A Very Specific Question for Gennette Cordova; UPDATE. Cordova Admits Sending Messages
Remember how Congressman Weiner refused to deny that was his erection in the underwear picture? And how the refusal to deny was as good as an admission?
Could you please tell us if you wrote the following?
You have been commenting here often. We know it’s you. Since you’re around, could you answer that very simple and straightforward question?
UPDATE: In comments, Cordova admits she wrote the above:
And yes, I did. It was a week and a half in, I knew why this person was engaging me but they hadn’t brought him up yet.
So I got the ball rolling.
Now, I’ve given that information to someone else already so it’s not exclusive but there you go:)
“Someone else” is obviously Jen Preston of the New York Times.
And let me just say: telling me I am not a reputable journalist, or that you don’t owe me an answer, will be viewed in much the same way that the public viewed Weiner’s line: “I don’t know what pictures are out there in the world of me.”
Patterico (ac159b) — 6/23/2011 @ 8:12 amIt’s funny how darned smart some twenty-somethings believe they are…and then they realize: “I’m verbally fencing with an ADA.” Gulp!
It’ll be interesting to see what happens. My guess is that she will evaporate.
Simon Jester (c43977) — 6/23/2011 @ 8:23 amPatrick, get over the reputable journalist thing. Seriously.
Gennettec (28d98c) — 6/23/2011 @ 8:26 amAnd yes, I did. It was a week and a half in, I knew why this person was engaging me but they hadn’t brought him up yet.
So I got the ball rolling.
Now, I’ve given that information to someone else already so it’s not exclusive but there you go:)
Nah, she’ll be back. She’s got to keep getting material for that book.
There are two possibilities, she either has nothing to do with all of this, or everything to do with this.
Either way, it is her one chance to make it big, and she does not want to blow it.
Tutu (1f44ed) — 6/23/2011 @ 8:29 amAnd yes, I did. It was a week and a half in, I knew why this person was engaging me but they hadn’t brought him up yet.
So I got the ball rolling.
fascinating.
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 8:31 amGennette- so did you tell Weiner the things you say you told him?
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 8:34 amWell, if it is GC, I am reminded of the old adage: it’s better to keep one’s mouth closed and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.
A book? The only way the book would sell with an upcoming election that the DNC doesn’t want to lose is…not at all. Even if it is fully of sexts.
Simon Jester (c43977) — 6/23/2011 @ 8:36 am“There’s something terribly attractive about outspoken socially aware men.”
I’m sorry, but I will never understand how some women can be so completely stupid as to latch onto self-involved bullshit artists.
Linda in Chicago (fd42ae) — 6/23/2011 @ 8:38 amSo she’s actively involved in this whole mess by going into the bowels of Twitter to attempt to expose what she thinks is part of the bornfreecrew? To help Weenie? To write a paper?
laddy (c56f2a) — 6/23/2011 @ 8:44 amPatrick, I would never call you a “reputable journalist.” Your standards are far higher. Preston, with admitted her fear of being questioned by prosecutors, all but admitted that. And your blogging proves it – much more detailed and sophisticated than the half-baked, simplistic analysis Preston puts out.
Journalists just have to get an article by our editors. You have to get your arguments past judges and defense counsels, a much more demanding crowd.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (5f928e) — 6/23/2011 @ 8:46 am“with her admitted fear of prosecutors . . .”
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (5f928e) — 6/23/2011 @ 8:47 am05/16 was also the day PatriotUSA76 tweeted, “Could be some great fun on the agenda today…” and “Well we have a good deed planned.”
It was also the day Starchild tweeted that Weiner was following her on Twitter, and announced that she was starting a campaign to get him to be her prom date.
Did these exchanges with Gennette take place before or after Starchild111’s announcement?
Greg (bc8186) — 6/23/2011 @ 8:49 amDid Gennette actually say these things to Weiner?
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 8:51 amI still find the idea that the weinertweet just came out of the blue to GC preposterous. I also find the idea that they had no sexually suggestive messaging preposterous.
JD (d48c3b) — 6/23/2011 @ 8:52 amOkay, here’s my next question. the first DM ends by saying “And Rep. Weiner said” and then it cuts off.
What came after that?
What did he say?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/23/2011 @ 8:54 amHe probably said I wish I was an oscar meyer weiner.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 6/23/2011 @ 8:56 amThree hours ago Jen Preston tweeted this:
“@Patterico. Wow. Not once did you alert readers that @johnreid9 is a sock puppet. Not a real person. Why? The question: who is behind JReid”
Why does she think she can get away with openly lying on Twitter?
Average Joe (c780a0) — 6/23/2011 @ 8:57 am@AaronWorthing
If I recall, I told her he said “obsessed with good government, I’m sure.”
I’m almost positive but I’m sure John Reid has screencaps of everything I’ve ever said to “Nikki”, so you can ask him… Btw, any ideas about who he might be?
Gennettec (28d98c) — 6/23/2011 @ 8:58 amI also find the idea that they had no sexually suggestive messaging preposterous.
That’s why I’m asking her if she actually said these things she to Weiner, as she is claiming in the screencaps.
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:01 amAaron, judging by the timestamps, that was actually the *last* DM, not the first.
h2u (0025d1) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:03 amread filmladd’s interview with patriotusa
windansea (e22844) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:08 amOK, I take that as a yes.
So we are getting an idea of what the definition of “not inappropriate” is.
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:11 am@Maybee
I’m sorry but I thought it was sort of a dumb question. I knew this person was fake and most likely trying to obtain info about him. If I had said those things why would tell this person?
Gennettec (28d98c) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:17 amSo the answer to your question is no.
Obsessing with weiner is causing our ozone layer such pain.
/Sarcasm off
DohBiden (15aa57) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:17 amGennette
no, i frankly wish i did know the answer to that one.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:21 amI’m sorry but I thought it was sort of a dumb question
A dumb question to ask if you really said that to Weiner?
So…after a week and a half, you knew this person wanted to talk to you about Weiner, although she had not yet brought him up. So you made up some flirty comments that you didn’t really say to Weiner.
Those are the facts?
And then, a few weeks later, you are still communicating with this fake persona about Weiner, with Weiner about this fake person…
And out of the blue he sends you the crotch shot.
Is that the story? But it was stupid to ask if you said that to Weiner?
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:23 amThe more GennetteC acts evasive and mendoucheous, it makes it harder to understand why anyone would treat her with any deference in all of this. You will make a fine JournoLista or Dem campaign staffer, GC.
JD (85b089) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:26 amComment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. — 6/23/2011 @ 8:46 am
You forgot the ever-present skeptic that inhabits the Jury Box, who is just waiting for the Prosecutor to trip over his Richard.
AD-RtR/OS! (503ee3) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:26 amas I said on the other thread, I think the sockpuppets originally were trying to entrap Weiner and find out from followers like Gennettec if she had any dirt, when Weiner himself twitted the dicpic, they no longer needed anything and changed the story, “I lied about my friend” and engaged Christopher with the “Weiner is a good guy” story to cover their tracks.
I think Gennettec is being truthful, maybe being a bit embarrassed for flirting with married congressman
windansea (e22844) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:28 amGC’s bizarre explanation is that she’s used to getting unwanted attention!?
Temper Tantrum (02fe1b) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:29 amSo she just accepts it from Weiner…
“I’m used to getting bitch slapped , so when people I respect do it to me I just shrug it off”?!
Really?
or the flirting talk was just a ruse for the sockpuppets
windansea (e22844) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:29 amHey regular commenters. If I were to ask you which of the regular stooges on this site I was describing when I say that this person doesn’t add anything to the conversations and spends his time and the site’s space chasing around dissention with ad hominem arguments and insults (often poorly and simply written with his own really stupid made up words) who would you think I was talking about? It is a rhetorical question and doesn’t need to be answered. We all know who I’m talking about. The question is… will that specific person address this post? Tick-tock….
Joonipre (d01a46) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:31 am@Maybee
Don’t get so offended. In my mind, it was dumb, I shouldn’t have assumed that it’d be obvious to you that I didn’t say those things.
I answered your question.
@JD
Gennettec (28d98c) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:32 amYou keep saying the same things. But you’re not really making any relevant points. And a lot of people, most I’m fact, have treated me with deference, not so much this crowd but I’m okay with that.
me!!
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:34 amThey didn’t need to cover any tracks if they were anti-weiner , all they had to do was go away.
Temper Tantrum (02fe1b) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:35 amNope. Not you!
Joonipre (d01a46) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:35 amDon’t get so offended. In my mind, it was dumb, I shouldn’t have assumed that it’d be obvious to you that I didn’t say those things.
I answered your question.
I’m not offended.
You did finally answer the question.
Do you think what you claimed happened is really more obvious than the idea that you said flirty things to Weiner? Considering he sent you a “flirty” picture and all.
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:35 amThe one that comes to mind is … you. Under the many different names you’ve commented under. And your description is incomplete. You should add dishonest in there.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:36 amI don’t think deference means what you think it means
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:37 amWindansea- maybe being a bit embarrassed for flirting with married congressman
If you think she’s being truthful, then she did not flirty with a married congressman.
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:37 amDon’t end your sentences in prepositions, Stash.
Joonipre (d01a46) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:38 amI believe GNC is telling the truth for the most part. But as others have noted, she’s still a starstruck little girl in many ways. She knows beyond the shadow of a doubt that Weiner is a liar, a fraud and quite possibly an online predator, but she can’t bring herself to fully condemn him. If this episode wasn’t enough to open her eyes to the immorality, dishonesty and plain old scumminess that define Weiner, his Dem protecters and the MSM, then nothing ever will. Sad.
Lincolntf (85daa5) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:38 amNope. Not you!
oh my goodness how embarrassing
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:39 amAnd you should eat all your vegetables. Regularity is important.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:39 am@Maybee
Gennettec (28d98c) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:41 amI finally answered? I answered like 20 minutes after you asked the question.
