Image and video hosting by TinyPic














Monday, May 22, 2017

Weiner case bombshell

The Hill is not the kind of publication which would run a story like this unless it had all of its ducks in a row...
The teenage girl who had exchanged inappropriate text messages with former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) lied about her age and political motivations to harm Hillary Clinton, according to a report by the investigative news site WhoWhatWhy.

In a report published Monday, the web site said the girl who exchanged the messages with Weiner was closer to 17 and not 15, as initial reports said. That also puts her above the age of consent in North Carolina.

In addition, she and her family were also not Clinton supporters, as the girl claimed in a letter published by BuzzFeed, according to social media posts unearthed by the website. The report also says the girl initiated the contact with Weiner, and then sought advice from a GOP figure behind "prior efforts to harm Weiner and other Democrats."

The website suggests this could mean that Weiner was the target of a politically motivated plot.
The "victim" (we are told) is a Trump supporter, as are her parents; the mother has made insulting remarks about the Black Lives Matter movement.

I've long suspected that there was more to this case than met the eye. The initial reporting was very iffy, with right-wing publications making the lion's share of the grand revelations. (The original story was broken by far-right writer Chuck Johnson, writing in The Daily Mail.) The girl's messages, as quoted in those reports (and rarely repeated since) were suspiciously erudite -- far moreso than one would expect from any 15 year-old. 

Most of all, my suspicions were raised by the parallels to the strange case of "Betty and Veronica," which arose during Weiner Scandal 1 (back in 2011), and which too many people have now forgotten.

Betty and Veronica were the pseudonyms given to two teenaged girls who allegedly sexted with Weiner. Mediaite reporter Tommy Christopher interviewed the girls and their mother, becoming very involved in the case, and going to more-than-reasonable lengths to confirm their identities. It was later proven that the entire claim was bogus: The women who communicated with Christopher were actors who provided false identification.

(Think of the fake "Mrs. Mulwray" who sets the plot of Chinatown into motion.)

The fascinating Betty and Veronica angle led some researchers to feel -- as I continue to feel -- that there was an untold story underlying the entire Weiner case. At least one published report maintained that Andrew Breitbart possessed both of the incriminating "dick pics" well before the most famous one was allegedly tweeted by Weiner himself. (I am personally convinced that one of the women sexting with Weiner was a ringer working for Breitbart.)

It now seems quite clear -- to me, at least -- that the real target of "Weinergate" was not Weiner himself but Huma Abedin, and through her, Hillary Clinton.

Back in 2011, one of Breitbarters pursuing Weinergate bragged about his formidable hacking skills. Many of the Weinergate enthusiasts also seemed to know a great deal about hacking. These right-wing cyber-warriors surely understood that using social engineering to get into Weiner's laptop would probably allow access to every computer in that home's network -- including Huma's.

Well after most people had forgotten about the 2011 scandal, a small number of writers on both the right and the left remained engaged in what I called a "twilight war" over Weinergate. They focused on resolving the Betty and Veronica mystery. One formerly-respected writer on the left became so obsessed that he lost his reason.

The Brietbart-friendly "twilight warriors" tried to make the claim that Betty and Veronica were hired by Weiner himself, or by the Clintons, or by Soros, or perhaps the "Globalists." In short, they desperately sought to blame everyone other than the obvious suspects: Right-wing dirty tricksters of the Roger Stone/James O'Keefe school.

Louise, again. Ironically, one writer criticizing and questioning the Hill report is none other than Louise Mensch. I say "ironically" because she had once published a piece which questioned the very existence of the "15 year-old girl" in question. Just a few days ago, Mensch offered an apology for that speculation and conceded that the girl was real.

Mensch now points to court documentation (reproduced below) that the girl was under 16. Mensch may not be aware that knowingly "sexting" the underaged is a crime even if the claimed age is false. Even if the "girl" were actually a 40 year-old man, Weiner would still be guilty if he operated under the belief that he was speaking to someone underaged.

At any rate, it is possible for a case of this sort to go through the court system without anyone discovering that the girl in question has lied about her age.

(My mind goes back to a certain case involving a film director, in which the victim's mother, in an apparent attempt to make the perpetrator seem even worse than he was, hyperbolized the initial report to police. Perhaps realizing that a lie -- even a rather small and arguably immaterial lie -- might catch up with them, the mother and daughter tried to drop the case. By that point, of course, things had gone too far.)

I'm sorry, but the time has come for us to learn the name of the girl accusing Weiner. Once a name is divulged, we should be able to determine her age and the family's political stance.

