In light of the recent Tommy Christopher debacle, I think it’s about time we started asking big-J Journalists to show their work. Let’s start with Jennifer Preston of the New York Times:
At least three months before the revelation that former Representative Anthony D. Weiner was sending lewd messages and photos to women online, a small group of self-described conservatives was monitoring his exchanges with women on Twitter. Now there is evidence that one or more people created two false identities on Twitter in order to collect information to use against him.
How do you know they were trying to get information to use against Weiner? Show your work, please. Bonus points if you can explain why these girls and Nikki/Betty’s mom later issued deliriously pro-Weiner statements that sounded like something from his P.R. team. All part of their devious plan to attack him!
Now Tommy Christopher:
The main thrust of the story was that Rep. Weiner had not made inappropriate contact with “Betty,” and that Andrew Breitbart was not guilty of engineering a hoax against Weiner. Both of these things are still true.
How do you know that Rep. Weiner did not make inappropriate contact with Nikki/Betty? Show your work, please.
And stop calling her Betty. The NYT published their names. Here is your handy guide:
The thrust of your story before, Tommy, was:
1. Marianela contacted the #bornfreecrew (PatriotUSA76, Mike Stack/goatsred, and others) saying she had relatively innocuous DMs between Nikki and Weiner, and DMs between Seattle woman Gennette Cordova and Weiner showing they had flirted. Marianela told Stack Nikki was willing to provide all this, but that they both insisted on anonymity.
2. Nikki contacted you to raise the #bornfreecrew as an issue. When you asked her about what Marianela had, they both denied it, said they made it up, issued pro-Weiner statements, and told you they were really Nikki Reid and Marianela Alicea. Now we learn that last bit was a lie — so you conclude that they are now telling the truth about everything else. And the New York Times concludes they are anti-Weiner.
Oh — speaking of people manufacturing evidence against people, get a load of this. Someone is going around posting images that look for all the world like DMs a) between Weiner and Gennette Cordova, talking like they are in league with Nikki and Marianela in how to respond to the #bornfreecrew, and b) from Gennette, talking about how she flirted with Weiner. One person posted this in a comment on one of Lee’s posts here:
Gennette & Weiner May 15
Gennette & Weiner May 15 part2
starchild part 1
starchild part 2
starchild part 3
starchild part 4
Here are the top two:
And on Ace’s site, someone posted this:
251 Gennette Nicole Cordova
Here is what that one looks like:
Until these are properly vetted by our media betters, we can’t say what the heck these are. I’d ask Gennette myself, but a) her umpteenth Twitter account is private, so I can’t contact her, and b) she has always said she won’t answer any of my more probing questions because I am not a “reputable journalist.”
They’re either genuine or they’re faked by someone.
Either way, they’re interesting. If they’re faked — they’re exactly the type of information that Nikki Reid said she had from Gennette: evidence of flirtation between Gennette and Weiner. So this could be a clue to finding the real Nikki and Marianela. They faked IDs and they probably faked these, too. Right?
Or, they’re genuine, and they are what Nikki and Marianela told Mike Stack they had.
Which is it? Well, the key thing to remember is that a) Tommy Christopher maintains Nikki and Marianela never had anything on Weiner, and the fact they lied to him doesn’t change that, and b) Jen Preston of the NYT assures us that Nikki and Marianela were working against Weiner. With those cold hard facts, related to us by our media betters, we can easily see that these are obvious fakes. So I pass them along to you with that assumption.
P.S. They also could easily be fakes dummied up by someone to try to get us right-wingers to publish them and declare that they are evidence of something. That is why I make absolutely no such declaration. At this point, I see these links as simply a curiosity found on the Internet, like interesting shells you find on the beach. Hey, look at these! Aren’t these interesting.
We’ll all look at them together. Maybe people will ask some questions. Then we’ll decide whether to put them in our pocket or put them back down on the sand.
UPDATE: In one place in the post I had a typo, saying “pro-Weiner” instead of “anti-Weiner” to describe the NYT characterization of Nikki and Marianela. Fixed. Thanks to Caleb Howe.
UPDATE x2: Looking at these screenshots again. They look like fakes to the naked eye. Look at how the dates and times don’t line up.
For example: look at the first DM allegedly from GennetteNicole.
You see the date, and then the time jumps up noticeably.
I say: bad Photoshop.
Fascinating. Who did it? I’d love to know!