MHO, and only comment on the entire WeinerGate Episode (IIRC):
Fame, to some, is a beacon just as bright, alluring, and deadly, as the flame of a candle is to a moth.
AD-RtR/OS! (503ee3) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:43 amAnd now I’m a star struck little girl.
Gennettec (28d98c) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:44 amI don’t give a crap about Anthony Weiner. How am I star struck. The only reason I pay attention to any of this is because I want to know who is behind Nikki.
It worries me that more people aren’t focusing on that, is it not important?
If you think she’s being truthful, then she did not flirty with a married congressman.
Comment by MayBee — 6/23/2011 @ 9:37 am
yeah, that’s why I added another post saying she said she flirted to the sockpuppets as a ruse
tough to follow all this at times
windansea (e22844) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:46 amGC – do you maintain that you and the congresscritter that weinertweeted you never engaged in any sexually suggestive messaging/banter/etc ?
JD (d48c3b) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:46 amRead your own Tweets. You don’t think you sound like a startstruck little girl? Do you think you sound like a sophisticated woman, or maybe a witty raconteur? It sure doesn’t come through.
Lincolntf (85daa5) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:47 amIt’s just so weird that in the middle of trying to figure out why these people were interested in Weiner’s online sex activities, he sent one of his famous erection photos.
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:50 amSuch an odd coincidence.
Why won’t people focus only on the sockpuppets? Why the interest in Weiner’s actions in this whole thing? It makes no sense!
I want to know who is behind Nikki.
we should join forces like this for to thwart the evil-doers!
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:50 amTe leftys who say this is no big deal also believe Baby Doc Duvalier was a captialist right winger.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:51 am@Lincolntf I don’t need to read my tweets to evaluate whether I’m starstruck or not. And as far as me not fully condemning him, I think my close friends and family would disagree with you on that.
Gennettec (28d98c) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:51 amGennette
you did seem star struck in those DMs.
i mean you have to know how this is coming off.
you said you are obsessed with him. you said he was cute. you said called him a perfect man. i mean come on, you do have to know how this sounds.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:54 amWell I’m glad to know that you recognize him for what he is. Too many people sacrifice their good name and character for fleeting political advantage. They never get it back.
Lincolntf (85daa5) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:54 amWell considering you have had extensive contact with Nikki & doubted her from almost moment one I would think releasing your contacts with the “Reids” would go a long way to determining that.
Considering the fact that you have just admitted you lied in virtually every statement you have made to news outlets up until this point about the extent of and content of your interaction with AW in what universe is it exactly do you think you are entitled to be deferred to?
RocksEm (e1d29d) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:55 am@AaronWorthing
Gennettec (28d98c) — 6/23/2011 @ 9:57 amI was baiting someone who I knew was fake, and it worked? Are you just going to ignore the fact that I knew they were fake and I was trying to get it out of them that they were interested in him?
Before I said these things they never mentioned him, after this and the prom thing, he was all they ever talked about.
Gennette. I think two important items here. Whose behind Nikki, Marianela, JReid and maybe Patriot.
But I also think it’s important to know what your intent was regarding Nikki and gang knowing they were fake BEFORE the dicpic sent and story broke.
If you knew they were fake, and it “seems” you were trying to warn AW of their fakeness. What role where you playing to offer AW information.
Wouldn’t you agree? What was you role in getting info out of Nikki and gang? Were you and AW “planning” tactics to gather info from Nikki and gang?
I’m stating important for you to answer because it’s fits your narrative of why you still interested in this story and finding out whose behind Nikki.
It would be consistent for you to answer this question.
az5thdstrct (118fcf) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:00 am@RocksEm
Gennettec (28d98c) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:00 amAnd yet you can’t come up with one lie that I’ve actually told. Try to, you wont be able to.
One lie that I told, I’d like to hear it.
Gennette- how did you know they were interested in hearing about Weiner from you?
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:01 amyou said you are obsessed with him. you said he was cute. you said called him a perfect man. i mean come on, you do have to know how this sounds.
Comment by Aaron Worthing — 6/23/2011 @ 9:54 am
those dms were bait to the sockpuppets not to weiner correct?
windansea (e22844) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:02 amI have nothing but questions here:
Sorry after three decades of watching evasive witnesses try to bob, weave, deflect and orchestrate answers to simply questions, there is a sense one gets honed over the years when the truth is being meted out in half measures.
1)The overall sense I get is that the side that wishes to advance a pro-AW spin on this…is deeply, deeply, deeply committed to watering down the bizarre and unseemly behavior of a 46 year old member of one our highest levels of government and his interactions with young, some very young, girls over the internet.
And, instead…they want to refocus attention away from the words, acts and deeds that he admittedly engaged in.
Whether this is because:
a)there is more, maybe much more and they are panicked because they know about it;
b)they are pissed because the mouth that roared is a hero to them and they want to lash back;
c) they suspect that there is a James O’Keefe/Hannah Giles/Lila Rose lurking in the background…taking down leftist sacred cows through sting operations…and THAT is why Jen Preston of the Daily Duranty is more focused on who is John Reid…than why a 46 year old married Congressman is sending out a picture of his erect penis to 21 year old girls who did “nothing” to encourage such an act.
To some of our more forgiving and open-minded parents out there, this “unwanted male attention” is not “inappropriate”.
Forgive my age, but if some guy on a park bench flashed my 21 year old daughter, in his raincoat and wing tips…I would report him to the authorities.
Not only is this action “inappropriate” behavior, it’s pretty twisted.
How and when was Tommy Christopher “tipped off” that the “fake” witnesses were to be treated with suspicion. What was he told?
Clearly, if TC was told then, then Jen Preston was told this…and possibly more. What information was given to “prove” they were “fake”?
And what “angle” was discussed as to who might be behind this Clearly, this is an angle that Preston has continued to pursue. Why?
What more is out there to suggest that “somebody is behind” the curtain?
And, if conversations were being had to “tip off” Tommy…are we suggesting that nobody was talking to the Congressman, his representatives, his private investigator, and even him…by all those people who so admired and loved him?
In fact, wouldn’t the FIRST person to be notified of a suspicion of “fakes” behind the scenes…be the target of their “sting”.
It strains credulity to suggest that all communication stopped. It strains credulity to suggest that there is ZERO curiosity as to why he would send a picture of his engorged penis to someone with whom nothing, zero, nada…had led up to such an act.
With Ginger Lee he ALWAYS tried to move the conversation in that direction, is her testimony.
There are so many holes in this story, it looks like Bonnie and Clyde’s car.
Nobody is telling the entire truth. Nobody.
cfbleachers (19e5f4) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:02 amGennette said in her statement, and elsewhere, that she never engaged in inappropriate conversations with Weiner.
She has proven herself a liar.
Unless she considers telling a married Congressman how obsessed she is with him, how cute he is, and flirting with him, appropriate…
sarainitaly (daf506) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:03 amAre you seriously suggesting how you described your interaction with Weiner in NYDN statement & later bears any resemblance to what you are saying now?
RocksEm (e1d29d) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:03 amgennette nicole cordova that is a LIE – nobody was harassing you they were simply perturbed by the increasingly brazen flailings of a sincerely perverted US congressman – they weren’t doing anything to you that you didn’t do vis-a-vis your pal nikki.
And yet you labeled them harassers and threw them to the dirty socialist media for to be anally raped by The Smoking Gun.
You’re a real piece of work snooks.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:06 am@RocksEm
Gennettec (28d98c) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:07 amThat we never had any inappropriate exchanges? Yes. I think people forget that the NYDN statement was less than two days into this. I answered the questions that were out there: why did I delete my twitter? Why did I tweet that he was my boyfriend? Was there inappropriate contact?
I answered those.
If you think it would have made sense for me to try to explain the Nikki situation 36 hours into this whole mess, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Never too early for the truth.
Lincolntf (85daa5) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:08 amIf you think it would have made sense for me to try to explain the Nikki situation 36 hours into this whole mess,
Yet you tried to explain…introduce….the Patriot situation at that very moment.
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:09 am@happyfeet
Gennettec (28d98c) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:10 amIt’s not a lie. When a group of adult male strangers repeatedly retweet a screenshot of my picture, tag me in the post, and call me a school girl, when I had asked them multiple times to stop doing it, was is that called?
Gennette
What were you going to do with the info gathered from Nikki? With you knowing Nikki was fake. What was your intent to gather info by “getting the ball rolling”? Because you knew what info Nikki was after.
az5thdstrct (118fcf) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:11 am@Maybee
Gennettec (28d98c) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:15 amLike I’ve explained over and over, I mentioned the prior harassment to explain why I thought the tweet was fake, why I didn’t take it seriously initially.
I didn’t intend for people to take it as me implicating him, in fact I didn’t even put his twitter handle in the statement. I expressed my dissatisfaction to the NYDN about them saying that I backed the hacking claim and I publically apologized to Patriot.
At least say No Comment to my questions. Or you don’t know what I’m asking. Or answer
az5thdstrct (118fcf) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:16 amOkay, now I’m totally baffled. Gonna have to take an hour or two to figure out what I think.
Lincolntf (85daa5) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:16 amgennette you had put yourself into a certain situation when you started corresponding with a perverted dirty congressman – what those guys were doing should have been a clue to you – a warning. It’s what we in the scooby biz call a clue.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:17 ambut don’t you feel just terrible about what was done on Mr. Stack?
It was pretty brutal.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:22 amGennetteC – do you maintain that you and the Congresscritter weinertweeter never engage in sexually suggestive banter?
JD (6e25b4) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:23 am@az5thdstrct
Gennettec (28d98c) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:23 amI’m sorry, I don’t exactly understand your questions.
I wasn’t gathering info on Nikki really, I knew that they were fake and anything they told me was most likely a lie.
