Why did anyone believe Weiner in the first place?

[itsallhappening]

Early on, when asked about the photos, he claimed he had been hacked. He smiled, shrugged it off and said he simply considered it a "prank."

Does that seem like the response you'd expect from the Anthony Weiner we all cheer on when he's backing the Repubs up against a wall? This guy's a fighter, doesn't take shit off anybody and can argue a point as good as anyone I've seen.

When I saw his initial responses, I knew he was lying. The Anthony Weiner I'm familiar with would have been raving mad, and understandably so. He would have been calling for an investigation into the hacking, which is a federal crime. He wouldn't have laughed off this kind of "prank" that a) distracted him from his real work, and b) could very well end his career if he couldn't prove it was a "prank."

I don't know how many people on this website believed him from the start, but several people I know bought his story. I can't understand why, considering the Rep. Weiner we've become accustomed to seeing in a fight.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[Maru Kitteh]

3. I was skeptical from the beginning and I became certain he was lying when he hired a lawyer

to "investigate" the hacking and refused to call for any authorities to get involved.

[femmocrat]

4. Truthfully, I didn't pay much attention at first.

Then the story took on a life of its own and now it's just about impossible to ignore. You make a very good point about how we would expect him to react though. Looking back, he did seem uncharacteristically cool about it.

There were a couple of reporters at the time who were saying if it was hacking, it would be a federal crime. Guess their instincts were keener than many people's.

Hindsight is always 20/20 though.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

5. it is an auto-pilot response. If the subject (no matter what) has

to do with a Democrat (the Prez, congressman, senator, ANY Dem):

1. There is automatic acceptance/blind allegiance to the person regardless of the issue/crime/insinuation

2. No one can post and question (not accuse but merely question) without an instantaneous barrage of antagonistic remarks - designed to make the poster feel demeaned and ridiculous and to dissuade them from ever bringing up anything controversial again.

[Marr]

6. I believed him completely, because his accuser was Andrew Breitbart, because

Congressional Democrats' computers have been hacked in the past, because we have a national security apparatus in place now that makes everyone's electronic life an open book, and because I just liked Anthony Weiner as a politician. He's taken my side (the working class side) on the truly relevant issues, where the vast majority of the Washington establishment consistently does the opposite.

I hated to see the accusations turn out to be true, and I think he's essentially neutered himself as an advocate. It was intensely stupid, and his handling of it post-exposure was even more stupid.

[Winglessnews]

7. Breitbart

I suspected that he meant it as a direct message to the girl, but I was still skeptical because of the source. Given Andrew Breitbart's track record, I take everything that he, himself, says or any information that comes from someone associated with him with a certain amount of leeriness. We've been led to murky waters by Breitbart before, I think it's best to approach him with caution. And besides that, even if we can all agree that most politicians are sleazy and are probably guilty when accused of something like this, who does it benefit to jump to conclusions?

[bbinacan]

8. I didn't buy his story at all

I made posts about it at the time and got pummeled. I was right though.

[DeadEyeDyck]

24. me too. I once used "certitude" to explain how the dog ate

my homework.

Guess it takes one to know one.

[emilyg]

9. I didn't after he hired a lawyer.

[CelticThunder]

10. I was very suspicious, for the reasons you cited. His response was atypical for him.

[JHB]

11. Pretty sure the Breitbart sourcing played a big role

The guy's a smear-monger who already had several successful attacks that at best were not what they were presented as, and in some cases exactly the opposite of how they were portrayed at his site. He's made no bones about how his goal is to bring down liberals, but the mainstream outlets bought his smear-jobs hook, line, and sinker, and only back off when counterpoints are quickly and forcefully presented.

So when Breitbart put this out against Weiner, it stank to high heaven of another load of Britbart Bullshit. lacking a conveninet full-video as with Shirley Sherrod, people immediately went looking for the ways in which Breitbart's story could be shown to be bullshit.

[NNN0LHI]

12. When he couldn't either rule in or rule out whether the photo was him my ears stood straight up

I knew something was wasn't right and it probably wasn't good.

Don

[patrice]

13. Oh jesus, anyone who couldn't see that something was seriously wrong when Rachel interviewed him...

well . . .

anyway, it was so obvious it was painful.

[JackRiddler]

14. Easy. Breitbart.

Until that moment, you wouldn't have been wrong to assume that every politician hit that came out of his circle was a hoax.

[pipi_k]

15. I didn't believe him for one reason...

Sometimes people will outright lie when asked if they did something. Happens all the time.

But he didn't even answer the question yes or no.

If a person can't say without hesitation that something didn't happen, then it's a pretty good bet that it did. If a person has to hem and haw and dance around the bush and play little word games with people who ask questions, then it's a good bet he's guilty.


Oh, and some tried to turn the questions into "Have you stopped beating your wife?" bullshit accusations against him. It wasn't.

It was never "Have you stopped..."

It was "Have you ever..." The answer is either yes, or no.

[customerserviceguy]

16. I'll admit, I cautiously believed him in the beginning

But I didn't make any comments on the scandal one way or the other until he admitted it. I think many of us just wanted to believe, and since it was Breitbart, we're used to him manufacturing scandal out of thin air.

[loyalsister]

17. I reserved judgement

After the interview I noticed the wiggle room he made sure he had, and left room for the possibility of some masterful photoshopping. I really wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[dsc]

18. I figured if it was Breitbart it had to be false

as Breitbart is a total liar but as time went on it looked worse and worse. I still don't think he should resign but in hindsight coming clean would have been nice.

[mrcheerful]

19. I didn't care either way as I still think we do not need to know that private life stuff

because it had nothing to do with how he voted on policies. Bottom line I grew up in an era where sex scandals were laughed at because people had more important things to deal with like putting food on the table and keeping the kid out of the military. That all changed when Reagan and the religious right climbed into bed together. How many good public servants have we lost by playing I have better morals then you games? Funny how the other side have no problem with running slime balls and keeping them in office after their dirty bed room secrets come out.

Remember Newt was not kicked out of congress for his affair, he was kicked out because of a money scam he got caught in while acting as speaker of the house. Seems to me that the only ones getting raked over the coals are of the Democratic brand for bed room behaviors. As for the lying nonsense, grow up, we are not 5 year olds who believe everything anyone tells us, why? Because we live in a world built on lies and deception. If you think other then that then you are missing a few screws, what do you think we are voting for really? All it comes down to at the voting poll is choosing the most believable lies who says what we want to hear in the way we want to hear it. That said, we then see in those elected, actions that we wanted to happen.

[MrMickeysMom]

20. From the start, I really didn't care...

... and I refuse to really care about this non-issue.

Look at all the hypocrites in the party who act like he should step down. The hell he should.

[Tx4obama]

21. Folks should NOT have been prying into his PRIVATE life. Everyone was over 21.

In the USA we have a RIGHT to privacy.
If democrats don't stand up to defend our right to privacy and our right to do what we wish to do (if legal) in the privacy of our own homes then who will?

[EFerrari]

22. Lame. Why do you even bother.

[xfundy]

23. Can't stop thinking about that weiner, eh?

Keep draggin' it around.

[Raine]

25. I was suspicious of him from the begining because of his refusal

to say that it absolutely wasn't possible that it was him.