If that is a picture of Weiners member, then this is a story

[Renew Deal]

even if his account was hacked. I am ready to dismiss this story, but if Weiner can't deny it's him, then there's a real problem.

[FrenchieCat]

1. Why?

[Renew Deal]

3. Because a picture like that shouldn't exist.

[Joe the Revelator]

5. Why?

[Warren Stupidity]

8. kabause we can't help fluffing rethuglican scandals.

[Renew Deal]

11. Because a congressman should know better than to take that picture

and to then upload it to the internets.

[Hutzpa]

53. You cannot be serious

I sensed some type of snark in that comment.

[pnwmom]

7. It might have been taken as a joke photo, considering

he's always making jokes about his last name.

It would be a dumb thing to do, considering that anyone's computer can get hacked. Just dumb, given the realities of the day.

[Renew Deal]

10. And Weiner is smart enough to know better.

That's why I think it might not be him. But why doesn't he deny it? Does he not want to give them the satisfaction?

[pnwmom]

45. I don't know. He's willing to deny that he sent it.

So why doesn't he deny that it's him. Good question.

[angstlessk]

49. He dosn't deny it cause it is big friggin dick...what is he gonna say....my dick ain't THAT big?

[Mz Pip]

25. That would make sense

Being silly, doing it as a joke. But then why not say so?

People do this kind of thing all the time, take pictures of themselves doing silly stuff. It's not the act, it's the cover up that is making this worse.

I really like the guy and hope this turns out to be no big deal.

[kestrel91316]

38. Since WHEN?? It's a free country. He can take pics of him and his wifey

going at it stark naked, for all I care.

Whether or not said pics should be made public IS subject to debate. But NO ONE has any business telling ANYONE in this country they can't take private pics of themselves in any state of dress or undress or arousal or not.

Effin' prudes.

[pnwmom]

47. You're absolutely right, except if he ever sent that photo

to anyone, it would be a dumb thing to do. If that picture did nothing except sit in his computer, then he should have been safe (and all the fault would be with whoever hacked his computer). But if he did send it out, then that would be pretty gross error in judgment. Once you send something, you lose all control of it.

[kestrel91316]

57. Well good luck proving that the pic A) is him; and B) was sent by him.

Sending photos via the internet ain't a crime.

[chillspike]

56. you dont know where it was taken

it could have been snapped in the congressional locker room without his knowledge.

[CatWoman]

23. DAMMIT!!!

I just had dinner, and if it comes up I'm going to haunt you!!!

:hi:

[KamaAina]

2. Wouldn't that be "a picture of the member's wiener"?

:evilgrin:

[Renew Deal]

4. Yes, that too,

:rofl:

[seabeyond]

6. why shouldnt anyone be able to send mate a picture? bummer if gets put out

but there is something in intent.

[Renew Deal]

12. Because of the fallout we're experiencing.

:shrug:

[Karia]

9. Weiner's account was hacked

IMHO the only reason the press is hounding him is to try to get him to blow up with exasperation. Then his "angry outburst" will be their story.

Moreover, this is a distraction from some serious issues that SHOULD be covered.

[Renew Deal]

14. He doesn't have to get angry to deny.

But he might not want to deny either. The "certitude" answer implies that there are pictures like that out there.

[spanone]

13. why. don't get it. pictures are legal. this one shows nothing. no skin.

[Renew Deal]

15. Yes, lots of legal things can get you in trouble,

[spanone]

16. what's the trouble?

[Renew Deal]

17. Look around DU.

[WilliamPitt]

55. Cuz DU is reality

Or something.

[spedtr90]

59. I agree. More revealing pics in Times Square...

and magazine underwear ads.

[Moondog]

18. We "hire" these guys for skills in judgment. Sadly

Rep Weiner had a judgment test, and it appears from his statement that he failed. At least he knows that he failed. Difficult to say where this is going to end up.

[targetpractice]

19. It looks like a picture taken by accident...

I've accidentally taken a picture of my lap or feet before while playing with my iPhone... He may have been using his phone at home and "fat-thumbed" a shot by mistake.

[Renew Deal]

26. Lets say that's true

How did it end up on Twitter?

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[targetpractice]

39. Assuming the pic was taken with a camera phone...

Some smartphones give options immediately after you take a picture like "Post to Facebook" or "Tweet" or "Save to Camera Roll" or "Delete". A few accidental clicks and the pic is on it's way.

*Click* "Ooops!" Click again.... "Oops! I meant to delete that... I wonder where it went?"

Have you ever sent an email or text message to the wrong person?

It's also possible that this pic is from someone on Weiner's staff who was allowed to Tweet on his behalf from time to time... That person could have sent the picture accidentally thinking he was logged into his own personal Twitter account. Something like this happened recently with the Secret Service's Twitter account when someone with access complained about Fox News not realizing they were still logged into the official Secret Service account. The SS press release said that person would be prevented from accessing the official account moving forward. Twitter can be problematic because people juggle several personal and work accounts.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

48. We don't know it was sent through Twitter

It seems like someone photoshopped that part.

They may have hacked his hard drive however to get the photo.

[Ikonoklast]

20. State the problem.

[backscatter712]

21. Even if it was, Weiner did nothing wrong.

Assuming this pic was of him (and I'm assuming it's not until I see irrefutable proof otherwise), it very well could have been something kinky he was doing with his wife, which was meant to stay in his bedroom. Nothing wrong with that.

What is clear is that his Twitter account was hacked, and the photo was posted without his permission, which means if there was anything resembling justice, Breitbart and his flunkies would be sitting in jail for this and being introduced to other inmate's bulging members...

[Renew Deal]

28. Wouldn't misleading people on whether it is him be wrong?

How is it clear that it was hacked? If we assume the picture is legit, maybe the rest of the story is too.

