WeinerGate Twitter Hoax is Beginning to Unravel! I Told You Stupid Fucks!!!

[Drixxx]

Speaking of "recent history" you made a factual statement within the past hour and fifteen minutes that the sexcapades of Bill Clinton involved "no victim coming forward to seek justice."

Paula Jones filed suit in an effort to seek justice for the alleged sexual advances of Clinton.

The ultimate disposition of the case does not alter the fact that your factual statement about no one coming forward to seek justice was in error.

I know how much you wish you hadn't embarrassed yourself. I really do. But you did.

She was not a "victim". What part of "Before the case reached trial, Judge Susan Webber Wright granted President Clinton's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Jones could not show that she had suffered any damages." don't you understand? This is not my opinion. It is the ruling of the court. She is not a victim.

There is a world of difference between aspiring porn models seeking publicity and victims of crimes seeking justice. Paula Jones is the former.

http://www.fortunecity.com/lavender/hellraiser/82/paula_jones.jpg

 

[Sonny Limatina]

She was not a "victim". What part of "Before the case reached trial, Judge Susan Webber Wright granted President Clinton's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Jones could not show that she had suffered any damages." don't you understand? This is not my opinion. It is the ruling of the court. She is not a victim.

There is a world of difference between crazy people filing frivolous lawsuits and victims. Paula Jones is the former

I don't have cable—or even broadcast TV. I have no idea what FOX and CNN are saying about this. I don't like or dislike Rep. Weiner. I'm just a guy who is pretty good at figuring out when someone's lying to me.

This guy is lying to me.

 

[Drixxx]

I don't have cable—or even broadcast TV. I have no idea what FOX and CNN are saying about this. I don't like or dislike Rep. Weiner. I'm just a guy who is pretty good at figuring out when someone's lying to me.

This guy is lying to me.

The issue is not whether or not he's lying. It's to make you care whether he is lying or not. That's the scam. To smear the target in this case Weiner. Create a controversy and make them defend himself. It's the same hoax that was used against ACORN, Shirley Sherrod, and NPR, etc. Wild allegations from dubious sources which the lazy news fail to investigate. They just confront the accused, record their denial, and then speculate. How many times are you going to fall for this con?

 

[Sonny Limatina]

The issue is not whether or not he's lying. It's to make you care whether he is lying or not. That's the scam. To smear the target in this case Weiner. Create a controversy and make them defend himself. It's the same hoax that was used against ACORN, Shirley Sherrod, and NPR, etc. Wild allegations from dubious sources which the lazy news fail to investigate. They just confront the accused, record their denial, and then speculate. How many times are you going to fall for this con?

You're asking me to use as a baseline the same assumptions you've made. You're treating your guess as gospel. Good for you, but leave me out of that part.

I knew who was lying to me with both the ACORN and the NPR situations. I know who is lying to me now.

Pajamas has a pretty even-handed--but suggestive--timeline up. It puts to rest a couple of the attempts at Occamism on this thread. It doesn't close the book, by any means, but it's certainly the most realistic of the guesses I've read about this. http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/05/30/weinergate-what-we-know/2/

For a far more agendad version that makes a pretty good argument for something fishy going on with Weiner and Cordova, see here: http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2011/05/complete-weinergate-timeline-crack.html

The latter obviously has a conclusion already drawn, as you do, but along the way he makes a far more compelling case than you have so far.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

She was not a "victim". What part of "Before the case reached trial, Judge Susan Webber Wright granted President Clinton's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Jones could not show that she had suffered any damages." don't you understand? This is not my opinion. It is the ruling of the court. She is not a victim.

There is a world of difference between crazy people filing frivolous lawsuits and victims. Paula Jones is the former

Before the case reached trial, Judge Susan Webber Wright granted President Clinton's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Jones could not show that she had suffered any damages. Jones appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, where, at oral argument, two of the three judges on the panel appeared sympathetic to her arguments.[9]

On November 13, 1998, Clinton settled with Jones for $850,000, the entire amount of her claim, but without an apology, in exchange for her agreement to drop the appeal. Robert Bennett, Clinton's attorney, still maintained that Jones' claim was baseless and that Clinton only settled so he could end the lawsuit and move on with his life.[9] In March 1999, Judge Wright ruled that Jones would only get $200,000 from the settlement and that the rest of the money would pay for her legal expenses.[10] Before the end of the entire litigation, her marriage broke apart and she appeared in the news media to show the results of a nose job paid for by a donor.[11]