They offered up a lot of info though (all lies) and didn’t have to ask for it. Nikki would tell elaborate stories about her family or how her day was, etc.
I was more interested in seeing what their intentions were with me. I wanted to see how they were going to try to use me. So when a week and a half passed and there was still no mention of AW, I just brought it up myself.
Gennette
A no answer is an answer as well
az5thdstrct (118fcf) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:24 amWhen Patterico wrote the story about Nikki and friends, that could have been a good time to introduce the details.
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:24 amGennette- how did you know they wanted to talk about Anthony Weiner with you?
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:25 amwind
how about, instead of feeding her answers, you let her answer? for now that comment goes in the penalty box.
We aren’t asking you to theorize. we are asking her to tell us.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:26 am@JD
Gennettec (28d98c) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:26 amYes
OK
So you’re stating with certainty that you were not gathering info from Nikki to pass on or plan to pass on to AW? And that AW did not hint, suggest, ask you to engage Nikki and gang to get info?
az5thdstrct (118fcf) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:26 amDid GennetteC pass on a chance to tell Tommy Christopher what she suspected about Nikki Reid, John Reid, et al before he ran his original June 3rd article? I would think that Tommy Christopher doing his job would have reached out to GennetteC for comment. But, I don’t remember seeing that in his original June 3rd story. I could be wrong.
Here’s a tweet that mentioned the following.
ltw (370236) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:27 amhttp://twitter.com/#!/FilmLadd/status/74960320862502913
GC has stated she contacted TC before story to say Nikki was fake.
RocksEm (e1d29d) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:29 amFor those of you who’ve missed the memo: Yes, I told Nikki, someone who I knew to be fake, that I said these things to AW, to get her to start talking about him.
Gennettec (28d98c) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:30 amNo, I did not actually say these things to him.
Hi Gennette,
Do you recall if your 05/16 DMs with Nikki about Weiner take place before or after she tweeted that Weiner was following her on Twitter and that she wanted to take him to the prom?
Greg (bc8186) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:31 amGennette
This is important question/answer, because there are some out there with theory that AW planned a ruse to put out a fire by using Nikki and gang sockpuppets and you, to help distract and put out the fire that there was a report or article coming out about his possible sexting.
You answer could “help” eliminate that angle
az5thdstrct (118fcf) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:32 amGennetteC – do you maintain that he just, completely out of the blue, decided to send you a weinertweet?
JD (6e25b4) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:33 amGennette,
RocksEm (e1d29d) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:33 amIf you were not trying to gather evidence on socks in following and engaging Nikki what was the purpose then? Vanity?
You went full turtle almost immediately after Weiner pic dropped; to protect yourself, family & friends, but you immediately reach out to someone you were convinced had nefarious motives towards you and was fake?
So you spent weeks basically lying to a sock puppet for what? Kicks?
RocksEm (e1d29d) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:35 amGennetteC – have you had any contact with congresscritter weinertweeter since he exhibited such poor dick photo management skillz? Have you been in contact with anyone from his office, campaign staff, legal team, investigators, or Dem party?
JD (6e25b4) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:36 am@Greg They could have been before or after. But they’re right around the same time.
Gennettec (28d98c) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:36 amBefore she tweeted that though, I brought him up and she said she was a fan. I asked why she wasn’t following him and she said “oh, I thought I was.”
Then I suggested that she follow him and do the “#weineryes to get him to follow back. This was the night before she tweeted he was following her.
To be fair, Gennette, there have been a LOT of memos, and many of them have been contradictory. I do believe that you are not lying, and I understand you to be saying that you were “lying” (or at least sending fake tweets under fake names to “bust” people) back in the early stages of this imbroglio, is that right? More of a continued “pranking” than a cover-up for Weiner?
More importantly, who should the Celtics pick tonight in the Draft? I’m leaning towards the huge dude from the Congo, but I doubt he’ll slip to the 25th.
Lincolntf (85daa5) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:36 amSo basically Nikki’s entire inetrest & involvement with Weiner was at your suggestion and prodding. Is that what you are saying?
RocksEm (e1d29d) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:39 amJD, remember that GC is cleverer than you and me. She’ll see right through your efforts to make her tell the truth.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:40 amThis. Her statement makes zero sense nor does it help to explain why RAW sent the dicpic to her. That is still the biggest WTF factor in all of this.
h2u (c2fd64) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:41 amI was more interested in seeing what their intentions were with me. I wanted to see how they were going to try to use me.
Gennette,
What’s your assessment? What intentions do you now think Nikki had with you and why do you now think Nikki was trying to use you?
az5thdstrct (118fcf) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:42 am@RocksEm
Gennettec (28d98c) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:42 amYou should fact check before you comment. I didn’t reach out to Nikki.
“Nikki” was trying desperately to get in touch with me, she tweeted my friends, family members and Tommy.
I might have ignored her except she was frantic, she kept saying “I have proof you were set up!”
I wanted to see where she was going with it.
Re: #77 gennette
A possible clue relating to that tweet from someone in the UCLA screenwriting department?
bmertz (d77c52) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:45 amGennette’s #86 should be taken into consideration as being a likely and reasonable way she might have delved Nikki for info.
Molon Labe (dc676c) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:46 am@Az5thdstrct
Gennettec (28d98c) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:46 amI still don’t get it. With Ginger and Ethel, she came right out and said she was a fan and she wanted him to follow her, when she wasn’t even following him.
With me it was a completely different approach. She pretended that she had found my profile by accident. I just played dumb.
I think RocksEm is talking about pre-weiner tweet.
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:46 amglad that genette admitted these DMS are real, which I pretty much assumed was true based on context and totality of patterico’s first evidentiary post, and GC’s comments on that thread.
each piece of confirmed evidence is like putting one more piece in a 1000 piece clouds-only puzzle so that’s fun.
but … the fact that they are real does nothing to show me nikki reid was pro-weiner or anti-weiner sockpuppet. or who is behind the sockpuppet. i thought this evidence dump is to prove that jen preston was lying in claming that the reids are anti-weiner sockpuppets, which besmirched their good sockpuppet reputation.
milowent (bc04ac) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:48 amI don’t get it. We’re all wondering, and there’s nothing to go on, so we’re not repeatedly just guessing. It’s totally unclear who was behind that.
It would be irrational to drop everything we can more intelligently speculate about.
A lot of people had motive here. One of the things we know is that the Nikki account strongly backed Weiner up, and that you had a ton of contact with them, but also that now they appear to be hostile towards you without really having any goods on you.
One possibility is that you’re behind them, but that seems completely ridiculous. I don’t know where to go from there. Of course there are some crazies on the right, but it’s even more ridiculous that they would have released that Weiner saving letter, right?
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:49 amIsn’t it easy to block people on Twitter? Why not do so in response to the harassment?
Oschisms (473d8f) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:49 amGennette,
You said : I feel like this is much more involved, complex, and interesting than a guy sending me a picture of himself in his underwear that he’s already apologized for.
When you say Weiner has apologized for it, do you mean personally to you via phone? Directly to you through another way? Did he apologize for “accidentally” sending it? For deliberately sending it? For sending it as a piece of the puzzle in an effort to try to bait/catch Nikki? For involving you or getting involved himself in an effort to bait/catch Nikki? Can you relay any more specifics of the apology? Just curious.
Thanks
scoovy (d43653) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:51 amGennette, you have in your possession some valuable clues as to identity of @johnreid9.
The emails you received from “Nikki” have hidden header information which will reveal where the message was sent from.
If you’d send just one of those to Patterico, he could look into it.
BUT NOTE: You can’t just forward the message you need to attach it to your email to Pat, else headers will be lost.
Molon Labe (dc676c) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:54 amGennette:
You consider it harrassment when twitters refer to you continually as “a schoolgirl”, yet when a national leader sends an unsolicited pix of his bulging junk, you dismiss it as trivial “unwanted male attention”. Not a very credible response.
Also, if “Nikki” never mentioned Wiener after a week and a half, how did you know she was trying to gather info on him? If you are such a mind reader, why can’t you just tell us who “Nikki” is?
Proud kaffir (6a2a54) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:56 amI am really surprised the DMs are real. Does Gennette’s tone show any kind of ‘I’m just a star struck loser’ tone now? She’s serious and generally on the ball. If she’s not answering a point, it’s not because it flew over her head.
I find it plausible she was acting when she pretended to adore Weiner like that. But let’s be real. Cordova notes she gets inappropriate attention from men all the time, and Weiner is the least restrained man in America, masturbating in the congressional gym to take pictures like some mentally ill hobo behind McDonalds was caught doing last week. So given those two factors, a lot of people assumed there’s practically no way he resisted sexting Gennette, and this DM only underlines that she seems to have acted in a way that would pour fuel on the fire.
So if Weiner DIDN’T sext her, isn’t that really odd? What if he did, and Cordova didn’t reciprocate, and that’s what she’s being a little evasive about? Just because she was trying to preserve his reputation? I dunno. I appreciate she’s being more forthcoming lately. I think she wants us to know what happened, and is frustrated that a lot of people have made up their minds.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:56 amI still don’t get it.
I don’t get it either. As I stated on another post. I’m pretty certain you’re a real persona. Here answering questions either for research, just have to know, or other.
But I do know who’s not here. “People” who seem to NOT be real personas
az5thdstrct (118fcf) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:56 amAnother interesting thing to me is that someone photoshopped DMs between AW and I trying to make me look responsible for Nikki.
Gennettec (28d98c) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:56 amBut at the same time someone released real DMs between Nikki and I. Wouldn’t those contradict each other?
Makes me think they were from different parties. Or not, idk.
Listen to Molon Labe, Gennette. Google how to get the email headers in your email program. In Gmail, you click “Show Original”, which is an option that appears if you click the down triangle to the right of ‘reply’.
