Russ Feingold is in fine form here at a rally in Walkerville Sunday, rallying the troops to gear up for recalls of the Republican Senators in July. Via Daily Kos : Senator Russ Feingold: “Why are we in a place called Walkerville today? I will tell you why we’re here. We are here because we will not stop until we win, until this is over. We are here because the big corporate interests in this country decided, about 20 years ago, ‘I think the first thing we’ll do is pass a bunch of trade agreements and ship overseas all the jobs of the people in the private sector’, that’s the first thing they decided to do. They got the job done on that, ruthlessly, tricking both parties into it, and then they said ‘Okay, now we go after the public employees. Let’s go after, those, let’s start saying that teachers aren’t the people they are, let’s start demonizing public employees, and maybe we can get the people who lost their jobs on the private side to turn on the people on the public side!’. It’s divide and conquer by the big money interests in this country, that’s always been their strategy. Frankly, I don’t think all of us saw it coming. I certainly didn’t see the ruthlessness and how far they would go with this. ” And there’s more: “We only need 17 of em. So that we are able to keep Walker stopped. But that doesn’t mean we can’t do anything more. That’s not enough. Then we gotta take back the state assembly in the 2012 elections. And then we all agree, we want the trifecta, and that we have to defeat Scott Walker and get a new Governor. And then we need a repeal passed by the Democratic state senate, passed by the Democratic state assembly and then signed by the new Democratic governor, that is what we need. I am here to stand with you to continue that fight. If it takes a year, great, if it takes five years, it’s worth it. This is not a short term deal. I used to say when I maybe occasionally played a little to aggressively with my sister, ‘The game is not over until I win!’, well, this game is not over until WE WIN!”” Next move? Feingold for Wisconsin Governor?
Continue reading …
Authorities prepare to bring charges in absentia of conspiring against the state, voluntary manslaughter and drug trafficking The trial in absentia of former Tunisian president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, who fled to Saudi Arabia in January, will begin next week, Tunisia’s interim prime minister said on Monday. “Ben Ali’s trial will start on 20 June,” Beji Caid-Essebsi said in an interview on al-Jazeera television. “He will be tried in a military and in a civilian court.” Ben Ali fled to Jeddah after he was toppled by mass protests on 14 January after 23 years in power. Several members of his family and security and some of his closest allies were detained shortly after he was forced out. Tunisian authorities have been preparing several legal cases against Ben Ali, including conspiring against the state, voluntary manslaughter and drug trafficking. The caretaker authorities, trying to assert their authority and gain legitimacy in the eyes of protesters who forced the transition, are attacking the vestiges of his rule. Saudi authorities have not responded to a request by Tunis to extradite Ben Ali and his wife Leila Trabelsi. Former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, who was ousted shortly after Ben Ali, is also due to stand trial for the killing of protesters and could face the death penalty. Tunisia Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali Africa Arab and Middle East unrest guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Paula Brooks, who claimed to be editor of LezGetReal.com, admitted to the Washington Post that ‘she’, too, was a man A second supposedly leading lesbian blogger was exposed as a man masquerading as a gay woman, a day after the Gay Girl in Damascus blog was revealed to be the fictional creation of a married male student from Edinburgh. Paula Brooks, who claimed to be the executive editor of a US-based lesbian site LezGetReal.com, told the Washington Post that “she”, too, was a man – in this case, a 58-year-old retired construction worker from Ohio called Bill Graber. The LezGetReal blogger’s identity began to come into question last week as doubts over the Gay Girl in Damascus blog intensified, voiced, among others, by the feminist blogger Liz Henry, who writes at BlogHer.com. Before starting the Gay Girl in Damascus blog in February, Tom MacMaster, the Edinburgh student masquerading as Amina Abdullah Araf al Omari, had written posts on LezGetReal.com. Graber, masquerading as Brooks, had supplied information to a number of news outlets, including the Guardian, which pointed towards an Edinburgh IP address for the Amina blog. But the LezGetReal editor’s own conduct increasingly led to questions over her own identity. Material released online on Sunday, which resulted in an admission by MacMaster that he was Amina, also raised questions about Brooks, including speculation over whether the two were creations of the same person. MacMaster, in a contrite blog post on Monday, even apologised to “Paula Brooks” as a handful of named victims of