The Events of June 5, 2011 and June 6, 2011, and How the New York Times, Anthony Weiner, and Huma Abedin Falsely Portrayed Weiner’s Admission As Spontaneous
June 5, 2011: Breitbart gets the goods. I spoke to Andrew Breitbart on the phone on June 5, 2011, and he told me what he had, and that it was going to be coming out the next day. I asked him if I could tease it in any way, and he said that he had been on the radio and authorized me to tease it by citing his radio appearance. I did so in this update to this June 5, 2011 post:
I’m going to close with this: Andrew Breitbart has been on the radio today saying that he has new information that is going to change the dynamics of this story.
This is not over, folks. Not by a longshot.
I ended up giving it a post of its own, published at 10:57 p.m. on June 5, 2011:
I already linked this in the update to the post below. But it seems like it deserves a post all its own.
Breitbart tweets:
Last chance to join the #FollowBreitbart juggernaut! (Well, not really.) #Weinergate taking new turn tomorrow in AM.
Boom! Weinergate taking a new turn. TOMORROW.
BOOM!
June 6, 2011: Breitbart reveals what he has in the early, early morning hours, and then Weiner calls a quick press conference.
The geniuses who redesigned Breitbart’s site broke all the links to the old posts, but a commenter noted by 3:48 a.m. Pacific on June 6, 2011 that Breitbart’s story was up:
It is UP! I hope this woman is 100% iron clad so that the nutters can’t say Breitbart set Weiner up! WOWOWOWOWOWOW
I quoted the key grafs in an update to my June 5 post as follows:
UPDATE: Andrew has the announcement at Big Government:
A new woman has come forward with what she claims are photographs, chats, and emails with Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY). These appear to undermine severely Rep. Weiner’s explanations that he was the victim of a “prank” or a “hack.”
The detailed new information suggests that the Brooklyn- and Queens-based representative and the young woman in question were involved in an online, consensual relationship involving the mutual exchange of intimate photographs.
BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com were approached regarding this information more than a week prior to the separate, independent event of Friday, May 27, 2011, when a link to the now-infamous “gray underwear” photograph appeared publicly on Rep. Weiner’s Twitter feed.
We will be updating BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com throughout the day with photographs, timelines, and other clarifying details. However, we will not be releasing all of the material because some of it is of an extreme, graphic nature.
I guess you could call that changing the dynamic.
And then Weiner called his press conference the same day.
Naturally, this was portrayed in the New York Times as prompted by Weiner’s super-honest and not-at-all-coerced-by-revelations confession to his wife over the weekend:
At a hastily arranged news conference in New York on Monday, Weiner tearfully admitted that he “engaged in several inappropriate conversations conducted over Twitter, Facebook, e-mail and occasionally on the phone” and exchanged “messages and photos of an explicit nature with about six women over the last three years,” essentially the entire length of his relationship with Abedin, but that he had never met any of the women in person. “I felt like I couldn’t breathe,” Abedin says. “I felt like I was in an airplane really high in the air, and all of a sudden, the plane is coming apart at the seams, and I am just doing all I can to hang on for dear life. That is what it felt like.”
Breitbart’s revelations did not figure into the New York Times‘s timeline at this juncture. While giving him backhanded credit for breaking the story (and also calling him “not entirely reputable”), the New York Times wrote out of the history books the way that Breitbart’s revelations clearly prompted the hasty press conference.
I wanted to publish something like this when the NYT puff piece first came out, but I was far too busy at work to put it together.
Patterico (9c670f) — 7/24/2013 @ 7:46 amDing-a-Ling!
redc1c4 (abd49e) — 7/24/2013 @ 7:48 amHuma Abedin to the New York Times, 2013:
Now this is a lie, because she’d known all about this before, as Anthony Weiner himself said in his press conference on June 6, 2011: (The sets things up to print and may cause trouble on some computers, but this is teh weay to get this on a single page)
http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/local/full_transcript_of_weiner_news_conference_JxlqpgCFcbffrWKKcwsyLL#axzz2ZyVDtH8J
You notice how Anthony Weiner catches himself:
He was about to say something like “because of the political implications if it ever came out.” This was all before their marriage.
Why did she know about this before their marriage?
Well, because he had probably done this thing with her too!!
Sammy Finkelman (7583fb) — 7/24/2013 @ 8:14 amSo it was very unlikely any of this came as a total surprise to Huma Abedin.
Weiner did not attribute the decision to tell the truth (that he did such things) to Huma Abedin, but more to Nancy Pelosi, and to the fact that it was untenable to deny it:
The principle lie he wanted to tell at the time of the profile, but a lie that he didn’t feel a need to tell in 2011, is that his wife didn’t know about his propensity to do this type of thing.
In other words, that all the time he was lying to others, he was also lying to his wife.
This was the same tack Bill Clinton used – he claimed that in 1998, he was also lying to Hillary.
The thinking is, it is more acceptable to lie to the public about sex, if you are also lying to your wife.
Hillary Clinton may not have known while this was going on, but obviously she’d found out his relationship with Monica Lewinsky long before because it stopped long before Matt Drudge published anything.
That’s, in fact, what caused the whole thing to come out. Bill Clinton wanted to keep her hopes up a little bit, so she wouldn’t talk, but he also wanted not to do anything with her any more. And she complained to her office mate Linda Tripp. Who eventually decided that the way to put Monica Lewinsky out of her misery was to make the whole thing public. (How did Paula Jones’ lawyers know to ask?)
Bill Clinton knew by the way that Paula Jones’s lawsuit was legally defective. He’sd conmtrived to ahve her sue him on the grounds she did, because that way he’d have an excuse to have a legal defense fund. He settled the case with her because it is a well known fact that prosecutions for perjury are much less likely when the case the perjury attempted to help was lost.
Sammy Finkelman (7583fb) — 7/24/2013 @ 8:23 amThe Finkelman is on the case!
Icy (d41128) — 7/24/2013 @ 8:27 am5. The Finkelman is on the case!
The Clinton materal I’d figured out a long time ago (by the way, I meant the fact that Hillary found out is what ultimately caused this to become public)
And the change in the story of when Huma Abedin found out about Anthony Weiner’s proclivities WAS CLEAR when the New York Times Magazine article came out this year. An open and shut contradiction.
But the one thing I only have a glimmer of an idea about is why Huma Abedin’s relationship with her mother and her mother’s relationship with the Moslem Brotherhood don’t seem to be disturbed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/magazine/anthony-weiner-and-huma-abedins-post-scandal-playbook.html?pagewanted=all
Anthony Weiner made a point of being strongly pro-Israel, but somehow that was not a problem.
Of course for most reporters there is no Modelm Brotherhood connection, so there is no myatery and no question.
The answer to this question probably has something to do with the Oklahoma bombing, and might clarify that and some other things, such as why Bill Clinton let Osama bin Laden get away.
Sammy Finkelman (be6791) — 7/24/2013 @ 12:02 pmThanks designed for sharing such a pleasant thinking, piece of writing is good,
fes desert trips (43287e) — 3/2/2016 @ 2:40 amthats why i have read it entirely