You’re about to listen to one of the most bone-chilling pieces of audio you will ever hear. At least, it was to me when I first heard it.

It’s a phone call that could have gotten me killed.

In this post you will hear that audio clip. You will also read about a months-long campaign of harassment carried out by at least three individuals: Ron Brynaert, Neal Rauhauser, and Brett Kimberlin — much of it directed at critics of Brett Kimberlin. This harassment includes repeated references to critics’ family members, workplace complaints, publication of personal information such as home addresses and pictures of residences, bogus allegations of criminal activity, whisper campaigns, frivolous legal actions, and frivolous State Bar complaints.

And finally, you will hear a comparison of one of those men’s voices to that of the man who made the call that sent police to my home. And you’ll read a declaration from a forensic audio expert comparing those two voices.

BREITBART TOLD THE STORY JUST BEFORE HE DIED

In the last radio interview Andrew Breitbart ever gave, on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show, Breitbart talked about a new ruthless tactic used by thugs against political opponents:

[O]ne of the things they’ve done to people who have worked with me in the past, including an L.A. prosecutor, is to “SWAT.” That means that they’re spoofing phones, pretending to be somebody else’s phone, calling 911, and saying “I killed somebody” and then the person’s home is met with the guns drawn, the SWAT and the helicopters, in a horrifying act. It’s happened twice: once in New Jersey, once in Los Angeles, with an L.A. County . . . prosecutor who [is] associated with me.”

I am that L.A. County prosecutor. And in this post, you’ll hear the hoax call that sent police to my house, pointing loaded guns at me.

THE NIGHT I COULD HAVE BEEN KILLED BECAUSE OF MY BLOGGING

At 12:35 a.m. on July 1, 2011, sheriff’s deputies pounded on my front door and rang my doorbell. They shouted for me to open the door and come out with my hands up.

When I opened the door, deputies pointed guns at me and ordered me to put my hands in the air. I had a cell phone in my hand. Fortunately, they did not mistake it for a gun.

They ordered me to turn around and put my hands behind my back. They handcuffed me. They shouted questions at me: IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE HOUSE? and WHERE ARE THEY? and ARE THEY ALIVE?

I told them: Yes, my wife and my children are in the house. They’re upstairs in their bedrooms, sleeping. Of course they’re alive.

Deputies led me down the street to a patrol car parked about 2-3 houses away. At least one neighbor was watching out of her window as I was placed, handcuffed, in the back of the patrol car. I saw numerous patrol cars on my quiet street. There was a police helicopter flying overhead, shining a spotlight down on us as I walked towards the patrol car. Several neighbors later told us the helicopter woke them up. I saw a fire engine and an ambulance. A neighbor later told me they had a HazMat vehicle out on the street as well.

Meanwhile, police rushed into my home. They woke up my wife, led her downstairs and to the front porch, frisked her, and asked her where the children were. Then police ordered her to stand on the front porch with her hands against the wall while they entered my children’s bedrooms to make sure they were alive.

The call that sent deputies to my home was a hoax. Someone had pretended to be me. They called the police to say I had shot my wife. The sheriff’s deputies who arrived at my front door believed they were about to confront an armed man who had just shot his wife. I don’t blame the police for any of their actions. But I blame the person who made the call.

Because I could have been killed.

The weirdest part of the whole thing was that I halfway expected this might happen. Because I was not the first one it had happened to.

I think it’s about time you heard the call that sent police to my home.

“SWATTING” CAN KILL PEOPLE

What you just heard and read is no joke. It actually happened. The phenomenon is called “SWATting,” because it can bring a SWAT team to your front door. SWATting is a particularly dangerous hoax in which a caller, generally a computer hacker, calls a police department to report a shooting at the home of his enemy. The caller will place this call to the police department’s business line, using Skype or a similar service, and hiding behind Internet proxies to make the call impossible to trace. Anxious police, believing they are responding to the home of an armed and dangerous man, show up at the front door pointing guns and screaming orders.

That is exactly what happened to me. It is a very dangerous hoax that could get the target killed.

Above: an anonymous Kimberlin supporter mocks my swatting in August 2011, before it was publicly known. The reference is to an article about a 2008 swatting case in Dallas.

Although I am an L.A. County Deputy D.A., it is certain that I was “swatted” because of my blog and not because of my job. As Andrew Breitbart noted, this happened to two people within the course of a single week: a man in New Jersey and myself. Both of us had had contact with Andrew Breitbart. Both of us were writing about the same story. And both of us received email threats days before we were swatted. The threat to me said, in part: “Please think about your family. This story is not worth it. I can assure you that.”

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?

So who perpetrated this crime on me and my family?

I reported the crime to the FBI on July 1, 2011. (Obviously, the Sheriff’s Department was already aware of it, since they had come to my house.) Unfortunately, law enforcement has not solved the case. Worse, they have failed to follow up on a number of leads I have given them.

But there is circumstantial evidence suggesting who may be responsible. I met personally with the nationwide experts on swatting in December 2011: the FBI office in Dallas, Texas. They told me that swatting is an extreme form of harassment — and that swatters typically combine swatting with other forms of harassment, including: complaining to the victim’s workplace, defaming the victim online, “Googlebombing” the victim, publishing the victim’s address online, filing phony reports of criminal activity by the victim, and so forth.

All of these things have happened to me and other critics of Brett Kimberlin since July 2011. The harassment has been relentless and has occurred almost every day. It would literally take a book to catalogue it all. What you read in this post, incredibly, is only part of it.

Why target me? Well, I first wrote about Brett Kimberlin in October 2010, after getting a call from Andrew Breitbart. Andrew told me that his site was going to publish a post about a domestic terrorist named Brett Kimberlin. The story sounded interesting, and I published a post about Kimberlin shortly after the Breitbart post (penned by Mandy Nagy aka Liberty Chick) was published.

The next day, Kimberlin threatened to sue me. He said: “I have filed over a hundred lawsuits and another one will be no sweat for me. On the other hand, it will cost you a lot of time and money and for what.” I asked him to identify any specific falsehoods in my post and he did not. I published subsequent posts about topics like Kimberlin’s alleged murderous plots to escape from prison and exact revenge on his enemies and an examination of his non-profits’ tax returns. In February 2011, I talked about stalkerish intimidation tactics used by Kimberlin and his business partner, Brad Friedman of the “Brad Blog.”

It’s fair to say I have been one of Brett Kimberlin’s least favorite people in the world for a good long time now.

THE RELENTLESS AND VICIOUS HARASSMENT OF CRITICS OF BRETT KIMBERLIN, BY KIMBERLIN AND HIS SUPPORTERS

Beginning about the time I was swatted in July 2011, the harassment I had already experienced from Kimberlin was stepped up several notches — and other Kimberlin critics were also targeted. Several anonymous accounts identifying themselves as supporters of Kimberlin’s have participated in the harassment. These anonymous harassers go by names like @OccupyRebellion, @BreitbartUnmask, Gaped Crusader, and “Just Call Me Lefty.”

