Q. There is no one you are sexting now?
A. You can quibble about beginnings, middles and ends but what we're talking about is over a year ago.
A direct answer would be "No, Denis, I am not sexting with anyone now. I haven't sexted with anybody for ______(amount of time.)"
Weiner doesn't respond like that.
He evades the meat of the question - "You can quibble with beginnings, middles and ends..."
Huh?
Hey, Anthony, it's a yes or no question.
"There is no one you are sexting now?"
"Nope, no one I'm sexting with now, Denis."
That's answering the question directly.
Weiner's response makes me think he's still hiding something here.
UPDATED NOTE: Here's why this post is being retracted:
Yesterday that fine paper known as the New York Daily News published an interview with Anthony Weiner conducted by DN columnist Denis Hamill.
That interview made news itself when it seemed from the transcription that Weiner was evading a question Hamill asked on whether Weiner was currently sexting with any strangers he met over the Internets.
Here is the passage in question as posted yesterday by the Daily News:
Q. There is no one you are sexting now?
A. You can quibble about beginnings, middles and ends but what we're talking about is over a year ago.
That interview set off a 36 hour media frenzy as almost every political reporter in the city followed Weiner around trying to get him to say whether he was sexting with anyone at the current time.
It turns out, however, that the geniuses at the Daily News transcribed that interview Q&A wrong.
According to Politico, here is how the audio Q&A went:
Hamill: "And it was over a year ago? There’s been nothing else?"
Weiner: "I mean, oh yeah, all that stuff is behind me. You can quibble about you know, beginnings, middles and ends, but it was basically a year ago."
Wow - that's a big difference from what the DN first posted yesterday. From this exchange, it's obvious that Weiner is NOT evading the question and is unequivocally saying he is not sexting with any and hasn't for around a year or so.
The Daily News, being the quality paper it is, went with a front page apology to Weiner, begging his forgiveness for setting off that 36 hour media frenzy and...
Nah, just kidding - the scum at the DN went with a little note at the bottom of the interview:
On Wednesday, the Daily News posted a "clarification" at the bottom of Hamill's interview: "In an interview with Anthony Weiner in Tuesday’s paper, a question posed to the mayoral candidate and his answer were transcribed incorrectly," it read. "A question about sexting should have ended with: 'There’s been nothing else?' Weiner’s answer was: 'I mean, oh yeah, all that stuff is behind me. You can quibble about beginnings, middles and ends, but it was basically a year ago.'”
Classic DN - smear somebody either purposely or through a careless mistake, then basically ignore the whole thing by putting up a "clarification" that nobody will see.
I've been beating up on Weiner for a while now and did so after the DN interview appeared yesterday morning.
Let me take this opportunity to retract this post -given the new realities around the interview, it's wrong.
Shame the DN doesn't do the same.
And Christine Quinn still does not directly answer whether she got kickback from closing St Vincent's Hospital. Ans she does not directly admit to her slush funds, or her phony programs she allocated money for which really went in her pcckets. Bill Thompson and John Liu don't directly answer about their why they ran corrupt comptroller offices with money laundering. Weiner did nothing to hurt taxpayers. he lied to his wife like TONS of past NYC Mayors and Senators and Governors. Why the witch hunt just on Weiner??? Its very blatant how the political media is a bunch of corrupt people themselves. STICK TO THE ISSUES OF HOW NYC CAN GET FIXED, as Mr Weiner said. Because THAT is what I care about, not some stupid sexting sandal. Fucking grow up Perdido St!!!
ReplyDeleteI'm all grown, but thanks for asking.
DeleteQuinn is a crook. So is Thompson. If you read my blog, you know I'm on record saying that.
As for Liu, I like John Liu. I think he has been a good comptroller and I think the campaign finance fraud thing has been a witchhunt against him because the powers that be in this city were afraid he would be elected mayor and they wanted to short circuit any chance of that happening.
Quite frankly, Bloomberg laundered millions through three election cycles to the Independence Party, bribed officials there with millions to get on their ballot line, and yet, he's considered squeaky clean on campaign finance while Liu is dirty,
It's a joke, but when the mayor is the second richest man in America and has the kind of pull he has with officials, with politicians, with the US attorney's office and the like, that's the kind of thing that happens.
As for my critique of Weiner, you can see it down below after the next commenter.
Even if he answered the question, YOU and other dumbass political and news media would not believe him. SO?? If he said yes, you would bash him, if he said no you would go crazy trying to prove he is. I have never seen a worse group of political journalists who cover an election NOT BASED ON ACTUAL ISSUES AND THE PLANS AND PROGRAM THAT A CANDIDATE HAS IN MIND TO PUT FORTH AS MAYOR TO FIGHT FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS. I AGREE WITH ANTHONY WEINER, I WOULD PUT HIS POLICIES AND RECORD UP AGAINST THE OTHER CROOKED LYING CANDIDATES IN THIS RACE. YOU ARE DEFINITELY NOT REALITY BASED, COS YOU JUST LOOK AT WHAT YOU WANT TO AND HAVE SELECTIVE HEARING ALSO.
ReplyDeleteI love the caps - really catches the attention.
DeleteOK, let's deal with some of your points. You say you would put Weiner's policies and record up against any other candidate.
What record are you talking about?
He literally has no record in Congress, he introduced one bill his entire tenure, and spent most of his time either on Twitter or cable TV promoting himself.
When he was on the city council, he voted to change rent control so that more apartments would be decontrolled and landlords could charge whatever they wanted for rent.
Weiner TALKS about helping the middle class, but his record on economic issues has always been conservative and corporate-friendly and there is nothing he is putting forward now that would help middle class people either.
Anthony Weiner is a cheap, self-promoting, corporatist politician who doesn't care about working class or middle class people. He left Forest Hills to take up on Park Avenue South where he lives in an apartment owned by a Clinton donor, he and his wife both make six figures as "consultants" (i.e., political hacks) and this campaign was solely about rehabilitating his image so that he could cash in later on down the line.
That's reality - deal with it.
As for the other candidates, if you read my blog, you know that I don't carry water for any of them.
But you need to stop believing Weiner's jive and take a REAL look at who the guy is and what's he done over his political career.