Conversations with Puppets, Part 3: READER POLL!!!
I don’t have enough time to put anything out this morning. I am trying to decide among the following:
a) Document dump from John Reid
b) Chats with John Reid
c) List of reasons John Reid is Patriot
d) Recent e-mails with John Reid
Any of these requires a lot of editorializing for it to make sense. What are people most interested in right now?
I know what I’m leaning towards, and I have that one almost done. Just need screenshots and some commentary to round it out. But I’m interested to know what you guys most want to see first. a, b, c, or d?
I can’t vote because I’ll skew the totals.
Patterico (f724ca) — 8/11/2011 @ 7:39 amC, though I kinda expect that to come later.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/11/2011 @ 7:43 amI have a vote but it is not on the list.
SarahW (af7312) — 8/11/2011 @ 7:45 amThe tough part is that whoever is playing these games is inconsistent and often doesn’t make sense. So sussing out motivations and outcomes is difficult (at least, with the dataset I have available; Patterico may know far more than he is telling us, or me).
So I’m with Dustin on this. It would seem more evidence based and a little less muddy?
Simon Jester (5124f8) — 8/11/2011 @ 7:46 amSarahW, care to share?
Simon Jester (5124f8) — 8/11/2011 @ 7:46 amYou know which one of your BFF’s loves your reader polls.
I vote c.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/11/2011 @ 7:46 ama or d
MayBee (081489) — 8/11/2011 @ 7:53 amGo with C first, weather the storm, then back it up with the other stuff as needed.
ropelight (ffa587) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:01 amSJ – Dump all, explain nothing. 🙂
SarahW (af7312) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:06 am“a” might help put everything else in context. That’s my vote.
Stashiu3 (601b7d) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:06 amA or C. Your judgment.
Demosthenes (83a043) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:01 amE. All of the above. 😉
diggrbiii (98c6fb) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:06 amIf we know A, B and D are all BS and gameplaying- we might as well cut to the chase with C
Auntie Fraud (2f38aa) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:13 amI rather think the emails would be interesting, as long as there aren’t way too many of them.
BarSinister (e32ad2) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:14 amOr F
Find out if Harry Reid is really from Planet Douschebag.
DohBiden (d54602) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:16 am“C”
JohnLFP (d2d105) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:23 amI liked this blog better when it took after the L.A. Times and other, more mundane, matters.
John425 (f8a299) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:31 amI’d say A, and then B.
Gennette (55c21d) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:37 amc
slp (973d64) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:37 amFor Pete’s sake, do SOMETHING. How long have been sitting on this stuff?
Jewels (c7b6c5) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:39 ami vote for “Boobies”, but i’m shallow and tacky like that.
redc1c4, proud AoS moron (fb8750) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:42 amC first, then the rest as you can, because IMO that will explain more to those of us who haven’t been following this as closely. The rest seems more like supporting documentation, which virtually everyone on this board trusts that you’re representing accurately.
no one you know (325a59) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:48 amOoooh tough. Hmmm This morning I thought C because I had something bubbling on the burner but then I confused myself completely
Blackburnsghost (2ffb0c) — 8/11/2011 @ 10:12 amSo I guess I’ll go with A.
Side note:Does anyone know who’s KOS diary “outed” Betty? Remember when TC got upset about that. Just wondering
As one of those “casual readers” referred to the previous post (and a longtime resident of Ace of Spades who gave up on theorizing about this mess because of its incomprehensibility), I will say this: if the answer is ANYTHING BUT OPTION “C” I’m about to boil over into genuine frustration and maybe even a little bit of anger.
I would really like to know WTF was going on with all this DanWolfe/PatriotUSA/John Reid stuff. Obviously there was some interesting skullduggery. But I can’t help but think that it’s a rather pointless sideshow (and yes, I know there were threats made, but still…this isn’t Nixon’s Plumbers here, it apparently was one, maybe two, stupid internet wackos) to the main event of Weiner DM’ing his schlong to various women across the country.
So it’s put-up-or-shut-up time. You can stop with the annoying, teasing cryptic hints (which honestly are beginning to sound badgering — I don’t know the entire backstory btw. Patterico and Gennette Cordova as a participant in these comments, but his weirdly hectoring posts in the previous thread came across as churlish and baiting to someone on the outside looking in…STOP PLAYING REINDEER GAMES FFS). Or you can keep on with this “I’ll post something soon, oh wait no I won’t here’s another random E-mail from John Reid shorn of any explanatory context, enjoy” and I’ll give up entirely.
I know the world doesn’t revolve around what I personally think of this whole kerfuffle, obviously, but I’m really getting sick of this stuff. It seems like Patterico’s posts on the subject aren’t even really addressed to his readers anymore, they’re just part of some shadow-game he’s playing with John Reid/Dan Wolfe and Cordova and whoever else he thinks is involved. I feel like I’m only seeing one side of a conversation and it’s just making me think that life’s too effin’ short to try and puzzle this stuff out.
Sorry for the rant, I know it’s a bit over-the-top. But if the next post is just another stupid “document dump” and DOESN’T INCLUDE AN ACTUAL EXPLANATION OF YOUR GRAND UNIFIED THEORY, then you’re pretty much insulting your readership at that point. The job here is for YOU to explain to US wtf is going on — since you’re privy to things we know squat about. Not only do I not feel like ‘doing the work’ on my own for this anymore, I couldn’t do that work even if I wanted to. I don’t have all the pieces. Nobody but you does.
Sorry again. Had to get it out. Carry on, Patterico! Love the blog anyway!
Jeff B. (1d11ce) — 8/11/2011 @ 10:48 amClearly, only Cyrus Sanai can save us from John Reid. 🙂
luagha (5cbe06) — 8/11/2011 @ 11:01 amAs usual I’m not in the majority.
I vote for d., because the JR who composed the DM’s etc (or whoever did) had the benefit of planning & preparation.
The JR who “lost it” just the other day was agitated, stressed, & emotional (from what I understand of Patterico’s comments).
So I’d rather read someone’s unguarded, unedited, emails than carefully scripted (I’m assuming of course) messages. Obviously AW’s msg’s wouldn’t have been scripted. Or who knows at this point.
Miranda (4104db) — 8/11/2011 @ 11:18 amJohn Reid’s email headers and IP addresses.
JoeBlow (2bd950) — 8/11/2011 @ 11:26 amI’d vote “C” with a shoutout for more information the angle of Neil Rauhauser, Ford, Brynaert, etc. My main interest in this whole saga is that I suspect the coverup attempt by Weiner and his staff had some potentially illegal/unethical component to it.
Kaisersoze (298188) — 8/11/2011 @ 11:44 amI’ll second Joe on that.
Blackburnsghost (2ffb0c) — 8/11/2011 @ 11:56 amI would vote for c.
Victor Ruthig (6a8dc3) — 8/11/2011 @ 11:58 amI vote for d followed quickly by c. I think d may save some comments and questions about c.
jmel44 (587a2f) — 8/11/2011 @ 12:16 pmAnything but c.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/11/2011 @ 12:16 pmI agree with DRJ
Gennette (55c21d) — 8/11/2011 @ 12:19 pmGennette, I thought you just wanted to know as much as you can about Reid (such as whether he’s this other sock).
And that you discount the value of his communication. (A,B, perhaps D)
You’re the last person I’d expect to say ‘anything but C’.
Maybe I’m missing the point.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/11/2011 @ 12:22 pmMy vote is for C, with whatever bits of A, B, & D that you want to use as supporting evidence. Then again, I don’t know what the holdup is on publishing A, B, & D at this point, since all you have to do is copy & paste. Unless you will be providing commentary with each release, which would be a little tedious.
Soothsayer (2756ca) — 8/11/2011 @ 12:41 pm@Dustin
Pat has told me quite a bit about why he thinks JR9 is DW; I’m already convinced that he is. So while I’d want to see the list, if I had to choose which one I wanted to see first, that would be list.
Gennette (55c21d) — 8/11/2011 @ 12:48 pmI would say: A, B, D then C.
Thanks for the explanation, Gennette.
If you and Patterico agree on something that’s pretty powerful.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/11/2011 @ 12:50 pm@Dustin
Also, I don’t discount the value of his communication. He’s been lying the entire time, but the lies have been telling.
Gennette (55c21d) — 8/11/2011 @ 12:51 pmAnd I wouldn’t mind seeing more fabricated DMs because then I would know what kind of message they were attempting to send.
I vote A…because I like to sift through info, and parse for a bit before theorizing.
ppk_pixie (1df0c8) — 8/11/2011 @ 1:23 pmMy reason for wanting C. last is different than Gennette’s. I want to see the Reid documents before I decide who is who.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/11/2011 @ 1:25 pmPatrick, just do what you are so damn good at … connect the dots with the evidence you have.
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 8/11/2011 @ 1:36 pmI think you should let GennetteC do a guest post focusing on the not-inappropriate reasons she had a married congresscritter’s cell phone number and texted him, followed by her analysis of why she was the only girl similarly situated that weinertweeter did not act inappropriately with.
