This is really base.
Here’s the blaring headine from The Hill:
The gist of the story being pushed by The Hill, which sites an unknown ‘investigative website,’ is that the girl was really not 15 but 16.
Here’s the critical portion:
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.
They then go on to cite the same website to suggest the girl was somehow part of a conspiracy because her family members weren’t Clinton supporters as believed, but Trump supporters.
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 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.
First of all, the site The Hill relies on presents no evidence whatsoever to support their contention that the girl was 16, not 15. So what is that assertion worth?
Second, Weiner pled guilty to knowing that she was 15 and his law firm, Covington and Burling, thought by some to be the best firm in the country, let him plead to that. Does anyone think that they didn’t establish that she was 15 before they let him plead?
Further, the claim that some of the family may have been Trump supporters is supported by no evidence, yet even had they been, so? How does that prove some form of conspiracy?
Finally, none of this would have happened without Weiner being a pervert and sexting her, believing she was 15. That was of his own volition.
This is about the worst victim blaming I’ve ever seen.
This girl was already thrown out into the public eye after James Comey reopened the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails after the Weiner laptop emails were found. Someone, the girl believes Weiner, leaked her name to the press to get back at her.
I laughed when ‘The Hill’ kept trying to make Chelsea Clinton a thing by continuously promoting her on social media.
But this effort to protect the Clintons by attacking the victim is just downright despicable.
Dear ‘The Hill’ – He plead guilty, he’s a pervert. Hillary Clinton lost, she’s a horrible candidate.
It’s over, deal with it…