But much of the harassment Kimberlin critics have experienced has occurred at the hands of three named individuals: Ron Brynaert, Neal Rauhauser, and Brett Kimberlin.

Meet Ron Brynaert

Ron Brynaert is a so-called “journalist” who last August threatened me and my wife in the most despicable manner possible:

References to my wife come completely out of left field. She is a Democrat and cancels out my vote in every election. The only reason anyone would bring her up online is to intimidate and harass my family.

Brynaert explicitly connected his desire to do violence to me to his defense of Brett Kimberlin. The night he threatened me and my wife, Brynaert defended Kimberlin in a long series of tweets pointing out alleged holes in the case against Kimberlin. Brynaert said I was slandering Kimberlin:

One of Brynaert’s arguments was that certain of the witnesses against Kimberlin had been hypnotized. Apparently, it greatly upset Brynaert that I wasn’t responding to this argument, and he threatened violence as a result:

Ron Brynaert has been a guest blogger at The Brad Blog, run by Brad Friedman, a business partner of Brett Kimberlin’s. Brynaert has described himself as a friend of Friedman’s. Brynaert was for years the editor of a Raw Story, a publication that has teamed up with the Brad Blog to put out Brad Friedman’s radio show:

In 2008, during Brynaert’s tenure as editor of Raw Story, Kimberlin was introduced as the “moving force behind Raw Story.” (Hat tip to Seth Allen.) Kimberlin did not object to that characterization.

Meet Neal Rauhauser

Neal Rauhauser is a creepy far-left activist. There is evidence that, using the handle “Iowa Boy,” Rauhauser has engaged in violent rhetoric, including calling for the public hanging of Republicans and the shooting of Dick Cheney. Rauhauser speaks regularly of the hacking group Anonymous and frequently suggests that his enemies are opening themselves up to Internet harassment.

Above: Writing at Daily Kos, Rauhauser suggests I should be harassed online.

Three days after I was swatted, Rauhauser wrote a post titled “Patterico’s Penalization” that made bizarre accusations about me, and accused me of working with a “cyberstalker” named Seth Allen — a blogger who had criticized Brett Kimberlin so tenaciously that Kimberlin (frivolously) sued Allen for defamation. In that post, Rauhauser publicized a State Bar complaint that Kimberlin had filed against me, and asked readers to get a picture of my wife. Rauhauser also suggested that a private detective stake out Seth Allen’s apartment:

Here is Rauhauser further publicizing Brett Kimberlin’s State Bar complaint against me, and stating his belief that if enough such complaints accumulate, I will be fired:

And here is Rauhauser talking about how he wants to see me fired, prosecuted, and bankrupted — all for purely political reasons:

Rauhauser is a fan of abusive litigation for purposes of political harassment:

Kimberlin has described Rauhauser as an “associate” of his. Rauhauser has written of working with Kimberlin and meeting with him personally. They have appeared in court together. Rauhauser has spoken of working with Kimberlin’s Velvet Revolution organization on Occupy events. In 2011, Rauhauser talked of a new job that he had, and of moving to Maryland — the state that is home to Brett Kimberlin and Velvet Revolution.

Above: as “WeOccupyAmerica, Rauhauser says he is closely connected with Brynaert, to his “chagrin.”

HOW BRYNAERT, RAUHAUSER, KIMBERLIN AND ANONYMOUS INTERNET ENTITIES HAVE TARGETED KIMBERLIN CRITICS FOR RELENTLESS HARASSMENT

On many occasions, Ron Brynaert, Neal Rauhauser, Brett Kimberlin, and anonymous Kimberlin supporters have harassed me and other Kimberlin critics in a similar manner — using tactics that the FBI told me are characteristic of swatters:

• Harassment of wives and family members — As noted above, Rauhauser asked readers for pictures of my wife. He and Brynaert have spoken of investigating my wife’s work as a Deputy District Attorney. Rauhauser and @OccupyRebellion have insinuated that my wife played a role in impersonating fake teens in the Anthony Weiner scandal. Kimberlin supporters @OccupyRebellion and @BreitbartUnmask have spoken of obtaining a picture of my wife. The Gaped Crusader constantly brought up my wife.
  

  The Gaped Crusader wrote like Neal Rauhauser, talked about the same topics as Neal Rauhauser, and once left a comment on my site with the same IP address that Neal Rauhauser used to leave a comment on another site.

  Brynaert has said my wife and I should be fired, and (as noted) has talked about taking a “shit” on my wife.

  The obsession with family members recently extended to Stacy McCain, with Kimberlin apparently having contacting Stacy’s wife’s employer, causing McCain to flee his house. Kimberlin supporter @BreitbartUnmask has mentioned the names of Stacy’s children online. @BreitbartUnmask has publicly outed a commenter of mine, discussed that commenter’s divorce records, and named his father.

• Publication of home addresses — OccupyforAccountability.org, a site related to Kimberlin, published my home address, as well as a Google street view and Google aerial view of my home. The “Gaped Crusader” republished that address.

  Donations at OccupyforAccountability.org go to Kimberlin’s Velvet Revolution. The same post published what the author stated was Andrew Breitbart’s home address. Andrew later told me it was actually a home owned by Andrew’s parents and rented out to others. Kimberlin later sent interrogatories to me at the address listed on OccupyforAccountability.org — and sent interrogatories to Andrew at the address the site had listed for Andrew. Andrew’s interrogatories eventually made their way to him, and he told me about it and gave me a copy of them.

  Kimberlin unnecessarily put Aaron Walker’s home address in court documents. Kimberlin had a habit of putting information into court documents — information that is later disseminated by Rauhauser and Brynaert.

• Workplace complaints — Brynaert and Kimberlin have both filed complaints against me with my office. (Rauhauser and Brynaert have spoken of these complaints publicly.)

  When Brynaert contacted my office, he initially called the very same person Kimberlin had complained to — even though that person was no longer my boss. If Brynaert had simply called asking for my boss, the office would probably not have routed Brynaert to the same person Kimberlin had complained to. But if Brynaert asked for that same person by name, they would route the call to that person.

  Kimberlin also spoke to at least two secretaries in my office, calling me a stalker, a racist, a homophobe, and saying he was going to have to get a restraining order against me. I had to explain to the secretaries that the man who called them had been convicted of setting off several bombs and had been sentenced to 50 years in federal prison — but was now free and harassing me.

  Rauhauser has encouraged people to file complaints against me, as has anonymous Kimberlin supporter @BreitbartUnmask. The “Gaped Crusader” spoke of sending packets of defamatory material about me to candidates running in the election for District Attorney, as well as to defense attorneys on my cases. As noted, Brynaert has stated that my wife and I should be fired. Anonymous Kimberlin supporter @OccupyRebellion constantly talks about how I will be fired and disbarred.

  

  Brynaert wrote to Andrew Breitbart defaming his employee Mandy Nagy (aka Liberty Chick), who wrote that comprehensive piece about Kimberlin in October 2010 I mentioned earlier.

