Weinergate

[Neotrotsky]

Sending unsolicited sexual photos to young girls is both a crime and quite related to this story.

Of course, in your house this may be a common practice, so your confusion is understandable

Was the girl underage?

Since when does sexual harassment depend on age?

God, why can't liberals ever man up to their leaders mistakes

 

[shintao]

It appears that Rep. Weiner may have sent a naughty pic to a woman on Twitter.

He's claiming his account was hacked, but that's a lame excuse.

This evening a photo surfaced on Congressman Weiner’s yfrog account and in his verified Twitter timeline of a man in his underwear with an erection. The photo was reportedly sent to a woman on Twitter. We’ve protected her name and her account, which was at one time verified to be active but has since been deleted after the photo in question was deleted. Coincidentally, the rest of the photos in the congressman’s alleged yfrog account were also deleted around 11 p.m. eastern.

Weinergate: Congressman Claims “Facebook Hacked” As Lewd Photo Hits Twitter - Big Journalism

That pic looks more like a leanection, and no more porn than a women in T-Shirt, or a women in a T-shirt with erect nipples. In otherwords a FAIL!!!!!!!!!!

Here is porn.

 

[Vast LWC]

TIP:


What you can do to help:
The humble Rep. Weiner may want to play down this criminal action but now you can help. We (Gateway Pundit Truth Alliance) are offering a $200 reward for anyone who offers information that leads to the arrest and conviction of the Weinergate penis hacker.

And....

You do realize that by reposting the image you just did, you are publicly disseminating the image you just made a big deal out of him sending to a single woman.

How many underage girls now have access to that image through your posting?

Good work. You're now guilty of whatever crime you accused him of times a million...

 

[Neotrotsky]

TIP:


What you can do to help:
The humble Rep. Weiner may want to play down this criminal action but now you can help. We (Gateway Pundit Truth Alliance) are offering a $200 reward for anyone who offers information that leads to the arrest and conviction of the Weinergate penis hacker.

And....

You do realize that by reposting the image you just did, you are publicly disseminating the image you just made a big deal out of him sending to a single woman.

How many underage girls now have access to that image through your posting?

Good work. You're now guilty of whatever crime you accused him of times a million...

Yes and can I take full credit for it- unlike Rep Weiner and unlike Weiner the photo is not directed towards any one individual



Yes there is not enough information out yet to make any clear conclusion
It is however, good for now for some fun.


Again, the MSM and the Left holds themselves to lower standards

Look at the Edward story and how long the MSM sat on it, especially when there was chance he could be a VP choice.

It actually took a "tabloid" to break and pursue the story
Even the whole Clinton story was held back until an internet blog was the first to release it.
I have no doubt, if this was someone from the Right then it would be all over the news.


Nor do I believe if true that it was done out of stupidity.
Mistake, yes! When one messages on twitter, it can be public or private; easy to make a mistake.
Oddly enough, she was one of his links out of 91; so he could private chat with her.


But until and if more information comes out
The right will have fun with it and the left and the MSM will just...

 

[shintao]

Sending unsolicited sexual photos to young girls is both a crime and quite related to this story.

Of course, in your house this may be a common practice, so your confusion is understandable

Was the girl underage?

Since when does sexual harassment depend on age?

God, why can't liberals ever man up to their leaders mistakes

What mistake?

 

[Neotrotsky]

Well that's what the investigation is for...

I"m sure the Left is confident their man's story will stand up in the end

 

[shintao]

Well that's what the investigation is for...

I"m sure the Left is confident their man's story will stand up in the end

Right now he is innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Well that's what the investigation is for...

I"m sure the Left is confident their man's story will stand up in the end

Right now he is innocent until proven guilty.

Yes of course.

We would not the MSM to jump to any conclusions about politicians

 

[boedicca]

Well that's what the investigation is for...

I"m sure the Left is confident their man's story will stand up in the end

Right now he is innocent until proven guilty.

And yet he so far has not reported the crime to the police, and he actively destroyed evidence.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Well that's what the investigation is for...

I"m sure the Left is confident their man's story will stand up in the end

Right now he is innocent until proven guilty.

And yet he so far has not reported the crime to the police, and he actively destroyed evidence.

Fear Not ! As I told you yesterday

Because of the reward, some more information is leaking out about the photo.

It has been broken down to two possible suspects

You make the call

 

[Vast LWC]

Hacking online accounts is a crime. The Palin hacker went to jail.

So, you think Weiner is committing a crime because he doesn't want to keep this in the media and drum up more embarrassment for himself by pursuing an investigation?

Wow, ok. That's an interesting way to look at it.

I doubt that NOBODY in his district cares.

Then, if it is having an effect on his job performance working for his district, they can call for an investigation. Otherwise they can vote against him in the next election.

