A New, Bizarre Yet Logical Answer To #Weinergate?

A new possibility has come up that explains ALL the strange facts in this story…here’s the theory.

1) Weiner didn’t send the photo – it was a frame-up
2) Weiner is hiding something – and the photo is of him (he didn’t deny it today) – and that’s why he doesn’t want a law enforcement investigation OR he knows how sent it.

Here’s a theory on the the photo.. – the photo could have been sent from a phone. (Not sent from a computer.)

I am going out on a limb here and I’d like emphasize this is a THEORY – but one that explains a lot.l. If this happened, I believe the most logical person to have done it is @PatriotUSA76 –a person that we actually know almost nothing about, by the way. For example, I don’t know for sure that their name is Dan Wolfe or even their gender. Like Weiner, I think there’s been some strange behavior on their part as well.

If both PatriotUSA76 AND Rep. Weiner would be less obtuse, this story would be a lot clear. This theory explains why both are acting obtuse.

Here’s what this theory explains

  • How the photo got into Weiner’s Twit Strem
  • Weiner’s claim he didn’t send the photo
  • Weiner’s refusal to say the photo wasn’t him
  • Some bizarre behavior I’ve witnessed from @PatriotUSA76
  • @PatriotUSA76 saying repeatedly that anyone could look at their computer
  • The EXIF on the photo not matching
  • Weiner’s claim today “Pictures can be manipulated. Pictures can be dropped in and inserted.”
  • Weiner statements that he had not called police to investigate the matter
  • Gennette’s claim not to be involved

Patriot’s Story Of How They Saw The Tweet Is Very Implausible

Here’s what Patriot told me….

I never folllowed Gennette. I said before I was on Weiner’s page when it happened. Said a few times already

Direct message sent by Dan Wolfe (@patriotusa76) to you (@Stranahan) on May 31, 10:36 PM.


patriotusa76
Dan Wolfe

Someone should talk about coincidence of why Weiner was right there to delete tweet. That’s a big coincidence too.

Direct message sent by Dan Wolfe (@patriotusa76) to you (@Stranahan) on May 31, 11:10 PM.


patriotusa76
Dan Wolfe

Not only was he right there to delete the tweet – which he admits. He deleted it seconds after – 1-5 seconds. Pretty big conincidence

Direct message sent by Dan Wolfe (@patriotusa76) to you (@Stranahan) on May 31, 11:29 PM.


patriotusa76

We know from the timeline that RepWeiner didn’t have a public tweet for 3+ hours.

Then the picture came in

Patriot says they had Weiner’s page up. Why? Again  — Weiner hadn’t said anything for 3+ hours. Why keep the page up?

Then the the tweet with the picture goes up and according to Patriot, within 5 seconds Weiner took the tweet down. BUT – there’s no way for Patriot to have known that.

And Patriot saw it – how again?

From Scoovy In Comments…

I agree with a lot of this and have talked to people about it but haven’t written it down yet. So I’ll just copy and paste – read their whole comment , about 84 in

Let’s say that Weiner has in fact been engaging in inappropriate DM tweets with girls. Perhaps through a tip, the patriotusa76 crowd heard about this. Someone (not saying it was patriotusa76 himself) figured out a way to get into Weiner’s twitter account and was able to read these conversations as they were happening. I’m not saying Weiner was hacked and his password was changed. I’m saying someone had gained knowledge of Weiner’s Twitter password. The knowledge of these conversations was then leaked to a small group of twitter partisans (patriotusa76, goatred, etc.) Let’s say this has been going on for some time and started several weeks ago.

This would explain why this crowd knew of a looming twitter sex scandal that would involve Weiner and an incriminating photo/image, as well as his inappropriate messages. But this knowledge presented a problem — how to get this info out into the world. If this was in fact going on and the “hacker” knew about it, the “hacker” couldn’t leak it himself — it was private info that was gained illegally. So why not take the incriminating photo that’s been screengrabbed (again, I’m saying that Weiner actually did DM the photo, but did it perhaps weeks ago), log into his Twitter account and make it look like Weiner “accidentally” sent it publicly. Presto — Weiner has been “outed.”

In this scenario, both sides are technically right — Weiner was “hacked,” but Weiner actually did send the photo once upon a time and has been engaged in improper behavior

Comments

  1. I get where your going…. but why send it to Cordova?

    And the top item I have up here is important…

    http://justpaste.it/weinerboner

    Why does he keep lieing about how he was able to delete the tweet quickly because he was already tweeting about hockey?

  2. PatriotUSA76 had to be talked through even getting the cache pictures… he isn’t that computer literate…. it isn’t him.

    There was a twitter parody account called repneedledick that has mysteriously been deleted though. I wish someone would look into that.

  3. caringcarer says:

    Do a little proofreading of your post, dude.

  4. Because says:

    she had called him her boyfriend in a tweet. The post doesn’t answer the question of how the hacker got the yfrog email & the photo (if it is Weiner – it could be of some random skinny dude)

  5. Janetoo says:

    If it is Patriotusa76 – who obviously hates him – why wouldn’t Weiner WANT to expose a right wing hack? No, it has to be something like you have described only with a twist and like OtherMccain said – it is a honey trap – he HAS done this flirty sexting stuff with SOMEONE who is MAD at him – women scorned and all that – and THAT is why he does not want to expose them. And they are WATCHING him twist – I kind of like this new scenario – WOULD ALSO EXPLAIN the Moriarty comment – hmmmmmmm.

  6. “she had called him her boyfriend in a tweet.”

    That isn’t much at all… though it is something… in that I think she put the boyfriend tweet out there and then Weiner started to follower her…

    The seattle time hash tag is huge though.

  7. “why send it to Cordova”

    Why Cordova and why not to the whole tweet stream?

    Why that photo and not a more obscene one? (one reason is that it would be easier to frame someone if there is underwear.

  8. lovedinthekeys says:

    Lee: How does that fit in with him saying he was NOT following either one of them and that the pic was retweeted to him? I believe he said he went directly to Weiner’s page and saw it in his timeline. Should be easy enough for him to show the tweet he received. This is of course assuming that these statements he makes are true.

  9. “Lee: How does that fit in with him saying he was NOT following either one of them and that the pic was retweeted to him?”

    I don’t think Weiner has said that… he’s been evasive about the facts, but I don’t think he’s said either of those two things…

  10. yarr- thats my exact theory on the “boyfriend” tweet. It was not a statement on the situation, but it is what got his attention.

    On the jilted lover theory- it makes a lot more sense. If you believe the behavior to be obsessive it certainly is more logical that its a jilted lover rather than merely a political opponent. Especially when you look at the contacting of girls he followed and comments about him following “another young girl.”

    For reference I tweeted about a Canadian celeb’s son scoring his first goal. Out of the blue I get these tweets telling me how this celeb had abandoned his family for his lover. My 1st thought- this is the ex-wife on an anonymous account.

    Now I’m not accusing patriot of anything here, just working through the theory.

  11. lovedinthekeys says:

    “Lee: How does that fit in with him saying he was NOT following either one of them and that the pic was retweeted to him?”
    Not talking about weiner here – patriot said that HE was NOT following Weiner nor Cordova.

  12. He DID say he was not following either. He DID NOT say the pic was RT’d to him. He claimed the #Its545inseattleithink was RT’d to him, which lead to him going to the congressman’s page where he then saw the pic tweet

  13. lovedinthekeys says:

    Thanks for the clarification Jeremy! I knew he said he ended up on his page for a particular reason and that is where he saw it in real time.

  14. lovedinthekeys says:

    My other question has been, if he was not following either one of them, then to whom was Cordova referring when she said this person was harrassing her.

    BTW: Cordova did send patriot a tweet saying she did not believe he was involved in anyway.

  15. Well, I’m very skeptical anything is up with Patriotusa76 but has anyone done this on him?

    http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/26/now-you-can-see-twitter-the-way-i-see-twitter/

  16. lovedinthekeys says:

    Lee: Read this little interesting tidbit. Apparently, there has been considerable chatter about a sex scandal about to break open in NY the Patriot retweeted. Any connections here? This is from Patriot’s twitter feed (in an interaction with a big govt writer on 5/30): http://yfrog.com/h32ownp

  17. lovedinthekeys- she was referring to him @ing her when he tweeted about Weiner “following another young girl” Her response was “please don’t reference me in tweets again” or something like that.

    later on the night he RT’d the pic tweet she responded to him again saying “thats sick I didn’t see that” or something to that effect

    no clue if there was any other contact

  18. The #545 Tweet still would be problematic, although the Seattle girl doesn’t deny she had previously DM’d with Weiner.

