First reported by conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart’s website Big Government, a 21-year-old woman was the target of a public @ tweet containing a yfrog picture of a close up on an erect penis in gray boxers. The tweet was sent from the New York Congressman’s Twitter account.

The tweet was only up for a brief moment, but was captured by multiple sources. Since the tweet first appeared, the Congressman has claimed that he was hacked, and denied sending the picture. The story took an odd turn last week as he continued to deny sending to pic to the college student but could not deny that the picture was of him.

Big Government posted two more pics of Congressman Weiner earlier this morning, apparently sent to another young woman from two email accounts, one AOL and one Yahoo, respectively: One shows the congressman shirtless while the other was provocatively titled “Me and the Pussys.”

And then just an hour ago, Weiner addressed the media at a hotel in Midtown Manhattan and admitted to sending the lewd photo to the Seattle student.

“Last Friday night I tweeted a photograph of myself that I intended to send as direct message as part of a joke to a woman in Seattle. Once I realized I posted it to Twitter, I panicked, I took it down and said that I had been hacked. I then continued with that story to stick to that story which was a hugely regrettable mistake.

To be clear, the picture was of me and I sent it. I am deeply sorry for the pain this has caused my wife Huma and our family, and my constituents, my friends, supporters and staff,” Weiner said, quoted by CBS.

Weiner also said that this wasn’t the first time he has done something like this, that there exists a pattern of photo messaging:

“Over the past few years I have engaged in several inappropriate conversations conducted over Twitter, Facebook, email, and occasionally on the phone with women I have met online.”

Weiner said that he only lied to protect his wife, and that he would not be resigning because although what he did was regrettable, he hasn’t broken any laws.

"The Photobucket deal — $3 million for a 20% stake in a social media company with "nominal" revenue — wasn’t the kind of deal IVP’s LPs signed on for," explains Peter Kafka at Silicon Alley Insider. "Instead, the $3 billion fund generally makes late-stage investments of about $35 million in companies that that have upwards of $25 million in sales."

While Valleywag and others have similar takes on the matter, Donna Bogatin from Startup Chatter says Kafka’s article "throws cold water on an informative account of the inner workings of venture capital funds." She is probably right in that this is a topic worth noting, but this particular case might be a poor example to shed light on it.

The WSJ article itself even quotes one of the firm’s lawyers, "The investment was made in full compliance with the letter and spirit of all of Insight’s agreements with its limited partners." Then there’s the quote from the IVP investor that even downplays the story:

"Perhaps they should have told us about this, but it was such a small deal. Would we have wanted a piece of it in hindsight? Sure. But for every one of these successes, there are a hundred failures."

The article is somewhat interesting in the story about these guys getting lucky with Photobucket, but as a scandal it seems to be playing second fiddle to the motives of the story itself.