The rightwingers are mounting a campaign: "We want an investigation of the Weiner affair!" They shout they words, they purr the words, they sometimes pose as liberals and try to make a reasonable-sounding case.
Obviously, we are dealing with an organized campaign. The overall picture is becoming clearer.
There are, in fact, no grounds for a federal investigation. Gennette has denied that she received any inappropriate words from the Congressman. Weiner has denied sending the picture or tweeting the tweet. He sent her nothing but boilerplate. Neither he nor she have broken or even brushed any laws.
Clearly, the security loophole described in my previous post was the device which allowed a miscreant to try to frame Weiner. We know this because Yfrog is closing that loophole at this very moment. And that is that.
So why do the righties want an investigation? For one reason: They want to go fishing.
Remember Whitewater? It was bullshit. Everyone now agrees that it was bullshit. The Republicans used bullshit charges to go on a fishing expedition against Bill Clinton.
What the Republicans want is a scenario where Anthony Weiner -- the victim of a frame job -- is forced to sit in a chair and answer questions like the one Wolf Blitzer (infuriatingly and inapproriately) tried to ask: Have you ever in your life taken a picture of your groin?
Weiner is the victim here. There is no justification for placing him in a situation where political enemies can ask him humiliating questions about his entire life history.
The righties are guessing that Weiner played some naughty online games back in the days before he was married. They may even have secret info to that effect.
I've posited in various comments that Weiner, in his bachelor days, may have traded naughty photos with an online paramour, and that the crotch shot, or a version thereof, may be leftover detritus from some dalliance that took place a long time ago. Millions of other people trade such pics.
As everyone knows, dumped lovers tend to turn vengeful.
Please understand: I do not know
that there is a vengeful ex lurking behind the scenes. (And I have no idea if the congressman has ever pointed a camera lens crotch-ward.) But I would not be surprised.
If such a personage exists, the Republicans would keep her offstage until the right moment. First and foremost, they would want to see Weiner respond to the question that they have no right to ask: "Have you ever in your life pointed a camera at your crotch?"Nota bene:
Dan Wolfe has said that he has more info and possibly more photos to use against Weiner. Those claims, in and of themselves, imply that the events of the 27th were was a set-up, not happenstance.
If Weiner were to sue the presumed framer for libel or defamation, the accused would have the right to discovery. During a deposition, Weiner would be asked that question. The question would probably be allowed, despite being in no way germane to the issue at hand.
He'd have to be nuts to walk into that nightmare.
Nevertheless, the righties keep saying that if Weiner will not sue or investigate, then he must
That logic works two ways. And so does the threat of deposition.
Let me make this statement loud and clear, in boldface, with no caveats or qualifications:The person who tried to frame Anthony Weiner is DAN WOLFE! DAN WOLFE! DAN WOLFE! Dan Wolfe is 100% guilty of a serious ethical offense, and that fact should be made known to everyone who ever considers employing him!
I've read up on the libel laws. I know full well the import of what I am saying. I've never before used this column to level an accusation of that sort against a private citizen. I'm usually very careful about wrapping my statements in qualifying language.By rightwinger logic, if Dan does not sue me, then he must be guilty as charged.
Dan says that he welcomes an investigation. But he's lying. You know how I know he is lying? Because he won't sue me.
He knows full well that if he sues me, I will have powers of discovery.(Will someone please pass this post along to Dan Wolfe, Dan Wolfe, Dan Wolfe, the man who definitely, positively tried to frame a congressman, DAN WOLFE?)
Come and get me, Dannikins. I want your C drive.
Let's talk about that browser cache of yours. If you found that 800x600 image in your browser cache, then you damn well ought to have the 640x480 -- and that
image would have the all-important EXIF data. If the image has been deleted, then we will know that you tried to cover your tracks.
How can you say you have nothing to hide when you have refused to cough up that 640x480?
I just talked the matter over with a top paralegal who has worked with lots of really good lawyers here in Baltimore. She told me all about discovery. She also said "Sometimes it's good to tweak the Devil's nose."
Am I worth suing, financially? No. In fact, I'm pretty much as judgment-proof as an individual can be. The most that DW! DW! DW!
could get from me is the Hippo
, the loss of which would pain me, even though the gain of the thing would probably be inconsequential to Danny.
But Dan -- we're talking about principle
here. You say you welcome an investigation. Well, let's have at it.
Write to me, and I'll arrange a meeting. I'm too poor to travel, so you'll have to have someone in your network serve me the papers. You probably know someone in the DC area, right? Let's meet in the Starbucks in the Barnes and Noble by the Chesapeake Bay. Just tell me when.
If you don't sue me, Dan, you must be (in the words of that great old Doonesbury cartoon) GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY!