatever happened to “the seriousness of the charge” in and of itself being sufficient to bring down a man who holds, or wants to hold, public office?

    Ed from SFV (64542f)

  41. Well Gennette has been slimed by Radaronline. They posted an unrelated item from her background. Maybe this is an example of why she did not want to get into the public eye.

    At least they redacted some personal data but why did they need to publish anything about her. Oh yea, it be came related when she did not want to speak to the press.

    Damn this is about Rep. Weiner.

    Joe

    Joe Smith (54c0c1)

  42. Joe, even if Gennette is covering for her actions, I feel sorry for the position she’s in. Weiner was an effective predator, and young women can get caught up and want to protect their reputation. It’s a huge shame she’s being trashed for unrelated stuff.

    I don’t care for her personality, to be honest, and the fact she admits to knowing something important that she won’t disclose. That’s bizarre.

    But still, Weiner knew that he was putting all his girlfriends at risk of humiliation. They probably didn’t understand it, but he’s been in DC and knows exactly how this was going to play out, and I suspect he knew it would eventually catch up with him. There’s a reason society looks down on powerful men pursuing very young and inexperienced women.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  43. Gennettec,
    I’m sorry for suggesting you are an “attention whore” but I think my frustration level reaches the breaking point sometimes on this whole thing. You want people to stop questioning what you say, to stop speculating. Well then release your DMs with Weiner. Barring that you are leaving people with nothing but questions and to speculate. The DMs will surely raise more questions & speculation but if they are as you suggest then at the very least they will no longer be about you.

    RocksEm (5241c6)

  44. I guarantee you Gennette was talking to Betty and Veronica and Ethel both before and after the scandal.
    Comment by Patterico

    It certainly looks like they cooked up the “my account was hacked/pranked” – twice, yet – line together (and where have we heard that excuse before?).

    We know the police have investigated at least one of Weiner’s underage teenyboppers, I wonder if they have/will look into the interaction of these four (“Betty”, “Veronica”, “Ethel” and Gennette) re:Weinergate?

    Jay S (79f341)

  45. 1. When did gc and aw exchange phone numbers?
    2. Why did gc never believe aw when he said he was hacked?
    3. When gc got that pic tweet, did it occur to her the “harassers” were right all along? Did she become concerned he may have sent something to the high school girls? Why didn’t she say anything?
    4. If the 69 wiener tweet was a prank, how did the friend know “wiener” was a good way to embarrass her?

    MayBee (081489)

  46. 5. What information did gc give Betty and Veronica?

    MayBee (081489)

  47. Why did Cordova’s paper, the Horizon, remove her name from her stories? Why did she remove her twitter account a few times and otherwise wipe herself from the internet?

    Assuming she’s telling the truth, she knew for a while that this was all a bunch of pranks. When she got that photo, she didn’t act like she thought it was a prank. She acted like “OMG I NEED TO HIDE EVERYTHING!” in a massive panic.

    This ‘oh you fanatics just don’t know what I know… it’s no big deal you losers’ act just doesn’t make any sense.

    If Patterico is right (And to be honest, I am unsure what he knows) then she was aware of Ethel’s behavior and knows she was saying she’s turned on my married men, being disgustingly sexual, and he’s sending her private messages. It is difficult to accept that the volume of comments directed at Weiner, from many of the girls with crushes on him, were all just jokes and pranks.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  48. Prick at this and everything else will (probably) fall… it’s the glass jaw.

    Ms. Cordova provided a portion of her communications with Mr. Weiner to The Times, in which they messaged back and forth about the online detractors and their tactics. But Ms. Cordova would not make all of her interaction with him available for review.

    So… the only messages the Cordova gave to the NYTimes was about her and Weiner’s harassers?

    We talked for a long time. I told the reporter it was all I had. So technically he was wrong but I don’t think the mistake was made intentionally.

    Let’s try to figure out how the reporter was unintentionally wrong.

    1. Was the reporter wrong to describe what was actually a technical problem as Cordova personally unwilling to comply with a request for records?

    2. Was the reporter wrong to imply that they only received messages that was about Weiner and Cordova talking about their online detractors?

    3. What did the reporter say to Cordova when they realized they were only getting a selection of DMs? Restated: What line of questioning would allow the reporter to make this unintentional mistake?

    And I have some cherry on top questions…

    1. Cordova deleted her account… how did she get these DMs back?
    2. If she kept a backup, how and why?
    3. Why only the DMs about detractors?
    4. What other DMs were there? Here is how they were described…

    “I have not sent him any suggestive messages,” Ms. Cordova said.

    She said she was, however, surprised by his informal tone. “He was just very casual,” she said. “It wasn’t like talking to a U.S. congressman.”

    Coup de grace: Was Weiner the source of the DMs that Cordova gave to the NYTimes?

    (We know she was communicating with him after the lewd tweet via text massaging)

    soren (303eda)

  49. When she got that photo, she didn’t act like she thought it was a prank. She acted like “OMG I NEED TO HIDE EVERYTHING!” in a massive panic.

    Yeah, you can understand Weiner panicking and wanting to destroy evidence. Innocent people would not destroy evidence like that.

    This ‘oh you fanatics just don’t know what I know… it’s no big deal you losers’ act just doesn’t make any sense.

    That “outburst” was so obviously preplanned – it’s “oh, oh – Patterico just asked some tough questions – I better act upset, stomp my feet and run out the door fast!”

    Patterico does ask the tough questions, but he would have given her a fair shake, here or in a private discussion. She could have cleared up pretty much everything if she had nothing to hide. Too bad – but it actually says a lot since he has been spot on in all this. It’s as if she is conceding his suspicions are fact.

    Jay S (79f341)

  50. Gennette,

    I believe you. I am quite concerned about you. All sorts of people are projecting many things on your and I worry about your mental health in trying to stop the situation. Just know it is out of your control and what they think of you does not, in any way, define you. I think many commenters may be forgetting how young you are and you seem to be handling this horrible situation, that you did not ask to be a part of, very well.

    You don’t owe any information to any one aside from your family and loved ones. Do not feel that you have to tell anyone anything — in fact, talking to defend yourself is most likely adding fuel to the story.

    For other commenters — try to remember that Gennette is the victim here. Her life has been turned upside down by a man who tried to treat an intelligent and lovely young woman very badly. She should have been treated with more respect. It was someone else who tried to define her as a slut. Many of you are compounding his injury. She has done nothing wrong, but many of you may want to consider if you are injuring an innocent person.

    Tess (926497)

  51. Tess, don’t insult Cordova. She says she’s a tough woman. She’s well educated. She’s 22 years old, or turns 22 in a very short time (she mentioned she was celebrating her last moments as a 21 year old somewhere).

    She’s the victim, sure. I agree to some extent. But then again, she was calling a married man her boyfriend. Which, sure, is normal for some people in relation to a married celebrity, but she is talking about following this guy and Ethel for months. It’s seriously odd.

    You don’t owe any information to any one aside from your family and loved ones.

    You know she writes for the paper ‘Horizon’? What kind of journalist doesn’t owe Americans information pertaining to a major scandal involving a US Congressman? She says she knows something really dispositive.

    The people have a right to know if Weiner is innocent (or guilty) of some of this stuff.

    Just know it is out of your control and what they think of you does not, in any way, define you.

    It’s out of her control? To some extent. She certainly cannot regain or build a reputation by covering up whatever she was talking about. Or accusing innocent people of things they did not do. She said some ‘familiar’ harasser and stalker was responsible for this at one point. She was a big part of the witchhunt for Dan Wolfe, and innocent guy who was actually putting his ass on the line to protect children from an online predator.

    All sorts of people are projecting many things on your

    Explain how anyone here is projecting, other than Cordova, who was initially attracted to Weiner because of her political views, which, like Weiner’s act, were pretty out there. Then she calls people fanatical for disagreeing with her and storms out. That’s projection. As is how she’s ugly to those who seek the truth, while concealing any aspect of it.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  52. Genette is not a victim. If she were, her response would have been to express shock and disgust at Weiner’s actions. She never did and never has. she would have realized other, younger girls may also be victims
    Genette has not described her thoughts when she realized Weiner had sent her that photo. She has not expressed disapproval. She has not explained why or how they then began texting each other. She has not explained the extent of their communication prior to the photo being sent.
    Her goal has never been to clear things up.

    MayBee (081489)

  53. Her goal has never been to clear things up.

    Comment by MayBee

    That seems to be crystal clear by now. But that doesn’t mean she was sexting him up. I want to give her the benefit of the doubt on that because I do think there are at least some of Weiner’s followers who are stained by that unfairly. They didn’t know he had a filter for attractive and young women.

