Patterico's Pontifications


Breitbart: Hold on to Your Socks, More Weiner Info Tomorrow; UPDATE: New Woman Comes Forward

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:57 pm

I already linked this in the update to the post below. But it seems like it deserves a post all its own.

Breitbart tweets:

Last chance to join the #FollowBreitbart juggernaut! (Well, not really.) #Weinergate taking new turn tomorrow in AM.

Boom! Weinergate taking a new turn. TOMORROW.


UPDATE: Andrew has the announcement at Big Government:

A new woman has come forward with what she claims are photographs, chats, and emails with Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY). These appear to undermine severely Rep. Weiner’s explanations that he was the victim of a “prank” or a “hack.”

The detailed new information suggests that the Brooklyn- and Queens-based representative and the young woman in question were involved in an online, consensual relationship involving the mutual exchange of intimate photographs. and were approached regarding this information more than a week prior to the separate, independent event of Friday, May 27, 2011, when a link to the now-infamous “gray underwear” photograph appeared publicly on Rep. Weiner’s Twitter feed.

We will be updating and throughout the day with photographs, timelines, and other clarifying details. However, we will not be releasing all of the material because some of it is of an extreme, graphic nature.

I guess you could call that changing the dynamic.

The first post and photograph is fairly innocuous.

This is TOTAL SPECULATION and I KNOW NOTHING . . . but I have this weird feeling that “me” card is going to resurface in another picture . . . this time pointing at something besides his face.

Unlike other times, when I signal something I already know is coming, this one is just a guess on my part. I promise.

Stay glued to Big Government all day for more.

And remember: always trust content from Patterico.

PREVIOUSLY: More Weiner Messages to Young Girls? Evidence the Media Was Duped into Dropping the Investigation.

Daily Caller: We Have Proof Weiner’s DM to the Stripper Was Personal

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:04 pm

Chalk up another analytical victory for Ace of Spades. When stripper Ginger Lee expressed excitement at getting a DM (direct message) from Anthony Weiner, Ace said:

[S]he does not appear to be, like many strippers or porn actresses, perpetually drunk and stoned. In that video appearance, she’s stone cold sober.

The video appearance, by the way, is this one.

What a cute accent. Back to Ace:

So, this woman is at least fairly intelligent (I would say above-average intelligence) and does not appear to be boozehound or smackwhore.

Now, you tell me: Would this woman confuse an automated blow-off like “Thank you very much for taking an interest in Anthony Weiner. Please visit for further news about Anthony Weiner” for a DM worth getting excited about, and talking about, and calling a “trifecta of win”?

Would she get from that “pro-forma” message the idea that he “likes her blog”?

If I got the sense from her that she is very dumb, or very substance-compromised, I could buy that.

But I get the opposite sense. I do not believe for one red hot second an intelligent, clear-minded woman could possibly mistake “Drink More Ovaltine” for a genuine personal message from Anthony Weiner.

Guess what? Ace was right. The Daily Caller proves it. The evidence? Any pro-forma Weiner message, as Weiner claims Ginger Lee got, would have occurred on March 3. Her excitement over a Weiner DM was 10 days later.

So, Weiner sent her a personal message. Not an impersonal, pro forma one.

Which he denied. Which just means he lied. Again.

But you already knew that.

Thanks to Dan Riehl on Twitter.

More Weiner Messages to Young Girls? Evidence the Media Was Duped into Dropping the Investigation

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 5:37 pm

[UPDATE 6-6-11 6:27 a.m.: As originally hinted at the end of this post, there is game-changing information out today — in the form of a new woman and new photos in the Weiner scandal. If you haven’t read about that yet, you’ll want to see that first, here. Then come back and read this detailed post, which shows one instance in which the media abandoned an investigation into further evidence before it even got started.]

There are new reasons to question whether Rep. Anthony Weiner sent DMs to young girls besides Gennette Nicole — and whether he sent Nicole more flirtatious DMs than just that one picture.

The other day, Tommy Christopher published an interesting article regarding two underage girls who had claimed to have incriminating DMs from Anthony Weiner. Christopher called the girls “Betty” and “Veronica” and said that they had admitted to him that they had lied. That may be . . . but there are some aspects of their claims (and those of their parents) that I think merit some examination.

In short, certain aspects of their claims sound fishy, and/or contradict other pieces of evidence that I have learned about. For example, one of the girls says in her statement that Weiner unfollowed her as a favor, to stop the harassment she was experiencing from Mike Stack aka goatsred, and Dan Wolfe aka PatriotUSA76.