    If I were a Dem woman who wanted to hide my identity on twitter, I’d give myself a male, Reagan-loving persona.

  19. lovedinthekeys says:

    Don’t think I buy the alternative Dem women jilted lover cover identity. This would have been some kind of stealth campaign — sort of a Manchurian candidate. He and his followers have discussed a wide range of topics, lots of back and forth. The sex scandal discussion in his timeline is interesting however. This rumor seems to have been passed along by one or more of his followers. I for one believe he is someone (who along with his followers did not like Wiener – but then, again, who does really), not some Dem woman – or jilted love.

  20. Lee- would it be any different if it were simply a picture taken by Weiner on another phone, then emailed to his own yFrog account?

    He acted too faux jovial afterwards for a total blindside to make much sense.

  21. 76 is Weiner! 76 is Weiner!

    – shouted in the voice of Charlton Heston

  22. I remember the Patriot RT was “via” some other twitterer.

    I know “Dan Wolfe” has been remarking on W’s predilection for young girls for a while and was hinting at a photo scandal (and type of photo with double entendre) weeks ago.

    I don’t see anything particularly bizarre about avoiding phone contact if DW wants to preserve some privacy with bloggers – but you are hinting at more, with you and others, that strikes you as odd – your qualms about the exif info I still don’t understand, since W might have his own cheater phone for pervy chores and another for official business. Do you mean to imply that DW redacted the exif?

  23. melanerpes says:

    Is it your theory that (1) some spurned Weiner groupie was contacted by @PatriotUSA76 (or some other Weiner-hater); (2) that she gave him access to the crotch shot that Weiner had sent to her; (3) that the Weiner-hater engineered the Yfrog-passwordless-hacking caper using the bona fide Weiner wiener shot?

  24. ….or if AW had another phone (like an iPhone) and instead of texting the picture he was taking to the intended receiver, accidentally texted it to his yFrog account.

  25. “no clue if there was any other contact”

    This reminded me of something… the interaction between Patriot-Weiner have been embellished way too much by people…

    Let me tell you some Lee… I’m more skeptical of Cordova than I am of PatriotUSA76…

    1. Is it possible Cordova deleted her twitter account so that her PMs might be less traceable? From her real boyfriend?
    2. Cordova not only had her bylines removed from the paper she wrote for but she also dropped out of a journalism course immediately… (probably to keep from being tracked down and interviewed live)
    3. She now claims she’s “sick” for some reason…
    4. Her press statement seems like it was crafted with the help of Weiner’s crisis communications team to muddle things up… from it papers like the NYDN and the AP were muddling the “hackers” and “harassers”…
    5. It was odd how the NYDN was chosen for her press statement… and how they(Cordover and boyfriend) immediately followed Tommy Christopher at Media who was the other outlet of her statement.
    6 #Thats545InSeattle
    7. All her interactions are now mediated electronically and can be monitored by a PR person…
    8. “There’s no way for you people to know this but I would NEVER allow anyone to write something for me.” ~ Yeah right… you’ve been contacted by his crisis communications team and you are working with them.. it’s obvious.
    9. Why did she come back on twitter exactly? “I can’t believe I’m back on Twitter” OK, why? It was around when she put out her press statement and it helps alleviate pressure that would come from the press on her if she didn’t… that’s smart… she’s obviously watching the press closely and using twitter as a tool to put out fires… that’s too smart… it’s likely someone else’s idea.

    “””””
    I am pretty sick right now and it’s only getting worse with the stress,” she(Cordova) wrote in an e-mail. She even dropped her journalism class, according to Toby Sonnenman, faculty adviser to her school paper, Horizon.
    “””””
    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/weiner_tweet_hearts_UTe6y5bwizh46ycTkIIkxH/1

  26. There is a Canadian Tory who very recently has something similar to embarrass him – I tweeted the link the other day. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2011/05/29/18209236.html
    Though I doubt a connection the coincidence struck me as odd.

  27. Let me tell you some Lee… I’m more skeptical of Cordova than I am of PatriotUSA76…

    Same here.

    Weiner: Here’s mine. You likey?
    Weiner: Oh poopie. Delete your account. Say nothing. I’ll hire you a lawyer. Don’t worry, I’ll take care of you. #BFF

    End.

  28. I think the gal is avoiding straight answers because:

    1) She has something to lose by answering them.
    2) She has something to gain by avoiding them.
    3) All of the above.

  29. Cordova’s first words when she got back on Twitter were basically “I can’t believe the reporters haven’t found me yet!” “Save me from the awful reporters!”

  30. razor419 says:

    stranahan – i don’t know what conversations you’ve had with @patriotusa76 today, but my guess is zero. last night when you were on stageright talking about how he was following both weiner and gennette, you were wrong. in fact, @patriotusa76 was so mad that you were talking out your ass that he broke his public twitter silence. see his twitter feed to confirm.

    also, from what i have seen and read, @patriotusa76 did everything you asked of him for 2 straight days. now you want to accuse him of being a hacker? breitbart’s people talked to him, yet you can’t even confirm his gender? you are a jackass.

  31. BTW Lee, it needs to be emphasized that if you’re going with this theory the someone emailed the tweet through yfrog then you need to come up with a theory why the tweet was deleted so fast… and why Weiner started babbling about a hockey game he couldn’t even watch… and how he and his spokesperson keep lying about how he was already tweeting about a hockey game when the “hack” occurred.

  32. Lee, has it been determined that Weiner’s yfrog account was publicly accessible, as in viewable? If it was, then I am with you on it explaining how someone could have hacked his accounts. If it wasn’t, then how did the hacker get the randomly generated file name of the picture he uploaded into Weiner’s account? The hacker needs that name to link the pic in the tweet.

    The public viewability of Weiner’s yfrog account is a must for this scenario to have credibility, else the hacker needs both Weiner’s email and pw to do it.

    One thing I would like to know. I used to have a Picasso account. IIRC, I could have photos viewable to the public and photos toggled to private. If my memory is correct, two additional questions comes up wrt yfrog:
    1) Does yfrog allow a private or public file option, and if so,
    2) What is the default for a new file entering the account — public or private?

  33. windansea says:

    not sure how this changes things re the cannonfire hack theory but in a thread on same theory at dkos someone discovers that the url does show up about 10 mintes after emailing photo to yfrog:

    but the issue with the disappearing URL isn’t quite right. In fact, if you go to the photo that allegedly doesn’t have the URL, it does indeed have one. So does the one added by Unit Zero, above, despite not having one when the screencaps were taken.

    So what’s going on here? Maybe yfrog has a delay in stamping photos with URLs. Maybe there’s a setting that posts the URL only after the owner does something (like log in, or whatever). Either way, it’s not what’s been explained in the diary.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/01/981159/-EXPOSED:-How-Weiner-was-framed-(Updated-X-2)?via=recent

  34. Still more questions than answers.

    I believe at this point we can narrow down to two possibilities: that Weiner was hacked or he screwed up a DM. Further, based on Weiner’s actions I think we can eliminate the idea that if he was hacked it was based on idealogical differences alone (ie right wing blogger.) The only way the hacker theory works is if it was over something much more personal.

  35. S. Adam says:

    Has anyone compared this theory/explanation with the previous one about a telephone tweet over 140 chars being split by the the service provider. In other words, does the telephone tweet have the extra space and no url or whatever is supposed to be unique about Wiener’s tweet?

  36. Yarr- for all the reasons you bring up I still lean toward the messed up DM theory, however I think it is important to examine theories that make sense and are logical. Its easy to get stuck on what you initially think is correct and not explore other possibilities, but exploring other possibilities doesn’t mean you weren’t right to begin with :)

  37. windansea June 1, 2011 at 6:10 pm

    not sure how this changes things re the cannonfire hack theory but in a thread on same theory at dkos someone discovers that the url does show up about 10 mintes after emailing photo to yfrog:

    but the issue with the disappearing URL isn’t quite right. In fact, if you go to the photo that allegedly doesn’t have the URL, it does indeed have one. So does the one added by Unit Zero, above, despite not having one when the screencaps were taken.

    ———–

    It has to have an url, windandsea. One can’t link to a file that doesn’t have an url. Of course part of the url is “www.yfrog.com” but the important part of the url is the file name which is randomly generated by yfrog. If you don’t have that file name you’ll just go to the main page of yfrog, not to the picture that was uploaded.