    Cordova’s behavior is fishy to say the least, but I’m willing to forgive kids doing unwise things when they realize it was wrong. Cordova can use this as a springboard to being a credible and interesting journalist, or she can sink into the muck as a jerk and shill. Calling us ‘fanatics’ is not the right path.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  54. The bottom line is this: Gennette needs to tell her whole story, answer all of these questions and let Pat help her do it. He’ll be fair. She is eventually going to be forced to answer all of these questions, as she will have to testify under oath to the congressional ethics committee in their investigation of Wiener. The sooner she tells her story and provides her evidence, the sooner the media will leave her alone and concentrate on Wiener and what he did.

    akw (0d354f)

  55. Gennette,
    You don’t owe any information to any one aside from your family and loved ones. Do not feel that you have to tell anyone anything.
    Comment by Tess

    Ummmm, Tess – she stomped out in feigned rage when Patterico asked questions (just as he predicted she would), so I don’t imagine she is in need of advice on how to dodge questions.
    Also, if a person is terrified that answering questions will reveal something they want to keep secret, it doesn’t help her/him to avoid discussing it – just the opposite. The constant need to hide and repress information is a horrible way to go through life. More so, if the person’s hands were clean.
    Like I said, with Patterico she would have faced skepticism, but would also have been given a fair opportunity.

    Jay S (79f341)

  56. ‘I’m a victim!’ Where’s happyfeet when you need a good mockery conducted? Probably eating something.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  57. She is eventually going to be forced to answer all of these questions, as she will have to testify under oath to the congressional ethics committee in their investigation of Wiener.
    Comment by akw

    Indeed. That’s not going to be pretty. Not just the risk of talking her way into perjury, but all the records will come out.

    Just because you delete info, pics, messages, etc from online social sites, that doesn’t make it all go away. It’s like deleting a file in Windows – it’s still on your PC. You don’t see what you erased from your Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, etc. but the social sites still have all that info.

    The only hope she has to avoid her entire life, along with every conceivable Weinergate-related item, being aired in that forum is if Weiner resigns before the hearings start.

    Jay S (79f341)

  58. I am not an expert on this kind of thing, but she is discussing knowing a lot about Weiner’s interactions with children. It sounds as though any investigation into how he covered it up, or told people to lie, would benefit from her testimony. Am I mistaken?

    We know he told Ginger Lee to lie without a hint of shame, and that he talked at the same time about the same subject to Ms. Cordova, whose only defense at this point is ‘I know something that proves you are wrong, and I refuse to share that point for no apparent reason’.

    Also, the consistency is bizarre. Everyone expressed ‘outrage’ and ‘shock’ that someone would even ask some of these questions. Everyone expressed this idea that Weiner’s great, and largely a victim of a huge overreaction, bashing the messenger. Cordova is simply the last ‘I was following him for political reasons, and can’t share the private stuff or explain why it was private’ zombie left droning a consistent narrative.

    It makes you wonder who coordinated that stuff.

    If Cordova is telling the truth, I feel really sorry for how well she’s been played and set up to look like this.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  59. My ipad just ran out of juice, and I lost a lengthy post, I’m so frustrated.

    Interesting to me that the hip young congressman (he’s about my age) chose the prank defense.

    I’m actually hip too, (or not to broken-hipped) to know about the kind of gag Gennette described, but honestly never considered the infamous honey mustard tweet a prank tweet, even with her HACKED announcement. This is because of the BDH and Weiner references (even the spelling right) I found so devastating, I might feel differently in the morning but I am still skeptical. I hope it’ not just the bias of first impression

    If I’m wrong I’m guiltier than most of making a big deal of that tweet, and have more to be sorry for if I changed my mind.
    But I AM still skeptical;

    Prank and Hacked seem to be go-to defenses to explain away errant tweets by a practiced liar,

    Even if totally wrong its interesting to me that Weiner would adopt “facebook-sabotage,” even inventing an imaginary Moriarity as his excuse and defense.

    I need to mull it over a little I think. I don’t know what’s real anymore.

    Speaking of which, Genette claims top secret knowledge of Betty and Veronica (and ethel) which she doesn’t want to tell, but she had a tell in the kind of interest in writing about people like Dan Wolfe. I’ve heard fake Betty and Veronica theories (and dismissed them, and don’t think fits with tweet histories at ALL) but maybe, as has been speculated about Dan Wolfe, she thinks they are constructed characters designed to work mischief on Rep Weiner? (Anonymous trolls, for example, or other bad actors).

    SarahW (af7312)

  60. I wish she would just say what she knows, and help end speculation.

    SarahW (af7312)

  61. I am not an expert on this kind of thing, but she is discussing knowing a lot about Weiner’s interactions with children.

    Yes, that’s one area she should be taking very seriously, for her sake. I wondered above if the authorities are/will be looking at the interactions between Gennette and the underage girls. In her shoes, I would turn everything over (emails, DMs, screenshots, whatever she has) to the authorities because it’s some very serious business due to the contact with minors. Even if there’s nothing “inappropriate” or illegal, it’s not very wise to keep it to yourself.

    It makes you wonder who coordinated that stuff.

    Although that’s a possibility, especially given Weiner’s Svengali-like cover up attempts, it’s also likely it could just be youthful ignorance and inexperience. I don’t mean that as an insult, but just that at 21 years or so of age many of us thought we already knew it all and believed nothing of any consequence could happen to us. If you add hiding potentially embarrassing info into that mix, you got a big problem.

    My hope is that she would go to the authorities and dump it in their lap, warts & all. Might also be wise to lawyer up before the legal issues start knocking at her door. Youthful naivete and legal sheetstorms do not mix well.

    Jay S (79f341)

  62. My ipad just ran out of juice, and I lost a lengthy post, I’m so frustrated.

    Ugh. Sorry, Sarah!

    If Ethel didn’t really send that honey mustard tweet, that needs to be exposed right now. It needs to be specifically explained.

    And damn Weiner for crying wolf on hacking and pranking if that causes an innocent Ethel (whose real name probably produces these stories) to be disbelieved over her attempt to clear her name.

    Sadly, there’s just so many tweets that this is hard to believe. ‘turn on: married men’ etc.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  63. btw, I am getting more and more aggravated with calls to drop this story. Pelosi and crew happily used the Foley scandal to win back congress against corruption. This story shows true corruption, as it’s very difficult to get a story harmful to democrats past the gatekeepers. It takes a lot of luck, actually.

    So by their own argument, we need to drain the swamp some more. It’s perfectly relevant.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  64. I’m actually hip too, (or not to broken-hipped) to know about the kind of gag Gennette described, but honestly never considered the infamous honey mustard tweet a prank tweet, even with her HACKED announcement. This is because of the BDH and Weiner references (even the spelling right) I found so devastating
    Comment by SarahW

    Yeah, it’s not unheard of as a gag – but why would a friend (which friend, by the way?) use the term “wiener” out of thin air in the first place? Another coincidence, “like 5:45 in Seattle”? And spelling it as “Weiner”, yet? Another wild coincidence? That it was hacked/pranked twice in one month that way (“BDH”) is stretching credulity a bit, too.
    So I share your skepticism.

    What makes the “Ethel” case especially troublesome is that, as far as we know, she’s the only female tweeter that he had any real-life contact with – if memory serves they met when he spoke at her high school? Somebody can correct me if I’m wrong on that point.

    As for the Ipad problem; get a real computer. 😀

    Jay S (79f341)

  65. As a 49 year-old mother of a daughter roughly the same age as Ms. Cordova, I can attest that hijacking a facebook or twitter status happens all the time. I also thought the boyfriend comment on her part was a common term used by her generation so I thought that this conclusion was most likely accurate:

    thus the most likely story is that Weiner had intentions toward her, and maybe right then he was trying to “reel her in” when he accidentally tweeted that pic to the world.

    I was just wondering if Ms. Cordova could in any way construe Weiner’s sending the underwear pic as a joke? How would she have reacted had she received it via DM as was obviously intended? If she reacted as I would guess, how might he have explained away his DM pic as a joke?

    Weiner’s behavior was really risky but he chose women who agreed with him ideologically and were fans. I am sure in his mind they all “wanted him,” but he was bound to run across someone who burst his bubble on that point. Nevertheless, if Ms. Cordova was observing Ethel, Betty and Veronica as well as tracking Wolfe’s tactics and online behavior she was providing Weiner with useful information so he could adjust his own behavior with women online to lessen the risk he might be caught. In reality Cordova was useful to him whether she took the pic bait or not.

    Mary Sue (1dc631)

  66. Patterico, I think the Cordova angle is a dead end. Even if they were fooling around, all it would prove is that (1) Ms. Cordova lied (who cares, and she would have good reason to) and (2) Rep Weiner lied (but we already know he’s a liar).