In April 1999, Judge Wright found President Clinton in civil contempt of court for misleading testimony in the Jones case. She ordered Clinton to pay $1,202 to the court and an additional $90,000 to Jones' lawyers for expenses incurred as the result of Clinton's dishonest and misleading answers about his alleged affair with Monica Lewinsky.[12][13][14] This amount, however, was far less than the $496,000 that the lawyers originally requested from Clinton after he was found in contempt of court.[14]

Wright then referred Clinton's conduct to the Arkansas Bar for disciplinary action, and on January 19, 2001, the day before President Clinton left office, he entered into an agreement with the Arkansas Bar and Independent Counsel Robert Ray under which Clinton was stripped of his license to practice law for a period of five years.[15] His fine was paid from a fund raised for his legal expenses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones

Gee, maybe it's just me, but if I had just been awarded a summary judgment, I'm not so sure I'd be inclined to pay a non-victim $850,000.

And a little more detail here:

Determining the size of Clinton's financial penalties has been the only remaining issue in Jones' lawsuit charging Clinton with sexual misconduct while he was governor of Arkansas. The lawsuit, which was settled out of court last year with Clinton paying her $850,000 but not admitting guilt, led to the disclosure of the president's efforts to hide his relationship with Lewinsky and eventually to his impeachment.

The financial penalty is part of the unprecedented finding of contempt of court against a president of the United States by a federal judge. Wright ruled in April that the president had been in contempt for knowingly lying about his relationship with Lewinsky when questioned by Jones' lawyers.

"The court takes no pleasure in imposing contempt sanctions against this nation's president and, no doubt like many others, grows weary of this matter," Wright said in her 19-page ruling.

"Nevertheless, the court has determined that the president deliberately violated this court's discovery orders, thereby undermining the integrity of the judicial system, and that sanctions must be imposed to redress the president's misconduct and to deter others who might consider emulating the president's misconduct," she said.

When he was deposed in Washington by Jones' lawyers in January 1998 in Wright's presence, Clinton denied that he had engaged in sexual relations with Lewinsky and that he had ever been alone with her but for a fleeting moment.

After Clinton acknowledged in August an improper physical relationship with Lewinsky while she was a White House intern, Wright reacted angrily, saying she would consider whether his behavior might constitute contempt of court.

httphttp://articles.sfgate.com/1999-07-30/news/17694320_1_jones-lawyers-judge-susan-webber-wright-paula-jones

One can only speculate if Judge Wright's summary judgment ruling would have been any different if she had known about Clinton's deception earlier. But at least we can take comfort that there are no victims here.

Whaddaya think Drixxx? Was Clinton's "unprecedented" contempt of court as "frivilous" as Paula's initial suit?

PS--Clinton's "deliberate violation" of Judge Wright's discovery orders is not my opinion either. It is the ruling of the court.

 

[Drixxx]

You're asking me to use as a baseline the same assumptions you've made. You're treating your guess as gospel. Good for you, but leave me out of that part.

I knew who was lying to me with both the ACORN and the NPR situations. I know who is lying to me now.

Pajamas has a pretty even-handed--but suggestive--timeline up. It puts to rest a couple of the attempts at Occamism on this thread. It doesn't close the book, by any means, but it's certainly the most realistic of the guesses I've read about this. http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/05/30/weinergate-what-we-know/2/

For a far more agendad version that makes a pretty good argument for something fishy going on with Weiner and Cordova, see here: http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2011/05/complete-weinergate-timeline-crack.html

The latter obviously has a conclusion already drawn, as you do, but along the way he makes a far more compelling case than you have so far.

I'm not making any guesses. I've never claimed Weiner innocence. I have no definitive opinion on the matter. What I don't do is form an opinion based on wild speculation based on accusations from dubious sources.

Pajamas Media is a joke. They are outfit that hired a working gay male prostitute as their White House correspondent. His only experience in journalism being a one weekend course at some right wing Christian college.

Here he is at work.

http://images.salon.com/news/feature/2005/02/10/gannon_affair/story.jpg

Here is is at work again.

http://www.queerty.com/wp/docs/2009/12/jeff-gannon.jpg

I understand he specializes military fetishes.

The second link is nothing but pure speculation. I prefer the information posted at Smoking Gun which is collecting actual facts and first hand interviews. No just dreaming up what might have happened.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

I'm not making any guesses. I've never claimed Weiner innocence. I have no definitive opinion on the matter.