  38. I don’t know, lee… would your wife buy that?

  39. razor419 says:

    http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2011/06/01/case-closed-leftblog-claims-definitive-proof-weiner-was-framed/

    care to apologize to @patriotusa76? no? then you are no better than dailykos and the rest.

  40. windansea says:

    Dusty

    Caleb at redstate explains it better than I, see razor419 link abobe

  41. Here things hat should be asked to Cordova…

    1. Weiner has contacted a lawyer… have you? You are a victim too… you could get a lot out of of civil suit… in the immediate aftermath of the incident you dropped out of twitter/facebook, had your name removed from bylines, and dropped out of a class… it seems odd that this isn’t even an option for you.
    2. Has Weiner contacted you after the incident? (of course he has) Has he paid you to not press charges or to push anything? (probably, considering dropping out of a class isn’t free)
    3. #Thats545InSeattle???

  42. That redstate link is great, but it presents what we all already knew to be true, that the theory explains “how” it could have been done, but fails at the “it must have been this.” Of course those who have already decided this must have been a hacker *cough*kos*cough* will jump on it as definitive proof, just like the photoshopped screenshot theory. Sadly they failed again to scientifically test their own theories.

    But again it still *could* have been done this way.

  43. BTW, Cordova could probably ask for a criminal investigation too herself if she wanted it… I’m sure if it doesn’t come about she’ll be getting compensated for not pushing anything.

  44. One more thing to add on patriotusa76. This could very well be a woman. Wouldn’t be the first time a woman has used a man’s name to avoid unwanted attention. (My grandma kept her phone book listing under my grandpa’s name for 10 years after he died.) And this in itself would explain some of the confusion while at the same time not implying that he or she was involved in the hacking in any way.

  45. windansea June 1, 2011 at 6:37 pm

    Dusty

    Caleb at redstate explains it better than I, see razor419 link abobe
    ——-
    Thanks for that.

  46. The URL thing seems to be a complete red herring. I’m guessing it’s browser specific, because I even see the URL on Cannonfire’s yfrog (but not on his screencap)

  47. JustAGuy says:

    Can anybody answer this about the email/upload technique described on Cannonfire’s blog?

    Even if somebody somehow knew Weiner’s yfrog email address and uploaded the photo that way, how could that explain the tweet containing the photo’s yfrog URL link being sent from @RepWeiner addressed to the woman on the west coast? Wasn’t that tweet’s existence verified independent of PatriotUSA76?

    Wouldn’t sending that tweet from @RepWeiner to her have required knowing his Twitter password?

  48. justaguy-no

    posting to yfrog automatically posts to twitter. However they would still have to have the yfrog “password”

  49. JustAGuy says:

    Jeremy, what I’m asking is in the automatic post to Twitter, how would that tweet have included the Twitter address @Gennette*** as it did?

    Can that part of the tweet’s content be entered via email to yfrog?
    Or if not, wouldn’t the alleged perpetrator/prankster have needed to know the @RepWeiner Twitter password?

  50. The reason this “hack” works is all these people logging into yFrog are doing so through the Twitter login button. It’s just like the Facebook connect login. Once you log in, you give yfrog access to post via email. It’s not a hack, it’s a feature common to every blogging, picture, and video system. To post to Twitter, you need to authorize yfrog to post to Twitter, and in doing so, you leave an electronic trail of app authorization. The only way this works is if Weiner has yfrog authorization in his Twitter settings prior to May 27th, something a police investigation would prove in about two seconds.

  51. lovedinthekeys says:

    I am still intrigued by the tweets in Patriot’s timeline regarding a soon to break sex scandal in NY. I truly believe Patriot is innocent — particularly after Cordova sent a tweet to him/her saying so. She called him “annoying”, but believed he had nothing to do with it. Classy person, that girl. Those tweets were speculating Rangel or Weiner.

  52. I am not presenting this as speculation. It is a theory, in the sense that gravity and evolution are theories.

    The scenario that I presented is the only explanation for the “URL anomaly” in the header. You don’t address that problem, and for understandable reasons: It’s kind of complex, and it would bore your readers.

    But the URL anomaly proves that this was a frame-up.

    Gennette is indeed a class act. She was too kind to Wolfe.

  53. Okay, I get it now. I think Weiner may be telling the truth, what little he’s actually owning up to. He claims he didn’t tweet it: I’ll take him at his word. He doesn’t disown that it’s his junk: I’ll assume it is his. He claims it was a prank: I’ll assume he’s right there, too. He knows who it was and wants to cover his butt on that front more than the @GC or #seattle front.

  54. JustAGuy says:

    Follow-up to Jeremy’s reply:

    In the first comment at the Cannonfire blog post, “milowent” writes “It worked.” and explains how the recipient’s Twitter ID can be included in the tweet by putting it in the email’s body.

    That would seem to answer the question I asked here, but it really doesn’t. In the tweet resulting from that experiment by “milowent”, the word “None” was inserted in the tweet before the @[recipient].

    The actual tweet from @RepWeiner as recorded by the Congressional Twitter website didn’t contain the word None or any words before her name. True?

    milowent’s comment explains the “None” insertion happens when the email subject sent to yfrog to post the photo is blank. So if a hacker left the email subject blank the tweet would have contained the text “None” before @Gennette***. Or if the hacker used a non-blank email subject, that word or words would have been in the tweet before her name (instead of None). But there was nothing in the tweet except her name and the yfrog URL link.

    So, while Cannonfire’s theory is interesting, doesn’t it appear inconsistent with what happened?

  55. Note to self: do not DM @stranahan with anything blogworthy.

  56. How many “This proves it was a frame up” smoking guns do we have to see from those desperately trying to prove innocence. You all thought you had the case closed with your proof the screenshot was a fake. The problem is you start with the premise of innocence and ignore all other possibilities. Bad science. Truth keeps searching.

  57. JustAGuy- If he put in the e-mail subject @Gennette whatever her name was it would be the first words of the tweet.

    By the way that last comment was directed at cannon

  58. Imagine that! It was all lies.

    Who could have ever guessed?

    God you people are stupid.

  59. JustAGuy says:

    Jeremy, thanks, I get it now.

    So the bottom line is a hacker/prankster could have done it but he would have needed to know Weiner’s yfrog email address which in general isn’t publicly known by anybody else and includes a complex string of characters – somewhat comparable to the hacker knowing Weiner’s password.

    And then on yfrog server computers, the email address from which the hacker/prankster sent it would have been recorded and still available to law enforcement if and when an investigation happens. That doesn’t mean the sending email address could be necessarily traced to a person easily, but if it’s the same email as PatriotUSA76 uses for Twitter login, or if it’s one of Weiner’s email addresses, it would point to one of those two. Or if yfrog’s data shows the tweet wasn’t generated by an email, then it would show Cannonfire’s theory wasn’t what happened.

    Also, data recorded in Twitter servers could easily verify whether or not the tweet was automatically generated via a yfrog account – and if not, it would have the recorded IP address of the device from which the tweet was entered which could also easily explain everything if law enforcement requests that information from Twitter.

    Am I following this correctly now?

  60. Come up with another new theory fast, Lee. In fact, why cover for his ass at all, he knows what happened, he just won’t say…because he did something stupid. But now, you are losing your credibility trying to cover for him. Why?

  61. Watching and reading you fucking morons pretending to know anything about twitter/yfrog/facebook security is laughable.

    Not one of you dumbasses has any clue on what you opine on. None at all.

    Try something productive and go get a fucking job.

  62. I think you have it.

    And like you said its no guarantee thats how it all went down, despite cannon’s claim.

  63. aww, i’m glad to see you concerned about my welfare jharp. that really means a lot to me :’ ]

  64. Come up with another new theory fast, Lee. In fact, why cover for his ass at all, he knows what happened, he just won’t say…because he did something stupid. But now, you are losing your credibility trying to cover for him. Why?

    I don’t think that’s what Lee is doing. Weiner is associated with the dicpic somehow, but it doesn’t necessarily mean he sent it.

    Weiner knows all, and Weiner ain’t tellin’.

  65. RocksEm says:

    There is nothing implausible about how Patriot saw it in the 1-5 seconds.
    Timeline:

    1. Patriot, obsessed for some reason, has 2 tabs open. One to his feed and one to Weiner’s. But I think Patriot saw Weiner tweet in his own feed as he follows Weiner.