    It doesn’t move the story forward beyond a perfunctory six-becomes-seven note. It’s like taking a 40-year sentence and tacking on a special three-week enhancement. Being 20 is not a big deal. It’s a little icky for a 46-year-old to pursue a 20-year-old in that fashion, but we already know Weiner is icky.

    She’s young but she’s over 18. Only proof of exploitation of an under-18 will change the narrative. The House GOP needs to subpoena those DMs for their ethics investigation (to be sure that Rep Weiner did not discuss in the DMs using House resources, and if they happen to find evidence of a crime, they can pass it on to LEOs)

    Also, we can look into lobbying various police departments to get a warrant vs. Twitter. That’s what will bust this farce wide open. The local cops, where the girl lives, don’t seem to care. The DC cops might, and the cops in Twitter’s home district might (especially given how top Dems are calling for Weiner to resign, the cops would have political cover and might even believe they are acting in the Dem party’s interests by ending this scandal quickly rather than letting it bleed like an open sore)

    Also, I think Ms. Cordova’s statements are consistent with the evidence. I think it’s at least as likely that she’s telling the truth as hiding something. Mentioning Seattle publicly in the tweet seems like an attempt to impress her. Being a guest on Rachel Maddow is also impressive to liberals. It’s his idea of flirting. You’ve seen how one-dimensional his come-ons are.

    “Hey baby, I’m very important and very liberal, want to see my junk? I’m asking forgiveness, not permission.”

    Daryl Herbert (14c9cd)

  67. So wait – Weiner “#Hacked!” This turned out to Totally True! #PinkieSwear!

    Now GC says Ethel “#Hacked!”

    Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining!

    kjl291 (1b539b)

  68. it’s like Game of Thrones for people what prefer reading one-handed

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  69. If you take Ms. Cordova at her word, she was having an innocuous online relationship with Weiner, when he suddenly bombs her with an obscene picture of himself.

    Doesn’t taking her at her word amount to accusing Weiner of a criminal act?

    Glen Wishard (2167a4)

  70. In reality Cordova was useful to him whether she took the pic bait or not.
    Comment by Mary Sue

    Interesting thought, Mary Sue – he set her up as the “fallgal”, with or without her consent.

    Patterico, I think the Cordova angle is a dead end.
    Being 20 is not a big deal. It’s a little icky for a 46-year-old to pursue a 20-year-old in that fashion, but we already know Weiner is icky.
    She’s young but she’s over 18. Only proof of exploitation of an under-18 will change the narrative.
    Comment by Daryl Herbert

    However, when the 20-year-old has ongoing contact with the minors related to this, it brings her into the story. i.e. what did they discuss about the case? It’s in her own interest to turn all info & communications to the authorities investigating the minor angle. So it’s not a dead end at all. A stonewall maybe, but not a dead end.

    I think it’s at least as likely that she’s telling the truth as hiding something.
    Comment by Daryl Herbert

    Usually in every such case it’s both involved, not either-or, Daryl – e.g. truthful about X, but hiding Y. So it’s not a mutually exclusive issue.

    Jay S (79f341)

  71. Scenario #1

    Intrepid young journalism student receives unsolicited tweet from US Congressman of bulging boxer-briefs. Her nose-for-news instincts kick in and she sees the gold mine of newsworthiness (SEX! HARASSMENT! HE’S MARRIED! HE’S A CONGRESSMAN! BLACKMAIL RISK! HIS WIFE IS SOS HILARY’S AIDE DE CAMP! RISKY BEHAVIOR! DID I MENTION THE HARASSMENT VIA UNSOLICITED BOXER-BRIEF PHOTO?!?!?!?!

    Intrepid young journalism student then takes copious notes and screen shots and tries to land interviews with Rep. Weiner, Twitter reps, and anyone who can add to the discussion. Possibly feigns interest in said congressmen to get further juicy tidbits. Intrepid young journalism student then does due diligence, research, and legwork to be an “honest broker of information” (TM DAN RATHER) and to bring information to the news consuming public (and, incidentally launching one of the greatest journalism debuts in history).

    Scenario #2

    Less-than-intrepid young journalism student with big time crush on Rep. AW receives SOLICITED from US Congressman of bulging boxer-briefs. He is a big time lefty D. She is a big time left D. She follows the template of the MSM/MFM/MBM and instead of trying to bring information to the public, actively colludes to hide and/or distort, twist, and spin said information. Upon graduation from j school accepts cushy offer and hearty thanks from MSNBC.

    Occam’s Razor – Honestly, which scenario do you think is closer to reality?

    kjl291 (1b539b)

  72. Doesn’t taking her at her word amount to accusing Weiner of a criminal act?

    Comment by Glen Wishard — 6/12/2011 @ 2:07 am

    Her response to this appears to be to feign outrage and then either flee or talk about how bad you are.

    You are very very naughty, Mr Wishard. Do not ask this question anymore, or you will really get a stern evil eye from the chaste harem of Weiner floozies.

    But when Weiner admitted to sending this picture, he never mentioned that he intended it for someone else. Why not? Because it wasn’t intended for someone else. That is damn weird, but doesn’t mean Cordova is a liar.

    If she’s telling the truth, it’s a tremendously unfair situation for her. She gets sexually harassed, and because she has faith in this upstanding and respected moral-high-ground claimant, she winds up looking like his sexual shill.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  73. Guess where Weiner took some of self-shot pics?
    TMZ – Rep. Weiner Used Congressional Gym As Backdrop

    Jay S (79f341)

  74. Questions for Gennette –

    If you were constantly being told by the #bornfreecrew that Weiner engaged in inappropriate communications with young girls/women, why were you not at all skeptical about his private conversations with you, whether you consider them “appropriate” or not?

    He is a married US Congressman, 47 years old, and he has time to chit chat with a 21 year old college student about online gossip, and you didn’t find that strange?

    You never got the vibe that he might be up to something inappropriate, even with all the warnings by #bornfreecrew?

    You never thought perhaps he was acting inappropriately for a married man?

    You said in the NYT piece that he sent you an apology via text right before walking on stage. Did he send that to your phone, did he have your phone number? Did you ever talk to him on the phone?

    Based on all the warnings from #bornfreecrew, and then the arrival of the photo, why did you feel the need to “warn” Weiner that you were making a statement? Did he offer assistance in writing it?

    You said you do not have all of your private conversations with Weiner any longer, is that because you deleted your original account?

    Why did you react so strongly when asked if he ever brought up the cape and tights comment to you?

    In light of what you now know about his online habits, do you think he was hoping you would become his next sexting partner? Do you think it’s strange that he was sexting with other women while only engaging in friendly chit chat with you?

    Do you think it was appropriate for him to be engaging in personal private conversations with you, and 17 year olds?

    sarainitaly (daf506)

  75. The honey mustard tweet is irrelevant, really. Weiner admitted to engaging in private conversations with Ethel. We also know he used the cape and tights line on her, and how that went with the LV woman.

    I don’t know how anyone can think any good could come out of Weiner (the admitted online pervy dirty talker) having private convos with a 17 year old, or who could find that appropriate behavior. The chats may not have reached the pervy level, and that could be only because he was caught before they went there.

    sarainitaly (daf506)

  76. Sounds like a lot of cover stories, too many if you ask me. Yes, of course people like “Ethel” may lie to escape embarrassing communications being made public and having to answer for them to her parents. But it seems that there are multiple “lies” for this group of Weiner followers. Ethel tells her parents only two msgs and nothing inappropriate ie 69ing means “Party like it’s 1969″ now Cordova says that it wasn’t Ethel writing it, it was some friend “pranking” her. If it was a prank, why keep it on stream when it’s easily deleted? As Patterico pointed out it turns out that there were at least 5 of these DM’s according to NYT. Ok, and then it turns out that “Ethel” is probably refering to her boyfriend Hunters (see “69ing big hunt”) big cock. (apparently there is a pic or pics of this guys’ genitals floating around too)(also see the Nom,nom,nom msg).

    My gut tells me that the lies/cover stories are a combination of self preservation and the truly frightening proclivity of partisan leftys/true believers to protect the team from telling the truth if it hurts their side. You see it in the ease with which obvious every day spinning and demonizing from the left is done shamelessly and without remorse. (For a special sociopathic level of this in action see @lizardoid, @joanwalsh, @ericboehlert, @DWStweets, etc etc)

    How else to explain the reluctance of this crew to clear things up?

    dualdiagnosis (34841f)

  77. Sara sounds smart. It’s amazing how far many, like me, are suspending disbelief for Cordova’s benefit, only to be called fanatics.

    only because he was caught before they went there.