You do realize that you started a thread--this thread--titled, "WeinerGate Twitter Hoax is Beginning to Unravel! I Told You Stupid Fucks!!!" right?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I don't have cable—or even broadcast TV. I have no idea what FOX and CNN are saying about this. I don't like or dislike Rep. Weiner. I'm just a guy who is pretty good at figuring out when someone's lying to me.

This guy is lying to me.

I don't think he is lying as much as he is invoking the "Drixxx rule" -- the legal right to delay telling you the whole truth as long as possible.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

I don't think he is lying as much as he is invoking the "Drixxx rule" -- the legal right to delay telling you the whole truth as long as possible.

Watch that CNN interview, and then read the PJ's media piece. The hoops you have to jump through to make this a hack are virtually Obama-was-born-in-Kenya-and-brought-to-Hawaii-by-psychics-who-knew-he-would-one-day-run-for-President sized.

I know we all want to believe the nice man.

He's lying.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Watch that CNN interview, and then read the PJ's media piece. The hoops you have to jump through to make this a hack are virtually Obama-was-born-in-Kenya-and-brought-to-Hawaii-by-psychics-who-knew-he-would-one-day-run-for-President sized.

I know we all want to believe the nice man.

He's lying.

I-was-just-kidding. My-point-was-the-Drixxx-jab.

 

[Drixxx]

Gee, maybe it's just me, but if I had just been awarded a summary judgment, I'm not so sure I'd be inclined to pay a non-victim $850,000.

And a little more detail here:


One can only speculate if Judge Wright's summary judgment ruling would have been any different if she had known about Clinton's deception earlier. But at least we can take comfort that there are no victims here.

Whaddaya think Drixxx? Was Clinton's "unprecedented" contempt of court as "frivilous" as Paula's initial suit?

PS--Clinton's "deliberate violation" of Judge Wright's discovery orders is not my opinion either. It is the ruling of the court.

The court found she was not a victim. Case closed.

Here are some naked pics of the non-victim. Not to speculate that she is a gold digging media whore or anything.

http://media.bestfreenudecelebs.com/person/paula-jones/paula-jones-nude-4-150x150.jpg

http://media.bestfreenudecelebs.com/person/paula-jones/paula-jones-nude-3-150x150.jpg

http://www.ezurl.ws/db/paula_jones/paula_jones.jpg

http://www.free-nude-rare-celebs.com/nude-celebs-pictures/p/paula-jones-nude/paula-jones-nude-1.jpg

http://celebs.iwangmedia.com/paula_jones_penthouse/paula_jones_penthouse-0002.jpg

http://celebs.iwangmedia.com/paula_jones_penthouse/paula_jones_penthouse-0005.jpg

http://celebs.iwangmedia.com/paula_jones_penthouse/paula_jones_penthouse-0004.jpg

 

[Sonny Limatina]

I-was-just-kidding. My-point-was-the-Drixxx-jab.

I know. I meant the nice Weiner-man.

And how about some props on being able to pull of that world-record-sized compound modifier?

 

[Sonny Limatina]

The court found she was not a victim. Case closed.

Here are some naked pics of the non-victim. Not to speculate that she is a gold digging media whore or anything.

http://media.bestfreenudecelebs.com/person/paula-jones/paula-jones-nude-4-150x150.jpg

http://media.bestfreenudecelebs.com/person/paula-jones/paula-jones-nude-3-150x150.jpg

http://www.ezurl.ws/db/paula_jones/paula_jones.jpg

http://www.free-nude-rare-celebs.com/nude-celebs-pictures/p/paula-jones-nude/paula-jones-nude-1.jpg

http://celebs.iwangmedia.com/paula_jones_penthouse/paula_jones_penthouse-0002.jpg

http://celebs.iwangmedia.com/paula_jones_penthouse/paula_jones_penthouse-0005.jpg

http://celebs.iwangmedia.com/paula_jones_penthouse/paula_jones_penthouse-0004.jpg

...or that she might be worth hitting on or anything.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I know. I meant the nice Weiner-man.

And how about some props on being able to pull of that world-record-sized compound modifier?

I've had very little interest in this soap opera other than to observe that the gentleman from Oscar-Mayer knows more than he's telling. Anyone who works that hard to avoid making the simplest and most obvious denial.....well, there has to be a reason. For Drixxx, transparent evasiveness is a bizarre hobby.