    2. Twitter says “new tweet” and Patriot clinks on “new tweet” which shows Pic tweet to coed.

    3. Patriot right clicks on link to Yfrog pic and selects “Open in new tab”

    4. Patriot see pic in new tab.

    5. Clicks on tab for Patriot feed & retweets Weiner’s tweet.

    6. Retweet updates page which shows Weiner tweet gone.

    7. Total time so far? Under 5 seconds for someone who uses a computer regularly.

    8. Patriot goes back to tab with pic and tries to save or download but can’t since it has been deleted.

    9. Grabs screen grab of window with Weiner pic in it.

    Leaving a tab open for 3 hours to Weiner’s feed is nothing for someone obsessed with him for some reason. I think even Patriot would admit he was obsessed about following Weiner.

    the odd thing is that Patriot states twice what a coincidence it is Weiner is there to delete tweet in under 5 seconds. this would be no coincidence if Weiner had just sent it, seen it was public, and immediately deleted it.

  66. the odd thing is that Patriot states twice what a coincidence it is Weiner is there to delete tweet in under 5 seconds. this would be no coincidence if Weiner had just sent it, seen it was public, and immediately deleted it.

    Without refreshing the browser, would the deleted tweet disappear from the feed as you’re watching it? If not, was Patriot hitting refresh to see how long it took for AW to delete it?

  67. RocksEm says:

    “Without refreshing the browser, would the deleted tweet disappear from the feed as you’re watching it? If not, was Patriot hitting refresh to see how long it took for AW to delete it?”

    No it wouldn’t. So Patriot was either refreshing or saw it deleted from his own feed when he retweeted Weiner’s tweet. Retweeting does refresh the timeline. Which is why I think Patriot saw the tweet in his own timeline. But he could have just refreshed the Weiner feed.

  68. While Lee’s theory is reasonable and explains a lot of things, it is still a work. And I don’t think you have to accept all of it but that doesn’t mean there aren’t parts of it that are true. In fact on certain details I’m almost positive they may be true but I’m still having a hard time with the hacking. Can’t put my finger on it but the current explanation of how it was done just doesn’t quite work for me yet.

  69. RocksEm says:

    The problems with the hacking explanation, email to Weiner’s yfrog email account, is that the person would have to have known Weiner’s randomly generated Yfrog email account to email to it. The only way to know that is to get it from Weiner which explains Lee’s theory. The other problem is you do not get an email from yfrog just because you have an account. You have to specifically ask for it. There has been nothing which shows Weiner even has one. On top of that an email account on Yfrog is not needed to post pics there. So we don’t know if Weiner even had a yfrog email let alone if someone somehow knew what it was and used it to send the pic.

  70. D-money says:

    Retweeting does not refresh the stream on New Twitter.

  71. I’d be kind of amazed myself if this all turned out to be exactly what happened — but I wouldn’t be shocked a bit if it’s pretty close. The details may may be wrong, but there’s clearly more to this than meets the eye.

  72. RocksEm June 1, 2011 at 11:02 pm

    I think you’ve got them Clouseau. (rolls eyes)

    That is one of the most ridiculous and preposterous posts I have read in a long time.

    God you people are stupid.

  73. Lee June 2, 2011 at 12:20 am

    “The details may may be wrong, but there’s clearly more to this than meets the eye.”

    Got it. Really sticking your neck out with some hard hitting bold journalism there Lee. I’m sure you’ll be up for some award for that piece of brilliance.

    And somebody is paying you to post this rubbish?

    Goddamn our country is stupid.

  74. JustAGuy says:

    “Again — Weiner hadn’t said anything for 3+ hours. Why keep the page up?”

    Since Weiner tweeted earlier that he’d be going to 30 Rock to do Maddow’s show, Patriot76 might have not lurked for 3+ hours of silent time, but maybe started watching again around when Weiner would likely arrive back home?

    Maybe Pat76 was obsessively watching the feed for something like another mention of Seattle in a hashtag … and then saw the pic link as soon as it showed up?

  75. “Patriot76 might have not lurked for 3+ hours of silent time”

    This seems to be a key point here. Apparently it’s “implausible” to think the guy would have been keeping an eye on Weiner’s tweets because Weiner hadn’t tweeted for 3+ hours.

    But did the guy ever say that’s what he was doing? I mean, maybe he pulled up Weiner’s twitter profile 10 minutes before that tweet went out. Or 20 minutes. Or whatever. Point being, sure, it’s weird if he was sitting there for 3 hours obsessively watching Weiner’s page, just hoping Weiner might tweet something controversial and delete it for the first time ever. But who said that was the case?

    And here’s a point that seems to have fallen by the wayside: did Dana Loesch ever confirm if she saw the tweet when it went out? Just as it was happening, she appeared to tweet that she took screencaps. And in the aftermath, @Patriot76 seemed to suggest (if not saying outright) that he didn’t supply the screencaps that Breitbart’s site used and he believed they were Dana’s.

    If Dana confirms that she saw it, does it really matter how or why @Patriot76 saw it? We’ll know that someone other than him saw it and immediately reacted to what they saw — Dana capturing her screen while @Patriot76 retweeted it — which obviously means that you didn’t have to be part of a plot to have seen it and jumped on it.

  76. “@patriotusa76 I have screenshots of all of it. Just … so … weird.” — DLoesch 27 May

    Not entirely clear if those are her own screenshots or someone else’s.

  77. The Duke says:

    jharp is a troll.

    RocksEm is lucid. I came late to the drama but wasn’t D.Loesch supposed to go on vacation. And she caught the action too?

    RocksEm paints the picture.

  78. “… but wasn’t D.Loesch supposed to go on vacation.” She mentioned on the 27th that her vacation would be “next week.” I guess she was working the 27th.

  79. I have a theory… I’ve mentioned it a few other places, but the people here seem to know the details of this very well and I’d like to get some feedback.

    Let’s say that Weiner has in fact been engaging in inappropriate DM tweets with girls. Perhaps through a tip, the patriotusa76 crowd heard about this. Someone (not saying it was patriotusa76 himself) figured out a way to get into Weiner’s twitter account and was able to read these conversations as they were happening. I’m not saying Weiner was hacked and his password was changed. I’m saying someone had gained knowledge of Weiner’s Twitter password. The knowledge of these conversations was then leaked to a small group of twitter partisans (patriotusa76, goatred, etc.) Let’s say this has been going on for some time and started several weeks ago.

    This would explain why this crowd knew of a looming twitter sex scandal that would involve Weiner and an incriminating photo/image, as well as his inappropriate messages. But this knowledge presented a problem — how to get this info out into the world. If this was in fact going on and the “hacker” knew about it, the “hacker” couldn’t leak it himself — it was private info that was gained illegally. So why not take the incriminating photo that’s been screengrabbed (again, I’m saying that Weiner actually did DM the photo, but did it perhaps weeks ago), log into his Twitter account and make it look like Weiner “accidentally” sent it publicly. Presto — Weiner has been “outed.”

    In this scenario, both sides are technically right — Weiner was “hacked,” but Weiner actually did send the photo once upon a time and has been engaged in improper behavior. My main reasons for believing this are the following:

    - It is very odd that a bunch of girls have reportedly been DMing with Weiner
    - It is very odd that Weiner will not deny it’s his photo but said point blank he didn’t send this particular tweet
    - It is beyond odd that patriotusa76 predicted that a scandal like this one was about to break and then he miraculously was the one that stumbled upon it
    - Weiner is a smart guy. He tweets non-stop and isn’t going to make the mistake of “accidentally” sending out this photo.

    This theory would also explain why both sides — Weiner and the “hacker/s” — seem to be at a standstill. Weiner can’t really press this more because he knows it will uncover bad things and the “hacker/s” can’t release more info because it was not obtained legally. But there could always be another shoe to drop…

    Emphasize, just a theory. Feel free to shoot holes in this. Thanks.

  80. I think the answer to this mystery is to be found right on the right-hand side of this page: the big splash ad for Andrew Breitbart’s new book. Nothing like making yourself relevant to to folks that love this kind of muck than breaking a juicy sex scandal about a big-mouth Liberal Jewish Representative from New York. Way to go, Andrew.