    Thank goodness he was. Whether or not he was with Ethel, there were more very young ladies yet. It’s a damn good thing these guys were monitoring that twitter well enough to catch Weiner. They must have been amazed when the pictured intended for Cordova just showed up in the open one night. But she doesn’t seem to have much respect for that, despite it being crystal clear their intentions were quite honorable.

    They reached out to her, and in response, she claimed harassers were behind the whole ‘prank’. If Cordova can’t get this story right, what story can she handle?

    Dustin (c16eca)

  78. One other question for Gennette –

    Did Weiner ever discuss his wife with you?

    sarainitaly (daf506)

  79. Comment by Dustin — 6/12/2011 @ 2:55 am

    Thanks, Dustin. :O)

    sarainitaly (daf506)

  80. Two more questions for Gennette –

    Would you feel completely comfortable turning over all of your private conversations to Mrs. Weiner?

    Did Weiner ever ask you to befriend the #bornfreecrew or Betty, Veronica, or Ethel, to find out what they knew, or what they were discussing with regard to him?

    sarainitaly (daf506)

  81. I am a longtime journalist who has written for the New York Times and many other pubications, and I can tell you that she sounds very evasive and very young. If she were really willing to tell her side of the story, she would have a real conversation on the phone. Sounds as if she likes skirting to the edge of dangerous situations, but then pulls back.

    Am not trusting her.

    Victoria (7b01cb)

  82. SarainItaly: Now you ask excellent questions.

    Victoria (7b01cb)

  83. So here we have a J-school type that petulantly evades the type of questions journalists dream of asking in interviews.

    Yet we’re “fanatics”.

    GMay (da3641)

  84. TMZ has just released photos of a naked Weiner in the House gym,holding his package that he sent to one woman:
    http://photos.tmz.com/galleries/anthony_weiner_at_the_congressional_gym#tab=most_recent&id=93554

    Not cool at all.

    Victoria (7b01cb)

  85. Those pics are so creepy, and if they don’t turn the rest of Congress against him, I don’t know what will. blech!

    thanks Victoria. :O)

    sarainitaly (daf506)

  86. FWIW, I don’t thnk calling Gennette a “whore” of any kind reflects well on the site. I understand why she’d be upset. Bad move, Rocksm – especially since you post under psueonym and she uses her real name.

    Lee Stranahan (708cc3)

  87. How come there aren’t any cute college-aged girls out there cyber-flirting with me on Facebook? :(

    The Dana with hurted feelings (5a4fb2)

  88. Mr. Anthony Weiner, without the title Congressman, D-NY….it’s like pouring water on the Wicked Witch of the West.

    “I’m melting!”

    koam (0a9031)

  89. wallah

    jesuses and penises and conspiracy theory, the essence of conservatism.
    you people are insane.
    WFB is spinning in his grave.

    wheeler's cat (e77721)

  90. 41.Well Gennette has been slimed by Radaronline

    Join the club

    goatsred (b20383)

  91. I have many questions but also have a lot of evidence that throws some of her answers into“The Twilight Zone”.

    goatsred (b20383)

  92. Don’t you all just laugh when nishi calls someone insane?

    I mean, nishi? That was very very funny.

    Simon Jester (662100)

  93. But not to worry: Mr Feet admires her input and point of view!

    Simon Jester (662100)

  94. Weiner was using his political celebrity to groom attractive young women.
    And that just about says it all.

    Dirty Old Man (2e2a43)

  95. FWIW, I don’t thnk calling Gennette a “whore” of any kind reflects well on the site. I understand why she’d be upset. Bad move, Rocksm

    I agree with you and was mad at RocksEm at first… but Gennette was the one who introduced that term into the conversation…

    soren (303eda)

  96. Simon Jester,
    I was especially amused by the griefer’s seance-speaking for Buckley.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (84e2c6)

  97. Oh, my:
    Rep. Anthony Weiner took numerous photos of himself — clothed and partially nude — at the House Members Gym and sent them to at least one woman … raising questions about whether he used Congressional resources in his online exploits.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (84e2c6)

  98. Victoria beat me to it … sorry for the duplication.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (84e2c6)

  99. FWIW, I don’t thnk calling Gennette a “whore” of any kind reflects well on the site. I understand why she’d be upset. Bad move, Rocksm – especially since you post under psueonym and she uses her real name.

    Comment by Lee Stranahan — 6/12/2011 @ 6:56 am

    Lee,
    She used the term. I only used it in response to her and to apologize. But at no time did I actually call her that. Both times I use it in a comment it is in quotes because I was quoting her.

    RocksEm (5241c6)

  100. Nishi/wheelerz passes out after bender. Wakes up momentarily to hit copy, paste, and submit comment, then proceeds to pass out again. Cute.

    JD (85b089)

  101. One thing Weiner’s tweet-tarts have in common is they saw video of him behaving like a hyperpartisan, spastic twit on CNN or Youtube and became aroused by it and sought to friend him on social media sites as a direct result.

    They are similar to Justin Beiber fanatics in the way they have a teenage crush on him. Does anyone really expect them to say anything which may harm the object of their affection? Only if one of them feels scorned would they come out against him. The fact that he was sexting numerous other young women doesn’t even bother them, because they feel so privileged to have been one of the lucky ones he paid attention too.

    We’re talking cyber groupies here. If they knew it wouldn’t harm Weiner, they’d be blabbing to all their friends about their twitter sexploits with Weiner though.

    OxyCon (4e9e3c)

  102. I’d give you ten-to-one odds that the pic of Weiner labeled “ME” was taken in his office in Washington. The building in the background should be fairly easy to identify if you’re familiar with DC.

    As for this from Dustin: “I’m willing to forgive kids doing unwise things”…so long as she’s treated like a kid that’s how she will act. She seems to want it both ways–to be excused for her flirtation with a congressman because she’s “just a kid” yet to be taken seriously because she’s a “journalist”. Sooner or later she’s going to have to adopt one stance or the other and stick with it.

    sarainitaly, good to “see” you.

    creeper (f1f686)

  103. And this is for you Gennette. I’ve been on a few Lefty blogs in which all of you young Weiner fans have been called much worse then “attention whores”. The commenters on those blogs are very angry at you all for your role in causing Weiner trouble. In fact the worst comments I have seen about you all is from lefty commenters.

    OxyCon (4e9e3c)

  104. Creeper, that building was ROHB (and the same as Weiner was in, with a few courtyards).

    Dustin (c16eca)

  105. *RHOB, rather

    Not to pick on Lee again (and read his blog guys, it’s good), but letting Gennette play the victim card worked really well when she was playing the kind victim to the Dan Wolfe crew. She’s laughing at us, not crying.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  106. She still hasn’t answered the #545 question.

    MayBee (081489)

  107. Not that Lee is wrong… ‘whore’ is the term Ginger Lee, femenist, used to describe herself, but it’s trashy and rude. One of the disturbing things about Weiner is how he obviously has little respect for the women who worship him.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  108. TMZ has released photos (both totally nude and partially clothed/towel draped) taken by AW in the House gym. Apparantly they were sent to at least one person online.

    Have Blue (dbbcd4)

  109. Linking this to the story at Weasel Zippers rather than TMZ. (Warning picture is somewhat blurred but not really safe-for-work.

    http://weaselzippers.us/2011/06/12/confirmed-weiner-used-congressional-resources-for-raunchy-pics-house-gym-used-as-backdrop/

    Have Blue (dbbcd4)

  110. Dustin, thanks. No surprise there.

    creeper (f1f686)

  111. Okay…here’s the $64,000 question. Who took the pics of Weiner taking pics of himself?

    creeper (f1f686)

  112. Why even question Genentte? She’s a good little leftist. She’ll gladly lie to aid Weiner and the party. Ideology over justice. Hell, the parents of that minor are more interested in protecting Weiner than their own daughter. For leftists, being a leftist takes priority over everything. Add in the humiliation of being a homewrecker and cheating on her boyfriend and yeah she’s got huge motive to lie. Why bother? It’s like questioning Weiner. Would you trust his answers at this point? So why trust his acolyte?

    Name Required (e72819)

  113. NM. Mirror. Duh.

    creeper (f1f686)

  114. With the TMZ pics we now know why the Dem leadership (and I do use the term loosely) made such an abrupt and forceful change in tone yesterday. Yeah government property is now involved.

    Bob Scheiffer on CBS this morning had a decent, short, and mostly dignified conversation about Weiner with Paul Ryan and Steny Hoyer. At the end of the show Scheiffer editorialized his disgust over the matter and that it took the Dems waaaay too long to make a stand.

