Recommended Reading

Dave Weigel has a very balanced account of the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit up at The Daily Beast.

Since I’ve been asked to comment on the piece, I’ll add this: Dave Weigel skipped over my testimony in the case. I assume that he did so because the questions asked of me were so pointless and did so little to move the case one way or the other.

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE—Stacy McCain adds his thought here.

UPDATE 2—I want to offer a second to Aaron Walker’s comment below. The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s shills would not be cluttering the comment section of Dave Weigel’s article if it weren’t seen as a problem by Team Kimberlin. Look, folks, the piece was published by The Daily Beast. It’s aimed right at Kimberlin’s natural constituency. It might actually cause one or two of his supporters to begin to ask questions. That’s worth more in the long run to the cause of bringing Brett Kimberlin to justice that a one-hour exposé on Fox News.

I’m in general agreement with Ali Akbar’s comment as well.

UPDATE 3—Ann Althouse has blogged about Dave Weigel’s post, and her comment section is quite interesting.

58 thoughts on “Recommended Reading

  1. Very sympathetic to Kimberlin, omitting much. I realize one can’t include every detail but when discussing pedophilia accusations and the justification of them, pointing out only the wife’s age is insufficient. Skipping that Brett Kimberlin was in his 40’s while his wife was 14-16 is a BIG thing to miss. Kinda blows his whole point there. And I don’t think there is a direct link to that info included either.

    • Yes, but it also skips over a great deal of the good guy’s stuff as well. He had a lot of material for the piece, and most of it would up on the cutting room floor. The article isn’t perfect. It is balanced.

      • Sometimes the truth isn’t balanced, and instead comes down like a weight of bricks on one side’s head or the other’s.

        When, in such cases, you try to force balance where there is none you end up with pronouncements such as, “But in prison, Kimberlin became a decent lawyer….” As we have seen, Kimberlin was NEVER a “decent lawyer,” and saying he was doesn’t pass the laugh test.

      • For the peculiar form of “balance” that allows the press to bury the crimes of those they favor. On a larger scale, you can see this “balance” in the reporting about Israel.

      • I suppose balanced is as good a word as any. Full of holes would be good too. I expected more.

        I wish he’d spent a little more time on the intricacies of the case and Kimberlin’s practice of lawfare and intimidation and a little less describing the defendants as a group of right wing conspiracy nuts involved in an Internet war of attrition with an equally nutty left wing activist. This story has next to nothing to do with politics.

        It may have had a different take if a SWAT team showed up at his house while his wife and children were quietly tucked in there beds.

      • Just goes to show you may not be interested in the partisanship angle, but it is interested in you.

        If it wasn’t for the one side being evil Tea Party extremists, a disinterested party might look at it and wonder how such a travesty of justice happens.

        But Leftists read this and go well serves them right because conservative.

      • John, If I were a reporter, covering a defamation suit by a felon, suing people for calling him a pedophile – and being in court when the judge asked him has he ever been arrested for being a pedophile, seeing the evidence of a child bride, a murder to cover up another child relationship, the convictions for perjury, the much later songs about sex with underage girls – somehow my article would been more about – choices and decisions and how they follow you forever rather than – gee the internets a toughie

      • Earl, you’ve got it exactly right. That seems to be one of the main themes I saw in the comments. Such idiots.

      • “a little less describing the defendants as a group of right wing conspiracy nuts”

        He knows what the readers of the “Daily Beast” want.

      • Weigel is a bit of an idiot. One might remember that he was one of WaPo’s token conservatives until Ezra Klein’s JournoList was revealed and his “conservative” cred was demolished.

        This may be the best piece he’s ever written. It’s still shoddy.

    • I too felt the piece was biased. It outlines the saga in simplistic ways, making it seem without substance. Saying that the right media exists in “a bubble” while the left’s bubble includes the mainstream media, the university and the entertainment industry. Or that fighting with Kimberlin was “getting lost down a rabbit hole,” as if the whole brouhaha was frivolous, omitting the fact that Seth Allen, the first Kimberlin victim in this saga, is a liberal blogger. Also, describing McCain as having “tobacco stained teeth” and Ali Akbar “speaking through an underbite” was pure spin with no relevance to the trial. Of course, the Daily Beast is a leftist site, and it shows.

      • Notice the careful attention paid to the SPLC slander of McCain and the lack of names of the people murdered for the bad luck of crossing Kimberlin.