[KathyVet]

31. Be careful

You'' be accused of being a Rethug

[Renew Deal]

33. Whatever

I love Anthony. He is a fellow NYer. I really really like the guy. I thought this was a non-story at the beginning. I just don't understand his answer.

[EOTE]

22. Yes. The problem is that the internet is filled with busy-bodies

who have nothing better to do than to fret over whether or not a congressman took a picture of himself in his boxers. Of course, that's more of a problem for the busy bodies. A pretty damned pathetic one.

[joeybee12]

24. Sorry, a private photo is a private photo...it's a non-story just

because he had such a photo.

[Renew Deal]

29. So now we're accepting that it's a "private photo?"

[joeybee12]

62. Since he said he didn't send it and the alleged receiver never received

it, then it was only in his possession, it's his private photo.

[pnwmom]

63. He didn't send it to the girl. That doesn't mean that he never sent it to anyone --

which would be perfectly legal, of course. Just kind of stupid for any public figure. Once you send something off into the ether, it's out of your control.

On the other hand, if he only had it in his computer, he did have the expectation of privacy.

[Riverman]

27. Is Member's Weiner cut or uncut?

He's Jewish, right? Just wondering...

[Lex]

30. Has anyone been able to prove that it was in fact Weiner who posted the picture?

When someone can prove that, then we got a story I guess.

[Renew Deal]

34. I don't think that's the argument right now.

It's now about who posted it. It's about him not denying it's him. I don't get what he's doing.

[Marr]

37. Yes, it is.

The girl denies receiving it. Weiner denies sending it. If it is him, the question is whether Breitbart has been involved in illegal computer hacking.

[Lex]

51. Exactly. He says he didn't send it. And that the picture "is not familiar to him."

Has someone got proof that he did send it and that it IS him?

[drpepper67]

35. Isn't the story he was stalking the girl on Twitter?

I'm not a new junky but I saw something about it on CNN...

[Renew Deal]

36. Not really

The question is whether that's a picture of him. If it is, then the rest of the story is plausible.

[kestrel91316]

41. Weiner wasn't stalking anybody. The word is, the guy who is suspected of

doing the hacking/posting was stalking the girl for weeks.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

46. Here's Exhibit A as to why this stinks.....

By the end of the week, someone will asking if Weiner is a serial killer leaving pics of his penis at the scene.

[eShirl]

52. no, "following." On twitter. That's how you subscribe to people's tweets, you "follow" them.

[jwirr]

40. I am sorry, because I am going to insult all of you guys - one prick

looks just like another. For gods sake let us get real. What are we doing letting this distract us from the real business of governing? We are going to wake up one of these days and find out what has been sneaked past us on the floor of congress.

[Wind Dancer]

42. I sure wish we could combine all of these...

... Weiner threads or have a separate group. The numbers are getting ridiculous.

[sufrommich]

43. It's not a problem if Weiner didn't send it out. I couldn't care less

if he's got a picture of his dick on file.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

44. If he was sending it to his wife it's no one's business(n/m)

[Kip Humphrey]

50. If true, Weiner's no wiener. He's more a Kielbasa!

[southernyankeebelle]

54. What problem? Whoever it is people the guy is in underwear and you can't see a thing.

[TheKentuckian]

58. A "problem" circa 1819 or something. The non-Puritan, non-busy body contingent doesn't give a fuck.

[tnvoter]

60. so what if the picture is of him? most Americans have seen

photos of men in underpants -- in movies, ads,... other media. I don't know of anyone who isn't a prude who thinks such public photos are a problem.

I don't understand your "concern."

[Fuzz]

61. It shows he always leans left.

[ergot]

64. But now the picture isn't the issue, his poor handling of it is.

He's been way too coy about it...maybe he thinks playing up the salacious angle is clever but it isn't doing him any favors. I hate to say this because I like the guy immensely, but it reminds me of "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky"...

[Whisp]

65. he wants to breach the dam to deny everything stupid in all stupid futures?

don't you see how foolish all this is? and who is behind it?

A congressman has to deny that's someone has maybe photoshopped or pretended to be his name on Twitter. Does he have to have CSI people come into his home and inspect his gotch drawer?


wtf?

pay attention to something more fucking important. good gawd almight jesus on a crispy cross. fuck!

[cbdo2007]

66. I don't get it....even if the picture is of him, nobody can prove it....

so he should just come out and deny that it's him.

[ljm2002]

67. First of all, let's be clear...

...whoever's member that was, it was not visible except as a suggestive bulge inside a pair of briefs.

Second, yes it was odd that he did not directly deny it might be a photo of him. So maybe he did send something like that to someone.

But here is a question: if it is a photo of him, who got into his account and sent it? And another question: why didn't they just expose the fact that he had sent the photo to someone, rather than hacking his account and sending it for him to a recipient of their choice? What was the point of that?

Our public servants, like most of us, have feet of clay. So maybe he was flirting inappropriately (doesn't matter with whom, since as a married man, it would be inappropriate no matter who it was apart from his wife). But so what? Is it my business? Do I want to know? I didn't think the Monica Lewinsky thing was my business and I don't think Wiener's personal conduct is my business, unless and until it rises to a certain level, which inappropriate flirting or even an extramarital affair does not.

Someone hacked his account, that much is clear. The relevant questions are, who? how? and why?

This seems like an attempt at a take-down. We wonder why our Democratic politicians are a bunch of craven cowards. Maybe this is one reason. We know there are currents within our national security agencies (i.e. NSA, CIA, FBI) that are hard right and are happy to act as political operatives when called upon by their beloved leaders (cough GHWB cough CHEENEY cough). That's what this smells like to me.