I think the most pertinent paragraph is this one
To Breitbart’s assertion that this alleged evidence “undermine(s) severely” Weiner’s position that the previous tweeted picture (that caused so much controversy last week) was a result of a hack or prank, we’re not sure how that is. It is entirely plausible that the “intimate” communications of which Breitbart is now claiming to be aware were privately shared by to consenting adults, one of whom no longer feels the need to protect the other’s private identity. Put another way, Weiner could easily have participated in online sharing of private images and messages and still have been the victim of some sort of online fabrication that launched the so-called “Weinergate” scandal.
I've suggested all along -- and, truth be told, Weiner has pretty much said the same thing -- that Weiner was concerned that a political enemy had somehow gotten hold of images involving an earlier cyber-dalliance with someone other than Gennette Cordova. (Yes, I wrote that. Many times.) I've also consistently stated that the Twitter "scandal" was manufactured to set the stage for a fishing expedition, the purpose of which was to grill the congressman about his entire life, not just about the night of the 27th.
That is precisely the scenario now being played out.
Note that in the latest revelations, we learn that Weiner was bright enough to send photos via private email. We may fairly presume that the recipient was someone he had gotten to know and whom he considered trustworthy. So far, the images are hardly salacious, though Breitbart intimates that this situation will change. Weiner knew that Twitter places photos in one's personal "twitterstream," which is available to all -- even when the images are sent via direct message.
Nothing undermines Gennette Cordova's claim that the Congressman's communication with her was entirely appropriate. The idea that he would send "the crotch shot" out of the blue, via Twitter, to a woman he did not know, remains inane and risible.
Given the very worst interpretation, what are we seeing here? In several earlier comments, I called the shot: This is a replay of the Whitewater scenario. A bullshit charge sets the stage for a fishing expedition.Added note:
As far as we know, the "woman" who received the new Breitbart pictures was Mike Stack in cyber-drag. He has impersonated females online before.Update:
Breitbart is reporting that the crotch shot
appeared in an email sent via a private Yahoo account. That is the only part of this whole story that surprises the hell out of me. If he were built like that -- well, his other photos would read differently! At any rate, it is pretty clear now that the Brietbart crew got the shot from this source. Perhaps via a hack...? Keep in mind: If the password for one account is compromised, most of the accounts go wide open -- because most people do not use more than one or two passwords.
From the Breitbart comment stream:
Face reality PeePee, this wasn't a big deal until you abused the power of your office to cover it up.
Abused power how
A married man sending photos to young girls? Imagine the fathers rage?Which
young girls?Further update:
Is it possible that a hacker got access to Weiner's sexy photo trove and hacked his Twitter account? Sure, like that matters.
It matters a great deal.
The conspirators obviously have had these photos for a while: It has previously been established that images were sent to a top conservative blogger on May 12. (Mike has said that the blogger was Drudge.) That fact alone -- along with many others -- buttresses the contention that the events of the 27th were engineered by outsiders.
Obviously, the conspirators did not think that communication between two consenting adults would shock many people. The record clearly indicates that they were trying to make the situation look far worse than it was. That's why they were cyber-stalking an uninvolved college student and two underaged girls.
If the current pictures were obtained because Yahoo, AOL and/or Facebook email accounts were hacked, then the Breitbart crew could face jail time.
One must wonder about the woman to whom the emails were sent: Why is she divulging this material? Has she, in fact, done so voluntarily? If she volunteered the photos to Breitbart's crew, then we may fairly suspect a classic honeytrap.If
this is a honeytrap, then we should ask just when
the photos were sent; they might have been traded before the congressman's marriage. We cannot take the word of someone who acted as bait in a honeytrap. And we cannot take Breitbart's word.