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.