Patterico's Pontifications

9/20/2014

The American Spectator Removes References to Brett Kimberlin As Part of an Ignominious Settlement

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:02 pm



Ken White of Popehat excoriates The American Spectator for settling with Brett Kimberlin and taking down several articles about him:

[T]his surrender will, and should, eviscerate its credibility with its target audience and its readers. First, how can it be taken seriously as an institution willing to speak truth to power if it caves to a frivolous lawsuit by a domestic terrorist? Second, how can they be taken seriously as a conservative institution that will question liberals, when they yield to a blatant attempt to abuse the legal system to retaliate against conservative viewpoints?

No. They’re done.

Ken has a funny line about Bat-Boy, but if you want to read that, you’ll have to go to his site.

81 Responses to “The American Spectator Removes References to Brett Kimberlin As Part of an Ignominious Settlement”

  1. I’m done linking The American Spectator. They are dead to me.

    Patterico (f292fa)

  2. Might not have had a choice many onlines have clauses in their insurance contracts to settle first – just an FYI – maynot be the case however…

    EPWJ (598909)

  3. in their defense they still have slightly more credibility on first amendment issues than Meghan’s coward daddy

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  4. The American Spectator surrendered a long time ago with regard to Bill Clinton.

    I don’t know that they removed any articles, but they stopped investigating.

    Sammy Finkelman (cb098f)

  5. Interesting twist on the insurance. If that clause is there, I guess they would be loathe to advertise such a clause as it would be an invitation to sue.

    I would hate to think they caved this cravenly by choice.

    WarEagle82 (b18ccf)

  6. Try mentioning Kimberlin over at Ace of Spades; I understand it gets censored as soon as someone’s aware of it. So why isn’t Ace excoriated as well? Because he’s still “fighting”?

    Rob Crawford (6cf097)

  7. What is particularly bad, or disturbing, here, by the way, is that they removed articles silently.

    They are probably still in some libraries in hard copy, if they were printed.

    And of course the definition of malice, is not that attention was paid to someone and this someone was targeted, but that things were asserted knowing them to be false, or in reckless disregard of the truth.

    Sammy Finkelman (cb098f)

  8. Wareagle

    depends on the insurer – but most settle – and not for much

    EPWJ (fa0e23)

  9. Rob,

    in the moron den – allowing Brett comments? really = I agree they would be hilarious but many dangerous

    EPWJ (fa0e23)

  10. It’s possible we’ll hear more about the American Spectator & Kimberlin story. Just think about it. Pretend that you were reading a crime thriller, then think about later developments that would explain this turn of events.

    Brian (afd0af)

  11. “Try mentioning Kimberlin over at Ace of Spades; I understand it gets censored as soon as someone’s aware of it. So why isn’t Ace excoriated as well? Because he’s still “fighting”?”

    Maybe because he is still being actively pursued in the litigation?

    EPWJ – quit pulling crap out your bunghole. I never saw such a clause in a CGL policy. They may exist, somewhere, but they won’t stay on business long.

    JD (ea1128)

  12. Kimberlin’s like a bad case of syphillis picked up from a chancred Saigon ho… nasty, hard to get rid of

    Colonel Haiku (d0a528)

  13. JD,

    Most policies have arbitration and or mediation and or they have the right to settle the claim

    EPWJ (fa0e23)

  14. It also might have been Beldar who mentioned it some time ago..

    EPWJ (fa0e23)

  15. You are running around with the goalposts, EPWJ. That was not your original claim. And mediation clauses do not force the insurer to settle, simply that they must participate. Sure they have the right to settle a claim, but paying out as a matter of practice is nobody’s practice. At least not anyone that plans on being in business for long.

    JD (ea1128)

  16. “Most policies have arbitration and or mediation and or they have the right to settle the claim”

    EPWJ – If an insured is going to ask its insurer to cover a claim, it typically tenders its defense to the insurer. Arbitration or mediation clauses are found in employment law and customer contracts but how you believe they come into play through litigation by a third party I have no clue.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  17. There was no privity of contract with Kimberlin.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  18. JD

    my comments were not meant to offend you – but just to explain maybe a reason why – maybe they didn’t want to but had to etc

    EPWJ (fa0e23)

  19. Yours didn’t offend me, EPWJ. They were dead wrong, and stated as fact.

    JD (ea1128)

  20. JD

    eh, probably not, they new when they printed those articles he was going to sue –

