Patterico's Pontifications

6/7/2012

U.S. Senator Requests Investigation of SWATtings; ABC Covers SWATting Story; Ali Akbar Is Further Terrorized

Filed under: Brad Friedman,Brett Kimberlin,General,Neal Rauhauser,Ron Brynaert — Patterico @ 7:27 am

Some positive developments occurred yesterday for several of us who have suffered retaliation in our personal lives for our political views.

Yesterday Saxby Chambliss, U.S. Senator for Georgia, wrote Eric Holder to request a federal investigation of politically motivated SWATtings:

Dear Attorney General Holder:

I am writing with concern regarding recent reports that several members of the community of online political commentators have been targeted with harassing and frightening actions. Any potentially criminal action that incites fear, seeks to silence a dissenting opinion, and collaterally wastes the resources of law enforcement should be given close scrutiny at all levels.

According to these individuals’ reports, these dangerous hoaxes, also known as “SWAT-ting,” have a perpetrator contacting a local police department to report some type of violent incident at the home of the target. It is believed that these callers utilize some of the less traditional telecommunications methods, including voice over IP (VOIP) to make the call appear as though it is coming from the target residence and to better hide the true identity of the caller.

In response, a dispatcher then sends a large number of understandably anxious police units, in a heightened state of readiness, to the home of the still unsuspecting target. The first that the target or their unsuspecting family learns of this false report to law enforcement is when they are shocked to see an abnormal police presence descending on their residence.

The use of SWAT-ting as a harassment tool is apparently not new, but its use as a tool for targeting political speech appears to be a more recent development. During the last year, some of the more widely reported cases of SWAT-ting have taken place against blog operators across the country, including in Georgia. The emerging pattern is both disturbing and dangerous.

While these incidences are currently small in number, and have fortunately not led to any accidental physical harm, they are extremely concerning. The perpetrators appear to be targeting individuals who are vigorously exercising their First Amendment rights to political speech. As you know, these reported efforts to intimidate those who choose to enter the political forum and express their opinions are in conflict with the founding principles of our nation.

Regardless of any potential political differences that may exist, threats and intimidation have no place in our national political discourse. Those who choose to enter into that political discourse should not have to worry about potential threats to their or their family’s safety.

While I am certain that local law enforcement is reviewing each of these instances, I am asking you to please look into each of these cases as well to determine if any federal laws may have been violated. Future targets of SWAT-ting, whether engaged in political speech or not, may not be so fortunate as to escape physical harm.

In a story linked by Drudge, ABC News covered the story and reported further details about the SWATtings. One detail that I had known but had not made public was that Erickson’s SWATting was more serious than was previously realized. Erickson had previously reported, based on statements from the patrol officers, that the caller said there had been an “accidental” shooting. But based on the call, it is now known that the caller reported that he had killed his wife:

Late last month, Erick Erickson, the editor of the conservative site RedState.com, was the victim of the same type of targeting. He had written about Frey’s case just a few days before.

Erickson sat at home in Macon, Georgia with his family while his children played outside over Memorial Day weekend when two sheriff’s deputies drove to the house after receiving a phone call about Erickson allegedly shooting his wife.

“My first thought was, ‘What have the kids done?’” Erickson said after seeing the police car outside his home. “The police officer approached me in the driveway and said it was a call about an accidental shooting. According to the 911 call, the person claimed I had killed my wife.”

If this isn’t the same SWATter from the previous incidents, I’ll eat my hat. And I like my hat.

The absolute best part of the ABC piece? I am now a “prominent blogger”!

ABC News spoke with two prominent conservative bloggers who were victims of SWAT-ting, a hoax tactic used by some hackers to infiltrate a victim’s phone system, often through voice over IP (VOIP) technology to make calls appear as if they are coming from a residence. The perpetrators call police to report a violent crime at that home to which the police respond, sometimes with SWAT teams.

Just after midnight on July 1, 2011, Patrick Frey, a deputy District Attorney in Los Angeles and a conservative blogger who writes under the name “Patterico,” heard a pounding at his door as sheriff’s deputies arrived to investigate a call from Frey’s home about a man who claimed he had killed his wife. But no one in Frey’s home had been killed, and no one had made a phone call to the police.

“It’s a phone call that could have gotten me killed,” Frey wrote on his blog about the incident.

Meanwhile, the thugs supporting Brett Kimberlin have gone after Ali Akbar, the head of the National Bloggers’ Club legal defense fund for those harassed by Brett Kimberlin. The Breitbart Unmasked site published details of a felony conviction Ali has on his record, forcing Ali to take to his Facebook page, explain the background of his criminal mistake, and promise not to back down.

Now, sympathizers of convicted domestic terrorist Brett Kimberlin are harassing me, tearing me apart—and coming after my family.

In the past two weeks, hackers have tried accessing my email accounts, they’ve placed a fake SWAT call on a colleague, and just two days ago they posted the address and picture of my mother’s home in an attempt to incite unlawful behavior—or violence.

This is all because the National Bloggers Club is raising funds to relieve some of Aaron Walker’s financial strife—caused by his own legal run-in with Kimberlin. I became a target.

Kimberlin has notified my attorneys that he intends to sue me and my organization directly. By bringing up my past, he hopes to destroy my credibility. By bringing my family into it, he aspires to frighten me into silence.

Despite all of this, I’ll stand for free speech. We’re going to get the peace order against Walker overturned, restore his First Amendment rights, and fight the thugs who are bullying my family.

This is a dangerous man, especially for someone in my position. Note the following from the book written about him, Citizen K:

“For three months, Kimberlin resided at the federal prison in prison in Terra Haute, Indiana, in a unit reserved for convicts awaiting long-term assignments to other institutions. . . . He had resisted a sexual predator by tossing powdered chlorine cleanser in his face. The predator was African American, Kimberlin told me, and as he fended him off he shouted, ‘You f–king n–r! You motherf–kng n–r! Get the f–k away from me! I’ll kill you, you motherf–r!’ Kimberlin enjoyed telling this story.”

– Mark Singer, Citizen K: The Deeply Weird American Journey of Brett Kimberlin (1996), Page 183

I’m going to remain a target because I’m not backing down. I’m an imperfect man still finding my way back to the arms of a loving Father. But right is right and wrong is wrong and Kimberlin cannot hide from the sunlight he’s being exposed to.

Your continued prayers and standing with the other victims and I at KimberlinFiles.org is truly humbling and much appreciated.

I can’t say that we know why the most recent SWATting happened, or any of them, with certainty. But further investigation is certainly warranted. Kimberlin supporters like to call discussing the SWATtings a public trial by blog — mainly because it’s yet another way for them to portray my public speech about matters of public interest as somehow violating my job duties. But that’s nonsense. None of this is a trial by blog. We just want the matter fully investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice.

Eric Holder faces the House Judiciary Committee today. Will the topic come up? We’ll see.

Meanwhile, the Aaron Walker appeal has been announced, and Ali continues to stand tall:

“We’ve got over a dozen lawyers coordinating on this now, volunteering their time. Aaron’s first amendment rights are being violated when he is barred from even being able to publicly mention the case or Kimberlin’s violent past,” said Bloggers Club president Ali A. Akbar.

Akbar continued, “Yesterday they came after the Bloggers Club and my family — my family. We’re not stopping. We’ve got to raise $5,000 more dollars to continue to stand with Aaron Walker and I’m positive supporters will continue to step up.”

This is not an easy thing to do, folks. There are Big Media reporters who are literally scared to report the story. Please support anyone willing to stick their necks out.

359 Comments

  1. Ding.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 6/7/2012 @ 7:27 am

  2. Prayers ongoing for all those affected…
    Please, everyone, be careful!

    Comment by Sue (acc397) — 6/7/2012 @ 7:34 am

  3. Well, if you weren’t prominent before, you sure as hell are now, pal.

    And some might say it’s a sad way to make it to Drudge and Fox News and ABC, but ultimately, you made it there because you posted powerful, truthful posts about a terrible man.

    There are Big Media reporters who are literally scared to report the story. Please support anyone willing to stick their necks out.

    This is why the story MUST be reported. Everyone needs to do it together. Otherwise, we are seeing lessons learned about how to intimidate silence so thugs can escape public notice.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 6/7/2012 @ 7:34 am

  4. I am not privy to audio of the false shooting report. SInce audio of the two previous calls is available, a copycat could copy. It could be the same caller or a substitute. A squid-ink call, to cover guilt of the orginal is at least a possibility.

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 6/7/2012 @ 7:43 am

  5. I meant the latest false report, of course

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 6/7/2012 @ 7:44 am

  6. __________________________________________________

    There are Big Media reporters who are literally scared to report the story.

    Are they scared or merely uninterested? Uninterested because Kimberlin and his clan are of the left instead of the right?

    When CNN, as one example, had both a headline yesterday on its website and one of its major reporters (Wolf Blitzer) apparently pining over the notion that Wisconsin’s governor just barely beat his recall, who knows how even more absurdly biased such people within the MSM are? It’s not a far leap to therefore imagining them struggling to be comfortable with the story on SWATtings because the good-guy/bad-guy angles of it don’t fit the preferences and political narrative of the left.

    Comment by Mark (9aa697) — 6/7/2012 @ 7:46 am

  7. I’m going to step up and offer my home as sanctuary to any blogger or blogger’s family who needs refuge from Kimberlin and his fellow thugs.

    My home is an armed home, and I will notify the local LEOs to the problem and to prepare them for Kimberlin lies and lying flunkies.

    Comment by PCD (1d8b6d) — 6/7/2012 @ 7:46 am

  8. There are Big Media reporters who are literally scared to report the story.

    Do you know this as a fact or is it an assumption?

    CNN fares badly as Erickson is a CNN contributor and I have yet to see them report on one of their own having been SWATted.

    Comment by Dana (4eca6e) — 6/7/2012 @ 7:53 am

  9. It is good that attention is being raised, though I doubt if many of us are holding our breath for AG Holder to actually do much, given his cooperation with other issues.

    I’m thinking, hoping, and praying, though that BK and others have overextended their hand and will be open to counter-suit and face the need for financial restitution of AW and others.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/7/2012 @ 7:53 am

  10. I’m going to step up and offer my home as sanctuary to any blogger or blogger’s family …
    Comment by PCD — 6/7/2012 @ 7:46 am

    That is a very kind and generous offer of practical support.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/7/2012 @ 7:55 am

  11. Prominent? Let us know when you get a call from Megyn Kelly.

    Comment by aunursa (199523) — 6/7/2012 @ 8:00 am

  12. Kimberlin has notified my attorneys that he intends to sue me and my organization directly. By bringing up my past, he hopes to destroy my credibility. By bringing my family into it, he aspires to frighten me into silence.

    Again I have to ask why hasn’t Kimberlin been sued by anyone? Aaron would a prime candidate since he lost his job directly as a result of Kimberlin contacting his employer. There might be a rationale for including Kimberlin’s contributors for an aggressive minded attorney.

    Comment by Gerald A (cc0aaa) — 6/7/2012 @ 8:07 am

  13. Do you know this as a fact or is it an assumption?

    Not an assumption.

    Comment by Patterico (6a2c07) — 6/7/2012 @ 8:16 am

  14. How many helicopters were sent to Patterico’s house? it seems to me part of the punishment of these terror-prankers, in addition to jail time, is that they need to pay for the public resources expended for the SWAT raids.

    Comment by milowent (bc04ac) — 6/7/2012 @ 8:21 am

  15. Prominent? Let us know when you get a call from Megyn Kelly.

    I would feel very prominent if I were being interviewed by Megyn Kelly.

    Comment by Patterico (6a2c07) — 6/7/2012 @ 8:21 am

  16. Who could imagine that Kimberlin is a Racist?
    Perhaps the New Black Panther Party needs to be notified about this development?
    Will wonders ever cease?

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 6/7/2012 @ 8:24 am

  17. Comment by Patterico — 6/7/2012 @ 8:21 am

    Hell, you’d be walking on a cloud if she just mentioned you.

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 6/7/2012 @ 8:25 am

  18. MD, I did the same for Korean Store owners during the Rodney King Looting spree.

    Comment by PCD (1d8b6d) — 6/7/2012 @ 8:40 am

  19. a fascist impulse
    lies behind nearly ev’ry
    liberal project

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (df3dff) — 6/7/2012 @ 8:49 am

  20. What was Ali’s reason for being a convicted of finanacial felony? And, why would someone give a guy convicted of credit card fraud their credit card number.

    I mean, if Brett Kimberlin is still a liar because he perjured himself 35 years ago, why is the 5 year old conviction of credit card fraud immaterial?

    For the life of me, I cannot understand the fascination with this story. But, dang it, it’s entertaining

    Comment by Timb (449046) — 6/7/2012 @ 8:57 am

  21. it’s been said before
    “trust Patterico content”
    making history

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (df3dff) — 6/7/2012 @ 8:57 am

  22. clueless is timmah
    even with two hands and map
    for the life of him

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (df3dff) — 6/7/2012 @ 8:59 am

  23. I salute all of you who are standing your ground on this. It gives the rest of us something to rally around in hopes that the battle lines don’t recede to where we find ourselves the next battle line. No one is safe so we need to be sticking together and supporting the Pattericos, Erick Ericksons and Alis who are currently taking the fight to the enemy.

    Comment by Pasadena Phil (d9cc63) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:10 am

  24. I mean, if Brett Kimberlin is still a liar because he perjured himself 35 years ago,
    Comment by Timb — 6/7/2012 @ 8:57 am

    Pay attention.

    He’s not still a liar because he perjured himself 35 years ago. He’s still a liar because he perjured himself last month, last week, yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

    Comment by aunursa (199523) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:19 am

  25. “If this isn’t the same SWATter from the previous incidents, I’ll eat my hat. And I like my hat.”

    – If it isn’t the same guy, I’ll buy you a new hat. A fancy new hat. Because I’m pretty confident it is the same person, and I don’t bet to lose. It really is a shame it takes Congressional action to get the government to investigate obvious crimes. Well, at least they’re willing to do that.

    Comment by Matt S. (ab8324) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:33 am

  26. Patterico – I followed your link to make a donation and I see that the site collecting the credit card number is also demanding (ie – donation cannot be made without supplying) my gender, birth date, phone number and employer’s name, as well as my occupation.

    I’ve made a lot of online donations before but I’ve never encountered a situation where I needed to disclose that much information. I’m tremendously sympathetic, but also a bit concerned about entering so much information about myself in a database that those dirtballs are probably trying to hack right this second. I feel like a worthless chickensh*t. Is my concern groundless? And why do they, unlike other contribution sites, need so many specifics? Are there any other avenues for contributing?

    Comment by Greg (b3b69c) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:35 am

  27. Politics is becoming increasingly a cipher for people to enjoy the righteous anger of moral outrage and hatred. Most of the so-called “political news and analysis” on the web ranges from hateful nonsense to snarky bs. These people would be happy to fight about anything.

    Jesus, I knew one of you would miss the forest for the trees. The question is not “should I give my money to Brett Kimberlin.? It is, “if Kimberlin is untrustworthy due to his criminal past of 30 years ago, why is Akbar credible on his 5 year old conviction?”