his deception. Challenged on Monday by the Washington Post, Graber said he had started the blog after witnessing the mistreatment of close lesbian friends. “I didn’t start this with my name because … I thought people wouldn’t take it seriously, me being a straight man,” he said. He said his interaction with Amina was purely coincidental, “a major sock-puppet hoax crash[ing] into a major sock-puppet hoax.” “Sock puppet” is the term used by bloggers to describe a fake persona adopted by a blogger who may also be posting under another name. Amina often “flirted” with Brooks, the paper said – with neither man apparently realising that the other was also a man pretending to be a lesbian. Brooks told reporters that “she” was deaf, and so telephone interviews had to be conducted through her “father”. The Guardian spoke a number of times to a man masquerading as Brooks’s father, after which suspicions were raised that Brooks was a man and was also potentially posing as Amina. Further investigations established that, rather like the supposed young woman in Syria, even close associates had never met Brooks, and that her claims to have a PhD in archaeology from Bryn Mawr college, a masters from Gallaudet University and a BA from Duke University, were false. In an email to the Guardian on Thursday, during our investigations, Brooks said: “Now I have a real day job … and a real off blog life … and I will be real annoyed if you intrude in that … you get my message?” The blogger, who claimed to have three children, said her “father” was “totally up [her] ass” following the paper’s inquiries. In another email Graber/Brooks wrote: “Let me be clear here … we are both the victim of this ‘woman’s’ scam.” Challenged directly by email on Sunday, before MacMaster’s admission, about the allegations that she was Amina, Brooks confirmed that “she” was an avatar, or false identity, and directed this reporter to a blog dated 2007 that described a woman’s experience of coming out. It was headed with the following Shakespeare quotation: “To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man.” Melanie Nathan , an LGBT and human rights advocate who was a partner in LezGetReal.com and had also been taken in by Graber, told the Guardian of her feelings of betrayal. “I left the site because I believed that Amina ‘the Gay Girl from Damascus’ was not authentic,” said Nathan. “I told Paula – Bill – that Amina was suspect and she went ballistic on me and called me a bigot.” “I was completely taken in. She [Paula] is a person to me, a real person with this persona, with children.” “The whole gay community of bloggers is freaking out right now because everyone in some shape or form has encountered Paula Brooks. It has had a severe impact on the trust among the web of bloggers who are interconnected and work with each other. “In my opinion, what Graber has done, to be a straight man calling himself a lesbian, is tantamount to impersonating an entire community.” Linda LaVictoire, a contributor at LezGetReal.com who writes as Linda Carbonelli, told the Washington Post: “I was completely taken in. I have been completely taken in for three years.” Blogging Gay rights Syria Middle East Esther Addley Ben Quinn guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Mitt Romney takes on Michele Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty and others in the New Hampshire Republican debate – live 8.51pm ET: Crowd shot. Lots of bored people in the audience. And I’m not surprised, each candidate is essentially saying the same thing, and just repeating catchphrases. The format is helping: 30 second answers do not encourage discursive thinking. Ads break! 8.45pm ET: Some classic Newt Gingrich brand of bullshit here. Asked about Nasa and the space programme, Gingrich chunters on about how the failure of the space programme was caused by Nasa. Now there we were thinking the whole “man on the moon” thing was a success, but no. According to Newt, if the zillions of dollars given the Nasa had been given to the private sector, then “We would today probably have a permanent station on the moon.” Oh yes. The moderator asks the rest of the group if they too blame Nasa. Lots of foot-shuffling until Tim Pawlenty – good on him – actually speaks up for Nasa and says the space programme is worth keeping. Newt then claims he was misquoted – by himself? – and they he didn’t say Nasa was at fault. A lot of Republicans say that Newt Gingrich has a “brilliant mind”. Tonight he seems to have several minds, all on the same issue. 8.38pm ET: The reaction on Twitter to the format of the debate isn’t great. Now Romney is confronted with his previous words saying that if the government bailed out the auto industry, then “you can kiss the US auto industry goodbye”. Now that sounds pretty stupid, since the US auto industry is doing OK right now. Romney says no that’s not what he emant, and blah blah blah. Especially blah. The entire corps of candidates say they would have opposed all the 2008-2009 financial bail outs. Wow, from a laboratory point of view, it’s almost worth wanting to see what would happen if that actually occured. 