I hate to say it but Weiner may be fried

[bbinacan]

I've watched a number of the video links posted on DU. One CNN story struck me and reminded me of Edwards. Weiner was asked a very simple question...Did you send the picture. His answer was pure Edwards. This will not end well for him I fear. What a dumbass.

Do me a favor and watch this.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rep-weiner-has-angry-exchange-with-capital-hill-reporters-over-twitter-scandal/

[maxsolomon]

1. keep buying what they're selling.

sherrod was 'fried', too., so was ACORN.

[Dawson Leery]

2. +1

[Parker CA]

11. Amazing how quickly some on the left run from our own at a Breitbart-contrived "scandal."

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blondeatlast]

63. "...one of our own..."

I wouldn't be so certain of that.

[Merlot]

67. on the left or "on the left?"

[TheWraith]

71. That's an unnecessarily rude reply.

If Weiner didn't do it, he didn't. But automatically assuming that our guys are inviolate against wrongdoing is silly. Eric Massa, anyone? Eliot Spitzer? John Edwards?

The OP isn't wrong: Weiner isn't behaving the way I'd hope if he were innocent. That could just be a screwup on his part, it might not.

[Parker CA]

78. It's tough for me not to automatically assume that any story originating from Breitbart is not 100%

steaming BS.

Facing a bloodthirsty media during a situation like this can cause one to completely lose their cool. If Weiner is guilty of something I'm sure we'll know shortly, but for the time being I'm remaining extremely skeptical.

[TheMadMonk]

113. Automatically abandoning anyone "tainted" by a hint of manufactured...

...scandal is EXACTLY what goes on.

And people run, because they K.N.O.W. that sticking close to someone marked for removal is a good way to get splashed.


So it is suspiscious to refuse to play "their game", even when spelling out step by step EXACTLY what they are doing and why one is refusing to participate?

So why is he refusing to answer when two seemingly simple answers should end this once and for all? Because there are NO CORRECT ANSWERS once "the game" is on, there is only the answer that will sink you.

No he didn't do it? So which of his staff is so disaffected as to want to do it and why? Or, how can we trust someone with the country when they can't manage their own Twitter account? or, or, or....

So, why no cops? Simple enough. it's not fucking important enough to waste their time on it. FFS it's a virtual paling fence with room enough for a world full of interfereing old baggages to swap malicious gossip back and forth, instead of the traditional two old ducks speculating on the love life of that shameless hussy in #12, in between swapping stolen recipies for pumpkin scones.


Ignore the content. Watch the pattern. Watch the way true scandals get burried under the manufactured. Watch who gets selected for this kind media hounding over an obvious nothing, and who when caught balls deep in an underage rentboy is allowed to fade into obscurity and later given every assistance to reinvent/redeem themselves.


The "Clenis"? FFS, it's an almost certain bet that over its history, the Oval Office and surrounds have played host to just about every immginable sexual act and perversion, including, based on simple population statistics, several episodes of presidential paedophilia. History, sanitised as it is, tells us all we need to know (and a hell of a lot we'd rather we didn't) about the sexual practices of the rich and powerful.

And yet it was a gobbie from a groupie that nearly took a president down against a backdrop where it was still considered entirely acceptable (provided it was done with proper tact and secrecy) to demand that exact service as a perk of any middling to high office (private or public sector) and when the surest path to a bigger pay packet was to screw the boss. We all, while making "all the right noises" in public, yet we still (as a whole) privately accepted it as "just the way the world worked".

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Canuckistanian]

12. Well, ACORN WAS fried

Sherrod is fighting back.

[sabrina 1]

34. ACORN workers are fighting back also. ACORN was betrayed

by Democrats when they caved in to Breitbart/O'Keefe's scam without even investigating and voted to defund ACORN. It was truly shameful.

We are on our own, which is why it is the workers, not the Party, that are fighting back. Dems threw Shirley Sherrod to the wolves also, and Van Jones, and just about anyone Breitbart goes after. Why is that? What do they know about this criminal that forces them to jump when he yells? Who is funding him?

What we need is a real fighting party, and that's what we do not have. So the Breitbarts of the world are given credibility when they probably belong in jail.

[Canuckistanian]

98. It doesn't matter if ACORN employees are fighting back

The organization is gone. That was the ONLY goal of Breitbart. He won.