    Our MSNBC pal David Gregory, though, looking for equivalence gleefully did not manage to keep Vitter and Ensign and out of the conversation he had with mensa Debbie and Priebus. Tim Russert must be rolling in his grave over the smarmy and thoroughly unprofessional hack who replaced him on MTP.

    elissa (64827b)

  115. Genette- if you are reading this, I would like to appeal to you to write a statement that adds light to the situation. You are a journalism student, so I’m sure you see the questions that still exist. If you need to get started, look at some of the questions on this page. Sara has some good ones, they could get you started.

    You are sitting on a big story. You have sources, and you have information. Don’t let your instincts to protect this guy keep you under his thumb.
    You have an opportunity here to really explore and display your talents. Don’t let some guy you don’t know intimidate you into looking like you don’t know how to do this journalism thing.

    MayBee (081489)

  116. Man, between Rahm Emmanuel’s naked finger chest stabbing of Eric Massa, and Anthony Weiner’s naked picture snapping, I’m beginning to think the American people are being forced to support a really creepy place in that gym.

    MayBee (081489)

  117. I want nishi to look at those pictures and reconsider her belief that it is republicans who are obsessed with penises.

    MayBee (081489)

  118. Slightly OT: The news has been reporting a Marist poll of Weiner’s district that purports to have found that 56% of his constituents do not want him to resign, while only 33% do. However, this poll has a serious flaw, which has gone unnoticed: it was conducted on Thursday, by calling random numbers in the district. Thursday was Shovuos, when observant Jews were not answering the phone; and I’d guess that would describe as much as 20% of the district’s residents. And that 20% would tend to be much more conservative about such matters, more likely to disapprove of his behaviour (though perhaps also more likely to be cynical about all politicians and thus not want him to resign).

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  119. Ace believes Cordova about the honey mustard tweet being a prank from a male who grabbed her phone.

    Shouldn’t twitter figure out a way to avoid this problem?

    But anyway, how terribly crappy of Weiner to have cried wolf on being pranked. That’s a pretty serious charge for a congressman to simply lie about, and I think justifies kicking him out of congress by vote on Monday.

    Imagine you’re ‘Ethel’. Everyone who knows your name knows you’re the girl behind this story. Anyone who googles your name will read the honey mustard quote, for the rest of your life. And you have a pretty decent defense, that someone wrote it in your name.

    But if Ethel or her representative attempts this defense, people will laugh that someone is again claiming the pranked defense that Weiner famously did. Many people will simply refuse to believe her thanks entirely to Weiner.

    Anyhow, is Ace right that this is out of character for her? I recall more than one inappropriate tweet. However, this isn’t about the kid. Whether she was a hacking victim or troubled kid, Weiner saw this as a chance to privately talk to her, which is damn wrong.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  120. Heads up on the Daily Caller link. I use a mac and it tried to DL a trojan.

    DizzyMissLizzy (355042)

  121. Ace believes Cordova about the honey mustard tweet being a prank from a male who grabbed her phone.

    I can believe that, but I think it’s telling that the friend knew that Weiner was something embarrassing to Ethel.

    MayBee (081489)

  122. I can believe that, but I think it’s telling that the friend knew that Weiner was something embarrassing to Ethel.

    Yes, if you read all the ‘pranks’ that way, some of just gross, and some are actually expressing morality, sarcastically mocking her ‘biggest turn on’ being a man who is married.

    I really don’t know. I think it’s plausible that her boyfriend was both willing to talk like this and either jealous or concerned enough to do so, but this is really speculative, and about kids.

    And it’s annoying, too. Deny deny deny, no matter what’s proven, forever, until every last plausible excuse is finally exposed.

    Ms Cordova has already claimed to know, for sure, a lot of things that were not true. And she admits to concealing something. Why? To sell the story? I hope not.

    I don’t even want to speculate about these kids, but sure, I will give them 100% of the benefit of the doubt that I can muster. I don’t think they are important, though. It’s Weiner’s state of mind that matters.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  123. I believe the pictures that surfaced this morning, taken in the House gym, explain why Weiner has departed for “treatment”. He knows they’re going to expel him and he doesn’t want to be available when it happens.

    What I find amazing is that he would seem to prefer expulsion over resigning.

    creeper (f1f686)

  124. Just wanted to point out the obvious….the lives being affected by this incident is due to the continuing inability of one man to come to terms with his actions in a manner that would expose (no pun intended) the truth for all to see. I don’t see why anyone would go to any length at all to protect this guy,for any reason, when it’s obvious to me that he is using them all to protect himself,and has from the beginning.

    I don’t know who among those other than Congressman Weiner may,or may not,be telling the truth. I do know that the truth being told by Weiner,and an honest,thorough investigation of Weiner’s actions,would answer all of our questions.

    This will be my only comment on this matter.

    One Post Charlie (1ec26f)

  125. Ace believes Cordova about the honey mustard tweet being a prank from a male who grabbed her phone.

    I can believe that, but I think it’s telling that the friend knew that Weiner was something embarrassing to Ethel.

    The “mustard” and the “hacked” was sent out on a blackberry… probably her blackberry…

    She had to of known who sent the tweet out… why say “Hacked… Clearly”? Why not say “so and so tweeted that last tweet” instead?

    The only scenario that really fits everything together nice and neatly(maybe too nice and neatly) is if a close personal (probably FEMALE not MALE) friend of hers who knew about the hs friend and her weiner crush tweeted it as a joke and Ethel kind of went along with it(she didn’t delete the tweet immediately though claimed she was “hacked”)

    But contra ace, I think it is in her voice and she did tweet it. Yeah, it sticks out but it sticks out for a reason.

    soren (303eda)

  126. he only scenario that really fits everything together nice and neatly

    think it’s plausible that her boyfriend was both willing to talk like this and either jealous or concerned enough

    OK, I actually like this scenario too… though I’m still not convinced that one guy was her boyfiend . And he wouldn’t necessarily be jealous or concerned…

    soren (303eda)

  127. Guess that means you won’t be answering my questions. Now there’s a shocker!

    Yeah, it couldn’t be that your kind of being a jackass to her without much reason…

    Yeah, It’s totally because she has something to hide.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  128. Shouldn’t twitter figure out a way to avoid this problem?

    What, like prevent updates from phones?

    How the HELL would twitter stop updates from an authorized device?

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  129. Yeah, it couldn’t be that your kind of being a jackass to her without much reason…

    *Yawn*

    You’ve got be kidding me. She is hair pulling evasive and never answers things straightly. Her heuristic to answering all questions is to exonerate herself and then do whatever she can to help Weiner. It’s getting tiring.

    ———————-

    BTW, look at this:

    “You said last night that Patrick was wrong about “Ethel.” Was that just your assessment of the facts we knew? Or do you know something we don’t?

    Cordova:

    Something you don’t. Same with Betty and Veronica. I’ve paid attention for months.”

    Why?

    One thing I found very odd about the “goatsred talked with high school girls who had talked with Cordova about flirting that may or not be fake” story is that I thought it was extremely odd that Cordova would have DMed with one of the other girls Weiner had followed.

    But reading this interview, I find that plausible now.

    soren (303eda)

  130. (she didn’t delete the tweet immediately though claimed she was “hacked”)

    That is peculiar isn’t it? Why wouldn’t she have deleted it. Like you, I’m confused and open minded about it. I don’t really want to bash the poor girl, whether she’s poor because she was pranked, or just troubled about sexuality for some dark reason.

    How the HELL would twitter stop updates from an authorized device?

    Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/12/2011 @ 10:37 am

    Same way Patterico.com does. (get it?)

    Frankly, there’s a ton of issues with twitter I do not like. you can delete something you said to someone else? Sounds like a recipe for lies and harassment. You can post something with simply an SMS from the right number? Yeah, easy to slander someone’s good name then. This young lady’s real name is associated with using honey mustard for lube. That’s terrible, especially if she didn’t even say that.

    At the very least, I’d say people who use twitter should lock their phones, twitter’s application for mobile devices should have some kind of login and automatic timeout (and yeah, I know, it’s SMS, which they should ditch entirely), and finally, parents shouldn’t let their kids use twitter at all.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  131. You’ve got be kidding me. She is hair pulling evasive and never answers things straightly. Her heuristic to answering all questions is to exonerate herself and then do whatever she can to help Weiner. It’s getting tiring.

    I agree. Scott’s mistaken about the ‘not much reason’. And I’m not seeing how it’s jackassery to ask her the questions she’s asked. There have been mistakes on this issue, and on this blog, and I’ve whined about them, so don’t think I’m just shilling here. The conduct of the bloggers in this thread seems fine.