8.36pm ET: Elvis or Johnny Cash, Bachmann is asked. “Oh that’s really tough,” she says. “Both.” Oh come on. Johnny Cash is not fit to shine Elvis’s shoes, or his spandex jumpsuit. 8.34pm ET: Ad break! 8.30pm ET: “Right to work legislation” is the next topic, in this situation that means “no unions”. “We live in the United States of America,” replies Tim Pawlenty, which is self-evident, “and no one should be forced to join anything”. Oh god. Now CNN’s John King is asking “this or that” questions. What’s that all about? The first question is to Rick Santorum and it’s: Leno or Conan? “Neither,” is Santorum’s first response. A new low for American political debate? What’s next, a quick round of “shag, marry, kill”? 8.29pm ET: Rick Santorum break. 8.28pm ET: Tim Pawlenty is asked, and he says the country is carrying 50 pounds of rocks on their back, “and one of those rocks is Obamacare,” claiming he knows someone who has moved their entire company out of America because of healthcare reforms. Uh huh. 8.24pm ET: Herman Cain starts every answer: “As a businessman…”. Kind of fluffy answer on the Tea Party though. Cain’s major policy is that he’ll get experts together, find the right answer, and do it. It’s so simple. Maybe those politicians should try it? Ron Paul is asked about encouraging manufacturing and it appears to be going back on the gold standard, basically. Not entirely convincing. 8.22pm ET: Bachmann is asked about the influence of the Tea Party. “The Tea Party is made up of disaffected Democrats,” she claims, among other things. Not strictly true. Bachmann is wowing the crowd. “President Obama is a one term president!” she shouts, to some cheers. 8.21pm ET: Rick Santorum is asked a question. It’s always to have a break. 8.14pm ET: Michele Bachmann is asked about abolishing “Obamacare”. Her eyes gleam. Open goal! Now Romney is asked about Pawlenty’s snide remark about “Obamneycare” – a play on Obama + Romney + healthcare = Obamneycare, given how Romney backed a similar healthcare bill in Massachusetts. Mitt says it’s all different, and so forth. Hmm. Pawlenty is asked about his use of “Obamneycare,” and Pawlenty mentions that Obama specifically mentioned Romney’s healthcare plan as a role model. Pawlenty’s being very arch here and doing quite well. Do you want to respond, Romney is asked. But he won’t. Instead he says: “Why didn’t the president give me a call and ask me what worked?” Oh Mitt, really? You want voters to think you’d have co-operated with Obama on this? When in a hole, stop digging. In conclusion: everyone hates Obamacare and possibly Obamneycare. 8.10pm ET: Newt Gingrich is asked about the economy and he immediately harks back to the Reagan tax cuts “which I helped passed”. That was like a million years ago. Seriously, like 28 years ago. Half the voters have no idea what he’s talking about. Michele Bachmann when asked about the economy instead hijacks the discussion by announcing that she has officially filed to run for the presidency. Like, wow. Ron Paul gets a big laugh when asked if President Obama had done anything right on the economy. “That’s a tough question,” he grins. Anyway the answer is free markets, says Ron. Isn’t it always? 8.07pm ET: First question is on the economy, and Herman Cain has a pretty coherentish answer about changes to taxes, no idea what it means. Santorum just bangs on about how awful Obama has been. Tim Pawlenty is asked about his plan and he says “America is not Portugal,” and follows up his nutty claim that the US can have a long-run 5% rate of growth, which is nonsense. But he says that if Brazil can do it, then the US can. He’s wrong. Romney is asked. “Tim has the right instincts,” he replies, in a neat piece of patronising, and then pivots onto attacking Obama. But he’s running over time, and John King, the moderator, has to sort of go “Uh, uh, uh” to interupt him and shut him up. 8.05pm ET: A question from the audience but I calculate that the assembled candidates have 80,000 children in one way or another between them. Are they running to be head of a Parent-Teacher Association? 8.03pm ET: OMG, Ron Paul beats them all by mentioning that he has delivered 4,000 babies! Which is a true fact because he used to be an OBGYN. Poor Tim Pawlenty, he only has two children. Herman Cain: “I am not a politician. I am a problem solver.” But only two children and three grand children. Solve that problem Herman Cain! 8.01pm ET: CNN’s John King says “This will be unlike any presidential primary you’ve ever seen.” Somehow I doubt that. The candidates are introducing themselves. Rick Santorum mentions he has seven children. Then Michele Bachmann beats him with five children – and 28 adopted children! Really. Mitt Romney has five sons and 16 grand kids. Does that beat Bachmann? Good question! 7.55pm ET: Here we go. Seconds out. It’s two hours long. Are you ready to rumble? 