That is not what she was saying at the time. At the time, she was angry at Weiner for unfollowing her. The details of this are set forth below.

Christopher’s piece needs to be questioned. There is evidence that what the girls are saying now is not true. Which could mean that what they were telling Stack at the time — that they had compromising DMs from Weiner — was true.


Let me quote from Tommy’s piece:

Shortly after the Weinergate story first broke, one of several red flags I noticed, and shared with Breitbart, was the fact that there was only one unique retweet of the picture. My back-and-forth on Twitter caught the attention of a young girl who had information about the story, and she contacted me. Since she is a minor, and at her parents’ request, I will identify her pseudonymously as Betty.

It was Betty who pointed out the activities of Dan Wolfe (@patriotusa76) and his clique, including a man named Mike Stack (@goatsred). She had a lot of information that I could not verify, but those facts that were independently verifiable formed the basis of our reporting on Wolfe Sunday afternoon. Wolfe and Stack, along with several others, had engaged in a campaign of harassing young, mostly-underage girls who were being followed by Rep. Weiner, as well as a constant stream of vitriol, homophobic innuendo, and rumormongering against Rep. Weiner. Betty was one of those young girls, and their unwanted attention, she says, caused her to shut down her Twitter feed.

Betty’s mother (we’ll call her Mrs. Betty) says that she and her husband monitor all of Betty’s internet usage, and were incensed by this group’s behavior. Rep. Weiner, she confirms, never contacted Betty privately, with the exception of a Direct Message welcoming her to his Twitter stream, a message Mrs. Betty assumed was automatically generated.

Just so it’s clear, it is “Betty” who brought up PatriotUSA76 (Dan Wolfe) and goatsred (Mike Stack).

Lee Stranahan did not bring up Stack or Wolfe first. “Betty” did. Which makes you wonder whether anyone had gotten to her. The more you read, the more you’ll wonder about that.


Moving on:

A high school friend of Betty’s, whom I will call Veronica (she’s a minor), was also contacted, via Twitter, by a member of the group, Mike Stack (@goatsred). For personal reasons I won’t go into, Veronica saw a means of getting attention, and agreed to follow @Goatsred so that they could speak privately. She told him that she and Betty had incriminating Direct Messages from Rep. Weiner, a claim she now admits was false, and which she made without Betty’s knowledge.

In fact, she was simultaneously telling Betty that @Goatsred had tried to induce her to lie about Rep. W[ei]ner, and to enlist Betty in the plot. Veronica now admits this was also false. Yes, @goatsred did contact her, and she did feed him false information about Rep. Weiner, but this was not at his urging.

Christopher says Veronica “admits” she was lying, and maintains that it is 100% certain that “Veronica” was lying when she said she had incriminating messages. Maybe. But keep reading.

When a tipster, Adam Shriver, sent me a screenshot of this Direct Message from Veronica, from @goatsred’s public YFrog account, I confronted Betty about it, and Mrs. Betty called Veronica’s mother. That’s when Veronica admitted she had been lying.

According to Veronica, she never even followed Rep. Weiner, nor did he ever follow her. “I saw many other girls in the news and I wanted to be famous,” she says. “Nothing I told goatsred was true. I’m sorry to everyone for lying and for embarrassing my mom.”

Immediately below that is a redacted screencap of some of the DMs that “Veronica” was sending to goatsred/Stack.

(Christopher later goes on to explain how a Kos diarist published that screencap without redacting the picture or the name — and recounts how he unsuccessfully tried to persuade Markos Moulitsas to redact it. Kos refused but the diarist ultimately relented. However, unredacted versions of the screencap are still available online. I have seen them and I know the name the girl used when she was talking to Stack. I can further confirm this because I have seen the screencaps that Stack has sent me of the DMs from Veronica. Stack spoke to me for this story and authorized me to use the information he sent me.)

Here’s one question. If you look at Christopher’s redacted screencap, it is clear that “Veronica” is very concerned about keeping her name and the true name of “Betty” out of it. She asks Stack how the revelation will be worded, clearly not wanting to have her real name out there.

So, she wanted to be famous, but wanted to keep her name secret? Perhaps.

Or perhaps her intense desire for privacy explains why, when it turned out that an Internet reporter (Tommy Christopher) had discovered who she was, she suddenly claimed that she had been lying about having DMs from Weiner.

Christopher goes on to explain that Breitbart told him he (Breitbart) had the DMs from goatsred and had been trying to verify them, but did not publish because he could not do the verification. Christopher explains that this was a good thing, because the DMs turned out to be a fabrication (he claims) by Veronica.

