More video from yesterday’s show
(meaning February 20). Toward the end,
he engaged in a deep throated defense of Brett Kimberlin. To put it in a little context, he was talking
about a Tweet where someone referred to a “buddy” of his who went to
prison. Schmalfeldt logically deduces that
they were referring to Brett Kimberlin and he goes on to address the claims
that he is friends with, or associated with, Brett Kimberlin.
See if you can catch the
contradiction in his statement:
Now there is a lot wrong
there. I particularly love the part
where he argued that since he was defending Kimberlin, that we were therefore “persecuting”
him, as though one followed the other. As
though we were not instead trying to get Kimberlin to face justice for the
crimes he has more recently committed...
Nah, poor whiddle Brett Kimberlin
was being persecuted. Persecuted I tell ya!
But ignore that bit, and tell me
if you can spot the contradiction, in his statement. Listen again if you need too…
Well, here is the contradiction: early
on, he claims he never met Kimberlin, never talked to him, doesn’t even know
what he would look like except by old photos.
Now first, notice that by expressio
unius he didn’t say anything about emails and the like. But he is giving you the overall impression
that he doesn’t really know this Kimberlin fella.
And then he tells us that Kimberlin
is really trying to make up things better, to fight for social justice. He says this twice, the second time speaking
much more affirmatively about the good that Kimberlin is supposedly doing.
How on earth can he pretend to
know that, without ever having met the man?
The only evidence that Kimberlin has ever in his life helped anyone but
himself (and those he depends on, which is selfish in its own way) is that
Kimberlin has said he has done so. But
since when does any “journalist” pretend that the word of a convicted perjurer
amounts to anything?
Of course Schmalfeldt ignores the
powerful evidence of at least him being allied with Kimberlin. And his denial seems hard to square with this
Tweet that we were able to screencap:
It is his confession that this
isn’t about a search for the truth or to inform the public or anything so noble
or journalistic. It is instead his confession
that this is about protecting Brett Kimberlin... a man that he claims he is
unconnected to.
Is that what normal people
do? Harass complete strangers for the
benefit of another complete stranger for no reason at all? Or do you think maybe his claim he isn’t
connected to Kimberlin is a bit of a lie?
And for bonus points, that tweet
proves that his harassment, which he pretends to be an “investigation” is not
for any legal purpose, but to get us to stop investigating and to stop
reporting on, Brett Kimberlin. This is
precisely why Lee and John’s criminal complaints are designed to vindicate freedom of speech.
By the way, as a final thought, a
few seconds later in that speech (he goes on quite a while about the martyrdom
of Brett Kimberlin and himself), he then dives into ethnic stereotyping. Yes, really:
But my takeaway question is what
exact group is he stereotyping? Italian
Americans? Hispanic Americans? Asian
Americans? I suppose the respective ethnic
anti-defamation groups haven’t started protesting because 1) no one can figure
out who exactly he has insulted and 2) no one listens to him anyway. Seriously, I wonder if anyone is listening to
his show besides conservatives wanting to listen to a member of Team Kimberlin
flailing live, and his employers who are probably not terribly pleased with his
performance as of late.
---------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
I have accused some people,
particularly Brett Kimberlin, of
reprehensible conduct. In some cases, the conduct is even
criminal. In all cases, the only justice I want is through the
appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system. I do not want to see vigilante violence
against any person or any threat of such violence. This kind of conduct is not only morally
wrong, but it is counter-productive.
In the particular case of Brett
Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him. Do not call him. Do not write him a letter. Do not write him an email. Do not text-message him. Do not engage in any kind of directed
communication. I say this in part because
under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to
happen to him.
And for that matter, don’t go on
his property. Don’t sneak around and try
to photograph him. Frankly try not to
even be within his field of vision. Your
behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to
mention trespass and other concerns).
And do not contact his
organizations, either. And most of all, leave his family alone.
The only exception to all that is
that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with
contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might
report. And even then if he tells you to
stop contacting him, obey that request. That
this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that
a person asks you to stop and you refuse.
And let me say something
else. In my heart of hearts, I don’t
believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above. But if any of you have, stop it, and if you
haven’t don’t start.
No comments:
Post a Comment