    I get that Kimberlin is the apotheosis of all evil and must be stopped (although I have no idea what “stopped” means); I just want to know why I should believe Akbar, convicted of financial fraud, is reliable.

    Comment by timb (449046) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:35 am

  28. On that note (Congressional action), it was announced that the Ethics Investigation of L.A.’s own Favorite Daughter, Maxine Waters, will continue;
    after the Outside Counsel spent $300K reviewing 100K pages of documents to ensure that Ms. Waters’ Rights had not been violated.

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:37 am

  29. I would feel very prominent if I were being interviewed by Megyn Kelly.

    Comment by Patterico — 6/7/2012 @ 8:21 am

    Pat, just remember to keep a stiff uhhhh, upper lip when she does.

    Comment by peedoffamerican (606d27) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:39 am

  30. According to Michelle Malkin, Ali has some additional help now.
    http://michellemalkin.com/2012/06/07/aclj-steps-up-to-defend-bloggers-targeted-over-brett-kimberlin-coverage/

    Comment by Sue (acc397) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:40 am

  31. If it isn’t the same guy, I’ll buy you a new hat. A fancy new hat.

    That’s a reasonable opinion, but I tend to agree with Sarah’s thought on the Erickson swatting. If it’s the same guy, he probably worked harder to mask his voice. If it’s a different guy, it’s likely it’s a partner.

    The timing, just after exposure on the other two calls, particularly exposure of the part of the second call which shows a less disguised voice, suggests the culprit would feel exposed. Given the misdirection Ronbryn always engages in. Recently he explained he was helping Patterico when I recall him saying he wanted to punch Patterico in tweets defending Kimberlin, as well as talking about assaulting Patterico’s wife. What kind of psycho thinks that way, let alone broadcasts that kind of thought? Isn’t it clear he was trying to terrorize this family? And for many, that kind of thing works. How many reporters don’t want their loved ones brought into this?

    This is how Ron helps Patterico? Or is he being deceptive about who is he helping and who he is smearing? He also said he was helping Aaron, if I recall correctly, despite being the one who outted Aaron and then pretended Aaron was guilty of assault with no fair basis to say so. Look at that screenshot. Ron claims he’s opposed to outing Aaron, and then two minutes later deliberately does so. He has a gameplan. Do X while condemning X and insisting he’s absolutely opposed to it. I guess this might fool some people for a short period of time, but once you recognize it, it just makes his behavior seem ruthless.

    He also relies on and is a conduit for Kimberlin and Rauhauser’s smears, and yet constantly insists he’s not working with them, and even offers a smokescreen of criticism of these people while serving as a conduit for their views. At least that’s how it comes across to me.

    I’ve seen Ron post utterly baseless smears, but is he posting his proof that Kimberlin framed Aaron? He said he would testify to this just before he falsely accused Aaron of extortion. Why promise to testify and not post the emails or however else Brett lied to Ron? He sure sounded like he wanted to, yet … it’s almost like he only wants to sound like he wants to.

    It’s the flipside to how he claims he’s helping Aaron and Patterico and others that he actually is quite horrible to.

    Joe Brooks recently showed how Ron uses deception.

    Everything has to be seen through a lens of constant deception by the goons. That’s why some are assuming the Erickson swat’s timing, so soon after a strong case was made, was deception. But that doesn’t mean whoever is responsible for that can’t be caught. They are reckless.

    Consider the Speedway bombings as a diversion. A reckless diversion that went so far it actually got Kimberlin in a lot of trouble. Which he tried to get out of with another diversion.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:40 am

  32. “I get that Kimberlin is the apotheosis of all evil and must be stopped (although I have no idea what “stopped” means); I just want to know why I should believe Akbar, convicted of financial fraud, is reliable.”

    – One told a believable story, has been up front and direct, and is also not hiding or obscuring things. He’s also, you know, supporting free speech. The other planted bombs. I’d say the two are not comparable. At all.

    Comment by Matt S. (ab8324) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:41 am

  33. So, don’t believe Akbar, at least not reflexively. But his story lines up with those of Patterico and Erickson, both of whom are trustworthy. So, perhaps this time Akbar is telling the truth.

    Comment by Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:42 am

  34. By all means, timb, don’t donate if you don’t find him reliable.

    He spelled out what he did, quite clearly.

    Comment by JD (c543e6) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:43 am

  35. It seems somewhat disingenuous to complain about Kimberlin and company bringing up Ali’s conviction when we keep harping on Kimberlin’s criminal acts.

    The rest of what they’ve done to him is of course beyond the bounds of acceptable behaviour, but as we keep saying, what happened happened.

    Comment by perlhaqr (5a082d) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:43 am

  36. Clean up on aisle 35.

    Comment by peedoffamerican (606d27) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:45 am

  37. I get that Kimberlin is the apotheosis of all evil and must be stopped (although I have no idea what “stopped” means)

    Comment by timb

    You’re quoting yourself and then saying you don’t know what you mean?

    All Aaron wants is his freedom of speech. There is no end in mind beyond basic human rights.

    I mean, if Brett Kimberlin is still a liar because he perjured himself 35 years ago,
    Comment by Timb — 6/7/2012 @ 8:57 am

    Why do Brett’s shills always say this is about something that happened that long ago, when Kimberlin lied about Aaron in 2012? And had his parole revoked in 1997 for his dishonesty and treatment of his bombing victim?

    That wasn’t 35 years ago. Why are you spinning so aggressively for Kimberlin, Tim?

    Are you the same Tim who promised to find me in person because I criticized Kimberlin? Are you the same Tim who sent me a link to a site called “mexican cartel chainsaw execution video”? What was the meaning behind those comments?

    Whether you are the same loser or three separate losers, we do not care that you are warning us that this story is unworthy of attention. Senators and news media find it important. That Kimberlin tried to frame Aaron for a crime is important. That people have been swatted is important. Hell, that Speedway Indiana was brutally terrorized is also quite important, even if it happened many years ago.

    And I bet if Brett were funded by prominent Republicans, and his lawfare was against democrats, this would be a front page story on the New York Times.

    Not that I want this to be a left vs right story. Everyone should value freedom of speech more than you appear to.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:46 am

  38. Perlhaqr seems to be intentionally missing the point.

    Comment by JD (c543e6) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:47 am

  39. It seems somewhat disingenuous to complain about Kimberlin and company bringing up Ali’s conviction when we keep harping on Kimberlin’s criminal acts.

    On the contrary, I found Ali’s discussion of his past to be inspiring. He admits making a mistake and shows remorse and it’s isolated.

    This is the opposite of Brett’s reaction. Brett has never publicly expressed remorse for setting those bombs, or the other crimes that he was convicted or, let alone the crimes it appears he got away with (but were the motive for the bombings).

    It seems more newsworthy to discuss a very violent crime from someone with 35 + convictions who is trying to silence criticism than it is to falsely equivocate between Brett and one of his critics.

    And it’s really sad to see that the price of free speech in this case is complete exposure and smearing.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:49 am

  40. Whether you are the same loser or three separate losers, we do not care that you are warning us that this story is unworthy of attention. Senators and news media find it important. That Kimberlin tried to frame Aaron for a crime is important. That people have been swatted is important. Hell, that Speedway Indiana was brutally terrorized is also quite important, even if it happened many years ago.

    Can you see your house from the cross you hung yourself on?

    The question, Dustin, is not about Kimberlin, but about the convicted felon you want me to give my credit care to. Urging people to give their financial information to a convicted conman seems to be antithetical to your cause.

    I specifically asked where this defense is. Is it on his facebook page?

    PS Genius, I’m the “tim” you’re being paranoid about at Volokh, as well, and, for god’s sake, I’ve commented here for years.

    Comment by timb (449046) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:03 am

  41. Prominent? Let us know when you get a call from Megyn Kelly.

    I would feel very prominent if I were being interviewed by Megyn Kelly.

    I would get very prominent if I were being interviewed by Megyn Kelly.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:04 am

  42. He spelled out what he did, quite clearly.

    JD touches on an important point here. Akbar has admitted to his crime and is seeking to atone for it. Kimberlin denies his crimes and blames everyone else.

    Their past trustworthiness aside, which would you find more trustworthy based on their actions today?

    Comment by Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:05 am

  43. On the contrary, I found Ali’s discussion of his past to be inspiring. He admits making a mistake and shows remorse and it’s isolated.

    This is the opposite of Brett’s reaction. Brett has never publicly expressed remorse for setting those bombs, or the other crimes that he was convicted or, let alone the crimes it appears he got away with (but were the motive for the bombings).

    What are you people? The remorse brigade? Unless someone does a mea culpa that satifies your exacting standards, you’ll devote money and effort and time to making sure the guy must be “stopped” (whatever that means)?

    I would like someone to tell me why anyone on the right would ever cared about Brett Kimberlin in the first place. I would like someone to explain to me why the right blogosphere turned this nobody into a “Goliath” just so that the “Army of Davids” could have someone to bring down.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:07 am

  44. Of course, 1.8 million has been given to VR

    Comment by narciso (494474) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:08 am

  45. He spelled out what he did, quite clearly.

    Well he claims to have had no foreknowledge, at all, that the friend of his was going to try to steal money using the card. If true, if literally true and that fact was believed by a court, then that wouldn’t be a crime at all, any more than going for a walk with someone who then committed a murder or mooned a cop would be a crime.

    So even though Ali Akbar may be telling the truth and possibly was wrongly convicted, he is not admitting to his role in the crime he was convicted of.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:08 am

  46. Okay, so it was on the facebook page I didn’t want to go to. I hate facebook.

    At any rate, seems overkill for what he said happened (felony accounts for “conspiracy” and the arrest warrant indicated the amount of the theft was >$1500 and the maximum a person can remove from an ATM is $200…., but without Court documents who knows? Sounds like a nice guy

    Still, if you guys are willing to see that as redemption, then good on you. I like redemption.

    Comment by timb (449046) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:09 am

  47. Was Ali Akbar convicted of “having no clue of what the f— was going on?”

    I didn’t think so.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:11 am

  48. Can you see your house from the cross you hung yourself on?

    You seem obsessed with me, Tim. I don’t recall you at all, yet your comments to me are bizarrely angry and personal. Maybe you commented here under a different handle?

    You even asked me where I work. Why do you take such a personal interest in the private affairs of Kimberlin’s critics?

    The question, Dustin, is not about Kimberlin, but about the convicted felon you want me to give my credit care to.

    I never asked you to do that. By all means, do not donate, Tim.

    The question, Dustin, is not about Kimberlin,

    Yes, plainly to you it is very very very important that no one ask questions about Kimberlin. That is your motive here.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:16 am

  49. Anyone who thinks they can get justice by appealing to Eric Holder has his account in the wrong bank.

    Comment by ropelight (8c3165) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:18 am

  50. Sounds like a nice guy

    Indeed, Tim. Ali sounds like a nice guy who was treated very harshly because he did not obey your orders that “the question is not about Kimberlin”.

    What if we want to ask questions about Kimberlin without your permission?

    They went after Ali’s mother, for Pete’s sake.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:19 am

  51. Well you see how the Dems are running interference for Holder, with regards with the plan to destabilize a friendly regime in Mexico,

    Comment by narciso (494474) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:19 am

  52. So even though Ali Akbar may be telling the truth and possibly was wrongly convicted, he is not admitting to his role in the crime he was convicted of.

    Comment by Random

    He did admit a role. He noted he helped cover up the crime for his friend by not cooperating in the investigation, and thus participated in a conspiracy, which he admits was a major mistake.

    I think his friend probably stole on multiple occasions and this Ali was culpable for a felony level theft.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:21 am

  53. One night, a friend asked to be taken to work, but first he wanted to stop by the ATM. I was “the guy with the car,” so after dropping off my other friends, I rushed him to the ATM. He was already late to work, and had become irritated. He had a bad temper so my goal was to simply keep the situation calm and under control. [i.e., Ali was giving him a ride because he was scared of the big bad man.] He kept sliding the card through, typed in his pin, but for whatever reason he couldn’t get funds out. On the drive to drop him off he explained to me that it was not his card [Ali is saying he had no clue his friend was going to do anything criminal which, which is NOT, repeat not, the same thing as admitting to his part in a conspiracy]. It belonged to his previous roommate and he said the person owed him money. Shame and horror fell over me—and it still does.

    Although no funds were withdrawn, a crime was committed [passive tense, no assumption of responsibility]

    Look, maybe Ali is such a great guy that he never did anything the slightest wrong and was just convicted of a crime because he was in the wrong time, at the wrong place, doing a guy a favor, and even that ’cause he was scared of the guy, and had no idea a crime was going to be committed. Maybe.

    But that’s equivalent to admitting his role in committing a crime? What B.S.

    Seriously.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:22 am

  54. He noted he helped cover up the crime for his friend by not cooperating in the investigation, and thus participated in a conspiracy

    Not cooperating in an investigation is not a crime. And if he lied to police or hid evidence, that’s “obstruction of justice”.

    “Not cooperating” is every citizen’s right. Indeed, it’s prudent, where you are a suspect.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:24 am

  55. So even though Ali Akbar may be telling the truth and possibly was wrongly convicted, he is not admitting to his role in the crime he was convicted of.

    Why wrongly convicted?

    If you read his account, and came away with not admitting to his role, the you are thick.

    Kmart – pretending to not know the genesis of all of this is silly, par for the course for you.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:27 am

  56. Why wrongly convicted?

    You’re the one who’s being thick. Because it isn’t a crime to drive someone from A to B if you don’t know they’re going to do anything illegal when they get there — and that’s what Ali “admitted” to.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:29 am

  57. I think it is terribly important to go after someone trying to help AW and Patterico. Very important. He should put his resume out on the web.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:29 am

  58. Today ends in y

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:30 am

  59. Random, he describes it less charitably than you do.

    I can see this becoming like the last thread, where your mere suspicions, based on nothing but someone not proving them untrue, will lead to the same suspicion being noted repeatedly.

    And then the entire thread will revolve around that, which seems unfair to the victims of the swattings and to Ali and his mother. Just my .02.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:30 am

  60. 49. Anyone who thinks they can get justice by appealing to Eric Holder has his account in the wrong bank.

    Comment by ropelight — 6/7/2012 @ 10:18 am

    I think it’s just as important to establish the fact that Holder’s track record toward those he considers his political or racial enemies, or simply non-entities such as Mexicans south of the border, consists entirely of malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance.

    Comment by Steve57 (958caf) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:31 am

  61. That’s a great point, Steve.

    Why is the DOJ not solving this crime?

    Well, if it’s because they didn’t bother following all the leads… and Holder is not responsive to pleas to make that happen, it’s a serious problem worth documenting.

    Unfortunately, I am no more optimistic than Ropelight that this will be resolved at Holder’s direction, but this isn’t really a left v right story, and Kimberlin provides a very good Sisted Soulja opportunity for democrats who are responsible for law enforcement.

    This is a serious enough incident that I think President Obama should condemn it. I think we’re seeing the beginning of tactics that no one in the mainstream of either party really want to see proven successful.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:34 am

  62. Random, he describes it less charitably than you do.

    I quoted him.

    And he describes it plenty charitably. He is unwilling to accept responsibility for committing a crime. He even uses passive tense. He claims to have had no clue a crime was going to be committed.