How does Christopher claim to know the DMs were lies?


Christopher sets out full statements from Betty’s mother, Betty, and Veronica. The statement from Betty’s mother reads like it could have been written by Weiner’s press people. For example:

We would also like to express our disgust at the harassment of Rep Weiner and hope that everyone remembers this man did nothing wrong. Look at your own behavior and your own mental hang-ups and ask yourself why you find certain things so perverse — it says more about you than it does about the person you are accusing.

And concerning a certain adult actress, we would like to add that this girl did nothing wrong. If you actually read her blog it is about politics and chronic illness. My husband and I read it together with our daughter. Again, ask yourself what your own personal prejudices and hangups are before you make accusations.

This man did nothing wrong? I beg to differ, ma’am.

Here is the most important reason to question the statement: Betty’s mom and Betty both say that Weiner was forced to unfollow Betty as a “favor” because Betty was being harassed by the goatsred/PatriotUSA76 gang. But that is not what “Betty” was saying at the time.

Here is the statement from Betty’s mom to Christopher regarding Weiner’s decision to unfollow Betty:

Soon after she was following Rep Weiner, a group of grown men and a few grown woman who described themselves as “concerned mothers” began harassing my daughter. I can assure you, as a mother, I’ve never heard of such disgusting behavior. My daughter, with our permission, responded to these attacks on Rep Weiner following her with grace and maturity – which is something that cannot be said for these “mothers” and their fellow grown men involved in the attack.

These mothers and their grown male friends attacked the intentions and character of Rep Weiner to our daughter and suggested that he was somehow perverse for following her. This disgusted myself and my husband. They were attacking a man, who has done nothing to them and has done nothing wrong.

Ultimately, Rep Weiner had to unfollow our daughter as a favor to her so these attacks would stop. We were sorry that these bullies caused this and we were disgusted to see that even after he unfollowed her, this group of so called mothers and grown men — continued to try and contact my daughter.

Betty also says that Weiner unfollowed her as a favor due to Stack’s harassment:

I was so excited because we were learning about politics in school and he is a great hero of mine. This excitement turned to fear when a group of women and men started harassing me for following Rep Weiner and for being followed by him. They said the most terrible things about him.

He was forced to unfollow me so they would stop harassing me.

Here is the problem. That’s not what she said at the time.


On May 18, “Betty” said:

Well @RepWeiner unfollowed me. That was a short time. I defended him from people. Some thanks he gives to his loyal followers.

She sounds upset at Weiner. How is that consistent with Weiner doing her a favor?

Moreover, just a day earlier, on May 17, she had been bemoaning the fact that one of her “idols” had disappointed her:

It really sucks when one of your idols doesn’t live up to expectations.

Here is a screenshot:
(Click for full screenshot)

The timing of this will become interesting when you meet “Ethel” later on in this post.

How can I tell you this is “Betty”? I think it will help if I first give you a timeline of some of “Betty’s” tweets, and then tell you exactly what Veronica was telling Stack that Betty had.

On May 15, Betty tweeted:

Watchin the game wit [redacted] & [Veronica]! #letsgododgers! #dodgersporvida

On May 16, Betty began a campaign to get Weiner to take her to prom:

Tweeps my progressive idol @RepWeiner is following me! Today is the best day ever!

Today also marks day one of my campaign to get @RepWeiner to be my prom date. Will you be my prom date @RepWeiner?

Everyone please please follow @RepWeiner and tell him to be my prom date!

Tweeps please tweet and follow @RepWeiner and tell him to be my prom date and use #RepWeinerBe[Betty]sDate

Follow the best progressive Congressman @RepWeiner he is a democrat who fights for us & against Republican trolls! #RepWeinerBe[Betty]sDate

On May 17, there was a sudden turn of events, in which Betty expressed extreme disappointment with one of her “idols.” It doesn’t sound like this had anything to do with goatsred/Mike Stack or PatriotUSA76/Dan Wolfe:

It really sucks when one of your idols doesn’t live up to expectations.

Betty wasn’t necessarily talking about Weiner, of course. But . . . on May 18 she was saying this:

Well @RepWeiner unfollowed me. That was a short time. I defended him from people. Some thanks he gives to his loyal followers.

That certainly doesn’t sound like Weiner unfollowed her because of Stack or Wolfe. Also on May 18, Betty tweeted this. In keeping with the Archie comics theme, I will replace the real Twitter handle of the person Betty is addressing with the name “Ethel,” another girl from the Archie strip.