    EPWJ (fa0e23)

  21. They did not refer to TAS. They referred to your comments.

    JD (ea1128)

  22. I also didn’t make a statement – I used the words “might” and “maybe”

    But I’m done with this exercise – I was just putting that out there as a possibility that’s all

    EPWJ (fa0e23)

  23. JD Daleyrocks,

    Beldar writes over at popehat – the same thing I said just a few minutes ago – like I said I wasn’t trying to speak out of turn

    Beldar writes:

    But if there was something vaguely resembling a defamation claim in Kimberlin’s pleaings, that would possibly trigger insurance coverage if the American Spectator has a typical commercial general liability insurance policy………In my experience representing similarly situated companies, Insurers care nothing about journalistic principles and a great deal about costs of defense, meaning they not infrequently settle well within their policy limits, often for “nuisance value” that’s considerably less than their costs of defense and expenses would run. To discourage similar litigation in the future, the insurer would typically insist that the modest cash settlement amount, and all the other settlement terms, be confidential.

    Of course, if I’m right, and if it was an insurer running the show and calling the shots, then the American Spectator probably had a contractual duty (in the policy fine print) to cooperate with the insurer and not to interfere in reasonable settlements within policy limits as negotiated and paid by the insurer.

    EPWJ (fa0e23)

  24. That’s not what you said. If you had said what Beldar said, myself and Daley would have had nothing to quibble over.

    JD (ea1128)

  25. JD,

    that’s exactly what I said

    lets just blame the whole thing on the SEC :)

    EPWJ (fa0e23)

  26. EPWJ @23 – Beldar echoed what I said not anything close to what you said. Where are his mentions of arbitration and mediation?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  27. “Try mentioning Kimberlin over at Ace of Spades; I understand it gets censored as soon as someone’s aware of it. So why isn’t Ace excoriated as well? Because he’s still “fighting”?”

    I don’t know: is he removing any mention of Kimberlin? Or just reckless comments by chest-beating assholes? Your comment is short on facts that would allow a reader to assess that question.

    How many times have you been frivolously sued for defamation, Rob Crawford? My answer is twice. How many times have you had police pointing guns at you because you expressed opinions on the Internet? My answer is one. I bet your answer to both is “none.” Believe it or not, there are still people out there who try to portray me as some kind of guy who was too scared to speak his mind on the Internet. Their answer to these questions is also “none.”

    Hard to believe there are asshats like that out there, huh?

    Patterico (f292fa)

  28. There is no shortage of people on the Internet who talk tough. Where the rubber hits the road is when expressing your opinions rips your life apart in the real world. When douchebags call your employer, or make those funny prank calls that send the cops to your house, or sue you for telling the truth, or talk about hurting your wife and kids. That’s when plenty of people turn tail and run. Luckily, for those of us who don’t, there is always a peanut gallery available to critique our every move.

    There are also loyal people who have your back. When times get tough, you appreciate those people more than ever. (And learn to despise the people who pretend to have your back but don’t.)

    Patterico (f292fa)

  29. Patterico, there are a lot of folks—all kinds, silly, serious, and inbetween—who have had your back. Also folks afraid of litigation who support you, but are worried about posting about it. And even folks who have been warned to not get involved.

    But I suspect a lot of people support you. Yes, some folks do much more than others.

    And some people wish that they could have done more than simply listen, or read things you have written.

    If you could see me now, I am raising a glass to your health and success. I’ll bet that my sentiments are not rare.

    Simon Jester (42ce8f)

  30. even better, when people DO offer to help Pat, or people like him, given the nature of the internet, the recipient has to weigh the possibility that the “help” being offered might actually be a booby trap, and that the so called friend is actually a saboteur trying to get inside and cause moar damage.

    reality sucks. so does the american spectator. they can ESABATFM.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  31. Simon,

    Yes, I agree and appreciate it. I think Rob Crawford knows the type of pretentious poser I am talking about.

    I could just use a little less chest-beating from people who haven’t really faced the problems, but like to style themselves as Internet Tough Guys.

    Patterico (f292fa)

  32. Last I heard, Ace hadn’t taken down a thing that he himself ever posted about Brett Kimberlin. Not a damn thing.

    That speaks well of him.

    I don’t think he ever had a friendly conversation with Breitbart Unmasked either.

    Or relied on Ron Brynaert to criticize people.

    Not all Internet Tough Guys can say the same.

