Patterico's Pontifications

7/28/2013

Patterico’s Rules for Talking to White People About Race, Or, Why I’m Not Interested in a “National Conversation” About Race

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:21 pm

So yesterday I saw this tweet from Slate‘s Will Saletan:

Screen Shot 2013-07-27 at 3.42.57 PM

I went to the linked article, by Jenée Desmond-Harris of TheRoot.com, a black online magazine run in part by Henry Louis Gates, Jr. with corporate ties to Slate and the Washington Post. It is a “nonexhaustive list of ground rules and reminders” for conducting our “national conversation on race.” Given the site where it appeared, you will probably not be surprised to learn that Ms. Desmond-Harris’s piece reads like a list of things white people had better not say to black people. Here are some examples:

1. Talking about race isn’t racist. Don’t say that. Vilifying people who discuss race and point out racism — making them the bad guys — is one of the ways racism is maintained. So is acting as if “blacks suffer from racism” and “whites suffer from reverse racism” are equally valid points of view.

. . . .

5. Black people shouldn’t have to fit your definition of what’s respectable to deserve equality or justice. It’s silly and unfounded to blame inequality caused by institutionalized racism on, say, sagging pants or rap music. If you want to celebrate black people who are educated and high-achieving and defy persistent stereotypes, great, but that can’t be a requirement for fair treatment. We got into trouble with this type of thinking when evidence that Trayvon Martin was a normal teenager messed up so many people’s impression of him as a sympathetic victim.

. . . .

7. Individual racism and systemic racism are two different things. We should care about all the structures that maintain racial inequality, not just individual actors. (This is why it’s not unreasonable to jump from George Zimmerman’s impression of Trayvon Martin to racial profiling by police.) That said, individual acts can provide strong reminders about larger attitudes and problems. Ahem, Paula Deen. Ahem.

Individual racism is irrelevant, apparently, unless we’re talking about a white racist, in which case it is super-meaningful and illustrative of whites’ attitudes in general. Got it. Al Sharpton’s racism? Just one guy. Paula Deen’s? That is representative of “larger attitudes”!

The other numbered points are more of the same: don’t cite blacks like Bill Cosby on race issues; don’t talk about black-on-black crime (with a link to a piece titled Exposing the Myth of Black-on-Black Crime); and so forth. They’re basically rules for white people on things not to say to blacks.

Desmond-Harris’s piece noted that Saletan had done his own piece on how to have a conversation on race. I looked at that piece and noted that, with a couple of perfunctory nods to even-handedness, it too was basically a compendium of rules for white people on how to talk to blacks about race (e.g. don’t freak out if someone calls you a racist because, hey, maybe you really are one!).

I wondered: are there any pieces on how to talk to white people about race? Or is that not an important topic? I decided to ask these two writers that question on Twitter:

Screen Shot 2013-07-27 at 3.43.49 PM

Screen Shot 2013-07-27 at 3.45.06 PM

Screen Shot 2013-07-27 at 3.45.15 PM

So her rules are for everyone? I decided to challenge that by giving a couple of examples that seemed one-sided to me. Here they are, with her responses:

Screen Shot 2013-07-27 at 3.45.27 PM

Screen Shot 2013-07-27 at 3.45.38 PM

Screen Shot 2013-07-27 at 3.45.52 PM

Screen Shot 2013-07-27 at 3.46.01 PM

Turns out, she meant: the rules are for everyone, meaning: here are rules on how everyone should talk to blacks. They are rules for how whites should talk to blacks, and how blacks should talk to blacks. See? They’re for everyone!

Screen Shot 2013-07-27 at 3.47.01 PM

Screen Shot 2013-07-27 at 3.47.28 PM

Screen Shot 2013-07-27 at 3.47.39 PM

Screen Shot 2013-07-27 at 3.48.16 PM

So I decided to refine my question. Instead of asking: are there rules for black people, I asked: are there rules for talking to whites about race?

