Weiner admits tweeting with a minor
He says there was nothing indecent going on. Do we have any reason to believe anything he says, though? I’m just spitballing here, but he may, just may, be only admitting to as much as he absolutely has to. And with Patterico’s prosecutorial brief, lying about not tweeting with any minor at all became untenable.
Rep. Anthony Weiner sent private electronic messages to a 17-year-old Delaware girl but maintains there was nothing inappropriate in his communications with her.
In a statement to Roll Call Friday evening, the New York Democrat’s spokeswoman Risa Heller said, “According to Congressman Weiner, his communications with this person were neither explicit nor indecent.”
Heller’s statement comes after the New Castle County Police Department questioned the girl Friday afternoon, according to Fox News, which said it had reporters present at the home when police arrived.
Weiner became a “follower” of the girl, who is 17, on Twitter in April, and subsequently sent her direct messages. The content of those messages was unknown Friday.
Their content won’t be unknown forever, Weiner. Keep lawyerin’ up.
More: The evidence that Patterico used to build the case that Weiner was at least DMing with a minor has been out there from the beginning of this story (and for the record, the DMing itself ought to be grounds for Pelosi to finally demand his resignation, whether it was explicit or not). Roger posted about it here on the Tatler back on May 29, and Ace and Patterico and Robert Stacy McCain have followed it throughout. But the media really earned the title “mediots” on this one. They not only didn’t want to touch Weinergate with a 10-foot pole when it first broke — Howard Kurtz even declared it “fake” at one point, and Jeffrey Toobin tried turning the whole thing back around on Breitbart — they haven’t followed up on this angle at all until Patterico had to put the evidence out where it was undeniable. And still, the media only gets around to looking at the story at all because the police visit demanded some kind of coverage. Do they need it all written out at a “See Spot Run” level? Would that help you guys, if we translated all this down to its simplest possible form?
Anyway, to the mainstream media from the blogosphere, you’re welcome. Blogs did all the legwork on this one. All of it. Y’all want to sit around reading Sarah Palin’s banal emails and let a sitting Congressman get away with being an online predator, fine. We’ll do your jobs for you. But don’t lecture us about accuracy or flaunt your layers and layers of editors and fact checkers at us in the future.
And don’t think you’ll get away with any fakery of your own. Those days ended with Dan Rather’s memos. We’re the blogs, and we’ll fact check you every time. Count on it.
Pat is an outstanding person and an excellent prosecutor. He saw where all the evidence was leading and built the layers of circumstantial evidence as he could without the power to obtain documents or witness statements.
IF…the “following” of a high school girl is the “only” thing, it still is disturbing on a monumental level.
Here’s why. We saw how he treated the woman in Vegas. We saw how he treated the girl in Seattle. We know the pattern of behavior. If SHE crossed the line and he was merely the “recipient” of 17 year old sexual interactions…it’s not because he didn’t go looking for it and putting the verbal candy into the internet atmosphere.
So, let’s not be disingenuous here, Congressman. If he never got to the stage of photographing his private parts, but he WILLINGLY accepted and induced this behavior in a minor…he has crossed the last line.
The girl tweeted about 69ing, using honey mustard as lube. In a public tweet. Where she also mentioned Weiner.
So, yeah… I’d say there’s about a 98.975% chance that there was inappropriate private conversations between them. Since she’s underage, it doesn’t matter if he knew or if she initiated that conversation. It was his duty, as the adult, to put an end to it. At the very least, what he did was improper and brought dishonor onto his position as a sitting member of Congress. (Sorry about the various puns in that sentence.)
He needs to go. Yesterday. Before this gets any worse.
Why is this guy still in office?
A more important question is why do “journalists” like Toobin, Kurtz, Barbara Walters, etc. still have jobs?
When will the public finally tell the mediots who hide their heads in the sand in order to pretend they don’t see stories they don’t care to report that we’re once and for all finally done with them? We need to tell them we no longer accept them as the watchdogs they’re supposed to be.