    Patterico (f292fa)

  33. yeah, i can see where having a SWAT team crash our house and put guns to your head would sour you on things… as well it should.

    as someone who’s survived having LAPD point guns in his direction, and even directly to my head, more than once, i defer to our host’s sensitivities on this, i have a vague idea what he’s been through, and that’s more that enough to give me the willies.

    the reality has gotta suck. that this blog is still up and running is proof that he needs a bigger wheel barrow.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  34. The rino Spectator has sunk.

    mg (31009b)

  35. Right now it seems like Movable Type is the top blogging platform available right now.

    (from what I’ve read) Is that what you are using on your blog?

    Exercise (32dd58)

  36. Beldar nailed it. If an insurance company can make Kimberlin go away for $1,000.00 as opposed to paying its lawyers $300.00/hr to fight him indefinitely, I don’t know what would stop them from doing that. The insured could waive coverage, I suppose, but that’s not smart.

    I’m pretty confident, though, that the other compelling reasons for an insurer to settle, either to protect its insured from a judgment in excess of the policy limits or to protect the insured’s good will from adverse publicity from the litigation, were not present here. 😉

    nk (dbc370)

  37. What i don’t understood is in truth how you are not actually much more smartly-liked than you might be now.
    Youu are very intelligent. You recognize thus considerably
    iin relation to this topic, made me personally consider it from numerrous numerous angles.

    Its like men and women aren’t interested unless it’s one thing to
    accomplish with Girll gaga! Your personal stuffs nice.
    All the time maintain it up!

    my webpage wizard101 crown hack (office-Kakehashi.Com)

    office-Kakehashi.Com (269d1f)

  38. Well, I’m pretty smartly-liked. Don’t know about the other characters here.

    Brian (909c96)

  39. the thing is the Spectator has been this way, before with Sid Blumenthal, who used one rumor to ignite a witchhunt through the entire conservative punditsphere, to find the source,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  40. Try leaving an comment to American Spectator over at their website now (you’ll have to look real hard to find that part of the website) — it conveniently resulted in a “technical difficulties” error message when I tried to do so. Seems they don’t want to hear complaints right now. Their donation page is still up, however.

    Stick a fork in them, they’re done.

    LKB (16b39f)

  41. And I take back my previous comment. The insurance company could give convicted bomber Kimberlin all the money it wants to, but only the American Spectator could have agreed to take down its articles. So, yes, the American Spectator sucks convicted bomber Kimberlin weewee.

    nk (dbc370)

  42. Let’s clear this whole “Ace is afraid of Kimberlin” thing up right freakin’ now. As a coblogger at the AoSHQ, I can tell you truthfully that Ace has asked everyone else affiliated with the site to refrain from commenting on Kimberlin related issues until the legal issues are cleared up. As the proprietor of the site, that is his right. He still retains the right to comment on Kimberlin himself, but he doesn’t wish to be held responsible for anyone else’s words during a time when he’s under legal assault. If I posted a rant talking about what a douchebag Brett Kimberlin is, those words would be used by Team Speedway Bomber against Ace in their legal inquisition.

    Russ from Winterset (830aac)

  43. Another thing to think about? Ace still has a veneer of privacy due to his anonymous status. The Kimberlin people are trying like hell to strip him of that veneer. Based on the SWATtings and the shenanigans they pulled with Aaron Worthing, I think that surrendering your identity to Team Speedway Bomber is a poor choice if you have an alternative.

    If his life stays even a little bit more stable due to this choice, I will not criticize the man for choosing to lower his profile until the lawsuits are resolved.

    Russ from Winterset (830aac)

  44. Why were you ever linking to it?

    Ben Stein? Really? This is your idea of conservative?

    Ross Kaminsky? He’s a libertarian, not a conservative.

    Jed Babbin? You couldn’t find a more government-centric, establishment figure if you tried.

    someguy (37038b)

  45. Ben Stein was always a twat.

    I first became aware of him when he joined the news pages (not the editorial pages) of The Wall Street Journal in its campaign against Michael Milken, who was one of the greatest producers of the last century, and orders of magnitude superior to the likes of Ben Stein. And now, at 69, Ben Stein is still creating headlines, on the order of:

    Ben Stein begged me for racy pictures while I was pregnant”

    All this is tangential to the topic here. But it is, however, important to note that Ben Stein is a twat.