    This scandal was perfectly timed, too. Weiner had just released the text of a letter sent to Clarence Thomas accusing him of corruption based on his financial disclosure form. This kind of knocked Thomas’ admission off the front pages, eh? Thomas and his wife receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in a “payment” from his wife’s employer, a lobbying firm with issues before the Supreme Court for whom Thomas gives a favorable ruling.We should believe that this is not a payoff ….why? Because Thomas is so demeaningly adamant that it’s an insult to even ask him about it?

    Clarence Thomas is a disgrace to out most important judiciary. He believes that he is so far above the law that he can take payoffs with impunity from a company that is a major actor in business behavior the bench, and make decisions he makes in their favor. His attitude itself demeans the Supreme Court – “Screw you, I’ll do what I want, and you can’t touch me.”

    But we aren’t ta;lking about that for the past four days. We’re all talking about an unverified, unidentified crotch shot of a guy in gray boxerswho has a big dildo in his pants, for all we know.

    The only people who believe Breitbart do so because he serves their ideology, simple as that. The man is a proven serial liar who happily posts fictitiously edited lies and is going to lose a huge amount of money in the Sherrod lawsuit. He obviously knows that, and is trying to pump up sales of his book. Even Newsmax’s use of it as a “gift” to new subscribers won’t generate enough income to salvage him financially.

  81. Scoovy: Looks good. The stalemate part is important here. If AW has a history of this, there’s a chance that someone will speak up, but that would tarnish the speaker’s reputation, etc. More stalemate.

    The stalemate seems apparent on AW’s side. It’s tough to know who’s holding out on the other side and why.

  82. Louise: You haven’t tied any of the details in your comments to the timeline of events, other than to suggest that the timing is convenient.

    If you were Weiner, how would you handle this? Like he’s handling it now? If it was Breitbart, wouldn’t Weiner go for the throat violently and publicly? Tie your speculation to what’s going on.

  83. Dave-

    I can’t speak for Dana, but the published screenshot of the tweet came from the archived congressional twitter page, where you can still see the tweet. The photo, I understand was not taken down immediately as the tweet was. Based on that info I believe that is how she got the screenshots she was referring to, so no, she would not have seen the original. But of course, I can’t speak for her.

    Louise- Did I see you in that video calling for Clarence Thomas to be sent “back to the fields” and that he and his wife should be “lynched.” I sure hope that wasn’t you. Those were awful people.

  84. Dirty Old Man says:

    If all that’s true, Weiner has a swell federal case against a comitted right wing opponent. He’s sure not acting like it, though.

  85. Wasn’t the dic-pic up for about ~4 minutes? It’s possible Patriot opened the page, saw it, and then it was deleted, although it had been up on twitter for 4 minutes already…?

  86. As I said on Cannon’s rickety post, and I will say it again here, you can come up with all the stupid theories you want, all of them seem to be ignoring this simple FACT.

    Weiner Followed Cordova. Cordova lived in Seattle. Just before the “hack,” or whatever you want to call it, Weiner tweeted about being on the Rachel Maddow show at 9. He said, “That’s5:45SEATTLE TimeIThink.”
    This cryptic non sequitur is the smoking gun. Weiner has no way to explain why he would make such a tweet.
    It proves he was in a state of mind that had him thinking about the girl in Seattle, and then a short while later a picture of his junk is sent to the very same girl.
    Wow. Weiner is one unlucky dude, to have made that cutesy message tweet to Cordova on the very night he was going to be “pranked.”
    Even if Wolfe sent it – even if Wolfe “set up Weiner”, Weiner was still flirting with Cordova. The guy, at the very least, is a friggin creep.

  87. Weiner was hanging out in his underwear watching hockey with a dude. Dude takes picture of Weiner’s package. They both think it would be funny to send to a young groupie, to give her a thrill. Dude/Weiner mess up and send public. That is why it got deleted again so fast. Weiner doesn’t want anybody to know that he was “hanging out” with dude on couch in his underwear. Very understandable.

  88. You are pretty close, Holmes. How about, he is alone. But a couple of racy DM’s go back and forth, Weiner gets a woody (at which time, I think most men would agree, you stop thinking clearly) and is proud of what she has done to him, so he decides to show her just how effective their chat has been. Hits wrong key. Hillarity ensues.

  89. Louise, evidence suggests Kagen helped to craft Obamacare. Are you calling for her to recuse herself?

  90. I believe everyone is over-analyzing this. My question is: Does it pass “A Conservative Hacked My Account” test. Absolutely not!! If this was a true hack by a conservative, Weiner would have never been so evasive in his answers. He would have immediately said he did not send the tweet. He would have immediately said that picture was not of him. He would have immediately demanded a federal investigation to find out the identity of the hacker. He would not say this is a silly prank. He would not say this is spam and happens all the time. If a democrat can take down a conservative and smear the entire republican party, they will jump at the chance and go in for the kill. A democrat would never, ever pass up the opportunity to smear the republican party unless they themselves had something to hide. Even if somehow this is a hack, Weiner’s resistance to turning this over to a federal investigation leads me to believe there are probably other things on his twitter account he doesn’t want made public.

  91. Scoovy — that’s really the broad outline of what I believe happened. I haven’t written about some of the parts you mention but they are significant.

  92. Dan wolfe is using an expression with that 1-5 seconds… we know the photo was deleted within 5 minutes and in either case it is “immediate”…

  93. I recall the original RT by Patriot was “via” another twitterer. He was tipped to SOME sort of activity on the page by this other tweeter, if not the picture tweet itself.

    The story I first heard from Patriot was that he was checking the page b/c of some tip. The timing, which you call suspect, is not necessarily, but it does require coincidence. Patriot, who does check on W’s twitter page sometimes (I don’t know how oftern), goes to the page to check out this tip. As he does this, the offending picture tweet appears like a 1000 scratch-off lotto ticket prize. The odds aren’t beyond the realm of reason, though the situation is fortuitous.

    I think the assumption that Patriot was sitting around for 3 hours just like a spider is unecessary and assumes too much. I certainly believe they suspect he is having improper communications with young women, but I don’t think Patriot and/or friend of Patriot is actually viewing his convo’s by direct message in real time.

    Also, that situation is not compatible really with the “prank” minimization. If he thought someone gained unauthorized accesss to his account, even by a password-guess, he would have
    notifed authorities, and not acted as he did with the hockey chat &c.

  94. The theory is interesting, but it still doesn’t override the obvious explanation, which is that Weiner sent the pic.

    If there were truly a hack, law enforcement would be dealing with it. Until such time as we have some credible evidence that someone other than Weiner is responsible for posting the pic, this is all wild speculation. If such evidence existed, Weiner would be leading the charge in unraveling the matter.

  95. The pic tweet was quickly deleted. An earlier interview with Weiner included a claim that he saw and deleted the offending picture tweet almost immediately. Weiner agrees with Patriot on that point, and it seems odd that Patriot’s experience of real time appearance and disappearance of the tweet in Patriot’s own view of his own screen is a claim of anything but that and what that personal view might imply. It does not mean that Patriot knows precisely how quickly Weiner reacted down to the second, but only that he saw the tweet appear in real time on P’s view of W’s page, and that it quickly disappeared – within seconds – of this view.

  96. razor419 says:

    go back and read his tweets around the time of the photo. he was talking about the way weiner was disrespecting clarence thomas earlier that afternoon. THAT’S why he was on the page. i counted about 10 tweets from weiner about clarence thomas. you are being really stupid. btw, @patriotusa76 didn’t say the photo was taken down in 1-5 seconds, he said the tweet was. in fact, he commented about the photo staying up longer than the tweet…

    patriotusa76 Dan Wolfe
    @redrivergrl @Merreee1 @mikemadden59 When he realized it wasn’t a DM he deleted the tweet right away. Then forgot to delete the yfrog.

    patriotusa76 Dan Wolfe
    @redrivergrl @Merreee1 @mikemadden59 The yfrog was up for a while before he deleted it. Many people saw. It was him.

  97. IOW, Weiner’s actions before and after are perfectly consistent with an error of his own. What would a person do who had done what he had? I know what I do when I screw up a tweet meant to be private ( or did that one time I did). I delete it immediately and do not mention it again unless someone else does.

  98. I love me some good conspiracy theories, and there have been some doozies involving #weinergate

    the simplest and most obvious scenario is the dude was DMing and accidently sent the pricture.

    anyone who has ever hit “send” on email, and then realized they sent to the wrong recipient, or who accidently ever hit “reply all”, knows all to well this stuff happens, and it makes perfect sense. His actions immediately afterwards support the simple theory that he did it.