JD (85b089) — 8/11/2011 @ 1:43 pmAntie Fraud has convinced me, I vote “C”.
felipe (2ec14c) — 8/11/2011 @ 1:51 pm@JD
I don’t my explaining this again… for the 10th time. But let’s try to pay attention, shall we? That way we can minimize redundancies.
The morning after the tweet, there were numerous blog posts written about me and I still wasn’t sure what was going on.
I no longer had my Twitter, so I emailed AW trying to get some clarity about the situation.
A few hours later he emailed me back saying:
1. He had been hacked.
2. He was handling everything.
3. I could contact him via his cell phone if I needed to.
And that’s when I got his number.
In response to the second part of your comment, we don’t actually know that I was the only girl who he didn’t have inappropriate conversations with. And even if I was, which I highly doubt that I am, I think you’d have to ask him that.
Gennette (55c21d) — 8/11/2011 @ 2:01 pmAlso, the girls who came forward saying that they had inappropriate conversations seemed really open to it and they encouraged it. That could be one reason.
I vote for C. I hate surprises, I’d rather just get to the meat of things first and then get all the background.
radar (7b439e) — 8/11/2011 @ 2:06 pmI’m for dumping the subject, but if you’re gonna do the posts, remind me why its important. Its been awhile since this story was warm…
Jeff Mitchell (481f2a) — 8/11/2011 @ 2:17 pmTry this post, Jeff.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/11/2011 @ 2:33 pmShow of hands – who thinks that Gennette’s current pronouncement matches with her prior evasions?
Given that everybody not named Mike Strack that was involved in this has turned out to be a complete crapweasel, why would we assume you to be anything but just that?
JD (b98cae) — 8/11/2011 @ 2:35 pmWhile you are at it, since you assert you have answered that 10 times, maybe you could use the google that you youngsters love and direct us to where you answered that previously.
JD (d56362) — 8/11/2011 @ 2:38 pmSo the other girls were asking for it, and they got weinertweets. You were not, yet you still got weinertweets.
JD (822109) — 8/11/2011 @ 2:46 pm@JD
Ten was obviously an exxagerration. But I’ve certainly answered this question in comments before. And Patterico brought the question up again in this last week but I’ve answered the question for him multiple times both over the phone and via email.
You can assume that I’m a “crapweasel” or a “twatwaffle” or any of the other clever insults that you’ve been calling me.
Assume away.
And I didn’t get any sexual or flirtatious tweets. There was one picture. He told me he was hacked. Later he said he sent it as a joke. I don’t know why I got the stupid picture. But I think you’ve made your point about what it is that you believe so can you lay off a little bit because you’re really starting to offend me.
Gennette (55c21d) — 8/11/2011 @ 2:56 pmBS. This act got tired a long time ago.
JD (d56362) — 8/11/2011 @ 3:19 pm@JD
Alright buddy. Thanks for all of the valuable insight and commentary that you bring to the conversation.
Gennette (55c21d) — 8/11/2011 @ 3:24 pm“…you’re really starting to offend me…”
Oh, my.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 8/11/2011 @ 3:40 pmDouble oh my. Feminism triumphant!
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 8/11/2011 @ 3:43 pm@SimonJester
That has nothing to do with feminism. Some people are open to racy online liaisons with public figures who they don’t know and some people aren’t.
Gennette (55c21d) — 8/11/2011 @ 3:57 pmI guess we aren’t cool like you! It must be because you are young and can tell when someone old is posing as someone young, right?
LOL.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 8/11/2011 @ 4:05 pmBesides, all you are really saying is “…they wanted it.” And I well remember (as do you) the Clinton apologists on that subject.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 8/11/2011 @ 4:06 pm@SimonJester
#57 Ummm, I’m not sure where that came from. But actually, yes! I could tell that someone old was posing as someone young. Its looking like Nikki definitely wasn’t 17, right?
I’m not sure how that would make me cool, but if you say so.
#58 And I was probably around 12 when all of the Clinton stuff happened, so no, I don’t really remember it all that well. I’m not saying “they wanted it” they way people say it about victims. I’m saying these were all consenting, adult women. The three that came forward were happy to give up information, and they appeared unapologetic about it.
Gennette (55c21d) — 8/11/2011 @ 4:15 pmI think the problem here is that people keep wanting me to admit to doing something that never happened and the more I don’t, the more hostile everyone acts towards me.
A. The more clues, the better
scoovy (0e137d) — 8/11/2011 @ 4:19 pm“…the more hostile everyone acts towards me…”
On the other hand, you do appear to be playing games, and can easily stop it all. But doing so would be “weird,” despite your association with a gigantic perve. Which wasn’t weird.
That might be a source of some of the disbelief, yes.
But hey, you are the one who keeps engaging.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 8/11/2011 @ 4:21 pmI am trying to decide among the following:
a) Document dump from John Reid
b) Chats with John Reid
c) List of reasons John Reid is Patriot
d) Recent e-mails with John Reid
My guess is your preference is actually A. A is not bad except most of them are probably untrue, except for a few that maybe aren’t, but it will shed further light on motives.
C – We will probably get this with anything.
A probably (purports to be at least) material dated before May 28, 2011. It would be good also to indicate what dates you received the various documents and if any were possibly in response to anything.
B Would be next in chronological order.
D Is the most recent. You probably also had some emails before the chats.
It would help to get some more extended descriptions.
Which one in the best one to see first depends on what anyone wants to focus on right now, but D would be the most informative new material. We didn’t even know there were new communications from John Reid unless it’s near the end of the bog June 30 thread.
I don’t think John Reid is Patriot – I do think they are connected in some way. It’s pretty hard to improvise well, on the fly, such totally different characters. I don’t think John Reid is Shakespeare. There may be a scripwriter involved here somewhere, but that’s not John Reid.
Sammmy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 8/11/2011 @ 4:27 pm@SimonJester
When I was communicating with AW I didn’t know what he was up to online. When I found out, yeah, I thought it was weird. I’m not sure why you keep saying that I didn’t think it was weird.
Gennette (55c21d) — 8/11/2011 @ 4:29 pmAlso I’m not playing games. Patterico wanted to confirm my identity with a spontaneous phonecall, I consented.
Now he says we have to do a videochat. I don’t know him and I have boundaries.
I’m not sure how that’s playing games. I suppose I should consent to videochats with every guy that asks for them. Yes, that makes a lot of sense.
Anthony Weiner’s apologists are incapable of admitting he did wrong.
Honestly he could molest a 90 year old and they would defend it.
DohBiden (d54602) — 8/11/2011 @ 4:29 pm@DohBiden
Really? That was unnecessary. And I haven’t heard too many people say that he’s done nothing wrong.
Gennette (55c21d) — 8/11/2011 @ 4:36 pmYou’re trying to make me think about this, Patterico, and I’m trying to ignore it, which I shouldn’t. Congratulations, you’ve succeeded. What I want to check is “begin at the beginning, go on to the end, then stop”, with the sources mixed by time, so we follow the story as you did.
So “E”, please.
Gennette, I’ve been the victim of a stalker and (although male and in my sixties) well remember the feelings I had then. You’re right to be cautious. You’ve already lost something precious — peace of mind. I would trust Patterico, in general, not to reveal things I’d told him in confidence, but I’ve been here for years and you haven’t. As well, I’d be careful what I would tell him (or anyone); there’s no way to tell what pressure might be brought to bear on him or someone with access to his phone, email, ….
If you’re really a victim in this, and not a co-conspirator, I really think you’d be safe revealing your identity to him. But you might be a co-conspirator and not know it, too, either because others have deceived you, or because you’ve deceived yourself. Take care.
htom (412a17) — 8/11/2011 @ 4:38 pmAren’t we all fairly confident that John Reid is Freaky Neal? I am.
Doesn’t he admit as much here: http://twitpic.com/5h0tm8
If Neal=John, why would Neal=Patriot as well? That is the question.
Auntie Fraud (2f38aa) — 8/11/2011 @ 4:39 pmComment by Gennette — 8/11/2011 @ 2:56 pm
And I didn’t get any sexual or flirtatious tweets. There was one picture. He told me he was hacked. Later he said he sent it as a joke.
More exactly he said, it was part of a joke.
Now how does that make sense?
Well, it makes sense if when Weiner said:
“Last Friday night, I tweeted a photograph of myself that I intended to send as a direct message as part of a joke to a woman in Seattle.”
He was lying (with respect to the part in bold)
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/full_transcript_of_weiner_news_conference_JxlqpgCFcbffrWKKcwsyLL#ixzz1UlZ8trTj
It was patriotusa76 who said this was intended as a direct message. But actually software gliches indicate that’s not so. It was sent the way people suggested it could have been hacked (except that for somebodfy other than anything weiner to send it, they’d have to know his yfrog address)
Weiner was preparing a joke (maybe something saying – what do you think of my new avatar! 0 the idea being to play a joke on teh meaninmg of Weiner.)