RT @[Ethel]: Funny that you said you had a crush on a married politician. Are you forreal?

You see, Ethel (who still has her Twitter account) had been tweeting numerous starry-eyed tweets about Weiner. Ethel’s name has been published at the Daily Caller, but I would rather not publish it here, as she is of high school age. In April she had tweeted: “Seriously talking to Representative Weiner from New York right now! Like is my life real?” That tweet is now gone, though her account remains. A couple of days later, she wrote that she was “seriously depressed” that Weiner didn’t follow her any more. On May 13 she tweeted Weiner complaining that he used to follow her but no longer did. Two days later she wrote “SERIOUSLY LOVING LIFE AGAIN BUT I GOTTA KEEP MY MOUTH SHUT OR ELSE…” She followed that with “i love today, i really do” and “I’m in love with married men, #thatswhyimsingle.”

This is the same day (May 17) that Betty complained that one of her idols did not live up to expectations. And the next day, there was a message between Betty and Ethel in which one mocks the other for having a crush on a married man. (I can’t quite tell which; the form of the RT suggests that Ethel addressed an unnamed person and was retweeted by Betty, but the context suggests Betty talking to Ethel.)

On May 19, Ethel said: “Sitting in the chair where I first talked to my favorite Congressman. :))))))))”

Ethel could have been talking about someone else, right? Wait: I’m not done yet.


After the scandal broke, Veronica contacted Stack. She told him:

mike we see whats going on with rep weiner. [betty] has caps of messages from gennette nicole DMs talking about flirting with weienr [sic]

She encouraged Stack to try to message her back. She then sent the series of messages you see on Christopher’s screenshot. Note how the girl supposedly seeking fame (according to her statement to Christopher) was desperately trying to preserve both girls’ anonymity:

she also has some rep weiner DMs she is willing to share if you can guarantee she is anonymous

she just wants to know how it will be worded? who will be named as the source?

so andrew and dana will say they themselves are the source? keep [Betty] and my names totally out of it?

you can say we are high school girls because that’s necessary for the story

Other messages include:

the DMs with that girl gennette are between gennette and [Betty] with gennette telling her how she & weiner flirt

how they flirt on DM

then there are only 3 DMs from Weiner to [Betty] – they are pretty harmless actually. it is when she asked him to prom. that’s all she had

unfortunately she had already deleted the rest when he was accusing her and had [Ethel] harassing her

those were the worst of his tweets to [Betty] and [Ethel]s too

let me know when you are ready for the links – and download the pics instantly. [Betty] will delete within 5 minutes of saying you’re ready

u have permission to say high school girls were talking to college girl about rep weiner i can tell you how it went down as long as no names

we have the links for you mike. we ask that only you see these links not dana or andrew. just download the pics and send to them,

Stack tells me that he never heard from Veronica again — suggesting, possibly, that the parents had gotten involved.

It should be pretty clear by now that Betty is the same Betty I quote above who is asking Weiner to prom. Betty is the one, remember, who said on May 17 that she was disillusioned by one of her idols. Then she got into a dispute with Ethel. Then she complained that Weiner had unfollowed her — saying: “I defended him from people. Some thanks he gives to his loyal followers.


So I have to question the statement from Betty and her mother that Weiner unfollowed Betty as a favor to Betty. At the time, Betty seemed upset at Weiner because he had unfollowed her.

And if Betty and her mom are lying about that, as they sing Weiner’s praises . . . what else are they lying about?

Now that you have this background, I should add some corroboration. All this is difficult because I want to protect the girls’ identity and not even drop breadcrumbs that could identify them, if possible. But I can note that, although “Betty” has deleted her Twitter account, if you know her Twitter handle, you can do a Google search that shows you her real name. If you know the name of the person who contacted Stack, as I do, you can do a Google search that shows you conversations between Betty and Veronica using the names they used on Twitter (Betty used a clear pseudonym while Veronica used a first and last name as her Twitter handle. Incidentally, the real name she used has Kossacks incorrectly alleging that she is a 20-year-old from Arkansas, which I believe to be false). The Google searches in question identify Betty’s first and last name, and when I quote Veronica’s DMs to Stack, the first name Veronica uses for Betty is the same one associated with Betty’s Twitter handle. That full name is on the Internet page from which I have taken the above screenshots, in which “Betty” asks Weiner to the prom and fights with Ethel.

Another thing I find puzzling in all this: if Veronica really made this up, why did she tell Stack that the DMs to Betty were innocuous? Why did she say: “they are pretty harmless actually. it is when she asked him to prom. that’s all she had.” Why not make up a more juicy lie about those DMs — and again, why does she now claim she wanted to be famous when she told Stack she wanted her identity and Betty’s to be left out of it completely?