    Maybe he didn’t. In which case, he is in fact denying that he committed a crime.

    E.g., “I was convicted of battery and I had no idea he was beside me when I moved my elbow in that direction,” is not admitting to a crime.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:35 am

  63. They went after Ali’s mother, for Pete’s Brett’s sake.

    FTFY

    Comment by Pious Agnostic (7c3d5b) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:35 am

  64. Ali is admitting to being convicted of a crime, not to committing one.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:40 am

  65. Okay, so it was on the facebook page

    So you didn’t really read the post, but you come in here to bash everyone who did for being wrong.

    That’s not how honest people behave.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:41 am

  66. You seem obsessed with me, Tim. I don’t recall you at all, yet your comments to me are bizarrely angry and personal. Maybe you commented here under a different handle?

    Dustin, timb has commented here for years using this handle. He does not argue in good faith. Many times in the past he has given a link to support his argument, only the link doesn’t say what he claims it says.

    Since he claims to be the same tim as over at Volokh, and I’ve seen how that tim operates, I think it’s safe to call timb a dishonest troll.

    Comment by Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:48 am

  67. Ali is admitting to being convicted of a crime, not to committing one.

    Comment by Random

    You’re being so pedantic you’re changing Ali’s claim to his saying he was wrongfully convicted. Something he never said.

    I became an associate [...] I was treated well—better than I thought I deserved.

    Ali is not making any kind of legal claim anyway. He is making a moral one. He is taking responsibility and saying he deserved punishment because he was an associate to the criminal.

    Your spin on this is to twist this to the exact opposite of what he said, and now suggest

    he describes it plenty charitably. He is unwilling to accept responsibility

    You show suspicion, but also you go beyond whats is fair and accurate.

    This reminds me of your recent need to blast Kent Gibson repeatedly to the point where you say you have to dismiss his claims. Even after it’s proven that he’s being smeared like Ali is, and it’s proven Kent is a court certified expert, you kept saying the exact same meme over and over.

    Now you’re doing it to Ali. You admit that “maybe” Ali’s claims are accurate. You don’t seem to have any evidence they aren’t.

    But I know you will continue to press the exact same spin on Ali’s story repeatedly. Now, the thread can be all about your prosecution of Ali, just like the last was all about your prosecution of Kent. You will offer narratives that are difficult for everyone to resist responding to.

    Which is sad, because Ali admitted he was wrong and he’s trying to do something good, and I see yet another Kimberlin critic being treated very poorly.

    But do what you gotta do. I suspect you’re just trying to be a gadfly, but I think your priorities are misguided quite badly.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:50 am

  68. Thanks, Chuck.

    I didn’t recall him, but I’m sure your recollection is right. It certainly matches with my recent experience. Is Tim just trolling Kimberlin’s victims because he can’t get over his partisanship for one single story?

    In that way, this story does take on a left vs right angle that I do not want to see.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:54 am

  69. That’s an unfair and misleading representation, Random.
    He admitted going a along with a crime to be cool with a friend. He was ashamed but did nothing about it, didn’t act to stop it or report it or even challenge his friend.

    When police came calling, he covered for his friend. He lied, and since he was there, he participated at minimum passively in the crime, and was an accessory.

    He broke his mother’s heart, and went against what he was taught was right and knew was right. He describes how these bad acts and his shame and regret pushed him to seek a new way of living.

    THese are serious admissions. Perhaps you believe he had more to admit, but on its face it sounds like a stupid thing a stupid kid would do. You’ve announced your disbelief in choice, and I can’t agree with it. But if we stick only to neurological development, at 21 many aspects are set down but there is still development and remodeling taking place.
    Epigenetic factors combine with genetic. Those with a conscience feel the pain of conscience, and it redirects behavior.

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:57 am

  70. If Ali’s telling the truth about what he did, Dustin, the he was wrongfully convicted.

    But he can’t have not known about it AND done it because he was intimidated AND be guilty of a crime.

    There are not one, but two, claims there to evade his responsibility!

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:57 am

  71. *then

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:58 am

  72. He admitted going a along with a crime to be cool with a friend. He was ashamed but did nothing about it, didn’t act to stop it or report it or even challenge his friend.

    Ali claims he didn’t know his friend was going to commit a crime until after the fact. Further, he is not legally required to report this crime.

    “When police came calling, he covered for his friend.

    That’s obstruction of justice, not conspiracy to commit fraud. He was — if his story is true (which I somewhat doubt) — not guilty of the crime he was convicted of.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:01 am

  73. Dear Dustin: Patterico says very good things about you, so I am kindly inclined toward your posts (your essay about BK’s victim was particularly moving).

    Random isn’t posting for the reasons you appear to assume. We all dealt with this last night. He wants to battle, to feel not “thick” as he puts it. Seems like a sad exercise to engage his sophistry…because the underlying rationale is not what you nor I would use. Your choice, of course. I just don’t want you to get as tired of that kind of thing as I have become; I enjoy your posts.

    Timb? Never been awful to me. But he has sure stalked JD for years. I hope you aren’t his new fave rave.

    All that said, I do enjoy reading your thoughts on these issues. Maybe I need to just ignore what the trolls and such are writing, and just focus on your replies.

    I don’t even bear the trolls ill will. But it is tiring…which may be the agenda.

    Comment by Simon Jester (c8876d) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:03 am

  74. 61. This is a serious enough incident that I think President Obama should condemn it. I think we’re seeing the beginning of tactics that no one in the mainstream of either party really want to see proven successful.

    Dustin, I don’t intend to hijack the thread. But what makes you think that President “they bring a knife, we bring a gun” Obama given sufficient plausible deniability wouldn’t condone this? If, as my oblique reference suggests, Mexicans south of the border were considered less important than a gun control agenda.

    And given the fact that Obama can not find a surrogate from the mayor of Newark NJ, Corey Booker, to the last Democratic President Bill Clinton willing to tow the Obama campaign’s attack line against Romney, what makes you think he’s in the party’s mainstream? Remember, he began that habit of pretending he was just absent-mindedly scratching his head when he was giving the finger to Hillary during the ’08 primary. And when he was talking about those “bitter clingers” who were religious fanatics, gun nuts, and xenophobes, he was explaining a large part of his party’s base to another part of his party’s base in SF that he’s more comfortable with.

    Basically, we should all wait to see what action this administration takes. Not speculate on what they should see as in their own best interests.

    I agree the DoJ should investigate this coordinated attack on bloggers, including Seth Adams who is a liberal.

    18 USC § 241 – Conspiracy against rights

    If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

    If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

    They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

    It’s just that AG Eric “my people” Holder has demonstrated in the past that as far as he’s concerned certain laws exist only to protect minority rights against whites, and he isn’t about to enforce those laws in an even-handed or colorblind manner.

    I’d be happy to be proven wrong. Forgive me if I don’t hold my breath.

    Comment by Steve57 (958caf) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:03 am

  75. Random, incorrect. He was charged as an accessory.
    And no, you can’t lie to police about a crime committed in your presence. You can say nothing, but you cannot lie.

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:03 am

  76. An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors.

    Conspiracy is governed by statute in federal courts and most state courts. Before its Codification in state and federal statutes, the crime of conspiracy was simply an agreement to engage in an unlawful act with the intent to carry out the act. Federal statutes, and many state statutes, now require not only agreement and intent but also the commission of an Overt Act in furtherance of the agreement.

    Conspiracy is a crime separate from the criminal act for which it is developed. For example, one who conspires with another to commit Burglary and in fact commits the burglary can be charged with both conspiracy to commit burglary and burglary.

    Conspiracy is an inchoate, or preparatory, crime. It is similar to solicitation in that both crimes are committed by manifesting an intent to engage in a criminal act.

    In no way is Ali admitting to conspiracy.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:04 am

  77. Is Tim just trolling Kimberlin’s victims because he can’t get over his partisanship for one single story?

    That’s pretty much it, Dustin. Timb is incapable of honesty, and his partisanship is so great that if George Bush were to tell him that 2 + 2 = 4, timb would argue that it really is 3.

    Comment by Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:05 am

  78. Random, I’m done helping you make this thread another attack on a good person. You made your point. You explained your basis, which is almost entirely your suspicion rather than actual basis.

    There is no need to repeatedly explain the same weak point, though I’m sure you will act like it’s much more important than the topic of the thread.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:05 am

  79. And no, you can’t lie to police about a crime committed in your presence. You can say nothing, but you cannot lie.

    Not once did I say you can. I said you can’t several times.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:06 am

  80. 70.If Ali’s telling the truth about what he did, Dustin, the he was wrongfully convicted.

    Conspiracy includes lying to the police after the fact.

    You are way off base on this one, Random, and, intentionally or not, you are doing exactly what you are being accused of doing: diverting the discussion away from Kimberlin.

    Comment by Roland (5ff18d) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:07 am

  81. Steve, I think this is a totally relevant comment to the topic. The US Senator is trying to urge the Holder (and ultimately Obama) DOJ to solve this crime, and I’ve been wondering why they didn’t follow all the leads.

    I’d be happy to be proven wrong.

    Me too. I think the real issue here is that there are systemic problems in our justice system and some laziness with some law enforcement. But I also think that had the partisanship been reversed, more pressure would have been brought to solve this crime. I do not think Glenn Reynolds would get away with donating tens of thousands to a 1970s abortion clinic bomber who smeared Obama as buying drugs and then sued Al Gore for reporting it on his TV station.

    At any rate, the best way for the DOJ to put that theory to rest is to solve this crime.

    In many cases, Kimberlin is much luckier than makes sense, and he seems to be very politically connected and getting benefit of the doubt from those who tilt left.

    I

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:09 am

  82. For reasons of your own you are mischaractering both Ali’s account and maybe even the law, though that might just be a fanciful notion you’ve picked up .

    Do you believe in conscience? Do you feel it’s pangs? Had it never affected you?

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:10 am

  83. Conspiracy includes lying to the police after the fact.

    Show me where in Ali Akbar’s Facebook posts he says he lied to the police.

    He said he (1) didn’t know his friend was going to commit a crime (2) drove his friend because his friend was hostile and he wanted to keep everything cool (3) was uncooperative with the police — which isn’t illegal, by the way.

    Show me where Ali admitted doing anything illegal.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:11 am

  84. My prior comment was jumbled quite a bit.

    I’m not sure why.

    Anyhow, I do not think there is a grand left conspiracy, but I do think the DOJ can put such a theory to rest simply by doing their jobs. I think the real problem is systemic and ineptness.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:12 am

  85. Dustin, this is clearly a left-right issue. Those on the left who think it is not are clueless about the kind of people they have been supporting.

    Holder will only act if his hand is forced by political considerations. If the Center ever comes to realize just how monstrously anti-American the left and the Democrats have become, it would vaporize them.

    Comment by Roland (5ff18d) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:13 am

  86. 75. Random, incorrect. He was charged as an accessory.

    Comment by SarahW — 6/7/2012 @ 11:03 am

    76. In no way is Ali admitting to conspiracy.

    Comment by Random — 6/7/2012 @ 11:04 am

    I believe no comment is necessary.

    Comment by Steve57 (958caf) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:17 am

  87. He said he (1) didn’t know his friend was going to commit a crime (2) drove his friend because his friend was hostile and he wanted to keep everything cool (3) was uncooperative with the police — which isn’t illegal, by the way.

    It may not technically be illegal, but try doing it sometime (unknowingly help a friend commit a crime, and then refuse to cooperate with police) and then try convincing a jury you didn’t know.

    I would certainly vote to convict his dumb ass. People who act that way deserve to be convicted.

    Comment by Roland (5ff18d) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:18 am

  88. It may not technically be illegal, but try doing it sometime (unknowingly help a friend commit a crime, and then refuse to cooperate with police) and then try convincing a jury you didn’t know.

    Yes, this is my point exactly. He’s still claiming he didn’t have a clue what his friend was going to do and, what’s more, drove his friend because his friend was scary, in essence.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:19 am

  89. Yes, this is my point exactly.

    And you missed my point. He admitted to moral culpability. That is remorse.

    And, again, Random, you are serving Kimberlin here, not the truth.

    Comment by Roland (5ff18d) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:22 am

  90. You even asked me where I work. Why do you take such a personal interest in the private affairs of Kimberlin’s critics?

    I asked if you have a job. I was and am making fun of you. Who’s being tendentious and dishonest now?

    To Chuck, always nice to meet a fan. I mean, a preposterously misinformed fan, but still a fan.

    PS this discussion is about Saxby Chambliss and SWATing and Ali Akbar and the fact that he’s a convicted felon who lives with his mom. If you think that’s all the Moriarty of Internet’s fault, then more power to you.

    PPS Kman, Patterico ran into Kimberlin when he discovered Kimblerin’s group was going after O’Keefe. Patterico likes O’Keefe and Kimberlin with his myriad of problems and lies is sort of a natural target of a prosecutor.

    Comment by timb (449046) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:25 am

  91. What was Ali’s reason for being a convicted of finanacial felony? And, why would someone give a guy convicted of credit card fraud their credit card number.

    Because it wasn’t credit card fraud. He was peripherally involved in someone else’s attempt to withdraw money from a stolen ATM card. Nothing to do with credit cards at all.

    Comment by Milhouse (312124) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:26 am

  92. PPS Kman, Patterico ran into Kimberlin when he discovered Kimblerin’s group was going after O’Keefe. Patterico likes O’Keefe and Kimberlin with his myriad of problems and lies is sort of a natural target of a prosecutor

    What does “going after” mean?

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:26 am

  93. I asked if you have a job.

    Yes, and it’s none of your business.

    Patterico ran into Kimberlin when he discovered Kimblerin’s group was going after O’Keefe.

    That’s what Occupy Rebellion is suggesting… that this has something to do with O’Keefe.

    Yet it’s plainly untrue.

    Patterico first discussed Kimberlin when discussing Brad Blog in 2010, and O’Keefe was not part of that conversation. It became apparent that Brad Blog was being evasive about his association with Kimberlin.

    To the extent where any comment even mentioning Brett Kimberlin is deleted automatically.

    You are so aggressive about smearing Brett’s critics, Tim. But you aren’t doing them damage. Everyone is expecting smears and attacks now. You’re simply revealing yourself as part of that.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:32 am

  94. Roland, Random is being deliberately obtuse. He’s arguing about crimes that Ali Akbar isn’t admitting to as he wasn’t charged with those crimes.

    Just don’t engage him, now that you know he’s carrying Kimberlin’s water.

    And in any case, it’s not necessary as the crucial differences are not to be found in the convictions, the trials, or the actions that led to them.

    There is no public record that after Akbar was convicted he filed a number of suits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana or anywhere else suing everyone from the prosecutors who convicted him, the witnesses who “‘perjured’ themselves to convict a completely innocent man,” to the individuals and media corporations who reported on the crimes and trial.

    Akbar did not deliberately evade a judgement against him to deny the woman he widowed the money she deserved.

    Akbar did not testify in court recently that he never knew he was known by the nickname the press gave him because of the crime for which he was convicted.

    And Akbar wasn’t even in court at at all recently trying to abridge his critics’ First Amendment rights for talking about his past.

    The differences are huge and have nothing to do with Random’s obtuse refusal to even deal with the basic facts.

