Report: Girl in Anthony Weiner case lied about her age to damage Clinton.

Source: 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.

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.

The investigation of Weiner and his accuser led the FBI to announce just weeks before Election Day that it was again looking at Clinton's use of a private email server while secretary of State. It did so because it had found a number of Clinton's emails on Weiner's laptop, some of which were forwarded to him from his wife, Human Abedin, a longtime aide to Clinton.

Clinton lost the election, and many in her camp have blamed the FBI and its then-director, James Comey.

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. Baker is also the author of a book called The Family of Secrets, which alleges connections between the Bush family and historic events like Watergate during former President Richard Nixon’s presidency.

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 produce the maximum public outrage and put Weiner in greater legal jeopardy."

WhoWhatWhy cites a number of social media messages and photographs to argue that the victim was from a Republican-friendly family and that this suggests a political trick may have been in play.

It says that the victim celebrated Trump's victory on social media, that her father is a registered Republican and that “her mother tweeted derisively about the Black Lives Matter movement.”

“It’s not yet clear whether the motive was primarily money, a plot to smear Clinton, or both,” the report notes.

If true, wow... just no more words here.

What kind of source is "WhoWhatWhy"?

Weiner is still a scumbag.

How does any of what you typed absolve Weiner of being a snake?

Thanks for posting this, I was about to - this is victim blaming at its grossest lmao

"Hillary lost because of an underage girl that was sexted by Anthony Weiner"

What a gross article

What's next - blaming rape victims for Hillary's loss?

The left can not and will not come to the realization that Klinton herself is solely to blame for her defeat. They keep looking for others to blame rather than an extremely flawed candidate who "won" the Democratic nomination.

That objectively isn't true though.

Yes....it was a lot of her fault, but to say it was ONLY her fault would simply not be in consistent with reality. There were clear polling dips after the confirmed Russian DNC hacking and leaks and Comey letter.

But I still do blame her to a solid extent.

@nintendoboy16: your source is The Hill, let that sink in

There were polls saying Trump was going to be humiliated come election day. Polls can be made to reflect any position.

She lost because she was a terrible candidate. The F.B.I. didn't cause her to lose. Russia didn't cause her to lose. Carlos Danger didn't cause her to lose.

I never stated it wasn't her fault or that the FBI and Russia caused her to lose.

I said Russia and the Comey letter objectively resulted polling dips. They did contribute to the loss.

I'm just posting facts.

And? Being that it's the home site of a writer that bashed John Oliver (who, like his old friends Stewart, Colbert, and Bee, is associated with the "evil left") over his views on Net Neutrality, I'd hardly consider it left leaning.

A poll is not a fact. Didn't you read any polls on election day that predicted a massacre for the Republican candidate or were those polls ones you disregard?

If polls were facts, she would be president. Period.

Those polls showed a beginning of a decline......which objectively happened (as was further demonstrated on election day).

Clearly not the only reasons, but they did hurt her. To say they did not hurt her is just bogus, and needs some data points to support such a claim.

hehe

His name is Weiner.

One last time: What about the polls (leading up to and including election day) saying she would win and win big?

What about the polls? The polls with Clinton vs. Trump were pretty close. I have no clue where you've made up this lie of Clinton winning big.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Polls said Clinton +3.2 but it ended up being Clinton +2.1. Polls don't take into account the electoral college spread, only the popular vote.

Does this really surprise anyone? Republicans have any hundreds of millions the past two decades manufacturing every fake scandal they can against Hillary.

That is a bit of a reach, putting those things together like that...

Weiner is a known offender, a repeat one at that. 15 or 17, doesn't really matter to me; the guy went after a girl that was way too young. If people were upset by that, well, that's their perogetive. But don't make it out to be some sort of conspiracy; he could have just said "You know what? Maybe I won't cheat on my wife with this 15 or 17 year old girl".

Moot point either way you look at it, conspiracy or not.

Also, I really do not recall Weiner being much of a factor during the campaign; I know his wife (how she was still his wife, I have no idea...) Huma Abedin was her campaign manager or something like that, but that's about it.

I remember thinking at the time that Clinton having anyone within one or two degrees of association of Weiner in her campaign was just foolish, imo; no way in hell that would not cost her at least a few votes. Maybe Clinton thought having a woman in her campaign with an Arabic-sounding name would get her votes....

I think you forget what actually lost her the election.

Yes, she did lose the election on her own , she lost it because she lost key states and no that was not because of the hacks or leaks or the letter from comey. People who would be swayed by those are people who never would have voted for Hillary.

Because Trump had similar and even worse "leaks" and he won remember.

She lost them because she has the charisma and ability to speak of a wet dog. Standing up in the middle of coal country and say "hey listen we will go green and more green and you all will be unemployed if you vote for me". Just shows how dumb she is.

It was the emails found on his computer that was indeed a factor. As for the guy saying it didn't effect anything....that's silly. Nothing happens in a vacuum and it undoubtedly cost her some votes in swing states.

Whether enough to have mattered....we'll never know. I was only surprised that they gave the votes, for those that did, to such a corrupt person as Trump. If you take a stand against perceived or real corruption then don't be a hypocrite and cost a vote for corruption.

Bolded is foolish. We're talking states that don't generally go R.

Yes and why did they go R this time around. We are talking states that voted Obama in 08 and 12 and have almost always been blue.

Have you followed the more objective stories where people are heard and not ridiculed . Many like me has seen what Obama brought and that was absolutely nothing, in fact many of his plans made it worse for those areas.

So Clinton´s job was to come out and say i'm not Obama and won't go down his road and i care about you, and she failed that miserably, in fact her answer was I am a women and obama 2.0

Noting it down to the hacks and leaks are just moronic and will come back to bite the democrats in the butt in 2020.

Several reasons....including the emails. You cannot take them out of the context of the election. They were important to some people.

Sure, but they were not enough to cause the election to turn. Besides the people who were swayed by the leaks or Comey would have found something else.

The only thing democrats and trump-haters need to see is that they lost because Hillary was not able to get her message across and that a majority of americans did not want another term with Obama.

As someone mentioned, Trump had leaks as well and as you said, nothing happens in a vacuum, right? Didn't he say something about grabbing chicks by their vaginas (paraphrasing of course). Politics is a game in which the player never takes the blame because supporters are always looking for other outside "influences" in which to lessen the blow of a poor candidate.

That wasn't a leak. It also wasn't political.

This huge quote chain just because Solar can't admit he was wrong. It was't "solely" her fault. No matter how you spin it.

This girl was most likely a russian plant.

Nyet!

Lol. I raise you a bottle of vodka.