    • i am replying to Jane just because i want my comment kind of near the top. So this isn’t really to her. You are being entirely too sensitive to it. I could quibble about a few things, but here’s the thing. Look at Kimberlin’s defenders in the comments doing all they can to attack Weigel and so on. Nothing could tell you more that it is devastating to Brett Kimberlin.

      • The trial was devastating to Brett Kimberlin. The reporting was less so. It was quite devastating to Brett Kimberlin to have it noted in the public record that his [now] wife saw him, at age 42, kissing her 12 year-old cousin. It was less devastating to report that your fellow defendants “looked at each other in blissful disbelief,” while that testimony was being given. [I, too, would have been joyous and incredulous that Brett Kimberlin allowed such devastating hear-say statements to be entered. But, that didn’t seem to be what Weigel was suggesting.] It was devastating to Brett Kimberlin to note how he attempted to “out” you to extremists who may have very well tried to kill you. That was sanitized when Dave Weigel juxtaposed that with Kimberlin’s assertion that the Allen trial was about showing how “unfairly” he had been treated. It was devastating to Brett Kimberlin to admit his intent of being a serial litigant. It was less so when he noted Ali was soliciting funds to fight that litigation. These are just a few examples.

        P.S. In your comments to liberals @ liberal_land you ought to have noted how Kimberlin called both Ali and his wife’s new lover the N-word. Working in the gas-guzzling SUV he drives would have been a nice touch.

      • The trial is less devastating to Kimberlin if only a relatively small clique of people, who dislike him anyway, hear about it. The relative lack of mass media coverage of Brett’s misdeeds has been a huge impediment for his victims. Overall, Weigel’s article is a huge help to the problem of Brett being able to operate in the darkness.

  2. It’s quite clear Weigel has never bothered with the authorized kimberlin biography. If he had, he’d know that young girls and questionable contacts/relationships/ attachments/pursuit
    /friendships with them, ranging fron romance to apparent grooming to interference in their legal affairs as “next friend” are a repeated background event in the bio. Kimberlin’s life-after-bio does little to undo the impression created by that of course. In the coarsest possible language he describes the temptations young girls hold for him, a forty-something, and attributes this desire to all other men. Weigel almost seems to paint his selection of spouse as honorable and sweet…. Even if you discount the wife’s, still girlish in appearance, own history of when and how that relationship evolved, she was preyed upon at a tender age by a much older man, a felon in a foreign country whose parole would be revoked for serious dishonesty, serving to bolster the notion this is a deeply held preference of his.

    I don’t call him a pedophile, but I do think he has the same narcissistic impulses and feels most at ease when he sees to himself a powerful, controlling, white knighting figure who has innocence under his thumb.

  3. Only Weigel could take an article about a pedophilic violent terrorist, and make him a victim of the internetz

  4. He left out the key information that Stacy moved his family because Kimberlin called Stacy’s wife’s employer. Stacy interpreted that as a threat, and I can’t say I blame him.

    • Yes, exactly – a recurring theme of leaving out “an” if not “the most” important fact related to whatever point he’s making. Weigel makes it sound like RSM fled because of the atmosphere, rather than specific and threatening actions directed toward his wife.

      Again, leaving out that Brett Kimberlin was in his 40’s when he took up with his wife who was 14-16 years old, is a key piece of info which Weigel doesn’t even link to in his piece. He mentioned the wife’s age, so leaving out Aqualung’s age is glaring.

  5. In the Article Linked by D Weigel alleged reporter for the Daily Miletoast above by Mr. Hoge; someone we all may know has commented – I have abridged much of his rambling whining self serving accusatory screed since it was a very FAVORABLE article for Kimberlin – as favorable as a violent drug bombing pedo felon could expect when getting totally spanked in court.

    1 minute ago
    ….., Dave, that your sources cited in this story are either blogs by the defendants, or blogs sympathetic to the defendant. I, for one, am quite familiar with your friendship with Ali Akbar. I wasn’t at the trial, so I can’t comment one way or another about your coverage. But I can and do object that not one of the “liberal bloggers” you casually mention in your article was contacted for a comment. Shabby……

    Note in a search for the truth he actually admits to being at Blog Bash although given his state of confusion being hooked this weekend by pictures of fertility protozoa, and simple dupery on the internet – he may have confused his attendance at blob bash instead…

    • I see Bill Schmalfeldt made his appearance under “FormerPatriotOmbudsman.”

      Which sock is Neal Rauhausher using?