    Comment by Steve57 (958caf) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:33 am

  95. And Brad Blog was legitimating any attack on the voting system, and worse, with the Connell story, that got Seth’s attention,

    Comment by narciso (494474) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:35 am

  96. I think you guys are being snowed.

    You are on the credulous side where one of your own is concerned.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:38 am

  97. A tale he seems to have borrowed, from that mid 90s
    tale of web paranoia, the Net,

    Comment by narciso (494474) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:39 am

  98. Not cooperating in an investigation is not a crime. And if he lied to police or hid evidence, that’s “obstruction of justice”.

    “Not cooperating” is every citizen’s right. Indeed, it’s prudent, where you are a suspect.

    True. But without his testimony, one can easily see the attitude the prosecution would have taken. They would have accused him of being a willing accomplice and participant in the theft, and in all the thefts that the other guy had committed. Had he testified that his role was merely unwitting chauffeur, the prosecution would have had to disprove that beyond reasonable doubt; but since he refused to say that, out of loyalty to the thief, the prosecution’s story was left unchallenged. At least that’s how I understand his story. I wonder whether he had a competent lawyer; I have a friend who served three years for a burglary he didn’t commit, because he was young and scared and his public defender persuaded his parents to pressure him into accepting a plea bargain.

    Comment by Milhouse (312124) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:39 am

  99. Then, by all means, don’t support someone who is trying to help AW and Patterico.

    Comment by JD (c543e6) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:40 am

  100. What does “going after” mean?
    Comment by Kman — 6/7/2012 @ 11:26 am

    – That’s right. Kimberlin, Rauhauser, et al never went after O’Keefe . . . or something.

    Comment by Icy (521935) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:41 am

  101. I like my admissions of a crime to include admissions of the particulars of the crime, rather than multiple evasions. I’m funny that way.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:41 am

  102. You know, Senator Hatch had a run-in with Brett Kimberlin, back in 1999.

    He sued him for trying to get the United States Parole Commission to put him back keep him in jail in 1997, or maybe causing that to happen, and the Senate voted to pay for his lawyers.

    http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2012/05/25/report-domestic-terrorist-brett-kimberlin-had-run-ins-with-senator-orrin-hatch/

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/may/25/picket-sen-hatch-no-surprise-kimberlin-harassing-c/

    Sponsored by Senate Majorit leader Trent Lott and Minority leader Thomas Daschle. Passed by unanimous consent Actually a simple piece of housekeeping.

    S. Res. 238

    Whereas, in the case of Brett Kimberlin v. Orrin Hatch, et al., C.A. No. 99-1590, pending in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the plaintiff has named as a defendant Senator Orrin G. Hatch;

    Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(1) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. §288b(a) and 288c(1), the Senate may direct its counsel to defend Members of the Senate in civil actions relating to their official responsibilities: Now therefore, be it

    Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is directed to represent Senator Hatch in the case of Brett Kimberlin v. Orrin Hatch, et al.

    There was a short explanation:

    Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this resolution concerns a civil action commenced by a pro se plaintiff in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against Senator HATCH and a former member of the staff of the Judiciary Committee. The plaintiff is a federal prisoner serving a sentence for offenses related to a series of bombings in 1979. [sic - the bombings were done in 1978 - SF]

    The complaint seeks damages from Senator HATCH and staff for their alleged role in the United States Parole Commission’s 1997 revocation of the plaintiff’s parole for failure to satisfy an outstanding civil judgment against him in favor of one of the victims of his bombings.

    The plaintiff’s claims of unfairness and political bias in his parole revocation hearing have already been rejected by the federal district court in Maryland in habeas corpus proceedings initiated by the plaintiff.

    This resolution authorizes the Senate Legal Counsel to represent Senator HATCH in this action. The Senate Legal Counsel will seek dismissal of the suit for failure to state a claim for relief and for other reasons.

    Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and finally that any statements related to the resolution be printed in the RECORD.

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

    The lawsuit was quickly dismissed for failing to state a cause of action (in other words, what exactly would be wrong with Senator Hatch’s staff contacting the U.S. Parole Commision in an efffort to put Brett Kimberlin back in prison?)

    Senator Hatch’s office’s statement issued about about two weeks ago and sent to Kerry Picket of the Washington Times:

    Senator Hatch has had run ins with Brett Kimberlin before and they weren’t pleasant. So it’s certainly no surprise that Mr. Kimberlin has now taken to harassing and targeting conservative bloggers. Needless to say, efforts to silence and chill political speech are contrary to the values of our Constitution and First Amendment.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:43 am

  103. But without his testimony, one can easily see the attitude the prosecution would have taken. They would have accused him of being a willing accomplice and participant in the theft, and in all the thefts that the other guy had committed. Had he testified that his role was merely unwitting chauffeur, the prosecution would have had to disprove that beyond reasonable doubt; but since he refused to say that, out of loyalty to the thief, the prosecution’s story was left unchallenged. At least that’s how I understand his story. I wonder whether he had a competent lawyer

    This could well be so.

    But I’ll buy one or the other, not both. I won’t buy he was guilty but didn’t do sh-t.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:44 am

  104. I knew that about Hatch, Sammy. I assume he’ll probably join Chambliss in one way or another.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:46 am

  105. I like my admissions of a crime to include admissions of the particulars of the crime, rather than multiple evasions. I’m funny that way.

    Yes. That’s what this is all about. Who’s admitted to the truth behind their convictions with the fewest evasions.

    At least, that’s the sideshow toward which Kimberlin’s supporters would like to divert our attention.

    Comment by Steve57 (958caf) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:50 am

  106. I would like someone to tell me why anyone on the right would ever cared about Brett Kimberlin in the first place. I would like someone to explain to me why the right blogosphere turned this nobody into a “Goliath” just so that the “Army of Davids” could have someone to bring down.
    Comment by Kman — 6/7/2012 @ 10:07 am

    – Oy vey!

    Comment by Icy (521935) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:53 am

  107. To Chuck, always nice to meet a fan. I mean, a preposterously misinformed fan, but still a fan.

    I can add “completely delusional” to your list of faults.

    You’re a liar and intellectually dishonest, timb. You’ve been proven wrong here in the past; your modus operandi is to disappear once proven wrong, and not show up for several months afterwards.

    Comment by Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:57 am

  108. “That’s obstruction of justice, not conspiracy to commit fraud. He was — if his story is true (which I somewhat doubt) — not guilty of the crime he was convicted of.”

    Random – You need to ask Ali directly if he is claiming he was wrongly convicted rather than endlessly repeating your speculation on this blog.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:06 pm

  109. Not really, Chuck.

    I’m pointing out facts as always. if you’d like to back up an allegation with a link, then yippee, otherwise, the personal attacks are sweet and all.

    Comment by timb (449046) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:08 pm

  110. “You’re a liar and intellectually dishonest, timb. You’ve been proven wrong here in the past; your modus operandi is to disappear once proven wrong, and not show up for several months afterwards.”

    Chuck Bartowski – Exactly. Behavior timb has exhibited on several blogs.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:08 pm

  111. Plus he is a creepy stalker.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:09 pm

  112. “I’m funny that way.”

    Random – I would say just not right in the head, but other commenters think that is uncharitable of me.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:12 pm

  113. Ali to take to his Facebook page, explain the background of his criminal mistake, and promise not to back down.

    I am not sure why this was a big deal (unless of course some of these people were also involved in other criminal activity and so got a bit high on teh radar screen)

    When Ali drove a friend to work, as well as stopping at an ATM along the way, he had no idea the friend had no right to use the card in his possession. He didn’t find out till the friend failed to get money because he didn’t know or had forgotten the pin (of the friend’s former roommate, whom the friend claimed owed him money.)

    Admittedly, this was the second time something like this had happened with this same friend.

    HE SAYS HE GOT INTO TROUBLE BECAUSE:

    when detectives came to my door [ a few months later, after he had stopped going to the nightly drunken parties, gotten back on his feet and reconciled with his family] ..Pridefully, I refused my mother’s advice and was uncooperative with the police. I refused to turn in my friend, so I became an associate

    He’s not clear here if the first time this happened money was successfully withdrawn without the permission of the account holder. Also how did the detectives know to go to him?

    The two instances were separated by a gap in time, and his lawyers, the judge and the ADA worked out something.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:13 pm

  114. Seems to me that the attack on Ali has a silver lining, of the sort that several passages in the Psalter seem to have had in mind (i.e., falling into the pit one digs for others).

    Surely if Kimberlin & Co are going to be publicizing everyone else’s criminal history, they’re estopped from bitching about the publication of his, let alone from getting injunctive relief against such publication.

    Comment by Markham S. Pyle (09dc20) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:14 pm

  115. I like my admissions of a crime to include admissions of the particulars of the crime, rather than multiple evasions. I’m funny that way.

    Fine. So he didn’t admit the crime he was convicted of. So what? The point is that, as far as we know, he has come clean about the circumstances of his conviction. He has not attempted to lie about it, at least that we know of, and we have no reason to suspect him of it. If he didn’t commit the crime then it’s entirely reasonable for him not to admit it. And utterly unlike Kimberlin; not only do we know he did commit the crime but we know he’s still pretending it didn’t happen.

    Comment by Milhouse (4d8ea0) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:14 pm

  116. He’s not clear here ….

    Snort. To say the least.

    He sure as heck didn’t describe any action of his own that was criminal. But supposedly that’s his big acceptance of responsibility and his mea culpa.

    Bill Clinton has nothing on him.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:17 pm

  117. If he didn’t commit the crime then it’s entirely reasonable for him not to admit it.

    Yeah, fair enough, although I’d respect him more if he said that he didn’t do it, rather than trying to get credit for admitting his crime while not actually doing so. Anyway, that’s about all I have to say on it.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:19 pm

  118. You are so aggressive about smearing Brett’s critics, Tim. But you aren’t doing them damage. Everyone is expecting smears and attacks now. You’re simply revealing yourself as part of that.

    Dustin, you have a problem. Your problem is that you are a Manichean. The world is not black and white and there is no “we” in my interests, only “I”. I am not a joiner or a follower of anyone. I am, you might have noticed, a contrarian. I certainly am not a follower of a criminal and perjurer and obsessive. One does not need to be to be amused at this gifting pile on.

    In your little world, you think you are enbiggened (h/t Simpsons) by being a hanger on. You’re wrong.

    Comment by timb (449046) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:20 pm

  119. Random wants Ali to admit knowledge of facts and events of which Ali claims no knowledge so it would make Random feel better in Random’s mind for some reason.

    Someone needs to wrap yellow caution tape around Random’s mind.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:23 pm

  120. Anyway, that’s about all I have to say on it.

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahabahahabahahaha

    Comment by JD (c543e6) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:23 pm

  121. Someone needs to wrap yellow caution tape around Random’s mind.

    Lol.

    Comment by Dana (4eca6e) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:24 pm

  122. Comment by Steve57 — 6/7/2012 @ 11:33 am

    Akbar did not testify in court recently that he never knew he was known by the nickname the press gave him because of the crime for which he was convicted.

    While the headline of the 1981 (not 1980, I made a mistake before) Indianapolis Star article copied from microfilm by Liberty Chick goes:

    Bizarre plots planned by Speedway bomber

    Kimberlin case a maze of muirder, deceit

    I would not take that as meaning that anybody, at that time, called him “the Speedway bomber”

    This is just a description in a headline, because more people would know about the bombings than remember the name of the accused bomber. It’s like “Killer of ….” appearing in a headline. It doesn’t mean anybody refers to him that way.

    the mioniker “Speedway bomber” is probably much more recent, which is what gave Kimberlin the nerve to deny that he remembered seeing that name applied to him.

    I would like to know just when somebody started using that name for him. You need to know things like that to get the whole sory clear.

    It was basically the wrong question anyway.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:24 pm

  123. Yeah, fair enough, although I’d respect him more if he said that he didn’t do it, rather than trying to get credit for admitting his crime while not actually doing so.

    Excuse me? When exactly did he “try to get credit for admitting his crime”?

    Comment by Milhouse (4d8ea0) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:27 pm

  124. Random reminds me of that dipstick Christoph, but more stupider. At least porn, intercontinental girlfriends and his sexual prowess are not a staple part of his comments, so he’s got that going for him.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:29 pm

  125. I would like someone to tell me why anyone on the right in the US would ever cared about Brett Kimberlin Japan in the first place. I would like someone to explain to me why the right blogosphere US turned this nobody into a “Goliath” just so that the “Army of Davids” could have someone to bring down.
    Comment by Kman — 6/7/2012 11/24/1943 @ 10:07 am

    Kman, commenting on the number of casualties on Tarawa.

    Comment by Steve57 (958caf) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:30 pm

  126. Excuse me? When exactly did he “try to get credit for admitting his crime”?

    Comment by Milhouse — 6/7/2012 @ 12:27 pm

    OK, maybe he didn’t, but that doesn’t stop conservatives from stupidly trying to give him credit for doing so.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:34 pm

  127. “Congress shall make no law…”

    With all due sympathy for what happened to you, Congress didn’t do it and it didn’t involve a law.

    Comment by btomdarga (803b96) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:34 pm

  128. Excuse me? When exactly did he “try to get credit for admitting his crime”?

    Milhouse, are you shocked by the workings of the liberal mind?

    If the left tries to assassinate someone’s character, and that someone consequently demonstrates a bit of character by honestly admitting to uncomfortable truths then that person is “trying to get credit.”

    I think we should start cataloging the myriad ways the left’s cognitive dissonance manifests itself.

    So instead of attempting to engage it we can simply say, “oh, Random’s pulling a 2247 again.”

    Comment by Steve57 (958caf) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:35 pm

  129. Steve57@125:

    By comparing Brett Kimberlin to the Japanese, you’re only proving my point about turning him into some Goliath….

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:42 pm

  130. Thanks for clarifying at 13, Patterico. In light of that, while it makes sense that they woul dbe too fearful to report on the SWATting of one of their own, it’s a pretty big misstep to allow themselves to be scooped by Fox and the ABC. The only reason I can see for this other than incompetence might be if they are seeing this as strictly a left-right issue, rather than a universal first amendment issue that will impact everyone on both sides of the political aisle.

    Comment by Dana (4eca6e) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:43 pm

  131. Good for Chambliss.

    Good luck to you, Patterico (and Aaron). I’ve been thinking of you every day.

    I can only make an assumption here, but it almost has to be one NYT reporter who is afraid of covering this story. Someone has been noticeably silent on this.

    Comment by MayBee (2f6e35) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:43 pm

  132. Anyone who donates money to a guy convicted of fraud is a f***ing Muppet.

    Comment by btomdarga (803b96) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:43 pm

  133. it’s a pretty big misstep to allow themselves to be scooped by Fox and the ABC. The only reason I can see for this other than incompetence might be if they are seeing this as strictly a left-right issue, rather than a universal first amendment issue that will impact everyone on both sides of the political aisl

    Well, duh.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:44 pm

  134. ” Akbar has admitted to his crime and is seeking to atone for it. Kimberlin denies his crimes and blames everyone else.”

    The “repentant ex-con” is a favorite go-to of frauds looking to double-dip. It’s awesome. You defraud people and get caught, pretend to repent, and defraud them again. Muppets.