    Scorned lovers make a good theory, but that is a whooooooole lotta work on “her” part, with rather mild results.

  99. notyouagain says:

    Here’s an even easier explanation. Weiner, who was single up until 10 months ago, had a girlfriend who took a picture of him in his underwear or he sent a pic of himself in his underwear before he was married.Neither of which is particularly Earth shattering unless you’re from the Puritan sect.GOP dirty tricksters hacked into his account, hacked it to make his weiner look huge, then sent it out.

    By the way, any info on this guy:
    http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/06/02/twitter-doesnt-speak-for-speaker.html?sid=101

    Have the FBI or police been called? I’m sure Breitbart will want to know.

  100. Not you,

    “Single” and “not married” are two very different things. He was engaged to Huma in May of ’09, which makes it a little more than ten months.

    And that’s just assuming he met and her and said, “hi, my last name is weiner. Wanna get married?”

    So, for your theory to work, and for weiner to be innocent, a jilted ex holds on to an anonymous underwear crotch shot for over 2 years, hacks the account, finds a girl who has a crush on him and send the picture exclusively to her.

    Come on, now, notyou. You’re a woman. You know that women can have that extra little oomph when it comes to doing crazy shit, but isn’t that a tad bit far fetched?

    If it were a jilted ex, than most likely its not someone from over 2 years ago. Which would still mean that weiner was cheating on huma.

    Seriously, the mental gymnastics y’all have to do to protect these slimeballs have to be exhaustive.

  101. notyouagain says:

    “If it were a jilted ex, than most likely its not someone from over 2 years ago. Which would still mean that weiner was cheating on huma.”

    I never said it was a “jilted X” I think some of you are wishing it to be so, I said it may have been an ex girlfriend.Unless you’re assuming that ex girlfriend = angry ex-girlfriend. Is there a date stamp on the picture? Did I miss something? How on Earth could you know this pics original use? Maybe it was sent to Huma when they were dating, hell, maybe she took it. Or maybe it’s an old pic from his single days. I would love to know why anyone here is assuming it’s a recent pic.
    Where is any shread of proof that he was sending it out to women who are folowing him on twitter? You would think at least one would come out into the spotlight. There’s some “mental gymnastics” being done on this site, that’s for sure.

  102. windansea says:

    I’m thinking this yfrog hack theory is bunk now. Weiner can’t deny the photo is him because his wife knows it is him, she knows his underwear and also in the photo you can see some distinctive flooring, probably in their house.

    Weiner made up the hack theory so he can tell wife he did not send it to the coed. If he really was hacked he would have gone to FBI immediately.

  103. Ok, so it was an exgirlfriend, who was so happy about being dumped, that she hacked weiners account?

    Or are you saying it was Huma? They’ve been together since at least 2007. The problem is, there’s a very simple explanation, and it doesn’t require a conspiracy.

    He can’t say that its not a picture of him. The picture went from his yfrog to his twitter to the girl who has a crush on him. After not being on twitter for what, 3 hours, he spots the hacked message within minutes, without anyone alerting him to it. Then, his yfrog is deleted along with the girl’s twitter account.

    I know when I get an email from a friend offering free viagra (the surest sign one has been hacked), I don’t respond by deleting my email account.

    Its not the tweet that’s the scandal anymore. Its the cover-up.

  104. notyouagain says:

    “Ok, so it was an exgirlfriend, who was so happy about being dumped, that she hacked weiners account?”
    OMG,what?
    The picture was hacked out of his yfrog account. Where did I imply it was hacked by an ex girlfriend?

    “Its not the tweet that’s the scandal anymore. Its the cover-up.”

    Right, keep moving those goalposts.
    What “cover up”? He’s hired computer experts to find the hack, I think Breitbark may be getting nervous.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/republican-ohio-speaker-appears-to-support-democrats-liberal-groups-thanks-to-twitter-hacker/2011/06/02/AGGPS7GH_story.html

    still no answer on why this guy hasn’t called in the FBI or when Breitbart will cover it. “Hacking is a serious crime” right, Breitbart?

  105. windansea says:

    LOL notyouagain

    Breitbart and all of us would love for FBI to investigate, Weiner is the one who does not want to go there. Guess why? Cuz he wants to save taxpayers money…hahahaaha

    all it would cost is an order to twitter and yfrog to cough up the data on who did what

  106. My apologies notyou. I thought you were saying that he sent it to an ex and that’s who was hacking him. To clarify, you’re just stating that he could have taken the pic for either his wife or an ex, and that’s how it was in his yfrog?

    And why would breitbart be nervous? All he’s done is report it. Oh, I forgot. He’s got that (D) after his name. Its obviously the reporters fault for covering the story. That makes sense.

  107. still no answer on why this guy hasn’t called in the FBI or when Breitbart will cover it. “Hacking is a serious crime” right, Breitbart?

    If I had to guess, I’d say that it’s because there is a list of people who have his password, and he doesn’t seem to be one of them. This is his work account and he doesn’t use it, staffers do. It could have been any one of them, or anyone who knows any of them. When a password is floating around, it’s insecure.

    In Weiner’s case, this is his personal account, and he’s tech savvy. His staffers aren’t tweeting on that account, Weiner is. If I were him and I were hacked like that, I’d call the cops. Would you?

  108. He’s hired computer experts to find the hack, I think Breitbark may be getting nervous.

    You don’t need to be much of an expert. You just need access to the Twitter and yfrog logs, which cops with subpoenas would get in a New York minute. Private lawyers, not so much.

  109. blaster says:

    You know what would also explain all of this? Weiner accidentally tweeted the pic and lied about it.

  110. Johnny 5 is alive says:

    Or maybe it was Col. Mustard in the Study with a candlestick?

    It’s a damn shame we don’t have an agency that investigates such “crimes”…

    Sorry not wanting an official investigating is an admission of guilt in my book. You can turn the kaleidoscope of what if’s all day long. All it does is make reality look far more confusing than it actually is.

    Has anyone brought in time travel to the equation? It certainly isn’t outside the realm of possibilities, is it? You never know someone might know how to time travel. What about Dick Chenney has he been blamed yet? There has to be some evidence that he’s involved too if we just look hard enough.

    What about Bush!?!

    He’d be the trigger man for Chenney’s diabolical scheme.

    What about Breitbart? Oh never mind he has already been blamed. So it’s Breitbart and Patriot76 and not all the people acting suspiciously that are actually in control of the two accounts. Yep nothing to see here move along.

    Lee you’re letting the old liberal side of your brain do mental gymnastics to make the improbable possible. Unless of course you blog has been #hacked !!!!111!!!

    New theory Lee’s blog has been hacked by Weiner to put for this preposterous theory.

  111. notyouagain says:

    Could someone please point out to one case of the police or FBI investigating a Twitter hack (besides the president’s twitter page). Just one?

    When will the republican from Ohio be calling in the police? Anyone?

    Here’s the easiest explanation yet: Weiner and his new wife like to send each other sexy pics,someone found them and posted them. Weiner doesn’t think he owes Breitbart an explanation.

  112. Why would this picture be used? Is there no better one? Is it a hint to Weiner that a better, more incriminating one is out there?

  113. “Here’s the easiest explanation yet: Weiner and his new wife like to send each other sexy pics…”

    So the underwear pic is sexy, eh? O.o

    It’s not easier than the theory that Weiner forgot to type the letter ‘d’ when DMing GC.

    “Weiner doesn’t think he owes Breitbart an explanation.”

    Weiner doesn’t seem to think he owes anyone an explanation.

  114. Could someone please point out to one case of the police or FBI investigating a Twitter hack (besides the president’s twitter page). Just one?

    If you just want one, why isn’t Obama’s sufficient?

    Here’s the easiest explanation yet: Weiner and his new wife like to send each other sexy pics,someone found them and posted them. Weiner doesn’t think he owes Breitbart an explanation.

    He didn’t sit down for hour upon hour in interviews yesterday with Breitbart. This is not a story about Breitbart, regardless of how much you’d like it to be. No one disputes that the tweet came from Weiner’s account. Who sent it? How did they get the picture? Those are the questions that everyone is asking, and that Weiner doesn’t seem to want an answer to.

  115. notyouagain says:
  116. Notyou,
    That’s not the easiest answer, just one you’re hoping for. The easy answer is weiner made a mistake, and now he’s lied about it.

  117. notyouagain says:

    “Who sent it? How did they get the picture?” Isn’t that exactly what he said he hired the experts to find out? Why, yes it was.