    However, I admit Scott has a point if he’s noticing that Aaron got the interview by being very, very kind, and perhaps that source was like a delicate flower that would be scared away. Patterico’s reply might be to note there’s diminishing value in interviewing someone without asking them the real questions.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  132. This week, I lost three friends over this incident. Two were friends who I have known since 1986 and only saw the SG article.So they actually believe that a mugshot that they saw from 2004 is one that is related to this case. One has to young kids, and once again, thanks to claims of me HARASSING she made it clear to me not to speak to her again.
    My dearest friend,whom I have been thru the most trying times of my life this year, saw this stuff, (she was with me when it happened) and we havent spoken as friends since Monday. Friday she blocked my number because all we had done is fight since Monday.
    She saw links that the people trying to protect AW posted about me BEFORE AW had to come clean and said that she could not believe the stuff she was reading. She later revealed that she did not want the stuff following her around either.
    I have no sympathy because I worry every day if someone I see or talk to knows about this and if they are going to shun me or walk away and think of me as some kind of piece of scum.
    So cry me a river.

    goatsred (b20383)

  133. Scott Jacobs:

    Let me tell you why I am skeptical.

    1) Someone with a boyfriend bats their eyelashes and says: whatever would I have to gain by denying this flirtation? Give me a break.

    2) Remember why we suspected Weiner was lying in the first place, before his admission? A big part of it was his lack of anger over the alleged hacking. If he had really been hacked, he’d be angry. Well, if this girl was really just talking with Weiner about Wolfe and his scurrilous and untrue allegations of predatory behavior with young girls, and then she receives, TOTALLY UNSOLICITED, a picture of an erect penis from Weiner . . . she would be ANGRY. And she isn’t acting angry, or appalled, or disappointed, or anything like that.

    Which leads me to wonder whether she is hiding something.

    She is putting herself out there with all this. Yet she is picking and choosing which questions to answer. She has every right to do that — and we have every right to draw reasonable inferences from this behavior.

    Patterico (1fa238)

  134. Intrepid young journalism student receives unsolicited tweet from US Congressman of bulging boxer-briefs.

    kjl291, just to keep the facts straight, she never received the tweet.

    arhooley (0a5147)

  135. Why did you react so strongly when asked if he ever brought up the cape and tights comment to you?

    Devil’s advocate again (I am not on Team Candid Comely Coed, as Ace says), but “WTF” is not what I call a “strong” reaction. I interpreted it as next door to “LOL” at “cape and tights.” It’s easy to misjudge the strength or emotion of a standard three-letter internet anagram.

    arhooley (0a5147)

  136. A typo or two in my last post. And the post is really aimed at those who accused me in the left media or those who complained that I was harassing them. If I was sending you pictures of my “Weiner” or illicit chat, I’d be hauled off in a second.
    But those people protected and enabled him. And he still refuses to quit.

    goatsred (b20383)

  137. Trying to sift my intuition and sense from my bias.

    It makes sense, if the twitter-saboteur was ragging her about her crush on Weiner, especially if she had gotten a message from him or was checking for one.

    Dustin was right to be more circumspect in the implication of the tweet. Weiner’s state of mind – what would he think of such a tweet mentioning him not very obliquely?

    Maybe the sort of wrong conclusion I did.

    SarahW (af7312)

  138. Let me tell you why I am skeptical

    Great. Be skeptical. Be skeptical all day long, for all I care…

    But if you are trying to get answers from someone, it usually helps to not be a complete dick about it when you ask them.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  139. goatsred, that’s terrible.

    Take some comfort in the fact you’ve kept a disgusting man from some kids, hopefully brought some disturbing stuff to the attention of families that need to know it, etc.

    Yes, a few people really got an unbelievably unfair treatment over this. Too many people respected that unmitigated a-hole at Cannongate. It’s very important we learn a lesson about how to handle sources, who will not always been spotless politicians before facing the choice over whether or not to come forward.

    Anyway, thanks for your part in this.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  140. 1) Someone with a boyfriend bats their eyelashes and says: whatever would I have to gain by denying this flirtation?

    She basically answers that question with her response – she has the boyfriend to lose. If you need her to spell out that answer, we’re going to be here a long time.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  141. Devil’s advocate again (I am not on Team Candid Comely Coed, as Ace says), but “WTF” is not what I call a “strong” reaction. I interpreted it as next door to “LOL” at “cape and tights.”

    This is how I read it. I use “wtf” in a “stunned amazement” fashion all the time?

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  142. Something about pots and kettles ..

    JD (d48c3b)

  143. But if you are trying to get answers from someone, it usually helps to not be a complete dick about it when you ask them.

    Comment by Scott Jacobs —

    You’re right in principle, but perhaps ‘complete dick’ isn’t the right term for it. And not just because of the pun. He’s asking questions that are hard to answer. Cordova is claiming to have information she won’t reveal yet. And I’m getting the impression any answer she would have given to these questions would have been BS unless she was in a position where she would be damn motivated to answer them.

    she would be ANGRY. And she isn’t acting angry, or appalled, or disappointed, or anything like that.

    She’s laughing about this. She says it’s funny. She’s toying with us, coming right up to use, selectively answering a question or two, and saying ‘WTF you fanatics!’ before running off. She is much milder towards Weiner for getting her in this mess than the people who just want to know that a US Congressman isn’t perving around with anyone’s kid.

    Her tone is so weird that it’s difficult to respond to.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  144. Try to make my weiner go to rehab and I say no no no.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  145. You know, this thread is a good example of what real journalism is about. Aaron gets a live text interview with one of the subjects in a national news story and makes his report. The crowd (including Patrick himself) then offer why they are skeptical and ask what I consider to be well thought out and serious questions, which subject GC avoids answering. I think she’s hiding stuff.

    Given all the inconsistencies of all the various stories, I’m pretty sure that we haven’t seen the whole story yet. At this point I think we need the hard records from the social sites for all the parties to start making much sense of things.

    These girls, regardless of age, participated in behavior that could have led to blackmail of a congressman and been part of a serious hazard to our national security. The congressman made up stuff and blamed people he knew were not responsible. What might have happened if somebody, instead of reporting it, told him they had the goods on him, and for him to provide sensitive information lest it become public?

    Given that there appear to be continuing attempts to tamp this down, I don’t think we still have all of the story. It is for this reason I think this affair should be investigated thoroughly, even if the congressman resigns.

    Jeff Mitchell (481f2a)

  146. Maybe the sort of wrong conclusion I did.

    Comment by SarahW

    This is why I keep saying anyone who can demonstrate that conclusion was wrong really need to do now ASAP. It’s unfair to the young lady.

    It mainly matters that Weiner interpreted the way he did (and come on, we all know what kind of mind this guy had, utterly obsessed with talking about gagging people with his overdocumented penis.

    But it also matters that anyone who can help clear the record do so. Instead of playing games.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  147. Comment by JD — 6/12/2011 @ 11:22 am

    And you can continue to go f*ck right off, you worthless pile of sh*t.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  148. She basically answers that question with her response – she has the boyfriend to lose. If you need her to spell out that answer, we’re going to be here a long time.

    She seems to me to be sincerely expecting people to be convinced by her responses.
    She wants to be a journalist, but she has trouble anticipating that her reader might not be a complete idiot.

    MayBee (081489)

  149. Yes Jeff Mitchell, and I’ve noticed a few people out on other blogs are critical of how kind Aaron is in his interview, but A) he’s actually a nice person and B) that’s the only way we’d have her side of the story as clearly (not very) as it is.

    Journalists used to use soft interviews to gain difficult interviews, and let the reader use their brain about odd answers. That seems to have slid to outright shilling for the interviewee, Maddow style.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  150. Something about pots and kettles ..

    Comment by JD — 6/12/2011 @ 11:22 am

    Come on, Scott. That was pretty funny, man.

    Let’s calm down and enjoy Sunday.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  151. Note to everybody: if you are going to us AW as an abbreviation for Anthony Wiener, remember it can be taken as Aaron Worthing. And he’s a nice guy :)

    Jeff Mitchell (481f2a)

  152. That was pretty funny, man.

    Yeah, f*cking hilarious. God forbid I have some sort of issue with some f*cker who backs someone like JeffyG…

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  153. Somebody has manners and anger issues today.

    JD (85b089)

  154. Somebody has manners and anger issues today.

    When it comes to worthless little sh*tstains like you, and your buddy JeffyG, I will always have anger issues.

    As for the manners? You get what you earn, f*cker.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  155. Dustin – I do think the sabotage-joke tweet makes sense in that context, not unless she is really being teased about Weiner.