Screen Shot 2013-07-27 at 3.47.13 PM

Screen Shot 2013-07-27 at 3.47.20 PM

Just one problem with that:

Screen Shot 2013-07-28 at 11.32.23 AM

Ms. Desmond-Harris thinks she has to deal with this the same way whites do:

Screen Shot 2013-07-27 at 3.58.22 PM

But there’s one not-so-little difference:

Screen Shot 2013-07-27 at 3.58.43 PM

I then went out on a limb and decided to give Patterico’s Rule for Talking to White People About Race. Can we have a drumroll, please?

Screen Shot 2013-07-27 at 3.59.12 PM

I could add a couple of corollaries, like “don’t call us racists at the drop of a hat” and “act like you actually care what we think too.” But I’d be happy enough if we simply had the one rule: stop telling us what we can and can’t say.

Screen Shot 2013-07-27 at 3.59.22 PM

Screen Shot 2013-07-27 at 3.59.39 PM

I thought I detected a little sarcasm in Desmond-Harris’s next comment:

Screen Shot 2013-07-27 at 3.59.54 PM

Screen Shot 2013-07-27 at 4.00.04 PM

Screen Shot 2013-07-27 at 4.00.15 PM

Screen Shot 2013-07-27 at 4.00.26 PM

Screen Shot 2013-07-27 at 4.04.19 PM

Screen Shot 2013-07-27 at 4.04.28 PM

Screen Shot 2013-07-27 at 4.04.35 PM

Screen Shot 2013-07-27 at 4.04.41 PM

Actually, I had violated one of her rules. The end of Rule Number 2 contains this passage:

Please give up on the “But what if the races were reversed?” line of thinking. That type of analysis makes conversations simple, but it also makes them totally unhelpful.

Of course, that’s exactly what I was doing. I was saying: it’s fine for a black writer to say provocative things about race that might get them labeled a racist, but what if the races were reversed? For a white writer to say provocative things about race that might get them labeled a racist is often a career ender. That’s a true statement, but Ms. Desmond-Harris doesn’t want to hear true statements that violate her rules.

As a little side note, I found this amusing:

Screen Shot 2013-07-27 at 4.04.49 PM

I went to timwise.org and it turned out to be a white guy who says that white-on-black racism is a horrible thing — i.e. a white guy who agrees with Ms. Desmond-Harris. I suppose I could have given her a “conversation on race from a black perspective” and linked her to Larry Elder’s site.

Anyway, it seemed like the conversation was coming to a close, and I wanted to hit my main theme:

Screen Shot 2013-07-27 at 4.05.05 PM

Screen Shot 2013-07-27 at 4.05.14 PM

Right on cue, I got an interloper in the conversation who summed it all up better than I ever could:

Screen Shot 2013-07-28 at 11.57.41 AM

Screen Shot 2013-07-28 at 11.58.14 AM

And now, for the icing on the cake. Today, Ms. Desmond-Harris got upset at Don Lemon for making statements about problems that exist in black society. Apparently, Ms. Desmond-Harris doesn’t agree with Lemon, but rather than take him on regarding his specific points, she said this:

Screen Shot 2013-07-28 at 12.16.24 PM

It’s obviously a joke of sorts . . . but it’s born of a serious frustration she has with Lemon. Rather than debate him, her initial impulse — tongue in cheek as she may claim it to be — is to want to shut him up. I teased her about that:

Screen Shot 2013-07-28 at 11.55.45 AM

And then . . .

. . . and then, Jenée Desmond-Harris blocked me:

Screen Shot 2013-07-28 at 10.30.45 AM

THREE CHEERS FOR OUR NATIONAL CONVERSATION ON RACE!!!!!

Obama on Unilateral Unlawful Action

Filed under: General — JD @ 10:14 am

[Guest post by JD]

Teh One knows more than all those non-constitutional lawyers, even his own lawyers. since they don’t know as much as him, and they are meanies, he can do whatever the hell he wants.

