Patterico's Pontifications

7/10/2012

Salon Does Damage Control for Brett Kimberlin

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:46 am

Alex Pareene is a former writer for Gawker. He once published a post defending Gawker’s decision to publish emails from Sarah Palin, including Bristol Palin’s phone number. His post that featured a photoshopped picture of Michelle Malkin’s head on someone else’s bikini-clad body at Manzanar.

He wrote a later post assuring readers that his mom approved of publishing Palin’s emails. He thinks it’s funny to joke about Michelle Malkin and ping-pong balls. Pareene now works for Salon, where he has to pretend to be a Serious Journalist.

This is who Salon chose to publish today’s piece that gives cover to Brett Kimberlin under the guise of being objective.

Pareene did not bother to contact me for the piece, and he does not say that he attempted to contact any other victim of Kimberlin’s besides “charming neo-Confederate blogger Robert Stacy McCain.” But he did interview Kimberlin, and his post has many self-serving quotes from Kimberlin, complaining about being “Swift-boated” and about how this is all politics. And Pareene gets numerous facts flat-out wrong. For example, after describing my SWATting, Pareene says:

Erickson’s story was similar: Someone claimed there had been a shooting (this time accidental) at his home, and sheriff’s deputies showed up to investigate.

This displays Pareene’s lack of research, because the shooting reported by Erickson’s SWATter was most certainly not “accidental.” In fact, the caller said he had shot his wife, and ended the call by saying he was going to go shoot someone else. Erickson initially reported that the caller had said the shooting was accidental, based on a misstatement by one of the officers who responded to the scene. But the call has since been played — on CNN, no less — and Pareene apparently hasn’t bothered to listen to it.

I guess he was too busy playing stenographer to Brett Kimberlin.

Pareene also says:

The SWAT-ing accusations seem particularly irresponsible, as their connection to Kimberlin is incredibly flimsy. The first victim, Mike Stack, had not, as far as I can tell, written about Kimberlin at all. When Patterico was SWAT-ed, it had been months since he’d written about Kimberlin. Kimblerin [sic] claims he’d never heard of Erick Erickson and had no clue where he lived.

But most importantly, even if you don’t believe a single word Kimberlin says, no one has ever presented any evidence, at all, that Kimberlin is behind the “SWAT-ing” — at this point, they mainly insinuate it really hard. Or they claim that one of his allies is responsible. Or something. (Erick Erickson said he suspected it was a member of Kimberlin’s “fan club.”) Patterico accused two Kimberlin “associates” of being responsible, though he doesn’t even have evidence that they’re “associates.”

Actually, I have accused nobody. I have presented evidence. And the idea that Neal Rauhauser is not an associate of Brett Kimberlin’s is hard to square with Brett Kimberlin calling Rauhauser an “associate” in court, or Rauhauser showing up to numerous different court proceedings involving Kimberlin, handing him documents during the hearings, and such.

Is there any mention of Rauhauser’s obsession with Mike Stack, myself, and Weinergate? Any mention of the fact that Rauhauser wrote Stack at the same wrong address used by the SWATter? Any mention of the connections between Rauhauser and the “Gaped Crusader,” who threatened to “out” Aaron’s identity before it happened, published my home address, published a picture of a nude man claiming it was me, and cyberstalked several of us in other ways?

No. And Pareene never asked me about any of it.

Note how Pareene describes Kimberlin’s decision to “out” Aaron Walker:

This Walker guy is a lawyer and minor (formerly pseudonymous) conservative blogger. He helped out a guy Kimberlin was suing — a DailyKos comment troll, as best as I can tell — with some legal advice. Kimberlin then subpoenaed Comcast and Google to get Walker’s real name and tried to compel Walker to testify, in what Walker says was an attempt to get him to stop blogging about Kimberlin and his past. According to Kimberlin, he was merely seeking Walker’s real name because he thought Walker had threatened his life, or had incited others to violence against him.

Actually, Kimberlin claimed that he had wanted to call Walker as a witness in a contempt hearing. When Walker showed up to that contempt hearing, Kimberlin didn’t call him. Meaning Kimberlin just wanted Aaron’s identity to hassle him. When Aaron accused him of trying to get his identity, according to Aaron, Kimberlin smiled and didn’t deny it, instead boasting that he had gotten Aaron’s identity. The alleged incitement by Walker of violence against Kimberlin did not occur for several more months. But why let facts get in the way of a good narrative?

Pareene says:

Similarly, while Walker says he’s lost his job because of his bosses’ fear of Kimberlin and his criminal past, Kimberlin says Walker lost his job because when his real name was revealed (in court, by Kimberlin), Walker was forced to reveal to his bosses that he was behind a website devoted to cartoons mocking the prophet Muhammad. “I never contacted his work or anything,” Kimberlin says.

Kimberlin did, however, contact Walker’s local law enforcement and claim that he was concerned that Walker was in danger because of Kimberlin’s decision to out all of Aaron’s personal information. Kimberlin apparently gave Walker’s information to that detective, resulting in a visit by the detective to Aaron’s workplace. The detective was sympathetic to Aaron but the visit spooked the bosses, who were concerned about the possibility that a convicted bomber might show up at their place of business. I talked to someone at Aaron’s HR department about this, and she said nobody wanted to work the reception desk out of fear over Kimberlin. Also, somehow a Muslim group ended up contacting the workplace and threatening to picket and take other action if Aaron wasn’t fired. (He already had been.) The idea that Kimberlin had nothing to do with that, I submit, is a stretch.

Pareene might have learned this if he had talked to anybody but Kimberlin.

There are numerous uncritical references and links to the Breitbart Unmasked site — but no hint that Breitbart Unmasked has been used, for example, to publish personal information about one of my commenters, such as divorce records and a photo of the commenter’s home from Google Street View.

Pareene describes Kimberlin’s victim’s as people who “receive a great deal of joy from pretending to be the victims of unprovoked and terrible persecution.” Ask Aaron Walker how much joy he received when he and his wife lost their jobs, he was arrested, and spent money defending against frivolous actions from Kimberlin. It was not “joy” I experienced when Kimberlin’s site published photos of my house and my address; when he filed a state bar complaint against me; when he attempted to file frivolous criminal charges against me with the California Attorney General and the stalking unit of my office; or when he complained to my office numerous times about me.

And so on and so forth.

Pareene mentions Kimberlin’s main defense to the bombings — that some of the witnesses were hypnotized — without mentioning the damning evidence against him, such as his possession of timers and explosive materials consistent with those used in the bombings. Nowhere is there a mention of the wrongful death judgment obtained by Carl DeLong’s widow, or the fact that Kimberlin refused to pay it while collecting over a million dollars from the Tides Foundation, Barbra Streisand, and other liberal marks.

There is so much more I could talk about, but I have to get to work.

This piece pretends to be journalism, but it isn’t. It’s cover to Brett Kimberlin, pure and simple. Pareene repeats Kimberlin’s allegations and doesn’t bother to talk to any of his victims.

It’s Gawker-style “journalism,” at Salon.

UPDATE: Thanks to Instapundit for the link.

UPDATE: Aaron showed up to a contempt hearing and not a damages hearing. The error has been corrected.

278 Responses to “Salon Does Damage Control for Brett Kimberlin”

  1. So much for not a partisan issue, eh?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  2. Reading the comments at Salon re this piece (and Lord, was I reluctant to give these cretins the hit), it appears that the left-wing loons once again don’t want to pay attention. A story filled with errors from a less-than-credible piece of crap who masquerades as a journalist. But it fits with their world view so why bother asking questions.

    Carolina Girl (b4584a)

  3. They used to call it “rat-packing”…

    Space Cockroach (8096f2)

  4. “Erickson initially reported that the shooting was accidental, based on a misstatement by one of the officers who responded to the scene.”

    That should probably be:

    Erickson initially reported that the 911 call had said the shooting was accidental, based on a misstatement by one of the officers who responded to the scene.

    There was no actual shooting. And it would be clearer if two words were italicized.

    I guess the assumption here would be that because the police department had been warned about this, and they were not sent out as having to deal with a high level emergency, and because maybe they didn’t get exact details, and maybe only got the word shooting, one policeman on the scene, or maybe even someone higher up in the chain of command, assumed that the call had been about an accidental shooting. This would be a classic game of “telephone.”

    Sammy Finkelman (216aa0)

  5. That should be:

    Erickson initially reported that the 911 call had said the shooting was accidental, based on a misstatement by one of the officers who responded to the scene.

    In the post above I boldfaced the words I thought should be added.

    I have to be careful about end italics.

    Sammy Finkelman (216aa0)

  6. I went over to the Weekly Standard site today to see an ad for Donan Enginnering. The Omaha, NE office of Donan is shared with layer3arts.com which is run by a Neal Rauhauser.

    Neo (d1c681)

  7. All of which begs the question, why else would Kimberlin subpoena Comcast, if not to harass and threaten?

    narciso (ee31f1)

  8. Salon has always been a bin of loons. If they were dead tree media, they’d be known as used toilet paper.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  9. Is anything that Pareen wrote about you actionable libel?

    Scott (ec7ac7)

  10. Time to go full Saul Alinsky on Parene and on Salon.

    Paul A'Barge (f7afd7)

  11. I can’t say that this surprises me about Salon.

    I can say that Salon’s new layout utterly sucks – the red-white-black color scheme looks dated and clunky, the comments refuse to load in Windows 7, and the page insists on opening pop-up windows as soon as you visit it. Both their ideology and their technological expertise are horribly outdated and unworkable. Salon writers (and readers) are old-school idiots, so it’s no suprise that they’re falling all over old-school terrorists.

    Keep up the good work, Patterico.

    Kimberly (b2b036)

  12. “Best I can tell”
    J-whore-nalism at it’s best.
    The snark is so bright I gotta wear shades.

    blackburnsghost (2ffb0c)

  13. ________________________________________________

    This piece pretends to be journalism, but it isn’t.

    Apparently when it comes to Pareene, it’s pretty much par for the course. Moreover, just as Obama blames everything on Bush, this guy — who, after all, is of the left (meaning the last sentence below likely is more than a quip) — is the type who’ll be no less into scapegoating.

    wbez.org, The Alex Pareene interview:

    [Question:] Do you ever experience the last-minute-second-guess scramble after posting something online, where you worry what you posted was entirely wrong or badly worded? If so, how often does this happen and if not, how do you stave that off?

    [Answer:] ALL THE TIME. I tend to sort of throw a post up and then purposefully step away from my computer for a minute or two — to have a smoke or just get a glass of water — and often I imagine that I will come back, in two minutes, to like six emails saying I spelled every single word of the headline wrong, and also that great joke I made about something dumb someone said was based on my completely misreading what they said. I have no idea how to stave this off. Switch to magazine writing, maybe, and then just blame everything on editors.

    Mark (2efcda)

  14. Money quote:

    “In other words, it’s an extensive legal fight between two self-important people I can almost guarantee you’ve never heard of, except that it’s also the single most important First Amendment cause ever for a bunch of bloggers who will not be silenced by this Kimberlin guy!”

    That about sums it up in my book.

    Kman (5576bf)

  15. Poor Seth Allen. He is referred to in the story this way:
    “a DailyKos comment troll, as best as I can tell”

    He is trying so hard to NOT be labeled irrelevant. I think there will be a new round of tweets raging against the injustice of it all from him soon.

    Dustyn H (2aef62)

  16. So much for not a partisan issue, eh?

    The words right out of my mouth.

    Rob Crawford (6c262f)

  17. Salon — kissing the ass of domestic terrorists for fun and profit!

    Rob Crawford (6c262f)

  18. Kmart never fails to be a complete douchenozzle.

    JD (f4e1b6)

  19. 17-excellent analysis biff.

    tye (48243f)

  20. Thank you, liar. We know which team you are on.

    JD (f4e1b6)

  21. This is how they earn their living. Pareene is no different. They are herding their flock. They care not if they have to lie, cheat, harass or steal.

    It will never end. This is their industrial endeavour.

    wtfci (6cb860)

  22. Kimberly wrote:

    I can say that Salon’s new layout utterly sucks – the red-white-black color scheme looks dated and clunky,

    Maybe they’re showing solidarity with Ataaaack Waaaatch?

    QuadGMoto (3eb042)

  23. “17-excellent analysis biff.”

    tye – Remember glass houses………….

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  24. Ok I take it back that this person is just gullible or green. It’s just another means-to-an-end lie monger of vicious character.

    Lot of that going around

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  25. I can’t believe that anyone would give a rat’s behind of creedence to a disgusting pervert of a s**t-licking f****t like the Pareene fairy.

    nk (875f57)

  26. BK actions aren’t partisan despite the fact that only the left will have him. – he’s only on his own side. The reaction of @pareene is knee jerk partisanship, though. The reaction – to cover, and cheerlead, is what makes this partisan, not the targets or the players.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  27. Salon made 24/7′s list of brands that will disappear in 2013. With garbage like this from Gawker turds like Pareene, I think it’s a pretty good bet.

    JVW (f28a18)

  28. What strikes me most about that article opinion piece masquerading as journalism and most of the comments to it is the overwhelming stench of a “who cares?” attitude. No one cares about making sure they get the details right, cares that they’ve gotten details wrong or completely missing, cares to question the obvious bias in the piece, or even cares to look any further than the end of their noses.

    It’s almost as if they know what they’ll see if they give the situation any scrutiny whatsoever, so they’re deliberately averting their eyes. It’s disgusting.

    QuadGMoto (3eb042)

  29. Ooh, sorry, this is Salon.

    May I have a mocha grande latte with exactly one pinch of cinnamon and half a sugar? I do detest oversweet drinks, don’t you? Please do be sure to trim my nails exactly to 1/8″, and I don’t know … clear polish or with just a hint of Jasmine?

    nk (875f57)

  30. 22- hahaha! Classic.

    tye (48243f)

  31. See that is funny because you are using self depricating humor in reference to your earlier flub. Apology accepted.

    tye (48243f)

  32. Still Salon:

    I’m looking for a top. No??? Ageist, homophobe!

    nk (875f57)

  33. Tyresome Troll is tiresome.

    SPQR (0d434c)

  34. LIke some pathetic wife in denial. if they noticed they’d have to DO something. Diligence would ruin everything.

    “It’s almost as if they know what they’ll see if they give the situation any scrutiny whatsoever, so they’re deliberately averting their eyes. It’s disgusting.”

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  35. Just be sure to remind everyone as often as possible that Salon defends left-wing terrorists.

    TallDave (538152)

  36. Salon’s name identifies itself. Good Lord, guys, think! What calls itself Salon?

    nk (875f57)

  37. Pareene is trolling you while Brett Kimberlin schemes to take away your job and attack your family.

    What he does in this piece is little different from what OccupyRebellion does.

    Daryl Herbert (9eba77)

  38. _________________________________________

    The reaction – to cover, and cheerlead, is what makes this partisan, not the targets or the players.

    The worst thing to me is that people like Pareene undoubtedly perceive themselves as being on the side of goodness, humaneness, wonderful populism, beautiful tolerance and the angels of generosity. They’re actually as perverse and twisted as those people in the Middle East or societies like India who admire the use of honor killings, in which parents or relatives kill a member of their own family, often a young woman (who perhaps was raped), to protect its reputation or moral standing.

    Sick.

    Mark (2efcda)

  39. It’s almost as if they know what they’ll see if they give the situation any scrutiny whatsoever, so they’re deliberately averting their eyes. It’s disgusting.

    Welcome to the last 40-50 years of press coverage of Democrats.

    Rob Crawford (6c262f)

  40. Just be sure to remind everyone as often as possible that Salon defends left-wing terrorists.

    Has anyone seen any left-wing terrorist ostracized from the left? Only time I’ve seen anyone cast out of the left for anything to do with terrorism was for opposing it.

    Rob Crawford (6c262f)

  41. Comment by Mark — 7/10/2012 @ 9:11 am

    Naah. Pareene just ran out of Anusol.

    nk (875f57)

  42. That’s not journalism, it’s stenography!

    Max015 (24d094)

  43. No one cares about making sure they get the details right…

    That’s because neither party can give the facts without spin.

    Take, example, Aaron’s repeated statements that Kimberlin got him fired. That’s stated as fact.

    But all we know is that Kimberlin contacted Virginia legal authorities about Aaron’s Muhammad-mocking site, and one of Virginia authorities took it upon himself to talk to Aaron’s employers, who in turn freaked out over Kimberlin.