So to do that he first loaded it up to Yfrog.
And furtehrmore he also put a note there that said @gennetteNicole.
Indicating maybe who that joke was inteneded for.
Unknown to him, that had the effect of IMMEDIATELY sending it out as a tweet because all photos posted to Yfrog via email were also sent out as tweets with the notes included.
But if that’s how it happened why did Weiner say that he had intended to send it as a DM?
A. Because that was the easiest thing to say, and Anthony Weiner doesn’t care about the truth. Also, possibly he didn’t have the faintest idea how or why it actually happened. If he said he didn’t know how it happened, we would be back to him saying he was hacked. But the photo was his and had been on his computer and he had done something.
Maybe his staff wrote it out like that. Also consider, that when Weiner set out to defend himself, he may have hired THE VERY SAME PRIVATE DETECTIVE AGENCY that was responsible for Patriot and Nikki Reid. So naturally his staff would have poicked up on the same explnation, especially since his staff was no longer trusting him.
I mean how many clone Anthony Pellicano detective/public relations agencies can there be out there?
Sammmy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 8/11/2011 @ 4:44 pmTo each their own. But notice all the straw men you put up in that phrase, complete with implied insults (Patrick Frey is an officer of the Court, after all). There is something odorific in the nation that adjoins Norway and Sweden.
This, in a nutshell, is why many people don’t trust you.
But hey, again: you keep coming back.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 8/11/2011 @ 4:50 pm@SimonJester
I get that he’s an officer of the court and that doesn’t change my stance on doing videochats with grown men that I don’t know. Boundaries.
Gennette (55c21d) — 8/11/2011 @ 4:55 pmAnd you’re right, I keep coming back. Unfortunately for me this is really the only blog that is discussing whether or not the Reids were Dan Wolfe, and who the Reids might actually be.
Comment by Auntie Fraud — 8/11/2011 @ 4:39 pm
Wow…I had not seen this before. Very intriguing. Thank you for posting it again.
ppk_pixie (1df0c8) — 8/11/2011 @ 4:56 pmLook, I don’t mean to be rude, but for someone who had a number of mysterious messages from that giant pervert Weiner (including his cell phone number), it’s kind of hard to take that stance seriously. Besides, as you point out, many women liked flirting with him, even if you did not, putting the “boyfriend” comment aside. He certainly seemed to like you.
See how it gets all tangly for you?
Tell you what: I’m going to quit picking at you. I’ve been doing this because I believe that you have, um, not been forthcoming and straightforward in your version of events. But this is getting as tiresome as dealing with trolls.
Patterico is tenacious, has to judge the veracity of people daily (with accuracy), and I trust his opinion. We’ll see how all this shakes out. I hope you are all you say you are.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 8/11/2011 @ 5:01 pmI vote C, unless:
A, B and/or D were surrounded by Patterico putting the bits into context.
Basically, I’d like to read what Patterico has to say about what it means.
C sounds like a better chance to hear that, but any of the others, with proper context, would be ok too.
Pious Agnostic (6048a8) — 8/11/2011 @ 5:19 pmWhatever you do, can you please make a Cliff Notes version, please.
AZ Bob (7d2a2c) — 8/11/2011 @ 5:20 pm@SimonJester
I got his number after the picture was sent. I talked to him via DM rarely about Dan Wolfe, Nikki, and other random political things. I didn’t know that he was having online affairs. If he had ever asked me to do a videochat, I would have also said no.
So no, I don’t see at all how this is tangly for me.
You think I’m not a 22 year old college student because you think I’m too articulate. Instead, it makes more sense for you to believe that someone has come here day after day posing as me for seemingly no reason at all. THAT to you makes more sense than a journalism student being articulate. That is some interesting logic Mr Jester.
Gennette (55c21d) — 8/11/2011 @ 5:21 pmOh, I have other reasons for doubting your, um, veracity. You have been very helpful, in fact (you seem to dislike other people making presumptions about you and your motives, but I notice you do the same thing). Still, you keep coming back to this topic, don’t you? So why not just drop the subject and wait for the topic you claim to want to discuss to come up?
And, honestly, I wouldn’t bring up logic right about now. My opinion only.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 8/11/2011 @ 5:25 pm@SimonJester
Other reasons? Okay, inquiring minds would like to know… what reasons do you have for thinking that I’m not the 22 year old Gennette Cordova who attended Whatcom and wrote for the paper?
Gennette (55c21d) — 8/11/2011 @ 5:31 pmI doubt I’ll get a straight answer from you but I find it interesting that you seem sure that I’m not really me.
If I were an innocent college student caught up in a congressman’s accidentally sent lewd tweet…I wouldn’t go around debating any part of the matter.
Crispian (70c05e) — 8/11/2011 @ 5:42 pmYou go, girl.
Do you see why it looks like you are playing a game? Move it along to another topic. The truth will appear, one way or another.
You have not a thing to worry about!
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 8/11/2011 @ 5:42 pmPatterico, whatever you do, thanks for all the hard work. Where do you find the time?
Maybe an efficient way to continue would be to build a wiki?
gp (3e06cb) — 8/11/2011 @ 5:45 pm@SimonJester
In other words, you have no good reason to believe that I’m not actually Gennette Cordova. That’s what I thought. Next subject.
Gennette (55c21d) — 8/11/2011 @ 5:46 pmYep. You sure skooled me. Absolutely.
LOL.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 8/11/2011 @ 5:47 pmWhile on the subject of what is “weird”…
There are several pieces to this puzzle that do not seem to fit, don’t make sense. Let’s focus specifically on the infamous “underwear tweet” for a moment.
Ms. Cordova has said that sexual or suggestive images such as the “underwear picture” had never been sent to her prior to May 27th from the Congressman. Congressman Weiner initially stated he had not tweeted the image to Ms. Cordova on the night of May 27th. But he would not deny it was his picture, he would not deny that he had sent it (possibly to others) previously, and would not deny that he had engaged in online sexual relationships with women. He dodged those questions.
When Weiner held his (also) infamous press conference on June 6th, he claimed that he had in fact been the one to send the tweet to Ms. Cordova. But he said that he sent it “as part of a joke.” Weiner went on to say, “This woman was unwittingly dragged into this and bears absolutely no responsibility.” And to this day, Ms. Cordova has maintained that there had been no prior sexual or suggestive images sent to her via Twitter from the Congressman.
An interesting tidbit — May 27th was not the first “transmission” of the underwear photo. Megan Broussard stated in her interview with ABC News that Weiner had sent her the same photo on May 18th (presumably) via Facebook. So that photo did exist and was known to parties prior to May 27th. Those who have seen the photo sent to Broussard say it is the same but had been cropped slightly differently.
What does “as part of a joke” mean? What did Weiner mean by “dragged into this?” Is there any importance to the fact that the infamous tweet previously existed prior to May 27th? Why was this image sent via Twitter when it appears Weiner’s online sexual relations were via Facebook (at least those that are confirmed)?
Who knows. But maybe this document dump contains pieces to this part of the puzzle… or then again, maybe not.
scoovy (0e137d) — 8/11/2011 @ 6:11 pmCollage students r stoopid and k’ant write goOd or be smrt cuz there stoopid.
Leviticus (b85154) — 8/11/2011 @ 6:15 pmGennette: Some of the commenters on here are simply jerks. I’ve had to deal with many offensive comments myself. It’s not personal, it’s just ignorance.
In the meantime, Patrick, you are very good at what you do. Follow your gut, and do whatever you deem is right.
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 8/11/2011 @ 6:17 pmDitto Anita
Blackburnsghost (2ffb0c) — 8/11/2011 @ 6:27 pmSo everyone you don’t agree with is ignorant? Or is this a female bonding moment? Count me out on both.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/11/2011 @ 6:33 pmI’ve only been following this story sporadically, but I agree that Gennette’s refusal to do the video chat is suspicious. I could understand if her concern was that a chat might be posted online somewhere, bringing her more unwanted notoriety. That doesn’t seem to be what worries her, however. Her problem, she claims, is that she isn’t comfortable with the idea of chatting in real time with a “grown man” she doesn’t know. The grown man in question is an known DDA in California. What is she trying to insinuate? That his wanting to live chat with her is somehow creepy? Not only does that come off as total BS, it sounds kind of desperate.
Infidoll (dea325) — 8/11/2011 @ 6:35 pmWe are jerks because we don’t like being lied to, and we don’t like people spewing standard leftist boilerplate pablum.
JD (2da347) — 8/11/2011 @ 6:40 pmExcuse me while I go wash my hair.
Anyone else notice that there are a couple, fairly distinct, “voices” that GennetteC speaks in?
JD (822109) — 8/11/2011 @ 6:42 pm@Infidoll
Before I knew everything that AW had done and how weird he was, if he had asked me to do a videochat, I would have also said no. And he is a was a US Congressman.