  Kimberlin put Aaron Walker’s home and work address into court documents. The inclusion of the work address contributed to Aaron’s being fired, due to the employer’s fear that a convicted bomber might appear at their workplace.

  Kimberlin contacted Stacy McCain’s wife’s workplace.

  Brynaert contacted a man named Ken Ashford in an attempt to learn Aaron Walker’s real name, and threatened to email every member of Ashford’s firm claiming Ashford had harassed him. Brynaert later contacted the Human Resources Department at Ashford’s firm to complain about him.

• Abuse of court process — Kimberlin has filed numerous frivolous court actions against Aaron Walker and Seth Allen. The details of the court appearances are frequently reported — with a pro-Kimberlin spin — by Rauhauser and Brynaert. In a blatant abuse of the court’s process, Kimberlin served invalid interrogatories in the Seth Allen lawsuit on me, Aaron Walker, Mandy Nagy, and Andrew Breitbart. Rauhauser and @OccupyRebellion publicly referred to those interrogatories and asked when we were going to answer them.

  

  When police gave Kimberlin a picture of Allen from his driver’s license, that picture made its way into the hands of Rauhauser and Brynaert, who published it online.

  Kimberlin threatened to sue me right after I first published my first blog post about him. He told Walker’s pro bono attorney that he is planning a RICO lawsuit against me, Nagy, Walker, and Seth Allen.

  Nadia Naffe’s civil claim against me — Nadia Naffe has now filed a civil claim against me and my boss Steve Cooley — and the lawyer is Jay Leiderman, an online buddy of Neal Rauhauser’s who put out a request on a defense attorney mailing list to investigate whether any defense attorneys don’t like me. Although I have not seen the legal claim myself, excerpts of Naffe’s legal claim have appeared at the web site of self-described Kimberlin supporter and Rauhauser friend BreitbartUnmasked.com. Before the claim was filed, Rauhauser and @BreitbartUnmasked encouraged Naffe to file the sorts of claims that appear in the civil claim.

  Naffe has publicly said that she plans to use her lawsuit against me to ask questions in discovery about the value of my house — a topic in which Rauhauser and @OccupyRebellion have expressed interest in the past. According to a friend of mine, Naffe has also said that she plans to ask me and my wife under oath the true identity of conservative blogger Ace of Spades. Which is not something she ought to care about, since Ace had never said a word about her (although he has now).

  

  

  You know who cares about Ace’s identity? Brett Kimberlin supporter @BreitbartUnmask. He has written entire posts about Ace’s identity. And before I was swatted, someone threatened me by email. That person threatened one other person the same night: Ace of Spades.

  Additionally, Brett Kimberlin has used a subpoena in the Seth Allen lawsuit to subpoena James O’Keefe’s stolen emails from Naffe — despite the fact that there has been a final judgment in that lawsuit.

• Outing — Ace has good reason to be concerned, as this group has a history of outing anonymous critics. Aaron Walker’s identity was outed by Brett Kimberlin after he received an “anonymous tip.” Seth Allen’s identity was also outed by Kimberlin.

  In addition to furiously harassing Ken Ashford for Aaron Walker’s true name, Ron Brynaert also wrote Yale alumni affairs officials asking for information about Aaron. Within a single day of Brynaert’s failed campaign to learn Aaron’s true name and location, Brett Kimberlin wrote Aaron demanding that Aaron disclose his true name and location.

• Whisper campaigns — Brynaert and Kimberlin have both contacted people that they identified as online “enemies” of mine to complain of alleged harassment at my hands. Brynaert has recently taken to contacting other major bloggers to defame me, Aaron Walker, and Mandy Nagy. I have been forwarded emails by Brynaert from several notable bloggers.

• Frivolous claims of criminal wrongdoing — I am told Kimberlin filed frivolous claims of stalking against me with an anti-stalking unit in my office. Rauhauser has encouraged people to report me to that same unit. Interestingly enough, the anonymous person who threatened me by email before I was swatted mentioned the very same unit.

  Brynaert has also constantly claimed that critics of Kimberlin have stalked him and Kimberlin. @OccupyRebellion has made the same claim.

  I am told Kimberlin filed frivolous criminal charges against me with the California Attorney General. Rauhauser encouraged Daily Kos readers to file complaints against me with the California Attorney General.

  

  Rauhauser compiled a large packet of defamatory material accusing me, Walker, Nagy, and others of participating in criminal activity, and said he had sent it to state police in New Jersey and the FBI in Baltimore. He made the entire packet available as a torrent.

  Writing as Stranded Wind at Daily Kos (where he has since been banned), Rauhauser insinuated that I had obtained forged documentation during the course of my employment to support claims by shadowy Internet entity John Reid. @OccupyRebellion has made the same insinuations.

  Rauhauser and anonymous Kimberlin supporters claimed that I criminally intimidated a witness by criticizing Nadia Naffe on my blog — an allegation that apparently has surfaced in her civil claim against me and my boss Steve Cooley.

  Kimberlin claimed Walker assaulted him in a courthouse and made several claims regarding the incident that have been disproven by a video. Kimberlin’s claims were repeated by Brynaert, @OccupyRebellion, and @BreitbartUnmask. Rauhauser and @OccupyRebellion falsely alleged that Walker had been arrested for this crime, and repeatedly asserted that he had beaten Kimberlin.

  Brynaert has recently accused Aaron Walker of “extortion” for sending Brynaert a settlement demand letter in Walker’s lawsuit against Brynaert. Brynaert accused me and Mandy Nagy of being part of the “conspiracy” to “extort” Brynaert. In fact, just yesterday, Brynaert used the threat of going to the NYPD as a way to deter me from publishing this post, saying that he was going to the police as soon as I published:

  I’m waiting until a certain Deputy District Attorney – who has been enabling my blackmailer – to publish his lies, then I’m going to NYPD.

  — Ron Brynaert (@ronbryn) May 24, 2012

  Brynaert has accused me of criminal harassment. @OccupyRebellion has consistently accused me, Walker, and Nagy of being criminals.

  Brynaert, Rauhauser, and @OccupyRebellion have insinuated or stated that I was not swatted, that I filed a false police report concerning that swatting, and that in fact I am the person who committed the swatting of the man in New Jersey.

• Frivolous State Bar complaints or threats to file State Bar complaints — Kimberlin filed a frivolous State Bar complaint against me, and has now filed a State Bar complaint against Aaron Walker. Kimberlin insinuated he might file a State Bar complaint against Walker’s pro bono lawyer. Brynaert threatened to file a State Bar complaint against Aaron Walker and Ken Ashford (the man who refused to tell Brynaert the true name of Aaron Walker).

• General harassment — The “Gaped Crusader,” published a picture of a naked man with his penis exposed, and claimed that it was Deputy District Attorney John Patrick Frey. Here are some Gaped Crusader screenshots:
  

  

  The image above was not fuzzed out on the Gaped Crusader blog.

  Kimberlin supporter @BreitbartUnmasked harassed Aaron on Twitter, and gave accurate details about Aaron’s driving record that do not appear to be publicly available.

