Now, before you guys slam me with my diary is nothing but pure speculation, please understand I affirm that my note here is just curiosity but I think my inquiry does have merit. Please don't read any further if your only comment is that there is no "proof". Don't waste your time.
**********************
It's no secret that the Rupert Murdoch empire (News Corp) is in trouble with suspicions of criminal and unethical business practices - namely ... illegal phone hacking.
Since the story broke, there have been others who have come out with allegations or suspicions that the Murdoch company has also hacked into their phones or emails. The Royal Family, Paul McCartney, and Hugh Grant expressed concern that they may have been hacked by the company.
But this stuff has been plastered in the news ad nauseum.
While looking at the current pool pf congressman and they deal with the current political atmosphere as of date, I couldn't help but to remember how Anthony Weiner was out there almost everyday fighting for what he believed. Doing so, I was reminded of an interview with the man who broke the story that ultimately led to Weiner's demise. That man, of course, was Andrew Breitbart.
I remember hearing that interview and feeling that something's not right about the story. It just doesn't add up - but it had nothing to do with whether Congressman was, indeed, guilty or innocent of the accusations.
Rather it had to do with Breitbart's arrogantly confident demeanor and the information on other things that had nothing to do with the Twitter picture that we now know that Weiner accidently sent out and deleted moments later.
On (or about) May 31st, Breitbart gave an interview to CNN explaining how he supposedly came across the photo that broke the story. He claimed that someone "re-Tweeted" the photo of the Congressman and that he sat on the information until Weiner announced on his FaceBook page that he (Weiner) had been hacked.
That's a strange prompt to break a story but OK, let's go with it. So he holds out, then gets his reason (in his eyes) and breaks the story. In that same CNN interview, he makes efforts to disassociate himself from the source of the photo (the first photo clothed in underwear). CNN identified that source as Dan Wolfe.
At that point, Breitbart starts to mention that there were other women that Weiner may have been involved with and emphasizes how young those girls were. He claims that the girls were openly expressing their alleged "relationships" with the former Congressman. However, did he forget that early in the interview he was saying that he happened to come across the re-Tweet from a person that he hardly knows? Well, if that's how he got the image to break the story, then how did Breitbart so quickly get the information on the other girls that no one else at the time even knew about?
And then there was the now infamous alleged nude picture of Weiner's penis exposed. But no one is asking how that picture was obtained. On June 6, Business Insider reported that Breitbart claimed that another woman had "come forward".
Breitbart posted this morning on his site Big Government that another woman has come forward and presented him and his team with "what she claims are photographs, chats, and emails with Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY). These appear to undermine severely Rep. Weiner’s explanations that he was the victim of a “prank” or a “hack.”
That may be as these types of stories often spawn certain Johnny-Come-Latelys. However, if we read the very next paragraph, we get a rather different and almost contradictory account from Breitbart himself.
Breitbart says they were given these a week before Weiner's now-infamous tweet went public.
Really Breitbart? A week before the infamous Tweet? So ... did the woman jsut come forward or was she the first? And, whoever this woman is, she came to Breitbart's biggovernment.com and another website, bigjournalism.com at the same time? Well, if that's the case, then why he trying to give the impression that Wolfe had fed him the story as he claimed on the CNN interview where he said he first learned of it?
And that still doesn't explain exactly how he got that nude picture that wasn't Tweeted. Either one of the girls released it or it was hacked.
How does all this tie into the title of this diary? If Murdoch's organization can hack into private communications with political leaders and celebrities (assuming that the allegations are true), then why can't they also do it to their adversaries? Weiner was quite outspoken against News Corp's, Foxnews. It would make sense that if someone did hack into the former Congressman's phone and retrieved some seedy information, then they can easily set up some decoys to further get information to bring that person down.
After all, isn't that why they would hack in the first place? And the only reason why Weiner got caught is because he was one who actually had some real smoke.
I think every one of those girls should be further questioned.
Far fetched? Maybe, but then who would have thought that a giant news organization would be defending itself against allegations of hacking the phone of a dead girl?