Christopher assures me that he has 100% solid evidence that Betty and Veronica are telling the truth. I don’t know what that evidence is, but if it depends on the parents telling the truth, I’m not sure I’d buy it. Protective parents might well delete anything incriminating even if the kids didn’t.

If Veronica was telling the truth, what does all this prove? That Betty had DMs from “college girl” Gennette Nicole in which there were references to Gennette Nicole flirting with Weiner. And possibly pictures as well.

Meaning (if all this is true) that Weiner was flirting with Gennette Nicole, and that there is more picture evidence out there.

I think most people suspect these things anyway. This would just provide further corroboration of Weiner’s guilt.

I’m going to close with this: Andrew Breitbart has been on the radio today saying that he has new information that is going to change the dynamics of this story.

This is not over, folks. Not by a longshot.

UPDATE: Breitbart tweets:

Last chance to join the #FollowBreitbart juggernaut! (Well, not really.) #Weinergate taking new turn tomorrow in AM.


UPDATE x2: Thanks to Instapundit for the link. Thanks also to Ace for his link. And thanks to Althouse for her link.

UPDATE x3: My, my. Looks like Andrew is delivering what he promised. Details on the game-changing evidence here. It’s a new woman and new photos.

How to Crack #Weinergate Wide Open

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 12:22 pm

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

Update: A couple people on twitter said, paraphrase, “but Weiner has not accused them of hacking his account.” Bluntly, that isn’t necessary. All you need is one person accusing Goatsred or PatriotUSA76 or any other specific person of being the hacker, and those people can sue their accuser for defamation and obtain those records as part of the course of the trial.

Also its worth noting that they would then have the right to call Weiner to the stand.

Okay so here is the conundrum.  This entire Weinergate mystery could be solved in about fifteen minutes work.  All Weiner has to do is report it to authorities and then Twitter would be subpoenaed for data such as the IP address from which that tweet originated and that is that.  But the problem is Weiner is being, well… a Weiner about this and not calling the cops.

I mean he can call the cops to bully a reporter…

…but not to deal with an (alleged) hacker that has made his life hell.  And that might be for one of two reasons:

1)      He’s guilty, or

2)      He’s innocent of this, but guilty of something else.

I give zero consideration to the possibility he is completely innocent because if he was innocent he wouldn’t act like this.

So how do we get around the fact Weiner won’t report it?  Simple.  Have someone who has been accused of being the Weinergate hacker sue their accuser for defamation. I believe that has happened to Goatsred and we know this has happened to PatriotUSA76.

Are you seeing where this is going?  So then, as a matter of course, the case would turn on whether there as a hacker at all.  Which means of course that then the Plaintiff (possibly Goatsred and/or PatriotUSA76) would be able to subpoena the IP data from Twitter.  Indeed, they would be very likely to be allowed to examine the computers that Weiner has access to, his emails and on and on…

And in fact, come to think of it, isn’t this precisely the sort of thing Judicial Watch does all the time?  Hmm….

Anyway, as far as I am concerned, while there is nothing wrong with the press (and I include the blogosphere in that term) pursuing the hacker angle, as far as what I think happened, until and unless Weiner reports it to the police, I am going to believe he sent the pictures.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

#Weinergate Photo Tweet Came From Tweetdeck

Filed under: General — Stranahan @ 7:38 am

[Guest Post by Lee Stranahan]

I’d heard that this article was coming about where the tweet was sent from – and it’s not good for Weiner…

It’s also not good for the Yfrog theory I mentioned here…the technical part, at least.

As the world has attempted to make sense of Rep. Anthony Weiner’s claim that his Twitter account was hacked, a key clue has been missing: exactly how the notorious groin pic was posted online.

But according to data provided exclusively to The Daily from, a nonprofit website that captures each member of Congress’s Twitter feeds in real time, the shot seen round the world was transmitted using TweetDeck — a popular Adobe desktop application that links up with social networking sites. A review of Weiner’s Twitter stream from May 27, the day of the crotch pic, shows that Weiner had been posting only from TweetDeck — one of many ways to post messages to Twitter — that entire night.

Chet Wisniewski, a senior security adviser at security software company SophosLabs, said the TweetDeck stamp “does make it more plausible that it did come from him.”

Another piece falls into place.  Weiner isn’t going to call for an independent investigation.

Can anything be done to force one?

– Lee Stranahan

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1190 secs.