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

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

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

Here, Weasel Zipper quotes the Breitbart.com piece:

Via Breitbart:

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

When exactly did the sexting get “behind him?”

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

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

Keep reading…

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

No correction. No acknowledgment of error.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, we did.

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

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

Apparently caused by horribly excessive speeding:

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

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

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

At last count the number of dead was 78.

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

Maureen Callahan at the New York Post:

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

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

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

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