That is a good way to help identify Nikki.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:58 amMaybe we could help you figure out who nikki is faster if you tell us how you decided to start talking about Anthony Weiner to her, when she hadn’t brought him up to you.
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 10:58 am@Maybee
Gennettec (28d98c) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:07 amI think some of the sharper commenters have already picked up on why I started talking about him.
She followed and engaged with girls he was following, that was obvious from her Twitter. At the time, those were the only people she ever communicated with.
It seemed like common sense to assume she was after information about him.
When she talked to me however, she didn’t bring him up so eventually I did, which opened the floodgates because then she talked about him incessantly.
I’ve already answered this.
I’m not repeating myself anymore.
Gennette –
Let’s be crystal clear. I’m sure you don’t want all us right-wingers thinking that you conspired w/ AW to concoct a scheme where fake “conservative” twitterers would act concerned about Weiner’s inappropriate sexting, then would be shown to be fakes, so that any & all evidence of sexting would be portrayed by the media as fakes & conspiracies by the Right to discredit the Congressman.
Please state unequivocally whether or not you were a part of a plan, with or without Rep Weiner, to orchestrate a “punk’d” scheme, which would allege sexting by Weiner, and which would then backfire on the fake conservative sockpuppets.
Please also tell us how many times you’ve had contact (email, mail, twitter, phone calls … ) with AW’s legal and/or PR firms or any AW staff.
Miranda (4104db) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:08 amGennette—-Never answered the question—
75.but don’t you feel just terrible about what was done on Mr. Stack?
It was pretty brutal.
Comment by happyfeet — 6/23/2011 @ 10:22 am
goatsred (b20383) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:11 amWell articulated, Miranda.
I find such a conspiracy implausible, but hell, what about this mess is plausible?
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:13 amGennette
To repeat my earlier comment:
My gut reaction tells me you are one taking the fall for this situation. Not “Nikkki” or ” johnreed”; whoever they may be. I am protective of people in your age group even when if we disagree on issues. It is the age of figuring out the all the big questions and forming opinions which often evolve over time and experience. So I don’t demonize you based on your political viewpoints. Your possible actions are another issue. You are a college student who is in the process of forming a national reputation for being untrustworthy.
I think everyone expects you to take responsibility for your role in this strange story;regardless of who gains or loses anything out of this mess. Sometimes we have to pay a price to do the right thing. But that also shapes who we become in life. Make an unethical choice and that will become your definition of yourself.
Sooner or later it always comes back to haunt you.
I may not know exactly what happened with Nikki, johnreid and AW but I do know that withholding the truth is a choice. At the very least you are helping a reporter withhold evidence to the public. When this all falls down, that is a very dangerous label for a future journalist.
bmertz (d77c52) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:13 amWhy did you think it odd she would discuss Weiner with others but not with you?
RocksEm (e1d29d) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:15 am@Miranda Wow, that’s just so elaborate. No, I wasn’t part of any plan like that.
Gennettec (28d98c) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:15 amAnd not that it’s really your business but I’ve had ZERO contact with anyone on his staff, anyone connected to him, etc.
And not only have I answered that question before but I also don’t feel like it’s relevant to this particular story.
But there’s your answer anyway.
@bmertz
Gennettec (28d98c) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:17 amThere is a small group of people who consider me untrustworthy. I don’t lose sleep over it.
@RocksEm
Gennettec (28d98c) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:19 amWhy wouldn’t I think it was odd? Why else would she be engaging me so aggressively?
Dustin,
Consider one point re: Weiner’s behavior — Nobles, Weiss, Broussard: all verified sexting/photo-exchanging with Weiner.
All those exchanges were primarily Facebook-mediated. (Weiss had a Twitter acct. but I have seen no evidence that shows Weiner followed her.)
Weiner sending underwear photo to Cordova via Twitter, whether it was DM or public, wasn’t part of his usual pattern. Or at least part of the pattern we have a record of.
Greg (bc8186) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:19 amOf course it’s our business what our tax dollars are up to. How Weiner abused his office and used his staff is relevant to everyone.
But at any rate, you answered the question very directly, so thanks. Honestly, if you’re telling the truth, then you are really being screwed over, and that’s worse than just covering up some sexual goofiness. We do need to figure out who Nikki et al are. Can you try to pull up those headers Molon mentioned?
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:20 amShe was engaging you aggressively? About what? Clearly not Weiner as you were forced to broach the subject.
RocksEm (e1d29d) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:20 amLook, Gennette’s instincts about Nikki being fake were obviously correct. The actions and communication she had with that account are consistent with someone trying to investigate that possibility.
I think you have to take what she’s saying at face value and not juxtapose it with half-baked theories about her conspiring with Weiner which are at odds with the evidence at hand.
Molon Labe (dc676c) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:22 amYeah, that seems like the worst possible way to distribute that material too.
Maybe this explains why he screwed it up?
Or maybe it really wasn’t intended to be sexting. I know a lot of people are finding Cordova annoying, and I can’t pretend some of her comments don’t have a negative effect on me too, but most of what she’s saying is pretty believable. If Weiner was just joking with her, while he was sexting everyone else, and aware a lot of people were already on the case to prove what he’s up to, what a jackass he was. And that was more unfair to Gennette than anyone else.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:23 amI would say a small number who express it, but not consider it. A lawyer would have a field day with you under cross with the mountain of seeming contradictions in comments & statements you’ve made in various places over the past few weeks.
RocksEm (e1d29d) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:24 am@RocksEm
Gennettec (28d98c) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:25 amThe first night we talked she sent me about 50 messages, possibly more telling me about her ex boyfriend. It was very aggressive and way too open initially.
She followed and engaged with girls he was following, that was obvious from her Twitter. At the time, those were the only people she ever communicated with.
I don’t have access to her Twitter feed, so I have no way of knowing her Weiner tweet:Normal Tweet ratio. I have no way of knowing who else she spoke with when. I have no way of knowing when you decided to look up this girl and see who she was tweeting with. I have no way, beside these releases, to know what you two DMed about. You know that stuff.
If you want to tell your story, tell it. People here are asking you for it. I don’t understand why some questions set you off so.
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:26 amYou certainly have the ability to clear things up.
Jeeez. Why in the hell did Tommy Christopher find these people credible? I mean, does anyone else?
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:27 amI don’t have access to her Twitter feed, so I have no way of knowing her Weiner tweet:Normal Tweet ratio. I have no way of knowing who else she spoke with when. I have no way of knowing when you decided to look up this girl and see who she was tweeting with. I have no way, beside these releases, to know what you two DMed about. You know that stuff.
You don’t have any of that information yet you continue to address her in a hostile and accusatory tone.
Molon Labe (dc676c) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:28 amSo. The fact that she might have been a total ditz & way to open suggests to you someone with nefarious motives towards Weiner & yourself? So strong a suggestion in fact that you feel forced to lie and make the subject too enticing to not discuss? Why not just disengage with her?
RocksEm (e1d29d) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:28 am@Gennette#122
Then are your decisions based on “just the numbers” of who knows? As opposed to any sense of right and wrong? Will you discover a conscience as this story grows and gains more of audience?
bmertz (d77c52) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:30 amI would just like to say that anyone still accusing me of not answering questions is really just kind of an asshole. Excuse my language.
Gennettec (28d98c) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:32 amAnyway, all I want to know is who is behind this and I’m getting no insight on that.
So I’m leaving for now.
You don’t have any of that information yet you continue to address her in a hostile and accusatory tone.
I’m asking her questions.
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:32 amIs that hostile?
Why not just disengage with her?
She’s studying journalism for a reason. Don’t you think finding an account apparently intended to trap Weiner would pique her interest and warrant further investigation from a budding journalism major?
Molon Labe (dc676c) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:34 amIt’s obvious that Genette is only here to get help in finding out who is behind the sockpuppet Reids. A lot of people- myself included-have a ton of questions about her interactions with Weiner, but it is obvious she will just continue to evade those questions.
I will pay her a compliment: she appears fairly bright, so no one is going to trick her into inadvertently releasing information she wishes to hide.
Best to just stick with questions that will help unmask the sockpuppets.
Proud Kaffir (6a2a54) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:37 amYay, at least I can tell a more realistic image from a faked one.
(Pitiful but first reaction.)
Gennette If you did not say those things to the Congressman, why DID you tell them to Nikkiperson?
Reverse double-agent action blew up in Weiner’s face big-time. Drawing attention to his proclivities was not actually very helpful to him.
SarahW (af7312) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:41 am“136.I would just like to say that anyone still accusing me of not answering questions is really just kind of an asshole. Excuse my language.”
GC
At the risk of seeming “like an asshole,” let me repeat:
106.Isn’t it easy to block people on Twitter? Why not do so in response to the harassment?
Oschisms (473d8f) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:42 amWell, thanks for keeping us up to date. A lot of us really are motivated by genuine curiousity with no ulterior motives. Weiner’s out, so what would be the point? During you’re lifetime you’ll see a lot of political scandals, as all of us semi-old-timers already have. They often define the times in which they happen, set precedents (both legal and whackadoodle) and generally inform about the state of politics. It’s a fascinating subject all on it’s own. That we can engage with one of the principals is probably a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, so thanks again. By the way, how does it feel to know that your name is going to start showing up in books, not just mags/websites? Pretty cool, I hope.
Lincolntf (85daa5) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:42 amGennette – Thanks for your answer to my ? at #116.
I could ask you how many job offers you’ve gotten from Think Progress & Media Matters & any billionaire Soros-affiliated non-profit entities but I suppose that would be rude.
Seriously it would be nice to rule you out. The fewer players, the better. But you can’t fault us for not trusting what you say – when you could just release all emails & DM’s etc. to Patterico or Breitbart or someone trustworthy. Something just doesn’t pass the smell test here. My daughter’s 25 – and if she EVER got a pic like Weiner’s underoos shot tweeted to her she’d be furious. I mean FURIOUS. She would never put up with that. And she’s a beautiful, smart young lady.
