Patterico's Pontifications

10/31/2013

Anthony Weiner: I Wanted the NYT to Be Hard On Me, But They Weren’t

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:12 am

The silly headlines just write themselves, don’t they?

The latest installment in Anthony Weiner’s “It’s Everybody Else’s Fault” tour is a complaint that the New York Times went soft on him. Therefore, you see, the fact that he was still sexting women didn’t come out because the stupid reporter never came after him in an aggressive way.

The reporter is upset at the accusation. Why, he says, they knew they were getting a puff piece!

According to Sella, Van Meter is furious to be dismissed as “not tough enough” and that he was specifically chosen for the profile because Abedin liked Van Meter after spending time with him when he profiled Hillary and Chelsea Clinton.

“In that experience, I spent a lot of time around Huma — and she said to Anthony that if Jonathan Van Meter does it, that is the kind of writer I’m comfortable talking to,” he said. “I was chosen. They knew exactly what kind of story and what kind of writer they were going to get.”

The whole thing is at Politico (no links for bullies!), but for my money, this is the takeaway quote:

Van Meter has a warning for any reporter thinking of profiling Weiner in the future: Don’t.

“No one should interview Anthony again. He is the least reliable narrator of his own story that I have ever encountered,” Van Meter said. “And I’ve interviewed people in prison, who have chopped people up — prisoners who are charming and funny and smart. And well dressed.”

Heh. And now, in the spirit of the headline:

19 Responses to “Anthony Weiner: I Wanted the NYT to Be Hard On Me, But They Weren’t”

  1. What’s extra galling to Van Meter is that, from what he’s heard, Weiner and Abedin had mapped out in advance how to avoid the Question, and try to brass it out: “People who know Anthony well

    Now who would that be?

    Some Clinton associates, of course.

    have told me that the two of them, before they started their interviews with me, discussed whether they were going to tell me about the fact that he fell off the wagon. Huma wanted him to do it.

    I don’t believe that. Why does Jonathan Van Meter believe that? Wouldn’t it have been better for Anthony Weiner to pretend he hadn’t “fallen off the wagon?”

    And does he think Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin mapped it out alone? And is there any possible source for this information than some kind of political associate of the Clintons/ And wouldn;’t top sources be people who helped him map it out? More than one actually, of course. That makes it true? It only makes it a co-ordinated lie.

    But he did not want to tell the story—because, as someone said, he did not want his parents to know!”

    Not wanting hiis parents to know came from one source. Huma wanting him to come clean about Leathers or more come from multiple sources.

    “And this tells you everything you need to know,” Van Meter adds. “This bifurcated personality he has. Part of him is like a 13-year-old boy who got caught masturbating in his bedroom, you know?”

    What!??

    Does Van Meter believe this new lie, now? You know, this new lie puts all the blame for concealing Sydney leathers (and more) on Anthomn Weiner himself, and gives a non-political reason for it.

    Sammy Finkelman (70818b)

  2. This is here because of a lie to Marshall Sella of GQ.

    The lie to GQ is that it was only by accident, and not planned, that Leathers didn’t come out in the New York Times Magazine. Because Jonathan van Meter of the New York Times isn’t tough enough.

    But meanwhile Van Meter himself, who knew perfectly well it wasn’t his fault, had been told a different story – that Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin gamed it out how to avoid the being asked if he had done any sexting after June, 2011.

    So what was their strategy? Simple. Volunteering such information and reflections at the start, in a way so that Anthony Weiner would have already apparently answered such a question with a no!

    The problem would be what exact language to use, in case Van meter already knew about post-Congress sexting.

    How could he choose such langage so that it would avoid appearing to be a lie in retrospect in case Van Meter knew about Leathers or anyone else?

    This kind of expert advice on language can only come from the Clinton machine.

    Why was Van Meter given any explanation at all?

    It was the Clinton machine protecting itself so that Van Meter’s scorn should fall only on Anthony Weiner.

    The reason he was told this was to conceal the fact that Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin had a lot of help in gaming things out!

    The lie furthermore is, that it was only Anthony Weiner who wanted to conceal the fact he’d engaged in any sexting after his resignation from Congress – and he wanted to do for a completely non-political reason. Huma Aabedin, goes the story, had actually wanted him to reveal it.

    Sammy Finkelman (70818b)

  3. Please, Sammy. We lawyers get to hear this crap all the time. “Yeah, I robbed that 7-11 but my girlfriend was really on my back cause she needed some crack money real bad, you know.” Who cares if Billary or Beelzebub (but I repeat myself) whispered in his ear? It came out of his mouth.

    nk (dbc370)

  4. Anthony Weiner and the NTY deserve each-other the way that the Aztecs and the Conquistadores did. What a pity that such serendipitous conflicts between swine so seldom result in mutual destruction.

    C. S. P. Schofield (e8b801)

  5. Holy Moly!

    According to Sella, Van Meter is furious to be dismissed as “not tough enough” and that he was specifically chosen for the profile because Abedin liked Van Meter after spending time with him when he profiled Hillary and Chelsea Clinton.

    “In that experience, I spent a lot of time around Huma — and she said to Anthony that if Jonathan Van Meter does it, that is the kind of writer I’m comfortable talking to,” he said. “I was chosen. They knew exactly what kind of story and what kind of writer they were going to get.”

