More Weinergate Dirt. We Have Sorta Confirmation of a Conspiracy to Rat Fuck. And Possibly Other Crimes.

Tommy Christopher, one of the editors over at Mediaite, has posted a lengthy bit about how he has been trying to get to the bottom of the story, and the related back stories. He gives no new details about the core incident, but there was a lot of weird strange shit going down. And oddly enough, the point of entry for this journey seems to be Tommy Christopher's weak-assed lame-o-rama defense of Breitbart. Getting ahead of myself, yes Tommy. You are not a lawyer. That much is clear.

Anyway, here's the piece.

The writer seems to think it is all so important that Breitbart did not run the names or pictures of the two teens sucked in to the maelstrom of this story. In fact, a large part of his story is over that point. The writer even posts some tedious exchange between him and Markos of the famous Daily Kos. At one point during his efforts to get Markos to redact or delete names/pictures/whatever from Kos' comments section (reader submitted stuff,) the writer says,"There could be legal implications, I’m not a lawyer."

Ok. Let me deal with this part. I am not an expert in this field of law. For lack of a better label, let's call it Privacy Law. Far as I know there is no general rule that says identities of minors who get involved, deliberately or not, in scandal or conspiracy, or other kind of crime are due blanket protection. In many states Juvenile Criminal Proceedings, including the arrest report, are protected by release by the state. (Now I have experience in that stuff, as I used to do juve crim. defense work, in another life.) But that does not equal a global protection of minors-rule. So Tommy Christopher may have personal reasons for his belief that the kids names/pictures/what not should have been redacted. However I really doubt there is some law that requires that. (I am allowing for the possibility of some local law where the kids live that could go there. I doubt that, sincerely and with reason.)

So I find that part of the writer's story dead stupid, particularly as most of the shit concerning these teens was already posted on the Internet. So that skinny cat was already out of the bag. And it was posted elsewhere by one of the creepy wingnut ratfuckers. So I mean really? I did not get too much into Breitbart there, but Tommy's defense of his mostly obnoxious, and irresponsible conduct seems to be based on the fact that Breitbart did not disclose the already public and published names/pictures/what not of the girls. Excuse me? That's like praising the puppy for not eating the table leg, after you catch it shitting on the carpet. That is what I mean in calling this defense weak-assed and lame-o-rama.

Now for my case against Breitbart. Firstly, he is not only a known and proven and proud ratfucker. That's most of what he does. He might be an independent contractor, but he's a hit man, dirty trickster for the Right Wing. That's the base line. He deserves contempt for merely being the despicable person he chooses to be, and for doing out in the world what he chooses to do. He gets tipped off about this story (the one about the picture, if not the other allegations,) and from the get go, it reeks of a rat fuck. But its sexy, and salacious, and it badly, as in harshly rat fucks a rising star in the Democratic Caucus. So the ever so irresponsible ratfucker runs the rat fuck story, and then goes on TV and blabs about the innuendo. Now no matter what he actually knew when he first went on TV and blabbed the innuendo, and said there was more going on there with under aged girls, he was really way the fuck out there with his own rat fucking. That wasn't even gossiping. That was fanning the defamatory flames without proper evidence. And (I'm not sure of the timeline here,) if he already had reason to believe that his sources were not sincere and trustworthy, his performance on TV is even more contemptible.

Do I think we have the slightest bit of evidence of a crime here by Breitbart? At this point, no. And given the high standard for defamation of a public person? Any case by Rep. Weiner is at best dicey. Actual malice, or at least reckless disregard of the truth are the standards. In theory I think that can be proven in front of a jury. Hard part in a defamation case is getting it in front of a jury even when it's not a public person under the lesser burden. So I do not think any praise is due to Breitbart. His conduct was as slimy and awful as it has ever been, seems to me.

Now I have gone long here, and I am looking for the way out. So I will wrap up by saying that it seems to me there is a criminal conspiracy here between the people who were harassing the young girls during their attempt to rat fuck Weiner. (I won't get into the details but I think we can get there, as far as the crime is concerned, under the Fed. wire fraud statute.) And I mean the conspiracy was to rat fuck Weiner. I hope to see some arrests soon. Likewise, but to a lesser degree, the one girl who deliberately made up shit about Rep. Weiner? Not likely criminal, but she is one fucked up child (but come to think of it, there are some interesting theories of conspiracy. But for now let's say not a criminal.) Likely is no need for state involvement there, but I think some professional therapy is required. Wanting attention that bad that one would make shit up that could ruin a person's reputation? Honey, this ain't a movie starring young Lindsey Lohan. That sort of conduct is the product of a disturbed mind. So fix it.

That's all for now.