The fact of the matter is that Patrick asked me to talk have a conversation with him on the phone. This wasn’t a planned call, it was late at night and spontaneous. I didn’t feel 100% comfortable talking to this person who I didn’t know on the phone, who I felt had sort of bad mouthed me BUT he said he needed to do it to confirm my identity.
So I consented and we talked for nearly two hours.
Then suddenly, that wasn’t enough. Now we need to have a live video chat?
Gennette (55c21d) — 8/11/2011 @ 6:46 pmIs it so weird that I would want to have boundaries when it comes to the people involved in this?
I think everyone asking you to do a videochat should get together and make a video requesting you to do a videochat – preferably with music and choreographed dance. Oh, and they should wear t-shirts with their blog handles on them, too, just to we can match names to faces, since that’s what we’re after now.
Leviticus (b85154) — 8/11/2011 @ 6:54 pmI want to see all of it. I don’t really care about the order. I think Pat should do it how he sees fit.
Noodles (3681c4) — 8/11/2011 @ 7:03 pmHas anyone ever seen a good explanation of the 545seattle reference?
JD (6e25b4) — 8/11/2011 @ 7:03 pmSammmy, Ronbryn is claiming to be outing you on twitter. I won’t repeat his claims (which are surely lies anyway). I just wanted you to be aware of it.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/11/2011 @ 7:15 pmC—-Because I have a good eye for his nonsense (now)
goatsred (66819b) — 8/11/2011 @ 7:43 pmGennette, as a student of journalism (and I am a former journalist myself), you would know that a video chat with Patrick would only go to bolster your own veracity: That you are, indeed, the same woman with the Twitter account (since your photo is on Twitter).
I sincerely don’t see why it is a big deal for you. He is a prosecutor and a man of high integrity. It would only confirm to him that you are the same young woman whose photo is on your Twitter account.
In fact, as a former top editor, I would tell you there is zero harm in doing so.
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 8/11/2011 @ 7:54 pmYeah, well I demand a video chat to prove that you are actually Anita Busch, and not some other commenter and/or complete stranger. Since you’re going to appeal to your background as a journalist, I think we need to know that you are who you say you are.
Not really, but… see why there might be an objection to this sort of thing?
Leviticus (b85154) — 8/11/2011 @ 7:58 pmNope. Not at all, Leviticus. I would do a video chat with Patrick in a heartbeat to verify.
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 8/11/2011 @ 7:59 pmYou would now, because you already know him, but would you do a videochat with some of the commenters here who’ve insulted you (as you’ve previously mentioned), and would you do it just because they demanded it of you?
Leviticus (b85154) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:02 pmLeviticus, why would Gennette need to do a video chat with anyone other than Patterico? I would think in her position, she would want to lend as much verification and veracity to her claims as possible.
If she were a person who clearly abhors being front and center and were terribly protective of her privacy, I would be able to understand that. But with a very active Twitter account and photo, it doesn’t appear that that is overly important. That is not an insult, but just an observation about privacy needs/wants.
Dana (4eca6e) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:08 pmDana, see my comment to Gennette on Part 2.
Leviticus, after speaking to Patrick for two hours, I would definitely feel comfortable doing so.
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:11 pmI should back up and say that I got the impression the videochat was going to be broadcast to the population of this blog in some way (since we keep talking about data dumps and whatnot), and that that was the source of Gennette’s reluctance to partake in it. But this is just between Patterico and Gennette?
Leviticus (b85154) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:13 pmAnd it’s not like Patrick is going to take screen shots … I mean, he is very honorable, as we all know.
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:13 pmI got the wrong impression I think.
Leviticus (b85154) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:15 pmYes, Leviticus. I trust Patterico, and have reason to trust him.
Personally, I would object to a circus sideshow transmission. Nor would Patterico allow such a thing, I am certain.
Patterico, as you know, has reason to pursue all of this. Good reason.
Simon Jester (0a2e6a) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:15 pmWhat’s a “circus sideshow transmission?”
Leviticus (b85154) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:17 pmAiring it online and making Gennette vulnerable to the nutjobs.
Dana (4eca6e) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:19 pmTo everyone, as you suggested. All Patterico has ever suggested is that they video chat, one on one.
But that’s “weird,” I guess.
I trust Patterico’s judgement, and his fairness.
Simon Jester (0a2e6a) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:19 pmI don’t. And I’m sure he understand that’s.
Gennette (55c21d) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:20 pmLeviticus,
Patterico wanted Gennette to participate in a videochat so he could verify her identity, but she declined. He asked Dan Wolfe and John Reid to do the same, but they also declined.
My understanding is that there was no intention to publicly release the chats or combine them in any way. They were only so Patterico could verify the identities of the people involved.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:21 pmPatterico? Care to weigh in on this? I guess I still have trouble with a person not trusting you to this extent hanging out here, but who knows? Jim Morrison was right.
Simon Jester (0a2e6a) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:21 pmI understand, Gennette. I hope you change your mind, at some point. He is a truth seeker. That is all.
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:24 pmSimon –
Yeah, that’s what I thought you meant. And, reconsidering the way the request fits into the wider situation, I should’ve realized that from the get-go. I’m not sure why I got the impression that the videochat would be accessible by the wider population of the blog – honestly, I think I kinda inferred it from the fact that Gennette really didn’t want to do it, cuz it makes more sense that way.
Like I said, I’m playing catch-up here; but I should probably hang back a bit til I’ve got a better bearing on things, so that I don’t shoot my mouth off over something I’ve misunderstood.
Leviticus (b85154) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:24 pmThere was a reason that Patterico needed JR9 to verify his identity. Namely, he wasn’t a real person!!
There is no John Reid. He has no family, he has no friends, he has no pictures… he was made up!
I’ve been “interviewed” in person, my classmates and teachers were interviewed and quoted in the paper, I talk to actual friends and family members on my Twitter and Facebook.
So there’s a slight difference.
Gennette (55c21d) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:25 pmGennette,
Because Patrick is someone that a number of us trust implicitly, I really would like to know if you can succinctly tell us why you don’t trust him. Just what specifically makes you not? I have a hard time understanding how so many of us over the years have made such an error in judgment. Doesn’t that make you curious in reverse?
Dana (4eca6e) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:26 pmAlso, I didn’t realize that Patterico had made the same request of John Reid and Dan Wolfe. Method to the madness; who would’ve thought?!
Leviticus (b85154) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:26 pmI think the whole situation is weird and hard to understand, Leviticus. It’s very important to Patterico.
That is a heck of a generous post you wrote, by the way.
Simon Jester (0a2e6a) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:26 pmThat isn’t snark (just to be clear).
Simon Jester (0a2e6a) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:26 pmYou mean the long one on the other thread where I try to figure out what’s going on, or the one here where I try to find a graceful way to take my foot out of my mouth?
Leviticus (b85154) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:31 pmLeviticus is a man of integrity. And young, so he’s got that going for him. 😉
Stashiu3 (601b7d) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:31 pmGotta be this one – the other one’s just a shot in the dark.
Leviticus (b85154) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:31 pmThis one’s a retracted shot in the dark.
Leviticus (b85154) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:32 pmHeh. Good one.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:33 pm@Dana
Patrick and I have not had the most pleasant experiences with each other. And there have been times where I felt like he was needlessly bad mouthing me. As well as times where he’s been upset with me and made public something that I had sent him in a private email, for no reason.
I’m not saying he’s a bad person. I’m saying that we haven’t had the best encounters and it’s tainted my view of him.
Gennette (55c21d) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:34 pmGennette, how did Dan Wolf get the originally Weiner Tweet that was sent to you?
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:36 pmThat’s pretty serious, as it is a topic about which Patterico feels strongly. I wonder what Patterico’s point of view is on that topic.
Simon Jester (0a2e6a) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:37 pmI can definitely see Patterico’s interest in this, by the way. Even setting aside the fact that he and his family have been threatened – which I know he hasn’t, shouldn’t, and won’t – I get the increasing sense of shenanigans in all of this, myself. If it turned out that Dan Wolfe and John Reid were the same person, it could be that some damage control types realized that Weiner had done something worse than embarrassing and pathetic, and manufactured a lesser crisis, then tried to muddle it, all to cast a pall over any future allegations which arose. It would be the equivalent of pleading guilty to a misdemeanor to avoid being prosecuted for a felony.
Leviticus (b85154) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:37 pmAs well as times where he’s been upset with me and made public something that I had sent him in a private email, for no reason.
If you saying that Patrick released information from a private email, I am compelled to ask, was it something that you had requested be kept in confidence?
Dana (4eca6e) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:38 pm@Anita
The tweet was public. DW was stalking Anthony Weiner. He must have saw it and screengrabbed it.
Gennette (55c21d) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:38 pmHe was the first (and only?) person to retweet the original tweet. That’s how I saw it.
Gennette, how did Dan Wolfe get the original Weiner Tweet (photo) that was sent to you?
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:39 pm@Dana
No, no, nothing like that. But doing something like that to make someone look bad might make them not like you very much.