7.25pm ET: What, you may be wondering, is that sign all about at the top of this live blog, the one reading “Romney RINO”. It’s a Reuters photo taken outside the debate venue this evening – note the side-arm apparently being carried by the sign-holder. Anyway, RINO stands for Republican In Name Only, and it is a term of internecine abuse in the Republican party. Many conservative Republicans believe this about Romney, and they have good reason to, since the healthcare bill he passed as governor in Massachusetts resembles the hated “Obamacare” passed by the Democrats. But Romney has a long history of flip-flopping on his positions, so much so that sales of special “Romney flip-flips” (as in footwear) usual appear around events such as this. 7.14pm ET: To warm things up, here’s a piece I wrote earlier today on the state of the Republican party presidential field – and why “running for president” doesn’t mean what it sounds like it means: Think of the Republican presidential primaries as a political version of Big Brother or American Idol or Top Chef. The majority of contestants quickly realise they don’t have a real chance of winning but they crave the exposure for what it might lead to. What are the three most exciting words in the American lexicon? ” National donut day ” of course. But surely a close runner-up is: “Republican presidential debate”. National donut day was last week, and tonight it’s the Republican party candidates debate, as six men and one woman (not Sarah Palin, sorry) fight for the right to take on Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential elections. We’ll be live-blogging the event right here from the halls of St Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire. Here’s a quick run-down of the cast of characters we’ll be meeting tonight: • Mitt Romney: the former governor of neighbouring Massachusetts is currently leading the polls, having been running for president since 2007 (seriously). With a campaigning style so wooden you could make furniture from it, Romney’s hard work and much-touted business background have helped him in the opinion polls. Many Republicans think he’s too liberal on matters such as healthcare, and don’t trust him. • Tim Pawlenty: a former governor of Minnesota, he appears to be running for the role of “earnest older brother” in a Disney movie. Despite being moderate and sensible, his name recognition is submarine-like, while his campaigning style makes Romney’s seem like a Las Vegas casino in comparison. Probably needs to attack Romney with a broken bottle to make an impact tonight. • Michele Bachmann: also from Minnesota, Bachmann is a member of the House of Representatives and a fully paid up member of the Tea Party. She is currently being touted as “Sarah Palin with brains,” which is setting the bar pretty low. Very conservative. • Newt Gingrich: this may be Newt’s first and last debate since last week his entire campaign quit. The former Speaker of the House is a divisive figure, with some thinking he’s full of hot air, while others think he’s full of something else. He’ll have to explain why even people he paid to support him won’t do so any more. • Ron Paul: the stalwart of the Libertarian wing of the Republican party is running for the third time, and while he has a small and dedicated of followers his dovish policies on national security won’t find favour with the Republican voters. • Herman Cain: the chief executive of Godfathers Pizza has never run for or held elected office in any capacity. Naturally he’s doing very well, given the rest of the field. Thinks running a pizza chain is excellent preparation for being president of the United States. • Rick Santorum: Google his name [NSFW!] and you’ll see what he’s all about. To the right of Attila the Bachmann. Running to get a talkshow or something. Right, shall we begin? Republican presidential nomination 2012 Republicans Mitt Romney New Hampshire Tim Pawlenty Michele Bachmann Newt Gingrich Ron Paul US politics US elections 2012 CNN United States Richard Adams guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Pretty Impressive: Sarah Palin’s E-Mails Score at Eighth-Grade Reading Level
June 13, 2011 No Comment
When nearly 25,000 of former Alaska governor Sarah Palin’s e-mails were released last week, we all were given a (much anticipated) look not only at what she was writing, but how she was writing. AOL brought in two writing analysts to individually assess the level at which the e-mails were being composed. What they found
Continue reading …George Will Continues to Call Social Security ‘A Welfare State That Exists to Transfer Wealth to the Elderly’
June 13, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media I know Susie already wrote about this segment on This Week, but I thought George Will’s comments here deserved some attention of their own. It seems some things never change, like Will calling our social safety nets welfare as he did back in 2007 on this same show, which Nicole wrote about here — George Will Wants Those Lazy Seniors Off The Dole . He also repeated that same talking point for an article he wrote for the Cato Institute back in 2008 where along with repeating that same talking point, Will also derided Americans for not saving enough on their own and for running up their credit cards so that they would end up being dependent on programs like Social Security in the first place rather than having some money in the bank. You know George, all