  After a court appearance in which Aaron tried to get a peace order against Rauhauser, Rauhauser wrote an email to me and other friends of his which said, among other things: “Given Walker’s state of mind I would say his wife might find him hanging in the garage tonight when she gets home from work.”

  Rauhauser called me at my office and left a message on my work voice mail, claiming that Aaron appeared to be suffering a psychological breakdown and needed help.

  Rauhauser and anonymous Kimberlin supporters have consistently accused Aaron of being bigoted against Muslims. Rauhauser wrote Aaron mocking emails talking about how Muslims were likely to try to kill him because of his “Everyone Draw Mohammed” site. Kimberlin wrote Aaron’s local police purporting to be concerned that, because Kimberlin had been “forced” (he claimed) to file a court document containing all Aaron’s personal information, that Muslims would get hold of that document and put Aaron in danger. Even after Aaron lost his job, someone either arranged for, or pretended to be, a Muslim group that threatened to take protest and diplomatic actions against Aaron’s workplace until they heard Aaron had been fired.

  Kimberlin defenders took court audio of Allen and put it on YouTube, showing a graphic of Allen’s face from his driver’s license picture.

  Mandy Nagy endured months of harassment from Rauhauser, @Occupy Rebellion, and others. @OccupyRebellion mocked Nagy’s illnesses and personal tragedies. She told Nagy that she hoped Nagy died of cancer. She claimed that Nagy (a rape victim) had never been raped. She repeatedly called Nagy a “cunt.” And she told Nagy that Nagy had put her own family’s life in danger.

  Nagy says she has been told by friends that people have been calling them asking questions about her, and that she has seen people seemingly staking out her residence in various vehicles.

  Meanwhile, @OccupyRebellion and Rauhauser have incessantly accused Nagy of “baiting” Anonymous. This claim itself functions to stir up Anonymous accounts, in an apparent effort to get Anonymous to hack Nagy.

Heard enough about this harassment? Then let’s move on to the voice on my swatting call.

THE VOICE

When I obtained the recording of my swatting, in July 2011, I thought I recognized the voice.

To me, it sounded like Brynaert. Specifically, it sounded like someone trying to disguise his voice at the beginning of the call, by talking in a monotone. Then, at the end of the call, when the dispatcher challenged the caller, the voice seemed to lose its disguised quality . . . and it sounded like Brynaert to me.

Here’s the thing: Brynaert was talking to me on the phone when the police came to my house. That is something that the FBI in Dallas also told me fits the M.O. of a swatter.

Before that phone call, Ron Brynaert had told me that he had important information for me about the Anthony Weiner case. And that is how I ended up talking to him on the phone on the night of June 30, 2011, leading into the early morning hours of July 1.

And that is how it happened that he was on the phone with me when the police showed up to my door.

Let’s listen to Brynaert’s voice compared to that of the caller:

I pushed and pushed for law enforcement to do a forensic comparison of Brynaert’s voice to that of the swatter. I found an interview of Brynaert online, so there was a ready sample for comparison. But they wouldn’t do it. (I was constantly frustrated by the failure of law enforcement to follow up on what seemed like obvious leads. More about that at a future date.)

So I decided to hire my own expert.

Kent Gibson is a forensic voice identification expert. He has done work for the FBI and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, as well as the Los Angeles County Public Defender. He is court-qualified in Los Angeles Superior Court. He is a Yale and Stanford graduate who has had extensive experience in audio work. He is the expert hired by the mother of Mel Gibson’s children to authenticate angry recordings that Mel Gibson left on her answering machine.

I first approached Kent in August 2011, but at the time I was still trying to convince law enforcement to do the comparison themselves. By January 2012 I had given up on law enforcement. I sent Kent my swatting call; the swatting call from New Jersey; a call to BlogTalkRadio that sounded like the swatter; and the Ron Brynaert interview.

The following quote is from Kent Gibson’s declaration, sent to me on February 25, 2012:

In this case the following files were presented for evaluation: Tag names for these four recordings are shown in BOLD. The[y] represent calls from two Swat Hoax cases, one involving Patrick Frey and one involving Mike Stack [the man from New Jersey — ed.].

G-8025959 FREY SWAT – Call made to 911 claiming a shooting at Mr. Frey’s residence on 7/1/2011 at 12:16 AM. Caller impersonates Patrick Frey.

Stack Call – STACK SWAT – Call made to police dispatch in Readington, New Jersey. 6/23/2011 Caller impersonates Mike Stack.

Ron Brynaert Interview.mp3 – BRYNAERT KNOWN – an internet radio interview. This caller is suspected of being the Swat caller re: Frey.

Lee Call-in Radio Show – LEE KNOWN (Lee is interviewer’s name, not caller.) This caller is suspected of being the Swat caller re: Stack.

. . . .

CONCLUSION: Considering all of the evidence presented, it is my expert forensic examiner opinion that it is probable that all voice samples come from the same person.

In other words, it is the opinion of an expert forensic examiner that Ron Brynaert’s voice is probably the voice of the man on my swatting call. A call that could have gotten me killed.

PARTING THOUGHTS

What you have just read is a summary. I have lived this daily — literally daily — for almost a year. There are pieces of evidence I didn’t have room to include. There is so much evidence of harassment it would take you weeks to read about it all.

What’s more, I know that this post is going to result in more harassment. I will almost certainly be sued, despite my careful efforts to stick to the facts. There will likely be more complaints to my workplace.

And I have a feeling they’ll find creative new ways to try to rip my life apart.

As an aside, I have listened to Brett Kimberlin in court audio, saying he meets with Congressmen on a regular basis. I want to make sure these Congressmen know what he’s doing.

I have appreciated the support I have felt in recent days, with people like Michelle Malkin, Instapundit, Stacy McCain, Ace, and many others stepping up and being willing to take on this topic.

It is my hope that the support of the blogosphere will not melt away after today. Because the harassment will almost certainly live on.

It’s an important battle to take on. And I want to stress that this should not be a partisan issue. I believe Brett Kimberlin uses lefty politics as a tool — but he doesn’t believe any of it in his heart. He is looking for a buck. I have been heartened to see left-leaning people of all stripes stand up to this guy in the past, from Mark Singer, the author of Citizen K; to Ken Ashford, who refused to give up Aaron Walker’s identity; to the left-leaning lawyer who represented Aaron pro bono.

It is my hope that left-leaning blogs will recognize that this is not a partisan issue. It is a free speech issue.

Remember how I said one of my commenters was outed? And this crew started talking about his parents? And his divorce records? For being a commenter of mine?

What happened to me could literally happen to anyone. It could happen to you.

If you take nothing else from this post, remember that. It could happen to you.

As always, opinions on this site are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer. I speak in my personal capacity and not my official capacity, and do not intend to speak on behalf of my office in any way.

UPDATE: I received this today from Roxanne Cooper:

Raw Story was founded by John Byrne in 2004, and has only ever been owned by John Byrne (and minority-stake owner Mike Rogers, who joined in 2009). Roxanne Cooper became the publisher in October 2010, shortly before Ron Brynaert ended his tenure at the publication. Since March 2011, the editorial direction has been under the management of Megan Carpentier, who has complete editorial discretion separate from management.