    I do find it odd that Weiner would adopt a 17 yo’s excuse for his own mis-sent tweet. Maybe that’s just because he is odd.

    Sure, the facebook sabotage fad is sweeping the nation and all, but probably not in the halls of government.

    SarahW (af7312)

  156. She wants to be a journalist, but she has trouble anticipating that her reader might not be a complete idiot.
    Comment by MayBee — 6/12/2011 @ 11:28 am

    With few exceptions (like BroBrad, for example)… those two things tend to go together.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  157. Heh, Stashiu3. With the level of journalism as practiced by NYT, LAT, WAPO, she’d plausibly come to expect that her readers are idiots.

    Jeff Mitchell (481f2a)

  158. Somebody has their internet muscles all flexed and ready to go. Makes for such pleasant company. See y’all later. Maybe he can recruit timmah and Yelverton to join in on the hatefest like he did last time. In the meantime, let us all vow to work on our dick photo management skills.

    JD (b98cae)

  159. Somebody has their internet muscles all flexed and ready to go.

    Oh, so now you have a problem with that? Did you make the same quip to your buddy JeffyG?

    I haven’t threatened anybody. I just call you names. Clearly I must stop that, lest I damage a delicate little flower like yourself.

    F*ck you and your double standard, your worthless motherf*cker.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  160. It sucks when a nice and interesting thread is made ugly for no reason but old grudges. Even if they are ultimately justified, it’s unhealthy. Scott: don’t let Jeff G have this much control over you. If he read this thread he would be overjoyed. Nothing you could do would make him happier.

    Yes, he’s unrepetant and 100% in the wrong, and still, at some point you have to let it go.

    JD’s point makes sense. Your comments in this thread are unpersuasively aggressive, and yet you’re claiming the opposite principle for Patterico’s conduct.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  161. I made no such suggestion, I just noted your irrational and hyper-aggressive tone and conduct. However, you prefer to call the host a dlck while being a weinerhole. More power to ya.

    JD (85b089)

  162. and yet you’re claiming the opposite principle for Patterico’s conduct.

    Indeed. Because I’m asking questions of someone who has every reason to be suspicious, and actually expecting answers.

    I’m reacting to JD’s f*ckwittery, not expecting meaningful responses from him.

    Patrick’s a prosecutor – he knows how to ask questions to get a response. Why is he asking his questions in a manner that would make a reasonable person suspicious?

    If Patrick asked questions like that of me, I wouldn’t answer him either.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  163. guys, let’s take this down a few notches.

    Lets try to talk to EVERYONE in a less aggressive way.

    Please.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  164. If Gennette used the term first, I apologize to Rocks…

    I’ve been on the other side of GC’s victim game. It’s troubling.

    Lee Stranahan (708cc3)

  165. Lets try to talk to EVERYONE in a less aggressive way

    If I’m expected to treat JD like a worthwhile human-being, you might as well ban me, because it isn’t going to f*cking happen.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  166. I’ve been on the other side of GC’s victim game. It’s troubling.

    Comment by Lee Stranahan — 6/12/2011 @ 11:52 am

    Fair point. And yes, this is a game. She has used the term funny in one comment and sadly moaned in the next. And frankly, it’s probably not a big deal. She is trying to defend Ethel, which is a hell of a lot better than Weiner, whom she barely offers a defense for (Ace has a great analysis of that on the top of his blog).

    If she knew what she claimed, she’d tell us, right? So she’s just blowing smoke rather than being the … sort of person she’s coming across as.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  167. Why assume the “journalism” currently being taught in our J schools is any different from the “journalism” on display everyday in MSM?

    Wake up and read the paper.

    Look at the NY Times, the LA Times, or the Miami Herald, pick any big city paper, or tune-in to ABC, NBC, or CBS, or try NPR. The ethics are all the same, it’s all only one step shy of Dan Rather’s “fake but accurate” standard.

    Face it, the Journolista’s will call you a racist if you deviate from the party line. The truth is what the Procressives say iThat’s the cold reality being taught in J schools today.

    ropelight (b98ead)

  168. Why assume the “journalism” currently being taught in our J schools is any different from the “journalism” on display everyday in MSM?

    Wake up and read the paper.

    Look at the NY Times, the LA Times, or the Miami Herald, pick any big city paper, or tune-in to ABC, NBC, or CBS, or try NPR. The ethics are all the same, it’s all only one step shy of Dan Rather’s “fake but accurate” standard.

    Face it, the Journolista’s will call you a racist if you deviate from the party line. The truth is what the Procressives say iThat’s the cold reality being taught in J schools today.

    ropelight (b98ead)

  169. My soul is in despair because ScottieJ doesn’t like me. I will run along and allow him to be a dlckthout anyone to disturb him. May he find some solace in the fact that by being a weinerhole, he keeps the light focused on Weiner and his weinertweeting.

    JD (b98cae)

  170. It makes sense, if the twitter-saboteur was ragging her about her crush on Weiner, especially if she had gotten a message from him or was checking for one.

    Great point, if someone else did tweet that tweet of Ethel’s they could have seen whatever DMs she had with Weiner… of course, there was enough publicly said that the “joke” would have still worked.

    I think anyone who thinks the “weiner” in that tweet was a misspelling is naive…

    soren (303eda)

  171. I’d like to know what Gennette was alluding to re Betty and Veronica. Goatsred could maybe offer a little of the story from his perspective.

    Tommy Christopher said Veronica told Goatsred she knew of screencaps kept by Betty of conversations with Gennette, and I believe (correct me if I’m wrong) these conversations were about flirting with the Congressman.

    Genette has said she was curious about and thought of writing a piece about people like Dan Wolfe, Goatsred, et al, and has admitted to actually having some sort conversations with Betty ostensibly about the warnings the girls were getting from such people about talking to the Congressman.

    So screencapped DM’s between Betty and Veronica plausibly exist.

    So did Veronica REALLY fake anything? Goatsred, what exactly did she claim to have? Did you ever see any of it?

    Tommy said Veronica was also trying to rope her friend into
    the business by saying Goatsred was trying to get her to make statements about Weiner that Tommy characterizes as trying to get her to make false statements. (Or maybe, if cast in different light, to hand over the conversations that existed).

    Was Gennette thinking these girls were in on some sort of sting, or not even real girls? What did she talk to them about? What did she suspect? Did she learn anything about them?

    SarahW (af7312)

  172. So screencapped DM’s between Betty and Veronica plausibly exist.

    That should instead read: “between Betty and Gennette.”

    SarahW (af7312)

  173. goatsred, I’m so sorry that you’ve lost friends over this. Please know, though, that your posts have not been in vain. You reminded me that I must be very careful in mentioning youngsters anywhere online. I came close to exposing a wonderful child to publicity she does not need. You stopped me. I thank you.

    creeper (f1f686)

  174. goatsred- has Genette apologized to you? Has she thanked you for trying to warn her and the other young girls?

    MayBee (081489)

  175. I’m relatively new here. If I hadn’t read all the way through this thread I’d have sworn Scott Jacobs was a troll.

    Profanity is what you resort to when you can’t make your argument coherently. It adds little to the discussion. I’ll be skipping Scott’s posts henceforth.

    creeper (f1f686)

  176. Question about the “boyfriend” tweet, because there’s an obvious generational gap (people my age say stuff like that all the time): did you think I said it because we were involved in online flirting?

    I hate this answer.
    It isn’t a generational gap. *I* say that all the time. My current boyfriend is Khal Drogo in Game of Thrones. My husband knows this. My current girlfriend is Emily Blunt.

    However, if I tweeted that Khal Drogo (the actor guy) was my boyfriend, and he started direct messaging me in a very familiar way, it would seem a bit creepy to me. Especially when I know that he has a live in girlfriend and babies.

    Now, I don’t want to say that knowing what crosses the line is something that comes with age. By 21, I knew when someone was hitting on me in a not hitting on me way. Now, either Gennette does not have that kind of sense, or she does. And so was not shocked by package.jpg.

    MayBee (081489)

  177. Profanity is what you resort to when you can’t make your argument coherently. It adds little to the discussion. I’ll be skipping Scott’s posts henceforth.

    Then I suggest you avoid The Jury like the damned plague.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  178. The whole idea of a journalism major at a community college when real experienced journalists with graduate degrees from places like Columbia is unrealistic.

    Huey (ddf1a4)

  179. @ Dustin,

    One of the disturbing things about Weiner is how he obviously has little respect for the women who worship him.

    What’s disturbing to me is the obvious lack of respect the women who worship him have for themselves.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  180. Well said, Dana.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  181. To: commetn 134: I agree with you completely! As a woman who has a twitter account and a FB account, one has a bunny as an Icon and the other a photo of me… and I have to say … IF I was tweeting on Twitter with a politician or any other guy and out of the blue, he sent a photo of his dick my way, you can bet your shorts I would be mad as hell!