    Are people telling me this was Kimberlin’s plan all along — that he knew the detective would go to Aaron’s workplace and that Aaron’s employers would react that way — or was it just a fortuitous outcome (from BK’s standpoint)?

    And by the same token, Kimberlin is obviously connecting dots of his own — making conclusions that don’t exist about the nature of the people who are against him.

    So I wouldn’t criticize Pareene. It’s hard to get the “details right” when the paranoid sources on both sides are certain they are dealing with a nefarious evil mastermind, and are happy to spin the story which puts them in the best light and their sworn enemy in the worst.

    Kman (5576bf)

  44. Kman-the art of the wingdinger fantasy is that you must deny that you’re a total wing nut. These people actually believe that they are unbiased. God bless you for trying to convince them otherwise.

    tye (6e2aee)

  45. Kimberlin desperately wants to make this a partisan issue because it means he’ll gain support.

    Salon is willing to accommodate him, and Pareene is the perfect patsy for the job; his history is full of attacks on conservatives and republicans for only the simple fact that they lean away from him politically.

    For democrats like this, it has devolved past right vs wrong and is solidly in the “my team vs your team” mentality. In reality, it’s more like “my insane thugs vs your group of intellectual types.”

    Book (2c040e)

  46. Pareene hasn’t considered the consequences of consorting with a vicious thug. Violence is a two-way street and turnabout is a common occurrence. Pareene foolishly put himself in jeopardy, now he either keeps doing Kimberlin’s bidding or he becomes a target.

    Kimberlin is crazy violent and he holds grudges and he attacks his enemies. Pareene is playing patty-cake with a man who will kill if crossed.

    Pareene may not know it yet, but he’s Kimberlin’s bitch now.

    ropelight (bd1155)

  47. These people actually believe that they are unbiased.

    The commenters, perhaps. Hopefully, not all of Patterico’s readers.

    Kman (5576bf)

  48. ropelight – yep.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  49. So I wouldn’t criticize Pareene.

    Unbelievable.

    He never even contacted most of the people he smeared, Kman. He ignored the overwhelming evidence supporting Kimberlin’s conviction to present Kimberlin’s repeated suggestion it was false (something I note shows he is unrepentant).

    We have seen repeated mentions from Kimberlin’s admitted associates about taking away Walker’s job, and you act like it’s unclear this was their plan. This is simply a lie on your part. You are simply lying. I know you will pretend you’re not aware of this, but I’ve seen you comment in thread after thread where this information is presented.

    Also note how when someone gets facts plainly wrong, you say you won’t criticize him, but you’ve criticized the side criticizing Kimberlin (with substantial basis) repeatedly. That says a lot about you.

    Kimberlin contacted Virginia legal authorities about Aaron’s Muhammad-mocking site,

    It was a freedom of speech supporting site, and some of the submissions mocked all faiths, some mocked none. Calling it a Muhammad mockery site is disingenuous. However, why in the world would you find it legitimate for Kimberlin to call the police because of a blog that hadn’t even mentioned him?

    What I saw happen was lies about the blog’s content intending to defame Aaron and also incite violence. I interpret this (you’ll call this spin) as creating plausible deniability if someone did set a bomb that harmed Aaron.

    Kman-the art of the wingdinger fantasy is that you must deny that you’re a total wing nut

    I don’t believe Aaron or Patterico have denied being conservative, nor do I think their political views justify the thuggery they have had to deal with. Even people with conservative views deserve a livelihood, safety from convicted bombers and their hacker associates who explain their plan is to get these lawyers fired and disbarred (That’s right, Kman’s claim that this isn’t necessarily their plan is simply dishonest and he absolutely knows this).

    Dustin (330eed)

  50. But all we know is that Kimberlin contacted Virginia legal authorities about Aaron’s Muhammad-mocking site, and one of Virginia authorities took it upon himself to talk to Aaron’s employers, who in turn freaked out over Kimberlin.

    Are people telling me this was Kimberlin’s plan all along — that he knew the detective would go to Aaron’s workplace and that Aaron’s employers would react that way — or was it just a fortuitous outcome (from BK’s standpoint)?.

    Comment by Kman — 7/10/2012 @ 9:20 am

    Uh Einstein, I know there is a dearth of pictures in the post, so you are operating under a handicap, but you missed this:

    Kimberlin did, however, contact Walker’s local law enforcement and claim that he was concerned that Walker was in danger because of Kimberlin’s decision to out all of Aaron’s personal information. Kimberlin apparently gave Walker’s information to that detective, resulting in a visit by the detective to Aaron’s workplace. The detective was sympathetic to Aaron but the visit spooked the bosses, who were concerned about the possibility that a convicted bomber might show up at their place of business. I talked to someone at Aaron’s HR department about this, and she said nobody wanted to work the reception desk out of fear over Kimberlin. Also, somehow a Muslim group ended up contacting the workplace and threatening to picket and take other action if Aaron wasn’t fired. (He already had been.) The idea that Kimberlin had nothing to do with that, I submit, is a stretch.

    TomB (4a72e4)

  51. 46- agreed. And not all commenters, either I suppose.

    tye (6e2aee)

  52. #49 Uh, Einstein…. how did what you highlighted contradict what I said?

    Kman (5576bf)

  53. His mom must be a charmer!

    Gunga (b83c9b)

  54. What a pathetic whitewash of a story. It’s hard to understand why any journalist would sell his intergrit to protect such a stupid lost cause. Kimberlin is screaming “Sister Souljah opportunity” as loud as he can.

    But then you realize Paree has no integrity so why not? Who cares about human decency? Same with Kman.

    Marshal (999f06)

  55. Don’t forget this is the same Alex Pareene who dares to write an annual piece for Salon in which he denounces other supposed “hack” journalists.

    Does Yiddish have a stronger version of “chutzpah”?

    Buzz (7de75d)

  56. Hey Kman, long time no see!

    Didja know that there’s this douchenozzle named “spointer” that’s been hanging around and imitating you?

    Icy (b7e728)

  57. All those involved in these antics will eventually have to answer to the court of last resort, from which there is no appeal – some, whose conduct has been especially egregious, will never be scheduled for a hearing, but are on that fast-track to their final destination.
    Until that happens, the best the rest of us can do is to watch our six.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  58. He never even contacted most of the people he smeared, Kman. He ignored the overwhelming evidence supporting Kimberlin’s conviction to present Kimberlin’s repeated suggestion it was false (something I note shows he is unrepentant).

    Dustin, this is a perfect example of how well-meaning people like you are simply too deep in the forest and can see only the trees.

    You wanted Pareene to present evidence of Kimberlin’s wrongdoing re the Speedway bombing? How about, you know, the conviction itself? That seems pretty damning.

    And then he presented Kimberlin’s “side” of it (which, to an objective observer seemed pretty weak). Why is that bad journalism?

    You seem to suggest that if it is not the anti-Kimberlin slam piece that YOU would write, then it must be a pro-Kimberlin piece. Which is ridiculous. He takes his hits in the Salon piece harder than anyone else.

    And I don’t understand why the bellyaching about Pareene “not getting our side of the story”.

    Really?

    You think Aaron “Strap-Yourselves-In-Folks-This-Will-Be-A-Long-One” Walker hasn’t had an opportunity to relate his side of the story anywhere?

    Really?!?

    However, why in the world would you find it legitimate for Kimberlin to call the police because of a blog that hadn’t even mentioned him?

    Did I say or even suggest that it was “legitimate”? Did I do that here… or ever?

    This goes to my point. You make inferences and you see them as fact. Which is part of the problem in trying to unearth “the truth”.

    Kman (5576bf)

  59. Speaking of “Gawker-style journalism” …

    “Nowhere is there a mention of the wrongful death judgment obtained by Carl DeLong’s widow, or the fact that Kimberlin refused to pay it while collecting over a million dollars from the Tides Foundation, Barbra Streisand, and other liberal marks.”

    Look, I get that Kimberlin is a scumbag and very probably a psychopath, but a certain level of fairness should be observed here.

    Let’s say that he was a good boy and diverted the donations from his 501(c)(3) and satisfied the DeLong judgement. Everybody would be really happy, except the IRS because dong so would violate federal law. That’s the kind of thing that got John Edwards in trouble.

    There’s more than enough damaging information out there to cripple your boy Brett forever. But inventing connections between a civil judgement and a non-profit foundation doesn’t help anybody but him.

    I’d strongly suggest rewriting that sentence, if only because its legally ridiculous.

    skippystalin (b8f0b5)

  60. Patterico will be pleased to find out he is a paranoid wingnut.

    JD (f4e1b6)

  61. After reading through this post and all the comments, I only have one question:

    What the hell is “Salon”?

    K_P_Brown (88bd1c)

  62. At the very least Kimberlin has entertained homicidal fantasies about persons who have thwarted him (see his yellow legal pads with plans for his prosecutors). He’s a twisted little monster and would harm any enemy if he thought he could cover and get away with it.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  63. Kimberlin desperately wants to make this a partisan issue because it means he’ll gain support.

    It’s always been a partisan issue. The only people who deny it are the ones deep in denial about the nature of the left, who will not admit that the left despises free speech.

    Fer crissake, when Kimberlin became a darling of the left he was in prison for a series of bombings, and already had a perjury conviction. Yet they believed everything he told them because it was useful to them.

    He’s either still useful to them or they believe he will be useful again.

    For democrats like this, it has devolved past right vs wrong and is solidly in the “my team vs your team” mentality. In reality, it’s more like “my insane thugs vs your group of intellectual types.”

    Where’s the evidence Democrats distinguish between their “insane thugs” and their “intellectual types”? For how many decades have they held convicted cop-killer Mumia out as a hero? How long until they’ve turned the Unabomber into another “prisoner of conscience”? How about their working with a SHAC terrorist?

    Rob Crawford (6c262f)

  64. How about, you know, the conviction itself? That seems pretty damning.

    To the cult that believes Mumia is innocent? Meaningless.

    Rob Crawford (6c262f)

  65. Skippy, I believe that’s not the conjecture at all. Using the non-profit to fund improper activities or to launder or hide money, is.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  66. Kman-the art of the wingdinger fantasy is that you must deny that you’re a total wing nut. These people actually believe that they are unbiased. God bless you for trying to convince them otherwise.
    Comment by tye — 7/10/2012 @ 9:25 am

    – Aww, tye heart’s him some Kman AND some Kimberlin!

    Ain’t it cute?

    Icy (b7e728)

  67. But inventing connections between a civil judgement and a non-profit foundation doesn’t help anybody but him.

    What invention? He’s the primary officer of those non-profits; to suggest he’s not living off what they take in is laughable.

    Rob Crawford (6c262f)

  68. I noticed that Liberal Grouch is over there trying to attack certain people. I’m guessing he’s a big-time stalker here.

    Kaitian (20f354)

  69. Kmart seems to enjoy his role as above the fray defender of Kimberlin and his crew. He is on a quest for truth while you are all paranoid spinners. There is not a sliver of daylight between what he says, and what a paid PR flak for that gang of thugs would say.

    JD (f4e1b6)

  70. “How about, you know, the conviction itself? That seems pretty damning.

    To the cult that believes Mumia is innocent? Meaningless.

    Comment by Rob Crawford ”

    Especially since Pareene immediately tried to undermine the conviction by claiming – was it the former attorney general? or state’s attorney? – carried his appeal pro bono because he believed there were errors made, and by implying the conviction was due to hypnotized witnesses.

    It’s play one from the rulebook: admit what you have to but minimize and obfuscate it.

    Marshal (999f06)

  71. Rob, it’s only the left who would have him, that much is so, and that the left maintains a facination with thugs who will git r done has some foundation.

    But BK doesn’t give hang about his causes, he only on his own side. He only cares for himself and his control and his importance. He goes where the getting is good.

    Bland or dismissive reaction on the left is partisn or tends to turn this into a partisan issue.

    This is one guy they shouldn’t want on their side. For reals.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  72. Bland or dismissive reaction on the left is partisn or tends to turn this into a partisan issue.

    I love irony.

    Kman (5576bf)

  73. Rob,

    I assume that he draws a salary from the foundations, which would be attachable to judgement, but the donations to the foundations themselves aren’t.

    Unless he paid himself “over a million dollars from the Tides Foundation, Barbra Streisand, and other liberal marks” from those donations, meaning 100% of them, it’s a false point and criminal if Kimberlin observed it.

    skippystalin (b8f0b5)

  74. Isn’t Pareene the guy who made the Asian hooker joke about Michelle Malkin?

    Yes, Patterico linked to that. But it merits repetition.

    That’s quality journalism. Or should I say journolist?

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  75. Did Pareene have to find a sponsor to pay his salary when he moved to Salon.

    Davod (8bf616)

  76. Sarah,

    We’re dealing with a wildly litigious beast with a demonstrated ability to find out who the commenters here are and how to get at them.

    That being the case, I’d counsel people to avoid saying anything that they can’t prove and is potentially defamatory.

    skippystalin (b8f0b5)

  77. “Nowhere is there a mention of the wrongful death judgment obtained by Carl DeLong’s widow, or the fact that Kimberlin refused to pay it while collecting over a million dollars from the Tides Foundation, Barbra Streisand, and other liberal marks.

    There’s more than enough damaging information out there to cripple your boy Brett forever. But inventing connections between a civil judgement and a non-profit foundation doesn’t help anybody but him.
    I’d strongly suggest rewriting that sentence, if only because its legally ridiculous.
    Comment by skippystalin — 7/10/2012 @ 10:14 am

    – Where in that sentence does Patterico assert a ‘connection’? Seems to me that highlighting the contrast does a pretty effective job of demonstrating what a lowlife Kimberlin is.

    Icy (b7e728)

  78. But all we know is that Kimberlin contacted Virginia legal authorities about Aaron’s Muhammad-mocking site, and one of Virginia authorities took it upon himself to talk to Aaron’s employers, who in turn freaked out over Kimberlin.

    So BK just happens to go to the authorities now, when the website was how many years old?

    Are people telling me this was Kimberlin’s plan all along — that he knew the detective would go to Aaron’s workplace and that Aaron’s employers would react that way — or was it just a fortuitous outcome (from BK’s standpoint)?

    He didn’t know what would happen, but I’m sure it is what he hoped would happen. Why else do it? He called the employer of Stacy McCain’s wife, why do that?

    To stir up trouble.

    One has to have a lot of blind faith to believe Kimberlin does things without malice.

    Irish84 (4a72e4)

  79. it is one thing to bail water…
    but it is something else to bail sewage.

    mark l. (69baf1)

  80. “In other words, it’s an extensive legal fight between two self-important people I can almost guarantee you’ve never heard of, except that it’s also the single most important First Amendment cause ever for a bunch of bloggers who will not be silenced by this Kimberlin guy!”

    Classic Kmart. You have to ignore the facts, history, workplace harassment, lawsuits, bar complaints, nastiness, SWATting, etc… to get to that assessment. Well done.

    JD (f4e1b6)

  81. Salon should have given the ‘story’ to Greenwald.

    Icy (b7e728)

  82. I wouldn’t say this is so much opinion masquerading as journalism as it is part of an overall propaganda meme that is growing larger. It’s actually rather twisted. Central to all of this is the figure calling itself “OccupyRebellion” which is either an absolutely insane person or just about the most despicable human being on Earth or both.

    There are two roles being played here by OR. One is to stay in the face of the figures who report on this even if nothing more than to boost “her” own cred and the other is to manufacture plausible conspiracy theories to feed to those who might be “spring loaded” to accept them. That is probably the more important role. To “leverage” the crazy out there is an important role this person is playing.

    To draw a parallel, imagine a “chemtrails” kook who would be publishing a lot of stuff attempting to “connect” various things to “chemtrails” in order to keep the “troops” interested.

    There are some important themes in this and the first lie I notice that gets tossed out so often it is treated as accepted fact is that the swattings are fake and never happened. That is pretty key to “her” theme, too. Producing a couple of police reports of those would absolutely destroy the cred of that line of rhetoric but it would probably be better to hold off on that until there were a few other angles of attack, too, so the devastation would come from many different angles at once and blow any credibility into the toilet on several different angles of the meme at the same time as to just leave that line of thought a smoking crater.

    So who pays OR, how does OR live? Looking at the traffic profile, this person basically lives on the Internet. That appears to be this person’s job. The person is either independently wealthy, is a total loser hanging out at a McDondalds all day, or is getting paid for doing what is being done here. Who would benefit from someone playing such a role and might want to pay such a person?

