Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

800-vote-tipBrett Kimberlin achieved his third wave of fame by being publicly upset about election integrity. Episode 1 was the Speedway Bombings, and episode 2 was the story about selling dope to Dan Quayle. Episode 4 has been his anti-First-Amendment lawfare.

During the 2008, Kimberlin and his Velvet Revolution US co-founder Brad Friedman set up an 800 number for tips about voter fraud. The number is still advertised on the Velvet Revolution US home page (No, I won’t link to it.)

I called the number yesterday and got a recorded message from the 800 number reseller who owns the line offering it for lease. Velvet Revolution hasn’t been using it for a while.

I wonder why their are still promoting an tip line that doesn’t exist?

12 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

  1. What was episode 3? Suing Seth Allen and only getting $100 for Allen allegedly calling him a pedophile? Brett Kimberlin’s possible involvement in the SWATtings? Or his claiming he himself was SWATted and putting up another of those reward offers that he has never paid? Or was it his attempt to frame Aaron Walker for a crime he didn’t commit (as you can see from the video)? Or was it his wife bringing charges for statutory rape and then inexplicably dropping them? Or something else?

  2. I wonder if Kimberlin was able to poach the number where folks could call in with information about the real killer of Nicole Simpson? Both where waiting for a phone call that would never come.

  3. Will someone please enlighten me as to what BS is rambling about now? I don’t have a clue. Does he honestly think that he gets to question witnesses on appeal? Or is he referring to another hearing?

    • Oh, he is babbling about WJJH and journalism and such, as if he found a smoking gun. In February, WJJH was working at NASA, as I recall. I think he was a quantum physicist. However, he retired in May, which opened up a new employment path for him. That was four months ago.

      • I see the words and I process them as gobbledygook, so I ask for your patience until I get it straight.

        My point, however, is this: BS is citing February excerpts from your blogs (before you retired and decided to make this your full time gig) and going “aHA!” when in those same excerpts you explain that you were a journalist in the past. Of course, as is usually the case, he is as clear as mud in his intentions, but it seems like he is suggesting something nefarious re: your membership in the SPJ. The SPJ’s own membership rules allow FORMER journalists, current journalists, and non-journalists to join.

        He seems to have deep and persistent reading comprehension problems.

Leave a Reply