Someone like Jon Stewart can be excused for going easy on Weiner, since Stewart isn’t an actual journalist. But the same can’t be said for Walters and the rest. If thee people fail to ask tough or impertinent questions of the political class because it might jeopardize a friendship or get them cut from the chic cocktail party guest list, then they need to hang up their press pass, because they’re utterly useless to us.
You’re right, Bryan, that at a time when the media finds it necessary to sift through Palin’s emails, no one seems all that concerned with what Weiner might have been doing. It’s this double standard — this complete lack of proportion that is driving me nuts. We’re trying to hang Palin for not saying something nice… but the left defends Weiner for sending wiener pictures to women who were not his wife?
This was not the week for the MSM to go after Palin’s emails, and most of the country can see that. Welp… it’ll be the MSM’s loss when they no longer have readers/viewers.
I find it absolutely fascinating that Breitbart was blamed for this. The MSM and Weiner went after Breitbart to accuse him of hacking, I guess. The entire MSM bought into that lie. They are truly unreliable and have forfeited their journalistic integrity. From now on, I will get my news from the bloggers, from Drudge, from Free Republic, and from big government.
You know, I’ve caught hell from my print colleagues for my move into the blogosphere. But you know, I take every snort of derision from them as a compliment, for all the reasons Bryan listed above. I’ve broken stories here the MSM wouldn’t touch and watched the men and women HERE I’m far more honored to be able to call colleague do so as well.
Good on ya blogs!
Enter the Weiner Roast Pool at http://nosheepleshere.blogspot.com/2011/06/enter-weiner-roast-pool.html
As long as we keep electing the Weiners and the Franks… ha ha! that link was funny!
Was it Mark Twain that said “Those that respect the law and love sausage should watch neither being made”? I wonder if he ever contemplated actual reps with sausage-like names making laws.
This is a comedian’s dream. The possibilities for jokes are endless! I bet you someone named Oscar Mayer or Jimmy Dean is preparing to run for a seat in the house as we speak!
The last century had Teddy the Swimmer, this century will have Tony the Twitter.
["Blogs did all the legwork on this one. All of it."] Legwork? Care to share what legwork you’ve done?
Here’s the problems. The socalled MSM actually has to apply their trade within the the laws of the land. Heck, I think most of them actually have real employment contracts with ethics clauses.
Then, we have some in your line of work claiming to be news journalists seeking the right to be recognized as such. The only contract this bunch seemingly has falls neatly within the definition of vigilante. Its fine and dandy that somebody discovered Weiners activities and publically reported it. Thats not an issue! What some of the ‘blogoshpere’ have done beyond [reporting] the news in context is the problem. Circumventing the legal processes of ‘legitimate’ allegations in a vigilante fashion is…wrong! For example, in the more than warranted obsessive writings, many have made criminal allegations, tried and convicted the man on those allegations, that have yet to be established by any legitimate law enforcement and court process.
Is that the constitutional process? Is that what you want news journalism to represent? Personally, I think you’re better representing news commentating and opinionating…not in any sense news journalism!
Yo TT: Vigilante? You mean like all the MSM, that have those awesome ethics clauses you pant over, posting thousands of Palin posts and asking readers to scour them for juicy tidbits?
So if a blogger uncovers the truth, that’s a vigilante. You mean, like a private citizen shooting a violent home invader at 3AM? Should have left that to the professionals, who have ethics clauses in their contracts.
Last time I checked, the First Amendment applied to all, not just those licensed to post things on the internet. I mean, let’s take you, for example. Can’t have it both ways, unless you’re a statist thug wannabe.
Amen Howard, and I don’t know any journalists with ethics clauses in their contracts. In point of fact, out side of broadcast pukes I don’t know any journalists with contracts — and I’ve been in the business 15 years.
Oh, God, you make me laugh T.T.