    The main role I see of that person is propagandist whose job is to weave and twist things to fit the fabric of insanity they have created. It isn’t so much the standing up to the devil that is important in the role as the preaching to the choir. This person is pretty smart but also probably has some serious personality “issues”. Probably has difficulty controlling their anger in real life, goes off on irrational rages, finds it difficult or impossible to engage in long term stable relationships but blames other people for that, and likely engages in some self-destructive behaviors but functions well enough to walk that tightrope. Overall, this person is likely to be their own undoing at some point but that could take a long time.

    The easiest way I can think of to undo this whole thing is to find a few key, core memes in all of this around which all the rest if it is weaved (such as the SWAT-tings being fake) and using those to unravel the rest of the insanity they have published over the past year or two. Unraveling one piece at a time will just involve re-spinning it to “repair” their lunatic fabric.

    See, the whole thing is built on a series of speculations. Once several of those speculations can be shown beyond all doubt to be false, the entire thing comes apart. If you take them down one at a time, they can re-spin a new set of speculations and fabrications to make everything “fit” and everything has to “fit” neatly because fiction must always make sense. If you take down several of them at once, it can leave the rest of them in a big smoking pile.

    I wish I had the time to dig into it. First thing I would need would be a “clean” computer set up with accounts I never use for anything else and a second internet connection from a different provider from what I use with my “real life” stuff or better, a different location to work from than my home or real work. It would be a fun challenge but it would take a lot of effort. It would be going against people who are apparently paid to produce insanity.

    crosspatch (6adcc9)

  83. Comment by nk — 7/10/2012 @ 9:10 am

    Salon’s name identifies itself. Good Lord, guys, think! What calls itself Salon?

    I give up.

    Sammy Finkelman (216aa0)

  84. Kimberlin’s main defense to the bombings — that some of the witnesses were hypnotized

    That will never not be funny.

    tdpwells (b7035d)

  85. It is Kimberlin who has created the links between the nonprofits and his actions. I think that his nonprofits could be joined in a complaint via respondeat superior.

    SPQR (6ab227)

  86. 79- spin spin spin

    tye (6e2aee)

  87. Icy,

    Because the sentence presumes that Kimberlin the person, is one and the same as his foundations, which they legally aren’t and can’t be.

    skippystalin (b8f0b5)

  88. Tye – are you denying that all of those things have been done to critics of Kimberlin and his crew?

    JD (f4e1b6)

  89. Comment by crosspatch — 7/10/2012 @ 10:46 am

    because fiction must always make sense.

    Truth doesn’t (attributed to Mark Twain and Leo Rosten)

    This is a joke, of course. That’s not exactly true.

    Let’s say, fiction (to work) has to make sense to you. Truth doesn’t have to make sense to you. It has to make sense, but not to everybody, and t can seem like it doesn’t make sense.

    A small example of truth not making sense to some people: Obama collecting money from Wall Street donors

    Sammy Finkelman (216aa0)

  90. The swatting connection to Kimberlin doesn’t seem “incredibly flimsy” to me.

    The same day Aaron had a major victory against Kimberlin, he was swatted. When Kimberlin was asked in court if he was responsible, the transcript reads like he was evasive and didn’t want to answer. In fact, merely asking Kimberlin a question about this in court drew yet another strange accusation of harassment.

    Many of Kimberlin’s most effective critics have been swatted, and the only swatting victim who wasn’t in this category was the target of Rauhauser’s obsession. Rauhauser is indisputably Kimberlin’s associate. Indisputably. Anyone saying otherwise is either unwilling to read the basics on this story or is actively engaged in damage control for a convicted terrorist.

    As an example, let me use the Julia Scyphers murder. Is there any proof that Kimberlin was responsible for the execution of this grandmother? I know of no proof, sadly. I am convinced he was, because he had a motive regarding the bizarre grooming of the murder victim’s grandaughter. Also, an eyewitnesses fingered one of Kimberlin’s close associates before he died. Also because of how Kimberlin was behaving after the execution was carried out. For example, just as he learned he was a suspect of investigation, he set eight bombs, including on a police car, for what appears to be a diversion of police resources that understandably focused on catching the bomber (and indeed they did catch the bomber, Kimberlin, and put him in prison). I’m skipping a lot of little details, but this isn’t absolute proof. It only supports a suspicion that Kimberlin was responsible for the execution of the grandmother Scyphers. But it’s quite reasonable. Not flimsy.

    So let’s look at motive and behavior.

    As Aaron’s being swatted, he’s a victim of relentless and dishonest lawfare and an attempt to frame him with perjury and false statements to police. As he’s attacked in the legal system by bizarre arguments, perjury, and smears, he’s also attacked by some unknown swatter.

    Patterico’s a victim of a similar intense campaign that includes threats of violence against himself his spouse from a Velvet Revolution member, lawfare from someone who can be tied to Kimberlin, represented by a lawyer associated with Rauhauser. And he’s also attacked by some unknown swatter.

    Mr Erickson criticizes Kimberlin as well, and is swatted. His was the most vicious swatting I’m aware of. It happened very shortly after hundreds of bloggers blogged about Kimberlin, which I think may explain the increased aggression. The swatter saying he was going to kill again can only be interpreted as an attempt to create a tragedy for the Erickson family.

    Mr Stack was the victim of an egregious attempt to smear him, has mocked Kimberlin at least once, and was the obsession of Rauhauser, Kimberlin’s associate. His swatter made the same mistake Rauhauser did with his address.

    And didn’t ‘Gaped Crusader’ explain the plan for swattings? Didn’t Mr Stack’s investigation show that this sockpuppet used Rauhauser’s IP address? That’s very persuasive.

    This is merely support for a certain suspicion for those looking at this evidence. But it’s quite reasonable to suspect Kimberlin and Rauhauser are both involved.

    And I’m not even touching on the Ron B aspect. One problem with responding to liars is that they help muddy the waters about an already complicated issue. Not that I criticize Patterico for explaining how Pareene’s article is wrong. Someone must do so.

    But it’s wrong in so many ways you would probably need a book to lay it all out. And does Pareene seem like the sort of person to actually read a book explaining the facts that show him wrong? His defender Kman has often been caught not even reading short blog posts before arguing against them. These people like Kman and Pareene construct a bubble and refuse to grant even basic facts proven 100 times. There is no changing their minds, even now.

    Dustin (330eed)

  91. Let’s say, fiction (to work) has to make sense to you. Truth doesn’t have to make sense to you. It has to make sense, but not to everybody, and t can seem like it doesn’t make sense.

    A small example of truth not making sense to some people: Obama collecting money from Wall Street donors

    If you are trying to convince a bunch of people of something, you generally must make it all “fit”. Like the 9/11 truther kooks and the HAARP kooks, etc. This is just yet another batch of kooks being leveraged because they are useful. This is a band of kooks that unlike those other kooks will actually show up and cause trouble. It is important to keep fabricating something for them to “fight” against. The whole Breitbart as the boogyman and “Breitbots” meme is key to the whole thing. You can’t create a religion without a devil. You can’t motivate people to go on a crusade without something to crusade against. This is more about keeping their minions mobilized, interested, active, etc. than about ACTUALLY doing anything.

    And the sword cuts both ways, too, because by keeping the issue in the spotlight on the right, it also facilitates their need to keep it in the spotlight. OR talks about working on the story “for a year” or some such … heck, “she’ll” keep “working on it” for 10 years if it stays in the limelight. That’s the point. It isn’t about bringing anything to any resolution, it is about “working on it” forever. And, frankly, the amount of talk people do in things like open Twitter give lots of fodder for things to be twisted and added to the fabric of lies and speculations. Because someone signed up on a certain site one day, that “means” they “must have known” about something that happened shortly after or some such nonsense. Everything “means” something to these people. Nothing just is what it is. If you tweet something to someone, that must “mean” something, too, so they concoct some way for that to “fit”. It’s just crazy. They need for there to be a conspiracy so they will fabricate one at every opportunity.

    The simple fact that they say something incorrect and you attempt to correct them “means” they are right! Because after all, if they weren’t right, you would just ignore them, in their twisted logic. So the fact that you engage “proves” that they are “right”! Kind of like if Aaron files a federal suit as a result of being harassed “proves” Aaron is “out to get them” or something. It is absolutely twisted insanity. These people really ARE nuts and they are relying on other nuts. It is basically like a cult. OR’s job is basically to create the brainwashing material for the cult. It seriously is nuts.

    crosspatch (6adcc9)

  92. 53. – “Kimberlin is screaming ‘Sister Souljah opportunity’ as loud as he can.”

    How does Obama repudiate bomber Kimberlin without getting tied back to bomber Ayers?

    Me (3a1735)

  93. Skippy, i’m not relating that for the truth of the matter asserted – just that you have the conjecture wrong.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  94. What’s the frequency, Kman? sent the following dots & dashes:
    That’s because neither party can give the facts without spin.
    – Always trust content from Patterico.

    Take, example, Aaron’s repeated statements that Kimberlin got him fired. That’s stated as fact.
    – In THIS post? Where? Where!

    But all we know is that Kimberlin contacted Virginia legal authorities about Aaron’s Muhammad-mocking site, and one of Virginia authorities took it upon himself to talk to Aaron’s employers, who in turn freaked out over Kimberlin.
    – Yep, that’s all we know . . . that Kimberlin initiated an action, the result of which was that Aaron got fired.

    Are people telling me this was Kimberlin’s plan all along — that he knew the detective would go to Aaron’s workplace and that Aaron’s employers would react that way — or was it just a fortuitous outcome (from BK’s standpoint)?
    – You have just got to love the liberal obsession with INTENT!
    That Kimberlin’s actions may have had the effect of getting Aaron fired doesn’t count IF Kimberlin’s intent was merely to ‘harass’.

    And by the same token, Kimberlin is obviously connecting dots of his own — making conclusions that don’t exist about the nature of the people who are against him.
    – Lashing out at any and everyone that dares speak of one’s criminal past is NOT an exercise in “connecting dots”; it is blind reaction, pure and simple.

    So I wouldn’t criticize Pareene.
    – Of course you wouldn’t.

    It’s hard to get the “details right” when the paranoid sources on both sides are certain they are dealing with a nefarious evil mastermind
    – You’re half right. Aaron is certain he’s dealing with a nefarious evil, and Kimberlin fancies himself a mastermind.

    and are happy to spin the story which puts them in the best light and their sworn enemy in the worst.
    – Yep. It’s like a “he said, he said” thing. Gosh, one might wonder why any of us, you included, are discussing it at all!

    Icy (b7e728)

  95. 87-i am strongly suggesting that you have zero ability to look at anything at all objectively.

    tye (6e2aee)

  96. Kman, the irony, I confess, escapes me.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  97. Take, example, Aaron’s repeated statements that Kimberlin got him fired. That’s stated as fact.
    – In THIS post? Where? Where!

    Lots of places. Particularly on Aaron’s blog.

    But all we know is that Kimberlin contacted Virginia legal authorities about Aaron’s Muhammad-mocking site, and one of Virginia authorities took it upon himself to talk to Aaron’s employers, who in turn freaked out over Kimberlin.
    – Yep, that’s all we know . . . that Kimberlin initiated an action, the result of which was that Aaron got fired.

    By that logic, Kimberlin’s parents are culpable too, since they initiated an action which created Kimberlin.

    Or Aaron is culpable, since he created the Muhammad-mocking website in the first place. I mean, that game can be played any way anybody wants.

    And by the same token, Kimberlin is obviously connecting dots of his own — making conclusions that don’t exist about the nature of the people who are against him.
    – Lashing out at any and everyone that dares speak of one’s criminal past is NOT an exercise in “connecting dots”; it is blind reaction, pure and simple.

    Yeah, but the right blogosphere has done that. Mission accomplished. Give yourselves a round of applause. Now everybody knows about Brett Kimberlin’s past.

    So what explains the Kimberlin obsession now?

    and are happy to spin the story which puts them in the best light and their sworn enemy in the worst.
    – Yep. It’s like a “he said, he said” thing. Gosh, one might wonder why any of us, you included, are discussing it at all!

    My sentiments exactly!

    Kman (5576bf)

  98. Tye – I don’t give a cr@p what you think of me. If I was not objective in listing the variety of actions resulting from Kimberlin and his crew, please enlighten us as to what I was inaccurate about.

    You have to ignore the facts, history, workplace harassment, lawsuits, bar complaints, nastiness, SWATting, etc… to get to that assessment.

    JD (318f81)

  99. Kman, you’ve done a fine job of isolating out the points where you can convince yourself that Kimberlin is innocent … and excluding from your view the ones where he is guilty.

    What this exercise does for your conscience I can only speculate.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  100. I’m not ignoring anything. If you didn’t care you wouldn’t argue with me.

    tye (6e2aee)

  101. Kmart studiously ignores all of the actions Kimberlin and his gang of thugs have taken.

    JD (318f81)

  102. So, if I am spinning that, “tye”, show me where I am doing so.

    JD (318f81)

  103. skippy, I’m not here to speak for the boss, but I can report that the adjective he often uses to describe Kimberlin is “unrepentant”. It isn’t so much a matter of Kimberlin believing himself innocent of committing a crime; it’s more that he seems to believe that all of the actions he has taken in his life are morally justified. To that end, refusing to pay a civil judgment, while simtaneously collecting donations for a non-profit that he established, it seems to me, is totally relevant to the discussion.

    Icy (b7e728)

  104. Kman whines

    what explains the Kimberlin obsession now?

    I think an unrepentant terrorist is an interesting story. Strange that Kimberlin’s defenders, of which Kman is one of the most outspoken, do not understand that they don’t get to decide what others find interesting.

    Kmart studiously ignores all of the actions Kimberlin and his gang of thugs have taken.

    Yes he does.

    Dustin (330eed)

  105. JD, your fanboi is becoming a bit too ‘clingy’ for comfort.

    Icy (b7e728)

  106. ““Kimberlin is screaming ‘Sister Souljah opportunity’ as loud as he can.”

    How does Obama repudiate bomber Kimberlin without getting tied back to bomber Ayers?

    Comment by Me”

    Moderate-left journalists and bloggers, not Obama. But we see the problem, there aren’t any. The ones who think they’re moderates are instead protecting Sister Souljah by attacking her critics (Cough, Kman).

    Marshal (999f06)

  107. I think an unrepentant terrorist is an interesting story.

    Yeah, the first time maybe. But not the 60th. How long is the right blogosphere going to jump up and down, pointing their fingers at the Unrepentant Convicted Bomber™ before it gets old?

    And now that the story has been told, what’s the point now? Is there some mission? What are the goals here?

    Strange that Kimberlin’s defenders, of which Kman is one of the most outspoken…

    Wow. I don’t defend him. Just because you only see this in black and white terms doesn’t mean it actually IS black and white. In fact, when I quoted Pareene in Comment #13 above, I was dissing Kimberlin as much as anybody else.

    The odd thing that interests me is how you’re all trying to pretend this is non-partisan (or at least, some of you were) but the pretense is thin. Kimberlin is a proxy for “the left”, as if he’s a major player in politics (he’s not) and as if he shows up at all the meetings. It’s mass hysteria about a guy nobody ever heard of before, or cares about even now. That’s the interesting part.

    Kman (5576bf)

  108. By that logic, Kimberlin’s parents are culpable too, since they initiated an action which created Kimberlin.
    – And by THAT logic, the only way Kimberlin would have any culpability whatsoever is if he, personally, as Aaron’s boss, had handed him the pink slip.

    Or Aaron is culpable, since he created the Muhammad-mocking website in the first place. I mean, that game can be played any way anybody wants.
    – Here is the manner in which I am playing the game:
    If Kimberlin had NOT initiated a campaign of harassment against Aaron, then Aaron most likely would still have his job today.

    Yeah, but the right blogosphere has done that. Mission accomplished. Give yourselves a round of applause. Now everybody knows about Brett Kimberlin’s past.
    – So, you are agreeing with those that say the SWATting victims have brought this upon themselves?

    Icy (b7e728)

  109. Kman, the mission is to get Brett Kimberlin to cease his intimidation tactics, and for Democrats to quit funding his intimidation tactics.

    That you think neither goal should be accomplished tells me a lot.

    This should be non-partisan, but defenders – which you appear to be among – are making this partisan by claiming that only those evil conservatives are an issue.