    Brian (909c96)

  46. Michael Milken was a crook.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  47. “Why were you ever linking to it?”

    someguy – Sooo…..Let me get this straight.

    Are you claiming that there has nothing published at American Spectator worth either criticizing or expanding on in a post, which would, you know, typically be done through a link?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  48. daleyrocks,

    No one has ever come up with a more convincing argument that Milken was a crook than you did just now.

    Brian (909c96)

  49. The link is the currency of the web.

    If you link to a site, you are providing it with financial backing.

    So no, nothing worth criticizing should ever be linked to.

    someguy (37038b)

  50. “Hard to believe there are asshats like that out there, huh?”

    Not at all. There are plenty of prime asshats around here.

    BTW — I have been threatened with lawsuits over Internet comments. And, yes, I pulled down the posts despite being in the right. Because my day job isn’t political commentary, I don’t have legal staff, and fighting it would have meant travel to NYC or paying for a lawyer able to practice in that federal court. The threat came from a guy who bragged about filing suits as a “hobby” — sounds familiar, eh? The guy was suing half a dozen other people, all over negative reviews of the products and services he was offering online.

    And still, over a decade later, the legal profession lets pro se thugs get away with gross abuse of the courts. Hell, Kimberlin repeatedly forged court documents, and faces no penalties — WTF? Is there an informal courtesy to never charge a convicted perjurer on it again?

    And Russ — Ace can do what he wants, but shouldn’t expect to be above criticism.

    Rob Crawford (6cf097)

  51. “No one has ever come up with a more convincing argument that Milken was a crook than you did just now.”

    Brian – Thank you. I win the internetz!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  52. Rob,

    Criticizing victims isn’t a game winner – TAR ACE others have been silent – because it is a burden – everyone handles this differently – but they all stepped up and exposed the creep and paid a price. Everyone is frustrated and remember the guy detonated explosives at children’s events AND THEY DECIDED TO LET HIM OUT!

    Even after while in prison he filed fake suit after suit.

    EPWJ (acb2d0)

  53. Daley won last week too…

    EPWJ (acb2d0)

  54. BTW — I have been threatened with lawsuits over Internet comments. And, yes, I pulled down the posts despite being in the right.

    Rob Crawford: I’m confused. I thought you were the guy upthread who was criticizing Ace for preventing other people from putting him at risk by censoring their comments — and you censored your own, for fear of a lawsuit that wasn’t even filed?

    Or are you making some other point that I don’t understand?

    Russ from Winterset: you confirmed exactly what I was thinking. Ace has no duty to put himself at risk through what other people say. He has not taken down his posts, though, and that is the important thing. Perhaps one day the Rob Crawfords of this world will appreciate that — and support those fighting the fight, rather than throwing rotten fruit from the sidelines.

    Or not. We’ll fight it either way.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  55. BTW — I have been threatened with lawsuits over Internet comments. And, yes, I pulled down the posts despite being in the right. Because my day job isn’t political commentary, I don’t have legal staff, and fighting it would have meant travel to NYC or paying for a lawyer able to practice in that federal court.

    Rob Crawford: FYI, my day job is not legal commentary, I do not have a legal staff. I have taken nothing down. You’re welcome.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  56. Daley… Re: Milken… I read a great book this past year (don’t have access to my library, on vacation, or I’d have the title/author) that took the reader from the mid-70s thru late-80s and from all the smaller figures up thru MilkenBoesky and the larger firms and there was no doubt, Milken was a genius master criminal mind who for all intents and purposes invented junk bonds and the exploitation of same and market forces. The Feds weren’t even sure how much wealth he’d amassed, other than it was in the hundreds of billions. A fascinating read!

    Colonel Haiku (d0a528)

  57. Colonel Haiku – Milken ran rigged markets and made himself wealthy. I don’t think Brian would understand it even if I explained how he did it.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  58. That’s because we had outlawed the trans-Atlantic slave trade, daleyrocks. The government left him no other choice.

    nk (dbc370)

  59. Thanks for those who’ve linked, quoted, or otherwise mentioned my comments regarding insurance on Ken White’s very good post. I apologize for mildly abusing our host’s bandwidth by cross-posting this here. but for the benefit of those Patterico readers who may be mildly curious about my speculations — and I stress that’s all they are! — and who have not been sufficiently motivated to click over to Ken’s comments section to find them:

    First I wrote there:

    I haven’t looked at any of the pleadings, I know nothing about the case, and I’m making wild assumptions and suppositions.