    This college student story is “not feeling right” to my womanly intuition and all norms of life as a woman! LOL….

    I woke this morning to find even Politico has 11 new photos via TMZ of the Weener holding his crotch and even using his dick as a towel rack in one photo…. in the Congressional Gym… LOL, What next?

    Like I said yesterday, there is much more to come..(pun intended) in this Weener story… and as far as the girls go they are all either involved and protecting him or just simply embarrassed they too got caught in the perverted behavior… maybe even their own.
    I have been around the block as a woman, and I can say, a man sending a dick photo to you UNsolicited would be concerning and would cause MOST women to block or end a twitter or FB friendship…. NOT continue the relationship.

    BTW, I have just recently found this blog and I love the LOGIC of those both writing and in the comments, with the exception of a couple loser-lefties poppiing in, its great to find logic… In this matter of the Weener story, like Tiger Woods running out at 3am and having a car wreck… logical adults KNOW that there is much much more to this story .. coming to a blog soon.. the MSM is having a Hard time swallowing this … one of their Heros’s (Weener) biting it…

    Hargoosh (d0e9bc)

  182. Scott Jacobs,

    1) This is not the place for a rehash of your issues with JD and others. That is a distraction. Please leave the distractions out.

    2) Yes, I would like Gennette to talk to us. But I also would like her to know that she is not fooling me. I obviously don’t know whether she is telling the truth with all of this. Maybe she is. But I would like her to know that her “I will only answer certain questions and I will intimate that I know more than I am telling and I will generally act like I am in the bag for Weiner” act is not lowering suspicion. It is raising it.

    She does not have to forthrightly answer all questions. She has every right to be cute and play games. And we have every right to draw reasonable inferences from that.

    Patterico (1fa238)

  183. Put another way: I have no desire whatsoever to be rude to Gennette. But Gennette: we’re not stupid here. And if it takes a little directness to get across to you that your attitude is raising suspicions, then a little directness is what I’ll use.

    Go back and read my posts. You’ll see I disputed people who said Weiner wrote your statement for you. I said I was not convinced of that. I have said all along you may be telling the truth with all of this.

    But the way you have behaved in this thread (and post), frankly, is causing me to have MORE doubts than I had.

    Patterico (1fa238)

  184. This college student story is “not feeling right” to my womanly intuition and all norms of life as a woman!

    I think it’s important to bear in mind that our fair gender is far more complicated and naturally manipulative than our counterparts. Wiles notwithstanding.

    Along with that, Ms. Cordova, although young, is still a woman of ambition – and that important bit of insight makes me believe she has a more active motivation to keep people guessing and manipulate them into needing more of her, hence giving her the position of power, if you will. We’re just the seekers, she has the answers.

    As her goal is to become a journalist, it’s a reasonable assumption to believe this is a controlling factor in her inconsistent and nebulous responses to AW’s questions.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  185. Of course anyone who isn’t an apologist for weiner is treated liked a dog by Scott Jacobturd.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  186. Another take on Patterico’s question #6 (“If you are telling the truth that you did not flirt with Weiner, then how would you characterize his sending you that picture? Reckless? Bad judgment? Sexual harassment?”) to Ms. Cordova:

    ‘As a citizen and aspiring journalist, what responsibility do you feel you have to your fellow citizens to do everything you can to have Rep. Weiner removed from office for his inappropriate actions; specifically, sending you an unsolicited, sexually explicit picture of himself…even if it was a “joke”?’

    Ms. Cordova’s lack of outrage/concern unfortuantely speaks volumes.

    Porkopolis (edf225)

  187. Scott

    i am not proposing a ban, i am trying to get everyone to calm down.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  188. Caveat Emptor from townhall is no classic liberal he is a liberal[A hijakced word].

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  189. 137.
    A typo or two in my last post. And the post is really aimed at those who accused me in the left media or those who complained that I was harassing them. If I was sending you pictures of my “Weiner” or illicit chat, I’d be hauled off in a second.
    But those people protected and enabled him. And he still refuses to quit.

    Comment by goatsred — 6/12/2011 @ 11:09 am

    Sorry about what has happened to you and patriot76usa.

    I do not believe Gennette, Betty, Veronica, or Ethel.

    The Democrat machine got to them.

    Juan (f3b3f9)

  190. If you want to ask some questions, hit me up at my twitter and Ill send back to Aaron or Patterico. They can look thru and answer.
    Thanks for the kind words. These guys and you posters have been nothing short of awesome in allowing me to speak freely and honestly all the while challenging me and confirming every fact and piece of evidence.
    Thanks also to Dustin May-bee creeper and Juan

    goatsred (b20383)

  191. MayBee — No apologies from anyone involved. Including the leftwing libelists who have dragged me through tons of mud. No retractions, nothing.

    goatsred (b20383)

  192. To the question of why Weiner might rather be expelled than resign might be economics.
    Maybe his addiction treatment will be covered by the taxpayer and maybe he’ll receive his check the whole time… resigning maybe would end those benefits.

    He doesn’t care much about the taxpayer… excluding vein popping, vicious, but unconvincing ranting fakery.
    So maybe he just is going to milk the public as long as he can

    SteveG (cc5dc9)

  193. Is that the Juan that used to comment here?

    JD (318f81)

  194. Off topic, but Mavs win.

    The greatest players in the NBA somehow lost to some old guys, old guys and an immigrant.

    Is the United States great or what?

    Seriously, this may be the best win by a profession sports team until someone comes along and tells me it’s not.

    But, Mark, thanks for shutting up and thanks to Donnie for hiring Rick Carlisle.

    Jerry Jones can learn a lesson. Wait, that won’t happen.

    Ag80 (1bc637)

  195. I heart Dirk in a not at all ghey way.

    JD (318f81)

  196. I meant to say cast-offs, sorry for the redundancy.

    Ag80 (1bc637)

  197. DRJ?

    Ag80 (1bc637)

  198. Ag80 – I was telling someone earlier that Dirk is so under-rated, or was, that they should make a new word for it.

    JD (318f81)

  199. hijacked*

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  200. Dirk did not have a great game. His team had a great game because they played the game. He played in a way to let his team to win. And he never gave up.

    He was a leader, not a star.

    I have an affinity for leaders. Stars can go to hades.

    Ag80 (1bc637)

  201. Dirk Nowitski is a poser.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  202. Interesting quote:

    Gennette Cordova was, and apparently remains, a liberal Democrat fan of Anthony Weiner. So if she’s telling a version of the story that would tend to discourage an FBI investigation, I certainly am not surprised.

    source: http://theothermccain.com/2011/06/12/gennette-cordova-still-pro-weiner/

    Joe

    Joe Smith (54c0c1)

  203. Dirk Nowitski is a poser.

    Comment by DohBiden — 6/12/2011 @ 9:14 pm

    Of all the stupid things you have said …

    JD (318f81)

  204. But i have to admit i’am pleased he is a class act.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  205. Of course anyone who isn’t an apologist for weiner is treated liked a dog by Scott Jacobturd.

    Look, dick-f*ck…

    If you think I’m some apologist for Rep Weiner, you need to have your meds adjusted. I can’t stand the guy, and haven’t for over a year.

    But if suggesting that you might get greater willingness to answer questions if you don’t ask them in a hostile manner makes me some sort of apologist for the guy, then sure. Whatever f*cking gets you off.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  206. Of course anyone who isn’t an apologist for weiner is treated liked a dog by Scott Jacobturd.

    That is kind of an idiotic statement.

    JD (318f81)

  207. MayBee — No apologies from anyone involved. Including the leftwing libelists who have dragged me through tons of mud. No retractions, nothing.

    Comment by goatsred — 6/12/2011 @ 6:13 pm

    I guess about a week ago I read the hit piece/profile of Red. A week later the only thing I can remember of it is there was a man standing alone against power, with his fist raised in the air saying, “You won’t get away with it. Not on my watch.”

    papertiger (e55ba0)

  208. I think anyone who thinks the “weiner” in that tweet was a misspelling is naive

    Many have said this and I am in agreement. thanks soren)

    And thanks papertiger

    But also thanks to all those who looked at this thing objectively: from Patterico,Stranahan,Worthing,Liberty Chick,Loesch,Breitbart,the commenters here, and the outstanding friends and followers on Twitter.

    goatsred (b20383)

  209. 194.Is that the Juan that used to comment here?

    Comment by JD — 6/12/2011 @ 8:20 pm

    Why?

    Juan (f3b3f9)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.8584 secs.