    You claim that Kimberlin is not a major player, then it should not be a struggle to renounce him. But oddly it seems to be just that struggle … and Salon shows that elements have no intention to renounce him.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  110. The odd thing that interests me is how you’re all trying to pretend this is non-partisan (or at least, some of you were) but the pretense is thin. Kimberlin is a proxy for “the left”, as if he’s a major player in politics (he’s not) and as if he shows up at all the meetings. It’s mass hysteria about a guy nobody ever heard of before, or cares about even now. That’s the interesting part.
    Comment by Kman — 7/10/2012 @ 12:02 pm

    – Here is the interesting part for me:
    These blog posts have been anout Kimberlin’s actions — vicious, malicious, violent, criminal — but you only seem interested in the reactions to his actions and not by his actions, themselves.
    Is this the case? And if so, why?

    Icy (b7e728)

  111. The police may also have lied to Erick Erickson about the report being that of an accidental shooting.

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/11/the-911-call-and-80-members-of-congress/

    The police, at the time, told me they were responding to a 911 call about an accidental shooting.

    I now have the 911 call. It turns out that the call was not about an accidental shooting. The caller said I had shot my wife, she was dead on the floor in front of me, and I was going off to shoot someone else.

    You can hear the call yourself right here. What I did not know that Sunday night as the Sheriff’s Deputy pulled into the driveway is that the sheriff’s dispatcher called out on the radio to “take the house,” meaning to block off any avenues of exit. There were more police officers present than I saw.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  112. How would he get identifiable information from a blog comment? It looks like your comment system does not output IP information externally. Was it a link he posted, his username, or was your CMS hacked?

    I hope the FBI has opened a case on this. Kman’s wish for this to go away notwithstanding, this is seriously disturbing behavior.

    Cog (29a02e)

  113. The caller never says he shit his wife on purpose. He opens with thwe statement he wants to turn himself in.

    He ends with, though, that’s they’ll have to figure out the phone number and that he’s going to shoot someone else soon.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  114. If Kimberlin had NOT initiated a campaign of harassment against Aaron, then Aaron most likely would still have his job today.

    Whether Kimberlin “initiated” this depends on your point of view. Aaron did something which Kimberlin took to be harassing, but probably wasn’t (in the the strictest legal terms). So Kimberlin did something which Aaron took to be harassing, but probably wasn’t, in the strictest legal terms). And so on, and so on, ad infinitum.

    Which is why the quote “an extensive legal fight between two self-important people I can almost guarantee you’ve never heard of” rings true.

    In any event, Aaron’s firing came as a result of a chain of events, with Kimberlin’s letters to the authorities being only one of them. I know that if I gave legal advice to someone outside the scope of my employment, and decided to make it my mission to bring down someone I believed to be a domestic terrorist, I too would be fired… for stupidity. I have the right to do that, but when my private actions endangers my employer and fellow employees (and according to you all, Kimberlin IS that dangerous), my employer certainly has reason to let me go.

    In that regard, Aaron sounds like someone who made his bed and doesn’t want to lay in it.

    Yeah, but the right blogosphere has done that. Mission accomplished. Give yourselves a round of applause. Now everybody knows about Brett Kimberlin’s past.
    – So, you are agreeing with those that say the SWATting victims have brought this upon themselves?

    First of all, I don’t know who “those” are that say that. But assuming they exist… I don’t know how you get that I might “agree” with them from what I said. It’s a pretty obvious (and unsuccessful) attempt to put words in my mouth. (Again, as I said above, bowing to God of Inference rather than Truth).

    I don’t know who is behind the SWATting. Neither do you. I assume (and certainly hope) that the legal authorities are looking into it. Others are free to speculate, but speculation isn’t fact either.

    Kman (5576bf)

  115. Which is why the quote “an extensive legal fight between two self-important people I can almost guarantee you’ve never heard of” rings true.

    Patterico, RSM, Erickson, Stack, and the others that have felt the wrath of your buddies would likely quibble with your ASSertions.

    JD (318f81)

  116. If you recall, kmart was unwilling to admit that Kimberlin is unrepentant.

    JD (318f81)

  117. Indeed, no one should put words into Kman’s mouth. And there is no need, since he happily writes out words here in the comment section that makes his allegiances plain.

    Quite plain.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  118. The commenters here remind me of Larry the cable guy. Totally ignorant and prone to bathroom humor. Not all of you, but many…

    tye (6e2aee)

  119. Whether Kimberlin “initiated” this depends on your point of view. Aaron did something which Kimberlin took to be harassing, but probably wasn’t (in the the strictest legal terms). So Kimberlin did something which Aaron took to be harassing, but probably wasn’t, in the strictest legal terms). And so on, and so on, ad infinitum.
    – Once again, you are speaking of the intent that motivated action, while my concern lies with the (in my view, fairly predictable) results of the actions taken.

    when my private actions endangers my employer and fellow employees (and according to you all, Kimberlin IS that dangerous), my employer certainly has reason to let me go.
    – You act as if Aaron independently initiated a “bring a snake to work” day, when the situation seems much more akin to a stalker discovering his victim’s place of business and proceeding to make trouble.

    First of all, I don’t know who “those” are that say that. But assuming they exist…
    – Have you not been reading the posts (including screenshots of actual tweets) about OccupyRebellion?

    Icy (b7e728)

  120. Tye – did you ever demonstrate how I was spinning the facts?

    JD (318f81)

  121. Comment by Kman — 7/10/2012 @ 12:35 pm

    when my private actions endangers my employer and fellow employees (and according to you all, Kimberlin IS that dangerous), my employer certainly has reason to let me go.

    Having said that, would you also say that Aaron should be able to sue Brett Kimberlin and obtain a judgement for getting him fired? Or would you not say that?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  122. Tyresome Troll is still tiresome.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  123. There’s a floater in #115

    Icy (b7e728)

  124. “It is a tediously complicated story….”

    “It is nigh impossible to find a coherent account of what actually happened…”

    “This is how deeply vexing it is to try to write about any of this…”

    Apparently it’s so vexing, tediously complicated and nigh impossible that one can’t be bothered to get their facts straight in telling it. Why bother?

    Brandon (d777af)

  125. These blog posts have been anout Kimberlin’s actions — vicious, malicious, violent, criminal — but you only seem interested in the reactions to his actions and not by his actions, themselves.

    Is this the case? And if so, why?

    I’m happy to answer that.

    First of all, Kimberlin’s “vicious, malicious, violent, and criminal” actions — the ones we KNOW of for SURE — happened literally decades ago. And guess what? He was caught, and he did his time.

    Put another way, it’s an old story.

    So, you’re right. I’m not particularly interested in that. A LOT of people, including both presidential nominees, did stupid things in their youth. Kimberlin is an extreme example of that, but the relevance of his past crimes strikes me as not particularly important today, if only because I know there are WORSE people out there.

    But apparently, that simply isn’t enough for the rightosphere. And I don’t understand the interest — no, the obsession — over his story today. There are thousands of ex-cons roaming about — ex-murders, ex-rapists, you name it. And some of them are probably unrepentant and/or claim their innocence. So, why Kimberlin in particular?

    Is he running for office? No. Does he wield power over anything important to any of you? No. Are you just miffed because his sentence was too short? Well, your beef there is with the criminal justice system there. Is that he hasn’t done a mea culpa to your satisfaction? Well, what business is that of yours? And even if it is, there are many ex-criminals who probably fit that same mold, so again, I ask: “Why Kimberlin in particular”?

    And despite the thinly-veiled admonitions of some that this really is “non-partisan”, it seems to me that the special interest accorded Kimberlin is because he works as a lefty for some rinky-dink lefty fundraising organization.

    It’s beat-up-on-a-lefty time. It’s bullying. It has little do to with the First Amendment, except that the First Amendment, I admit, protects your right to be a bully. “Look guys. We found a lefty with a past. Let’s get him!”

    Because frankly, when it comes to today’s actions, — the ones that are relevant in my view — I don’t see much difference between Kimberlin’s tactics and Walker’s, particular when you can pigeonhole both persons’ action into the vague descriptive headers as “harassment”, “lawfare”, etc.**

    Both sides have a problem in that the other side isn’t just rolling over and playing dead like the script says they are supposed to. So the fight continues, perpetually. Each side playing offense with a strong defense.

    And I’m sure I’m not the only one who sees it that way. Judge Vaughn, for all his flaws as a jurist, did ask one relevant question: How does this all play out?

    Seriously, what do you guys want? What’s a win? His head on a spike?

    (** I’m excluding SWATting here. That’s obviously an action of a different nature. But until there is solid evidence that Kimberlin is behind it or involved in it, I consider that allegation just as absurd as some of the conspiracy allegations that Kimberlin makes against Walker).

    Kman (5576bf)

  126. Tye,

    The commenters here remind me of Larry the cable guy. Totally ignorant……

    It’s called satire, Tye – even his southern accent is fake.

    Brandon (d777af)

  127. “Apparently it’s so vexing, tediously complicated and nigh impossible that one can’t be bothered to get their facts straight in telling it. Why bother?

    Comment by Brandon”

    To discourage honest inquiry into the matter by anyone on the left. If they find out how the NGO system works to fund even terrorists they might start to question other leftist orthodoxy.

    Marshal (999f06)

  128. “interest accorded Kimberlin is because he works as a lefty”

    Completely and utterly wrong, and the reverse is true, you are defending this psychopath because you think it “dings” your “side” somehow.

    He has Inoright to escape his past, his crimes, to prey on other human beings, and be given a public trust to operate a non-profit

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  129. Kman, you keep pretending to ask questions as if they haven’t been answered, and then ignore the answers. Why Kimberlin? Because he’s at the center of political harassment and intimidation campaigns. You know it – but you pretend not to.

    The faux objectivity convinces no one.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  130. Of course, the idea that the only participant that Kman actually speaks admiringly of is Judge Vaughey also speaks volumes.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  131. 123- yes and do you realize that you’re the type of people that he’s satirizing?

    tye (6e2aee)

  132. Asking questions then pretending they weren’t answered sounds familiar… oh right… spqr, daly, jd….

    tye (6e2aee)

  133. It’s amazing how Kman rationalizes himself. He criticizes black and white thinking, then insists that because without absolute proof of SWATing there can be no difference in evaluation.

    To be clear, the SWATing ocurred, the only question is by whom, of which there is substantial evidence. Does anyone not understand that no proof and no evidence are different? OTOH the conspiracies Kimberlin charges didn’t actually occur. So to claim they are somehow equal is nonsense.

    Kman also hides behind obfuscation when claiming Walker’s legal action was comparable to Kimberlin’s lawfare. Walker’s legal actions were in response to Kimberlin. In fact this charge is exactly Kimberlin’s MO: initiate an action to draw a response, then claim the response is harassment.

    How can anyone acting in good faith fail to understand these basics? We all know the answer the premise, in good faith, is wrong.

    Marshal (999f06)

  134. Why Kimberlin? Because he’s at the center of political harassment and intimidation campaigns.

    I’m not sure what “political harassment” means. Is it different from regular harassment?

    Anyway, if intimidation was/is his goal, I would say he’s won, given the way you all obsess over him as the Unrepentant Convicted Bomber™ who must be stopped.

    Kman (5576bf)

  135. Yet another dishonest Moronic Convergence. Kmart and tye are perfect together.

    JD (318f81)

  136. But apparently, that simply isn’t enough for the rightosphere. And I don’t understand the interest — no, the obsession — over his story today. There are thousands of ex-cons roaming about — ex-murders, ex-rapists, you name it. And some of them are probably unrepentant and/or claim their innocence. So, why Kimberlin in particular?

    Wow, that is a breathtakingly stupid question to ask. The answer is simple: because of those thousands of unrepentant ex-cons you cite, only Bret Kimberlin is taking money from liberal donors to support political causes.

    Was that really so hard for you to figure out?

    Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd)

  137. Kman also hides behind obfuscation when claiming Walker’s legal action was comparable to Kimberlin’s lawfare. Walker’s legal actions were in response to Kimberlin.

    And Kimberlin’s actions were in response to something, too. And so on, and so on.

    I have yet to see any litigant think that the other sides lawsuit is bona fide. Whether something is a meritorious legal action, or conversely “lawfare”, is only a matter of where you sit.

    Kman (5576bf)

  138. First of all, Kimberlin’s “vicious, malicious, violent, and criminal” actions — the ones we KNOW of for SURE — happened literally decades ago. And guess what? He was caught, and he did his time.

    Put another way, it’s an old story.

    Not to the widow of Carl Delong. He is actively avioding paying her the million dollars he owes her. So he may have done SOME of his time, but he hasn’t settled the score. So no, it hasn’t happened in the past, it is still happening now.

    Irish84 (4a72e4)

  139. And despite the thinly-veiled admonitions of some that this really is “non-partisan”, it seems to me that the special interest accorded Kimberlin is because he works as a lefty for some rinky-dink lefty fundraising organization.

    There is a larger pattern here. Go back to the original Velvet Revolution. It was based around allegations that the Republicans “stole” the election. These allegations seem to be pretty much fabrications of various things weaved into a “vast right wing conspiracy” but it did gain the site a considerable amount of money and a bit of a following.

    Now we have “Breitbart unmasked” with the concoction of a vast conspiracy to get Weiner swatted. I don’t know how effective it has been at attracting donations but it appears to be a rather effective location for consolidating the propaganda. It appears to be along the same vein as VR. A bunch of allegations that would validate the world view of a bunch of kooks.

    Now broaden the context even further. They need an army of kooks. To get an army of kooks, one generally tries to appear to identify with the things they identify with and put out the sort of drivel they are likely to want to believe. They also want left-leaning “activist” kooks. Where to get them? The Occupy and the Anonymous movements seem to be a logical source of an alliance. So we seem to have a chief propagandist of “Brietbart Unmasked” and primary internet mouthpiece conveniently appearing aligned with both Anonymous and Occupy.

    You will also note some rather typical techniques being used in some of the stuff OR says. Things like “real” rape victims can’t support conservatives and using absolutely foul language toward any female that appears to be conservative. This should be a pattern that was established long before OR appeared on the scene (anyone know when Occupy Rebellion’s first ever tweet was?).

    This would be a person who would have been using similar language toward conservative women long before Occupy ever came about. The Occupy Wall Street thing began to be set up by Adbusters in May of 2011 when it purchased the internet domains for the movement. If you look at one timeline on Wikipedia, we see

    July 13 – Adbusters makes the initial proposal for a peaceful demonstration to occupy Wall Street

    But they had actually purchased the Internet domain back in May so this was in process for some time.

    The reason I bring this up, is that “Occupy” had no relevance to anything concerning the cultural masses until after July 13 of last year. So the name OR was created after that time in order to attempt to appear aligned with that movement.

    Notice how often OR plays the victim card. Often twisting things into “attacks” or “stalking” or whatever. OR has no problem being absolutely viscous with other people but attempts to play innocent victim “herself”. (note, might very well be a her … but it is best to take nothing for granted).

    This is, I believe, all about doing a couple of things:

    1. Ginning up Breitbart Unmasked to be a money maker.

    2. Activating people to take an active role in shutting up conservatives on the Internet, particularly ones looking too closely into what they are doing.

    The whole Weinergate thing to them is just a means to an end. They probably know fully well that Weiner was just being a jackass and got caught. And yeah, there might have been some conservatives following him just waiting for a chance to nail him when he did screw up, but that’s politics. The rest of this huge conspiracy is just an opportunity to create a site with greater visibility and money making potential, in my opinion. The VR thing was long past its “sell by” date and something new had to be created.

    In order to collect donations from people like Streisand and Tides, you have to show you are mobilizing a community. This Salon piece would be an important step in giving them enough legitimacy to collect followers and cash, and that is what this is really all about, in my personal opinion.

    crosspatch (6adcc9)

  140. It is interesting to see what topics make kmart crawl out from under his stalkery rock.

    JD (318f81)

  141. What did Patterico do to bring this on himself, kmart?

    JD (318f81)

  142. The answer is simple: because of those thousands of unrepentant ex-cons you cite, only Bret Kimberlin is taking money from liberal donors to support political causes.

    I am moved by your concern for liberal causes.

    But the word is out about Kimberlin now, and as far as I can tell, the donors don’t seem to mind. And if they do, then they’ve stopped contributing to Kimberlin’s particular cause.

    So mission accomplished. What’s next?

    Kman (5576bf)

  143. “vast conspiracy to get Weiner swatted.”

    Should have been “vast conspiracy to get Weiner.”

    crosspatch (6adcc9)

  144. Not to the widow of Carl Delong. He is actively avioding paying her the million dollars he owes her.

    Yes. Lots of injustice in this world. Lots of people entitled to money they should have. Why Kimberlin though?