And if Congress thinks that what I’ve done is inappropriate or wrong in some fashion, they’re free to make that case. But there’s not an action that I take that you don’t have some folks in Congress who say that I’m usurping my authority. Some of those folks think I usurp my authority by having the gall to win the presidency. And I don’t think that’s a secret. But ultimately, I’m not concerned about their opinions — very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers.
I am concerned about the folks who I spoke to today who are working really hard, are trying to figure out how they can send their kids to college, are trying to make sure that they can save for their retirement. And if I can take steps on their behalf, then I’m going to do so. And I would hope that more and more of Congress will say, you know what, since that’s our primary focus, we’re willing to work with you to advance those ideals. But I’m not just going to sit back if the only message from some of these folks is no on everything, and sit around and twiddle my thumbs for the next 1,200 days.

He also said where Congress in unwilling to act, he will continue to take unilateral action. Ironically, he threatened to veto the bill passed by the House that would have given legal legitimacy to his unilateral action to waive the employer mandate for a year.

He is a petulant small small man.

—JD

7/27/2013

Big Media Distorts Comments of Zimmerman Juror

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:28 am

William Saletan has an excellent piece noting how the statements of the juror who initially voted for murder in the Zimmerman case were subtly manipulated to make them seem more . . . black and white than they really were. Here’s one example of many:

Nightline shows ABC interviewer Robin Roberts asking Maddy: “Some people have said, ‘George Zimmerman got away with murder. How do you respond to those people who say that?’ ” Maddy appears to reply promptly and confidently: “George Zimmerman got away with murder. But you can’t get away from God.” But that’s not quite how the exchange happened. In the unedited video, Roberts’ question is longer, with words that have been trimmed from the Nightline version, and Maddy pauses twice, for several seconds, as she struggles to answer it. “… George Zimmerman … That’s—George Zimmerman got away with murder. But you can’t get away from God.”

You have to watch her, not just read her words, to pick up her meaning. As she struggles to answer, she looks as though she’s trying to reconcile the sentiment that’s been quoted to her—that Zimmerman “got away with murder”—with her own perspective. So she repeats the quote and adds words of her own, to convey what she thinks: that there’s a justice higher than the law, which Zimmerman will have to face. She thinks he’s morally culpable, not legally guilty.

Saletan has many other points about the distorted editing. You have to read his whole piece. But he’s right about this one. As Satetan says, comparing an edited version to the full version excises a moment where she hesitates and seems to be starting to repeat the interviewer’s statement, making it clearer that her ultimate statement took the following form: restatement of interviewer’s premise plus my response.

Good catch by Saletan and a good piece. Thanks to narciso for the link.

Big Media will lie to you every time if it makes their story simpler and removes the pesky shades of gray.

Every time.

7/26/2013

Zimmerman Juror: He Got Away With Murder, But They Couldn’t Prove It

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:41 am

But somehow, she just knows it:

“You can’t put the man in jail even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty,” said the woman who was identified only as Juror B29 during the trial. “But we had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence.”…

“George Zimmerman got away with murder, but you can’t get away from God. And at the end of the day, he’s going to have a lot of questions and answers he has to deal with,” Maddy said. “[But] the law couldn’t prove it.”…

Knock, knock. Who’s there? George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman who? You’re really not that bright or well informed, are you?

In other words: Looking for clues to our country’s racial divisions from people so minimally informed that they made it onto this jury is not exactly a recipe for enlightenment. Giving Delphic props to someone who initially voted for murder on a case this weak is not my idea of a good plan either.

At least she followed the law. I’ll give her that.

In Defense of Huma: At Least She’s Not As Pathetically Careerist As Hillary Clinton

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:20 am

If you feel contempt for Huma Abedin — and you should — you should feel far more contempt for Hillary Clinton. She did the same thing, but far, far worse — for the same reason: cynical, pathetic careerism.

As a foil for this argument, let’s examine some nonsense from hack extraordinaire Eleanor Clift:

This strategy worked for the Clintons politically. But after this latest press conference, I’m pretty sure that Abedin has stretched the Hillary mantle past the breaking point.

The essential problem is that the circumstances are very different for Weiner and Abedin than they were for the Clintons.

I’ll say!