    Do you know what this reminds me of? It reminds me of the john who complains that the prostitute didn’t give him a good flogging, and the prostitute replying, “Hey, I don’t do that and you knew when you hired me that I don’t do that.” Imagine a NYTimes reporter defending himself in exactly the way that a prostitute would: I’m the puff piece writer, not the hard-bitten journalist. And imagine the NYTimes editors agreeing to assign that journalist at the request of the Abedin/Clinton axis. I mean, it’s not like Weiner was running for something important like mayor.

    Um, my prostitution analogy isn’t based upon personal experience or anything.

    JVW (709bc7)

  6. What’s going on here is this:

    1) Anthony Weiner tells the world in general that he didn’t plan to leave out Sydney Leathers from the interview, but it happened because Jonathan Van Meter was just not a persistent enough reporter.

    2) Jonathan Van Meter gets told by Clinton associates that it was gamed out how to avoid getting asked if he had sexted after leaving Congress. But it was Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin alone who mapped out the strategy

    (I figure out that the way they did it was by volunteering such statements that (at least would seem to) rule out subsequent sexting.

    What really needs to be gamed out is how not to get caught in a lie in case Van Meter already knows he did. Perhaps they carefully sound him out
    as they start.

    3) Jonathan Van Meter further gets told that, of the two, Huma Abedin would have preferred Anthomy Weiner come clean about subsequent sexting, but that only Anthony Weiner did not want to, but for purely non-political reasons (he didn’t want to tell his parents.)

    Sammy Finkelman (70818b)

  7. 6. Comment by JVW (709bc7) — 10/31/2013 @ 9:41 am

    Imagine a NYTimes reporter defending himself in exactly the way that a prostitute would: I’m the puff piece writer, not the hard-bitten journalist. </i.

    It doesn't come out too well in the GQ piece, but Van Meter's defense is that Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin mapped out a strategy to avoid getting asked that question. It wasn't that he wass such a bad questioner.

    It was no accident that Anthony Weiner did not get asked if his public exposure meant the end of his sexting.

    And I'll tell you how they did it.

    They volunteered such comments at the start that would seem to rule out subsequent sexting (but left them with some plausible deniability that they were lying in case Van Meter already knew about Leathers or anyone else)

    Having apparently already told him no, why would he ask such a question again?

    But it is true this was a puff piece.

    Sammy Finkelman (70818b)

  8. Anthony Weiner doesn’t even make a good trivia question

    but if I remember him at all I’ll remember what a total whore he was for the obamacares

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  9. Shorter:

    Anthony Weiner to world: He wound up not revealing he had continued sexting after he resigned from Congress because Jonathan Van Meter was just not a persistent enough reporter.

    Clintonistas to Jonathan Van Meter: Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin strategized how not to get asked a question about whether or not he had sexted after that.

    But nobody helped them, Huma didn’t really want to hide it, and Anthony Weiner only wanted to hide it for non-political reasons.

    (They managed to avoid getting asked that question by volunteering statements that ruled it out, or at least seemed to.)

    Sammy Finkelman (70818b)

  10. he’s like that Gabby Gifford

    they both got a lot of press for stuff that was really extraneous but the only real consequence one can find in their short-lived careers is 100% attributable to the whoring they did for obamacare

    cause of how it really jacked up this country something fierce

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  11. He’s a creepy weasel, however DeBlasio was an improvement?

    narciso (3fec35)

  12. Sammy is always rabid in his defense of Hillary.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  13. And this passage makes it even more unlikely;

    “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.”

    narciso (3fec35)

  14. Sammy, I have a bone to pick with you. Since you made this your post, three pages of Sammy to one of Patterico, the least you could have done is link a picture (or several) of Huma. For me, Sammmy, for me.

    nk (dbc370)

  15. Sammy is always rabid in his defense of Hillary.

    My head hurts trying to figure out the point that Sammy is attempting to make above or what his MO is, but if your point is correct overall, then that pretty much nails it that his left-leaning biases fuel his perceptions of many people, many situations.

    Mark (58ea35)

  16. Aw, if you want something done right … https://www.google.com/search?rls=ig&hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=598&q=huma+abedin&oq=huma+abedin&gs_l=img.3..0l10.1175.4279.0.5327.11.8.0.3.3.0.111.814.1j7.8.0….0…1ac.1.30.img..0.11.848.Bxg6zH4NpCc

    nk (dbc370)

  17. 13. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/31/2013 @ 7:45 pm

    Sammy is always rabid in his defense of Hillary.

    I don’t know where you got that from. Does this ahve something to do with Benghazi.

    I think she’s not responsible for the talking points – the only thing she did is not interfere with them, and that was because other people in the administration wanted to say that. She knew the idea that the attack was spontanenous was largely on Sooper Sekrit intelligence that came from Saudi Arabia, and Prince Bandar was in charge of intelligence as well as Syrian policy, and she couldn’t risk revealing too much, because Bill and Hillary Clinton’s role in the coverup of the death of Vincent Foster would come out in the wash. This would be so even if she suspected Prince Bandar of arranging Ambassador Stevens’ death.

    With regard to Anthony Weiner I don’t know waht you think Imdefending here. I don’t believe Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin prepared for the interview for the New York Times Magazine by themselves. I berelive this wsas a Clinton strategy to rescue Anthony Weiners reputation, because it refelected on Huma Abedin, which reflected on Billary.

    Now I am against accusations that I don’t think are true.

    Now with Hillary, I think Bill is the really bad person, but I don’t think she’s honest at all.

    Sammy Finkelman (78d0b5)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7197 secs.