      • Given the crappy quality of the writing, why not suppose that’s Brett himself? Let’s face it, Neal’s writing makes more sense than “LeftAllTheWay” in that article. And Neal Rauhauser at least makes a half decent effort to conceal his affiliations.

    • Oh, my. That’s rich coming from the Deranged Cyberstalker, Adjudicated Harasser, Cyberthug, and Journamalist Bill Schmalfeldt.

      BS never balances his “journamalism” with both sides of any story. And, before the Blob begins squealing like the big, fat pig he is that it’s because the “other side” won’t respond to his inquiries — he may want to take into account his sociopathic cyberstalking, harassment, threats, and faild0xing of far too many good and decent people to count going back YEARS.

    • I gave up on the clunky, over-scripted, over-complicated commenting interface at TDB. It’s nothing I want to spend a rest day fighting with. I am interested to see that Bill Schmalfeldt and this “LeftAllTheWay” guy (who is obviously familiar with Kimberlin and his lawfare) felt the need to chime in and complain that the article wasn’t favorable enough to their pedophile terrorist hero.

      I do think “LeftAllTheWay” is not Neal. Neal has been too busy cozying up to a different pedophile who is declared a vexatious litigant by Texas courts.

      “Antagonist_1” does nice work confirming my personal prejudice that politics is less often a way of solving problems and more often IS the problem. His post advertises to onlookers that his own personal politics have made him unwise and unkind to his neighbors. This is actually why I advise against bringing politics into Brett Kimberlin matters – not because I’m pushing my opinion about which political opinions are good, but because politics makes people behave immorally and unjustly and makes them feed conflict rather than make peace. And that is exactly why Brett Kimberlin’s side likes to politicize it.

      • A little more about politics. Some commenters wrote something to the effect of “I’m OK with Brett’s evil if it’s against people whose politics I dislike.” I saw nice takedowns of that attitude which did NOT need arguing about whose politicians are better:

        Kimmy84 4 hours ago
        @Antagonist_1 Yea, he may be a pedophile terrorist, but he’s OUR pedophile terrorist!

        Nice one by Kimmy84.

        joe5pack 3 hours ago
        @Antagonist_1 What a horrific state of mind. Kimberlin may be a pedophile terrorist, who cares? As long as he discomfits my ENEMIES! Gee, I wonder why political discourse is so toxic now?

        ZiLe also commented in the TBD article; he prefers different politicians than most readers here but still sees Kimberlin’s tactics and allies as contemptible.

        I had to chuckle at the bad job Schmalfeldt is doing defending himself and Brett in those comments. I skip BS’s twitter, but I laugh at how Kimberlin is scraping the bottom of the barrel if BS is all he can recruit to astroturf for him.

  6. Was it really “balanced” to note that Kimberlin was convicted of the Speedway bombing at a trial in which six witnesses were hypnotized, but, failing to mention that Kimberlin was caught in possession of the same timing mechanisms and explosives used in the bombs while impersonating a military officer? This is before mentioning that at the sentencing it was entered into the record that two separate prisoners in the same jail as Kimberlin reported to the authorities that Kimberlin had solicited them to murder the prosecutor in his case, and others.

    Was it really “balanced” to note that Kimberlin was convicted of perjury for not being candid about what drugs he was selling, but, failing to mention that Kimberlin was arrested at 17 for selling cocaine, and, convicted of perjury for denying manufacturing and selling tens of thousands of “hits” of LSD?

    Was it really “balanced” to juxtapose Kimberlin “outing” Aaron Walker as the editor of the Everybody Draw Mohammed site with its resulting “very real probability of Aaron Walker being subjected to serious harm or death,…” with the statement, ” At the time, Kimberlin argued that he was trying to get a judge to see how unfair the negative blogging had been to him.” Would Mr Weigel care to elaborate on how exactly presenting the same statements by the same person to same judge is any way affected by unsealing the information to the public?

    Finally, was it really “balanced” for Weigel to ghettoize conservative advocacy into a “bubble” while disdainfully denouncing conservative efforts to cover the story as time spent chasing down a “rabbit hole?” Didn’t Weigel himself deem the story newsworthy enough to report upon it himself? Didn’t he report of the case just today? I can only deduce Weigel discovered at trial that his anticipated narrative of “unjust persecution of reformed model liberal citizen over unsavory past by rightwing extremists set right in court” collapsed so he decided to poison the well with accusations of triviality out of sour grapes.

    • Weigel seemed to miss that there is a certain importance of wondering why our state department gave money to a convicted terrorist. (Or worked jointly with him or whatever the hell they did.)