    Kman (5576bf)

  145. Wo else swatted the host of this site, kmart? Who else filed bar complaints and lawsuits against the host of this site?

    JD (318f81)

  146. “And Kimberlin’s actions were in response to something, too. And so on, and so on.

    I have yet to see any litigant think that the other sides lawsuit is bona fide. Whether something is a meritorious legal action, or conversely “lawfare”, is only a matter of where you sit.

    Comment by Kman”

    More obfuscation. Walker’s legal case is in response to Kimberlin’s legal case, there is no escalation. Kimberlin’s legal case was in response to Walker offering someone else legal assistance, and escalation. That legal assistance was offered because Kimberlin filed a lawsuit against someone accurately describing Kimberlin as protected by the first amendment, another escalation. Every escalation was Kimberlin’s.

    Again, the only people who can’t see the difference are those politically motivated not to, which is why Kman refuses to evaluate the specifics and hides behind generalizations.

    Marshal (999f06)

  147. Yes. Lots of injustice in this world. Lots of people entitled to money they should have. Why Kimberlin though?

    By filing bogus peace orders in order to shut bloggers up he became the unwitting victim of the Streisand Effect. If he had just kept his litigious mouth shut, he could have stayed relatively anonymous, but now he is the bete noire of bloggers. So the question rightly gets asked. “Why has he not even attempted to pay her the money he owes?”

    Irish84 (4a72e4)

  148. I have yet to see any litigant think that the other sides lawsuit is bona fide. Whether something is a meritorious legal action, or conversely “lawfare”, is only a matter of where you sit.

    Comment by Kman — 7/10/2012 @ 1:51 pm

    Faux objectivity. Watching Kman try to pretend that Kimberlin is the victim would be nauseating if I didn’t already have a strong stomach.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  149. And Kimberlin’s actions were in response to something, too. And so on, and so on.

    – “The penalties offset; we’ll replay the down.”

    Icy (b7e728)

  150. yes and do you realize that you’re the type of people that he’s satirizing?

    Really? Seems to me he’s satirizing rednecks of the uneducated ignorant kind – there are different kinds, you know. I haven’t seen any hint of redneckism on here – accept of course in most of your ignorant comments. Asserting that something is so doesn’t make it so.

    He criticizes black and white thinking, then insists that because without absolute proof of SWATing there can be no difference in evaluation.

    Marshall – quite true. There is no absolute proof of anything really. Most truth is an evidential appeal to the best explanation. New evidence can always provide clarity on what is true and what is not.

    Empiricism is based on that type of inquiry; which is why even empirical scientific theories are not absolutely true.

    The only exact proof we have is in mathematics, and even there, there are some

    People who demand “proof” of something as opposed to coherent and persuasive explanations based on evidence, are committed to what’s called “scientism,” which is the idea that scientific explanations are the only avenue for discovering what is true. There’s a lot of people committed to scientism these days and the numbers are ever increasing.

    Kimberlin is an extreme example of that, but the relevance of his past crimes strikes me as not particularly important today, if only because I know there are WORSE people out there.

    But apparently, that simply isn’t enough for the rightosphere. And I don’t understand the interest — no, the obsession — over his story today. There are thousands of ex-cons roaming about — ex-murders, ex-rapists, you name it. And some of them are probably unrepentant and/or claim their innocence. So, why Kimberlin in particular?

    Because Kimberlin’s behavior hasn’t changed much. He hasn’t shown any remorse for his crimes, in fact, quite the opposite, and because his current behavior, if gone unchecked and allowed to continue in the courts, is an assault on free speech. Don’t you get that? It isn’t a left vs. right issue, but an issue of 1st amendment rights and attacks on those rights, which affects us all.

    When Ezra Levant wrote his now internationally best-selling book “Shakedown” about the Canadian government’s attempt to silence critics of Islam through the Canadian Human Rights Tribunals, he wasn’t speaking about a particularly conservative issue, but one that affects all human rights – and he adequately charged that “Human Rights Tribunal” or “Human Rights Commission” is an atrocious misnomer.

    And it wasn’t just conservatives who made his book a #1 bestseller.

    There’s a particular faction in the more radical leftist movement that desires to silence all criticism of the movement. It’s no different than an Imam in Alberta taking Levant to court because he published some cartoons depicting Mohammed.

    Take a look around, and take particular note of the attempts to silence – particularly conservative bloggers and those with conservative views – but by no means limited to any one group.

    If you can’t see what’s going on, then you need to take your head out of the sand.

    Some of the more public displays of free speech denial:

    - Dearborn Michigan – attempts by the organizers of the city’s annual Arab Festival to restrict all communication during that event to Islamic interests – despite the fact that the first Arab immigrants to Dearborn were Lebanese Christians almost a century ago – and the police helping to control those with other POVs (Christian or otherwise) – and all on public property.

    - North Carolina – a public school teacher yells at a student for voicing mild criticism of President Obama during a class open discussion – The student videotaped the teacher’s tirade and posted it on YouTube. The teacher was given paid leave, but was not fired or otherwise disciplined.

    - Florida –

    In an outrageous denial of free speech rights, Miami-Dade Transit last week forced the removal of a “Leaving Islam” ad campaign on Miami buses because the ads might be “offensive to Islam.”

    http://www.humanevents.com/2010/04/20/free-speech-denied-in-miami/

    - Pittsburg, PA – (2003) A man was prevented by police from displaying an anti-President Bush sign during a visit by Bush to the city.

    Brandon (d777af)

  151. Sure wish there was an edit feature on here.

    In my above comment, the following should be in quotes as being from Kman:

    Kimberlin is an extreme example of that, but the relevance of his past crimes strikes me as not particularly important today, if only because I know there are WORSE people out there.

    Brandon (d777af)

  152. That Kman sure is funny. But his argumentation made me think.

    So…there are many hundreds of thousands of folks on the internet with websites or identifiers.

    And Kman pops up like the Whack-a-Mole whenever Aaron posts, or issues revolving around Aaron.

    Why the interest in Aaron? How is that not stalkerish?

    And since he has been stirring the pot about Aaron so regularly, is he not in part responsible for all of this?

    I mean, legally, to 5% or something?

    Deep pockets theory.

    On the other hand, he could just go away and stalk other people in his creepy way.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  153. So Pareene tweeted an address asking to be swatted… of course he didn’t tweet his address, but Mayor Bloomberg’s.

    Good to see he takes SWATTing seriously.

    Now who wants appletinis?

    Auntie Fraud (2f38aa)

  154. So Pareene tweeted an address asking to be swatted… of course he didn’t tweet his address, but Mayor Bloomberg’s.

    Good to see he takes SWATTing seriously.

    Now who wants appletinis?

    Auntie Fraud (2f38aa)

  155. Comment by Brandon — 7/10/2012 @ 2:26 pm

    Its an example of Kman’s rather blatant dishonesty. He knows that Kimberlin lies to this day about his convictions. He knows that Kimberlin has tied his claim of being falsely convicted to political issues. He knows that Kimberlin avoided paying required judgments to his victims.

    All of which make Kimberlin’s past crimes relevant today.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  156. I am moved by your concern for liberal causes.

    But the word is out about Kimberlin now, and as far as I can tell, the donors don’t seem to mind. And if they do, then they’ve stopped contributing to Kimberlin’s particular cause.

    Are you really this oblique?

    If some guy had been convicted of bombing an abortion clinic and upon leaving prison went on to found a couple of political groups funded by conservative organizations, you can bet your bottom dollar that the left-wingers out there would be up in arms.

    Do you now understand why Kimberlin is news? Or must I break out the crayons to draw you a picture?

    Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd)

  157. Comment by Kman — 7/10/2012 @ 1:14 pm

    because I know there are WORSE people out there. (than Brett Kimberlin)

    Not too many, I hope!

    This was relevant, because this really was a terrible thing – and there an unsolved murder he might very well have done – and because this, and the Dan Quayle claims – tended to undermine the presumption of integrity he might have had – and what he said didn’t sound probable in the first place too.

    Socates asked – why was this guy a big activist? Why were people giving him money?

    There are thousands of ex-cons roaming about — ex-murders, ex-rapists, you name it. And some of them are probably unrepentant and/or claim their innocence. So, why Kimberlin in particular?

    Because he’s doing new things. Even if not setting off bombs.

    Is he running for office? No.

    But he’s peddling a lot of false conspiracy theories, or seems to be doing so.

    And that was just the start.

    Does he wield power over anything important to any of you? No.

    I guess getting somebody arrested, fired, possibly scared doesn’t count.

    I ask: “Why Kimberlin in particular”?

    It’s true. It’s because of what he did in the last decade. But what he did before has a bearing on the kind of person he is.

    And despite the thinly-veiled admonitions of some that this really is “non-partisan”, it seems to me that the special interest accorded Kimberlin is because he works as a lefty for some rinky-dink lefty fundraising organization.

    No, because he’s a big liar, and intimidator, along with the people who are associated with him.

    Because frankly, when it comes to today’s actions, — the ones that are relevant in my view — I don’t see much difference between Kimberlin’s tactics and Walker’s, particular when you can pigeonhole both persons’ action into the vague descriptive headers as “harassment”, “lawfare”, etc.**

    I have to tell you I don’t believe you. I don’t believe you don’t see much difference. I don’t even know who you think might believe that.

    Somebody totally ignorant? Somebody totally ignorant isn’t reading this blog!!

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  158. Now if you left that as a comment on Salon, what you said might make a little bit more sense.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  159. Comment by JD — 7/10/2012 @ 1:57 pm

    Wo else swatted the host of this site, kmart? Who else filed bar complaints and lawsuits against the host of this site?

    The new lie that they are not quite yet willing to say yet, is that none of the SWATtinmgs happened.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  160. “Swift boated”? They use it as if it was something bad.

    Funny – I always thought “swift boating” meant being savaged by an overwhelming avalanche of incontrovertible facts and painstakingly vetted, accurate statements of eyewitnesses, ferreted out by citizen bloggers who refused to be intimidated by the powers-that-be and the mainstream media. You know – something good and decent.

    As my grandaddy often wryly noted about differences of opinion, “It’s a matter of whose ox is being gored.”

    Sardondi (c4323f)

  161. I have yet to see any litigant think that the other sides lawsuit is bona fide. Whether something is a meritorious legal action, or conversely “lawfare”, is only a matter of where you sit.

    Comment by Kman — 7/10/2012 @ 1:51 pm

    In your particular case, sitting makes your neck hurt, because it’s protruding from your butt.

    L.N. Smithee (ca91ed)

  162. I’ve been holding off pointing out, only because I wanted someone else to make the point, that there is another reason why Kimberlin’s past convictions are currently relevant.

    It is because of this: in any rational worldview, other than Kman’s of course, the fact that someone was making phone calls to your employer, making fraudulent ethics complaints about you to the bar, and who had associates who were tweeting threatening messages about your children, your wife and spreading your home address … well that might be of concern … if that someone had been convicted for a violent criminal spree that resulted in maiming someone and was suspiciously involved in a murder.

    But not to Kman. Nope, to him, its just mean to even think about Kimberlin’s violent criminal history. Mean ol’ meanies.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  163. 142-spin spin spin

    tye (6e2aee)

  164. A link from Instapundit brings in a lot of eyes, and the kids just have to act up in front of company.

    Pious Agnostic (ee2c24)

  165. So, if it is spin, “tye”, it should be easy for you to point out the I accuracies. You didn’t last time, and won’t this time.

    JD (f4e1b6)

  166. #159, well, SPQR, if Kman was actually a Kimberlin nom de guerre you might understand.

    ropelight (bd1155)

  167. Kman’s getting poleaxed here, and tye is bringing the 5th grade industrial snark.

    Life isn’t fair.

    Irish84 (4a72e4)

  168. You would think that Alex Pareene, after mentioning Mark Singer’s initial bolsterings of Kimberlin in a New York Times editorial and a New Yorker article and subsequent mea culpas in his Citizen K collaboration, would approach Kimberlin with a healthy dose of skepticism if only for protection of his own reputation as a professional journalist. But it seems that Pareene doesn’t care about that — he only cares about his image as a dude ready to leap off the bench and be the designated enforcer vs. the right-wing bullies. So, in the end, he goes with the flow, and makes Kimberlin out to be the really, really, unfortunate victim of deadly circumstance. Brett’s just walked around for decades in the eye of a hurricane with dope smuggling, explosions, dead bodies, and deadly plots against his perceived enemies swirling around. People who got (or get) close to that storm somehow are making more out of his proximity than they should. They are the paranoid ones, Pareene implies, by drawing a favorable conclusion that doesn’t jibe with a mountain of evidence.

    It’s kind of the way the fictional FBI agent Clarice Starling, after being warned countless times about getting too close to Hannibal Lecter, ends up his compliant lover.

    BTW: I have an aversion to Salon dating back to the nineties, when it was a struggling start-up. Founder David Talbot et al, more than any other online entity, cheered on the Times‘ & Washington Post‘s attempt to shut down Free Republic — my onetime main online hangout — over fair use issues (they ended up settling; FR agreed to post links rather than entire articles).

    L.N. Smithee (ca91ed)

  169. Inaccuracies.

    JD (f4e1b6)

  170. ropelight, its not an accusation that I intend to make. Mostly because Kimberlin isn’t good enough to run that con as effectively as required to act like Kman.

    And to be honest, I wish I didn’t have to make these comments about Kman. He has in the past shown brief flashes of rational thought. I’m somewhat more irritated by his commentary given that I think he’s actually capable of rationality and find his descent into bizarre excuses for BK to be rooted in emotional antipathy to Aaron. Its beneath him in a way unlike most of our trolls, to his own discredit.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  171. Inaccuracies.

    My typo. Regardless, “tye” will just flit on to it’s next distraction.

    JD (f4e1b6)

  172. The abuse Michelle Malkin receives is sickening. It makes me wonder how the left would respond if it happened to one of their own.

    AZ Bob (7d2a2c)

  173. too true, AZ Bob… the Left is chock full of racism and misogyny. The MSM rarely notices.

    Colonel Haiku (b839cc)

  174. Can’t do it, just can’t. When the lefty a’holes minimize what happened to families, children included, I have to think of my blood pressure first and move on.

    sybilll (1eda89)

  175. colonel never thought
    they’d find bigger assh*le than
    Sidney Blumenthal

    Colonel Haiku (b839cc)

  176. anthony weiner?… who dat?

    Colonel Haiku (b839cc)

  177. I’ve been following what I consider Kimberlin’s psychopathic path to self destruction, and I believe it could be accelerated if-all of a sudden- he had zero audience, He is exhilarated by comments that excoriate him and is fed by outraged commentors.

    I suggest we stop commenting, and continue to privately support legal challenges against those who continue to spotlight him as the criminal he is…and I hope he’ll screw up enough to land himself in jail. Again. Where he belongs.

    liz953 (0a002a)

  178. I don’t see that ,he planted a series of bombs to indiscriminately maim and kill, he came up with the Quayle rumors out of whole cloth, it’s only later
    that followed any systematic pattern.

    narciso (ee31f1)

  179. I’ve been following what I consider Kimberlin’s psychopathic path to self destruction, and I believe it could be accelerated if-all of a sudden- he had zero audience, He is exhilarated by comments that excoriate him and is fed by outraged commentors.

    I suggest we stop commenting, and continue to privately support legal challenges against those who continue to spotlight him as the criminal he is…and I hope he’ll screw up enough to land himself in jail. Again. Where he belongs.

    Odd, up until the past year he seem to do quite well without the “exhilaration” of people commenting on him. Quite well indeed, with two non-profits bringing in millions of dollars and a lot of under-the-radar political activism.

    Nope, ignoring him has allowed him to avoid his duty to pay the million dollars he owes and build his lies into a career. That has to end.

    “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

    Irish84 (4a72e4)

  180. With all due respect to Liz, I agree with Irish.

    Kimberlin already lost. Kman’s pleas that we stop talking about him without an explanation that pleases Kman is a failure. Kimberlin is known as the man who set bombs and terrorized his internet critics with ridiculous abuse of the legal system. Maryland’s justice system owes its citizens some justice by prosecuting Kimberlin for perjury and false statements. These crimes are provable and serious.

    Dustin (330eed)

  181. Kman, the question should be “Why not?” What defense is it to say “The police pulled me over for speeding and there’s dozens of others speeding to. Why should I be the one to get a ticket?” “Because you are the one who got pulled over.”

    Because Kimberlin drew attention to himself and annoyed people with the ability and time to deal with him. Bad choice of victim selection, there, mosquito.