Congress folks usually have more complex motivations.

And, yeah, good on yer modifier. More hyphens than Liz Taylor's wedding invitations.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

I've had very little interest in this soap opera other than to observe that the gentleman from Oscar-Mayer knows more than he's telling. Anyone who works that hard to avoid making the simplest and most obvious denial.....well, there has to be a reason. For Drixxx, transparent evasiveness is a bizarre hobby.

Congress folks usually have more complex motivations.

And, yeah, good on yer modifier. More hyphens than Liz Taylor's wedding invitations.

I heard some serious pathology in that Wolf Blitzer interview. At some point, you've got to choose a story. Social media is different from real life? OK, fine, but why are you saying that if you didn't do anything you wouldn't do in real life? There's nothing special about the people you follow? OK, fine, then why are you following them? You've got 45,000 people who follow you, what do you get out of following a few coeds, porn stars and girls too young to vote? You were hacked? Fine, just say it wasn't your picture, who's going to know if it was?

You know why you lie about that? Because it was his picture, sent by him, in a public tweet instead of a private one by mistake.

The part where he says that Jon Stewart got it right--that his dick just isn't that big--was the best part. An American male is going to go on CNN to announce he has a small dick?

Uh-huh.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Fine, just say it wasn't your picture, who's going to know if it was?

You know why you lie about that? Because it was his picture, sent by him, in a public tweet instead of a private one by mistake.

The part where he says that Jon Stewart got it right--that his dick just isn't that big--was the best part. An American male is going to go on CNN to announce he has a small dick?

Uh-huh.

Not to defend the Congressman, but having thought about this for 30 seconds or so, I'm not sure I could ID a picture of my own johnson. It's not something I look at that often. I figure it's kind of like the back of my hand. I'm sure I could distinguish it from a lot of other hands, but I suspect there may be as many that look almost identical to mine.

Unless, of course, we're talking about an erect penis. Well, in that case, the entire Gettysburg address tattoo can be read from a distance of about eight feet, so there would be no question.....

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Not to defend the Congressman, but having thought about this for 30 seconds or so, I'm not sure I could ID a picture of my own johnson. It's not something I look at that often. I figure it's kind of like the back of my hand. I'm sure I could distinguish it from a lot of other hands, but I suspect there may be as many that look almost identical to mine.

Unless, of course, we're talking about an erect penis. Well, in that case, the entire Gettysburg address tattoo can be read from a distance of about eight feet, so there would be no question.....

You don't know what kind of underwear you wear? In what colors? You're not aware of whether or not you've ever taken pictures of your own dick? One morning you sign on and find out you photographed your own johnson without realizing it?

I wear boxer briefs, and I own them in three (3) colors and patterns. I can tell you in a glance if a picture includes my own underwear. If it does, I can tell you whether or not I've ever snapped a picture of my own dick.

I have.

^ See?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

You don't know what kind of underwear you wear? In what colors? You're not aware of whether or not you've ever taken pictures of your own dick? One morning you sign on and find out you photographed your own johnson without realizing it?

I wear boxer briefs, and I own them in three (3) colors and patterns. I can tell you in a glance if a picture includes my own underwear. If it does, I can tell you whether or not I've ever snapped a picture of my own dick.

I have.

^ See?

Yeah, okay. And I wasn't thinking about the lava lamp and Farrah Fawcett poster in the background either.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Still not seeing it on news sites...

The only thing they say is unraveling is his story...

 

[about_average]

The hoops you have to jump through to make this a hack are virtually Obama-was-born-in-Kenya-and-brought-to-Hawaii-by-psychics-who-knew-he-would-one-day-run-for-President sized.

Did you not read the link I posted? It didn't need to be a hack, merely anyone who knew his yFrog email address and using a documented feature of yFrog.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Blame the women for the waving Wiener...



http://pajamasmedia.com/andrewklavan/2011/06/06/i-blame-women/

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

From Gateway:

Weiner is cooked.

Big Government announced this morning that they have a cache of evidence they will release today with photographs, timelines, and other clarifying details on Rep. Weiner’s inappropriate internet behavior.

A new woman has come forward with what she claims are photographs, chats, and emails with Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY). These appear to undermine severely Rep. Weiner’s explanations that he was the victim of a “prank” or a “hack.”