      If Kimberlein were just some nut spouting off crazy, even if he were a nut getting private tons of private money, I wouldn’t particularly care much. (He’d just be Alex Jones, Leftist edition.)
      But he’s managed to con the government out of cash/resources/whatever out of our government, it becomes a bigger concern.

      The media covers Alex Jones, so he’d probably still be a fringe story, but absent the SD connection and the lawsuits he’d probably would have never even popped on most people’s radar.

      • He voluntarily named the kid, too. He didn’t have to play along with her exploitation, she’s underage, and common sense should tell him she has a lot invested in pleasing the parent figure BK. He could have kept her name out of it.

  7. Weigel is obviously in our pocket like Bill says. Replying to every comment at the Daily Beast will chew up at least the rest of today, and probably into tomorrow, thus robbing Bill of valuable research time.

    Weigel released the article to save Krendler!!!

    • There is a lot of info there and maybe enough that some will follow up to find out the rest. There were links to Hogewash, Aaron’s and RSM’s blogs, so it won’t be difficult for anyone to get the rest of the story.

      And think of how many new people will be introduced to the story.

      I don’t expect the plugs for will generate much in the way of donations from such a left-wing site, but any little bit helps and just mentioning may help improve search rankings.

      Keep in mind too, that Weigel likely doesn’t want to be sued or swatted.

  8. Another point about Brett Kimberlin’s conviction he just dropped likea hot rock: Kimberlin’s conviction didn’t really rely on hypnotized witness statements. Kimberlin’s bombing alibi completely collapsed when testimony and CONTEMPORANEOUS documentary evidence was introduced showing that Sandra Barton was not with Kimberlin as she claimed. The store clerk’s story didn’t change about who came in and purchased timers. (By the way, Kimby was out with some tween dreams that night, playing uncle sugar, buying them clothing and shoes).

    • Dave Weigel wrote: “One: Mark Singer’s book had made Kimberlin’s interest in one young girl look downright creepy.”

      Oh, really? ONE young girl?

      If Weigel felt the need to reference Mark Singer’s book, “Citizen K: The Deeply Weird American Journey of Brett Kimberlin” (the same, exact book the sawed-off, domestic terrorist Brett Kimberlin cooperated with) — the least he could have done is to have read it, and/or reported honestly about the contents therein:

      (1) Thirty-nine-year old Brett Kimberlin hits on an 18yo girl on the bus within hours of being released from prison [page 11];

      (2) “His [Brett Kimberlin] attachment to Jessica was quite a different matter.”

      “… Sandi couldn’t get time off from work, so on these summer trips it was just the two of them–Brett and Jessica.” [page 78];

      (3) “A woman named Lorraine Fint, who identified herself as a longtime friend of Kimberlin’s, testified that on September 2, the eve of the fifth bombing, Kimberlin had taken her teenage daughter, Lisa, and her teenage niece, Helen Conwell, shopping for school clothes and to dinner in Indianapolis.” [page 133];

      “In a subsequent conversation, he [Brett Kimberlin] told me [Mark Singer] he remembered the purpose of the trip after all. He had gotten a new shipment of T-shirts at the Good Earth, and Rodney’s daughter, Lisa, and a friend of hers each wanted one, so he drove to Martinsville to deliver them. He didn’t mind going out of his way, because he was having a romance, if you could call it that, with Lisa’s friend, who was then fifteen years old.” [page 328];

      (4) “In her testimony, Sandi mentioned that late in the summer of 1978 she had felt lonely because a serious boyfriend had moved out-of-state. She also alluded to Kimberlin’s dalliance with Andrea Mazzone and spoke of his attachment to her younger daughter.” [page 135];

      (5) “For several years, this conduit was an Indianapolis woman named Shelly Conner, who as a young teenager had written to Kimberlin at the Marion County Jail… ”

      “Kimberlin paid part of her rent and all of her phone bill. They spoke daily.

      “I [Kimberlin] gave her something to do that was interesting… She cared a great deal for me… Her parents had died; she really didn’t have anybody else. I was an important part of her life.” [page 200];

      (6) “Almost eighty teenage girls resided at Boys Town, and a photograph of one of them, a seventeen-year-old cheerleader named Tiffany Perkins, accompanied the piece. Kimberlin wrote her a letter, and she soon wrote back…

      Brett Kimberlin sued the executive director of Boys Town for intervening. [pages 216-217];

      (7) “As Kimberlin exited prison, he seemed to be in love. His inamorata was Juliya Chupikova, a young Soviet émigrée with whom he had sustained a relationship for more than three years.” [page 302];

      (8) “… Juliya decided to come to America.”

