Andrew Breitbart, who of course owns the story, credits CNN’s Dana Bash with doing a great job of refusing to be intimidated as she pursued the Weiner story.
Breitbart was my guest in the second hour of today’s show and the transcript of our conversation will be posted here later. Breitbart also confirmed his willingness to turn over all his material, including the X-rated photo of Weiner, to the House Ethics Committee if asked for it by the Committee.
HH: If you did not follow Weinergate closely, you did not see over the weekend, indeed over the past week, the attempt to take down Andrew Breitbart as a diversion strategy. I played you Andrew’s press conference from earlier today, but now he joins me himself. Andrew Breitbart, always a pleasure, welcome back, my friend.
AB: Hugh, I’m trending on Twitter, apparently (laughing).
HH: Well you know, I think that they’re going to become exhausted. I said earlier today you’ve caught more spears than any other conservative out there. Would you walk the audience through, from your perspective, what happened, and when did it emerge that they were going to try and make you take the fall for Weinergate? [# More #]
AB: Oh, right away. It was Friday night when I got the retweet. Somebody send that, somehow caught this guy in the act. I mean, I don’t know how this guy did it, because he noted that he tweeted it to his 41,000 followers, not to the individual that he wanted to send it to. And he deleted it right away. And this person realized it, and retweeted it to me and numerous other people in the media. I happened to notice it, because I was at my kitchen island getting ready for a Memorial Day weekend that I ended up losing. And I wake up after doing it on Friday night really late, after doing our research, after reporting it from the vantage that he eventually claimed on Twitter that he got hacked, I wake up in the morning and Twitter and Salon, and the Daily Kos, were filled with misinformation that I was the hacker? I mean, it stated it outright that I was the hacker. Joan Walsh from Salon.com said that Breitbart should be ashamed because I destroyed the woman from Seattle, said that I savaged her. That was her words. I savaged her, and I outed her. It’s exactly the opposite. We redacted her name, and said that there was really no reason for us to go forward and mention her name. And so for the entire weekend, and he was saying hack, hack, hack, and the left was saying Breitbart’s the hacker, he was trying to follow the left’s strategy of trying to turn it into a blame the messenger, Andrew Breitbart’s to blame, he’s going to be our whipping boy. And hopefully, the right has had enough by the end of the weekend, because we have an army out there that’s willing to say how high when we say jump.
HH: You know, Andrew, I tried to follow this from Memorandum, and I would read, like, Smirking Chimp and Smoking Gun, and a bunch of these other sites, and it never made any sense to me. It just didn’t hang together that they were attempting to make you part of the story. But then, obviously, I think they may have succeeded too well, because obviously, people decided you were a good person to whom to give the incriminating evidence about Weiner.
AB: Well actually, that’s not how it actually played out, believe it or not. And I still am dizzy from this strange set of circumstances. I got, the entire Twittergate thing began on the night of Friday, May 27th. I got a tip a week before that from a person representing this woman. And so we had a tip that predated the mis-tweet. I mean, if that isn’t the most bizarre…
HH: Wow, that is bizarre. Okay, so…
AB: And so we had already called up that person, an associate of mine, and it was like not in a dead letter file. But we had taken some brief notes and didn’t really follow through. Let’s just say that when that re-Tweet happened on May 27th, happened, that tip and that tipster became central to our behind the scenes actions. And we sought that person out for about a week. And on Friday evening, she finally reached out to me.
HH: Now Andrew, let me ask in terms of the number of people who have now provided you with incriminating evidence about Congressman Weiner. Is it just that one source? Or is there more than one who provided you with texts and/or pictures?
AB: Well, look, there was an army that the Patriot USA ’76 was a part of, who has given us tons of screen grabs of communications from women and young, you know, teenage girls, I don’t know their specific age, who talk wildly online about a secret life, a secret world of communication offline with Congressman Weiner. And because I didn’t get any communication from him, it was just conjecture. The only thing was is that he was choosing to follow these women who were talking about him like he was their secret boyfriend, and that they wanted to go to the prom with him, and other such things. And I was avoiding that aspect of the story, and I was trying to get a bigger fish. But I think now that we realize that he has this compulsion, I think that everything’s operative.
HH: If the House Ethics Committee, which Pelosi and Israel called for an investigation, if that investigation gets underway and they ask for everything you’ve got, will you willingly provide that, Andrew Breitbart?
AB: Yeah, but I think that people will wither if they see the photo that I kept behind. Yeah, of course I’ll cooperate. I’ve wanted to cooperate since Friday evening. And when he said that there was a hack, then I said there should be an investigation. And I found it ironic that the guy whose team said that I hacked him were desperate to not have an investigation, and I’m the hacker, and I’m saying hey, look, let’s have an investigation, because I want to be exonerated.
HH: The explicit photo that you have, Andrew, would it shock the conscience of most Americans?
AB: Oh, it’s beyond the pale. It’s, you know, you know I’m no Puritan, Hugh (laughing).
HH: I know. I read your book, Righteous Indignation, yes.
AB: It’s just a shocker. It’s just a shocker. I know your audience doesn’t know that this magazine exists, but there’s a magazine called Blue Boy. That’s all I will say.
HH: Oh dear. Oh dear, I’m not sure…
AB: It is basically, it’s clear that this man is a narcissist, and a self-portraiture is of an extreme sex act nature.
HH: Now let me ask you, Andrew, do you believe, based on everything you’ve gathered, that this is not, I’m not asking if you have evidence, but do you intuit that he knew he was talking to underage girls? In other words, do you think we have Mark Foley here? Do we have an exact parallel with Mark Foley?
AB: I can’t say that conclusively, but he’s following them, and they’re talking about him quite openly on Twitter as if they are communicating with him, and that I think that given the greater context that we now have today, that there needs to be an investigation that looks into that.
HH: And then last question, did anyone distinguish themselves in the mainstream media? Did anyone, I know everyone who missed the story and allowed him to dodge questions, and didn’t drill in, but did anyone do a fine job?
AB: I would say that Dana Bash at CNN. I believe I just found out she’s eight months pregnant, so couldn’t be there today. But she was fantastic. She was the one on the step, she and her producer, Ted Barrett, who is called Jackass, give credit where credit is due. I’m rarely a fan of CNN, and they did despicable things throughout the week. They had Jeffery Toobin after I spoke to attack me personally. It was a setup job. Then they had the CBS reporter on, on Howard Kurtz’ deplorable media analysis show, never allowing for me, the source, to defend myself. So there was a lot of bad behavior. But Dana Bash, she was good from the get-go, and she was the first mainstream media entity to treat this thing seriously.
HH: Andrew, thank you, on the Hugh Hewitt Show.
End of interview.