Brett Kimberlin and Velvet Revolution are not and never have been involved in the ownership, management or editorial direction of Raw Story. Neither Carpentier nor Cooper had ever heard of Kimberlin or Velvet Revolution prior to the start of the events described by Aaron Worthing, Mandy Nagy and Patrick Frey.

So there you have it.

[Guest post by Lee Stranahan]

I don’t think they can really win on this one. This is where PR people and customer service reps earn their money…but they aren’t earning it here. This isn’t good.

David Swanson was on an United Airlines flight when news came in that Osama Bin Laden had been killed. That’s United Airlines, as in United Airlines Flight 93.

The pilot who works for United was apparently happy that the guy behind the terror attack that killed United Airlines pilots, crew and passengers. The pilot made an announcement expressing happiness. 

David Swanson didn’t like that. Who is David Swanson? He’s the author of War Is A Lie and Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org (the site formerly known as After Downing Street.)

So Swanson wrote a letter complaining. A long letter – you can read the whole thing here on the blog post he wrote his awful experience being forced to sit through a United pilot’s moment of happiness…

Dear United Airlines,

My United flight at 4:06 pm PT on May 1, 2011, landed in Washington, D.C., Sunday night, and the pilot came on the intercom to tell everyone to celebrate: our government had killed Osama bin Laden. This was better than winning the Super Bowl, he said.

I think he should apologize to those passengers who choose not to cheer for the murder of anyone, no matter how much of a murderer himself, as if it were a sporting event and an occasion for joy.

Set aside for a moment the morality of cheering for the killing of a human being — which despite the pilot’s prompting nobody on the plane did. In purely Realpolitik terms, killing foreign leaders whom we’ve previously supported has been an ongoing disaster.

Our killing of Saddam Hussein has been followed by years of war and hundreds of thousands of pointless deaths. Our attempts to kill Muammar Gadaffi have killed his children and grandchildren and will end no war if they eventually succeed. Our attempts to kill Osama bin Laden, including wars justified by that mission, have involved nearly a decade of senseless slaughter in Afghanistan and the rest of the ongoing global "generational" war that is consuming our nation.

The Taliban was willing to turn bin Laden over for trial both before and after September 11, 2001. Instead our government opted for years of bloody warfare. And in the end, it was police action (investigation, a raid, and a summary execution) and not the warfare, that reportedly tracked bin Laden down in Pakistan. After capturing him, our government’s representatives did not hold him for trial. They killed him and carried away his dead body.

You get the idea. No mention of Flight 93, either. No expression of understanding or sympathy.

So United wrote this back to him…

Dear Mr. Swanson:

Thank you for contacting us. We are currently experiencing a high volume of emails, and I offer my apology for the delayed response to your message.

I am very sorry to hear that our pilot vocalized his personal opinion with the passenger’s onboard flight 210 on May 1, 2011. It is definitely a personal opinion on the reaction or outcome of the fact that Osama bin Laden was killed. Please accept my sincere apology. I have shared your comments to the onboard flight manager so he can take appropriate action to prevent this from reoccurring.

On another note, your email was so interesting it prompted me to continue on to read your website and blog.

Thank you for choosing United, we look forward to serving you on another flight in the near future under more pleasant circumstances.

At the conclusion of this email, please fill out the survey where you can rate your experience with the Customer Care department. We value your feedback and hope that you are satisfied with our service.

Regards,

Cherie Stevens
United Airlines Customer Relations

Please provide us feedback on the correspondence you have just received from the Customer Relations Contact Center. After filling out our brief survey, you will be given a chance to fill out our longer survey. If you choose to take our longer survey, your name will be entered to win a $400 certificate. Please see more details by accessing the weblink below.

Also no mention of Flight 93. Bad PR. Totally tone deaf. Bad move, Cherie Stevens. Here’s hoping Mr. Swanson doesn’t win the $400.

– Lee Stranahan

[Welcome, Instapundit readers! This post has information about the anti-speech thuggery of convicted bomber Brett Kimberlin, and his business partner Brad Friedman, against me.]

At Big Journalism, Liberty Chick has posted on Think Progress’s whitewashing of convicted bomber Brett Kimberlin from the Chamber of Commerce/HBGary story. She concisely explains the background and echoes my findings regarding Think Progress’s decision to eliminate Kimberlin from the story:

Think Progress, a project of John Podesta’s Center for American Progress Action Fund, has been fiercely pushing a story about leaked emails that suggest the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was aware of espionage work being performed against American citizens by one of its private security firms. . . .

But the reports are noticeably silent on one crucial component of the story.

The primary focus of the Chamber’s investigation was actually none other than the organization known as Velvet Revolution, and one of its co-founders, Brett Kimberlin.

Recognize that name? That’s because we told you all about this convicted domestic terrorist, known as the Speedway Bomber, who in 1981 was finally convicted of a week-long bombing spree in Indianapolis, IN in which eight separate bombs caused extensive property damage, destroyed a police cruiser, and severely maimed a man, eventually leading to that man’s suicide.

I think Liberty Chick also makes some good observations about the tactics of the firm hired by the Chamber. Understand that they not only gathered information on opponents, but they also spoke of planting false documents purportedly by their enemies. We cannot sanction such activity, and it’s important to say so. Liberty Chick says:

In the end, I don’t agree with what HBGary Federal did or how any of the firms involved have handled this. Having been a target of such attacks myself of numerous occasions, I might have actually shared some common ground with folks like Brad Friedman and other leftists on this issue. But the left’s intentional deception makes it so difficult to do so.

To that I would add: their deception and their own use of thuggish stalker and harassment tactics makes it difficult to sympathize.

Let’s all remember how Brett Kimberlin stalked Karl Rove in a Safeway, conned Rove into posing with him by pretending to be Rove’s fan, and then took a picture of Rove’s car . . . complete with license plate. And let’s all remember how Brad Friedman published those photos on his blog.

As I revealed yesterday, Brett Kimberlin has written numerous e-mails to my bosses, complaining about me and calling me a stalker. In his latest, he said: “I have already reported him to the Bar and to the ethics board and have motions in court addressing his reprehensible conduct. He is very close to getting sued and having a criminal complaint filed against him for harassment and stalking.” In addition, two secretaries in my office told me that Kimberlin called them ranting about me, calling me a racist, a stalker, and saying he was going to get a restraining order against me. There is more.

And Brad Friedman? He sent a Twitter message to Steve Cooley complaining about me. He and his stooge Ernest Canning are constantly disparaging me in a dishonest manner while using my full name and job title — a tactic they share with the Charles Johnsons and Jeff Goldsteins of the world.

There is much, much more to their intimidation tactics. I’m not discussing it all publicly now. Subscribers who want further details are welcome to e-mail me for the full scoop. The stuff I’m not putting in the post is way worse.