Gennette (55c21d) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:40 pmAnd it would explain why a potentially fictitious Nikki Reid was going around asking all of Weiner’s potential dalliances just how well they were acquainted with the fellow – as a fellow admirer, or course, tee hee. See how far he’d wandered from the straight and narrow, and whatnot.
Leviticus (b85154) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:40 pmThanks. Was wondering about that.
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:40 pmWhat do you think, Dana? Slick, huh?
Simon Jester (0a2e6a) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:41 pmIt seems like Gennette doesn’t want Pat to have ‘proof’ and therefore maybe he will possibly say something that she can come back and use against him. Don’t think that is going to happen though.
jmel44 (587a2f) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:42 pmI mostly trust that Gennette is who she says she is, because she talked to me at length on the phone. Which was actually her suggestion (I believe she implied it was mine and she consented, but she made the offer, saying she has a distinctive voice).
I say “mostly” because she tries to laugh off her previous offer to do a videochat as a joke, but it wasn’t. She seemingly earnestly considered about doing a brief chat so I could verify she was the person I saw a picture of. She may not want to admit it here, for whatever reason, but it was not a joke and she was not treating it as such.
Having gotten a similar runaround from John Reid and Dan Wolfe, I can’t help but be suspicious at similar behavior. But I will say: they would never talk on the phone. Gennette did.
She also knows that I have believed John Reid and Dan Wolfe to be the same person for a long time, because I told her that several weeks ago, in that phone conversation.
She is, however, an incredible spinmeister for Weiner. It’s not just that her story about Weiner knowing Nikki is fake, if believed, tends to undercut any nefarious element to Weiner’s communcations with Nikki. It’s also that she is seemingly the one person in the world (besides Weiner) who sees nothing creepy about Weiner’s communcations with Ethel. And she has worked very hard to spin that story in Weiner’s favor as well.
In that regard, her motivations seem to line up quite nicely with the declared motivations of John Reid, as expressed to me on Tuesday night.
Patterico (f724ca) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:42 pmWhat did I release from a private e-mail? What you said about doing your hair before a chat?
You were seriously considering a chat and you have since behaved as though you would never do such a thing. It is inconsistent and I have a right to point that out.
Patterico (f724ca) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:45 pmI’ll release more, too, if you want to claim you were always joking about that. It’s quite clear to me you weren’t joking (although you never promised to do it).
Patterico (f724ca) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:47 pmBut perhaps you’re talking about something else? I can’t think of anything, but who knows. I certainly can’t think of anything I released “for no reason.”
Patterico (f724ca) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:48 pm@Patterico
I had considered doing the video chat and then I thought that it was weird.
And this is the kind of stuff that I’m talking about that makes me not trust you.
First of all, it sounds like you’re insinuating that I’m JR9 or somehow involved with JR9.
And secondly, this entire time you’ve been characterizing me as a “spinmeister” for Anthony Weiner and that’s bull!
I have proof that he knew Nikki was a fake. How is that spinning?
I never said it wasn’t weird that he was talking to Ethel. I also think he shouldn’t have been talking to a teenager. But I don’t think that they were having inappropriate/sexual conversations because there’s no proof of that and her parents and the Delware police don’t seem to think so either.
So enlighten me. What have a spun? Because you know that’s an unfair characterization.
Gennette (55c21d) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:52 pmGennette, it seemed that someone from Weiner’s PR team did/have influenced your actions.
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:53 pm@ Gennette: My understanding is that all Patterico wants to do is confirm your identity; no chatting is necessary beyond “Yes, I am Gennette Cordova and I confirm that I sent you those emails/made those comments/talked with you on the phone. Bye.”
If you got an email from someone claiming to be a famous Hollywood director, would you automatically believe that person was who they said they were? Or even if you talked on the phone? How would you know they whether or not they were an imposter? Seeing is believing. Make Patterico believe you are who you say you are. If you want, make him promise not to release any image of you; that would be reasonable. Prove who you are if you want to be believed..
Soothsayer (7a2257) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:53 pm@Patterico
You’ve been a jackass to me and you know it. And you can try to justify some of the rude things you’ve done to me but you know you’ve been trying to make me look bad.
Like was it really necessary to do a blog post about how I hadn’t made the dean’s list? Did it ever occur to you that that might be too much? It was really upsetting.
Gennette (55c21d) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:56 pmI’m not fighting. I’m not insulting. But when you write—
—you honestly do not see the sheer irony in that passage? How it looks like you are not being honest and straightforward?
The first sentence in particular is odd, don’t you think?
Simon Jester (0a2e6a) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:56 pm@AnitaBusch
Well they hadn’t.
Gennette (55c21d) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:57 pmHeh. Spin, followed by “what have I spun”?
I tend to think you’re on the up and up. But I’m telling you: Reid and Wolfe had excuses aplenty. And I’m not interested in rehashing how you have spun the Ethel story by claiming I did. I have a document dump to finish.
I’m going with option a.
Patterico (f724ca) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:57 pmGood to know, Gennette. Do the video chat for 10 seconds and be done with it. Hurts nothing. Whatsoever.
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 8/11/2011 @ 8:58 pm@Patterico
Gennette (55c21d) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:02 pmThat’s a spin? Those are facts. I’m not the only one who thinks you’ve tried to spin the underaged girl angle.
I don’t agree with this. I think he’s been critical of aspects he found fishy. He’s dealing with limited evidence and the people who have more often act like strangely.
For example, you say you’re not a spinmeister, and as proof, look at how you have proof Weiner knew, for sure, that Nikki was fake. Only you also refuse to show the proof. We actually have to take your word for it that we can take your word for it. Totally circular.
You’re being criticized, sure. A lot. But if you want to make clear you are who you claim to be, why back out of an agreement to do so?
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:03 pmYou see, this is the kind of stuff that is odd:
And you want to be a journalist? What does it matter? To quote Dennis Miller, you need “rhino skin” in that business, and you certainly have given the impression of being tough. Heck, I don’t think that the President made the Dean’s List as an undergraduate. I *know* the President before him did not.
It sure seems like you are trying to, well, spin.
But whatever. I don’t want to fight.
Simon Jester (0a2e6a) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:03 pmAnd I’m not the only one who thinks you have. Hooray. We have found people who agree with us. Back to working on the document dump.
Your P.R. skills really are quite impressive, though. If you’re not a paid damage control person for Democrats now, I suggest that as a career.
Big Media journalism isn’t much different, come to think of it.
ZING!
Patterico (f724ca) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:10 pm@SimonJester
I’d actually disagree with you. You go through something like I’ve been through. Have people basically stalking you, people calling you a whore, saying that you’re fat, having the country judge you without knowing the facts. You have your whole life turned upside down and handle it as well as I have and then tell me about being tough.
Yeah, I want to be a journalist, but that doesn’t mean I’m impervious to insults, and harsh unwarranted criticism.
And he can post whatever he wants, that’s fine. I was simply citing that incident as one of the reasons that I don’t trust him.
Gennette (55c21d) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:17 pmShe is right. No one understands until it happens to you.
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:19 pmWow. You should sue your academic advisor. You are ready for debate squad (and no, I am not talking about your writing abilities here). And I’m completely serious: you need to get away from CC and onto a real journalism program. Right?
I think you like to mix it up, and that’s fine. But such an approach does make me people suspect an unclear or hidden set of motives. Surely a person as bright as you are can see that. So: wait for the document dump and see what Patterico uncovers.
Simon Jester (0a2e6a) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:21 pm@Anita
You’ve been through a similar situation and you know what it’s like to feel like your privacy has been torn away from you.
Gennette (55c21d) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:29 pmYou want me to do the videochat because you think Pat is a great guy…
But let me ask you, if this was you, and there was a blogger you hadn’t had pleasant experiences with, whose criticisms of you had been mainly negative, you who didn’t really trust…
Would you feel compelled to do a videochat with him? I want you to answer that honestly.
Gennette, do you come here not because you want to but because you have to? I don’t mean to be rude, but you say you mistrust Patterico, say he mistreats you, you get aggravated with many of the commenters here who have tried to find answers and who’ve suggested avenues to get to the bottom of the threats. Why do you come here week after week if everything is just so hard to deal with and everything’s just so weird and people are so mean? I’m glad you do comment here but I sure don’t understand why you do. Is someone forcing you or paying you to post here? It just feels like wheels are spinning with your piece of the puzzle. You say you want answers but…..do you? Do you even want the vehicle to move forward? If not, why not? Why can’t this story end?
You’re an enigmatic young woman. I’ll say that much.
elissa (7e8c9c) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:31 pmIt’s interesting to see so many people encourage Gennette to trust Patterico but IMO their concerns are misplaced. Why should Patterico trust Gennette?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:33 pmThere is no reason to not trust Patterico. None. You can claim that, but it is without foundation. Lacking in substance.
You will be a good little JournoLista someday.
JD (318f81) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:34 pm545seattle. No answer?