    But if there was something vaguely resembling a defamation claim in Kimberlin’s pleaings, that would possibly trigger insurance coverage if the American Spectator has a typical commercial general liability insurance policy.

    Is it possible that an insurer was defending the case (possibly under a reservation of rights letter for the RICO and other purported claims)? In my experience representing similarly situated companies, Insurers care nothing about journalistic principles and a great deal about costs of defense, meaning they not infrequently settle well within their policy limits, often for “nuisance value” that’s considerably less than their costs of defense and expenses would run. To discourage similar litigation in the future, the insurer would typically insist that the modest cash settlement amount, and all the other settlement terms, be confidential.

    Of course, if I’m right, and if it was an insurer running the show and calling the shots, then the American Spectator probably had a contractual duty (in the policy fine print) to cooperate with the insurer and not to interfere in reasonable settlements within policy limits as negotiated and paid by the insurer. They could resume control over the litigation against them, of course, so they could soldier on and vindicate journalistic principles. But they’d likely forfeit their insurance coverage — excusing the insurer of further obligation to provide a defense and of any future obligation to indemnity up to policy limits against an adverse judgment — as the cost of that independence.

    Then commenter “Wick Deer” left an astute comment on Ken’s post (very much paralleling nk’s astute comment above (#36 — 9/21/2014 @ 4:13 am)), as follows:

    @Beldar. Paying a monetary settlement would be within the insurance company’s decision making authority; however, I would be very surprised if an insurance policy for a journal contained any provision allowing the insurance company to negotiate a settlement that included pulling articles.

    To which I replied in Ken’s comments:

    @ Wick: Good point, well made! We agree that the insured’s obligation to cooperate with a reasonable settlement being made by its insurer probably doesn’t legally oblige the insured to do anything more than sign typical release papers. The take-downs presumably were part of a side deal that the American Spectator could have refused to cooperate with. And maybe, faced with that insistence, an insurer would continue satisfying its policy obligations to defend & indemnify after American Spectator had blown up the entire settlement by refusing such cooperation.

    But I’ve also seen and dealt with insurers who were less reasonable, and who would rather fight the coverage case than the underlying lawsuit. That sort of insurer would treat American Spectator’s refusal to cooperate with the take-down — something which costs the company nothing (except for the arguable sacrifice of journalist principle) — and the resulting torpedoing of the settlement as a breach of its contractual duties as a cooperating insured under the relevant insurance policy.

    Even if the insurer backs down — bites its corporate lip at the lost settlement, and at the resultant continuing defense expenses measuring in the tens of thousands of dollars — then American Spectator is going to have to worry about how its bristly hardball dealings with its own insurer are going to affect it in the future. Are its premiums going be rated up? This insurer probably will non-renew; are there alternatives available?

    I gather from its website that the American Spectator is an LLC that is, in turn, a subsidiary of a 501(c)(3) foundation. I can imagine the responsible individuals in the senior management of such a company deciding to stand firm to vindicate journalistic principles. I’ve never much represented non-profits myself, so they may act differently than the private corporate clients I’ve represented in defamation litigation. But among the for-profit companies I’ve represented, I don’t think many of them would have taken the risks with their insurer just in order to be able to say: “We kept our journalistic integrity lily-white and pure.”

    Again, this is TOTAL speculation on my part. Maybe insurance wasn’t involved, in which case, I can only quote the immortal Emily Litella and say: “Oh! Never mind.”

    The reason this occurred to me is that in the past I’ve represented media companies who were in the same position as the American Spectator, and who ended up swallowing hard and going along with an insurer’s settlement decision even though the company’s preference was to keep fighting. But I do not know if that happened here.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  60. nk – You might be right.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  61. FWIW, I’m utterly cynical about insurers, despite or perhaps because of having represented so many of them. Insurance companies view coverage lawsuits with their own insureds the same way an excellent poker player thinks about bluffing: Losing some bluffs, and losing some coverage cases, is just a part of the cost of doing business/playing. If you’re never bluffing or pushing the boundaries of your coverage issues, you’re leaving money on the table. And an insurer no more thinks about vindicating journalistic principles than a poker player considers the immorality of bluffing.