BTW, when’s the NYT story going to be published? Seriously?
Miranda (4104db) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:43 am(Among these proclivities chatting up starstruck women he had no business talking with, in order to show off his genitals.)
SarahW (af7312) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:44 amGennetteC is not the bogeymbut an here, she appears to be honest and I hqaven’t seen her caught in a lie.
It doesn’t really matter if the sockpuppets were pro or anti Weiner, because Weiner beclowned himself in the end. But it appears more likely to me they were digging for info and then switched to pro Weiner as a smokescreen or something. I’m curious why they went to the trouble of fake ids etc.
windansea (66ce5c) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:44 amWell, anyway, Gennette, I’d suggest going to some of the oldest emails you had with these people and pulling up the headers.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:46 amI mean, Gennette, seriously,f whatever did you think would come of that kind of contact?
What you wrote is only likely to produce a “yeah, he’s kind of a dreamboat” sort of response. Affirmation of your opinions. That’s not the kind of information that would be of much use even for smoking out a nefarious Weiner-watcher.
SarahW (af7312) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:47 amShe has already said she had no interest in this as a story. It was some pretty fantastic insight to, to make such a connection so quickly. If it was me and I saw the bornfreecrew going off & a few tweets from some girl showing interest in wiener ( to other people, not myself) I’m sure the first thing I would think is I need to find out what this girl is up to. I need to engage her and if she won’t bring up Weiner to me I have to tell her any lie I need to get her to talk about Weiner. I also need to suggest she follow Weiner and tweet #Weineryes.
Who made Gennette the Weiner Police anyway?
I mean the bornfreecrew were fanatical, right wing, obsessives so no one should wonder why they are doing what they are doing. What is Gennette’s reason for becoming the Weiner Police?
RocksEm (e1d29d) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:49 am“I would just like to say that anyone still accusing me of not answering questions is really just kind of an asshole. Excuse my language.”
#117 still accusing you of not answering the question. Guess I’m still that a-hole, huh?
goatsred (b20383) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:49 amHow can you tell if someone is lying if they have no evidence to back up what they say?
I’m not saying Gennette is lying, but how can anybody know if she really sent DMs to Weiner telling him he’s hot?
Other women in this sordid tale did, and were rewarded with dicpics.
Gennette is asserting she got her dicpic out of the blue, and lied about flirty DMs with AW.
How can one declare that she *isn’* lying? You simply don’t know, and the evidence we’ve seen is quite mixed.
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:50 amSarah, Gennette wasn’t telling Starchild111 nothing she/he/they didn’t already know. Two months earlier, on March 13, Starchild111 had already queried Ginger Lee about what he DMed her. She also had additional contacts with Lee in April. She already clearly knew that Weiner had personally interacted with young attractive women online.
Greg (bc8186) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:51 amI mean, Gennette, do you have any idea what a catalyst your actions were for unseating him from Congress?
He would have eventually been caught out, and maybe even at a more inopportune time for his party and friends and family.
But for your own actions playing go-between, however, that day might have been quite a ways off.
SarahW (af7312) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:51 amGreg, sure, but making up more of the same is not exactly going to be protective.
SarahW (af7312) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:54 amI believe GC about not getting ‘the business’ from Weiner. Weiner had to take GC off ‘the list’ – how do you hit on somebody that is exposing what she believes to be a ‘fake problem’ of Weiner hitting on young women?
Moving down Occam’s Razor (probably too soon to say this but c’est la vie), GC, with some participation by Weiner (how much only GC knows) decided to sting Rightie political operatives who were trying to sting Weiner.
So what’s Reid’s motivation for engaging now? Two steps forward, one step back.
East Bay Jay (2fd7f7) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:56 amWhat were GennetteC and Rep Weinertweeter DMimg about when he sent her a pic of his weenis?
JD (85b089) — 6/23/2011 @ 11:59 amOther women in this sordid tale did, and were rewarded with dicpics.
Gennette is asserting she got her dicpic out of the blue, and lied about flirty DMs with AW.
Even if this were true. IMO, it doesn’t add much to the weinergate story. Some, but not much. Already revealed Weiner sexted. With Multiple women, at the same time. Gennette would just add another number to the list that Weiner was a predator with. He’s already resigned.
If Gennette did not help Weiner get info on sockpuppets, then sockpuppets become key to the rest of the story, IMO
az5thdstrct (118fcf) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:00 pmHow can one declare that she *isn’* lying? You simply don’t know, and the evidence we’ve seen is quite mixed.
Comment by MayBee — 6/23/2011 @ 11:50 am
what evidence do you have that she is lying? the fact that she came here and answered some direct questions says a lot to me. I haven’t seen her caught in a direct lie yet.
windansea (66ce5c) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:01 pmAnd not that it’s really your business but I’ve had ZERO contact with anyone on his staff, anyone connected to him, etc.
And not only have I answered that question before but I also don’t feel like it’s relevant to this particular story.
But there’s your answer anyway.
See– there’s stuff like this that just makes you wonder. She already said she texted with Weiner after the photo was sent.
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:01 pmSarah, you have to remember, Gennette didn’t necessarily know that Weiner was sexting multiple women at this point. In fact, you could argue that her decision to “bait” Starchild111 supports her own claim that her exchanges with Weiner weren’t sexual. If they were, she might have been far more circumspect in her interactions with Starchild111.
Greg (bc8186) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:03 pm@Maybee
Gennettec (28d98c) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:05 pmSo you’re saying that you don’t know if I had inappropriate contact with him but you’ll accuse me of it anyways because I can’t prove it didn’t happen… so you’re asking me to prove a negative?
Makes sense.
I’ve never understood what he would have to gain by saying that we didn’t have inappropriate exchanges if we had. He could’ve easily lumped me in with the other girls and it wouldn’t have made a difference.
Instead he made it clear that we hadn’t even though he had done it with other women.
That’s the last time I’m addressing this.
Okay, you think we were flirting/sexting, I get it. I’m not trying to convince you anymore.
If it were true it pretty much flushes any credibility Gennette has down the toilet. And no credible claim about the socks can ever be made if everyone on the Weiner side is lying too.
RocksEm (e1d29d) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:06 pmwhat evidence do you have that she is lying? the fact that she came here and answered some direct questions says a lot to me. I haven’t seen her caught in a direct lie yet.
I didn’t say she is lying.
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:07 pmI’m saying there is little evidence either way.
what evidence do you have that she is lying? the fact that she came here and answered some direct questions says a lot to me. I haven’t seen her caught in a direct lie yet.
I didn’t say she is lying.
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:07 pmI’m saying there is little evidence either way.
Gennette and Weiner were texting eachother AFTER the photo was sent. And if we ask to see them, we get called assholes or whatever?
Hmm.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:08 pmComment by Proud Kaffir — 6/23/2011 @ 11:37 am
Sorry Kaffir,
bmertz (d77c52) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:09 pmI seen too many students like Gennette destroy their futures from the belief that their actions would never have any serious consequences. I had to try at least once. Occasionally they wake up before they drive off the cliff.
Several people have asked Gennette to send attachment copies of e-mails she received from the Reids to locate hidden headers. However, hasn’t John Reid already e-mailed Patterico, so wouldn’t he already hae this info?
Proud Kaffir (6a2a54) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:10 pmGennette- you said you texted Weiner after the picture, right? I’m not saying you sexted him. I’m saying you told news outlets that Weiner had texted you in the days after the photo. Right?
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:10 pmComment by windansea — 6/23/2011 @ 12:01 pm
Sometimes the best lie is the truth.
GC has it in her power to remove the doubt naturally arising from the situation where it confounds common sense that he did not treat her as he treated others.
And actually, it’s evident she’s still lying to herself, a little bit.
SarahW (af7312) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:11 pmOkay, you think we were flirting/sexting, I get it. I’m not trying to convince you anymore.
Gennete he admitted he made at least one inappropriate overture towards you, the pic. I’m of the mind he was working on you, saying inappropriate things and you just sort of ignored that to have access to him similar to what Ginger Lee described in her press conference for herself. But you did not necessarily need to have been engaging back. So you could credible say there was no exchanges.
RocksEm (e1d29d) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:11 pmGennette, about proving a “negative” ; you have positive evidence of what happened, and withhold it. Blame yourself if people notice.
SarahW (af7312) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:12 pmthe info is to show validity of the emails Gennette turns over. Not to gain info.
RocksEm (e1d29d) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:13 pm#166 Surely the dolt isusing a proxy by now to obscure his identity.
Molon Labe (dc676c) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:15 pm==but most of what she’s saying is pretty believable. ==
Dustin–We love you, man. You’re a very smart guy. But, seriously, if someone ever offers to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge or tells you a Nigerian Prince needs your help getting money out of his wartorn land, will you please check in here for advice from your Patterico buddies first?
(Just trying to add a bit of levity to the situation. 🙂
elissa (80aba9) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:16 pmI’ve never understood what he would have to gain by saying that we didn’t have inappropriate exchanges if we had. He could’ve easily lumped me in with the other girls and it wouldn’t have made a difference.
That’s just bad argumentation.
For the record, I’m not accusing you of anything.
But it is easy for anyone to come up with what he might gain by saying you didn’t have inappropriate exchanges.
Perhaps he knew you wouldn’t make a big deal and release information if he didn’t implicate you (that’s what seemed to happen with RadarOnline)
Perhaps he wasn’t exactly sure how old you are
Perhaps he was protecting you because of your boyfriend
Perhaps he felt bad about dragging you into it
Perhaps he is a liar
Again, I’m not saying any of those are true. I’m saying those are really simple answers that make that puzzle much less puzzling.
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:17 pmGennette – Do you know if you were “that same follower” starchild111 is talking about?