    Phillep Harding (1b8b26)

  182. These are not “good men”. These people are deliberatly lying, distorting the truth, and covering for a convicted felon so he can continue to SWAT people, which will probably lead to someone getting killed. These fcking “journalists” do not give a sh#t about the truth. They want these actions to continue and are running cover for the guy.

    This continuing “outrage” and exclamations to their “integrity as journalist” (or even integrity in general) are useless. These fckers wanna lie, they want us to fkcing die. They call us racists, say we hate gays, that we want endless war, that we hate immigrants and the poor. These people will commit evil acts against people like you because they believe their acts are justified.

    Mr. Pink (25b629)

  183. The abuse Michelle Malkin receives is sickening. It makes me wonder how the left would respond if it happened to one of their own.

    Comment by AZ Bob — 7/10/2012 @ 4:39 pm

    It should be noted that the Photoshopped image of Michelle Malkin outside a Japanese-American relocation camp (a reference to her post-9/11 bestseller In Defense of Internment) was a retroactive attempt to pretend that the purpose of the phony pic was satirical. In fact, earlier postings of Malkin’s head atop a partying college girl’s bikini-clad body was used to impugn her personal character.

    L.N. Smithee (d85846)

  184. And to be honest, I wish I didn’t have to make these comments about Kman. He has in the past shown brief flashes of rational thought. I’m somewhat more irritated by his commentary given that I think he’s actually capable of rationality and find his descent into bizarre excuses for BK to be rooted in emotional antipathy to Aaron.

    Might be fear. He was in Brynaert’s crosshairs at one point. Wouldn’t surprise me if all this spinning was to make sure Kimberlin knows Kman is on his side.

    Which is fine. But Kman has frittered away the credibility he built up by seemingly standing up to Brynaert. He can claim he’s being rational, but the only person — the ONLY person — he is willing to label a bully is anyone who criticizes Kimberlin.

    He claims that he is not supporting what Kimberlin does, but I don’t see any concern at ALL over Kimberlin’s absurd conduct. That all merits a “what’s the big deal” shrug.

    I could be wrong, but that’s my suspicion. It’s fear.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  185. I think you give Kman too much credit, based on his long standing “flexible yardstick” style with Aaron.

    Charity is a virtue, and I salute you for it.

    Simon Jester (bad28b)

  186. Kman,

    You don’t seem to agree with SEK’s analysis of Kimberlin, his associates, and their actions. Tell me why SEK is wrong.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  187. Patterico, well perhaps. I can’t evaluate that as I can not really comprehend that point of view. And it urges me to append another label upon Kman, and I’m trying to resist doing that.

    But I still think that it comes from some fountain of emotional bile that Kman feels entitled to vent at his political opponents.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  188. I could be wrong, but that’s my suspicion. It’s fear.

    He knows people are watching.

    Dana (292dcf)

  189. in for a penny, in for a pounding, Kman. Don’t fear teh Kimberlin. His days of abusing teh court system are numbered, he just doesn’t know it yet.

    Colonel Haiku (43f705)

  190. I can hear Brooks Bayne sobbing that Pareene scooped him.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  191. mamas don’t letcher babies grow up to be putins

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  192. Oh dear, Salon.com. You allowed yourself to become the Speedway Bomber’s mouthpiece.

    Chants (67ba16)

  193. Salon is desperate for page views. They’ll print anything at this point. Watch out for the OccupyRebellion sex tape any day now.

    crosspatch (6adcc9)

  194. Salon is unable to do damage control for itself.

    This post by Alex should be used for a guide for the novice on how to spot a supposed investigative piece actually written to debunk the need for an investigation.

    Sort of like a Ben Smith post over at Buzzfeed.

    jcw46 (f860a6)

  195. Gawker is where trolls go to write. Salon is where they go to be reborn.

    Jay Batman (2fb5e9)

  196. “Why Kimberlin Why Kimberlin Why Kimblerin?” – Kmart Why the hell not? He brought this on himself and thinks he’ll get away with this crap. The man crippled a Vietnam veteran and you’re trying to obfuscate this BS by trying to shift attention on other criminals out there in the world. Right now, Walker has injustice being done to him all because Kimberlin wanted to find out who Walker was and to expose him intentionally. Last of all, Kimberlin got the man fired from his job and threatened the safety of his life and family. Another thing is when Kimberlin filed many perjurious police reports against Walker, what is Walker supposed to do? Let Kimberlin keep filing them in hopes of sending Walker away for a long time?. If the guy keeps filing them abusing the justice system, where’s your statement on that? You’re going to continue approving Kimberlin’s actions?

    How despicable are you Kmart? Oh right, you’re on the internet trying to use “logic” aka shifting attention in order to help out Kimberlin.

    Kaitian (20f354)

  197. You know what is really ironic for Salon.com?

    It has embraced a man even DU has disowned:

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=729862

    Chants (67ba16)

  198. How despicable are you Kmart?

    Pretty damn despicable but not as despicable as Kimberlin. Now, how would that look on your resume?

    ropelight (f53e5b)

  199. Patterico:

    He was in Brynaert’s crosshairs at one point… Kman has frittered away the credibility he built up by seemingly standing up to Brynaert… I could be wrong, but that’s my suspicion. It’s fear.

    Wow. Lot of armchair psychoanalysis going on.

    No, it’s not fear.

    You people use words of combat and confrontation (“crosshairs”, “standing up to Brynaert”, etc.) as if this is actually some kind of combat.

    I commented here to defend the Pareene piece, because I think it reflects how most people (i.e., outside of the Kimberlin cabal and the larger Walker-Patterico-McCain cabal) feel — that this is by-and-large a silly fight with no point to it.

    That’s why I (as well as my employers) were able to laugh off Brynaert when he tried to get me fired. When you explain the back story to anyone, as Pareene does, you just see a bunch of people picking fights and denouncing largely-inflated enemies, each one with the rallying cry “They must be stopped!”

    My humble suggestion is that everybody stop. Because nobody wins this in the long run. Aaron will continue, as he should, to blog about whatever the hell he wants. Kimberlin will continue, as he should, to raise money for his non-profits.

    The only winners are the lawyers, really.

    Kman (5576bf)

  200. Why do you care what people you dislike do with their time, Kimberlin’s-Man?

    Rob Crawford (6c262f)

  201. Why do you care what people you dislike do with their time, Kimberlin’s-Man?

    Rob Crawford (6c262f)

  202. I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that kmart continues to be a mouthpiece for the Kimberlin gang of thugs. The idea that the article in question accurately explained the backstory to this is beyond laughable.

    JD (318f81)

  203. My humble suggestion is that everybody stop.

    Stop defending yourself, wingnuts! You’ll only bring yourselves more trouble!

    Here’s an idea, Kimberlin’s-Man — you stop first.

    Rob Crawford (6c262f)

  204. I don’t see that ,he planted a series of bombs to indiscriminately maim and kill, he came up with the Quayle rumors out of whole cloth, it’s only later
    that followed any systematic pattern.

    Thing is, we don’t know whether Kimberlin’s motivation for running a drug-smuggling ring was pure profit or ideological. Lots of violent lefties turned to crime to fund their political actions in the ’70s. I submit it’s quite possible he’s ALWAYS seen himself as “fighting the fascists”; that his motivations have ALWAYS been political.

    That also explains why he so quickly escalated to bombs — he was already thinking in that direction, just hadn’t gotten there yet.

    Rob Crawford (6c262f)

  205. My humble suggestion is that everybody stop.

    No. Kimberlin deserves the scrutiny. Afterall, he opened up this can of whoopass.

    Kaitian (201d39)

  206. Kimberlin deserves the scrutiny. Afterall, he opened up this can of whoopass.

    By doing what, exactly? Being a fundraiser for leftist causes? For being a friend of Brad Friedman? Why is the right so worked up about him?

    Kman (5576bf)

  207. “I submit it’s quite possible he’s ALWAYS seen himself as “fighting the fascists”; that his motivations have ALWAYS been political.

    Comment by Rob Crawford — 7/11/2012 @ 7:42 am ”

    Maybe, but it’s not the sense I get. If the Speedway bombings were a distraction from the Schuyler murder as police suspect there’s nothing to show he is inherently political. It seems likely to me that he discovered how easy it is to manipulate a living out of leftist politics, and is determined to keep that living since his past ensures so few other options. That also explains the link between him and Rauhauser, another life failure who has found a way to scratch out a living in leftist politics.

    This is partly why the left’s actions, and inactions, are so inexplicable.

    Marshal (999f06)

  208. Kimberlin, discovered what Lenin figured out from the failure of Social Revolutionaries, and the People’s Will, that ‘direct action’ uncoupled from propaganda and deception, will not tear down the system, hence they attack the servicemen, as well as the policy, undermine the enforcement of the law, delegitimate those who would uphold the law,

    narciso (ee31f1)

  209. Kman? “Everyone stop” because no one is going to win? No, this is mostly about minimizing future losses. Let him get away with using restraining orders and peace orders against those who displease him would make him the tyrant of the internet. That’s not going to fly.

    Kimberlin began a war he could not win, and is complaining about people defending themselves. He proclaims “innocence” in the moral sense after having committed wrongs (not identical with “crimes”) and continues to commit wrongs by not making restitution to those he damaged. He has a problem with people tracking that down and using it against him.

    Well, boo hoo. He should not throw what he cannot catch.

    Phillep Harding (1b8b26)

  210. By doing what, exactly? Being a fundraiser for leftist causes? For being a friend of Brad Friedman? Why is the right so worked up about him?

    Did you even read my post above mine? I’m going to take a guess and say no, you didn’t bother like you don’t read any of the posters here. You just attack and deflect.

    Kaitian (816f1d)

  211. KMan reminds me of something I read recently:

    http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2012/07/09/the-little-blue-book-quotations-from-chairman-lakoff/

    Pious Agnostic (7c3d5b)

  212. By doing what, exactly? Being a fundraiser for leftist causes? For being a friend of Brad Friedman? Why is the right so worked up about him?

    You’ve gone from being oblique to being willfully blind.

    Kimberlin planted bombs, terrorizing a US city and resulting in maiming a person (who later committed suicide because of his injuries). Kimberlin has shown no remorse for his acts; in fact, he defiantly proclaims his innocence despite the evidence against him. Kimberlin now is raising money from left-wing organizations to support left-wing political causes. Also, Kimberlin has used the courts to harass anyone who writes about him.

    Not so very long ago, Rush Limbaugh called a woman a slut. Even though he apologized for it, every left-wing outlet screamed for his sponsors to drop him. Coverage was thick and in any number of national media outlets. I didn’t see you questioning those who called for his head at the time.

    Even you would admit that calling someone a slut is not nearly as bad as planting bombs, right? So the real question is: why isn’t everyone worked up about Kimberlin?

    Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd)

  213. Being a fundraiser for leftist causes?

    Only an idiot thinks failed scams like Karl Rove murdering people and Dan Quayle buying drugs are legitimate leftist causes. They are scams. It’s more honest to say he is a fundraiser FROM leftist causes. Those dollars probably would have wound up in the pockets of actual democrat campaigns or PACs otherwise, but instead, conservatives were polarized by smears and made fun of chemtrail fearing truthers. This is as helpful to the left as birthers and FEMA camp theorists are to the right.

    But thanks again for expressing Kimberlin’s version of things, where opposition to a violent terrorist and fighter against free speech = a fight against ‘everything the left holds dear’.

    If anything, this fiasco has made me far, far less partisan. I care less about most policy issues because I have a newfound sense of perspective. Anyone who is OK with free speech and not OK with thuggery (which includes most democrats, of course) is pretty much OK with me. I care only about balancing the budget and the basic human rights that Kman mocks our defense of.

    Dustin (73fead)

  214. And a prevailing theory about Weinergate, one I’m not sure about but fund plausible, is a protection racket.

    Create a problem. Sell the solution. If this is the case, Weiner, while slimy, was also a victim and Dan Wolfe’s bizarre motivation incoherence actually makes a lot of sense. Seek out scandals, create a false narrative tying them to political boogeymen, set up both sides, and sell a solution.

    Just a thought. Perhaps this theory is incorrect, but if it’s true, we need to be mindful of supposed friends who actually seek to cultivate trust in order to inject confusion with their certainty about things that no one is honesty certain about.

    Dustin (73fead)

  215. Pardon my typos.

    Dustin (73fead)

  216. And just to be clear, obviously Weiner did indeed tweet that picture. I do not find it remotely plausible that he was ‘set up’ as far as that goes. But that doesn’t mean he didn’t show a vulnerability.

    Dustin (73fead)

  217. “I do not find it remotely plausible that he was ‘set up’ as far as that goes. ”

    Just curious, but do you mean he was asked to send a dick-pick? If this were the case, don’t you think he would say so when the matter reached the point of “retire or get cut out of the Democratic Party”?

    Marshal (999f06)

  218. “Aaron will continue, as he should, to blog about whatever the hell he wants.”

    Kman – Here again you ignore the timeline of events.

    Kimberlin sued to silence Seth from writing about him.

    He made legal and verbal threats to Patterico and harassed him at his workplace after a piece was published about Kimberlin on this blog in 2010.

    In 2011 Aaron offered some help to Seth with Kimberlin and Kimberlin immediately began harassing Aaron.

    When did Aaron publish his first piece about Kimberlin?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  219. Just curious, but do you mean he was asked to send a dick-pick

    No. I simply mean that he sent that pic and wasn’t hacked. That’s his fault.

    If this were the case, don’t you think he would say so when the matter reached the point of “retire or get cut out of the Democratic Party”?

    I don’t see what good that would do him. He was incredibly reckless and caught lying about being hacked as Mike Stack was targeted for smears and harassment on the basis of the hacked lie. I’m sure that at some point the various women Weiner was contacting did reciprocate or ask for pictures, and I don’t see what difference it makes.

    I’m not saying you’re wrong that someone tried to draw out reckless behavior. But it does seem his behavior was pretty reckless on its own.

    And this theory could be wrong.

    As far as I’m concerned, and I think as far as most reasonable people are concerned, Weiner sending a pic to a woman is not nearly as big a deal as Weiner lying he was hacked. If someone advised him to do this, they kinda trapped Weiner, didn’t they?

    I realize there’s the additional aspect of the fake minors and how that cost Weiner a lot of support. I don’t want to speculate much on the motivation there beyond noting that whoever did that obviously didn’t care much about helping Weiner, yet they also seemed to have a motivation against Breitbart. So perhaps it’s someone who cynically exploits liberals for money and also hates Breitbart.

    Dustin (73fead)

  220. Not so very long ago, Rush Limbaugh called a woman a slut… Even you would admit that calling someone a slut is not nearly as bad as planting bombs, right? So the real question is: why isn’t everyone worked up about Kimberlin?

    You still haven’t answered the question why all the kerfuffle.

    (1) Limbaugh is a national celebrity. Kimberlin is a nobody. Even after all the rightwing hype, he’s still a nobody.

    (2) In this country, we have this thing called the criminal justice system. And Kimberlin had his day in court, lost, and served time. That’s how it works. You act like he’s the only criminal that ever existed.

    He made legal and verbal threats to Patterico and harassed him at his workplace after a piece was published about Kimberlin on this blog in 2010.

    Guess what? In this country, Patterico and Walker can write about whatever they want… and that’s not illegal. And ALSO in this country, Kimberlin can respond my making use of the legal system to address his grievances. No, I join you in thinking his cases are weak, but guess what? One side always has the weaker case. But whining about how he uses the legal system is ridiculous. Using the legal system isn’t illegal either (and, I submit, infinitely preferable to bombs).

    Everybody (on both sides) is exercising their rights. And both sides need to recognize that. (They won’t, of course, because both sides are too entrenched in this war over nothing. But they should.)

    Kman (5576bf)

  221. “Everybody (on both sides) is exercising their rights. And both sides need to recognize that. (They won’t, of course, because both sides are too entrenched in this war over nothing. But they should.)”

    Kman – So under your above theory having Kimberlin declared a vexatious litigant, prosecuted for filing false sworn court documents or making perjurious testimony in court is a legitimate goal.

    Thank you finally for that admission.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  222. Kman – Also, when did Aaron write his first piece about Kimberlin?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  223. I don’t see Kimberlin’s behavior as legit. As Daley notes, he was committing perjury. That’s proven. He was making false claims.

    Also, Aaron and Patterico are among the victims of swattings, which is essentially attempted murder. This is not a legitimate goal, Kman.

    Dustin (73fead)

  224. Also, when did Aaron write his first piece about Kimberlin?

    Relevance?