JD (318f81) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:35 pmI don’t think anyone thinks that he does, DRJ. At least I haven’t seen that.
Dana (4eca6e) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:36 pmelissa and DRJ – I think Gennette is here partly to ensure people don’t go down the “wrong” paths, IYKWIMAITTYD.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:36 pmelissa brings up an interesting point: why continually come to a place where the vast majority of people have the opposite opinion of Patrick and find him completely trustworthy? Isn’t that self-sabotaging?
Dana (4eca6e) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:37 pmDRJ, you make a superb point. There is some crazy stuff going on. In a way, that should concern the young lady, too.
Simon Jester (0a2e6a) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:37 pmDaley, you saw Stashiu3’s comment this morning, right? That might well connect to your thesis.
Simon Jester (0a2e6a) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:38 pmI’m fascinated, and will read whatever is published.
BTW, did anyone else read the headline as “conversations with puppies”? Or is that purely me?
Dianna (f12db5) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:42 pm@Elissa
Mainly there’s incessant criticisms and accusations being hurled at me. But occasionally, someone will ask a question and I’ll be able to give them an answer that provides clarity for a piece of the puzzle or adds another event to timeline.
You have your Mikes, Gregs, Wittiers, etc who don’t like to distract from the story and who really want to get to the bottom of everything.
If I don’t figure out who is behind the Reids I think it might bother me forever. I don’t expect everyone to understand that because not everyone was personally involved but I really do want to figure it out.
I come here with that intention and then I get sucked into a fight because I obviously haven’t learned how to pick my battles wisely.
Gennette (55c21d) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:42 pmAW hell, she’s probably some frumpy 40ish bored housewife whose kids have left the nest, and the hubby plays golf on the weekends. She found a picture of a young woman, pasted it on facebook and created a fictitious persona just to spice up her life. Now she is afraid of being outed if she video chats with Pat and he sees that her live video feed doesn’t match her supposed picture on facebook. Don’t ya’ll get it? She is revelling in the attention that she is receiving.
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:43 pmIs it because having a chat with a grown man you don’t know is weird?
Or because you think I mistreated you?
We started out with reason number one, but it seems to have morphed into reason number two.
Back when we e-mailed about it, it was because you were between cities, or needed to do your hair, or whatever.
Patterico (f724ca) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:45 pm@Gennette, But let me ask you, if this was you, and there was a blogger you hadn’t had pleasant experiences with, whose criticisms of you had been mainly negative, you who didn’t really trust…
I DID have a blogger I had an unpleasant experience with … this guy was completely obsessed with me. He had pictures of me behind him on his wall and drew a heart and put his initials and mine in it. So no, with him BECAUSE He was clearly unstable.
Patrick is NOT unstable. He is solid as they come.
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:49 pm@Patterico
It’s weird to do a video chat with a grown man who I don’t know. Especially one who has been an asshole to me.
And I made excuses because honestly I thought you’d eventually just give it up.
All of this, by the way, is definitely making me want to do it even less.
Gennette (55c21d) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:51 pmInstead of saying “just consider it and do it whenever you’re comfortable” you’re basically telling me that if I don’t do it, I’m John Reid.
Another point of contrast: when I met Anita, she never tried to spin anything. She never withheld anything important, or insisted that we talk only about the things she wanted to talk about, or maintained that she didn’t need to answer my questions because I wasn’t a real journalist, or anything like that.
There was no evasion and no spin, ever. I felt at all times like I was talking to a completely credible person.
Patterico (f724ca) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:51 pmNor did Anita lead me on about something in a misleading fashion because she hoped I would give up.
John Reid and Dan Wolfe did that, though.
Patterico (f724ca) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:53 pm@Gennette, take the drama out of it and do it … for long enough for Patrick to confirm.
Knowing Patrick, he would honor any request not to publish a screen grab or post the video.
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:54 pmKind of a shifting story, Patterico. And now you are an “asshole.” This really calms things down, doesn’t it? Daley might be onto something.
Simon Jester (0a2e6a) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:54 pm@Patterico
You contacted her to help her and you probably treated her very differently than you treated me.
Gennette (55c21d) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:54 pmThe people at New York Times would say the same things about me that you’re saying about her.
<b>I’m John Reid.
Comment by Gennette
Nope,just some frumpy bored housewife afraid of being outed.
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:56 pmAlright. That’s my cue. I’m getting hopping off the blog for the night.
Gennette (55c21d) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:57 pm@Gennette: Patrick did NOT contact me to help me. Not at all. He contacted me to ask questions. I answered them honestly. It was pretty easy to do.
It’s as simple as that. I don’t know why it isn’t simple for you to do that. Makes no sense to me, esp. someone who is a student of journalism.
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:58 pmDamnnnnn, musta rattled her with what is close to the truth. Notice how she is “getting hopping off the blog”? All of a sudden her polished speaking skills disappear.
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:59 pmWow, now he’s an asshole?
He asked you to help figure out what the people threatening his family were trying to hide, and your reaction was “what’s in it for me?”
Now you call him an asshole because he’s offered good faith criticisms. I think you’re being quite unreasonable. You can respond to his criticisms. You obviously also are free to launch all manner of criticisms of your own, and haven’t hesitated to do so.
A lot of the things you complain about, or reasoning you reject, you also employ.
No, you gave excuses because you were insincere in offering to go on video chat.
I don’t know why. I’ll still be pretty surprised if you’re not actually Gennette.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/11/2011 @ 9:59 pmYou have to admit, Anita, this is one weird situation!
Simon Jester (0a2e6a) — 8/11/2011 @ 10:00 pm@Gennette, and he also wanted proof that the statement I gave to the media was accurate, even though I had given it out to several media organizations. He is thorough that way. He goes the extra step.
I don’t think he treated me any different than the way he treated you. I think you are just reacting differently.
Chalk it up to age, lack of experience or maybe you’ve been snakebit, but there is no reason to think that Patrick is anything but straightforward and someone who wants to get to the facts.
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 8/11/2011 @ 10:02 pmAnd as a student of journalism, Gennette, you should realize that.
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 8/11/2011 @ 10:03 pmWould someone please explain to me why a grown woman would have a problem with a video chat with a “grown man”? Please?
Is this because I passed 40 a while ago? What am I not understanding?
What the heck is going on with Genette?
Actually, I think I’ll read this in the morning and see if a good night’s sleep helps.
No, come to think of it: a woman of 20/21 referring to a “grown man” makes no sense, as she is an adult and should be used to thinking of herself as such. None. And what “boundaries” are being crossed? Patterico isn’t asking Genette to show anything but her face, certainly!
Nope. I cannot make this make sense.
Dianna (f12db5) — 8/11/2011 @ 10:05 pmVerify. Verify. Verify.
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 8/11/2011 @ 10:05 pmPatterico, I don’t think you need to push for the private video confirmation anymore. After today’s threads you already have a good part of the answer about Gennette that you sought.
Anyway, depositions are videotaped pretty much in all jurisdictions these days are they not?
elissa (7e8c9c) — 8/11/2011 @ 10:06 pmDan Wolfe ultimately admitted, after leading me on for weeks, that he never intended to call me.
Tonight Gennette admitted that she never intended to do a video chat with me. In essence, she admitted that she misled me, hoping that I would stop asking after she offered the umpteenth excuse.
I don’t think John Reid ever admitted that he never intended to call me. But it was pretty clear. When I publish the chats, you’ll see just how clear. I brought it up constantly.
Not that I ever thought the request would be granted. It was just interesting to see what today’s excuse would be.
Patterico (f724ca) — 8/11/2011 @ 10:07 pmMe thinks she doth protest too much!
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 8/11/2011 @ 10:07 pmThere’s a difference between being a student of journalism and a journalism student. We’re seeing a great example.
Stashiu3 (601b7d) — 8/11/2011 @ 10:07 pmWhat would have been the problem with saying: “Nah, I don’t want to do that”?
Why pretend she was considering it? Why be dishonest?
Patterico (f724ca) — 8/11/2011 @ 10:09 pmBut John Reid and Dan Wolfe never said “Nah, I don’t want to do that.” They always just said it would happen tomorrow, or next week. I have to drive out of state. I have to go next door and arrange it. I’m afraid you’ll trace me. Blah blah blah. But always a promise that it might happen. Just not today.
Patterico (f724ca) — 8/11/2011 @ 10:11 pmLet me see. Admits to lying. I’ll take the judges instructions regarding lying. If you find the the witness has lied in any of his/her testimony, you can assume that the witness has lied in all of their testimony.
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 8/11/2011 @ 10:11 pmShe’s not who she’s pretending to be is the short answer. Everything else wanders off into realms I’m too tired to be coherent about.
It’d make a great subplot, in a space opera, though. Gotta think about that.
Have fun with this, Patterico.