Available at the twitter feed on this page…
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/anthonyweiner
starchild111
@RepWeiner sorry about eariler. i got msgs that were untrue/lies about u, from that same follower. if u want to see them let me know.
ltw (370236) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:20 pm09:18 May 18
Probably, but I bet they are very careful lately, and I’m not sure they were as careful in May.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:24 pmI’ve never understood what he would have to gain by saying that we didn’t have inappropriate exchanges if we had. He could’ve easily lumped me in with the other girls and it wouldn’t have made a difference.
hmm..
Interesting wording:
Why would it occur to Weiner to lump her in at all? Is she saying she doesn’t understand why he did not go ahead and tell about her because they did have inappropriate contact ?
bmertz (d77c52) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:25 pm@Maybee
I’ve told you I truly don’t care about convincing you. I already feel like I’ve been vindicated with his press conference/ the NYT story.
You might disagree. But I’ve stopped feeling like I need to convince everyone.
If you have some questions about Nikki I’d love to answer:)
Gennettec (28d98c) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:26 pmAnd again to Greg, (who pointed out that Nikkiperson had already winkled out of Ginger Lee some kind of information), it’s hardly helpful to emphasize he is followed by, and following, young women he has no business talking to, by feigning EXPRESSED crushing on the Congressman.
It makes no (good) sense to mess with the Nikkiperson if GC is unaware of looming scandal, and it makes no sense if she is aware.
If the congressman’s best friend here hadn’t interfered, and really emphasized his following habits and emphasized their inappropriate nature, his scandal would have been a big nothing.
It was the public tweet and his claim of crime that made his conduct incontrovertibly a public matter.
If some Gawkercrapblog had trumpeted evidence of privatesexytime playing around with a porn star most people would have chalked it up as gross to hear about, but much more in the realm of masturbatory fantasy than impluse control problems and predation on young people.
He’s be embarrassed and we’d all have looked away and he would have had fair warning and a free grope, as it were. I am convinced of it.
If there were others out there it was not helpful to add to the stack. How could it possibly have been under any circumstance?
Once Weiner knew a scandal was brewing with GL, and he was being watched, the best cure would have been to be above suspicion in public. Add followers, young and old, male and female, publicly interact in a positive, encouraging, wholesome way with young people including young girls.
Roping in or acting without permission as a comely coed superspy trollbuster was plain stupid, even if she didn’t know the extent of his problems, HE DID. And how in ANY event was highlighting improper activity you believe he is going to be accused of at sometime in the near future, going to HELP him?
SarahW (af7312) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:29 pm@ltw
Gennettec (28d98c) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:29 pmNo, that wasn’t about me.
If you have some questions about Nikki I’d love to answer:)
I did ask, and you told me I was stupid.
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:29 pmI dunno, Bmertz, but I disagree with some of you on this point. Why wouldn’t Weiner say Gennette was one of his girlfriends? It’s not clear to me that she was, and without knowing, I worry she’s innocent on that part. Sure, it’s only natural to be suspicious of how she’s handled this, but people do suspicious things all the time because they are on an ego trip or whatever.
It’s not clear at all that Gennette was sexting Weiner. I think he might have been creepier to her than she’s letting on, and imagine how she’d be treated if she was more forthcoming about that: now she’d be taking fire on both fronts.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:29 pmAs it turns out, it was very very very unhelpful.
SarahW (af7312) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:30 pmWhat was your motivation in engaging with Nikki? With Marianela? Did you have the same reaction to Marianela as you did with Nikki?
And please I want to know YOUR motivation. Not just some reason why you might have wanted to.
RocksEm (e1d29d) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:32 pmRocksem
And no credible claim about the socks can ever be made if everyone on the Weiner side is lying too.
Are you stating you think the socks are credible? I mean with or without Gennette, do you feel the socks have credibility?
az5thdstrct (118fcf) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:34 pmGenette, you are vindicated by the words of a known liar – (Weiner).
You will be vindicated on the single point of his conduct towards you (and yours to his) when you make it very plain and public what you were talking about when he sent you his erection photo,
and also release your accounts and your records of any conversation you had with him in any context.
SarahW (af7312) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:34 pmThe texting I’m talking about is texting after the fact. Not sexting. Gennette said she and Weiner exchanged texts, once when he was about to go live at his “I did it” conference.
Yet here on this thread she said she had no contact with him or anyone in his office.
To me, that seems like a contradiction. She is here, and if she wants to clear that up, that would be cool.
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:34 pmGennette:
A word of advice, if you are still reading. The reason all the other women immediately came clean, despite the embarrassment, was that they realized the info would drip out anyway. Best to come clean and be able to better control the story.
Everybody believes you are one of the Weiner women. If this is true, it is best to come clean. If for some inexplicable reason Weiner found enough self control to never sext you, with the exception of the twitter pix that was a bizarre joke, no one will ever believe it until you release all of the exchanges with Weiner and Nikki.
Light and truth are the best disinfectants. This will always follow you around until you put it to rest. Perhaps buried somewhere in the exchanges is the lead to unmask the sock puppets you so desperately want to find.(I have a feeling you have a suspicion as to who the sockpuppets are.)
Proud Kaffir (6a2a54) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:35 pm#178 Gennette
How can you be vindicated by a congressperson who has been caught lying to the public on several occasions? Why would anyone take his word as valid? He has lied to the media and to his own party. Weiner’s credibility is dust. How can you be vindicated by a partisan journalist who openly admits she is withholding evidence? Her story is sinking like a stone. The NYT has a graveyard for journalists caught out in fabrications. There is more than one reputation buried there.
bmertz (d77c52) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:35 pmOr even explain the #545 Tweet. Everyone wants to know about that!
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:35 pmYou AREN”T vindicated by a Weiner press conference. He’s a liar.
He would be willing to lie about you if it helped him.
Maybe he was willing to set you apart so his teenaged dreams would not be highlighted as they were.
SarahW (af7312) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:36 pmWeiner would deny at that point because GC was already on record as denying. To include her then would be calling her a liar before the national press and would likely instantly create an enemy, GC, with a lot of ammo against him. Ammo related to underage girls.
RocksEm (e1d29d) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:36 pmI apologize if I conflated them, or was just plain unclear.
It is really difficult to understand why Gennette was having that kind of private conversation with Weiner ‘after the fact’ without some conclusions at the very least suggesting she was coordinating her response (And I think her initial comments are so similar to others’ too).
But from Gennette’s POV, if we believe her, she didn’t know Weiner even sent that picture when she was texting him. She may have believed he was hacked or this was an outright fraud, and be texting him to talk about the people she thinks was behind it. She may have thought Weiner was completely innocent at that time.
Am I mistaken?
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:37 pmDamn dude, I hadn’t thought of it like that. I’d say you should write mystery novels, but then it would sound like I’m mocking your imagination, when this point does seem logical.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:38 pmAm I mistaken?
That’s completely plausible and completely within her ability to tell us.
At some point, they exchanged phone numbers.
Did he DM her saying “OMG, I just sent you my penis. Please call me 555-123-4567”? I don’t know.
But it doesn’t square with the “I haven’t had any contact” comment above.
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:41 pm@Maybee
I never said I didn’t have contact with him. I was responding to a question about having contacting with his staff, attorneys, etc.
@SarahWW this wasn’t about me helping him. I told him they were fake, we discussed it a little bit. Anyone assuming that AW was anywhere near as involved in this with me would be wrong.
Gennettec (28d98c) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:41 pmI was just truly interested in it. This person was putting in hours a day trying to build up a rapport with me.
Only with regards to their exchanges with others which are verified by the other parties or by other established evidence. The fact that this first dump has been totally verified as accurate, if not complete, by GC adds weight to those at least and others waiting to be published.
RocksEm (e1d29d) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:44 pm@SarahWW #191 I feel vindicated. Your opinion doesn’t affect that at all.
Gennettec (28d98c) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:44 pm@RocksEm #192 What ammo did I/ do I have against him?
From his POV, it’s plausible you had the proverbial Monica’s blue dress in your email archives. Obviously, from your account, this doesn’t exist.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:45 pm#182 dustin
I haven’t decided on that issue either. I’m more focused on her role in withholding information and her possible interactions with Nikki, at the least. But the strange wording caught my attention. Weiner had no reason to list her as a tweetsexing partner if she wasn’t one. If you take his word that she was not. If he lumped her in with his harem without cause, Gennette’s parents would have have jumped in and murdered him. At least I would have in their place.
But I am getting off this topic. if Gennette wants to talk about Nikki– go for it women. Get your story out while you have some control left.
bmertz (d77c52) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:47 pmThe Question: have you had any contact with congresscritter weinertweeter since he exhibited such poor dick photo management skillz? Have you been in contact with anyone from his office, campaign staff, legal team, investigators, or Dem party?
The Answer from GNC:And not that it’s really your business but I’ve had ZERO contact with anyone on his staff, anyone connected to him, etc.
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:48 pm=====
I know, right?
I would LOVE to share everything I know about Nikki, but uh…. I don’t know anything. So I can’t help the discussion like Gennette can.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:50 pmI did not say you did. I suggested why Weiner may have left you out as being someone he engaged with IF you had been. He had more to lose than his job.
RocksEm (e1d29d) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:54 pmYes, I would love to read anything Gennette has to say about Nikki.
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 12:57 pmOk, here’s a Nikki question.
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 1:00 pmDid you ever suspect Nikki was acting on behalf of Weiner’s wife? He said she had known previously about his online relationships. Did you ever think she (or someone on her behalf) was digging around to see if he was up to his old tricks?
Gennette,
Your “feeling” vindicated doesn’t affect your public vindication at all. This is the real world now, and what you feel doesn’t define reality.
You aren’t vindicated by a liar with many possible motives, and you have been evasive. You have hidden direct evidence of what went on, and even refused to speak about it openly.