    Kman (5576bf)

  225. “Relevance?”

    Kman – That now depends whether you are going to pursue your “they are both at fault” theory or they are both pursuing their rights explanation. Either way, though, you ignore the actual timeline of events.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  226. Either way, though, you ignore the actual timeline of events.

    You seem to be assuming that Walker’s active interest in Kimberlin began with a blog post. I think you’re (conveniently) ignoring actual events.

    Kman (5576bf)

  227. Deflecting as usual.

    Kaitian (32cfdc)

  228. Yeah, it’s like he’s upset about the silliest things, such as some blogger he claims is not significant talking about a very serious criminal, and not concerned much with the actual interesting and concerning aspects.

    Like he’s intentionally deflecting.

    Dustin (73fead)

  229. By doing what, exactly? Being a fundraiser for leftist causes? For being a friend of Brad Friedman? Why is the right so worked up about him?

    Comment by Kman — 7/11/2012 @ 8:16 am

    A repost, since you obvious aren’t following the thread:

    By filing bogus peace orders in order to shut bloggers up he became the unwitting victim of the Streisand Effect. If he had just kept his litigious mouth shut, he could have stayed relatively anonymous, but now he is the bete noire of bloggers. So the question rightly gets asked. “Why has he not even attempted to pay her the money he owes?”

    He has NOT fulfilled his debt to society, and no matter how many times you protest it was “in the past”, his active avoidance in paying DeLong the money he owe her makes him a rightful target of scorn.

    Irish84 (4a72e4)

  230. Kmart won’t even acknowledge that BK is unrepentant.

    JD (f4e1b6)

  231. He has NOT fulfilled his debt to society, and no matter how many times you protest it was “in the past”, his active avoidance in paying DeLong the money he owe her makes him a rightful target of scorn.

    DeLong=”society”?

    You know, if you’re all concerned about Mrs. DeLong, why aren’t rightwing bloggers starting a fundraiser for HER so SHE can get LAWYERS, instead of trying to raise money for lawyers for themselves?

    Anyway, as I said before, lots of people are owed money. Lots of people go to court, too. It doesn’t explain — not even close — the obsession with Kimberlin.

    If he had just kept his litigious mouth shut, he could have stayed relatively anonymous, but now he is the bete noire of bloggers.

    So it’s blogswarm vs lawfare. Anyone on the high road?

    Kman (5576bf)

  232. Bath salts.

    Dustin (73fead)

  233. Just shut up. Typical leftist response.

    JD (f4e1b6)

  234. So it’s blogswarm vs lawfare. Anyone on the high road?Comment by Kman — 7/11/2012 @ 12:39 pm

    – Mr. Kimberlin, your apolobitch is here.

    Icy (642c3c)

  235. What if this decision were applied to the blogs wher Kinberlin and co. made threats? http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/jul/10/s-r-must-provide-info-anonymous-commenter/

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  236. DeLong=”society”?

    YES. Are you really that stupid?

    You know, if you’re all concerned about Mrs. DeLong, why aren’t rightwing bloggers starting a fundraiser for HER so SHE can get LAWYERS, instead of trying to raise money for lawyers for themselves?

    Because SHE ALREADY DID THAT. And won.

    Anyway, as I said before, lots of people are owed money. Lots of people go to court, too. It doesn’t explain — not even close — the obsession with Kimberlin.

    And posted for the third time:

    By filing bogus peace orders in order to shut bloggers up he became the unwitting victim of the Streisand Effect. If he had just kept his litigious mouth shut, he could have stayed relatively anonymous, but now he is the bete noire of bloggers. So the question rightly gets asked. “Why has he not even attempted to pay her the money he owes?”

    You’re too good at playing dumb. I’m suspecting a genetic advantage.

    Irish84 (4a72e4)

  237. “I think you’re (conveniently) ignoring actual events.”

    Kman – Which ones and relevance?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  238. So it’s blogswarm vs lawfare. Anyone on the high road?

    So in your world posting the truth = filing bogus peace orders.

    Figures.

    Irish84 (4a72e4)

  239. It is nothing short of insane to put the onus on bloggers like Aaron and Patterico to pay the Delong family for the horrible suffering Kimberlin’s bombs caused them. Simultaneously, Kman is not concerned with Kimberlin’s refusal to pay this family despite his setting the bombs and being held liable in our court system. Kman should respect the rulings of our courts more than he appears to as he places the actual responsible party’s burden on that party’s critics in a bizarre yet all-too-familiar game of projection.

    He’s also projecting when he claims Kimberlin’s critics are ignoring actual events. The Swattings are a great example of actual events. Kimberlin committing perjury and setting bombs are examples of actual events.

    Kman asks who is on the high road, the people blogging peacefully, or the person engaged in lawfare? This is not a difficult question. It says more about the person asking it than anything else.

    Bath salts?

    Dustin (73fead)

  240. You act like he’s the only criminal that ever existed.

    Oh, for Pete’s sake! Did you not read the part where Kimberlin was getting money from donors to support his causes? How many criminals are doing that?

    Your credibility is now completely shot.

    Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd)

  241. Who acts like Kimberlin is the only criminal who ever existed? I’m pretty sure Patterico, for example, spends far, far, far more time dealing with other criminals, such as gangs who commit murder.

    However, what business is it of Kman if Aaron wishes to focus on the person who committed perjury and false statements in order to greatly harm Aaron? Isn’t this a totally irrational complaint?

    Kman has a bizarre obsession with telling Kimberlin critics why they shouldn’t talk about Kimberlin.

    Dustin (73fead)

  242. Kimberlin is a nobody. Even after all the rightwing hype, he’s still a nobody

    for a nobody he was a national figure for setting off a stream of bombs and accusing a Vice President of buying drugs from him

    Using the legal system isn’t illegal either (and, I submit, infinitely preferable to bombs).

    You avail yourself of the legal system, its for the redress of grievances not for intimidation

    EricPWJohnson (d84fb0)

  243. 212. Comment by Dustin — 7/11/2012 @ 8:57 am

    And a prevailing theory about Weinergate, one I’m not sure about but fund plausible, is a protection racket.

    Create a problem. Sell the solution.

    That’s a prevailing theory??!!

    That’s a totally new theory to me!

    How would that work? What problem exactly would they create? How would they get Weiner to hire them?

    That sounds like more disinformation. Where did
    that theory come from?

    Of course at leasst this is attempting to explain why the secrecy and the lies about the socks. But there’s got to be something more to that.

    Now I do have a theory that maybe Weiner in fact hired them (to explain or explain away the tweet)

    But that would have been because his connections led there, and it would not have been any part of the original plot.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  244. If this is the case, Weiner, while slimy, was also a victim and Dan Wolfe’s bizarre motivation incoherence actually makes a lot of sense. Seek out scandals, create a false narrative tying them to political boogeymen, set up both sides, and sell a solution.

    I don;t see that.

    What I do see as a possibility is

    1) Start out with little known or inside information about Weiner

    2) Spy or watch Weiner.

    3) Try to break up any relationships he has that have a presence on Twitter.

    4) In the meantime befriend (using other people and other identities) the female friends – hopefully to be soon ex-friends – of Weiner.

    5) Obtain damaging information.

    6) Leverage that information in some way to kill or severely damage his political career.

    7) Keep themselves out of the picture as much as possible. (because they are wirking for somebody else)

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  245. Sammy, I meant prevailing to me personally. I don’t follow the general topic out there and don’t know what theories others are subscribing to.

    That sounds like more disinformation. Where did
    that theory come from?

    It came from me, so I don’t appreciate the claim it’s disinformation. It is simply musing.

    What problem exactly would they create? How would they get Weiner to hire them?

    Apparently anyone paying a great deal of attention to democrat politicians and twitter would quickly realize he had a particular vulnerability if any lapses in discretion were advertised. And Weiner did hire investigators to help him resolve this hacking theory. I assume that was crisis management. I also guess they were trying to figure out who was behind Dan Wolfe and the various other socks, such as the girls that fooled / were bolstered by Tommy Christopher. Rauhauser is sometimes billed as a ‘fixer extraordinare’.

    The problem I’m attempting to resolve is why the Dan Wolfe persona harmed Weiner and tried to pin it on Breitbart.

    Dustin (73fead)

  246. What I do see as a possibility is

    1) Start out with little known or inside information about Weiner

    2) Spy or watch Weiner.

    3) Try to break up any relationships he has that have a presence on Twitter.

    4) In the meantime befriend (using other people and other identities) the female friends – hopefully to be soon ex-friends – of Weiner.

    5) Obtain damaging information.

    6) Leverage that information in some way to kill or severely damage his political career.

    7) Keep themselves out of the picture as much as possible. (because they are wirking for somebody else)

    This is exactly what happened. It’s hardly a “possibility”. Other than #1, which still seems pretty likely, all of this is obviously how Dan was behaving.

    Yet I think there’s more to it.

    Dustin (73fead)

  247. But it’s just a theory I find plausible, Sammy. I think it’s worth considering until it’s contradicted.

    I’d love to have a frank and off the record conversation with Weiner about it, but that’s not going to happen.

    Dustin (73fead)

  248. Just a thought. Perhaps this theory is incorrect, but if it’s true, we need to be mindful of supposed friends who actually seek to cultivate trust in order to inject confusion with their certainty about things that no one is honesty certain about.

    Well, this story definitely has a number of false friends and allies. Besides the original false friends (mainly socks Nikki Reid and Dan White) who had probably this goal in common: to have somebody else come forward as the origin of a story.

    But more recently, we have had:

    1. Ron Brynaert.

    2. Qritiq

    3. Brooks Bayne (The Trenches)

    and probably Jay Batman. I mean we should all look forward to Neal Rauhauser being arrested in Nebraska and then he will somehow be pressured into revealing all? And I didn’t like the swipes at Rush Limbaugh on his satirical site. He even wrote:

    When Rush had back problems due to his enormous potbelly, he asked women in his own insurance pool to share the cost of fixing his back and his subsequent addiction to painkillers, not to mention his rehabilitation.

    That part could be due to ignorance. Rush Limbaugh doesn’t have any health insurance and (per the Heritage Foundation) he thinks the fundamental problem is insurance itself or too much insurance. Only 12% of medical costs are paid for out of pocket, or out of a fixed budget. That’s ignorance, but some of this is too malicious. There’s just too much of it. Like he has to give “liberals” something. But actually the jury is still out on him.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  249. re: prevailing.

    Comment by Dustin — 7/11/2012 @ 1:49 pm

    245. Sammy, I meant prevailing to me personally. I don’t follow the general topic out there and don’t know what theories others are subscribing to.

    Prevailing is the wrong word here if you mean, prevailing in your own mind.

    The way you said “prevailing” it sounded like somebody had written you that aong a group of people this was their favorite theory.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prevailing

    These adjectives denote what exists or is encountered generally at a particular time. Prevailing applies to what is most frequent or common at a certain time or in a certain place: took a poll to find the prevailing opinion.

    Well, you know this is obviously not the prevailing opinion. This is the first I ever heard of it!

    Is this theory original with you? The way you said it it sounded like the opposite!

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  250. re: prevailing.

    Comment by Dustin — 7/11/2012 @ 1:49 pm

    245. Sammy, I meant prevailing to me personally. I don’t follow the general topic out there and don’t know what theories others are subscribing to.

    Prevailing is the wrong word here if you mean, prevailing in your own mind.

    The way you said “prevailing” it sounded like somebody had written you that aong a group of people this was their favorite theory.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prevailing

    These adjectives denote what exists or is encountered generally at a particular time. Prevailing applies to what is most frequent or common at a certain time or in a certain place: took a poll to find the prevailing opinion.

    Well, you know this is obviously not the prevailing opinion. This is the first I ever heard of it!

    Is this theory original with you? The way you said it it sounded like the opposite!

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  251. Also I think false friends have also separated a number of people who should be friends.

    Socrates/Seth/Prepostericity now thinks Patterico is a fraud and/or conspiring against him.

    Mike Stack thinks – I am not sure what he thinks but he also no longer on friendly terms. He was convinced that Liberty Chick was working with Neal. Now that takes some careful lying!

    And there are some more alienated people I probably don’t understand.

    Apparently Zapem is another honest person who’s been roped in.

    Lee Stranahan for a little while was on bad terms
    with Patterico.

    Somebody’s good at this sort of stuff, making people suspicious of each other..

    I should say making people suspicious of the wrong people.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  252. I’m not intending this as an attack on Jay, but I I don’t understand his Brett Warren views. I didn’t hear the call Brett and Jay shared, but it must not have sounded like the Brett in the video Jay referenced, right?

    Prevailing is the wrong word here if you mean, prevailing in your own mind.

    The way you said “prevailing” it sounded like somebody had written you that aong a group of people this was their favorite theory.

    Yeah, I see what you mean.

    Dustin (73fead)

  253. And I’d rather not describe every theory that is discussed in private. I’ll take ownership of that theory if it’s important.

    Dustin (73fead)

  254. Sammy,the only place I would break with any of your points is this :

    7) Keep themselves out of the picture as much as possible. (because they are wirking for somebody else)

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 7/11/2012 @ 1:47 pm

    That’s because it old have been easy to slip silently into obscurity, and any discreet professional “working for somebody else ” oppo researcher/fixer would have done so.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  255. Instead, they wouldn’t go away, despite being rather obvious socks/frauds.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  256. Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 7/11/2012 @ 1:47 pm

    “7) Keep themselves out of the picture as much as possible. (because they are working for somebody else)”

    Comment by Sarahw — 7/11/2012 @ 2:30 pm

    That’s because it would have been easy to slip silently into obscurity, and any discreet professional “working for somebody else ” oppo researcher/fixer would have done so.

    Instead, they wouldn’t go away, despite being rather obvious socks/frauds.

    It wass almost like a desperate attempt to prevent people from realizing they were socks. It was obvious but it held a bit till the story became a bit old. They didn’t want people to know what the story behind it was.

    What they did is invent a lot of different stories about the way they might have been socks.

    One thing they wantesd nobody to explore was the Weiner Genette relationship. The reaason was not because there was a lot to it but because there was not. Weiner had not deliberately tweeted that to her and she was not online at the time. Then the question becomes how that happened and how wa sthat able to be exploited

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  257. Then the question becomes how that happened and how was that able to be exploited

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman

    Well, I think Weiner did deliberately tweet that. If not to her, than he intended it to go to another woman. Of course he intended this to occur privately. The simplest explanation is that this was simply dumb luck for Dan Wolfe. Amid whatever investigation or scheme he was undertaking, Weiner happened to make a reckless mistake that was quickly capitalized on.

    That’s Weiner’s fault, of course.

    The reaason was not because there was a lot to it but because there was not.

    I tend to think so. Or perhaps it was a diversion to throw her name in there, hoping people focusing on this aspect do not focus on something else.

    There are too many threads to follow and I doubt I’ll ever understand what was going on.

    Dustin (73fead)

  258. BTW folks,

    Kimberlin is not a psychopath. Don’t give him that much credit. A psychopath is in less control of their behavior than a sociopath; which is what I believe Kimberlin is.

    What is typical behavior of the sociopath? Anti-social behavior. They are in complete control of that behavior, and if they are in the mental health system; which many are, they will use their behavior quirks to their advantage at the extreme expense of those who can’t figure out what’s going on.

    Sociopath:

    It’s to never take responsibility for your own behavior, but pass the blame onto others. It’s to use intimidation to get things you already know you are not entitled to.

    Sociopaths are generally wimps who like to stir the pot, but don’t like sticking around for the fight. They use others for that purpose. They’re highly manipulative and narcissistic.

    Anyone see how that might describe Kimberlin?

    Brandon (d777af)

  259. Brandon, depending on the source, the reverse is ttrue, with the sociopath being rash and disorganized, and the psychopath distinguished by greater organization. But the terms are not precise, usage overlaps, and there is debate about whether ther is any true distinction as the terms are used interchangeably at times.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  260. You know, if you’re all concerned about Mrs. DeLong, why aren’t rightwing bloggers starting a fundraiser for HER …

    That line really does illustrate the bizarre faux logic of Kman. If we really cared, we’d pay Brett Kimberlin’s debts for him.

    Bizarre in the extreme. I think that’s Kman in a nutshell.

    SPQR (e534d0)

  261. 252. Comment by Dustin — 7/11/2012 @ 2:27 pm

    I’m not intending this as an attack on Jay, but I I don’t understand his Brett Warren views.