But, other than that, if he hasn't committed a crime, they can go take a hike.

 

[boedicca]

Hacking online accounts is a crime. The Palin hacker went to jail.

So, you think Weiner is committing a crime because he doesn't want to keep this in the media and drum up more embarrassment for himself by pursuing an investigation?

Wow, ok. That's an interesting way to look at it.

I doubt that NOBODY in his district cares.

Then, if it is having an effect on his job performance working for his district, they can call for an investigation. Otherwise they can vote against him in the next election.

But, other than that, if he hasn't committed a crime, they can go take a hike.

He POSTED about it on Twitter - and publicly announced that his account had been hacked. That's a crime, and he has a duty to report it.

 

[Vast LWC]

Was the girl underage?

Do you understand the difference between Legal and Moral?

OK, I'll bite.

If the girl was not underage, then what, specifically, is "immoral" in this little scenario?

Did the woman in question work for him?

Had the woman in question complained about his behavior in the past, thus creating a stalker-like harassment scenario?

The answer to both these questions is no.

"Distasteful" is NOT the same as "immoral".

 

[boedicca]

Was the girl underage?

Do you understand the difference between Legal and Moral?

OK, I'll bite.

If the girl was not underage, then what, specifically, is "immoral" in this little scenario?

Did the woman in question work for him?

Had the woman in question complained about his behavior in the past, thus creating a stalker-like harassment scenario?

The answer to both these questions is no.

"Distasteful" is NOT the same as "immoral".

Asked and answered in post #235.

And you fail the test, bub.

 

[Vast LWC]

He POSTED about it on Twitter - and publicly announced that his account had been hacked. That's a crime, and he has a duty to report it.

No, he does not have a "duty" to report it.

It is an embarrassing episode, whether he's innocent or not.

That's why people are generally given the ability to "not press charges" when a crime has been committed.

 

[Vast LWC]

Asked and answered in post #235.

And you fail the test, bub.

Post #235 was a bunch of crap.

He has no obligation to pursue an investigation into a crime committed against himself, that's just foolish.

 

[boedicca]

He POSTED about it on Twitter - and publicly announced that his account had been hacked. That's a crime, and he has a duty to report it.

No, he does not have a "duty" to report it.

It is an embarrassing episode, whether he's innocent or not.

That's why people are generally given the ability to "not press charges" when a crime has been committed.

He took an oath of office, the generic form of which is:

"I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."


Not reporting a crime is a violation of this oath.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Hacking online accounts is a crime. The Palin hacker went to jail.

So, you think Weiner is committing a crime because he doesn't want to keep this in the media and drum up more embarrassment for himself by pursuing an investigation?

Wow, ok. That's an interesting way to look at it.

I doubt that NOBODY in his district cares.

Then, if it is having an effect on his job performance working for his district, they can call for an investigation. Otherwise they can vote against him in the next election.

But, other than that, if he hasn't committed a crime, they can go take a hike.

Well, as an innocent man....

If this a job by "right wing" hacks as the radical Left claims then an investigation will clear his name and find the perpetrators

Thus, he would surely want an investigation to clear his good name.

No instead, he "lawyers up"- not quite the behavior one would expect from an "innocent" man



Weiner "Lawyers up" or tells Federal Authorities to

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRdxUFDoQe0&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - ‪Michael Jackson - Beat It‬‏[/ame]

So (a) Weiner himself is not speaking, but issuing statements through his spokesman, and (b) his office “did not answer specific questions.”

Weiner’s office did not answer specific questions about the photograph, whether he has contacted authorities or the Seattle woman who received the photograph
​

See:

Liberal bloggers should be the ones leading the campaign for an official investigation. Many of them have claimed that Andrew Breitbart, and other conservative activists, are responsible for hacking into Weiner’s official congressional Twitter account. If that’s the case, then let’s make sure these right-wing hackers are forced to face the legal consequences of their actions.

This is a fairly customary process. After President Obama’s official Twitter account was hacked, the FBI managed to track the hacker all the way to France, where he was tried and convicted. If Weiner’s account was compromised, there’s a good chance that law enforcement will find the person who did it.


But if it turns out that Weiner is unwilling to allow an official, transparent investigation, then he can’t expect journalists to stop digging for the truth on their own. After all, the public has legitimate questions, and the media is only doing its job.​

Rumor in the collective is that he has Willie, Wood, Johnson & Schwanz as legal counsel....

 

[boedicca]

And by lawyering up, he allows the controversy to engulf the young woman who was the target of the Tweets.

Which is neither Moral nor Ethical, something VLWC clearly doesn't grok.

 

[Vast LWC]

He took an oath of office, the generic form of which is:

"I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."


Not reporting a crime is a violation of this oath.

No. It is not.

It would be if said crime was directed against someone else, but not if the crime was directed against himself, which this one was.