    Comment by btomdarga (803b96) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:47 pm

  135. Btomdarga is cute

    Comment by JD (c543e6) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:55 pm

  136. Well, how about if you don’t give him any money and you just be grateful for his written efforts to help Aaron, Patterico, and Eric.

    Comment by MayBee (2f6e35) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:58 pm

  137. I think we should start cataloging the myriad ways the left’s cognitive dissonance manifests itself.
    Comment by Steve57 — 6/7/2012 @ 12:35 pm

    Done

    The Tyranny Of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat In The War Of Ideas
    by Jonah Goldberg

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:58 pm

  138. I don’t think Btomdarga should donate to the fund in question.

    Comment by JD (c543e6) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:59 pm

  139. “For the life of me, I cannot understand the fascination with this story.”

    Well, for one thing there’s at least two unsolved murders connected to this story, and some of us don’t like the idea of murderers getting away with murder.

    There’s also the matter of Sandra DeLong collecting on the award she won decades ago. Some of us aren’t certain that she ever recieved the money she was entitled to get from Brett Kimberlin, and we want to make sure she was paid off.

    It’s a justice thing. Never mind lefties, you wouldn’t understand.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:59 pm

  140. PCD – who experienced exactly what you described?

    Comment by JD (c543e6) — 6/7/2012 @ 1:02 pm

  141. Patterico came close.

    Comment by PCD (1d8b6d) — 6/7/2012 @ 1:05 pm

  142. Random @ 133,

    Feel free to resist the urge to insult me yet again. I think you’ve probably used up your nastiness quota for the month. I’ve resisted insulting you – in spite of how much you’ve given me to work with – but nonetheless, let’s focus on the story at hand, which is so much more serious and important than that with which you view yourself.

    Shorter: STFU.

    Comment by Dana (4eca6e) — 6/7/2012 @ 1:08 pm

  143. “What was Ali’s reason for being a convicted of finanacial felony? And, why would someone give a guy convicted of credit card fraud their credit card number.”

    I think that’s the first time I ever heard Tim make sense.

    Even a blind lefty finds an acorn once in awhile.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/7/2012 @ 1:10 pm

  144. There is also a PayPal set up to avoid that cumbersome form.

    Comment by JD (c543e6) — 6/7/2012 @ 1:13 pm

  145. Well, duh.

    Comment by Random — 6/7/2012 @ 12:44 pm

    Feel free to resist the urge to insult me yet again. I think you’ve probably used up your nastiness quota for the month. I’ve resisted insulting you ….

    Comment by Dana — 6/7/2012 @ 1:08 pm

    You haven’t actually. You’re lying.

    I assumed by your writing you were young, Random. That you’re not makes me feel all the more sorry for you.

    Comment by Dana — 6/6/2012 @ 8:46 pm

    Why does that not surprise me?

    What you wrote is at least as insulting is, “Well, duh.”

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 1:15 pm

  146. Nobody should ever give any money to someone to whom they do not feel comfortable giving money.

    Except the government, but that’s because it’s illegal not to.

    Comment by MayBee (2f6e35) — 6/7/2012 @ 1:16 pm

  147. The “repentant ex-con” is a favorite go-to of frauds looking to double-dip. It’s awesome. You defraud people and get caught, pretend to repent, and defraud them again. Muppets.

    Let’s assume, just for argument’s sake, that Akbar is a fraud and is not actually trying to go straight. Whatever money Akbar raises for his defense is trivial compared to the amount of money Kimberlin collects every year from his donors.

    If you’re so concerned with fraud, try going after the bigger fish.

    Further, even if everything Akbar has said is a lie, Patterico and Ericson have still been victims of a campaign of terror against them

    Comment by Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd) — 6/7/2012 @ 1:17 pm

  148. *is as

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 1:17 pm

  149. The “repentant ex-con” is a favorite go-to of frauds looking to double-dip. It’s awesome. You defraud people and get caught, pretend to repent, and defraud them again. Muppets.

    lol That was actually funny.

    It may not be true in this case, but it’s true in a lot of them.

    I was tempted to strike “Muppets” and write “Christians”.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 1:18 pm

  150. Anyway, that’s about all I have to say on it.

    LOL

    Comment by JD (c543e6) — 6/7/2012 @ 1:21 pm

  151. I assumed by your writing you were young, Random. That you’re not makes me feel all the more sorry for you.

    This was not an insult, but rather an observation made based upon your writing, whose undertones (and overtones) of hopelessness, despair and anger reminded me of someone young and still working their way through what this life means. That you revealed you are not young simply rendered me feeling sorry for you.

    That you choose to take it as an insult does not make me a liar.

    Comment by Dana (4eca6e) — 6/7/2012 @ 1:23 pm

  152. Well don’t take whatever I say as an insult either. It isn’t an insult unless I say it is, get it?

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 1:25 pm

  153. I should have noted this was your accusation at 146,

    You haven’t actually. You’re lying.

    Comment by Dana (4eca6e) — 6/7/2012 @ 1:26 pm

  154. I was tempted to strike “Muppets” and write “Christians”.

    WTF?

    Comment by MayBee (2f6e35) — 6/7/2012 @ 1:27 pm

  155. Alright, I’ll concede you weren’t lying, if you’ll concede I never insulted you.

    Since I’m the one that gets to decide if it was an insult or not, and you have no say in the matter.

    Anything else would be special pleading on your part.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 1:28 pm

  156. I was tempted to strike “Muppets” and write “Christians”.

    WTF?

    Comment by MayBee — 6/7/2012 @ 1:27 pm

    It isn’t complicated. Christians are more succeptible to con artists claiming to have sinned and redeemed themselves since Christian doctrine places such emphasis on redemption. Indeed, Ali talks a lot about God in his Facebook post. Which isn’t to say he isn’t sincere, but he hardly shies away from the religion aspect either.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 1:30 pm

  157. No, it isn’t complicated. You are not complicated. You are crystal clear, and reading you is simple as pie.

    Comment by MayBee (2f6e35) — 6/7/2012 @ 1:32 pm

  158. Did Ali’s post talk about making amends with the victim by any chance?

    I missed it. I recall reading more about how it was a personal growth experience for himself.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 1:34 pm

  159. 155.I was tempted to strike “Muppets” and write “Christians”.

    I would agree that has some truth to it. Christians are taught to forgive as they have been forgiven. Christians are also told to be be cunning as serpents yet innocent as doves. In trying to be innocent of evil and forgiving, one can be unwise and be taken advantage of. Except of course for those conservative greedy republican Christians that like to see children go to bed hungry, they never get taken advantage of.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/7/2012 @ 1:36 pm

  160. Basically, to move away from redemption, per se, Christianity teaches to turn the other cheek. Ergo, they are more likely to be struck the second time than someone who doesn’t. It isn’t anti-Christian to note that fact: it’s descriptive.

    Whether it’s good or bad is a personal choice. Some would argue that being more likely to be the repeated victims of fraudsters because of one accepting the possibility of redemption is spiritually, if not financially, rewarding, and worth the cost.

    I wouldn’t agree, but a person could make that argument.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 1:41 pm

  161. I would feel very prominent if I were being interviewed by Megyn Kelly.

    I’d prefer Maria Molina myself.

    But that’s just me. :-)

    Comment by Darth Venomous (a0b6a2) — 6/7/2012 @ 1:41 pm

  162. Saxby Chambliss was just on Brett Baier’s show talking about the swating and his letter to DOJ and Brett Baier also said he would look into it as well.

    Comment by P.Cannon (9a868a) — 6/7/2012 @ 3:09 pm

  163. Things are getting to the point where the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman case was the week of March 18 through 24 – but it may progress slower.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/7/2012 @ 3:14 pm

  164. That’s when the template was set, Sammy, the audio
    and digital ellisions occurred in that timespan,

    Comment by narciso (494474) — 6/7/2012 @ 3:20 pm

  165. “I was tempted to strike “Muppets” and write “Christians”.” –Random

    My wife watches a lot of true-crime TV and the other day there was yet another story of a fraud who ran a Ponzi scheme Like many other frauds, he made sure to act conspicuously religious … even to the point of inviting would-be “investors” (ie. marks) to come with him to Church. One lady told the interviewer that “I trusted him because he was a Christian”. Of course, he wasn’t really a Christian. He was acting a part. A part that is VERY easy to act.

    “If we just play songs about how much we love Jesus, all the Christiand will buy our crap!” — Eric Cartman

    Comment by btomdarga (803b96) — 6/7/2012 @ 3:23 pm

  166. Comment by narciso — 6/7/2012 @ 3:20 pm

    That’s when the template was set, Sammy, the audio and digital ellisions occurred in that timespan,

    The great breakthrough in publicity happened right after that – basically it became known to almost everyone about March 23-25.

    This is the CBS News chronology:

    March 8, 2012 – Martin’s parents, Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton, create a Change.org petition calling for Zimmerman’s arrest.

    March 9, 2012 – Attorney Benjamin Crump tells the Miami Herald he has filed a suit on behalf of Trayvon Martin’s parents to get public records in the case. Crump is best known for his work on the case of Martin Anderson, a black Florida teen who died after being beaten by guards at a boot-camp style detention camp in 2006.

    March 15, 2012 – George Zimmerman’s father, Robert Zimmerman, delivers a letter to the Orlando Sentinel. The letter reads, in part: “At no time did George follow or confront Mr. Martin. When the true details of the event become public, and I hope that will be soon, everyone should be outraged by the treatment of George Zimmerman in the media.”

    Robert Zimmerman’s letter addresses the race issue. Up until this time, media had been referring to Zimmerman as white, but his father says he is Hispanic.

    March 13-15, 2012 – The story goes national. The Atlantic, Crimesider, the Huffington Post, and the New York Times all run stories on the case. Cable news stations and morning news shows interview Crump and Martin’s parents.

    - A group called the New Black Liberation militia announces its members will travel to Florida to attempt a citizen’s arrest of Zimmerman.

    ——

    This is where we are right now in this story. It has just begun to go national but it is still very much under the radar.

    What followed was:
    —————————

    March 16, 2012 – The Sanford Police Department releases the 911 calls from Feb. 26 to Martin’s family – and later to the public. The recordings include audio of Zimmerman referring to Trayvon Martin as “suspicious,” as well as screams overheard when a neighbor called in a disturbance. Martin’s family believes the screams are his; Zimmerman’s family say they are Zimmerman’s.

    March 19, 2012 – The Department of Justice announces it will investigate the shooting.

    March 20, 2012 – Benjamin Crump tells reporters at a press conference that he has deposed a young woman who says she was on the phone with Martin moments before he was killed. Crump says the girl told him Martin said, “I think this dude is following me.”
    ———————–

    By the way, the idea this girl heard them talking
    to each other has disappeared.

    ——————————————

    The Seminole County State Attorney’s office announces they will convene a grand jury on April 10 to hear evidence in the case.

    March 21, 2012 – The Sanford City Council votes “no confidence” in police chief Bill Lee, Jr.

    March 22, 2012 – Sanford police chief Bill Lee announces he will resign “temporarily.”

    Rallies calling for George Zimmerman’s arrest start taking place across the country. Al Sharpton and NAACP President Ben Jealous join Martin’s parents and hundreds of others at a rally in Sanford. In New York City, hundreds of people attend a “Million Hoodie March,” wearing T-shirts and carrying signs bearing phrases including, “I am Trayvon Martin.”

    March 23, 2012 – President Barack Obama comments on the case, saying he thinks the shooting should be investigated and telling reporters: “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”

    - Florida Gov. Rick Scott appoints state attorney Angela Corey as a special prosecutor to look into the case. He also creates a task force to look into the state’s “stand your ground” self-defense law, which has come under fire nationwide.
    ————————–

    At that point the story had exploded.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/7/2012 @ 3:28 pm

  167. Always beware of someone who validates all of your beliefs .. and then asks for some money.

    Comment by btomdarga (803b96) — 6/7/2012 @ 3:29 pm

  168. Madoff, Stanford, and Ponzi all took their clients to Church.

    This new concern troll is utterly transparent.

    Comment by JD (c543e6) — 6/7/2012 @ 3:35 pm

  169. PCD it’s not very entertaining to think of putting anyone, including officers, in such a position, on the basis of a faked emergency.

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 6/7/2012 @ 3:36 pm

  170. JD,

    If you’re talking about me, then you’re way off. I’m not a “concern troll” because I’m not concerned.

    I’m amused, so I guess I’m an “amusement troll”.

    Donate away if you want. It’s your money, so do what you want with it. Give it to this guy. Invest it all in Facebook. Throw it in the trash. Toe-may-toe, Toe-mah-toe.

    Comment by btomdarga (803b96) — 6/7/2012 @ 4:01 pm

  171. I think you are a clown, and a douchenozzle. And I think you should not donate, nor do I think you ever would have.

    Comment by JD (c543e6) — 6/7/2012 @ 4:11 pm

  172. I can’t remember if P linked this article Already
    http://www.911dispatch.com/911/swating_pranks.html

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 6/7/2012 @ 4:13 pm

  173. My wife watches a lot of true-crime TV and the other day there was yet another story of a fraud who ran a Ponzi scheme Like many other frauds, he made sure to act conspicuously religious … even to the point of inviting would-be “investors” (ie. marks) to come with him to Church. One lady told the interviewer that “I trusted him because he was a Christian”. Of course, he wasn’t really a Christian. He was acting a part. A part that is VERY easy to act.

    “If we just play songs about how much we love Jesus, all the Christiand will buy our crap!” — Eric Cartman

    Comment by btomdarga — 6/7/2012 @ 3:23 pm

    Yes, this is a very true phenomena. A sad one. Growing up, over the summer, I found myself watching some daytime TV way back when. No comments on whether I ever spent one summer hooked to a particular soap, whose name escapes me at the moment.

    Anyhoo, I remember two televangelists: Jimmy Swaggart and, I kid you not, “Ernest Angley” [pronounced on the show pretty close to, "Angel-ee"].

    Swaggart was at least a good act. He was emotive and sincere-looking and entertaining as hell. But Angley was so clearly transparently a fraud, and a terrible actor.

    No matter. Lots of Christians gave tons to him. And don’t get me started on Benny Hin.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 4:17 pm

  174. Madoff, Stanford, and Ponzi all took their clients to Church.

    This new concern troll is utterly transparent.

    Comment by JD — 6/7/2012 @ 3:35 pm

    He may be, and probably is, an enemy agent so to speak. But his point here is absolutely valid — the fact that these infamous large scale crooks used this ploy too hardly invalidates it.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 4:22 pm

  175. Lots of people gave tons to Madoff. Ditto Stanford.

    Have any data to support that this is a Christian phenomena, or is it an example of confirmation. Bias for you anti-Christian bigotry?

    Comment by JD (c543e6) — 6/7/2012 @ 4:24 pm

  176. Have any data to support that this is a Christian phenomena, or is it an example of confirmation. Bias for you anti-Christian bigotry?

    Well obviously there is some data — you presented some yourself!

    It’s not an issue I care about to a massive extent and I’m not going to spend time investigating something so trivial empirically. It stands to reason that con men of whatever stripe including politicians, or businessmen, or whomever will use whatever aspects of people’s belief systems they can to defraud them, and claiming religious beliefs in common with someone is an obvious one.