    That was the thing I forgot! This was even worse than him saying was everything would end happily after Neal would be arrested in Nebraska for not paying child support. What kind of law school did he attend? He was confidently predicting pressure would be put on Neal and they’d drop the child support charges I guess in return for information about the …the SWATtings and whatever.

    And his attacks on Mike Stack – possibly sincere, but he ought to have more sense and compassion.

    I didn’t hear the call Brett and Jay shared, but it must not have sounded like the Brett in the video Jay referenced, right?

    Jay referenced something from Mandy Nagy (Liberty Chick) that she put on Facebook and I don’t know what that is. I thought that’s the Erick Erickson SWAT call. Is there some other video that’s definitely Brett Warren?

    I listened to the 2012 SWATting call to EE. He talks much faster than the July 1, 2011 one. I didn’t listen again to the two 2011 SWATtings, but it is not obvious that they are the same person, although a little bit of the same technique is used. Do we have any kind of technical voice comparison like there is between Ron Brynaert and the 2011 calls (and I think the 2012 radio call that purported to be from the 403 Area code.

    We know what Brett Warren sounds like?

    Sammy Finkelman (210073)

  262. Of course the SWATtings could all have come from Ron Brynaert, and what Jay said about the voice matching a call he got from Brett warren could still be possible if Ron Brynaert had impersonated Brett Warren to Jay, but does RB have a record of doing things like that?

    Sammy Finkelman (210073)

  263. SF: Prevailing is the wrong word here if you mean, prevailing in your own mind.

    SF:The way you said “prevailing” it sounded like somebody had written you that among a group of people this was their favorite theory.

    252. 253. Comment by Dustin — 7/11/2012 @ 2:27 pm
    and 2:28 pm

    Yeah, I see what you mean.

    And I’d rather not describe every theory that is discussed in private. I’ll take ownership of that theory if it’s important.

    No, no, no, no. You shouldn’t if it is not yours. Where is originated is precisely what might be important and only the truth is of value.

    This gets me back to the idea that theory is disinformation by whoever originated it.

    Especially if there is the idea it’s a prevailing theory among some group of people.

    Now I asked what is this theory:

    SF: What problem exactly would they create? How would they get Weiner to hire them?

    Apparently anyone paying a great deal of attention to democrat politicians and twitter

    No, this wouldn’t be too obvious on Twitter. You might have not widely known information from 2009,when Weiner may have been blackmailed into dropping is run for mayor, but there wss nothing to notice on Twitter till “Dan Wolfe” started pointing out whom he was following (it included a porn star for instance)

    would quickly realize he had a particular vulnerability if any lapses in discretion were advertised.

    This is too much on spec.

    And Weiner did hire investigators to help him resolve this hacking theory.

    Only after the tweet.

    I assume that was crisis management. I also guess they were trying to figure out who was behind Dan Wolfe and the various other socks, such as the girls that fooled / were bolstered by Tommy Christopher. Rauhauser is sometimes billed as a ‘fixer extraordinare’.

    Here’s the thing: Weiner might very well have hired the people who did this. They couldn’t turn him down that would reveal too much. But getting hored couldn’t have been the goal in the first place.

    Sammy Finkelman (08bb6f)

  264. sarahw

    But the terms are not precise, usage overlaps, and there is debate about whether ther is any true distinction as the terms are used interchangeably at times.

    While it’s true that the terms are used interchangeably, they are so due to a failure to distinguish the differences. And while there may be much debate, there can be no debate regarding the original meanings of these two terms.

    Sociopaths are said to have anti-social disorders; which means precisely what I described. They don’t have an illness per se, but a personality flaw.

    Psychopaths – generally speaking are psychotic. You could ideally give them medication and they will be less psychotic and thus less psychopathological.

    Not so with the sociopath. A medication is not going to help other than with peripheral symptoms, which are not going to change their operant behavior reinforced by secondary gains.

    I’ve worked with both. Sociopaths are operators (operant behavior), while psychopaths are responders (respondent behavior). There’s a difference.

    Brett Kimberlin does what he does not because he’s unaware of the wrongness of it all, but because there is a secondary gain in doing so. I believe for him the secondary gain might be exoneration; but I’m not certain. It could be just that he’s a control freak.

    Brandon (d777af)

  265. sarahw,

    Of course not everybody fits into these tight categories, which can account for some of the debate, but I think Kimberlin’s behavior fits the bill of a sociopath pretty tightly.

    Brandon (d777af)

  266. Comment by Dustin — 7/11/2012 @ 1:49 pm

    The problem I’m attempting to resolve is why the Dan Wolfe persona harmed Weiner and tried to pin it on Breitbart.

    He harmed weiner because he wanted to get him out of politics or severely damage his future political prospects and he wanted to pin it all on Breitbart (in a way that might hurt Breitbart’s reputation among some people) because “Dan Wolfe” was NOT a very conservative crying eagle Reagan Republican.

    So what kind of Democrat would want to harm Weiner politically?

    One possibility is somebody who wanted somebody else in particular to be Mayor of New York but it may not be the only one.

    Sammy Finkelman (08bb6f)

  267. Comment by Sarahw — 7/11/2012 @ 2:32 pm

    Instead, they wouldn’t go away, despite being rather obvious socks/frauds.

    Dan Wolfe tried to go away (and did)

    Gennette Nicole Cordova and the bornfreecrew thought Nikki Reid was a sock. This wsas not an impression the socks wanted to leve because then somebody might try to figure out who they were and what was going on, Now they also didnt want to call attention to themselves so they looked for someone who would get only slightly more attention than the people who were saying they were socks. That was Tommy Christopher.

    The fraud was exposed, though, and that got into the New York Times on June 17, 2011.

    After that we had a lot of things. Some of it was tstill that they were not socks. Some of it was anti-Genette. A lot of phony documents were sent to Patterico designed maybe to prove two or three alternative theories: 1) That they were genuine people. 2) That they were socks but Weiner knew it. 3) That Weiner not only knew it but was running them. I would really have to review all this.

    Sammy Finkelman (08bb6f)

  268. The whole thing was clumsy, and obvious, and stupid, and the bogus statement unnecessary altogether.

    This is not the work of oppo researchers good at their job.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  269. Comment by Dustin — 7/11/2012 @ 4:56 pm

    Well, I think Weiner did deliberately tweet that. If not to her, than he intended it to go to another woman. Of course he intended this to occur privately.

    I don’t think there’s any way to make that make sense Weiner didn’t intend to tweet it to her, nor to another woman (how does her name get on it? Nor did he intend to send it privately.

    We’ve probably all had computers do things that we never ecxpected snd didn’t tell them to do (but it wasn’t a virus)

    Something like that may have happened to Weiner.

    There was an explanation offered as to how it could have been made to seem like it came from Weiner even though he didn’t send it – that has some holes in it – that does make sense if we assume Weiner himself sent it without knowing it.

    It seems like if you were not logged into your Yfrog account – which would mean you accessed it from a computer you didn’t normally use for that purpose – and uploaded a *.JPG to Yfrog, Yfrog then emitted a tweet with the name of the person connected to the Yfrog account as the sender of the tweet.

    The only problem is the tweet would consist of a URL and nothing more. But perhaps if there was some attempt to label it, and there was still enough room in the 140 characters to include the label and the URL, that went too.

    Sammy Finkelman (e66385)

  270. That night Weiner’s Tivo didn’t act as expected, either.

    I think he associated his Yfrog account (which he didn’t know the name of with Facebook, and that night he genuinely thought it had been hacked.

    The simplest explanation is that this was simply dumb luck for Dan Wolfe.

    It doesn’t look like this was part of Dan Wolfe;s long term plan. He wasn’t working toward something like that. Wolfe wanted Breitbart to publish the pictures supplied by Meagan Broussard.

    And he also probably didn’t think one thing would be enough to topple Weiner. He probably thought circulating the tweet would make things just a little bit easier for him.

    Amid whatever investigation or scheme he was undertaking, Weiner happened to make a reckless mistake that was quickly capitalized on.

    What he did was tell an implausible story – or three, or six. He couldn’t decide whether to say that was a picture he took, or not. Some people were ready to believe the picture had nothing to do with him, but he didn’t say that. He didn’t say it was his, either. People would give him a pass if he would say it was a picture he had taken a year or two before. He didn’t say that. And he didn’t say the opposite. He wanted an investigation, but no examination of his computer. He looked like a terrible liar and then “dan Wolfe” and others were saying things that made him look like an even more obvious liar. They said he immediately deleted it.

    That’s Weiner’s fault, of course.

    I’s what he did after the tweet – and the truth is, taking that picture and planning to send it somewhere – or thinking about sending it – was.

    SF: The reason [for telling Patterico not to investigate the weiner-Genette relationship] was not because there was a lot to it but because there was not.

    I tend to think so. Or perhaps it was a diversion to throw her name in there, hoping people focusing on this aspect do not focus on something else.

    I think hey didn’t want it because

    1) They didn’t want Patterico and others to think she was telling the truth – about determining Nikki Reid was a sock and bout there being nothing that being nothing going on – no DMs and no lose relationship – that would have led up to weiner sending that to her.

    Weiner later on said this was part of a joke. This maybe was the joke: Genette had previously, I think, complained to Weiner about his avatar, which was him at age 13 – that was his latest avatar. His idea may have been that when and if she said it again…he’d send that link as his proposed replacement (in a DM). To do that quickly, he had to prepare in advance – position the picture in place.

    Only it got loose.

    And the only reason he did the whole thing is that he got bored because his Tivo ate the hockey game. He’d probably somehow managed to delete it.

    There are too many threads to follow and I doubt I’ll ever understand what was going on.

    There is a lot – there are realms I am not familiar with – e.g. Greg Howard, Swiftread, – but once it is known the core of it is probably easy to understand and there may be any number of ways to solve the jigsaw puzzle.

    Sammy Finkelman (e66385)

  271. Weiner didn’t know the picture storage place was called Yfrog or even that it had a name, and the software played a trikc on him.

    One thing. “dan Wolfe” said he looked and copied all the other Yfrog pictures. Yfrog was oublic -you just had to know the URL.

    Now if that is true, that one Yfrog picture would lead you to the others – well, Weiner had sent out a similar mistaken tweet in early May. An all right picture but the same thing.

    Sammy Finkelman (e66385)

  272. And if it is not true, then you can say even more so that “Dan Wolfe” had seen all the bad pictures three weeks or so before.

    No way did he discover them because of the May 27 tweet. No way.

    And this was a big secret.

    Sammy Finkelman (e66385)

  273. Cannonfire post which gave a technical explanation of how the Weiner tweet could have happened:

    http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2011/06/weiner-affair-close-to-solution-but-i.html

    Yfrog changed its software around June 2, 2011 so this could not be tested later on.

    Now he was working on the idea that somebody else uploaded the picture. But it works just as well or better for Weiner himself to have done things this way (it was his picture after all) and this way it’s a lot easier to understand how he could have blundered.

    Sammy Finkelman (fd0eb9)

  274. What made it look like somebody else, not Weiner, had done this thing were two lies that “Dan Wolfe” told.

    Yes, Dan Wolfe told two lies that had the effect of making it look like he, “Dan Wolfe” or somebody working with him, had sent that tweet.

    Those two lies were:

    1) Weiner immediately realized a bad tweet had been sent and deleted it/

    2) But before he deleted it, Dan Wolfe had seen it.

    (It is generally acknowledged it wasn’t there very long, or at least nobody else clicked on the URL.)

    But really what had happened, was that:

    1) Dan Wolfe only noticed it about 10 minutes or so after the tweet had been sent.

    2) Weiner had no awareness at all of it, until Dan Wolfe retweeted it manually. Only then did he delete the tweet.

    What was “Dan Wolfe” hiding that he had to tell these lies, that made it look like he, Dan Wolfe, had hacked Weiner and sent the tweet?

    He was hiding:

    1) He was watching Weiner very closely (he was hiding that – he could easily have followed Weiner, but he said, and it is probably true, and could have been verified at one point, that he was never a follower of weiner’s twitter account

    Why? Why was he never a follower? “Dan Wolfe” had never wanted to be at the center of this. He wanted Mike Stack @goatsred to appear to be the leader of the #bornfreecrew, and he wanted Breitbart to be the source of whatever would eventually break. And he didn’t want any attribution beyond Breotbart of anything he supplied. Maybe Megan Boussard would be a source. He wanted to be kept out of this.

    Q. Why then, did he go to such pains to retweet this?

    A. He did not expect this to be THE END. He was just doing a little more of what he had been doing for months, mocking Weiner, trying to get other people angry or disturbed about Weiner, trying to get Weiner to break up relationships he might be having with women so that then the women would come forward. He was not really having much success. So telling people about this tweet could help.

    Because he was hiding how actively he was following Weiner (probably keeping an open window) he made it appear he had just stumbled upon this. But the tweet was deleted rather soon.
    That actually made it look like Dan Wolfe was not only following Weiner, but had sent the tweet!! (Later a line of defense was to accuse other people of having been the “hacker.”)

    Dan Wolfe would really have preferred that other people had noticed it too, but nobody did. In fact, that’s why he tried to call as much attention as possible to the tweet. He did his best to help other people notice it. But as soon as he did that, Weiner deleted everything. The tweet, and the Yforg picture.

    Here he told another lie. Dan Wolfe was to claim Weiner had deleted his whole Yfrog account (he didn’t want other people to see it or know how and why it could be see) but Weiner had only deleted all the body pictures. I think he didn’t realize, or forgot, that that would have the effect of alerting Weiner. He probably thought Weiner would only get alerted when somebody sent a message to him.

    The way he did it was a tactical mistake, maybe. He could have started with Direct Messages. Or at least not mentioned Weiner. Putting @weiner into the tweet alerted Weiner.

    Back to why Dsn Wolfe told the second lie aout weiner having deleted it immediately..

    2) He was hiding that Weiner had no awareness at all of the tweet at the time it happened. It was not that Weiner’s mind was racing ahead of his fingers or that by habit he made a public message, anything like that. Anything like that, Weiner would have deleted it immediately. So he claimed that Weiner had in fact done so.

    Dan Wolfe wanted to make it look like Weiner had really sent it on purpose to someone – or even sent it publicly. Saying how it really happened – which he probably knew, because the same thing had happened on May 5 with an innocuous picture, would have destroyed the point and also made it look like maybe somebody else sent it. Dan Wolfe wanted it to be clear that Weiner had sent it on purpose, so he lied about how it really happened and Weiner’s immediate awareness of the tweet.

    Sammy Finkelman (fd0eb9)

  275. Comment by Sarahw — 7/11/2012 @ 2:30 pm

    Sammy,the only place I would break with any of your points is this:

    7) Keep themselves out of the picture as much as possible. (because they are working for somebody else)

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 7/11/2012 @ 1:47 pm

    I should put an 8 there. 7 was the original plan, but because Dan Wolfe circulated the tweet – which he did not expect to be THE END, but just another one of his criticisms of Weiner – he wound up in the center of the story. 8. is try to get people not to look into this.

    That’s because it would have been easy to slip silently into obscurity, and any discreet professional “working for somebody else ” oppo researcher/fixer would have done so.

    No, not so simple. People already thought Nikki (and Dan) were socks. There was a strong effort to convince people the were real people. It didn’t have to be that convincing. They wanted to limit the number of people asking questions. Major media respect people’s privacy, especially he privacy of teenagers so as long as it was thought they might be real there wouldn’t be too many people looking into the accounts. The more people, the more somebody will hit on an idea and the greater the possibility somebody from inside will decide to talk to someone.

    There are angles that haven’t been followed up. The Nikki account was traced to someone named Jenay – Jennifer George.

    Wait a second. The led to the professor came from JGMA herself. People could have gone to the professor in Nebraska and found out other people who were there that summer with JGMA and found out maye whoshe really was. Ron B convinced Jennifer Preston of the New York Times that the professor was a sock and his whole website fake and maybe even the people dangerous (Anonymous) so she didn’t follow that up.

    JGMA cited the rofessor as proof of identity.

    But why did she come forward to begin with?

    Maybe there was some trail we missed.

    Sammy Finkelman (d11d69)

  276. * The lead to the professor came from JGMA herself.

    The professor Lew Hunter, was a real person who could be connected to the originator of the starchildiii account.

    Now there is some advantage in providing an answer, but why is there a need to give any kind of an answer at all?

    I think some people wanted to stop other lines of investigation. There is some thread that could have been pulled that could have unraveled the whole thing.

    Sammy Finkelman (d11d69)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6572 secs.