SarahW (af7312) — 6/23/2011 @ 1:01 pmGennette,
I think about the only thing Weiner had as much interest in as sexting was getting his enemies.
RocksEm (e1d29d) — 6/23/2011 @ 1:02 pmWere your attempts to discuss that; Nikki, BornFreecrew, etc., an attempt to steer him away from sexual talk? Was your concerns about those discussing Weiner an attempt to do something real? Something related to politics? Something to have to discuss with him when you talked which would get his mind off sex without your alienating him by outright rejection?
Also, you are the one he sent a public picture of his erection.
Lucky you, to be the target of his enthusiasm. We all know he would forward that kind of thing without much encouragement.
But, since you are someone who would lie about crushing on Weiner (and telling him so), for your own purposes, so you would lie to anyone else about what you did or what you said, and it is in your power to show it.
SarahW (af7312) — 6/23/2011 @ 1:05 pmSarah, I think Gennette has already answered your question. You’re proceeding from the notion that Gennette’s primary intent in engaging with Starchild111 was to help Weiner. As she has stated herself, she wasn’t necessarily thinking in those terms…
As for what might have happened to Weiner if the highschool girls never existed, you say “He’s be embarrassed and we’d all have looked away and he would have had fair warning and a free grope, as it were. I am convinced of it.”
That didn’t happen with Chris Lee and all we saw were his nipples.
The fact that Weiner was sexting multiple adult women, sending naked pix, etc., would have in no way been dismissed as you suggest, even if he hadn’t attempted his clumsy cover-up. At the end of the day, you had a Congressman whom a lot of people despise caught red-glanded, in multiple photos, with some really awful cybersex dialogue to boot. That he was actually sending out embarrasing photos to multiple under his own name, while married, while possibly using government resources — and thus exposing himself to potential blackmail schemes, etc — would have most certainly been a big story….and would have led to calls for his resignation, demands for investigations, etc. The high-school girls element added to his downfall, but it would have happened without them.
Greg (bc8186) — 6/23/2011 @ 1:06 pmIn your power to show your tweets, anyway; and in your power to describe your contact with him related to his crisis management – including the picture and your previous contact or what you might know about his contacts with others.
SarahW (af7312) — 6/23/2011 @ 1:08 pmGennette
One of the alleged DM’s https://patterico.com/app/uploads/2011/06/Screen-shot-2011-06-20-at-6.55.18-AM.png
Shows contact between you and AW. It appears you and AW are planing tactics in how to engage Nikki and Marianela. Earlier you stated you didn’t really give info on Nikki to AW.
Are the DMs real? And isn’t this planning tactics on Nikki and Marianela?
az5thdstrct (118fcf) — 6/23/2011 @ 1:08 pmGreg,
Chris lee wasn’t tweeting a fantasy figure porn actress privately.
Chris lee was essentially advertising on the most vulgar possible place, Craigslist, for random sexual partners.
THe implications of their pictures are hardly the same.
SarahW (af7312) — 6/23/2011 @ 1:10 pmLook earlier in the comments but I think she has already denied those DMs & JR states no knowledge of them.
RocksEm (e1d29d) — 6/23/2011 @ 1:11 pmYou know who could shed a lot of light on GC & the whole sockpuppet family – another Journalist with a capital J.
But he is nowhere to be found. Why so quiet, Tommy?
His last public tweets – Tues 6/21 about 4 pm – then two generic tweets re his X-rated news (that’s what he likes to call it anyway)yesterday & today.
His last Mediaite story – Mon. 6/20 at 5:58 pm.
Where, oh where, is Tommy Christopher?
He could supply all emails, DM’s, phone #’s, Skype recordings – but he isn’t doing that. Why not?
Let’s have some words of wisdom from the great Tommy Christopher, just a couple weeks ago:
“Journalism isn’t about what you ‘think’ or ‘believe.’ Skepticism and curiosity are hammer and nails. Takes skill to build something.”
http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowldc/good-morning-fishbowldc-readers-331_b41982
How insightful of Tommy. Some commenters here are sympathetic to Tommy’s plight. If he had made well-intentioned mistakes, then why is he out of the picture now? He could help – a lot. Where is he?
Miranda (4104db) — 6/23/2011 @ 1:14 pmGreg, we all know what Wieners conduct has, and can draw reasonable assumptions about what his problems are and where they would lead him in the future.
I happen to agree he would never “reform”, but likely get worse and eventually be caught doing something that would cause inescapable ruin.
But some scuttlebutt in Gawker about messaging a fantasyfigure was not likely to draw everyone out of the woodwork.
It was the public tweet, and who he tweeted it to, and his following habits that put the focus on him. GC’s errand of mercy put a laser beam on the worst of the implications of his conduct. A grateful nation turns its weary eye to her, and says, THANKS A LOT.
SarahW (af7312) — 6/23/2011 @ 1:15 pm141.“136.I would just like to say that anyone still accusing me of not answering questions is really just kind of an asshole. Excuse my language.”
GC
At the risk of seeming “like an asshole,” let me repeat:
106.Isn’t it easy to block people on Twitter? Why not do so in response to the harassment?
Can you still characterize yourself as “answering questions” after ignoring this one for the third time?
Oschisms (473d8f) — 6/23/2011 @ 1:36 pmI’m certain everyone else has gotten this completely obvious point, but these are the DMs Mariela told Goatsred she had.
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 1:39 pmThey are the DMs she then told Tommy she lied about.
@Oschims Blocking doesn’t do anything except make it so I’m not notified that they’re tweeting about me.
Gennettec (28d98c) — 6/23/2011 @ 1:59 pmIf I blocked them they would still be retweeting my picture and my twitter handle over and over again.
Welcome to the internet…
h2u (c2fd64) — 6/23/2011 @ 2:07 pmBut Gennette did answer Oschims’s question. I was about to actually provide her answer for her, since I asked her this and she gave a similar answer some time ago.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/23/2011 @ 2:08 pmGennetteC – how do you sync your statements from previously when you said you had texted with Weinertweeter post weinertweet, and your claim in this thread that you have not spoken with anyone since the weinertweet?
JD (85b089) — 6/23/2011 @ 2:19 pmThank you for answering. I’m not sure why blocking isn’t enough, though. If you blocked them, you wouldn’t see their RT’s, right? Why would they continue if the object of their harassment can’t see them? It seems a block would put a quick stop to the harassment.
And no one who knew you would see them either, except AW and John Reid/Starchild, because the harasser (Patriot)was following them, right?
Oschisms (473d8f) — 6/23/2011 @ 2:27 pmIt’s telling/teaching, how our “white” lies, obfuscations,”misdirections” etc, in our younger or less established (career?)years will continue to haunt us. Hold back the “careers”, we’d hoped to have achieved. Wasn’t a serial plagarist just called out for being assigned to a piece to smear Republicans. A plagarist who used only anonymous sources? Think she’ll go far? Even under the Prog umbrella?
Be honest. When you’ve “erred”, come clean. It’s better than the alternative.
MDr (fd1f4b) — 6/23/2011 @ 2:32 pmMilowent has posted this cache of Nikki’s tweets. These are from 2 days before Gennette DMed her.
Today Gennette said she DMed Nikki flirty things about Anthony Weiner because it was obvious that’s what Nikki wanted to talk about. That was on the 16th, and they are screen capped above. Until that series of DMs from Gennette, they had DMed, but never about Weiner.
I realize this is not all of her tweets. But what about this twitter feed made Gennette “know” that Nikki only wanted to talk about Anthony Weiner?
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 2:34 pmFrom the fateful press conference.
So that’s what Weiner says they talked about.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/23/2011 @ 2:38 pmSo, GennetteC, would you like to revise your answer?
JD (d48c3b) — 6/23/2011 @ 2:41 pmGennetteC – what were the circumstances surrounding you getting a married Congresscritter’s cell phone number? I am assuming that was “not inappropriate”.
JD (85b089) — 6/23/2011 @ 2:45 pm@224 MayBee – its a pretty logical guess from gennette if she looked at nikki’s tweets, the majority of which appeared to be tweeting at @gingerlee and then ethel about their AW follows. she tried to bury that history a bit with the juan and mari tweets on may 13 and 14, but as of May 14, @starchild111 only had 60 total tweets.
milowent (bc04ac) — 6/23/2011 @ 2:57 pmOh dear. What tangled webs we weave …
Ok, to recap, I asked GC (#116):
“Please also tell us how many times you’ve had contact (email, mail, twitter, phone calls … ) with AW’s legal and/or PR firms or any AW staff.”
She replied (#121):
“And not that it’s really your business but I’ve had ZERO contact with anyone on his staff, anyone connected to him, etc.
And not only have I answered that question before but I also don’t feel like it’s relevant to this particular story.”
Yet we see from Dustin (#225) that AW had a different story at his press conference.
So which is it, Gennette? Did you communicate with AW’s office/handlers/pol-ops, or not? Was Weiner lying at the press conference? Or did you just conveniently “forget” that his office had contact with you?
Miranda (4104db) — 6/23/2011 @ 3:01 pmIt doesn’t look like the majority are about their AW follows. Yes, she asks them, but it looks like she then struck up a little conversation w/Ginger about other things. There’s a comment about laws not keeping up, etc. A question to Ethel, but not much else. Otherwise caught up in the Patriot retweets.
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 3:02 pm230 is to Milowent.
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 3:03 pmThat does not make sense to me. Because someone had tweeted a porn star about weinertweeter, it was logical for GennetteC to leap to the conclusion that person wanted to talk about the weinertweeter with her?!
JD (29e1cd) — 6/23/2011 @ 3:07 pmmilowent- @starchild111 only had 60 total tweets.
True. The earliest we’ve seen were also reaching out to various celebrities, like the Kardashians.
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 3:10 pmGeez, people. She’s saying she had contact with Weiner and NOT with his staff. What’s the big deal?