of those terrible, welfare loving seniors might have been able to put more into their savings accounts and would not have needed to run up their credit cards if it weren’t for the “conservative” economic policies someone’s actually been paying you to push for the last god knows how many years with those wingnut welfare checks you receive every week for writing your columns and writing pieces like the one in ’08 for Cato. Or if heaven forbid there had been some tighter regulations on the banks where they weren’t encouraging the type of easy access to credit with interest rates that used to make loan sharks blush, maybe more Americans would not have been allowed to be irresponsible with their spending habits in the first place. But then, we all know what Republicans think about regulation and any nasty government interference with those “free markets.” This is the same man who called the benefits union members in the auto industry received “welfare” as well. I’ve got to wonder how many seniors, no matter what their political leanings, would appreciate Will calling their Social Security benefits welfare. Now that Republicans have decided that doubling down on defending Paul Ryan’s plan to privatize Medicare is a good idea, maybe we can get them to adopt Will’s talking point on Social Security as well, since they apparently believe that destroying our social safety nets is a winner for them during the next election. AMANPOUR: So I know you’re considering Pawlenty as a real viable candidate. Do you think, though, that’s a bit fanciful? I mean, a lot of economists have said that 5 percent today is — I mean, it’s great, it would be great, but not really possible. WILL: A man’s reach should exceed his grasp, and that certainly does. Steady 5 percent growth probably won’t happen. Also, his pledge to get federal spending down to 18 percent of GDP is very hard to do with an aging population and a welfare state that exists to transfer wealth to the elderly. That said, he’s avoiding the austerity trap. He’s avoiding the green eyeshade, root canal kind of politics that Ronald Reagan avoided. Reagan said we’re going to get out of this mess with growth. At this point, by the way, in the Reagan recovery, after ’81-’82, the economy was growing at 7 percent.
Continue reading …
enlarge Remember the billions the Bush administration sent to Iraq just after they started the war there? 12 billion dollars or so was flown into Iraq in cash to facilitate the recovery, or so they said. Between April 2003 and June 2004, $12 billion in U.S. currency—much of it belonging to the Iraqi people—was shipped from the Federal Reserve to Baghdad, where it was dispensed by the Coalition Provisional Authority. Some of the cash went to pay for projects and keep ministries afloat, but, incredibly, at least $9 billion has gone missing, unaccounted for, in a frenzy of mismanagement and greed. Following a trail that leads from a safe in one of Saddam’s palaces to a house near San Diego, to a P.O. box in the Bahamas, the authors discover just how little anyone cared about how the money was handled. The LA Times has a new report on that cash, and incredibly, it seems that $6.6 billion has just been…stolen. This month, the Pentagon and the Iraqi government are finally closing the books on the program that handled all those Benjamins. But despite years of audits and investigations, U.S. Defense officials still cannot say what happened to $6.6 billion in cash — enough to run the Los Angeles Unified School District or the Chicago Public Schools for a year, among many other things. For the first time, federal auditors are suggesting that some or all of the cash may have been stolen, not just mislaid in an accounting error. Stuart Bowen, special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, an office created by Congress, said the missing $6.6 billion may be “the largest theft of funds in national history.” In yet another example of stunning incompetence on the part of the Bush administration: The U.S. cash airlift was a desperation measure, organized when the Bush administration was eager to restore government services and a shattered economy to give Iraqis confidence that the new order would be a drastic improvement on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. The White House decided to use the money in the so-called Development Fund for Iraq, which was created by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to hold money amassed during the years when Hussein’s regime was under crippling economic and trade sanctions. And because it is technically Iraq’s money, they are threatening lawsuits to recover it, despite indications that Iraqis probably made off with the bulk of it. The whole cash drop was just an incredibly stupid idea. What did the Bushies expect? That they could drop $100 bills on Iraq and they’d just stay there in the street until authorized personnel picked them up and used them in altruistic ways? Or were they actually hoping that money would be stolen and unrecoverable? I’d love to know how much of it went into Dick Cheney’s pocket. Or Erik Prince’s. How do you “lose” nearly $7 billion dollars?