    Indeed, this is so apparent, it seems ridiculous to have this discussion.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 4:30 pm

  177. Well as a sometimes Christian. I will give to some people I am uncertain about. I’m not worried about getting conned or ripped off. But I try and give to the truly need and to not give away my life savings. 10 percent is the target, though i have been known to splurge.

    Criminals do see that as opportunity knocking. I see it more as God’s will directing.

    Comment by scable (40a8c6) — 6/7/2012 @ 4:32 pm

  178. And fair enough, scable. I’m hardly saying you’re wrong in doing so.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 4:33 pm

  179. I presented mocking data.

    Comment by JD (c543e6) — 6/7/2012 @ 4:34 pm

  180. btomdarga , I read ali’s story and think he is a good guy. he deserves your trust. :-)

    Comment by scable (40a8c6) — 6/7/2012 @ 4:35 pm

  181. I presented mocking data.

    Either way, there’s real data.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 4:36 pm

  182. You claimed the Christian aspect to be a true phenomena. Specifically Christian. And a phenomena.

    Comment by JD (c543e6) — 6/7/2012 @ 4:37 pm

  183. Random. To me religious organizations are always susceptible to being ripped off. Too many CPA’s are atheists.

    I’ve belonged to several organizations and they did bookkeeping but often seemed unrealistic about investments and numbers. Not always the case, but sometimes the bookkeeper is just the only person who would volunteer their time.

    A lot of big thinkers come into these organizations who feel unlimited by their faith and translate that into investment psychology. most often to failure.

    Comment by scable (40a8c6) — 6/7/2012 @ 4:38 pm

  184. Obviously, JD. Con artists are going to exploit Christians’ beliefs. With other targets’, they will exploit different beliefs.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 4:39 pm

  185. Random. To me religious organizations are always susceptible to being ripped off.

    Yes, of course.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 4:39 pm

  186. 82 % of Christians have been victims of ponzi schemes because they are stupid and believe nonsense. People running ponzi schemes target godbothering idiots 92% of the time because they are dum.

    Comment by JD (c543e6) — 6/7/2012 @ 4:43 pm

  187. Degree of religiosity is negatively correlated with IQ. Also, religion itself requires credulity. So I would predict that, in general, religious people are more likely to be scammed.

    And since they give vast amounts of money in furtherance the preaching of the doings of the invisible man in the sky, yeah, I’d say they more often fall prey to scams.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 4:46 pm

  188. George Carlin on religion — absolutely brilliant.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 4:48 pm

  189. So, this true phenomena is now a random Prediction, premised on your anti-Christian bigotry. Thank you for clarifying that, Random.

    Comment by JD (c543e6) — 6/7/2012 @ 4:49 pm

  190. Let’s all watch Random get his anti-Christian hate on. Again.

    Comment by JD (c543e6) — 6/7/2012 @ 4:50 pm

  191. My wife watches a lot of true-crime TV and the other day there was yet another story of a fraud who ran a Ponzi scheme Like many other frauds, he made sure to act conspicuously religious … even to the point of inviting would-be “investors” (ie. marks) to come with him to Church. One lady told the interviewer that “I trusted him because he was a Christian”. Of course, he wasn’t really a Christian. He was acting a part. A part that is VERY easy to act.

    “If we just play songs about how much we love Jesus, all the Christiand [sic] will buy our crap!” — Eric Cartman

    It’s a totally true phenomena.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 4:51 pm

  192. So, is Random suggesting it’s all right to threaten
    someone’s parents, because of their son’s politics,

    Comment by narciso (494474) — 6/7/2012 @ 4:52 pm

  193. So, is Random suggesting it’s all right to threaten

    someone’s parents, because of their son’s politics,

    This is completely stupid.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 4:53 pm

  194. Well that is the text of this post, it is all right
    to terrorize even law enforcement, because of political disagreements, Chambliss, helped bring this to light, and I’m giving him credit.

    Comment by narciso (494474) — 6/7/2012 @ 4:55 pm

  195. Random–you are putting in more hours posting here than a resident emergency room physician. This cannot be healthy for you personally, nor is any single individual dominating threads hour after hour, day after day necessarily healthy for a blog community. I mean this with respect and concern. Please take a break from this. Go out to eat, see a movie or a sporting event, spend time face to face chatting with friends, read a book, enjoy a long walk or a cool swim, even just take a simple but refreshing nap. Please.

    Comment by elissa (b4c7e6) — 6/7/2012 @ 4:57 pm

  196. 170, obviously Kimberlin & Co think so Sarah. I believe in Heinlein’s theory of balancing. I think Iowa Boy would crap his pants receiving the treatment he and Kimberlin have no trouble arranging for others.

    Comment by PCD (047517) — 6/7/2012 @ 4:58 pm

  197. Texas Congressman Ken Marchant is asking questions now,

    Washington, Jun 7 – Congressman Kenny Marchant (TX-24) today issued a statement in strong support of free speech and conservative bloggers who are being targeted in dangerous “SWAT-tings” and asked Attorney General Holder to investigate these matters to see if federal laws have been violated by the perpetrators.

    Comment by Dana (4eca6e) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:07 pm

  198. My Congressman and Senators are noticeably silent on this subject.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:10 pm

  199. Why are you so thick, Dana? You and Marchant are prolly Xians.

    Comment by JD (c543e6) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:11 pm

  200. In other news;

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/06/07/rep-gohmert-rips-into-ag-holder-over-politicization-of-justice-and-doj-obstruction/

    Comment by narciso (494474) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:12 pm

  201. JD – Did you ask to be born?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:14 pm

  202. Heh. I have to say, JD, I’ve never been accused of being thick and lying at Patterico’s. It’s rather unpleasant, but I think that was the goal.

    Comment by Dana (4eca6e) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:15 pm

  203. Before you throw the shoe, Dana, realize JD is being ‘tongue in cheek;

    Comment by narciso (494474) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:17 pm

  204. narciso, I know he is. I wasn’t referring to JD, but rather Random’s accusation of me lying and being thick (upthread)…

    Comment by Dana (4eca6e) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:20 pm

  205. Dana – considering the source, wear it as a badge of honor.

    Comment by JD (c543e6) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:22 pm

  206. Random, is rapidly wearing on my last nerve as well, one tries to be understanding but he’s being
    a jerk,

    Comment by narciso (494474) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:23 pm

  207. “Degree of religiosity is negatively correlated with IQ.”

    “Let’s all watch Random get his anti-Christian hate on. Again.”

    I like it when Random gets his ethnic hate on. According to Random if you are a member of certain ethnic groups, the probabilities of you being consigned to the short bus are astronomical. More true phenomena according to Random.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:26 pm

  208. …Degree of religiosity is negatively correlated with IQ…

    The belly-laughing funny part about this, of course, is that the people who actually carried out that study don’t have a bias. Of course.

    Yet this is a fellow who is all about honesty.

    Elissa put it best: angry man needs a nap.

    And as I stated the other day, I don’t think most of Random’s posts are about the topic at hand; they are about his pain and need to feel powerful and smart.

    People were kind to Random, in his pain. His efforts since are designed to make people dislike him. I personally think he wants other people to dislike him as much as he dislikes himself.

    Sad.

    Comment by Simon Jester (6f91a0) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:27 pm

  209. I think you may be right, Simon.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:29 pm

  210. http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/06/07/five-things-that-are-more-informative-than-eric-holder/?singlepage=true

    Comment by narciso (494474) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:30 pm

  211. But why come here, if that’s so? It seems an odd choice.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:30 pm

  212. His efforts since are designed to make people dislike him

    Hell, he started doing that in the very thread you are discussing.

    Comment by JD (c543e6) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:30 pm

  213. Simon,

    I think that’s why he reacted so strenuously when I told him I felt sorry for him. Perhaps a nerve was hit. But I do, feel sorry for him.

    Comment by Dana (4eca6e) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:31 pm

  214. “Random, is rapidly wearing on my last nerve as well, one tries to be understanding but he’s being
    a jerk,”

    narciso – Always certain and seldom right. At least for a young person Leviticus knows how to carry on a conversation. Random, not so much.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:32 pm

  215. Careful daley re the assumption he is young,

    Dana, how the h— do you know how old I am?

    And you’re wrong. My life is virtually over.

    Comment by Random — 6/6/2012 @ 8:36 pm

    Comment by Dana (4eca6e) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:34 pm

  216. “But why come here, if that’s so? It seems an odd choice.”

    DRJ – Just think about the amazing traffic he could draw to his own blog!

    He could own the intertoobz.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:34 pm

  217. “Degree of religiosity is negatively correlated with IQ.”

    I’ll match my genius level i.q. against yours any old day of the week.

    “Also, religion itself requires credulity.”

    No, just faith…unless you get lucky and have a one on one with the big guy himself.

    What all this has to do with Swatting is anybody’s guess.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:35 pm

  218. There are some people who like to play whackamole with trolls or combative types here. There are others who are almost uniformly kind and positive, like Dana and DRJ.

    I don’t like it when troublemakers stir the pot, because I like to see what people think.

    So my thanks to the people who keep plugging away, in spite the trollish challenges.

    Comment by Simon Jester (6f91a0) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:35 pm

  219. I still think he sounds young … but the internet shaves 10 years off our age, doesn’t it?

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:36 pm

  220. “And you’re wrong. My life is virtually over.”

    Dana – He says his life is almost over because he is going to off himself. He has confirmed nothing about not being young.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:37 pm

  221. “I still think he sounds young … but the internet shaves 10 years off our age, doesn’t it?”

    DRJ – It’s also very slimming…I’m like 15 pounds lighter on the internet.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:38 pm

  222. DRJ,

    Darn! I was hoping the internet shaved 10 lbs. off our waistline. After all, I’m “thick”…

    Comment by Dana (4eca6e) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:38 pm

  223. Well, he could be old. There are people who suffer from perpetual teenage angst.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:39 pm

  224. “Darn! I was hoping the internet shaved 10 lbs. off our waistline. After all, I’m “thick”…”

    Dana – You just need to comment more, you’ll get there. Use it as a goal.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:41 pm

  225. PCD, however little they would like it, and who would, can’t makes abuse of emergency services and putting bystanders and animals and property at risk a “balancing act”. It just compounds evil.

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:41 pm

  226. Surls reminded me of this wonderful interview with Frances Collins,

    So this wonderful minister gave me his own copy of Mere Christianity, Lewis’s slim tome that outlines the arguments leading to his conclusion that God is not only a possibility, but a plausibility. That the rational man would be more likely, upon studying the facts, to conclude that choosing to believe is the appropriate choice, as opposed to choosing not to believe.

    That was a concept I was really unprepared to hear. Until then, I don’t think anyone had ever suggested to me that faith was a conclusion that one could arrive at on the basis of rational thought. I, and I suspect, many other scientists who’ve never really looked at the evidence, had kind of assumed that faith was something that you arrived at, either because it was drummed into your head when you were a little kid or by some emotional experience, or some sort of cultural pressure. The idea that you would arrive at faith because it made sense, because it was rational, because it was the most appropriate choice when presented with the data, that was a new concept. And yet, reading through the pages of Lewis’s book, I came to that conclusion over the course of several very painful weeks.

    I didn’t want this conclusion. I was very happy with the idea that God didn’t exist, and had no interest in me. And yet at the same time, I could not turn away. I had to keep turning those pages. I had to keep trying to understand this. I had to see where it led. But I still didn’t want to make that decision to believe.

    To my surprise, I found myself fairly easily compelled by his arguments about the existence of some sort of a God, because even as a scientist, I had to admit that we had no idea how the universe got started. The hard part for me was the idea of a personal God, who has an interest in humankind. And the argument that Lewis made there — the one that I think was most surprising, most earth-shattering, and most life-changing — is the argument about the existence of the moral law. How is it that we, and all other members of our species, unique in the animal kingdom, know what’s right and what’s wrong? In every culture one looks at, that knowledge is there.

    Where did that come from? I reject the idea that that is an evolutionary consequence, because that moral law sometimes tells us that the right thing to do is very self-destructive. If I’m walking down the riverbank, and a man is drowning, even if I don’t know how to swim very well, I feel this urge that the right thing to do is to try to save that person. Evolution would tell me exactly the opposite: preserve your DNA. Who cares about the guy who’s drowning? He’s one of the weaker ones, let him go. It’s your DNA that needs to survive. And yet that’s not what’s written within me.

    Comment by Dana (4eca6e) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:42 pm

  227. Oh, Dana, you made my day! I hope you have read Collins’ book. It is really well done, and because he is always so polite and nice, the “Religious People are Stupid” brigade get sheepish. As well they should.

    Comment by Simon Jester (6f91a0) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:45 pm

  228. Patrick,

    I think it’s only sporting to alert you to where I mentioned you somewhat unflatteringly on another site.

    If you feel like it, I’d still appreciate your answer to the question I asked in that comment.

    Comment by leo marvin (45619c) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:53 pm

  229. Our concern troll returns?

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:58 pm

  230. You just need to comment more, you’ll get there. Use it as a goal.

    Well, daley, it would certainly be easier than all those zumba classes and hikes.

    Simon, it is an amazing story. I had a number of great convos w/my dad the scientist about this book. He also helped shed light on the thornier science issues beyond my scope of understanding.

    Comment by Dana (4eca6e) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:59 pm

  231. leo marvin, David Nieporent says this below your comment:

    “Fair question. I don’t have the foggiest idea. I mean, he holds himself out as one, but his description of his credentials is pretty vague. (That he has worked for various law enforcement agencies is interesting, but since we don’t know what he did for them, it does’t tell us much.) He has admitted he has no academic training, so he basically seems to be saying that because he has spent several decades in Hollywood playing with sound (I don’t mean that part pejoratively) he has picked up a lot of expertise. Which is okay in and of itself, but doesn’t give me much of a way to evaluate him from the outside.”

    Well. Exactly.

    Is Gibson’s analysis a small part of a much bigger story? Totally — and I’d like real FBI experts based out of Dallas or wherever their best are or people they trust to listen to it and nail whomever is behind it — but the above comment is fair.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 6:07 pm

  232. I wish I had met your father, Dana. But we live in odd times, do we not?

    Comment by Simon Jester (6f91a0) — 6/7/2012 @ 6:07 pm

  233. He’s still puttering along. Finished teaching another semester (Biology/lab), and at close to 80, is still fighting the good fight.

    Comment by Dana (4eca6e) — 6/7/2012 @ 6:09 pm

  234. Nieporent goes on to say:

    “(Contra JBG) he has identified a bunch of cases in which he provided testimony, but he doesn’t give much information about them, and they generally appear to be state cases (he doesn’t exactly identify them in Bluebook format, so it’s hard to be sure) so I can’t pull them off PACER.

    “The case that JBG is focusing on is not a case where the judge trashed Gibson as unqualified generally. Rather, what happened was that the opposing party (despite a court order!) simply refused to provide a voice exemplar for comparison. So Gibson couldn’t use standard voice-matching methods, and rather than giving up, he tried to stretch too far and use an unusual technique, which the court ruled hadn’t been shown to be reliable.”

    Which is good. There is some track record of Gibson’s expert testimony being accepted.