First, I, like many others on this site am a mainstream journalist. Second the activities you call “vigilante” (and since no one has killed anyone or otherwise taken the law into their hands they’re not actually vigilantes per se) is all standard practice for the liberal media you so obviously love.
Let me ask you a question T.T., how long have YOU been a journalist?
And let’s not forget, you can have an ethics clause in a contract and it’s only good for compost. Look at Weiner, who took an oath to defend the Constitution. No ethics there. Like Patrick, I am a professional journalist, and hold myself to certain standards because it’s the right thing to do, not because some self-appointed demi-god tells me to act professionally.
Patrick….I’m not a journalist! I’ve had two very long ‘real’ careers and hold todays ‘journalists’ in very low regards.
Let me see if can can grasp your logic of defense. You don’t like the works of the ‘left media’ propaganda machines so you’ve conceived this great plan of retaliation….. jump into the sewer and be just like them. Thats a really great strategy! Like two city gangs going at it with each side puffed up in front of their respective turf groupies….while the rest of the world could care less….in fact, never even heard of them.
Network and cable primetime ‘news journalist’ gloat over their perceived prestige and power over what realitically is a very, very small fraction of America’s population. Methinks you’re chasing their illusions of grandeur. Then of course, comes the debate of what is a news journalist versus a news commentator and opinionator. There are few political news journalist! There are thousands of political commentators, opinionators and assassins…..none, whom have much regards to fact or anything more than the superfical and bias commenting….and in far to many instances reduce themselves down to assassins. So, yes, there are no shortages of vigilantes in todays arena of political operatives trying to purport themselves as legitmate news journalists.
Now, my obervations and conslusions does grant impunity to a number of folks on PJM but, when one or more begin to display symptoms of clinical obsession over a duly reported subject with indications of motives greater than the simple reporting of the known facts…..well, that crosses the line. They are not representative of legitimate journalists!
Oh dear lord T.T. you’re a riot! Journalism not a “real” career? That one had me busting a gut. I work very long hours in the trenches doing stories on everything from county commission meetings to waste fraud and abuse in Washington D.C.
As for “real journalists” not having opinions or interjecting those opinions in their stories. That’s rich. Ever heard of William Allen White? How about William Randolph Hearst?
Oh wait, but you don’t actually know anything about the history of the profession do you?
See “Journalistic objectivity” is a very recent phenomenon. Certainly in the 1780s when the founders were writing the First Amendment it did not exist. Newspapers all had their political axe to grind and did so with glee and abandon.
Tell me, which is more unethical, a place like PJM which makes no bones about it’s conservative slant and yet at least makes the attempt to be fair to all sides, or CNN which tries to hide it’s liberal slant while making no attempt to be fair?
For good or ill the profession is returning to its roots, where blue collar guys with a pencil behind their ear are working their way up from the bottom (which trust me is how it was as recently as 30 years ago) rather than smug, elitest knownothings with college degrees and zero writing ability.
Pure silliness! And don’t try to lump yourself in with all the folks at PJM. There are some who can write without personalized attacks and can actually focus on real issues with objectiveness and realtive substance.
[..."place like PJM which makes no bones about it’s conservative slant and yet at least makes the attempt to be fair to all sides..."]
What! You think I fell out of the womb yesterday? Representing both sides of anything in ‘fairness’ is for both sides to state their cases in the grand old adversarial fashion of first hand. Theres good cause why ‘journalist’ especially, the political variety, are fast becoming equals in reputation to used car salesmen and lawyers.
Theres nothing more annoying than to watch and listen to folks in the first hand and then have it followed by some idiot telling us what they or he really said….or meant to say. You’re not any different than any other ‘journalist’ who cherry picks and opinionates….at least on here!
So, I will continue to rely on what the folks actually running for office have to say and independently think and reason through their rhetoric. That said, I do enjoy having some dialog with commentors online in this type of arena and even some ‘journists’ when I think they’re getting a little nuts. Other than that I thoroughly enjoy reading several authors here on PJM who post a variety of topics.