[sabrina 1]

137. Yes, but that couldn't have happened without the

collusion of the media who did not a single thing to expose the fraud even though bloggers had done the work for them, early on. Nor could it have happened without the help of a majority of Democrats in Congress.

The question is, why doesn't the media now do the full story on Breitbart/O'Keefe/Giles and the long history of the far right's attempt to take down ACORN?

ACORN is starting up again under a different name. But it is a shame, as you point out, that an easily exposed scam on the original Org. was never covered by the MSM.

[bbinacan]

17. Edwards. n/t

[maxsolomon]

47. Vitter, Craig, Gingrich, Sanford

etc.

[bbinacan]

57. I'm not disputing that

I'm addressing Weiner.

[myrna minx]

102. +1 - I can't believe anyone would believe Breitbart - especially here. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

125. consider the source.

[JI7]

3. Enquirer had more credibility than Breitbart

[bbinacan]

7. How does Breitbart enter this discussion?

My source of reference is a CNN interview. I'll edit to add the link.

[blogslut]

8. Because this stupid story emanates from his website

Andy is fashioning a scandal out of whole cloth.

[Parker CA]

10. This BS story started from Breitbart. That's all anyone should need to know. nt

[pintobean]

15. Good luck with that.

[bbinacan]

28. I'll bookmark this

for future reference. I think I'll be correct about Weiner.

[Parker CA]

39. Seems like you're hoping for a self-fulfilling prophecy here. Amazing people on this site give more

credit to that asshole Breitbart than to a strong progressive.

[bbinacan]

41. Fuck Breitbart

my comment was based on Weiner in a CNN interview. Good grief.

[TheMadMonk]

118. "I know what you are doing and I am refusing to play your game"

This is what Weiner is saying to the reporters.

The game is to force the dialogue. To keep asking questions, perferably ones where any possible direct answer begs further questions.

Did you send the picture?

No?

Well who did?

AAAAaaaannnnnd he's dead.

Now the obvious answer, given past Breibart episodes, is that from beginning to end, this is a Breibart put up job, and he or someone connected to him is responsible for any hacking that may have occured. However, knowing this and having the evidence to prove it, are two very different things.

It's also the likely reason that Weiner hasn't taken this to the police for investigation, because right off the bat they are going to ask who he THINKS might be responsible and any honest answer would inevitably be leaked and used against him. AND it's also likely the reason why he refuses to answer the question of why he won't take it to the cops. He can't give an honest answer without evidence, and a dishonsest one can all too easily bite him on the arse.

He knows EXACTLY who is responsible for this scandal, he may even know (by name) who is the power behind Breibart which allows him to stay on the air, but without any proof he cannot say a thing. Which means any direct answer he did give would have to be a lie, or other prevarication by which he could inevitably be hung.

[individual rights]

52. Wouldn't you prefer to know the truth?

[Canuckistanian]

24. The story wouldn't exist without Breitbart

He's the enabler, promoter and serial liar behind this whole fake "Weinergate" deal.

[Maru Kitteh]

35. It never matters where it started - only where it ends.

If he can't answer "did you send the picture" then it may not end well for him.

[bbinacan]

61. Yep! n/t

[Canuckistanian]

105. That's true

I'm starting to get a bad feeling about this.

[TheMadMonk]

120. He can answer. Problem is whether or not he can answer the obvious...

...follow up question of who he thinks might have sent it or caused it to be sent.

We ALL know who figures prominently on any list of likely suspects. But without evidence, a "baseless allegation" is suicide.

[Maru Kitteh]

121. So why not answer the first. If he can answer, answer what he can. Call for a proper investigation

of what he cannot answer. Hiring lawyers is not "investigating." It's hiring people who want to keep getting paid to find what you WANT them to find.

[TheMadMonk]

127. Circumstances prevent him giving any proper/honest answer.

The ONLY answer he can give to these questions is no answer at all. Not half an answer. Not just the bits he can answer.

Anyone who caves into demands to provide negative proof is asking for trouble. If the media had any POSITIVE evidence at all that Weiner was responsible for the sending of the offending tweet, then it would be using that evidence. Without any evidence all they can do is keep pushing for an official statement of denial. And the opportunity for a whole lot of He says, She says and what aren't they saying now.