Back in the late 1990s, the country’s stability, along with the future of the Democratic Party, hung in the balance. Even in 1992, when Hillary went on 60 Minutes to quell the controversy over Gennifer Flowers, many voters already saw her husband as a potentially transformative political figure, and plenty of them were therefore willing to overlook his transgressions. Weiner, by contrast, is running for mayor of New York City, not president of the United States, and based on his performance in public office so far, he’s not really worth the rest of us trying to forgive or forget what we know of his private behavior.

So if he were running for President of the United States, Democrats like Eleanor Clift would be supporting Weiner, not trashing him? (Answer: absolutely.) But because Weiner is just running for mayor, screw him. That seems to be Clift’s bizarre argument.

I noticed . . . different points of contrast between the two situations. Namely:

  • We have no evidence that Weiner got a blowjob from any of the women with whom he sexted.
  • Weiner did not have a supervisory position over any of the women with whom he had sexual (albeit perhaps just virtual) interaction, as far as we know.
  • Weiner did not lie under oath to a grand jury about this.
  • Weiner did not try to destroy the women who have emerged by calling them liars or sluts.

This is not to excuse Anthony Weiner, a pathological liar who conspired with his wife to lie to America about how he had changed. Here is the point I am making: Bill Clinton did all this and more. And Hillary Clinton supported him publicly, every step of the way.

Screen Shot 2013-07-26 at 7.16.06 AM
Hillary and Huma: Standing by (and lying to the public about) their man.

In the 1990s, if you were a sucker, you might have been fooled into thinking that Hillary actually cared about her marriage. With hindsight, it is clear that she was a careerist. Nothing more.

Just like Huma, but way worse.

If you feel contempt for Huma, you should feel ten times the contempt for Hillary Clinton.

It’s important to understand that the reason any prominent Democrat is throwing Weiner under the bus at this point is because it endangers Hillary’s bid for the Presidency in 2016. The similarity of this situation to her own craven support of a soulless horndog is obvious, and her personal connection to Abedin makes it less likely that journalists will miss the angle. Make no mistake: Hillary Clinton just wants the Anthony Weiner scandal to go away. Because it’s obvious that Huma is trying to follow in Hillary’s footsteps.

7/25/2013

Breitbart.com Trumpets Story Based on 2011 Weiner Sexting As If It Happened in 2013; Whisks Away Post With No Correction

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:59 am

Breitbart.com published a piece yesterday that announced that Anthony Weiner was sexting Lisa Weiss in March 2013, based on messages that were actually sent in 2011.

Then Breitbart.com whisked away the post with no acknowledgement of error.

The proof remains at Weasel Zippers, which quoted the now-disappeared Breitbart.com post in a post titled Carlos Danger Was Sexting With Another Woman Right Up Until He Announced His Run For NYC Mayor…

Here, Weasel Zipper quotes the Breitbart.com piece:

Via Breitbart:

On Tuesday evening, Anthony Weiner, with his wife by his side, admitted to continuing to send lewd messages to women after he resigned from Congress. He assured the public however, that the behavior was “behind him now.” According to Facebook messages from Weiner, published by RadarOnline, he was sexting with a woman in March of this year, while he was campaigning for Mayor.

When exactly did the sexting get “behind him?”

On March 16th, in an exchange with Weiner, a woman writes “Nice! Just what I’m looking for….I want to XXXX the future mayor of nyc!”

Weiner hadn’t formally announced for Mayor at that time, but had conducted polling on the race and was reportedly considering making a run. On March 16th, the date of the message, FoxNews reported that Weiner was preparing for a mayoral race.

Keep reading…

If you go to the Breitbart.com link, this is what you find:

Screen Shot 2013-07-25 at 7.51.37 AM

No correction. No acknowledgment of error.

Even though it turns out that the messages in question were actually sent in 2011.

I actually linked the Weasel Zippers post in an update to a post yesterday, attributing it to a “report.” Then I went to read more about it, and found the post upon which the claim was based had disappeared . . . and that it was a Breitbart.com piece. I decided that they probably screwed up the story, decided to whisk it away from view, and hope nobody noticed. I deleted my update within about two minutes and made two mental notes: one, to write this post, and a second to always check stories in the future to make sure they are not based on a Breitbart.com piece. And if they are, double and triple check them.