    And this type of civil litigation is more ruinously expensive than most. Defamation cases tend to be front-end loaded, with lots of hearings and expedited discovery and preliminary injunctions and such. There are inevitably both state and federal laws involved, and a tangled mix of state and federal statutes and regulations overlies a complicated common-law history dating back to the English Courts of Assizes. Insurers particularly hate these cases, with considerable good reason from their purely economic point of view.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  62. Beldar – had TAS even been legally served yet? I was under the impression that they had not, and as such, had yet to incur even a penny of costs, or been forced to respond to, or file anything to date. Maybe, I am mistaken?

    JD (a71103)

  63. JD,

    The feds changed judges and the new one gave him a do over – I know that Breitbart wasn’t served – don’t know about TAS

    EPWJ (8b746f)

  64. The Michael Mann/National Review defamation litigation is a prominent example of an on-going high-profile defamation case in which some (but not all) of the major defendants are being defended by insurers who are therefore controlling the handling of the litigation. (This is something NR has disclosed, appropriately, to its readers during its fundraising efforts for its defense fund; NR says it seeks donations to defray costs not covered by insurance, and those may indeed be substantial.) Co-defendant Mark Steyn publicly opted out of their joint defense; I don’t know, but my guess is he may thereby have forfeited whatever insurance coverage he had, probably through National Review’s policy or perhaps one of his own. I thought Steyn’s decision at the time to be highly principled and incredibly stupid; I’m glad he’s found replacement counsel, although I don’t know if they’re at his own expense or if he’s mended fences with the insurer(s).

    Beldar (fa637a)

  65. JD, I dunno about service or any other details. I’m piling speculation on speculation without having so much as looked at a docket sheet.

    It would not be atypical, though, for a lawyer defending such a case to establish very early on what the plaintiff’s settlement demands may be. That’s true whether it’s insurance defense counsel or someone hired, directed, and paid directly by the defendant. And even if defense counsel has been instructed not to initiate or solicit settlement discussions — an instruction that I’ve occasionally been given, but can only follow after an extended discussion of the risks from that — defense counsel is ethically required to report to the defendant, and to the defendant’s insurer if it has one, any settlement proposals that may be received.

    If the insurer sees that it can settle for a fraction of what it’s likely to spend even in the first few weeks of such a defense, that may be quite attractive. And if its insured insists on blocking such a “nuisance-value” settlement by refusing to take down material from the insured’s online archives, the insurer would likely be quite miffed.

    I can imagine the conversation with the adjuster: “This costs you nothing more than a few keystrokes! Almost no one will notice that the archives have been scrubbed. We’ll leave McCain’s stuff since he’s not part of the settlement. You’re already standing on principle, the settlement documents say that you admit nothing. But are you really going to blow up this whole deal, solely over the issue of take-downs? Very few people will ever notice the take-downs, and since the settlement is confidential they’ll be left guessing anyway. You’d really rather annoy your insurer, and then have your top people spend weeks and weeks engaged in distractions under a public microscope, just to vindicate the principle of keeping those few webpages up?”

    But that’s just my imagination. It fits the facts, it would be consistent with insurer behavior that I’ve seen in the past, but I don’t know what really happened, and I doubt anyone not party to the settlement ever will.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  66. daleyrocks,

    You’re not smart. You’re kind of like David Letterman making faces, with the pretense that there’s something more substantial behind the faces, but there never is. It’s clear that you never thought about this matter for 30-seconds strait – which, if possible, would be a great strain for you – so all you can do try to make jokes.

    For those who can read a book-length treatment of the nullity of the case against Michael Milken, and the extortionate tactics of the federal prosecution – this excludes daleyrocks – see Payback: The Conspiracy to Destroy Michael Milken and His Financial Revolution, by the economist Daniel Fischel, which was published back in 1995 and is still available on Amazon.

    Brian (afd0af)

  67. Better, much more factual read is “Den Of Thieves” by James Stewart.

    Colonel Haiku (86020d)

  68. “It’s clear that you never thought about this matter for 30-seconds strait – which, if possible, would be a great strain for you – so all you can do try to make jokes.”

    Brian – Whatever you say. I worked in the industry at the same time as Milken. I know from talking to his customers what he did. I have no reason to make anything up. He was a crook.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  69. “Den of Thieves” was good.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  70. From what I have seen, Steyn has little if any coverage from insurance and is depending on the generosity of time from his counsel and support through purchases at his web site. One of the main products is a “gift certificate” for any of his books or other items at his web site, with the obvious possibility of just framing the gift certificate and never using it except as a tribute to Steyn’s fight.
    And I think he has a CD of Christmas music and other assorted tongue-in-cheek gifts.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  71. 30 seconds good david? :)

    EPWJ (775325)

  72. TAS is an outlier among the defendants. Given the results of the state trial, I doubt that any of the rest of us will be willing to settle.