So, while I totally disagree with the tactics of HBGary Federal, I also totally disagree with the stalkerish, dishonest, and thuggish tactics used by Brad Friedman and his business partner, Speedway Bomber Brett Kimberlin.

They are what they decry.

Not to mention: setting off bombs is a fairly serious form of harassment. And Kimberlin was convicted of doing that . . .

P.S. I should add that this current campaign of harassment is merely a microcosm of what Shirley Sherrod is doing to Andrew Breitbart. Just when he is breaking the Pigford story wide open, Sherrod is suing him. Could it be any clearer what she’s trying to do? Silence him — just like Kimberlin is trying to silence me and Liberty Chick with threats of frivolous litigation.

Thank God for people like Andrew Breitbart and Liberty Chick, who stand up for what’s right despite the risks. And for people like Ron Coleman, my lawyer in the Kimberlin matter, for standing up for me.

UPDATE: Thanks to Instapundit for the links. Please consider bookmarking the main site, and follow my updates on Twitter here.

You can read the other related Think Progress post here. My backgrounder on convicted bomber Brett Kimberlin, who is threatening to sue me for telling the truth about him, is here. He is a serial litigant who has filed over 100 lawsuits, so I am expecting this will happen soon.

Finally: although I have pro bono counsel, I would certainly welcome any help towards litigation costs and the cost of local counsel. If you want to help out, the donation buttons are on the right. Please consider becoming a “subscriber” and making a recurring donation of $9 per month. I expect to give special non-public litigation updates to subscribers if the lawsuit is filed.

As I explained last night, Glenn Beck never told his supporters to shoot anyone in the head:

The full transcript is here. When you read it, you will see that the word “you” refers to the leftist politicians in Washington and their pals in the media, and “they” refers to their radical leftist friends — who, Beck warns, actually believe there must be violent revolution . . . and if they don’t get what they want, they may start one.

Beck is warning the comfortable pols that the people who put them in power aren’t going to be satisfied with seeing just a little of their agenda accomplished. They want it all. Because they are revolutionaries at heart — people who have called for violence and never repudiated it. And if they aren’t satisfied, Beck tells the pols, they will come after you. Violently.

Now comes Brad Friedman doing his typical “am I lying or am I stupid?” game:

Then-U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, referred to by Beck as a Marxist revolutionary in the comments above, represents San Francisco in the U.S. Congress.

But remember, both sides do it! Remember all of those quotes from the top stars in the Progressive media like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann and Randi Rhodes and Thom Hartmann imploring supporters to shoot Republicans in the head?

Me neither.

With this quote, Brad Friedman shows he is either lying, or has literally no idea what Beck was saying. He wasn’t calling Pelosi a Marxist revoutionary. He was saying she inhabits Washington by the grace of the fringe left, including Marxist revolutionaries.

In comments to his post, Friedman responds to his own commenters who try to explain the context. He doubles down in the process:

As to the nonsense that Beck was talking to “the left” and saying THEY should shoot someone in the head, that argument is absolutely absurd, and anyone who makes it — including Murray as you suggest he did — would have to be utterly disingenuous to even suggest such a thing. Unless they didn’t actually want to bother to find out, as is likely the case with Murray.

When Brad Friedman says an argument is “utterly disingenuous” that is usually a strong clue that it is true.

But if you want to talk “utterly disingenuous” . . . . ask yourself: why do I bring up Brad Friedman? Long-time readers already know, but for the rest of you, I’ll spell it out. Because, in his ranting about Glenn Beck’s violent rhetoric, Brad Friedman is business partners with a guy who was convicted of setting off numerous bombs — including one that literally blew off a man’s leg. (The maimed man later committed suicide as a result of his injuries.) Brad Friedman is partnered with a guy who was a suspect in the execution-style murder of a grandmother.

You want “utterly disingenuous,” Friedman, you embody it.

Brad Friedman might want to clean his own house before he flaps his lying gums about Glenn Beck, is what I’m saying.

But remember, both sides do it! Remember all those right-wing bloggers who are business partners with someone who actually blew a man’s leg off with a bomb?

Me neither.

If this doesn’t creep you out I don’t know what will. It’s Brad Friedman’s terrorist pal Brett Kimberlin posing with Karl Rove:

Yeah, Brett the Bomber even got a picture of Rove’s car, complete with license plate. (I blacked that part out.)

Brad has the whole amusing and heartwarming story here.

A picture is worth a thousand words:

Note how the comments mentioning “Brett Kimberlin” or “Velvet Revolution” are moderated, while the other one is not.

Friedman will tell you that he has mentioned Kimberlin before and is not afraid of having the association mentioned.

So why censor any mention of his bomber friend or the site they founded together?

Socrates got the same results.

Thanks to Dustin and Socrates for carrying out this experiment.

UPDATE: A commenter objects that we didn’t isolate the name “Brett Kimberlin” alone. Actually, we did:

[Note: this post is a supplement to the amazing post by Liberty Chick at Big Journalism today. That post sets out the important facts about Brett Kimberlin and his relationship to Brad Friedman. This post sets forth many of the same facts in my own way, and highlights a few points not mentioned in Liberty Chick’s piece. But you should definitely read her piece for the definitive takedown. It is tremendous.]

Brett Kimberlin set off eight bombs in Speedway, Indiana in 1978 over the course of several days. One blew up a police car. Another blew the right leg off of a Vietnam veteran named Carl DeLong. DeLong’s left leg was also severely injured, and two of his fingers were blown off and then reattached. DeLong carried shrapnel in his body, causing him constant pain . . . which apparently became too much for him. DeLong committed suicide in 1983 by sitting in his van in his garage with the engine running.

Kimberlin was identified by store clerks who sold him bombmaking materials. A search of his car revealed timers similar to those used in the bombing, as well as traces of the explosive used. He was convicted of the bombings. He has never been exonerated by any court.

Authorities suspected Kimberlin did the bombings as a distraction from a murder investigation. Kimberlin was enamored of a pre-teen girl named Jessica [a pseudonym given her by Mark Singer] who went on several unsupervised out-of-state trips with him. Jessica’s grandmother expressed her disapproval of the relationship, and insisted that the granddaughters move into her house to get away from Kimberlin. Kimberlin became suicidal. Then the grandmother was shot in the head at her house. Nobody else in the world had a motive to kill her except Kimberlin. After police arrested Kimberlin and several confederates in Texas in a massive drug smuggling operation, the sole eyewitness to the murder identified one of Kimberlin’s confederates as the man who killed Jessica’s grandmother. But the witness soon died of cancer, and no charges were ever brought against Kimberlin for the murder.

While awaiting trial on the bombing, Kimberlin plotted with an inmate to murder a prosecutor on his case. He promised another inmate bail money to go set off another bomb with similar components while Kimberlin was incarcerated, creating an alibi for Kimberlin.

In addition to his convictions for the bombings, Kimberlin was convicted at trial of impersonating a military official. (He sometimes posed as a military official as part of his smuggling operations). He also pled to the drug smuggling charge in Texas. For all these crimes, Kimberlin was sentenced to 50 years in federal prison for these and other crimes, but was somehow paroled in the early 1990s.