I have gotten on them before for this. I criticized them in this post for doing the same thing when they thought a Bono impersonator was Bono. The problem, I explained, was not the mistake, but failing to acknowledge it:

Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone. But people carefully watch how you handle mistakes.

The right way to do it is to quickly, forthrightly, and thoroughly admit error — to move to correct the error, apologize, and explain how it happened.

The wrong way is to pretend it never happened, and to lawyer it up.

They have learned nothing. They continue to try to sweep away their errors away from public view and hope nobody notices.

Well, we did.

I would advise them to start being forthright when they make errors, but I have already tried that, and it’s falling on deaf ears.

I made a mistake, for two minutes, relying (even indirectly) on Breitbart.com without double-checking the story myself. I’ll do my best to make sure it does not happen again.

Spanish Train Wreck

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:40 am

Apparently caused by horribly excessive speeding:

One of the drivers was trapped in his cabin and told the railway station by radio that the train entered the bend at 190 kilometres per hour (120 mph), reported newspaper El Pais.

The speed limit on that section of track is 80km/h (50mph).

‘We’re only human! We’re only human!’ he told the station, the newspaper said, citing sources close to the investigation. ‘I hope there are no dead, because this will fall on my conscience.’

At last count the number of dead was 78.

Video of the crash seems to corroborate the theory that high speed caused the accident:

NY Post Columnist Bashes Huma

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:03 am

Maureen Callahan at the New York Post:

It’s also time to declare a moratorium on the line that Huma Abedin is the smartest, shrewdest, most level-headed and glamorous asset the Democratic Party has, and if she’s OK with Anthony, we should be, too. Clearly, there is something very wrong with Abedin — whether it’s simply that she shares her husband’s vaulting ambition or that she has a pathological need to be publicly humiliated, something’s up. When The New York Times is calling for you to take your sad assemblage of sexual compulsions out the door, you should consider that a wake-up call. Silda may have stood by Eliot, but even she never opened her mouth in his defense.

Abedin took the good-wife act one step further at Tuesday’s press conference, admitting her collusion in this new lie: “We discussed all of this before Anthony decided to run for mayor,” she said. So clearly, as Abedin sat for these joint interviews in which Weiner claimed to be a changed man, she knew that wasn’t the truth, and was happy to lie to a public that had been nothing but sympathetic toward poor, brilliant Huma, saddled with such a dud. Perhaps they’re a better match than we knew.

Yup. To me, if she wants to do the stand by your man thing, I say whatever. Who am I to tell her that she is ruining her life by hitching her wagon to a sociopathic, remorseless narcissist? Maybe she’s not — it worked out for Hillary!

But when you contribute to a false story line and help Big Media portray your husband as reformed, that’s where I lose sympathy. Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s Anthony Weiner’s tears of remorse.

7/24/2013

Weiner’s Deception on When (and Why) He Came Clean

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:26 pm

June 2011
This June 2011 calendar plays a central role in what you are about to read.

Our own Sammy Finkelman noticed an interesting discrepancy between Anthony Weiner’s statements at his June 2011 press conference, and the story told by him and Huma Abedin to the New York Times in an April 2013 puff piece.

The puff piece portrayed Weiner as coming clean with his wife the “weekend” before his Monday, June 6, 2011 press conference:

By June 1, when Weiner said, “I can’t say with certitude” if the picture was of him, it was clear, at least to most of the world, that he was guilty of something. That weekend, Weiner and Abedin escaped to a friend’s house in the Hamptons to get away from all the “hoopla,” as Weiner calls it, “and that’s when people starting coming out of the woodwork. I got a call from Chris Cuomo saying that they had someone who was going to say that I texted with her. It reached this point where I just sat down with Huma and said, ‘Listen, I can’t. . . . I don’t want to lie.’ . . . I just didn’t want to lie anymore to her.” Here, his voice cracks and tears well up in his eyes. “I have a choppy memory of it, but she was devastated. She immediately said, ‘Well you’ve got to stop lying to everyone else too.’ And basically we drove back to the city, and she said: ‘You’ve just got to tell everyone the truth. Telling me doesn’t help any.’ It was brutal. It was completely out of control. There was the crime, there was the cover-up, there was harm I had done to her. And there’s no one who deserved this less than Huma. That’s really the bottom line. No one deserved to have a dope like me do that less than she did.”