Lincolntf (85daa5) — 6/23/2011 @ 3:19 pmIn March, Starchild asked Ginger about Weiner. Ginger gives her a nice reply, says nothing like “I told him he was hot”.
They chat on and off for the next month or so, not again about Weiner. Sometimes other followers join in.
In April, Weiner started following an actual high school student.
Starchild asked about that, and then got caught up in what I’m assuming Gennette would call the “harassment” of the Patriot game.
In May, Starchild finds Gennette but doesn’t ask about Weiner.
Starchild talks with her about other things.
Starchild chats with Juan
Gennette decides Starchild wants to hear about how she flirted with Anthony Weiner
Then encourages her to ask AW to follow her
Then Starchild does the Prom thing
Weiner follows her
The harassment of the Patriot gang ensues again
Weiner unfollows her
She and Ethel get into a spat about Weiner.
Doesn’t it look like most of the really weird stuff started after Gennette told her how she flirted with Weiner?
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 3:22 pm@233 maybee – darn, yeah, where did we see those early celebrity tweets posted? I should add those to my compilation. I can’t remember where they came from.
didn’t Gennette say Nikki claimed to first find her randomly? But if in 60 tweets you see tweets to TWO other woman about following weiner, that seems suspicious to me.
honestly i’m not really concerned if Gennette did do sexy talk with AW. He’s already resigned, admitting inappropriate contact with 6 women, whether he miscounted or Gennette is being a drama queen is not that important to the sockpuppet story. I tend to think Gennette’s comments are generally true but she doesn’t lay out every fact every time for everyone, and she enjoys doing that. If she really had dirty laundry to hide, I think she wouldn’t be so vocal. Instead, she’s enjoying seeing @johnreid9 struggle to prove that the NYTimes lied that his upstanding sockpuppet family was actually pro-weiner, not anti-weiner, lest they be relegated to social sockpuppet siberia.
milowent (bc04ac) — 6/23/2011 @ 3:27 pm“Geez, people. She’s saying she had contact with Weiner and NOT with his staff. What’s the big deal?”
ISWYDT
MDr (fd1f4b) — 6/23/2011 @ 3:30 pmLincolntf – I asked her specifically about that.
JD (306f5d) — 6/23/2011 @ 3:32 pm@235 Maybee “Doesn’t it look like most of the really weird stuff started after Gennette told her how she flirted with Weiner?”
the whole thing is bizarre. since we know Nikki is a fake, what on earth is her purpose? she claims to be a huge weiner fan, so is she or isn’t she? what the hell was the purpose of someone creating Nikki Reid.
milowent (bc04ac) — 6/23/2011 @ 3:33 pmBut if in 60 tweets you see tweets to TWO other woman about following weiner, that seems suspicious to me.
Possibly.
Do we know if starchild ever DMed with Ginger or Ethel about AW?
It just seems like a lot of …..what?….to set up an account to “get” Weiner and then sit and wait until someone decides to volunteer that she’s been telling your mark he’s hot. Which, we hear, she wasn’t really doing.
Seems like a flawed model.
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 3:35 pmI don’t think DM’s show up in the tweet counter.
ltw (370236) — 6/23/2011 @ 3:35 pmwhat on earth is her purpose? she claims to be a huge weiner fan, so is she or isn’t she? what the hell was the purpose of someone creating Nikki Reid.
Makes little sense.
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 3:40 pmGennetteC – in your conversations with Rep Weinertweeter post-weinertweet, did he suggest that you lie to cover for him, as he did with Ginger Lee? If not, what was the nature of the conversation? Was it, as MayBee asked, along the lines of “OMG I just sent you my penis”, or “how was your day, future journalist?”
JD (b98cae) — 6/23/2011 @ 3:41 pmGennetteC – can you explain the 5:45 reference?
JD (306f5d) — 6/23/2011 @ 3:44 pm“It’s not a lie. When a group of adult male strangers repeatedly retweet a screenshot of my picture, tag me in the post, and call me a school girl, when I had asked them multiple times to stop doing it, was is that called”
Show those tweets.
goatsred (b20383) — 6/23/2011 @ 4:09 pmMore specifically, ones that included just me,with no RT next to it.
Seems like my statements and questions are the only ones going unanswered today.
here is the obscure but pleasant 80s song I have no idea what that lady is wearing wikipedia says she used to be a model. Do tell.
here is a meta-comment by Mr. Calvin Harris
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 6/23/2011 @ 4:11 pmWeiner in press conf. June 6:
Q – Has anyone in your office contacted Ms. Cordova (cross-talk – after the statement?)?
I did. I did. (cross talk) I didn’t speak to her – we exchanged some, some text msg’s – mostly, mostly from me, to express my abject apologies for how she got dragged into this.
Q: Have you ever spoken to her before?
No. Yes, yes, we, we, we had exchanged some perfunctory direct messages but there wasn’t – we had never spoken.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSUTXx7vx64&NR=1
Start watching in begin. of this video – 2 of 2.
Of course, RAW had insisted he hadn’t used Congressional resources either – then the Sunday after this press conference, TMZ published the House gym photos.
Miranda (4104db) — 6/23/2011 @ 4:42 pm==It just seems like a lot of …..what?….to set up an account to “get” Weiner and then sit and wait until someone decides to volunteer that she’s been telling your mark he’s hot. Which, we hear, she wasn’t really doing. Seems like flawed model.==
Yes, MayBee it does. Sort of like someone standing around outside a bank hoping, on the outside chance, that a bag of money might accidentally fall off the Brinks truck. (When a significantly less flawed model might entail the standee conspiring with the Brinks crew in advance to assure that a bag of money will fall off the truck right exactly when he’s standing there.)
elissa (1afff9) — 6/23/2011 @ 4:43 pmMaybee has post of the day, at #217 – no matter how obvious the point. The Marianela retraction was as false as her (and her fake Friend Nikki’s) persona.
I guess Tommy was punked in every way it was possible to be punked, thanks to J school.
Gennette – About “helping” Weiner. You complain you were not tweeting Nikki and drawing her out and stringing her out for Congressman Weiner’s benefit, and imply he knew nothing of it.
Yet you volunteer him – a real person with a real reputation on the line- for scandal, and MANUFACTURE examples of inappropriate contact with the Congressman for your own pleasure, apparently.
Once again, a nation in need of heroes lifts its weary eyes to you,
Congratulations for expediting ruination of someone who perfectly deserved it.
Also Milowent,
SarahW (af7312) — 6/23/2011 @ 6:00 pm“besmirched their good sockpuppet reputation.” is a line of genius.
Yet you volunteer him – a real person with a real reputation on the line- for scandal, and MANUFACTURE examples of inappropriate contact with the Congressman for your own pleasure, apparently.
So true.
Telling Nikki to ask Weiner for a follow (and a prom date) was certain to draw the attention of the Patriot crew. And Gennette knew that, because she knew the behavior of that crew.
So what was the point? Why would Gennette knowingly draw more attention to Weiner and the young girl situation?
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 6:19 pmit’s just like Hard Candy except wif twitters and more cleavage
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 6/23/2011 @ 6:26 pmI missed the cleavage part.
JD (f0d0c7) — 6/23/2011 @ 6:31 pmMy Geiger counter clicked a few times on that one. I think there might be at least some partial truth in that one. How much would be anyone’s guess.
crosspatch (6adcc9) — 6/23/2011 @ 6:35 pmYeah, that’s pretty genius.
MayBee (081489) — 6/23/2011 @ 6:46 pm249. sarahw
very good thinking
koam (7c1f46) — 6/23/2011 @ 7:43 pmAgree #217 is the post of the day….which recycles back to Tommy Christopher’s article on June 3rd. Appears players are just trying to keep up with appearances.
ltw (370236) — 6/23/2011 @ 8:30 pmGennetteC ignored all the rest of my questions.
JD (f0d0c7) — 6/24/2011 @ 6:20 amLook GennetteC, why don’t you just sign a book deal. Or write an op-ed. You’re a journalist, right? You could lay out the whole story and give your career a huge boost at the same time.
Weiner's wiener (5e7638) — 6/25/2011 @ 2:53 pmaz5thdstrct — 6/23/2011 @ 12:00 pm
>> Already revealed Weiner sexted. With Multiple women, at the same time. Gennette would just add another number to the list that Weiner was a predator with.
Except for one thing. H always did that on Facebook.
Not only that when this first happened, Winer said that *Facebook* was hacked. He had no idea how that picture had gotten on the Internet.
GC’s mother speculated somewhat early that the picture had been intended for Ginger Lee (the name starts with simlilar letters) Not clear if that was what GC told her mother. This would have weiner make a double mistake.
Or – maybe he *was* hacked. Now who could hack and follow the accounts? Pretty much only the Chinese Communists.
Second question: How did PATRIOTUSA76 (if PATRIOTUSA76 knew) KNOW that Weiner had some propensities too send lewd pictures of himself? How could someone know that and yet have no way of openly revealing that, so it had to come out somne other way?
Why did SOCKREID set up the NIKKI REED account? You can say to catch or trap Weiner – and in particular to have it be a minor because that might be illegal – but how would you know, without either hacking OR an inside source, that anything of this kind ?was going on in the first place??
And there’s another thing. Someone mixed up Facebook and Twitter. Weiner was doing all of this stuff on Facebook.
I guess they were kind of a little bit confused about things in China. It makes sense.
Now the private detective agency (which is probably whatever filled the void after Anthony Pellicano went to jail – possibly alumni of the Anthony Pellicano detective agency except now they’re in Orange County) that eventually got hired knew more things, but back at the top, back at a level of whoever hired the RED BARON, there was this confusion between FACEBOOK and TWITTER.
And why Weiner? It would have to be the mayoral campaign and the idea being to eliminate the most well-financed opponent of John Liu.
Sammy Finkelman (994435) — 6/26/2011 @ 2:11 pm