Now Kimberlin is partnered up with Brad Friedman of the BradBlog — the guy who has made such a big deal out of whether James O’Keefe was wearing a pimp outfit at ACORN. The guy who has repeatedly trumpeted the fact that O’Keefe was a federal criminal — for O’Keefe’s pissant misdemeanor violation of entering federal property under false pretenses.

With Friedman, Kimberlin runs VelvetRevolution.us. Together, they report wild-sounding conspiracy theories about voting irregularities, and solicit donations. Kimberlin and Friedman offer rewards of hundreds of thousands of dollars for news of voting fraud. Larisa Alexandrovna of Raw Story once told people at Democratic Underground:

I know Brett… and I know the story of his arrest and what really happened. he has been funding the voter fraud allegations, the afterdowningstreet people, etc.

With all this funding of investigations, offering of rewards, and such, Kimberlin to my knowledge has yet to pay DeLong’s widow any money on the $1.6 million civil judgment she received against him for blowing up her husband.

Speaking of crazy allegations against political figures, remember the guy who claimed that he had sold pot to Dan Quayle?

Yeah, that was Kimberlin.

Garry Trudeau made Kimberlin famous by writing a series of comic strips about Kimberlin’s unsubstantiated allegations about Quayle. Trudeau passed on the story to his friend Mark Singer, a writer for the New Yorker who wrote a sympathetic article about Kimberlin. Singer then wrote a book about him. But as he wrote the book, Singer started to realize that Kimberlin is a con artist. As Joe Gelarden, who wrote about Kimberlin during his trial, memorably stated, Kimberlin “was convicted of perjury – in federal court – before he got out of high school. Think about that for a moment.” In a passage in Singer’s book, Kimberlin is depicted as encouraging Singer to create fictional tales about him, saying: “Make it all up. Make the whole thing up.”

This fabulist, this convicted perjurer, is the guy behind many of the blockbuster stories about voter fraud published at BradBlog.com.

Kimberlin has taken to claiming that he was a political prisoner. For example, he had a band called Epoxy, and the band’s page of biographies for the band members says this about Kimberlin.

Brett Kimberlin

Epoxy arose out of the hellish depths of Brett’s time in prison for exercising his First Amendment rights to speech and political activity. Without any trial, Brett was hauled off to federal prison after being targeted by right-wingers who wanted to punish him for being a musician, writing a book and speaking out about politics.

From an interview:

5. Your views and political stance landed you time in prison – Did your views and/or ideas change because of the time you spent in prison?

My views about justice only got stronger in prison. I got to see and feel injustice first hand and spent a lot of time fighting for the rights of prisoners who were uneducated or from foreign countries. I have kept it up since being released, spending a great deal of resources on civil rights and liberties.

6. Many groups and organizations took up your cause and rallied for your release, did this surprise you and how did the media pick up your story?

My case is very convoluted but in essence, I was punished for exercising my First Amendment right to speech. Fortunately, many enlightened people came to my defense, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and that is why my band is donating a portion of each sale to those groups. It did not really surprise because the actions of the American Government were so blatant and therefore it was hard to ignore. What does surprise me is that so many people did and do not care what happened to me. My feeling is that if people don’t stand up to government sponsored injustice, it will only get worse.

The Indianapolis Star sets the record straight:

Kimberlin was paroled in 1994 after serving about 13 years of his 50-year sentence. But when he made no effort to pay the DeLong judgment his parole was revoked in 1997 and he went back to prison for about four more years, released again in 2001.

Many questions remain about the investigations Kimberlin has supposedly done with Brad Friedman. The guy appears to be a career criminal along the lines of Tookie Williams. The similarities are great: an intelligent violent criminal involved in multiple acts of deadly violence, who hatches a plot to escape from incarceration by means of murder. When that fails, he starts a massive publicity campaign, mobilizing the politically strident but fundamentally naive segment among the left who love to stand up for prisoners. As part of his campaign, he uses lame “art” to convince people he is a serious person.

The main difference is that Tookie got caught, convicted, and was never let go. Kimberlin? He walked in 1994, and is now a progressive hero walking the streets.

For more, read Liberty Chick’s post, and poke around the blog of a Socrates, who has been writing about the connection between Kimberlin and Friedman for months.

NEXT UP: Proof that Friedman is censoring mention of Kimberlin at Bradblog. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: Kimberlin has now threatened to sue me for this post. To be clear: the post is based almost entirely on published reports from the Indianapolis Star, TIME Magazine, and other news publications. If there are any errors, I invite Mr. Kimberlin to specify them. I will happily correct and retract any mistakes. However, I will not remove anything that is true.

Seen on Twitter tonight from Andrew Breitbart:

So excited to do something out of ordinary. Am re-following @thebradblog. Things are gonna get fun for @ericboehlert’s BFF. #pimphoaxwee!

You can’t see a message like that, about a guy like Brad Friedman, and not want to find out more. So: within minutes I was on the phone with Breitbart.

Sounds like he has a heck of an interesting story coming. You could even call it . . . a bombshell.

I can’t get any more specific than that, other than to say: hey, Brad? You know that thing you’ve been trying to hide from people? The thing you desperately don’t want people to know about? Yeah, that.

Sorry, dude. It’s coming out.

UPDATE: I’m just messing with Friedman, of course.

Or am I???

Via Bradblog (you heard me right!) comes the link to a story that should make everyone nervous, no matter which side of the aisle you sit on. Namely, a professor says that during an open public testing period for electronic voting machines in the District of Columbia, he and his team hacked the system, which “gave us almost total control of the server software, including the ability to change votes and reveal voters’ secret ballots.”

First, understand that the professor did this in an aboveboard manner — not hacking an actual election, but making his point during a test period:

The District of Columbia is conducting a pilot project to allow overseas and military voters to download and return absentee ballots over the Internet. Before opening the system to real voters, D.C. has been holding a test period in which they’ve invited the public to evaluate the system’s security and usability.

This is exactly the kind of open, public testing that many of us in the e-voting security community — including me — have been encouraging vendors and municipalities to conduct. So I was glad to participate, even though the test was launched with only three days’ notice. I assembled a team from the University of Michigan, including my PhD students, Eric Wustrow and Scott Wolchok, and Dawn Isabel, a member of the University of Michigan technical staff.

Within 36 hours of the system going live, our team had found and exploited a vulnerability that gave us almost total control of the server software, including the ability to change votes and reveal voters’ secret ballots.

What he accomplished is . . . frightening:

D.C. launched the public testbed server on Tuesday, September 28. On Wednesday afternoon, we began to exploit the problem we found to demonstrate a number of attacks:

* We collected crucial secret data stored on the server, including the database username and password as well as the public key used to encrypt the ballots.
* We modified all the ballots that had already been cast to contain write-in votes for candidates we selected. (Although the system encrypts voted ballots, we simply discarded the encrypted files and replaced them with different ones that we encrypted using the same key.) We also rigged the system to replace future votes in the same way.
* We installed a back door that let us view any ballots that voters cast after our attack. This modification recorded the votes, in unencrypted form, together with the names of the voters who cast them, violating ballot secrecy.
* To show that we had control of the server, we left a “calling card” on the system’s confirmation screen, which voters see after voting. After 15 seconds, the page plays the University of Michigan fight song.