And official investigation, would mean that the story can be kept alive indefinitely in the form of progress (and lack of progress) news reports.

[Maru Kitteh]

128. Bull. "I WELCOME authorities and ask them to investigate this crime." Proper and honest.

Nothing difficult, ambiguous or legally evasive about that at all.

[bbinacan]

43. If so

we have nothing to worry about. I sense that you are worried. Not good.

[Canuckistanian]

101. What, me worry?

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bbinacan]

14. Have you stopped beating yours?

See the link on my edited OP. All he needed to do was say that he didn't send the pic. Now he's lawyered up and never called for an investigation into the "hacking"? Please.

[tblue37]

110. He is not "lawyered up." He has his lawyers looking into the

hacking to see if there are grounds for civil or criminal penalties. Let me rephrase that: he is having his lawyers do an investigation of the hacking for purposes of pursuing legal remedies.

[Maru Kitteh]

122. Hiring lawyers is not "investigating."

It's hiring people who want to keep getting paid to find what you WANT them to find.

He should ask law enforcement/authorities to investigate.

[tblue37]

123. We don't know that he hasn't. He did say they were looking into both civil and

criminal penalties, which suggests that law enforcement has been called into the investigation.

[Maru Kitteh]

124. Yeah, You clear that up by telling reporters when they ask

about why you haven't made a criminal complaint by saying - I DO want authorities to look into this. I WELCOME police/FBI/whoever investigations and I ask for THEIR HELP. Not privately hired lawyers who have NO authority.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[opihimoimoi]

5. The Weiner Wins Big IMHO..........he ain't fried.....

[abelenkpe]

6. Thought it was just more lies from Brietbart? nt

[Imajika]

9. Yeah, he's not being straightfoward...

I don't think it should have been a big deal, but it is kinda obvious he seems to be concealing something. Maybe protecting a friend or just a little embarrassed, but I suspect there is probably more here.

[leftygolfer]

13. Wrong

He's playing the media and Breitbart perfectly. Build 'em up, give them hope, and then slam them down. This is what President Obama did with the birthers.

[madokie]

18. If I remember correctly Weiner and Obama were best of friends in college

roomed together if I remember correctly

[Journeyman]

25. Unless Obama is host of "The Daily Show". . .

I believe you're mistaken.

[madokie]

38. Well you very well may be right now that I think about it

peace

[bbinacan]

19. Could be

but I don't think he's that savvy.

[PeaceNikki]

20. mmmmm... fried weiners

[bbinacan]

21. LOL. n/t

[Fuzz]

22. It's gotta be a fake, I can't believe he's that well hung.

It's a joke!!!!!

I haven't even seen the picture!

;)

[Hamlette]

126. Stewart said "He's a lot more Anthony and a lot less Weiner" of the pic lol

[Justitia]

Maybe he sent it to his wife & doesn't want to say that on nat'l television!

and then that human sewer Breitbart fabricated the "affair" story to try to make something of it.

[zoechen]

23. No investgation = Fried n/t

[spanone]

26. i think weiner's response is completely rational...fuck their questions

it's bullshit. i wouldn't dignify it one bit.

[Denzil_DC]

27. So what?

Breitbart wants you to talk about this and not about Clarence Thomas's new financial disclosure, which was coincidentally released on Friday, just as the pack went after Weiner. WAKE UP!

Here's Thomas's financial disclosure form: http://www.scribd.com/doc/56480093/27005-2010A-Report

Thomas has a direct family financial conflict of interest and should recuse himself from any cases about HCR.

[CatWoman]

45. DING, DING, DING!!

WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

[blondeatlast]

65. I think you've got it. nt

[eShirl]

70. holy crap!

[valerief]

95. +1

[MrMickeysMom]

104. This is right...

And as the American public becomes more SICK of this so-called "reporting", it behooves us to bring it up during the letters column or directly mailing the local media.

We have to be the reporters we are waiting for!

[Denzil_DC]

109. That's a good approach

This Mother Jones article pulls some information together pretty well: http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/05/clarence-thomas-health-care-reform-weiner

[MrMickeysMom]

139. Yes, more of this stuff...

... Please!