    W. J. J. Hoge (ca02cf)

  73. Rob Crawford @ 50:

    I agree. He’s not above criticism. Now bring me some valid criticism, and I will concur or politely disagree. Throw out more of that “he’s not at the tip of the spear, so he’s practically a collaborator” bullshit, and I will kindly ask you to STFU.

    You want Ace to make himself into cannon fodder in the War Against The Speedway Bomber? Then pick up a rifle and stand a post yourself, figuratively. Until you’ve got skin in the game, your opinion is about as relevant to me as happyfeet’s opinion on gay wedding cakes.

    Russ from Winterset (830aac)

  74. And your original post at #6 uses scare quotes around “fighting”. He is involved in an ongoing civil lawsuit involving Team Speedway Bomber, but apparently that’s not “fighting-fighting” to you. Exactly what does he need to do to convince you of his conservative bona fides? Kill one of Team Speedway Bomber with a salad fork during a recess at the trial? Send 200 anchovy & onion pizzas to Kimberlin’s house C.O.D.?

    Russ from Winterset (830aac)

  75. 67. Colonel Haiku (86020d) — 9/21/2014 @ 3:38 pm

    Better, much more factual read is “Den Of Thieves” by James Stewart.

    Den of Theives reveals that the Milken case was actually one of two that Giuliani was pursuing.

    The other one was against Goldman and Sachs.

    Giuliani had gotten to the level of Robert Freeman. His boss was Richard E. Rubin, later Bill Clinton’s second Secretary of the Treasury (1995-1999)

    The lawyer for Freeman (Goldman and Sachs) was Robert B. Fiske Jr.

    If you read betwene the lines of book Den of Theives, and think deeply about it, you wil realize that the best explanatuion for what happened afterwards is that Fiske waited until Giuliani was gone, and created a fictitious crime, that did not lead to anyone higher up at Goldman and Sachs, leaked it to the press but blamed the U.,S. Attorney for it, and had Freeman plead guilty in a plea bargain.

    Goldman and Sachs later helped Bill Clinto get elected president because they endorsed his economic plan (that he never had any intention of following – taht was obvious to me but maybe not to alot of people)

    Clinton appointed Rubin to a job – forst as the head of the National Economic Council in the White House, a post that did not require Senate confirmation, and anyway maybe he’d promised it to loyd Bentsen.

    Later on, in 1994, Janet Reno attempted to get all investigations of Bill Clinton into the hands of a lawyer Bill Clinton could trust: Robert B. Fiske Jr. She appointed an “indepedent counsel” before the law providing for one was re-enacted and then hoped that the 3-judge panel would ratify that choice. It did not.

    But before that, she also entrusted him with the ionvestigation of the Voncent Foster case and he issued a report.

    Sammy Finkelman (cb098f)

  76. That should be “Den of Theives” and “Vincent Foster”

    Study the end of the Goldman and Sachs inmvestigation (Freeman case) very carefully, and see if anything else other than Fiske creating a fictitious crime for Freeman to plead guilty to, and leaking it, makes sense.

    Sammy Finkelman (cb098f)

  77. Maybe the Spectator is trying to reform its image with moonbats like Carlititos?

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  78. Google reports About 169,000 results for Brett Kimberlin.
    The interwebs never forget…..

    Stosh (e7552e)

  79. “If you read betwene the lines of book Den of Theives, and think deeply about it, you wil realize that the best explanatuion for what happened afterwards is that Fiske waited until Giuliani was gone, and created a fictitious crime, that did not lead to anyone higher up at Goldman and Sachs, leaked it to the press but blamed the U.,S. Attorney for it, and had Freeman plead guilty in a plea bargain.”

    Sammy – Freeman pleaded guilty before Giuliani was elected Mayor, although sentencing took place several months after.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  80. Plus, Freeman had two former U.S. Attorney’s on his side, not just Fiske. Paul Curran was also representing him. Goldman Sachs also paid all his legal fees.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  81. “invented junk bonds and the exploitation of same and market forces.” IANAL but I don’t think that’s illegal in the USA, and I hope it never is. It’s not even unethical.

    gp (0c542c)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4488 secs.