But surely it’s a one-time thing, right?

The specific vulnerability that we exploited is simple to fix, but it will be vastly more difficult to make the system secure. We’ve found a number of other problems in the system, and everything we’ve seen suggests that the design is brittle: one small mistake can completely compromise its security. I described above how a small error in file-extension handling left the system open to exploitation. If this particular problem had not existed, I’m confident that we would have found another way to attack the system.

None of this will come as a surprise to Internet security experts, who are familiar with the many kinds of attacks that major web sites suffer from on a daily basis. It may someday be possible to build a secure method for submitting ballots over the Internet, but in the meantime, such systems should be presumed to be vulnerable based on the limitations of today’s security technology.

I have said in the past that I don’t think that concerns over electronic voting machines should be a partisan issue:

Fair voting should be a nonpartisan issue. Marc “Armed Liberal” Danziger has been writing about a couple of aspects of fair voting, and I agree with him on both issues.

The first issue is voting machines. Here in California, Secretary of State Debra Bowen has decertified e-voting machines from several companies, including Diebold. Marc cheers this development, and so do I. Diebold machines have numerous security problems, including the fact that (at least in September 2006) they could be opened with a hotel minibar key. This sort of thing is a recipe for disaster — and we should all be able to agree on that, regardless of which side we’re on.

In an Examiner piece, Marc writes:

[O]ur voting systems need to be robust enough that we’re not left in bitter dispute after an election on who voted and how. We don’t need voting technology less secure than airport poker machines in Vegas and less auditable than Enron’s books. This isn’t a partisan issue.

Indeed it isn’t.

Or, at least, it shouldn’t be. Yet I notice that, for whatever reason, it often is. In fact, I rather expect many of the commenters here to raise arguments that this is no big deal.

I disagree. What this professor did is scary. It creates the ability to affect elections on a huge scale, without detection.

Our democracy cannot permit this sort of risk.

Over at the blog of fabulist Brad Friedman, we see a post titled: FBI: O’Keefe DID Plan a ‘Wiretap Plot’ to Secretly Record Employees of U.S. Senator:

Remember the disingenuous snit fits that Rightwing con-man Andrew Breitbart and his Tea Bag Boyz were on about when the original reports broke of “a plot to wiretap Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office in the Hale Boggs Federal Building in downtown New Orleans” by Republican dirty trickster James O’Keefe and his band of co-conspirators?

They were outraged — outraged — that the “liberal media” had included the word “wiretap” in their reports about the felony arrests of the operatives, since the FBI’s arrest affidavit didn’t specifically mention an attempt to wiretap or bug the phones in her office. In a desperate attempt to distract from the actual story and find some way to support their friends’ charged with serious federal felonies, the Tea Bag Boyz demanded that a number of media outlets issue immediate retractions for the claim, and, of course, the “liberal media” outlets complied — as instructed — as usual.

The notion of calling the federal criminals “TeaBuggers” just drove Andy’s boys — particularly the shamelessly pseudonymous wingnut blogger & L.A. County Dep. District Attorney, Patrick “Patterico” Frey — to embarrassingly self-righteous (and inaccurate) distraction!

Friedman’s conclusion: we were all wrong, because O’Keefe really did engage in a “wiretap plot.” His proof? A new “FBI announcement” (actually a press release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office from the Eastern District of Louisiana) shows that O’Keefe intended to secretly record Landrieu’s employees in a video sting. You know: like he did at ACORN — which Brad claims violates “wiretap laws” and disingenuously labels “wiretapping.”

This is a fucking lie, and Brad Friedman is a fucking liar. A “wiretap” is defined as “a concealed listening or recording device connected to a communications circuit.” That definition does not apply to a simple undercover video sting — and Brad Friedman knows it.

We all knew O’Keefe intended to do an undercover sting and videotape it. This is not news. Calling that a “wiretap plot” is, in my view, defamatory.

As Larry O’Connor put it: “Who knew @aplusk [Ashton Kutcher] was WIRETAPPING all those people on Punk’d?” Kurt Schlichter identified the problem more directly: “Maybe I’m hypertechnical but doesn’t wiretapping traditionally involve wiretapping?”

No, Kurt, you’re not hypertechnical . . . you’re just honest. Unlike Brad Friedman.

I hope O’Keefe demands a correction. I hope Friedman refuses. And I hope O’Keefe sues him for it.

P.S. That press release has a rather curious and significant omission. Consider that a teaser. Full story in the morning.

P.P.S. Here is Brad tweeting Steve Cooley to try to get me in trouble with my job for calling him a liar.

TheBradBlog @SteveCooley4AG U cool w ur Dep DAs tweeting this 2 constnts/media? RT @Patterico @TheBradBlog that’s a fucking lie & u are a fucking liar.

Intimidation FAIL. Trying to intimidate me at my workplace didn’t work when Jeff Goldstein did it to me from the right, and it won’t work when Brad Friedman does it to me from the left.

My response:

@TheBradBlog I’m pretty sure @SteveCooley4AG is cool with me calling liars like you what they are. But thanks for asking! #intimidationFAIL

I don’t live my life cowering from turds like you, Friedman.

P.P.P.S. As a bit of comedy gold to punctuate the post, allow me to present to you the following caveat at the head of Brad Friedman’s Wikipedia entry:

This article may contain wording that promotes the subject through exaggeration of unnoteworthy facts. Please remove or replace such wording.

Hahahahahahahahahaha.

You know, I —

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!

Sorry.

*wipes tears from eyes*

You know, I think that would be a good tagline for bradblog.com. What do you think?

(H/t @breitbartfan77.)

UPDATE: Friedman responds by claiming that I selectively quoted the definition of “wiretap.” He quotes one definition for the verb (actually, he used it as an attributive noun, but why quibble?) as follows: “To install a concealed listening or recording device or use it to monitor communications.”

Which, of course, also doesn’t apply. O’Keefe neither “installed” the device in Landrieu’s office, nor did he use it to “monitor” communications, but rather simply record conversations taking place in his presence.

Swing and a miss.

Friedman also links to this set of Penal Code sections, which he claims is the “California wiretap act,” to argue that undercover videos are somehow actually wiretaps. (I think it is actually known as the Invasion of Privacy Act, but don’t take my word for it; contrary to Friedman’s suggestions, I am not a wiretap violations prosecutor but a gang murder prosecutor, speaking in my private capacity as I always do on this blog.)

I have looked at these sections and I don’t see where they define what O’Keefe did as “wiretapping.” Indeed, I don’t see the word “wiretap” or any variant thereof in the law. If there is a section that defines in-person covert taping as “wiretapping” then I’d ask Friedman to kindly quote it for me.

In short: what “wire” did he “tap,” Friedman?