[Tatiana]

138. NAILED IT. Clarence Thomas should be impeached. n/t

[ecstatic]

29. After watching, I have to agree. He should have either said nothing

at all or just answered the question again. Assuming he's innocent, he should just avoid the media for a while because what he did in that clip is not helpful.

[DainBramaged]

30. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

:mad: :puke: :eyes:

[Avant Guardian]

31. You sound convinced

...that Breitbart is on the correct side of this.

[bbinacan]

59. If by extension from the CNN

interview? Is that what you're saying?

[still_one]

32. Then why say it? /nt

[randr]

33. What is stopping Weiner from calling for an investigation?

Very simple question, one would assume.
Why is he not outraged and calling for the investigation?

[bbinacan]

42. Exactly! n/t

[tblue37]

111. He did say that he is consulting with lawyers about what civil

or criminal penalties might be pursued. IOW, they are investigating the hacking to see if he can sue or ask for charges to be filed.

[proud2BlibKansan]

36. Oh bullshit.

One word: BREITBART

[Bucky]

37. I think a lot of DUers will now assume the worst about you. How dare you think for yourself!

Weiner's a rhetorical bomb-thrower--and I love him for it. But if you're gonna run that kind of game, you've got to keep yourself cool under pressure. He needs to laugh it off, in part, while clearly denouncing the sexual harassment this woman in this incident. He does not need to get hot under the collar about it. It just looks bad.

I still think he wasn't involved in it, but you're right to be suspicious. Unfortunately mob-scenes like GD will mostly have people responding to your OP with a shoot-the-messenger mentality.

[bbinacan]

40. Thanks for your kind response

After what Edwards did, I'm a bit skeptical.

[Nye Bevan]

44. Hmmmm. At first I believed this to be a standard repuke-playbook smear.

But Weiner's refusal to say things like "I did not send that picture" or "That's not me in the picture" are making me start to wonder.

And if I was a Congressman and someone hacked me, my first call would be to the cops, not to a $1000 an hour lawyer that I would be paying for out of my own pocket.

[Jack Rabbit]

46. Breitbart is a serial liar. Nothing he has said has stood up to the slightest scrutiny

When I say nothing, I mean absolutely nothing.

Why should we believe him now?

[Nye Bevan]

48. OK. Let's discount Breitbart altogether.

But why won't Weiner deny that it's him in the picture?

[bbinacan]

62. My point exactly. n/t

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nye Bevan]

88. If someone hacked me and tweeted a fake photo of me beating my wife

I would (1) deny that I beat her, (2) state that I did not send that photo, and (3) call the cops in the hope that they would find the hacker.

Weiner has done none of these.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[H2O Man]

50. I sure hope not.

It's an odd situation. I assume that -- despite the media reporting -- that he has reported this to authorities, and it is being investigated.

[mod mom]

51. Personally I can't wait until Rep Weiner's friend Jon Stewart kicks breitbart's ass

on his show.

[DFab420]

53. LOL and once again bbinacan comes through..

My ignore list just grows and grows.

[bbinacan]

58. I wish I knew who you are. n/t

[Cid_B]

54. Weiner is not the best interviewer...

Trying to remember where/when but I saw him get in a fight with an anchorwoman live in another interview when it went off the subject he wanted. He gets flustered and comes off as petulant.

[ScreamingMeemie]

56. I am waiting and seeing...

Having seen what has happened with politicians I have believed in in the past, I wouldn't be stunned to find this story to be true. I also wouldn't be surprised if it were a calculated set up.

Waiting and seeing is what I am doing. People are people, and politicians are sometimes the worst of them, no matter how awesome the work is that they do for the public.

[bbinacan]

64. Very well said. n/t

[leftygolfer]

72. Just stop and think

People keep referring to "Occam's Razor". So who honestly has most to gain from embarrassing the most vocal, liberal and passionate member of Congress? Exactly. I stand with Congressman Weiner.

[ScreamingMeemie]

74. I stand with myself. Waiting and seeing.

And it's okay for Democrats to do that. It really, really is.

[PeaceNikki]

77. I stand with ScreamingMeemie

:thumbsup:

[leftygolfer]

82. oops, my bad

i didn't mean to reply to your post directly, more generically on the entire thread. I apologize, never mean to single out any one person. as for this, i just can't wrap my head around the idea people would take Bretibart's word over Congressman Weiner's. He said he was hacked, shouldn't that be enough?