  118. “Who sent it? How did they get the picture? Isn’t that exactly what he said he hired the experts to find out?”

    Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to go to the police or FBI?

  119. Notyou,
    What does that article prove? That the guy who tipped journalists (which used to be a confidential thing, in which journalists used to willingly serve jail time than give up their tipsters) is having personal problems with his exwife? How is that important?

    Or are you still shooting the messenger?

  120. notyouagain says:

    “Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to go to the police or FBI?”

    Please explain why this would be a criminal matter as opposed to a civil matter. Show me the law which makes this criminal. If it is criminal, why isn’t the representative from Ohio who JUST got hacked calling the police?

  121. starboardhelm says:

    Could be. More likely they were just keeping an eye on his tweets, and pounced the moment he made a mistake. Either way, he was misusing his official account to play sex games with his groupies. The victim here? Taxpayers.

  122. “Please explain why this would be a criminal matter as opposed to a civil matter. ”

    Likewise, show me how this isn’t. He claims he was hacked. That’s a crime. He backpedaled to say it was a prank. If so, what did he learn that made him change terms? Anything? If he knows it’s a prank, what is there left for him to investigate privately? Why does he believe that private investigators would be better than federal ones even in a civil case? Does anyone know whether this is criminal or civil until law enforcement has investigated?

    “If it is criminal, why isn’t the representative from Ohio who JUST got hacked calling the police?”

    Nobody else is doing it, so why should Weiner? When Weiner uses this as his defense, I might take it seriously. Weiner has to give an explanation for his own actions, just like the “representative from Ohio” does.

  123. starboardhelm says:

    You’re a US Rep, and you believe your official taxpayer funded twitter account has been hacked, phished or spoofed. Do you:

    A) Report it immediately to the proper authorities so they can investigate, find the culprit, and plug the security hole

    B) Delete all evidence, accuse the people who exposed the problem of creating it, hire a lawyer and/or private security firm, lie to the media, and refuse to answer simple, direct questions about the matter?

    B is not the reaction of an injured person — unless that injured person has something very big to hide indeed. And frankly, that dic-pic alone just doesn’t seem big enough (tongue firmly in cheek) to justify his behavior. If he had just fessed up it was his dic-pic (maybe meant for his wife? and oopsy?) and taken his lumps early on, then this whole thing would probably have blown over by now.

  124. notyouagain says:

    “Likewise, show me how this isn’t. He claims he was hacked. That’s a crime. He backpedaled to say it was a prank. If so, what did he learn that made him change terms? Anything? If he knows it’s a prank, what is there left for him to investigate privately? Why does he believe that private investigators would be better than federal ones even in a civil case? Does anyone know whether this is criminal or civil until law enforcement has investigated?”

    Here’s a good explanation of why from Smoking Gun:

    I work in IT security: there is no reason to call in the FBI just yet. A trained computer forensics expert can come in and pull any and all necessary data to see if the hack warrants a call to the FBI. I’m really tired of seeing the meme that Weiner must be guilty of something since he hasn’t called in the Feebies. It’s not to that point. What we know is that he has contacted an attorney who has contacted an expert. When that expert does his analysis, then we see if it gets turned over to the FBI. Our team does this all the time: sometimes we turn it over to law enforcement and sometimes it’s considered a private matter reserved for civil court.

  125. notyouagain- the problem is nobody really expects a team hired by Weiner to announce that Weiner did, in fact, post the picture and accidentally publicly tweet it.

    Now, Weiner could easily call Twitter and yFrog and ask if there was unusual activity on his verified account. If he has done so, he has not announced the answer.

  126. starboardhelm says:

    notyouagain: in this situation, that would work IF Weiner had contacted campus security right away and they had started that process or advised him to. In which case, he could just say that’s what’s happening. Instead he seems bent on avoiding ANY official investigation, and all his dancing around the issue is making him look really guilty of something.

  127. “Here’s a good explanation of why from Smoking Gun…”

    I think that’s a reasonable justification for a corporation or a private citizen. Weiner is a US congressman. I expect him to treat the hack/prank like an affront to his position.

    I don’t think “Weiner must be guilty,” as TSG suggests. I would rather learn that Weiner has been fully devoted to his wife and not been an online creep. Weiner himself is making this difficult for me to believe by avoiding giving straight answers.

  128. Another possibility (fanciful but possible) The congressman AND his wife like to send sexy pictures of girls or she is voyeur/participant in his convo’s with pretty young girls. If this seems very bad manners to contemplate, I’m sorry. There are those rumors, however, that she is a lesbian/bisexual.

    I have a twitter Ap on my iphone with accts of hubby and myself set up with ability to toggle betweent them. I have posted as my husband by accident before. The point being that a playful person could snap a pic and send it by mistake to the wrong account.

  129. FlameCCT says:

    Lee,

    One problem with the hypothesis. Using a phone to upload or post is tracked the same as a computer. Which means that the upload/post can be tracked through the service provider in either case. Oh and BTW, @PatriotUSA76/Dan Wolfe has already said he would cooperate with any formal investigation to prove it did not originate from him.

    Better hypothesis would be either Anthony posted it and then realized that it was public so he deleted it (Occam’s Razor) or Huma was tired of his philandering and posted it. Either of these explain why Anthony would not want a formal investigation.

  130. Ratskeller says:

    As a long time bachelor Weiner was pretty well known as a pushy and not -too- terribly- discriminating -in- women playa in both NYC and Washington. He’s been married less than a year. His past reputation makes present associations and interactions with busty young women over the internet not that hard to believe.

  131. notyouagain says:

    “Weiner was pretty well known as a pushy and not -too- terribly- discriminating -in- women playa in both NYC and Washington”

    And you know this how?

  132. Ratskeller says:

    Not you–why don’t you check out those new fangled search engines they’ve got here on the internets. You may be surprised what is there going back a number of years. Here’s just one article about Weiner’s modus operandi in his playboy past to get you started, sweetie.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-31/anthony-weiner-twitter-hack-and-his-playboy-past/?cid=bsa:mostpopular3

  133. “I work in IT security: there is no reason to call in the FBI just yet. A trained computer forensics expert can come in and pull any and all necessary data to see if the hack warrants a call to the FBI.”

    Fake comment. All this expert could do is see if Weiner’s personal comm devices were tampered/accessed. Wiener says he was “hacked.” So, an “expert” can go to Twitter and say “gimme the addresses” of people not his client? Ha, ha. Joke.

  134. Occam’s Razor, folks. Weiner is a creep (anyone shocked by that?) and sent a pic via Twitter rather than his intended DM. Close the books. The cover up is the story. Schadenfreude reigns. Halleluia.

  135. starboardhelm says:

    Simpler explanations:
    How the photo got into Weiner’s Twit Stream — Weiner uploaded it.
    Weiner’s claim he didn’t send the photo — Weiner’s lying.
    Weiner’s refusal to say the photo wasn’t him — It’s him.
    Some bizarre behavior I’ve witnessed from @PatriotUSA76 — ??? Need details. Could be he’s afraid of retaliation for exposing this creep.
    @PatriotUSA76 saying repeatedly that anyone could look at their computer — He’s clean.
    The EXIF on the photo not matching — Weiner edited (resized, cropped) the photo.
    Weiner’s claim today “Pictures can be manipulated. Pictures can be dropped in and inserted.” — Smoke. He does not claim *his* picture was “dropped in or inserted”.
    Weiner statements that he had not called police to investigate the matter — Weiner is avoiding lying to police.
    Gennette’s claim not to be involved — Her part is a passive role anyway.

  136. starboardhelm: Weiner may have sent the picture, although I think it’s a minor point either way. If he sent it, maybe he sent it to the wrong person. If he didn’t send it, maybe it was a hack or a prank, etc. I’m willing to accept Weiner’s denial about sending it because he has confirmed or denied so little else, and because it doesn’t matter a whole lot if he’s lying.

    I think the EXIF is a red herring. A different device would have different info. Editing the photo to crop it may have altered the info as well.

    Agreed on the rest. I think that GC may have panicked or have received advice to do certain things, which drew more attention to her. Whatever the case, she’s not a big part of this. Same goes for #thats545inseattleithink, which was never scrubbed by Weiner. I assume it was for her as a fan who likes watching him on TV, but that’s nothing.

    The heat went from GC to Patriot, and I’m starting to think that’s a dead-end as well.