    The point being the questions were always fair. I definitely allowed for the fact they could increase, rather than decrease, Gibson’s credibility.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 6:11 pm

  235. In fact, David Nierporent goes on to pretty much Fisk JBG in a more convincing fashion than any done to him here.

    But he does so in a fair way, rather than a shoot the messenger way.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 6:16 pm

  236. Rather than in a *shoot the messenger without proper ammunition way* I should have said.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 6:17 pm

  237. “I’d like real FBI experts based out of Dallas or wherever their best are or people they trust to listen to it and nail whomever is behind it”

    Nothing would make me happier than for the FBI to moot this whole question. Maybe with all the new attention that will happen.

    Comment by leo marvin (45619c) — 6/7/2012 @ 6:30 pm

  238. Random,

    Thanks for pointing out the excellent discussion at Volokh.com. You would fit in very well there.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/7/2012 @ 6:33 pm

  239. Did either of you reach out to Gibson, or were you just asking the tough questions in your bold search for truth?

    Comment by JD (c543e6) — 6/7/2012 @ 6:33 pm

  240. You know you can’t get cynical enough, about upper levels of law enforcement nowadays;

    http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/why-lead-fbi-agent-botched-ted-stevens-case-still-employed

    Comment by narciso (494474) — 6/7/2012 @ 6:34 pm

  241. Random,

    David Nieporent vs. jukeboxgrad is one of the longest running battles on Volokh. It’s always a good read, whichever side you come down on in the end.

    Comment by leo marvin (45619c) — 6/7/2012 @ 6:36 pm

  242. Great read. A dishonest dissembling douchebag and an honest reader correcting juiceboxhero’s asshattery.

    Comment by JD (c543e6) — 6/7/2012 @ 6:38 pm

  243. Sounds like they need a neutral moderator to help leo, Random.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/7/2012 @ 6:40 pm

  244. DRJ #239: You owe me a new keyboard, DRJ. That one reminded me of the famous letter of rec: “You will be very lucky to get Joe Smith to work for you.” Disraeli would be proud.

    Comment by Simon Jester (6f91a0) — 6/7/2012 @ 6:41 pm

  245. Dana, give him my regards. I think you know what I do for a living.

    Comment by Simon Jester (6f91a0) — 6/7/2012 @ 6:42 pm

  246. I know when I’m not wanted. Alright, you will never hear from me again.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 6:44 pm

  247. Random, you tried DRJ’s patience.

    So you are not going to get any points for a flounce exit.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 6/7/2012 @ 6:55 pm

  248. “I know when I’m not wanted. Alright, you will never hear from me again.

    Comment by Random”

    See, there is a G*d…

    Comment by Gazzer (8f33d0) — 6/7/2012 @ 7:15 pm

  249. “I know when I’m not wanted. Alright, you will never hear from me again.”

    Promises, Promises

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/7/2012 @ 7:36 pm

  250. “I still think he sounds young”

    DRJ and Dana – I spoke with a friend tonight who is a Professor of Philosophy at one of the major Chicago universities. He confirmed for me that existential nihilism is common fascination for post adolescents as they leave the nest for the first time and become consume with ME ME ME ME ME. He also called the philosophy a bunch of half-baked ideas, which conforms with my impression.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/7/2012 @ 7:43 pm

  251. the mioniker “Speedway bomber” is probably much more recent, which is what gave Kimberlin the nerve to deny that he remembered seeing that name applied to him.

    I would like to know just when somebody started using that name for him. You need to know things like that to get the whole sory clear.

    http://www.indystar.com/assets/pdf/BG164276919.PDF

    First page, first paragraph, third column. 1983 IIRC is when this was published. The “mioniker” [sic] had been in use already for quite a while, like since the bombings happened.

    Comment by geoffb (1f4c30) — 6/7/2012 @ 8:04 pm

  252. Geoffb has mad google-Fu, and is one super fellow.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 6/7/2012 @ 8:05 pm

  253. Random,

    It’s a free internet and I’m not trying to stop you from commenting. I think you would be happy at Volokh because it seems as if you like to debate legal topics. Sometimes we do that here, but not as much.

    Although it is true that I was very unhappy with your Dana comments.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/7/2012 @ 8:07 pm

  254. Headline too.

    Comment by geoffb (1f4c30) — 6/7/2012 @ 8:08 pm

  255. _____________________________________________

    To me religious organizations are always susceptible to being ripped off. Too many CPA’s are atheists.

    It would be interesting if there’s a correlation between scam artists or dishonest accountants, or similar types of workers, and their political background. Yea, of course, the ethics or integrity of various people, and, in turn, their political bent, can be all over the map. But knowing my own predilections (ie, I’m a stickler for treating other people’s money honestly) — and if I had nothing else to go on when determining who should or shouldn’t be hired for a job requiring a trustworthy person — I’d have more confidence in a prospective employee who was a religious conservative versus an applicant who was a secular liberal.

    If a would-be employee drove up in a car whose bumper was plastered with “Obama 2008″ and certainly “Obama 2012″ decals, and he or she wanted to be the new manager of the accounting department — or in charge of the petty-case security box — I’d automatically be more leery of him or her than I’d otherwise be.

    american.com: Religious people were also far more likely than secularists to give in informal, nonreligious ways. For example, in 2000, people belonging to religious congregations gave 46 percent more money to family and friends than people who did not belong. In 2002, religious people were far more likely to donate blood than secularists, to give food or money to a homeless person, and even to return change mistakenly given them by a cashier.

    Comment by Mark (9aa697) — 6/7/2012 @ 8:30 pm

  256. “I’d have more confidence in a prospective employee who was a religious conservative versus an applicant who was a secular liberal.

    If a would-be employee drove up in a car whose bumper was plastered with “Obama 2008″ and certainly “Obama 2012″ decals, and he or she wanted to be the new manager of the accounting department — or in charge of the petty-case security box — I’d automatically be more leery of him or her than I’d otherwise be.”

    Yes, it’s amazing how much more honest people who agree with me are.

    Comment by leo marvin (45619c) — 6/7/2012 @ 8:55 pm

  257. Random, it was enough that jug was caught out deliberately dissembling. That was enough right there.

    Comment by Sarahw (b0e533) — 6/7/2012 @ 8:56 pm

  258. Leo, meet mark. Mark, Leo. Have fun.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:07 pm

  259. LOL, JD.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:11 pm

  260. Random reminds me of that dipstick Christoph

    It’s funny. I was just thinking, in this exact thread, how much Random’s personality reminds me of Christoph’s.

    I haven’t done any investigating of IPs or anything because I sort of don’t care. But: peas in a pod. Exact same personality. Same person or twins.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:45 pm

  261. I’d like real FBI experts based out of Dallas or wherever their best are or people they trust to listen to it and nail whomever is behind it

    Well, ditto. It’s not like I didn’t try.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:46 pm

  262. It is clear Patterico made this up because there is no police report and you were not swatted

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:54 pm

  263. Don’t forget his expert audio analyst is a Truther.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:58 pm

  264. There is a police report. Anyone with a real name and enough cash to make it worth suing them is welcome to claim there isn’t.

    Anonymous scum who make the same claims will, of course, be ignored, because nobody pays attention to such people. (Right?)

    When police show up at your house because some scumbag wasted their time and caused them to point guns at an innocent Deputy D.A. and drag (not literally of course) another one out of bed, there tends to be a police report.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:58 pm

  265. And a charlatan, DRJ, with no resume.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:59 pm

  266. I apologize for joking around in comment 263. It’s not a joking matter.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:00 pm

  267. By the way I am aware of only one helicopter. But I didn’t look up, that I remember. I just heard it and saw the spotlight on the street.

    And Mrs. P. and I circled the block talking to neighbors a couple of days after this all happened, on the advice of Anita Busch, who had been through similar terror at her house. Good advice. People were nice.

    Some reported having been awakened by the noise of the helicopter.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:00 pm

  268. I apologize for joking around in comment 263. It’s not a joking matter.

    Your comment was fine.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:01 pm

  269. What they did to Yid was disgusting.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:01 pm

  270. I have a dark sense of humor.

    Racist!

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:02 pm

  271. I have been very busy, and have missed much. What did they do to Yid?

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:03 pm

  272. JD can joke because he’s actually funny, but I can’t because I have a reputation for being completely humorless to protect.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:03 pm

  273. Now that’s funny!

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:09 pm

  274. “I have a reputation for being completely humorless to protect.”

    Double Heh!!

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:13 pm

  275. Liberal grouch, rauhausers new buddy, posted a vile screed and porn video claiming it may be Yid.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:14 pm

  276. DRJ, I think the fact that someone is a Truther should be taken into account when assessing them. It’s not a rational position to hold.

    Comment by Gazzer (8f33d0) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:17 pm

  277. JD, I hadn’t heard that. Sick minds never run out of new ideas on how to harm someone on the internet.

    Comment by Dana (4eca6e) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:20 pm

  278. Gazzer,

    That’s true, but Gibson isn’t a Truther. JD and I were listing memes that aren’t true that have been floated to discredit Patterico.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:20 pm

  279. Oh sorry, I see.

    Comment by Gazzer (8f33d0) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:23 pm

  280. Don’t be sorry. This stuff is so complex. For instance, I hadn’t heard about Yid with Lid.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:25 pm

  281. Not that anyone cares, but I’ll explain why I wouldn’t care if Gibson was a Truther. In short, it’s just an ad hominem. I’ve know conspiracy theorists of every stripe — Truthers, Birthers, someone who believed the Clintons killed Vince Foster — and while they were all crazed partisans, to a person they were also honest and competent at their jobs. If someone has a track record of professional reliability, holding some wacky political beliefs shouldn’t make them less professionally credible. If they don’t, they shouldn’t be trusted whatever they believe.

    Comment by leo marvin (45619c) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:41 pm

  282. Wacky beliefs bear on judgment and common sense, leo. A person who is lacking in either likely makes questionable decisions in all aspects of his or her life.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:44 pm

  283. A person who is lacking in either likely makes questionable decisions in all aspects of his or her life.

    Are you saying you don’t know any Birthers you trust to be competent at their jobs?

    Comment by leo marvin (45619c) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:55 pm

  284. I’ll just say this as I don’t want to ignite any flames here. Truther vs Birthers as an example. There are some easily answered questions re Obama that are being strenuously ignore which could give one pause. The WTC is proven beyond doubt to not have been destroyed by government intervention. All Truthers say is “Well, I’m just asking…”
    Also, Charlie Sheen is a Truther so case closed.

    Comment by Gazzer (8f33d0) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:55 pm

  285. leo,

    I wouldn’t make a firm judgment about someone who has questions about either subject. But I’d have serious doubts about anyone who claims the evidence proves the government was behind 9-11 or Obama was born in Kenya.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:17 pm

  286. “There are some easily answered questions re Obama that are being strenuously ignore which could give one pause.”

    Replace “Obama” with “9/11,” and I’ve heard virtually the identical words come out of the mouth of Truthers. Same for “All Truthers Birthers say is “Well, I’m just asking…””

    Everybody thinks their preferred conspiracy theory is less wacky than the others.

    Comment by leo marvin (45619c) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:20 pm

  287. DRJ,

    I have no reason to doubt Orly Taitz is a perfectly competent dentist.

    Comment by leo marvin (45619c) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:23 pm

  288. Everybody thinks their preferred conspiracy theory is less wacky than the others.

    Exactly. And sometimes they’re right!

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:37 pm

  289. It would only be sporting of me to note that leo marvin tries to derail the discussion at every opportunity.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:38 pm

  290. It’s nice to see that leo remains concerned enough about events to visit this type of partisan echo chamber, which he normally does not frequent.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:46 pm

  291. You’re right Leo. Obama can’t melt steel either.

    Comment by Gazzer (8f33d0) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:49 pm

  292. “Obama can’t melt steel either.”

    Gazzer – He can’t drill for oil worth a crap either.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:51 pm

  293. What do you expect from a socialist, after all?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:52 pm

  294. Which discussion did I derail, Patrick?

    Comment by leo marvin (45619c) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:56 pm

  295. Patrick, I went to Ali’s website to try to make a donation and my credit card transaction was rejected, even though my card is in good standing and my information was correct. I then got a call from American Express asking if this was a fraudulent transaction. I am wondering if “someone” has contacted the credit card companies to say that the website is creating fraudulent transactions in order to limit people’s donations. I wouldn’t put it past them.

    Comment by Sparrow (611000) — 6/8/2012 @ 8:24 am

  296. “It’s nice to see that leo remains concerned enough about events to visit this type of partisan echo chamber, which he normally does not frequent.”

    No, daleyrocks, I don’t visit echo chambers like this one often. That doesn’t mean it’s not a fascinating show which appeals to my morbid curiosity. I may see it rarely, but when I do it’s hard to look away.

    Anyway, I was monitoring the thread in the futile hope Patrick would answer my question instead of taking it as another opportunity to trollishly shoot the messenger. Oh well….

    Comment by leo marvin (45619c) — 6/8/2012 @ 2:59 pm

  297. “Anyway, I was monitoring the thread in the futile hope Patrick would answer my question instead of taking it as another opportunity to trollishly shoot the messenger.”

    leo – Your question was answered on Volokh by another commenter, why raise it again here? Also, if you had been paying any attention at all, you would have noticed that Patterico is not planning on commenting until Sunday.

    Carry on.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/8/2012 @ 3:07 pm

  298. “Your question was answered on Volokh by another commenter, why raise it again here?”

    If you read the answer, it isn’t one that should give you comfort. I was hoping Patrick had more to offer.

    “Also, if you had been paying any attention at all, you would have noticed that Patterico is not planning on commenting until Sunday.”

    I asked the question at 5:53 PM yesterday. Patrick didn’t go offline until today. As late as 11:38 PM he was still here, finding time to send snark my way, but not answers.

    Comment by leo marvin (45619c) — 6/8/2012 @ 3:19 pm

  299. Leo is a victim.

    Comment by JD (2bad37) — 6/8/2012 @ 3:50 pm

  300. leo–

    I don’t pretend to know your background or what your interest or involvement in this case is, but from the time I first noticed your handle I have been curious. I don’t think I’ve ever known a new commenter to join a thread, pushing for answers and toggling between blogsites to facilitate comments and points of view for others as you did–or to act as a “messenger” as you seem to have self-appointed yourself. I really don’t think I’ve ever seen a new commenter join in a blog community or “monitor” it for the purpose of demanding public responses from the blog owner in the manner you do, and on the timetable you do. It’s a puzzlement. Is there a reason you believe Patterico owes you “answers”, or special attention, or anything at all, especially when you insult him and are rather disrespectful to some other commenters?

    Comment by elissa (4c962f) — 6/8/2012 @ 4:11 pm

  301. Some people are the center of their own little universe.

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 6/8/2012 @ 4:18 pm

  302. “If you read the answer, it isn’t one that should give you comfort.”

    leo, leo leo – It was the answer I expected and was actually foreshadowed on this blog. Why would you have anticipated anything different? What different answer are you anticipating?