It happened on the weekend, did it, Rep. Weiner? Just a crisis of conscience, was it, buddy? Let’s read on:

Abedin’s memory of this moment is a little sharper. “The weekend was over, we’re about to leave, the car is packed, and Anthony said: ‘I have something to tell you. I can’t lie to you anymore. It’s true. It’s me. The picture is me. I sent it. Yes, these stories about the other women are true.’ And it was every emotion that one would imagine: rage and anger and shock. But more than anything else, in the immediate, it was disbelief. The thing that I consciously remember saying over and over and over again is: ‘I don’t understand. What is going on? What’s happening to our lives?’ ”

We’re getting closer to the truth, but this is still deceptive. “The weekend was over” to most people would suggest that he came clean on Sunday night (June 5) just before they headed back, as most people drive back on the Sunday night of a weekend trip.

That’s not what he said the next day, though.

Here’s from Weiner’s Monday, June 6, 2011 press conference:

WEINER: My wife has known about some of these on-line relationships since before we were married. And we spoke frankly about them because — well, we spoke frankly about them. But she didn’t know until this morning that I had not been telling the truth about whether I posted the Twitter posting last week.

Look at the calendar. The weekend was June 3-5. The press conference was on Monday, June 6, which is not typically thought of as “the weekend.”

Either he told her over the weekend (as he told the New York Times) or he told her on the morning of June 6 (as he said at his press conference).

Why does it matter whether he told her about it over the weekend or on Monday morning?

I’ll tell you why: because early Monday morning, June 6, 2011, Andrew Breitbart published an article proving that Weiner had sexted with Meagan Broussard..

I can’t think of a reason that Weiner would have lied at the press conference about telling Huma on Monday morning.

But I can think of a reason why he would falsely try to suggest he came clean over the “weekend”: to falsely suggest that his confession was motivated by a noble desire to tell the truth, rather than forced by Andrew Breitbart.

I spoke to Andrew Breitbart on the phone on Sunday, June 5, 2011, and he told me what he had, and that it was going to be coming out the next day. He allowed me to tease it in an update to this June 5, 2011 post as well as another stand-alone post, published at 10:57 p.m. on June 5, 2011, quoting a tweet of Andrew’s saying “#Weinergate taking new turn tomorrow in AM.”

Breitbart published his first piece early on June 6. A commenter of mine noted by 3:48 a.m. Pacific on June 6, 2011 that Breitbart’s story was up.

That’s what caused old Anthony Weiner to ‘fess up.

Naturally, his confession was portrayed in the New York Times as prompted by Weiner’s super-honest and not-at-all-coerced-by-revelations confession to his wife over the “weekend.”

But that was a lie. His hand was forced Monday morning by Andrew Breitbart. Period. If Breitbart had not published, Weiner would have kept lying about the original Weinertweet.

And then in the summer of 2012, he started sexting and lying again. I guess he thought he could get away with it . . . now that Breitbart was dead.

UPDATE: You know he’s probably sexting RIGHT NOW, telling a woman he wished they wouldn’t have fuzzed up the images of his penis on TheDirty.com, so she could see just what he wants to gag her with.

I’m deleting a portion of the update that was up for a couple of minutes because it relied on a Breitbart.com post which has now disappeared without explanation, which appears to be what they do these days when they screw up. I don’t really trust that site any more.

Timeline of Anthony Weiner’s Sociopathic Sexting and The Dishonesty of Him and His Wife Huma Abedin

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:10 am

Here is the timeline you need to read to understand what a sociopath Anthony Weiner is, and how his wife Huma Abedin has actively helped him lie to the public about his supposed rehabilitation.