      “… and shortly after Juliya turned nineteen, he [Brett Kimberlin] brought her to America.” [page 307]

      (9) The morning of the Supreme Court oral argument, I [Mark Singer] rode downtown with Brett, Carolyn, and Monika Kosior, a twenty-year-old Pole who had replaced Juliya Chupikova as his romantic interest.” [page 345];

      (10) Not mentioned in the book:

      * The sexually-explicit songs like, “Waiting to Meet” and “Teen Dream;”

      * BK’s quote regarding “f*cking teenage girls;” and,

      * The disgusting and sordid story with regard to BK’s estranged wife and her underage cousin.

      Albeit, to any journalist desiring to paint a complete and truthful picture of Brett Kimberlin’s interest in young girls — the information is readily available.

      Needless to say, Weigel’s “Mark Singer’s book had made Kimberlin’s interest in ONE young girl look downright creepy.” statement is intellectually dishonest as the day is long.


      • Don’t forget the convicted child pornographer living in his basement and filming his daughters music videos.

        It’s no wonder Aaron is proud that BK’s neighbors are aware of his predilections and that the parents of his daughters friends won’t allow sleepovers.

        It’s a shame he’s not require to register as a sex offender.

      • Didn’t he have some kid singing on his opcritical stuff? “Siren” was her stage name – she was made up to look like an adult, but if IIRC she was 15 or sixteen when she sang for them. She’s an adult now, about age 20.

  9. I would also take exception to Weigel’s quote, “Kimberlin denied any involvement [in the SWATtings], and no court has contradicted him.” The correct formulation ends with “yet.”

    In his RICO suit, Brett Kimberlin is suing most of the conservative blogosphere claiming that it had defamed him in multiple instances by “inferring” that he was responsible for the SWATtings. When those defamation suits are adjudicated in favor of the defendants, it will be correct to note the following:

    “In the following articles cited by Brett Kimberlins, …, by Kimberlin’s own account, it was inferred that Brett Kimberlin was responsible for several SWATting. Brett Kimberlin sued for defamation. The suit ended with those articles being adjudicated to not be defamatory.”

    • Well noted.

      Kimberlin’s role in the SWAT’ings is being a beneficiary. No one involved in this saga has suggested Kimberlin himself is dialing numbers and harming people. After all, it’s not his thing.

      Remember Julia Scyphers.

  10. I was entertained and laughed during most parts of the article. I’m glad it was done. Dave is a serious journalist and we don’t share a worldview or political ideologies. Kimberlin’s war with me (I’ve never had with him) has never been political, so I don’t expect Dave’s reporting to be.

    The article if for The Daily Beast and their salacious readership. The commenters here, who are more well-versed with this saga, are inherently going to no more and wish it were in the article. This was a “longform” or “longread” article. There’s already enough words there.

    I’m a communications professional. Schmalfeldt hating the fact that most journalists who cover the campaign beat know me is a non-starter. Success confuses him. Attacking Dave’s good name in the comments is contemptible. I didn’t do any “spin” with Dave or provide him any material for his article. I’m the subject. I let everything shake out and the pieces fall where they fell. I think that’s important.

    I will stay sane during this multi-year long effort of Kimberlin’s to silence bloggers. And I will fight it.

    We won. Brett Kimberlin lost the trial where the referendum was “is he a pedophile?” He set the rules, had home turf advantage, was allowed to lie and still couldn’t win. Think on that.

    • Actually, NONE OF IT is or was necessary. I have been wondering for over a year what is his end game, REALLY? What is he really seeking to gain from any of these suits? I have not as yet arrived at an answer.

      • in case it wasn’t clear, I meant Weigel going along with the brettsploitation and naming a minor tangential to the case (since none of the testimony went to his allegations. and only necessary to mention obliquely as a sign of how he didn’t actually bring a case) . ….Kimberlin likely gave his very full blessing to that naming, though. Maybe even insisted.

    • Indeed.

      And, Althouse’s “moral ambiguity” nonsense was just shameful.

      Thank God for First Amendment warriors like our Gentle Host and his co-defendants. I, for one, am beyond grateful the Weigel’s and Althouse’s aren’t on the front line of this fight.


  11. Pingback: TOM asks if Brett Kimberlin will ever learn… | Batshit Crazy News

Leave a Reply