    It also shows the problem of trusting anything a hack such as juicebox hero has to say, who has had a long history of beclowning himself on visits to this blog and I see continues those efforts today at Volokh.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/8/2012 @ 4:19 pm

  303. leo is apparently a high maintenance passive aggressive concern troll.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/8/2012 @ 4:20 pm

  304. bit player Fox lot
    leo’s lee’s distant cousin
    one Starvin’ Marvin

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (ee1764) — 6/8/2012 @ 5:41 pm

  305. shoot teh messenger
    I beg you don’t just wing ‘im
    must put that dog down

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (ee1764) — 6/8/2012 @ 5:44 pm

  306. So, it occurs to me, when they are finished with this pinata, they will focus on something happening in their backyard, shirley I can’t be serious;

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/06/08/154614551/attorney-general-holder-assigns-prosecutors-to-leaks-probe?ft=1&f=

    Comment by narciso (494474) — 6/8/2012 @ 6:09 pm

  307. Concern Troll is concerned.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 6/8/2012 @ 6:17 pm

  308. Hhere are 4 questions. Don’t miss one.

    1. How do you put a giraffe into a refrigerator?

    Stop and think about it and decide on your answer before you scroll down.

    The correct answer is:

    Open the refrigerator, put in the giraffe, and close the door.

    This question tests whether you tend to do simple things in an overly complicated way.

    #2. How do you put an elephant into a refrigerator?

    Did you say, Open the refrigerator, put in the elephant, and close the refrigerator?

    Wrong Answer.

    Correct Answer:
    Open the refrigerator, take out the giraffe,
    put in the elephant and close the door.

    This tests your ability to think through the repercussions of your previous actions..

    #3… The Lion King is hosting an animal conference. All the animals attend …. except one. Which animal does not attend?

    Correct Answer :
    The Elephant. The elephant is in the refrigerator.
    You just put him in there.

    This tests your memory.

    Okay, even if you did not answer the first three
    questions correctly, you still have one more chance to show your true abilities.

    4. There is a river you must cross but it is used by crocodiles, and you do not have a boat.
    How do you manage it?

    Correct Answer:?

    You jump into the river and swim across.
    Have you not been listening?

    All the crocodiles are attending the Animal Conference.This tests whether you learn quickly from your mistakes.

    According to Anderson Consulting Worldwide, around 90% of the professionals they tested got all questions wrong, but many preschoolers got several correct answers.

    Anderson Consulting says this conclusively proves the theory that most professionals do not have
    the brains of a four-year-old.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (ee1764) — 6/8/2012 @ 6:37 pm

  309. narciso @306 – I thought the White House was going to investigate and clear itself again. What’s up with involving somebody from the outside?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/8/2012 @ 6:43 pm

  310. Brennan, is really going to be thrown under the bus, by those who answer to Holder?

    Comment by narciso (494474) — 6/8/2012 @ 6:46 pm

  311. “Brennan, is really going to be thrown under the bus, by those who answer to Holder?”

    narciso – If the investigation moves as quickly as the DOJ’s investigation into Fast and Furious, I would expect a report after the end of Obama’s second term if by some miracle he pulls off a win in November.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/8/2012 @ 7:01 pm

  312. Ali A. Akbar ‏@ali

    On Monday at least 70 members of Congress will ask Holder to investigate the SWAT calls. via @ewerickson … ‪#brettkimberlin‬ …

    4:59 PM – 8 Jun 12 via web · Embed this Tweet

    Comment by Dana (4eca6e) — 6/8/2012 @ 7:19 pm

  313. “Is there a reason you believe Patterico owes you “answers”, or special attention, or anything at all, especially when you insult him and are rather disrespectful to some other commenters?

    I don’t think Patrick owes me anything. I hoped he’d answer my question, because though I’m no friend of his politics, in this instance I happen to be on his side. And believe it or not, elissa, no cause is hurt by testing the validity of arguments or the credibility of witnesses. As Random has explained, if the answers are reassuring, the arguments and witnesses emerge stronger. If they aren’t, the flaws are better exposed and discarded sooner than later.

    As for my being disrespectful, I have to admit that gave me a laugh. How have I been disrespectful? By answering the disrespectfulness of others? I’ve lost track of the names I’ve been called and how often my sincerity’s been impugned here. (Meanwhile I’ve done neither.) And that’s hardly a surprise when one of the people inciting it is the named blogger. Not that I care — I’m no fragile snowflake — but there’s nothing remotely respectful about that, much less about the shoot-first, ask-questions-later approach of casually alleging my bad faith, while the comment threads I linked to on Volokh prove I’m an outspoken defender of Frey and Walker in these matters.

    Comment by leo marvin (45619c) — 6/9/2012 @ 12:16 am

  314. Isn’t it just the strangest thing how Kimberlin related threads bring in all these new commenters with unusual agendas… invariably discussing anything but the things B/N/R don’t want discussed?

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 6/9/2012 @ 12:29 am

  315. leo the lyin’

    [That's it . . . called him a name AND impugned his sincerity with just three little words. It's like Name That Tune -- or, if you will, Name That Tool]

    Comment by Icy (f2a23b) — 6/9/2012 @ 2:34 am

  316. Shorthand leo: “Patterico, I’m on YOUR side, you ungrateful p*ick!”

    Comment by Icy (f2a23b) — 6/9/2012 @ 2:38 am

  317. leo the lyin’

    Q.E.D.

    Comment by leo marvin (45619c) — 6/9/2012 @ 3:54 pm

  318. ==no cause is hurt by testing the validity of arguments or the credibility of witnesses. …. if the answers are reassuring, the arguments and witnesses emerge stronger. If they aren’t, the flaws are better exposed and discarded sooner than later.==

    It’s inspiring to read that you feel this way, leo, and does aid toward better understanding your motives. A dogged man in search of truth really does have to be–well, dogged. How else could he be? In fact, I think I may have a good idea for how you can use both your philosophy and your talents. And it’s even a way that would greatly assist your own political side which seems to be struggling a bit lately. There is a current President of the United States and an Attorney General who could benefit from a thorough testing and vetting of the validity of their arguments, and in Holder’s case his credibility as a witness. How about stepping up to help them out?

    Comment by elissa (6096e1) — 6/9/2012 @ 4:59 pm

  319. “I think it’s only sporting to alert you to where I mentioned you somewhat unflatteringly on another site.”

    “while the comment threads I linked to on Volokh prove I’m an outspoken defender of Frey and Walker in these matters.”

    leo – Thanks for not derailing the thread by bringing up Birthers again.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/9/2012 @ 6:00 pm

  320. A dogged man in search of truth really does have to be–well, dogged.

    Don’t stand… don’t stand so
    don’t stand too close to Barry
    you’ll be on menu

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (2c94c1) — 6/9/2012 @ 6:05 pm

  321. daley–

    Dustin posted an update on the depth of the Raw Story/Velvet Revolution connection so I’m sure that leo will be very busy monitoring, asking questions and getting to the bottom of that situation.

    Comment by elissa (6096e1) — 6/9/2012 @ 6:08 pm

  322. Good one, Colonel.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/9/2012 @ 6:15 pm

  323. Leo is just doggedly pursuing the truth, people. You all are just partisan insinuators.

    Comment by JD (395555) — 6/9/2012 @ 6:35 pm

  324. JD–your Cardinals are A+ in my book right now. They have been playing a fine game of baseball while the Indians are in town.

    Comment by elissa (6096e1) — 6/9/2012 @ 6:49 pm

  325. “Dustin posted an update on the depth of the Raw Story/Velvet Revolution connection so I’m sure that leo will be very busy monitoring, asking questions and getting to the bottom of that situation.”

    elissa – If somebody is wrong on the internet, I’m sure leo will be there passively aggressively pursuing quick answers to pressing questions and derailing threads.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/9/2012 @ 7:02 pm

  326. Doing what we can, Elissa. When are you going to StL?

    Comment by JD (395555) — 6/9/2012 @ 7:05 pm

  327. Wednesday

    Comment by elissa (6096e1) — 6/9/2012 @ 7:06 pm

  328. Farmhaus
    Mango off Washington
    Eclipse
    Happy hour at Eau at the Chase Park Plaza

    Comment by JD (395555) — 6/9/2012 @ 7:10 pm

  329. THX.

    Comment by elissa (6096e1) — 6/9/2012 @ 7:22 pm

  330. Concern troll is still concerned.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 6/9/2012 @ 7:25 pm

  331. she had a boyfriend
    with a sturdy wooden leg
    but she broke it off

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (912b0b) — 6/9/2012 @ 7:38 pm

  332. French grenade result?
    Linoleum Blownapart
    if thrown in kitchen

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (912b0b) — 6/9/2012 @ 7:41 pm

  333. Colonel – That dog don’t hunt,
    cuz Barcky is eating him.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/9/2012 @ 7:41 pm

  334. marathon runners
    with bad footwear suffer the
    agony of defeat

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (912b0b) — 6/9/2012 @ 7:43 pm

  335. Shih-Tzouffle.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/9/2012 @ 7:43 pm

  336. for all you lawyers
    teh subordinate clauses
    are Santa’s helpers

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (912b0b) — 6/9/2012 @ 7:45 pm

  337. teh greyhound poupon, daley.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (912b0b) — 6/9/2012 @ 7:46 pm

  338. short fortune teller
    was small medium at large
    she escaped from jail

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (912b0b) — 6/9/2012 @ 7:48 pm

  339. Has happy hour started?

    Comment by elissa (6096e1) — 6/9/2012 @ 7:54 pm

  340. Does anyone here think this isn’t an echo chamber? To ask it another way, I assume you agree DailyKos is an echo chamber, right? How is this different?

    Comment by leo marvin (45619c) — 6/9/2012 @ 8:05 pm

  341. no boozing here just
    teh “Outrageous Ginger Ale”
    teh Natural Brew

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (912b0b) — 6/9/2012 @ 8:13 pm

  342. Leo,
    You’re here, aren’t you? There’s debate on almost every thread, including yours here. Such questions get you banned at Kos. That’s the difference.

    Comment by Ghost (6f9de7) — 6/9/2012 @ 8:13 pm

  343. And Duncan Black, and Zsa Zsa Huffington among other places,

    Comment by narciso (494474) — 6/9/2012 @ 8:16 pm

  344. leo marvin, your concern for us is so endearing.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 6/9/2012 @ 8:21 pm

  345. I assume leo marvin does not like the viewpoints discussed here and feels compelled therefore to call it an echo chamber.

    Let me put it a different way, leo thinks you are all racist, homophobic, wingnut, Christianist, idiots.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/9/2012 @ 8:30 pm

  346. “How is this different?”

    leo – This is a family blog.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/9/2012 @ 8:34 pm

  347. “Let me put it a different way, leo thinks you are all racist, homophobic, wingnut, Christianist, idiots.”

    If equating this place to DailyKos means I think you’re all racist, homophobic, wingnut, Christianist, idiots, what must I think about the commenters at DailyKos?

    “This is a family blog.”

    What does that mean?

    Comment by leo marvin (45619c) — 6/9/2012 @ 9:11 pm

  348. By the way, Neal Rauhauser was banned by Kos.

    Comment by leo marvin (45619c) — 6/9/2012 @ 9:34 pm

  349. http://patdollard.com/2012/06/cnns-don-lemon-questions-erick-erickson-about-swatting-attacks-on-conservative-bloggers/#disqus_thread

    Comment by narciso (494474) — 6/9/2012 @ 9:42 pm

  350. leo – At what echo chambers do you usually hang out?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/9/2012 @ 10:10 pm

  351. “If equating this place to DailyKos”

    leo – Please explain how anyone could equate this blog to DailyKos. Seriously.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/9/2012 @ 10:14 pm

  352. Right we’re exactly alike,

    http://patdollard.com/2012/06/howard-dean-likens-mitt-romney-gop-to-ahmadinejad-during-liberal-netroots-conference/

    Comment by narciso (494474) — 6/9/2012 @ 10:18 pm

  353. leo – Do you equate OWS to the Tea Party as well?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/9/2012 @ 10:56 pm

  354. daleyrocks,

    I don’t consider either comparison perfect. Kos is much bigger and more unwieldy than this place, and the Tea Party is much better organized and more influential than OWS. But you do realize, don’t you, that each of those four groups would be equally incredulous and offended at being compared to its counterpart? So you’ll forgive me for not being terribly impressed by your objections to the comparison, when the people at Kos would be just as put out for what they’re convinced are essentially the same reasons.

    I know, but the difference is that you’re right and they’re wrong, right? Sure. And it’s the same mutually exclusive certainty all the way down.

    As for which echo chamber I usually hang out at, I don’t. I read the bloggers at plenty of echo chambers on both sides, but I usually skip the comments, and I hardly ever leave one. Probably 80-90% of my comment reading and writing is at Volokh, which while right-wing, is anything but an echo chamber.

    Comment by leo marvin (45619c) — 6/9/2012 @ 11:48 pm

  355. Does anyone here think this isn’t an echo chamber? To ask it another way, I assume you agree DailyKos is an echo chamber, right? How is this different?
    – Let me consult with daleyrocks and SPQR and we’ll get back to you on that.

    If equating this place to DailyKos means I think you’re all racist, homophobic, wingnut, Christianist, idiots, what must I think about the commenters at DailyKos?
    – Well, if you were honest about it you would think they were race-baiting, minority exploiting, Marxist, atheistic a**holes. But, perhaps you just see them as blithely misinformed do-gooders . . . aka Kindred Spirits.

    By the way, Neal Rauhauser was banned by Kos.
    – And this proves WHAT, exactly?

    So you’ll forgive me for not being terribly impressed by your objections to the comparison, when the people at Kos would be just as put out for what they’re convinced are essentially the same reasons.
    – Perhaps the objection lies with your choice to compare a bright, shiny apple to a dull, rotten orange.

    Comment by Icy (c12780) — 6/10/2012 @ 2:09 am

  356. ABC just did a piece, put ‘unexpectedly’ they
    failed to pin the tail on the Kimberlin,

    Comment by narciso (494474) — 6/10/2012 @ 6:05 am

  357. I don’t consider either comparison perfect.

    leo why did you choose to use the word “equate”? Do you see things like rampant anti-semitism at this blog?

    I know, but the difference is that you’re right and they’re wrong, right?

    leo, there you go again, making silly assumptions. I have no idea if all the diarists there are wrong.

    I read the bloggers at plenty of echo chambers on both sides, but I usually skip the comments, and I hardly ever leave one.

    leo, why did you decide to come out of hiding and give us the benefit of your deep thinking on this issue?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/10/2012 @ 9:21 am

  358. leo why did you choose to use the word “equate”? Do you see things like rampant anti-semitism at this blog?

    – Of course he doesn’t, because dimwit (a left-leaning anti-Semite) has been banned.

    Comment by Icy (380bb8) — 6/10/2012 @ 11:01 am

  359. Can we get past what Ali did and focus on the situation, please? How on earth can anyone think it’s good to have a felon in charge of a charitable fundraising effort, especially when that effort centers around the actions of another felon?

    Yes, I understand the concept of redemption and I think Ali is probably on the road there. But his presence at the top of the fundraising effort makes for needless complications. You (bloggers) are shooting yourselves in the foot trying to justify the mess that’s been created. Defend Ali against Speedway Bomber Brett Kimberlin if you like but don’t confuse loyalty for wisdom. Leaving Ali in charge of fundraising efforts is not smart and it’s costing a lot of contributions.

    Comment by creeper (f1f686) — 6/11/2012 @ 10:07 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7713 secs.