The sources for this timeline include:

  • TheDirty.com timeline (TheDirty.com is the site that broke this story) based on interviews with Weiner’s latest sexting partner

June 3-5, 2011: Anthony Weiner (supposedly) dramatically decides not to lie to Huma any more. From the New York Times puff piece:

By June 1, when Weiner said, “I can’t say with certitude” if the picture was of him, it was clear, at least to most of the world, that he was guilty of something. That weekend, Weiner and Abedin escaped to a friend’s house in the Hamptons to get away from all the “hoopla,” as Weiner calls it, “and that’s when people starting coming out of the woodwork. I got a call from Chris Cuomo saying that they had someone who was going to say that I texted with her. It reached this point where I just sat down with Huma and said, ‘Listen, I can’t. . . . I don’t want to lie.’ . . . I just didn’t want to lie anymore to her.” Here, his voice cracks and tears well up in his eyes. “I have a choppy memory of it, but she was devastated. She immediately said, ‘Well you’ve got to stop lying to everyone else too.’ And basically we drove back to the city, and she said: ‘You’ve just got to tell everyone the truth. Telling me doesn’t help any.’ It was brutal. It was completely out of control. There was the crime, there was the cover-up, there was harm I had done to her. And there’s no one who deserved this less than Huma. That’s really the bottom line. No one deserved to have a dope like me do that less than she did.”

Abedin’s memory of this moment is a little sharper. “The weekend was over, we’re about to leave, the car is packed, and Anthony said: ‘I have something to tell you. I can’t lie to you anymore. It’s true. It’s me. The picture is me. I sent it. Yes, these stories about the other women are true.’ And it was every emotion that one would imagine: rage and anger and shock. But more than anything else, in the immediate, it was disbelief. The thing that I consciously remember saying over and over and over again is: ‘I don’t understand. What is going on? What’s happening to our lives?’ ”

June 5, 2011: Andrew Breitbart gets the goods on Weiner. I spoke to Andrew Breitbart on the phone on June 5, 2011, and he told me what he had. This part of the New York Times story still irritates me, because they wrote out of the history books the way that Breitbart’s revelations clearly prompted the hasty press conference. I have much more on this part of the timeline, but have placed it in a separate page because it is a distraction from the flow of this timeline.

June 6, 2011: Hasty press conference called. Weiner admits he had been smearing Breitbart and that he was sexting multiple women.

June 9, 2011: This blog publishes proof that Weiner sent direct messages to a Delaware high school girl, including a reference to “cape and tights,” a grooming line he also used with an adult woman with whom he had sexted.

June 10, 2011: Police show up to the Delaware teen’s home. Acting on the information from my June 9, 2011 blog post, a Fox News reporter is there when police arrive and reports the story.

June 16, 2011: Weiner resigns. Reports later say the revelations of his communications with an underage girl caused President Obama to withdraw his support, leading to his ultimate decision.

June 23, 2011: Mike Stack, one of the “Born Free Crew” who warned young girls on Twitter about Weiner’s sickness, is SWATted. On this same day, “Alicia Pain” writes me to tell me to stop writing about Gennette Cordova and Rep AW:

Please think about your family. This story is not worth it. I can assure you that.

Please remember, your safety cannot be assured if you continue.

July 1, 2011: My family is SWATted.

December 21, 2011: Weiner and Abedin have a baby boy.

July 12, 2012: Weiner starts talking to “Sydney Leathers” (identified by BuzzFeed here), according to this timeline from the site that broke the latest story. Quoting the girl:

Anthony Weiner And I First started talking July 12, 2012.

July 18, 2012: People Magazine puff piece appears:

“It took a lot of work to get to where are are today, but I want people to know we’re a normal family,” says Abedin, 37.

“Anthony has spent every day since [the scandal] trying to be the best dad and husband he can be,” she says of her husband, who does all the laundry. “I’m proud to be married to him.”

July 19, 2012: One day after the People Magazine puff piece appears, Weiner finds Sydney Leathers on Formspring:

Screen Shot 2013-07-24 at 6.20.36 AM

July 19, 2012 – November 2012: Anthony Weiner engages in intense sexual discussions with Sydney Leathers. From the timeline:

Things were very intense by August 2012/already talks of the Chicago sex condo and having sexual conversations. We would send naked images to each other and have phone sex. Anthony Weiner would send me penis pictures from his Carlos Danger yahoo email to my Gmail.

