One would think that when a grown married man and a United States Congressman no less is caught engaging in any form of illicit behavior with an under-aged girl (or boy) there would be no wiggle room for the assignment of blame and that everyone, whether involved or merely reporting on it, would universally condemn the behavior.
If that’s what you’d think then you have underestimated the liberal media in America.
When the sexting scandals of former House Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) first broke in the spring of 2011 Weiner initially went with the ever popular “my account’s been hacked” excuse. Which quickly fell apart. Exposed as not just a pervert but a perv and a liar, Weiner eventually resigned and seemed destined to fade into infamy.
At least that was probably the plan. Until the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign caused the unholy union of Hilary, Huma, Weiner, Weiner’s weiner, laptop computers and under-aged girls to again rear its ugly head.
Now in an effort to …who knows what, maybe begin cleaning up loose ends in a preemptive move for Hillary’s 2020 run… the liberal news media machine is doing the unthinkable — painting Weiner and Hillary as the victims in all this!
Reported on in the Hill:
“The teenage girl who had exchanged sexually explicit text messages with former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) lied about her age and political motivations to harm Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, according to a report by the investigative news site WhoWhatWhy.
In a report published Monday, the website said the girl who exchanged the messages with Weiner was closer to 17 and not 15, as initial reports said. That also puts her above the age of consent in North Carolina, which is 16.
In addition, she and her family were also not Clinton supporters, as the girl claimed in a letter published by BuzzFeed, according to social media posts unearthed by the website. The report also says the girl initiated the contact with Weiner and then sought advice from a GOP figure behind “prior efforts to harm Weiner and other Democrats.”
The website suggests this could mean that Weiner was the target of a politically motivated plot.
“Seeing that Weiner is both a repeat offender — his sexting addiction cost him his job in Congress as well as a shot at becoming mayor of New York — and associated with one of the most important people in Clinton’s inner circle, it is conceivable that this was a set-up from the beginning, with the objective of embarrassing the Clinton campaign,” the WhoWhatWhy report reads.”
It doesn’t get much more debased than that. So the teenage girl was actually a political operative who was setting Weiner up in an effort to damage the Clinton presidency bid. The writers would have us believe that somehow this teenager and/or her handlers would’ve known that Weiner’s exploits would be discovered, that that discovery would lead to an investigation of his computer and that upon inspection investigators would’ve found evidence of Huma communicating top secret materials to her husband and that those communications could in some way implicate former-Secretary Clinton and thus be damaging to her campaign. Seriously?
The story continues:
“Weiner last week pled guilty to a charge of distributing obscene material to a minor, which carries a sentence of up to 10 years in prison.
WhoWhatWhy is a nonprofit investigative reporting site that describes itself as “forensic journalism” that looks to “unearth the facts interested parties want hidden.” Its editor-in-chief and CEO is Russ Baker, who has written for The New York Times, The New Yorker and The Washington Post.
The WhoWhatWhy report, citing a court record, says the girl was just shy of 17 when she approached Weiner, and not 15 as The Daily Mail cited when it initially broke the story.
It argues that this “lie” seems “clearly designed to to produce the maximum public outrage and put Weiner in greater legal jeopardy.”
Oh, so she was 16 and some months old, not 15. Even if that blatant attempt to discredit prior reporting is accurate, does that somehow absolve Weiner of what he did with her?
This is plain disgusting. That the liberal media will smear and try to discredit anyone it views as a threat isn’t exactly news, but doing so to a child is beyond the pale even for these cretins. And is anyone surprised that the editor-in-chief of this slime production outfit has done time at the Washington Post, New Yorker and the New York Times? Wonder where he learned his ‘reporting’ tactics?
[Note: This article was written by Derrick Wilburn]