Continue reading …
enlarge Remember the billions the Bush administration sent to Iraq just after they started the war there? 12 billion dollars or so was flown into Iraq in cash to facilitate the recovery, or so they said. Between April 2003 and June 2004, $12 billion in U.S. currency—much of it belonging to the Iraqi people—was shipped from the Federal Reserve to Baghdad, where it was dispensed by the Coalition Provisional Authority. Some of the cash went to pay for projects and keep ministries afloat, but, incredibly, at least $9 billion has gone missing, unaccounted for, in a frenzy of mismanagement and greed. Following a trail that leads from a safe in one of Saddam’s palaces to a house near San Diego, to a P.O. box in the Bahamas, the authors discover just how little anyone cared about how the money was handled. The LA Times has a new report on that cash, and incredibly, it seems that $6.6 billion has just been…stolen. This month, the Pentagon and the Iraqi government are finally closing the books on the program that handled all those Benjamins. But despite years of audits and investigations, U.S. Defense officials still cannot say what happened to $6.6 billion in cash — enough to run the Los Angeles Unified School District or the Chicago Public Schools for a year, among many other things. For the first time, federal auditors are suggesting that some or all of the cash may have been stolen, not just mislaid in an accounting error. Stuart Bowen, special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, an office created by Congress, said the missing $6.6 billion may be “the largest theft of funds in national history.” In yet another example of stunning incompetence on the part of the Bush administration: The U.S. cash airlift was a desperation measure, organized when the Bush administration was eager to restore government services and a shattered economy to give Iraqis confidence that the new order would be a drastic improvement on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. The White House decided to use the money in the so-called Development Fund for Iraq, which was created by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to hold money amassed during the years when Hussein’s regime was under crippling economic and trade sanctions. And because it is technically Iraq’s money, they are threatening lawsuits to recover it, despite indications that Iraqis probably made off with the bulk of it. The whole cash drop was just an incredibly stupid idea. What did the Bushies expect? That they could drop $100 bills on Iraq and they’d just stay there in the street until authorized personnel picked them up and used them in altruistic ways? Or were they actually hoping that money would be stolen and unrecoverable? I’d love to know how much of it went into Dick Cheney’s pocket. Or Erik Prince’s. How do you “lose” nearly $7 billion dollars?
Continue reading …Limbaugh on Media’s Email Mania: ‘Palin Did Better in Her Public Colonoscopy Than Katie Couric Did in Hers’
June 13, 2011 No Comment
Not surprisingly, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh had some choice words Monday for the media's epic fail concerning their hunt for dirt in the recently-released email of former Alaska governor Sarah Palin. Probably the best line concerning this disgraceful episode was, “Palin did better in her public colonoscopy than Katie Couric did in hers”:
Continue reading …Can we all stop hyperventilating now? WILMINGTON – Police have closed an investigation into the online contact between Rep. Anthony Weiner and a 17-year-old Delaware girl who started following the New York Democrat online after a class trip to the nation’s capital earlier in the spring. C.R. McLeod, a spokesman for the New Castle County government, told the Associated Press on Saturday that investigators had concluded their probe and planned no further comment “unless something new arises that needs their attention.” Delaware police spoke with the girl and her mother on Friday, and, according to the girl’s Philadelphia lawyer, Daniel P. McElhatton, took the girl’s laptop and cellphone for analysis. The girl’s family voluntarily handed over the computer and phone, and police did not have a warrant, McElhatton said. “There was nothing of a sexual nature or any innuendo ,” McElhatton said of the communications between Weiner and the girl. He previously said in a statement that there was no exchange of photographs between the high school junior and the 46-year-old congressman.
Continue reading …