    I think Lee and others seriously f-d up by publishing DMs and private e-mails with Patriot. That’s pretty shitty.

  137. DontGetMad,But.. says:

    Lee,

    Please dont take this the wrong way, but having wrote–

    “@PatriotUSA76 –a person that we actually know almost nothing about, by the way. For example, I don’t know for sure that their name is Dan Wolfe or even their gender. ”

    — then why in the world would Breitbart trust him as a source?

  138. “— then why in the world would Breitbart trust him as a source?”

    While he was the “source”, everything he gave to Breitbart was verifiable… he wasn’t the only one who saw the photo or even took a screenshot of it(there is an iphone screenshot around). The tweet is archived on tweetcongress.org…. etc…

  139. Here’s a theory — how do we know Huma wasn’t the one? She’s been very mum. Weiner would have a good reason to protect her and call it a “prank.”

    So she looks at his twitter account on his phone. She sees the DMs back and forth. They start fighting. He misses the hockey game (hence the “ha ha” TiVo comment.) She says something along the lines, “let’s just give this b– what she wants,” snaps a photo and uploads it. Tony says, “WTF are you doing!?!?”, grabs the phone, sees what she’s sent, and then immediately deletes it, hoping no one saw the impulse tweet.

    It’s pretty Hollywood and I have nothing to back it up, but it’s a fun story.

  140. Maybe she’s jealous of the attention he gives to hockey instead of her! Maybe she sabotaged the TiVo. In a fit of rage, he threatens to send a photo of his junk to a groupie. He says, “I’ll do it! I’m taking my pants off! I’m holding a camera to my junk!” But then he accidentally does it, begs Huma’s forgiveness, then cleans up the evidence as best as possible. Then goes back to watching hockey.

    I think your story is more plausible, Phelps. :D

  141. Johnny 5 is alive says:

    What if he wasn’t hacked specifically.

    What if someone broke into his house and found him having a wet dream in his undies. They snap a picture of Mr. Happy with his BB and quietly upload it to yfrog. They can do this because all of his devices have his passwords stored in their memory. Then he finds the first bimbo that’s following him and sends the Mr. Happy pic. Unfortunately while sneaking back out this ninja tweeter knocked over a lamp and woke Weiner from his wet dream. Weiner being an incredibly smart guy instantly deduces what has happened and deletes the ninja tweet.

    Anthony isn’t confirming or denying because it’s the best picture he’s ever seen of Mr. Happy and he doesn’t really mind it being out there. That much seems to be pretty clear. That’s my theory and I’m sticking to it. Although in the “what if” game every answer is the right answer. The only thing that hold anyone back in this game is a lack of imagination.

  142. Oh, I know. That’s not his junk, that’s his secret boyfriend’s junk. That’s Barney Frank’s junk.

  143. Just a guess says:

    I think he and his wife Huma were goofing around. He or She took a pic of Mr. Happy and it was on their personal computer. Recently, she and Rep. Wiener had an argument and Huma,who has the password, sent the pic of Mr. Happy to one of the young girls Rep. Wiener follows because she was upset and jealous for some reason. That would explain how Rep Wiener knew it was there to quickly delete it. This would explain the prank aspect of what Rep Wiener is claiming as well as why he claims there’s no need to investigate further. He’s trying to keep their personal life out of the media.

  144. methuselah says:

    one point about “Someone should talk about coincidence of why Weiner was right there to delete tweet. That’s a big coincidence too.”

    No. I have a couple of twitter accounts and they are wired up to my phones. In certain times of day I am quite tuned into those accounts. And…I’ve had many of my social media accounts hacked at times when those companies were vulnerable. Being smarter than the average bear, I know that nothing was compromised and quickly regained control of the accounts.

    When you add to the mix that this is funneled through scumbag Brietbart’s rag, it doesn’t take long to see the snake in the grass. This was the same game played a couple of years back where Freepers were salivating over a photo of “Kenyan Dress” and Barack Obama. Yet, nobody noticed that the first reference in that time period to the photo was days before in a freeper post where they sought to get it to Matt Drudge. When it broke through the news as a “clinton campaign circulates photo to smear Obama” meme…freepers involved were pissed. Did the media catch that? Nope. Because CNN doesn’t know who the Free Republic is.

    It will be nice to see how long Brietbart and this twit with severe legal problems patriot76fool can tread water. And FoxNews and Chris Matthews won’t rescind their previous comments of guilt

  145. Lucretia Pruitt says:

    Seriously. What is the aversion to Occam’s Razor that people dealing with politicians’ misdeeds seem to have?
    All other things being equal, simpler explanations are generally better than more complex ones, friends.
    What we know is that there’s an inappropriate photo that was in Wiener’s stream, directed at a 21 year old co-ed, that was outed by a non-identified person who seems to object to Wiener and watches his stream closely.
    Keep theories down to the ones that don’t involve herculean leaps of logic until you have reason to make them more complex. We don’t know if Wiener sent it or someone else. We can pretty much say that his refusal to deny that it’s his, the picture is of his crotch. He’s had some questionable but not obviously-inappropriate contact with young girls on Twitter. At this point, it would appear that he needs to realize that putting pictures of your crotch anywhere on the Internet means you can expect the rest of the Internet to see it – and as a congresscritter? No following or engaging young women on Twitter is a good policy for him to adopt.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] Left wing bloggers have discovered that it’s not hard to get yFrog to send out twitters with photolinks that appear to come from someone else. Some right [...]

  2. [...] Stranaham has several interesting theories in the works one that involves both Weiner being hacked AND the theory that Rep Weiner has something to hide that an investigation … thus avoiding it. (Ace calls “nonsense” on [...]

  3. [...] What’s  Breitbart driving at? His colleague Stranahan gives some clues: [...]

  4. [...] was communicating only via e-mail and declined my request to speak on the phone) and that the Rep KNOWS both who and how the tweet was [...]

  5. [...] Breitbart began to raise suspicions on his own Twitter feed about Wolfe’s involvement in the incident in recent days, calling on him to come forward about his role, and is currently linking to a post on his Big Government website that questions whether @patriotusa76 did, in fact, hack Weiner’s account. [...]

  6. [...] Breitbart began to raise suspicions on his own Twitter feed about Wolfe’s involvement in the incident in recent days, calling on him to come forward about his role, and is currently linking to a post on his Big Government website that questions whether @patriotusa76 did, in fact, hack Weiner’s account. [...]

  7. [...] people who wanted to have phone conversations with ‘Wolfe’ and he declined. This has led to my speculation could, in fact, be a [...]

  8. [...] http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoint…This has led Breitbart to come to a new interesting theory:http://leestranahan.com/a-new-bi…We know from the timeline that RepWeiner didn’t have a public tweet for 3+ hours.Then the picture [...]

  9. [...] Mediaite’s Colby Hall On WPIX: Weinergate Photo From A Prior Relationship? Written on June 3, 2011 by admin in Media Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.Powered by Wp Greetings Plugin By: Make MoneyAs the controversy surrounding Rep. Anthony Weiner’s photographic Twitter scandal continues to swell, Mediaite Managing Editor Colby Hall appeared on WPIX New York’s News at Ten, with Jodi Applegate, to lend his own talking head to the proceedings. While most of the spot was devoted to placing the rampant speculation into context, Hall did make a few novel points, such as the possibility that the photograph in question was from a “prior relationship,” which would explain the Congressman’s current caginess, without the presumption of guilt that accompanies much of the current speculation. As we’ve noted here before, rampant speculation accompanied the flood of circumstantial evidence as the scandal unfolded, but much of that speculation focused only on Rep. Weiner’s guilt. The more facts emerge, the muddier that issue gets. Rep. Weiner’s refusal to say “with certitude” that the picture wasn’t of his Member of Congress has led many to conclude that, while evidence (first reported by Mediaite) suggests he did not send the photo, he is guilty of something. [...]

  10. [...] favor of Ace of Spades’ keep-it-simple Weiner-did-it theory (as opposed to the complicated Stranahanian ‘maybe-he’s-really-an-ex-girlfriend-possibly-a-jealous-one’ theory). That’s what Patterico thinks, and [...]

  11. [...] also not good for the Yfrog theory I mentioned here…the technical part, at least. As the world has attempted to make sense of Rep. Anthony [...]

  12. [...] a Twitter conversation with Lee Stranahan Wolfe said he was viewing Anthony Weiner’s Twitter page when the unsettling photo appeared. [...]

Leave a Reply