[Knight Hawk]

60. After watching the video.................

I agree,I think he is done.Unfortunately he came across as someone not telling the truth.Also the fact that he has not asked the FBI to investigate is very damning.

[warrior1]

66. this thread is bull shit

[bbinacan]

68. LOL

I'm bookmarking this thread. If I'm wrong, I fess up. How about you?

[Bjorn Against]

69. I am sure he does not trust the media so why answer their questions?

Weiner may not have came off looking great in that interview, but how would you do if you were being accused of chasing young girls in the national press? It doesn't matter if a person is guilty or innocent, that kind of questioning would upset anyone. The fact that he won't answer questions really does not prove anything, most lawyers would advise him against giving too much info to the press.

We know that Breitbart has framed people for crimes they did not commit in the past (Remember ACORN did not come out and immediately deny his accusations either, but the full unedited video clips later exonerated them). Innocent until proven guilty is always a good principle to go by, and it is an especially good principle when Andrew Breitbart is the accuser.

[Recovered Repug]

75. "Innocent until proven guilty" is only for a court of law.

In the court of public opinion it is often the opposite. Gary Condit would probably agree.

[Bjorn Against]

83. Public opinion is not effective at determining guilt or innocence

I don't think Weiner helped anything with this interview, but the fact that he was clearly nervous does not suggest guilt in any way. Who wouldn't be nervous when being grilled like that no matter if they were innocent or not? The facts are just not there to indict Wiener at this point, and public opinion is not evidence of guilt. If public opinion was the determining factor then a lot of innocents would be in prison.

[Recovered Repug]

97. I agree in the theory, but disagree overall.

Public opinion is not an accurate way of determining guilt/innocence, but it is very effective. Wiener should have known going in that the questions would be asked and that the press wasn't going to be satisfied with anything other than a "yes" or "no". While not answering the questions SHOULDN'T matter in guilt or innocence, in the court of public opinion it often translates to "What is he hiding?" Now there is a hint of blood in the water and the sharks will gather.

[jefferson_dem]

73. I was just about to post the same thing.

If he can't answer the simple question of "was that you in the picture", he's cooked. Does he really think this feeding frenzy will die off if he ignores it? I like Weiner a lot, and don't want to believe it was him who sent the image, but he's not inspiring confidence right now (at the very least).

[graywarrior]

79. One word

Koch.

Just sayin'.

[Nye Bevan]

89. I think it's spelled "cock", but yes, that's what's in the picture (nt)

[graywarrior]

92. Cute, but not what I meant

[whathehell]

80. Do you think maybe

he was having a bad day and on top of that is just sick

and tired of this kind of shit and was just too disgusted to bother

answering?

Where is it written that even a public figure HAS to answer EVERY

time the media calls?.

[Shagbark Hickory]

81. He did it.

Looks guilty as hell.
Of what, I'm not sure.

[Bjorn Against]

87. Who needs trials, let's convict people based on how they look on a bad day

[Shagbark Hickory]

133. He's covicting himself the same way Rethug policians dance around questions about their scandals.

Maybe there's a reason why but it just seems like if he said "I'm waiting to hear back from the authorities on how to proceed," that would have shut them up over that question. Then again if he answered that, there'd probably be a hundred more questions lined up.

[ClarkUSA]

84. His non-denial did not look good. Now he says he doesn't want to talk about it anymore. WTF?

:wtf:

[Bjorn Against]

90. Would you want to talk about sexual rumors about you to the media?

Of course he doesn't want to talk about it, if a serial liar like Breitbart told the media a bunch of made up crap involving my sex life I wouldn't want to talk to them either.

[tblue37]

112. Remember what Lyndon Johnson said. He wanted to spread stories that

his opponent f**ked pigs. When an aide said it wasn't true, Johnson said he knew it wasn't true, but he wanted his opponent to have to publicly deny f**king pigs.

[Maru Kitteh]

115. Nobody would want that, but as a politician,

he must. It's modus operandi here and every politician in the game knows that. Unseemly but true.