Dianna (f12db5) — 8/11/2011 @ 10:13 pm==Why pretend she was considering it? Why be dishonest?==
C’mon, Pat! Part of every con is slowly and meticulously reeling in the mark. You know that.
elissa (7e8c9c) — 8/11/2011 @ 10:14 pm@Patterico … best to always give the benefit of the doubt. She might have just thought about doing it and then didn’t trust you for the reasons she listed. Maybe she would do it with someone who used to work at the NY Times present with you. I have video chat here. It’s another option.
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 8/11/2011 @ 10:14 pmYeah, Weinergate. Brought to you by Ender Wiggin’s family reunion.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/11/2011 @ 10:15 pm#195 elissa – uh-huh.
But Patterico’s not a very attractive mark. Think about it – he’s too open about what’s happening (except for trying to drive his readers slightly cross-eyed and mad with speculation, but everyone needs a hobby) to make him the mildly-squirrel-like person who makes a good mark.
Er…did that flow logically? I thought it did while I was typing it.
Dianna (f12db5) — 8/11/2011 @ 10:17 pmWell, Dustin, perhaps there needs to be a “Speaker for the Prevaricators.”
Simon Jester (0a2e6a) — 8/11/2011 @ 10:18 pmBrought to you by Ender Wiggin’s family reunion.
Comment by Dustin
LOL! With Ender’s wife and step-kids’ neuroses thrown in for a lagniappe!
Dianna (f12db5) — 8/11/2011 @ 10:19 pmDianna and Elissa: I can’t scan the con; it’ll be interesting to find out what this was all about….
Simon Jester (0a2e6a) — 8/11/2011 @ 10:20 pm#201 – Simon Jester, I can do a “Leverage” plot for this, but if I do, I will be up all night giggling and writing deliberate plot holes for viewers to drive semis through (as I’m convinced the writers must, as an infuriated fan of the show).
Dianna (f12db5) — 8/11/2011 @ 10:24 pmGennette, do you recall any technical issues during your phone talk with Patterico?
koam @wittier (7b067e) — 8/11/2011 @ 10:26 pmpeedoffamerican: Notice how she is “getting hopping off the blog”? All of a sudden her polished speaking skills disappear.
This is highly critical … and unfair.
In fact, the intention of peedoffamerican’s comments on here seems to be just to tick Gennette off.
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 8/11/2011 @ 10:28 pm“Why pretend she was considering it? Why be dishonest?”
Patterico – What do you mean dishonest? She was offering honest excuses. She said so herself. That is not dishonest in Gennette’s mind. Just like lying to a fake person is not lying in her mind.
NOBODY has caught Gennette in a lie! Double heh.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/11/2011 @ 10:30 pm@Wittier
I do actually. We can talk on Twitter.
Gennette (55c21d) — 8/11/2011 @ 10:40 pmWhat the hell is that supposed to mean?
I can only assume you guys are talking about my crap iPhone and the fact that I have no way to lock the damned screen. So I am constantly muting people by accident, hitting buttons by accident, and so forth.
What that has to do with anything, I have no idea.
Patterico (f724ca) — 8/11/2011 @ 10:56 pmIt has nothing to do with anything.
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 8/11/2011 @ 10:57 pmAnita,
I’m giving her the benefit of the doubt, or trying to. It’s disappointing to hear that she never intended to chat and led me on. Mainly, I’m explaining why it concerns me: I have encountered similar actions by others — others who proved to be unworthy of the benefit of the doubt.
I tend to think Gennette is different because she talked to me on the phone, has talked to journalists in person, etc. Just can’t be 100% sure.
Patterico (f724ca) — 8/11/2011 @ 11:06 pmI understand. Just want to make sure she is the same one who the NY Times spoke with. Makes sense to me. In fact, it would make sense to anyone in journalism who understands what verification means.
Just like you did with me, if you remember. I had no problem with it.
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 8/11/2011 @ 11:09 pmAnita–I admire your calm approach in trying to work with Gennette whom I suspect you see as vulnerable and unsure of what to do and who to trust. I really do respect that.
Yet, apparently Gennette does not perceive herself to be in any real danger. Although others have gotten death threats she seems not at all worried that she might also get a threat. Why does she seem not to worry about that? She seems only mildly curious about her role in the affair. She does seem to have some understanding of the bizarreness of the situation she is part of and she may in fact fear loss of her privacy and be concerned about being used. I have considered all this for several days (on and off) and I can only conclude that if I were in a bizarre situation of national interest and I had nothing to hide, and there were death threats being bandied about, and I was given the chance to get to know a respected officer of the court such as an ADA, I would jump at the chance to do so. I’d be so glad to have a direct phone number of a real live ADA in my rolodex. I’d feel extra secure knowing someone with that level of authority knew my name and would answer the phone in an emergency.
Which reaction makes more sense on a purely logical and innocent basis–Gennette’s or mine?
elissa (7e8c9c) — 8/11/2011 @ 11:09 pmIt is telling that Gennette is more comfortable tweeting to various personalities who may be fictional, and who may be out to destroy her for all she knows, than doing a short Skype interview with an ADA.
Patterico, which journalists did Gennette talk to in person?
Miranda (4104db) — 8/11/2011 @ 11:14 pmSee Gennette’s comment 153: You go through something like I’ve been through. Have people basically stalking you, people calling you a whore, saying that you’re fat, having the country judge you without knowing the facts. You have your whole life turned upside down …
I don’t know if she received threats or not. She went from anonymity to 15 minutes of fame. She became suddenly overnight part of a national news story. That is very hard to handle. And, believe me, the weirdos do come out of the woodwork. And it seems she is suspicious of everyone. Not uncommon at all.
My take with people who have not had attention before and then are suddenly thrust into the media are two-fold … they either cringe and run (as in completely shut down) or they like the initial attention and then it gets out of hand (which is what happened in her case, obviously). Others love it so much that it becomes their drug. Some people straddle all categories.
The people who have been threatened in this situation have not had their photos splashed on the front page of the paper … there is a certain safety for her, I would think, having had her 15 minutes of fame and become a known entity tied to the Weiner scandal.
She also might not have received a threat (if she, indeed, has not) because the information she has is inconsequential to the big picture. She is not perceived as a threat. Whereas the others who are digging into this are.
Just some thoughts, for what they’re worth.
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 8/11/2011 @ 11:32 pmOne thing that I learned through becoming part of a national news story is that things are written about you or about the situation that bears little to no resemblance to the truth. And some things are just completely made up out of whole cloth.
Just ignorance (not stupidity) but ignorance to the facts.
And some of that is actually fed by those who want to destroy the person’s character or credibility or confuse the situation.
That is what I see going on here with the Weiner story … some or much of it was done to confuse the situation … that is done to hide the truth. They throw numerous rumors out and at the end of the day, you don’t know what to believe. It’s done purposely, in some cases.
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 8/11/2011 @ 11:37 pmAnd it is clearly happening to Patrick to mislead and confuse … to hide what’s real. You can read the frustration even from those who coment in these threads … and then the goal has been met: No one knows what to believe anymore and what’s real is then hidden.
Politics and propaganda 101.
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 8/11/2011 @ 11:42 pmGood comments to think about. Thanks Anita.
elissa (7e8c9c) — 8/11/2011 @ 11:57 pmAnita,
Before you met Patterico did he accuse you of being sneaky and evasive and did he publish alleged “findings” about you (doled out as enticing crumbs to his readers) in a suspicious, accusatory way?
koam @wittier (7b067e) — 8/12/2011 @ 4:57 amsorry anita
ColonelHaiku (d1f5ff) — 8/12/2011 @ 5:15 amif you read in LA Times
you can’t believe it
My choice is E, all of the above. Dump it.In chronological order please. If not then it should still be done in chronological order. Thanks
PS: Hi Gennette! Back for some more eh?
Rocksem (0471ae) — 8/12/2011 @ 5:33 amAlso, who is Anita?
Rocksem (0471ae) — 8/12/2011 @ 5:34 amThere’s a very old-fashioned way to deal with this.
Seconds. (They weren’t just for dualing.) Each of them nominates a second, the seconds work out a meeting time and place for the four of them to do lunch. Patterico’s, there must be a young female court officer who’d accept; Gennette, maybe an older male professor. That way the numbers are balanced, the ages, the genders, for making the translations betwixt the principals … I know, I’m one of those fifteenth century liberals.
htom (412a17) — 8/12/2011 @ 5:47 amAnita (this is from memory and just from what I’ve read here at Patterico.com) was a journalist who became the target of LA dirty tricks Detective Pellicano and she received nasty threats.
koam @wittier (7b067e) — 8/12/2011 @ 6:07 amRe: Pellicano, I meant private detective, not police. I take it he was more of a “Mr. Fix It” to the stars and to wealthy clients who needed him to make things happen. And I think he was prosecuted. haven’t looked it up.
koam @wittier (7b067e) — 8/12/2011 @ 6:10 amDoes anyone really think begging & pleading with Gennette to do a video chat w/ Patterico is going to work? Of course not. She’s got her own reasons for not showing her face to Patterico. BTW, how many reporters have actually seen her face? Didn’t she talk to Jen Preston at the NYT via telephone?