The detailed new information suggests that the Brooklyn- and Queens-based representative and the young woman in question were involved in an online, consensual relationship involving the mutual exchange of intimate photographs.

BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com were approached regarding this information more than a week prior to the separate, independent event of Friday, May 27, 2011, when a link to the now-infamous “gray underwear” photograph appeared publicly on Rep. Weiner’s Twitter feed.

We will be updating BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com throughout the day with photographs, timelines, and other clarifying details. However, we will not be releasing all of the material because some of it is of an extreme, graphic nature.

 

[busybody..]

I'm not making any guesses. I've never claimed Weiner innocence. I have no definitive opinion on the matter. What I don't do is form an opinion based on wild speculation based on accusations from dubious sources.

.

hey NIGGER the JOKE IS YOU

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Well, well, well, lookie here. When I told you ignorant fucks that the Anthony Weiner Scandal smelled like six day old fish in a dead whore's pussy nobody wanted to listen. You were too busy dry humping any and every salacious rumor and innuendo put forth on cable news by the likes of journalistic powerhouse Luke Russert who's only reason for being employed in the news media is that his dad dropped dead on the job and they were too cheap to repaint the name on the parking stall.

When I said where the fuck is this info coming from? Who is the source? I was dismissed as supporting Weiner. When I said where is the credible evidence and who is the reliable witness I was told, "I don't know and I don't care". Over and over I asked do you even know the name of the accuser, his political affiliations, his criminal record? I was meet with silence. Well since you didn't ask I'll tell you anyway. Here is one of the main players in the WeinerGate Scandal and is a self described "pervert", convicted drunk driver, and gets arrested for domestic violence when drunk. He also seems to have trouble paying his bills and his taxes. Meet Mike Stack.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/files/assets/mikestackmugshot.jpg

JUNE 3--The Twitter user who first floated the rumor that a lewd photo scandal was brewing for Representative Anthony Weiner is not your typical conservative avenger, an investigation by The Smoking Gun has determined.

Mike Stack, a 39-year-old New Jersey resident, is known as “goatsred” in the Twitterverse, where he has helped lead a months-long assault on the New York City politician. Stack was joined at the hip in this pursuit by “patriotusa76,” who gave his name as “Dan Wolfe” and was the online avenger who happened last Friday night to discover the notorious tweet emanating from Weiner’s account.

As TSG reported yesterday, “Dan Wolfe” has conveniently evaporated in the wake of “Weinergate.” In fact, today Wolfe's entire Twitter page was deleted.

But Stack, the other Twitter Twin, remains online. An examination of his background has discovered:

* Stack, who aggressively pushed the story about Weiner’s underpants shot, has worked as a moderator on a pornography web site, and been a regular commenter on several other X-rated sites. Stack describes himself as a “Pervert” on one site, where his avatar, captioned “Antichrist,” is a drawing of President Barack Obama as Jesus Christ.

* New Jersey court records show that Stack was convicted of drunk driving in February 2008. He was previously arrested for domestic assault in July 2004 following a drunken fight that left his girlfriend with bruises on her arm (that case, though, ended with a dismissal in April 2005). Stack is pictured above in a mug shot taken by the Readington Township Police Department following his 2004 collar.

* Stack has twice declared bankruptcy during the past 14 years. His most recent Chapter 7 case ended in July 2008, around the time Stack lost his Hunterdon County home to foreclosure. At the time of that filing, Stack reported working as a warehouseman for Johnson & Johnson.

* The Internal Revenue Service last year filed a $5907 federal tax lien against Stack.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/internet/mike-stack-weinergate-co-pilot-219073

Sounds like a definite opinion to us...

 

[MeeMie]

what ? huffington post and the new york times came online well before the outlet you cite as unbiased and reliable...

And we all know how "unbiased" and "reliable" those two news outlets are.

Yet, you reminding the loonies only brings more idiotic comments.

t's the same hoax that was used against ACORN, Shirley Sherrod, and NPR, etc. Wild allegations from dubious sources which the lazy news fail to investigate. They just confront the accused, record their denial, and then speculate. How many times are you going to fall for this con?

HAHAHAAA! Oh myyyy God!

It's a con now when truth is divulged ... all supported by actual video indeed.

The REAL con is that the Soros owned ObamaMedia doesn't investigate and report on these same issues. And then of course, the army of sycophants (ie: you et ux) who swear it's all a lie made up by the right wingnuts.