[ClarkUSA]

135. Exactly.

He simply had to give one more definitive answer for the waiting press to report. Instead, he gave a non-denial and looked nervous doing it instead of outraged and self-righteous, damning Breitbart by name as a right-wing provocateur.

Not good.

[stevenleser]

85. I will believe nothing from Breitbart unless it is triple vetted. Nor should anyone here believe

anything he says. He is a proven liar.

[Malikshah]

86. Hmmm. So often the posts that begin with "I hate to say this"

sound suspiciously like "With all due respect"...

Get a clue and lay down the shit-stirring spoon. It stanks!!

[tabasco]

91. Ahhhhhhhhhhhh, you're so concerned.

Isn't that special???

[Blue-Jay]

93. I crack up when people "hate to say" something.

:rofl:

[valerief]

94. Yeah, why won't Weiner produce that birth certificate? Huh? What's with that?

:shrug:

[florida08]

96. from huffpo

BigGovernment.com broke the story, but according to Gawker the man credited with first reporting the picture was Dan Wolfe, a man who describes himself on his twitter feed as a "Conservative Reagan Republican" and whose avatar is of Reagan himself. Wolfe denies that he hacked or invented the scandal, saying on twitter that "I do not work for Breitbart. I did not set up Weiner. I did not lie or hack anything it was real." But going down his feed Wolfe becomes increasingly annoyed at the accusations. "Yeah, at this point. I don't care. Either arrest me, press charges, etc. or shut up. If there is a crime why no charges?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/31/anthony-weiner-twitter_n_869008.html

Now with all of Murdoch's hacking it's almost a guarantee that Wiener was hacked as well. Wiener's no angel but in the current climate it would be political suicide to do something so stupid. Does anyone really believe that Farve sent the same kind of pic over his phone to a young sports reporter he had a crush on. I don't.

[Indykatie]

100. Wiener's Actions Only Raise More Flags

Reaching out for legal help but not bothering to call the police raised a flag with me. His refusal to answer questions posed by CNN and TPM doesn't help to shut down the issue if he is innocent.

[CatWoman]

108. ....

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/29/980400/-Breitbarts-

[warrior1]

134. right on CatWoman

[Doctor Hurt]

114. who cares if he's "innocent" or not

what crime has he committed?

[BulletproofLandshark]

130. Riiiiiiiight n/t

[Zoeisright]

99. Quit spewing right wing talking points.

Alerted.

[Blue-Jay]

103. Not alertable,

because he "hates to say it".

:D

[drmeow]

106. it depends on his district

as long as he doesn't resign the only people who will be making the decision are those who live in his district.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tblue37]

117. Great post! nt

[Forkboy]

129. LOL

:thumbsup:

[Little Star]

131. I think Weiner just may be innocent because....

The alleged Recipient Of alleged Rep. Weiner Photo says she lives in Seattle and does not even know Rep. Weiner.

~snip
I am a 21-year-old college student from Seattle. I have never met Congressman Weiner, though I am a fan. I go to school in Bellingham where I spend all of my time; I’ve never been to New York or to DC. The point I am trying to make is that, contrary to the impression that I apparently gave from my tweet, I am not his girlfriend. Nor am I the wife, girlfriend or mistress of Barack Obama, Ray Allen or Cristiano Ronaldo, despite the fact that I have made similar assertions about them via Twitter.

There have never been any inappropriate exchanges between Anthony Weiner and myself, including the tweet/picture in question, which had apparently been deleted before it reached me. I cannot answer the questions that I do not have the answers to. I am not sure whether or not this letter will alleviate any future harassment. I also do not have a clear understanding as to how or why exactly I am involved in this fiasco. I do know that my life has been seriously impacted by speculation and faulty allegations. My reputation has been called into question by those who lack the character to report the facts.

~snip

http://www.mediaite.com/online/alleged-recipient-of-alleged-rep-weiner-photo-gennette-nicole-issues-statement/

[readmoreoften]

132. It sounds like an obvious hit job to me. And I'm not an enormous fan of Weiner.

[LanternWaste]

136. I imagine many people will personally...

I imagine many people will personally indict someone on little more than the absence of a preferred answer.

Although I usually refer to them as (sub-literate, melodramatic)"dumb asses" rather than the target of their knee-jerk reactionsim, I imagine that may be constructed as being somewhat rude, so I will refrain.