The reason she engages us here is to advance her story. How much of her story is fictional and how much is factual is up for debate of course.
Miranda (4104db) — 8/12/2011 @ 6:29 amWhat a waste of blog.
Ron Paul's Confuzzled Mind (b3b09c) — 8/12/2011 @ 6:29 amNew Document Dump is up!
Thanks!
koam @wittier (7b067e) — 8/12/2011 @ 7:33 amRocksem, Koam’s largely correct. Pellicano went pretty far in his threats. Apparent bullet holes in Ms Busch’s car with “STOP” notes. Threats you would expect to find in a mafia story. I would not have been as brave as Anita was. He’s in prison now.
From some of her coworkers at the Los Angeles Times, Ms Busch was faced with an additional flurry of completely baseless attacks about her mental health which were meant to undermine her credibility when she told the truth. She weathered an epic storm.
It’s a very interesting story that you can google (much of it covered on this blog). Ms Busch is definitely an honorable person. You can tell she knows what she’s talking about just from her very clear appeals to Gennette in this thread.
BTW, I also spoke to Patterico on the phone. It clearly was a real number, no VOIP, nothing funny going on with it. I don’t see the ‘mute’ aspect of the iPhone to be a legitimate issue. And this reminds me of a Ron meme (no offense intended to Koam), so we need to be pretty careful. Talk about it in the open, at least.
Koam’s right that Patterico has been critical of Gennette from the start, but it wasn’t really anything extreme or unusual. He noted a motive for deception would exist on the facts we know. It was a good faith observation. The fact he doesn’t trust strangers is not ‘jackass’ or ‘asshole’ qualifying behavior. I think some of us note that Gennette apparently did go to some trouble to root out these Reid folks, and then it was like pulling teeth to learn exactly what John Reid was (I asked her for quite a while, similar to the pleading with her here, and she made a point of not answering).
As I’ve said to some in private, I don’t know what to make of it. She could just be a very defensive pawn in all this.
When she complains about people making being crude, I think she has a legit beef. I’d prefer she compartmentalize that from those who are simply critical of choices or trying to poke holes in stories in good faith. And when I say ‘pawn’ I am faced with the fact she is intelligent and sophisticated, responding to a diverse field dynamically, much like a PR effort. The fact is that a good faith analysis of her cannot avoid scrutiny she concludes is evil. It just can’t. That’s why those who argue for no such scrutiny (other than Gennette) have turned out to be bad faith actors at best, and thugs at worse. All of them.
Yet Miranda’s conclusion that pleading is obviously never going to work is absolutely right.
So what are we doing? We’re banging our heads into a desk with frustration, 1000 times, and Gennette is the object of some of it.
The truth hurts.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/12/2011 @ 10:08 ambtw, I hope my comments do not lend credibility to GC just because they are polite. It is obvious she has been deceptive. The question is why, not if.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/12/2011 @ 10:11 amComment by Dustin — 8/12/2011 @ 10:08 am
The phone thing was a very minor thing that I thought might help verify that the Gennette on the phone was the Gennette posting here. Not a big deal. I was trying to help, but it kind of got botched. It wasn’t a trap or any such thing. If GC had answered first and experienced the same glitch I had several times, that woulda mostly sealed that she’s the same person here as on phone w/ Patterico. Again, no big deal.
As for my opinion of Patterico’s opinion of GC, I don’t think he was always super-critical…but, as has happened before, once suspicions about big issues arise, then each little interaction becomes a candidate for intense scrutiny & further suspicion…and then trust is withered because one person calls out the other for a tiny detail, which is of no consequence, making the accuser seem hyperfocused and unfair, then all slack cutting is off, heels get further dug into the turf…and it degenerates from there…even with the walk-backs afterward that have become de rigueur.
And that’s all I’m saying. We’ve seen this before. I’m inclined to believe both of them, though I understand there are specifics about which each is likely to hold cards closely to the vest, to put it politely.
And I’ve proven to be a shitty Henry Kissinger (as peace negotiator / intermediary between warring factions) and I accept that. I know I suck.
koam @wittier (7b067e) — 8/12/2011 @ 10:43 amIn fact, the intention of peedoffamerican’s comments on here seems to be just to tick Gennette off.
Comment by Anita Busch — 8/11/2011
You damn right that’s my intention. She calls Pat an asshole and I let that pass, no fracking way.
Ever hear of the quote from Reagan, “Trust, but verify”? Well, I don’t trust anyone, I verify.”
For someone that is wanting to get the truth out, her lame excuses as to why she won’t video chat with Pat in order to confirm her identity are nothing but BULLSHITE.
Without a live picture from a video feed to compare to her picture on facebook, Pat has no way of knowing if “Gennette is who she says she is. She could even be a homoish male like those that fool those poor deluded souls that imitate women on those nasty sex calls.
I still say that she is a frumpy middle aged woman that feels neglected and is using this to get some attention.
Her damn excuse that she doesn’t want to talk to Pat because he is a “stranger” just won’t wash. Anyone that was afraid of a 2 minute video conference with a noted DA, wouldn’t have a facebook page with her supposed picture plastered all over it. I CALL BULLSHITE! She doesn’t want to be outed, PERIOD.
Screw this anonymous source bullshite. When I hear that crap quoted on any news network, paper, or whathaveyou, I ignore it and completely ignore it.
If she is so afraid, then why the hell does she keep posting here? Pull your pointy little head into your shell, Gennette, and just go the frack away.
peedoffamerican (6277b7) — 8/12/2011 @ 4:52 pmI completely ignore it should read and “I completely disregard it”.
peedoffamerican (6277b7) — 8/12/2011 @ 4:55 pmFurthermore, I was raised to be honest to a fault. The worse whipping that I ever received was when I told a lie. If I tell you that the shy is pink with purple polka dots, you better hurry outside and look at the once in a lifetime view that may never happen again. I am honest to a fault, and woe betide the woman that asks me, “Does this dress make me look fat?” My answer does not spare feelings. No that fat makes you look fat, but I love you the way You are. I didn’t fall in love with the way you look, but for the person that you are.
To show how honest I am, here is a description of myself;
Blunt and truthful to the point of rudeness. (Even an asshole)
peedoffamerican (6277b7) — 8/12/2011 @ 5:05 pm49yoa, in four months 50.
Bald, fat, not very good looking, numerous health problems, but will stand by a friend or loved one in need, come Hell or high water, even to the point of my demise. I do not compromise the truth, period.
My word is my bond, and you can take that to the bank as if it were gold bullion.
You shouldn’t assume that people are middle-aged and fat just because you are.
Gennette (55c21d) — 8/13/2011 @ 2:48 pmGood Lord… that was a good one!
ColonelHaiku (d1f5ff) — 8/13/2011 @ 2:55 pmThere was a lissome lass named Gennette
ColonelHaiku (d1f5ff) — 8/13/2011 @ 3:02 pmslow of mind, tart of tongue one could bet
15 minutes of fame
one tweet and she came
a name sh*theel weiner must regret
Now you’ll have to change your name to Colonel Limerick.
Gennette (55c21d) — 8/13/2011 @ 3:10 pmBow to your sensei, tart-tongued tart!
ColonelHaiku (d1f5ff) — 8/13/2011 @ 3:14 pmOf course. I didn’t interpret it as sinister. I spoke to Patterico on the phone and it was amusing that he would hit numbers once in a while. I’m glad I have a dumbphone. Just wanted to understand. In fact, since the topic of hacking does come up, every piece of technology becomes a legit subject.
Gennette’s right it can be counterproductive. I keep trying to avoid being personal or ugly about it. Unfortunately, every time the conversation moves away, she returns and the same thing happens again. Not that I can blame her, but it has become extremely repetitive, and even by accident makes it impossible for JGMA or Darrah or many other aspects to be discussed. We have to go back into will she please video chat (no!) and why did she give Weiner a pass (mind your own business!) and where does she get off calling Patterico and asshole (Because!). She’s entitled to those answers as much as people are entitled to their questions, but I have been hoping to move on for a while.
You’re doing a lot better than I’ve been. I think your tendency to just list what we know is the most effective way to dig the thread out of the mud.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/13/2011 @ 3:36 pmBut at least I wouldn’t be afraid to video with Pat to establish my identity, since I have described myself accurately and truthfully. Something which you have been unable to do. Yeah, pick a picture off of the internet, post it on your facebook page, pretend to be someone that you are not, and then when called on to prove who you are, lie and say that you will do a private video conference to establish your bonafides, and then back out like the little coward you are.
peedoffamerican (6277b7) — 8/13/2011 @ 5:34 pm@peedoffamerican
It’s clear you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Gennette (d5ea45) — 8/13/2011 @ 5:44 pmpeedoffamerican,
I already said: it’s her. Trust me. Ease up.
Patterico (f724ca) — 8/13/2011 @ 5:59 pm