Crisis Communications Team Comes Up With Exciting New Way To Explain The "Bad Fact" Away

Weinah, please.

Of course, the simplest explanation of the scenario is that he had, in fact, tried to send a picture of his genitals to a 21-year-old Washington state college student. Weiner has denied that in public and in private. Two people who spoke to him privately said he had suggested that, as one said, “he took or sent a photo or photos like this at some point — but in this case actually was hacked/set up, perhaps with a posting of one of his own photos or something very similar.”

“If that is the reality, there is no magic, good way to handle it,” Dezenhall said. “You have what lawyers call a ‘bad fact.’”

What am I, drunk on stupid-juice? You've paged through a series of false claims, almost all of which are disproven or can be easily disproven.

Yfrog says there was no hack. Twitter says nothing, and for God's sake you are a key legislator writing laws regarding them, so I think they're inclined to support your story. Yet they don't.

I hate to keep hammering this point but your lighthearted, casual, #Hacked! demeanor immediately after the "hack" is violently incompatible with the serious and malicious breach you were alleging.

For me, that's the game right there. As I say there, the words "I HAVE JUST BEEN CRIMINALLY, MALICIOUSLY VIOLATED!" have never been genuinely followed by "Hey, anyone catch the score of that Bruins game?"

This new trial balloon of what, in Nixon's day, was called, um, the "modified limited hangout" -- admit a little, in the hopes that people will incorrectly conclude you're now coming clean -- is preposterous.

There is no earthly reason this "innocent explanation" couldn't have been offered on day three. Yes, you could have told everyone "When I was single, I was a bit of rowdy, and I did some things as a single man I'm not happy to acknowledge as a married man." And, if that were true-- fine. Sure, I would have accused you of lying, and comics would have goofed on you, but if it were true, you'd be in no peril.

None at all. You'd get some razzing, and some dark muttering from angry bloggers who are convinced that "there's more to this story," but I think I speak for all angry bloggers when I say we do that all the time, anyway, and if it's not your junk we're spinning conspiracy theories about it's something else. No one takes us particularly seriously.

If that were true, none of this would be happening.

Note what is perhaps the third-most powerful two-letter word in the language there, however -- if. That little word turns all lies into truths.

If any of this were true, then you would have been the victim of a serious hacking -- such a serious hacking, in fact, that I personally would not dare to joke about it, myself -- and would be entitled to, and would naturally receive, all the police assistance in the world to track down your hacker.

There's not getting around this. Weiner's spinner calls the penis picture "the bad fact."

No, the penis picture is the funny fact.

The fact that the picture was sent to a 21 year old coed is the alarming fact.

Not calling the police? That's the bad fact.

I admire the effort to turn the picture into the "bad fact." But here's the actual fact: It's people who are not serious about hanging you who are still looking at that picture. People like TV Clown Jon Stewart, whom naive people are calling "brave" for simply acknowledging that yes, a funny picture of a penis exists, ha-ha-ha, hee-hee-hee.

Oh my garsh! Jon Stewart is really telling the truth on this!

Oh? About what? That penises are funny and have been since we were three years old? Well, thanks for the insight on that, Jon. You keep on being edgy and brave.

No, people who are serious about hanging you aren't looking at your picture. They're looking at your behavior.

And your behavior is of a guilty man.

Because, if you were telling the truth with this newest version of your claim, then you would be not just a victim, but a sympathetic victim, and a sympathetic victim entitled to all the help in the world in tracking down your violator.

And yes, that's the word I'd use. Violator. This would be a clear violation. One that I could sympathize with.

So your best move, Representative, is to call the FBI IC3 unit, which could track down your hacker in probably two days, and determine you were hacked in forty five seconds, clearing your name, removing any humiliation from your wife, whom you claim you're "protecting." Not to mention all those poor human shields you say you care so very much about and really can't we just let this go? For their sake?

And not only clearing your name, but putting the entire Right Wing in dire jeopardy, because we all know the media loves to take the crimes of one right winger and charge them against a movement of 100 million people.

Even when the right winger is not a right winger, but an avowed Communist, like IRS plane-bomber Joseph Stack.

So that is your best move, Anthony Weiner.

The trouble is -- that's not actually your best move, Representative Weiner, and I'm pretty sure even your most ardent supporters are beginning to understand why that should be.

If you were a victim, you'd call the FBI's IC3 unit. You would get the White Glove, Red Carpet, Gold Star treatment. They would be so scrupulously cautious about checking with you regarding each and every file on your computer you'd have no fears of "additional invasion of privacy" or whatever bullshit you'll wind up telling us next.

No, you're not siccing the police on the hacker for the real "bad fact" that there is no hacker.

And you can trot out these preposterous new trial balloons every day if you like, and I will sit here saying the same goddamned thing, over and over again:

Here is the Internet Computer Complaint Center. You can fill out this form and get justice.

Of course, as a Representative in the United States Congress, a man in actual Constitutional succession to assume the Presidency should just the right improbable disaster strike, you don't need to fill out that form, and be ignored, like most citizens.

You can call -- and this person's number is right on your cell phone, and if you don't have it, ask your wife, former trusted aide to the Secretary of State -- the Attorney General of the United States of America, the boss of all bosses of the FBI.

But you're not going to call him. You're not going to call anyone, except your "private security firm" which looks suspiciously like a law firm with some IT guys.

So keep on floating these new, improved tales of Violations Imponderable, looking for a miracle story to get you out of a jam.

And I will keep on telling you, as Hans Gruber said, "You want a miracle? I give you the F.

B.

I."

And it will always continue being spelled that way. Not "PSF" for Private Security Firm.

That is the "bad fact."

Deal with that.

I don't want to hear your next 30 "how about this one?" excuses about this.

I want the F.B.I. to hear them.

They can determine the truth of the matter readily enough. Stop trying out your exciting new stories on me, and start trying them out on a Special Agent.

You think you can backpedal your way into a new story we'll suddenly all buy?

No dice. Call the people who can tell false stories from true in five minutes, and then have them report the truth to me.

posted by Ace at 01:37 AM

| Access Comments