Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

Oh, The Irony! Breitbart’s Photo Of Weiner’s Penis Surreptitiously Videotaped And Broadcast

Reported by Ellen - June 9, 2011 -

If Greta Van Susteren found it at all ironic that Andrew Breitbart – he of the undercover video stings – had been stung himself after “privately” sharing a photo of Anthony Weiner’s penis on the air with radio hosts Opie and Anthony – she kept it completely to herself last night (6/8/11) during her interview with Breitbart.

Breitbart explained to Van Susteren that he's palsy with some of the Opie and Anthony show guys and thought, “Why not stop in for some hijinks?” before going to the airport. Unfortunately for Breitbart, the tables were turned and he was the brunt of the hijinks.

"I thought everything went great," Breitbart said. "But during the interview, they asked me if they could see it (the penis photo). I said, ‘Well, make sure you don’t show it to anyone,' and Jim Norton said, 'There aren’t any cameras here.' And so I felt very comfortable that nothing bad would happen with it and the next thing I know I found out that they surreptitiously recorded it and tweeted it on the internet and then subsequently said, admitted that they did so without my permission. And it’s very troubling because for an employee of Sirius/XM to say there are no cameras here and then you find out that there are cameras here and they’re going against their word in taping it, it’s deeply problematic."

Let’s stop right there. There’s so much irony and BS in that statement, it’s hard to know where to begin. For one thing, while Breitbart would have you believe his concern is over ethics of surreptitious videoing (a concern he never showed for ACORN workers), at least part of the reason he had been withholding the photo was to use it as blackmail.

Breitbart took part in this exchange about the photo with Matt Lauer on the Today show recently:

Breitbart: If Anthony Weiner decides to make it a jihad against me for his interpretation of putting me into this situation, you know, I will take that as a - you know, you said - an insurance policy, maybe. I can't foresee a circumstance in which i would release that (photo). I don't think I want to put his family through that type of thing. But for instance, I have already started to hear words that Meagan (Broussard), the woman who came forth, people are prying through her private life…

Lauer: So would you use the photo to protect these women?

Breitbart: You know, i'm not thinking of it that way, but I certainly have it in my possession. And i guarantee you he would use this against me and the people on the left side of the blogosphere would have used this against me. I could have put that out there and his career would have been over today.

Similarly, on Hannity, Breitbart made this not-so-thinly-veiled threat against Weiner:

I know how the politics of personal destruction works. I know how the private detectives work. Don’t go after Meagan (presumably Meagan Broussard, the woman interviewed by Hannity). Don’t go after the other girls and I’m paying attention. And that’s all I can say.

Secondly, Opie and Anthony didn’t exactly pry the photo out of Breitbart’s reluctant hands. As Charles Johnson, at Little Green Footballs noted, Breitbart was laughing, smirking and having great fun with the hosts over the photo he claimed he wanted to keep secret in order to “spare Rep. Weiner’s family.” You may recall that Breitbart insisted to Sean Hannity earlier this week, "I am not enjoying the salacious aspect of this... I felt like crap for this man." On Opie and Anthony, Breitbart did a most excellent job hiding that lack of enjoyment.

Breitbart may well have been telling the truth to Van Susteren when he said he asked the radio hosts not to show the photo to anyone – it’s not in the obviously-edited video (below) – but he certainly didn’t seem concerned or worried when he handed over his cell phone for their perusal.

Van Susteren assured Breitbart she understood why he withheld the photo but asked why he kept it on his cellphone. After Breitbart explained, she responded approvingly to his explanation by saying, “Good.”

Breitbart went on to say that he thought the news that Weiner’s wife is pregnant was “a ploy to make people not want to continue to report about what type of behavior he’s been involved with. You know, where there’s smoke, there’s fire. So I’m sorry that she’s going through this but he’s put the country into this position and we have every right to find out to what extent he’s been misbehaving.”

Poor Breitbart is ever the victim! He was the unfortunate victim of having the photo he hoped to use for blackmail leaked and now he’s the potential victim of Mrs. Weiner’s pregnancy!

Van Susteren, not surprisingly, didn’t seem to notice.



submit to reddit