It's possible that The Hill has made a serious misjudgment, but I don't think so. After the "Betty and Veronica" imbroglio, can anyone blame me for suspecting right-wing trickery?

Nota bene: You needn't send in those painfully obvious "WEINER BAD MAN! WEINER BAD MAN!" comments which you are dying to make. We're talking about something else here. This post is about a possible covert op, not about one man's moral failings -- and I will not publish any comments which address the latter without discussing the former. You have been warned. If you don't like my rules, fuck off.




Comments:
This reminds me of the DNC email theft. Embarrassing emails are hacked and released. But the question that gets left out is, why make the embarrassing comments in the first place? So even if this was a Republican plot, why be tricked?

What if someone does a Sting, and it fails. Are the stingers not obligated to publicly present their findings? If Stingers only have to report moral failings while never divulging moral strengths, they should be charged with some type of crime in my opinion.

What if Mr. Weiner had been approached before, and refused the advance? If the Stingers, by law, had to publicly report that Mr. Weiner had refused the advance, that would have elevated Mr. Weiner's public stature and be an excellent motivator to not partake in any future advances.

But if we allow stingers to keep stinging and never report when they fail, we set up most politicians to eventually fail.
 
Well what infuriated me over the years about the Clintons was their undying affection towards anything that put them in bad light. They don't only refuse to defend them properly, they actually immerse themselves more and more in bad situations to be trashed. There is no way to defend that scumbag(I didn't use the b word per instruction) but they kept his wife who continued to use the same computer as he. She can't afford to buy a new one for herself?. At this point I don't see how is this benefits anyone. It's only makes Hillary's choices in staff looks not the best. Someone may argue that was evident from the campaign. At least we don't have to worry about her cabinet choices.
 
Nah. Never happen. No way.

No way US Attorneys would knowingly perpetrate a fraud upon the court - and how could they NOT know her age?
 
Do you think Louise would get your three, pointed allusions to "Chinatown"?
 
Trump told the Israelis that he didn't mention their name when he spilled the beans to the Russians. Please God make it stop.
 
I have noticed that recently the Hill's been reminding me more and more of the Palmer report. I've stopped reading either of them. My main comment regarding the original story would not be that Weiner's a "bad" man, but that he's so typical that he'd be easy bait for those wishing to sting him.

Post this or not, Joseph. I have no problem with your takes on these stories. I'm just sick of these stories altogether, made possible because of men just like Weiner...tho the smear factory doesn't even need Weiners because they can simply build a juicy fake story like the pizza child sex ring. Believable, because ... men. I once shut down an entire thread of idiots frothing over how "evil" this pizza sex ring was. I told them if they were that concerned about raped kids they should be 24/7 trying to shut down prostitution and the entire sex trade because men everywhere rape underaged kids every day.

That shut them the hell up. It never occurred to them it's the everyday johns who are the evil they seek.

(And before b whines about women who run sex rings...yeah, they take the rapists' money, because they live in a rapists' world. And, as we saw with the DC Madam, they end up dead while the rapists remain in office.)

Without the larger conversation, Weiner's story is just sensationalism. Fake story, real story, conspiracy, trickery, all are made possible only by the everyday disgusting reality they are based on.


 
Of all the stories that have dropped, this one made my jaw drop as much as any. If true, Louise's Weiner story may have a grain of truth to it after all even though she has already apologized for it! Incredible.

Eric Garland has the best saying for these times. "If it could get weird, it WILL get weird. Because 2017."
 
Tony Schwartz who co-wrote The Art of the Deal thinks Trump will resign and that having started to scream at Kushner he may soon lash out at Ivanka. Demonstrated incapable of functioning as President, the wacko will run away and claim victory.

A medical "Ezra Pound solution" is possible.

I'd already formed the view that Trump won't be able to cope with an impeachment trial. In the event that he hangs around that long, he will go full-on James Forrester. He probably won't shout "The Russians aren't coming!" In fact I won't be surprised if he lashes out against Putin and Russian intelligence.

(I should register my prediction somewhere that Trump may publicly point the finger at Putin :-) )

Perhaps he'll even fume against "globalists" and Chabad. This could turn out to be the ultimate NYC story.

Schwartz makes it clear that he thinks Trump has been mentally ill for decades. There'll be a denouement. The Kushners will make a fortune and Trump won't last his term. He may leave by summer.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?


























Image and video hosting by TinyPic


FeedWind



FeedWind




FeedWind