You aren’t going to read this in Big Media, so I think you should see some of the stuff he was saying to this young woman while he was supposedly a diaper-changing new dad whose life was turned around by the birth of his son:

Screen Shot 2013-07-24 at 6.23.58 AM

Screen Shot 2013-07-24 at 6.24.18 AM

Screen Shot 2013-07-24 at 6.24.29 AM

Screen Shot 2013-07-24 at 6.24.46 AM

Screen Shot 2013-07-24 at 6.24.56 AM

He really has a thing about gagging women with his erect penis. That concept come up a lot in Weinergate I.

It goes on and on and on like that. From another post:

She really thought Anthony Weiner and her were in love, they spoke on the phone daily multiple times a day for 6 months. Anthony Weiner played with her emotions and mind. Most calls were phone sex. He promised her many things including a condo in Chicago (1235 S. Prairie Ave) where they were planning to meet up to have sex. Anthony Weiner has a shoe fetish, particularly heels.

He even asked her which of the pictures from Weinergate I turned her on the most:

Screen Shot 2013-07-24 at 6.48.09 AM

Screen Shot 2013-07-24 at 6.48.00 AM

And, disturbingly for a guy who was talking about “cape and tights” to a high school girl in Delaware — a grooming line he had used with an adult woman with whom he had sexted — Weiner asks Sydney Leathers if her “pussy” is “smooth”:

Screen Shot 2013-07-24 at 6.48.17 AM

Anthony Weiner called himself “Carlos Danger” in some of these messages. He promised the woman a job at Politico but immediately after bringing it up he asked her to “do me a solid” and hard delete all their messages.

November 2012: Carlos Danger and Sydney Leathers’s relationship starts to fizzle out:

By November 2012 our relationship began to fizzle out.

December 2012: Sydney Leathers and Anthony “Carlos Danger” Weiner speak once:

We only spoke once in December 2012 . . .

April 10, 2013: Puff piece appears online in the New York Times that portrays Weiner’s supposed coming clean and being totally honest in June 2011. The article also has Weiner and Abedin portraying their new son as having totally changed Weiner’s perspective:

“But in the confines of our home and our relationship and our parenting this child and our love for each other — she said she wanted to get through it, she wanted not to conflate the giant international news story with the two people who were involved in it. And a lot of women couldn’t do that. And Jordan has given us a lot of perspective. We have to deal with this a lot. It’s not behind us. It kind of bubbles around and comes up in different ways. But she’s, um. . . .” Here, he paused and took a deep breath and started to cry. “She’s given. . . .” He stopped again, could barely get the words out. “She’s given me another chance. And I am very grateful for that. And I’m trying to make sure I get it right.”

Immediately after April 10, 2013 New York Times puff piece: After the appearance of the New York Times puff piece, Weiner reactivates his Facebook account and asks Sydney Leathers what she thought of it:

We only spoke once in December 2012, and then I didn’t hear from Anthony Weiner again until April 11, 2013 when a NYT article about him was released. He reactivated his Facebook and asked me what I thought of it.

May 2013: Weiner enters mayor’s race.

Huma Abedin says she knew about all this. Here is yesterday’s disgusting press conference, in which Weiner says in a sing-song and bored voice that this is nothing new, and his dishonest wife gets up to stand by him.

Here is what Weiner said at the press conference about when his wife knew:

She knew all along this process . . . I was more and more honest with her. I told her everything. This is something we knew going into the decision about whether I would run.

Huma Abedin says “it is between us, and our marriage.” No, ma’am, it isn’t. He is running for the office of Mayor of New York. And you helped him lie about this scandal to help his candidacy. This is a public matter now.

For what it’s worth, the New York Times, the very paper that gave a dishonest wet kiss to Weiner in April, is now telling him to get out of the race.

Mr. Weiner, your antics have become too much even for a paper that was essentially willing to lie for you, sir.

Lucky for you, they will apparently never be too much for the woman, Huma Abedin, who is willing to lie for you, by portraying you as a reformed man when she knew good and damned well you weren’t.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7202 secs.