Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

News & Supplemental  

The #MeToo Movement Missed This One: “You Fucking Communist Cunt, Get Out of Here!” (Richard Mellon Scaife’s Directive to a “Columbia Journalism Review” Reporter, Related by Al Franken)

Dave Emory’s entire life­time of work is avail­able on a flash dri­ve that can be obtained HERE. The new dri­ve is a 32-giga­byte dri­ve that is cur­rent as of the pro­grams and arti­cles post­ed by the fall of of 2017. WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE.

You can sub­scribe to e‑mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE.

You can sub­scribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE.

You can sub­scribe to the com­ments made on pro­grams and posts–an excel­lent source of infor­ma­tion in, and of, itself HERE.

Lee Ann Twee­den’s Play­boy Cov­er

COMMENT: With Al Franken’s depar­ture from the Senate–an event that fig­ures to make the Democ­rats’ chances of regain­ing con­trol of the cham­ber more precarious–we reflect on aspects of Franken’s and John Cony­ers’ depar­tures:

  1. Franken’s trou­bles were fore­shad­owed by long-time GOP (and Trump) dirty tricks oper­a­tive Roger Stone. Might Stone, as is his wont, have played a role in arrang­ing this gam­bit?
  2. Lee Ann Twee­den worked for Fox News for years.
  3. Twee­den’s CV also includes mod­el­ing stints for Play­boy, among oth­er out­lets.
  4. We do not pass judge­ment on Twee­den’s work for out­fits like Play­boy and Hoot­ers. In a soci­ety that is sex­ist and hier­ar­chi­cal, “strut­ting one’s stuff” is a com­mon tac­tic on a career path­way for women for­tu­nate enough to be suf­fi­cient­ly endowed to effect such a move. Nonethe­less, for her to emerge as an icon for sex­u­al harass­ment is “dif­fer­ent.”
  5. Although the famous pho­to­graph of Al Franken touch­ing her breasts was non-con­sen­su­al, it occurred in the con­text of a script call­ing for such things. That this is emerg­ing twelve years lat­er is some­thing that war­rants more intense scruti­ny than it has received. “ . . . Con­sent is the key. Con­sent is the cor­ner­stone, the foun­da­tion of all sex­u­al assault statutes in the U.S. and like­ly all nations. Although cer­tain­ly not inter­pret­ed or applied uni­form­ly across the wide spec­trum of juris­dic­tions in equal mea­sure. What Leeann Twee­den did say was that the pho­to­graph Sen­a­tor Al Franken staged 12 years ear­li­er with him pre­tend­ing to, or light­ly touch­ing her breasts as she slept and a kiss dur­ing a rehearsal of a scene, in the same time frame, in which a kiss was part of the script, were non-con­sen­su­al. . . .”
  6. Twee­den’s accu­sa­tions have been echoed by oth­er accusers, sev­er­al of whom have cho­sen to remain anony­mous.
  7. Com­bat hel­mets of the Azov Bat­tal­ion, whom John Cony­ers opposed.

    John Cony­ers’ trou­bles were sig­naled by long-time “Alt-Right” fig­ure Mike Cer­novich.

  8. Cony­ers had been labeled “Putin’s Man in Con­gress” for crit­i­ciz­ing the Azov Bat­tal­ion. Well, he ain’t in Con­gress any more. In addi­tion to its open­ly Nazi sym­bols, Azov’s spokesman is Roman Svarych–who, in the 1980’s,  was the per­son­al sec­re­tary to Jaroslav Stet­sko, the wartime head of Ukraine’s Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tionist gov­ern­ment and a key archi­tect of Nazi eth­nic cleans­ing in that state.
  9. Even before enter­ing the Sen­ate, Franken would have been in the GOP’s crosshairs. We note that he relat­ed stri­dent­ly misog­y­nist behav­ior by GOP finan­cial bene­fac­tor Richard Mel­lon Scaife–a main fun­der of the far right and a mem­ber of the sto­ried, extreme­ly wealthy Mel­lon fam­i­ly. Scaife’s remark–to a reporter from the Colum­bia Jour­nal­ism Review no less–has not gar­nered much atten­tion. Scaife was using the kind of lan­guage we might expect from–Edward Snow­den!
  10. All of this is not to say that many–perhaps most–of the sex­u­al harass­ment charges sur­fac­ing in recent weeks against var­i­ous fig­ures may not be true. One pays a price for doing work of this kind. After close to forty years on the air, part of the price I have paid is mis­an­thropy. Echo­ing Ham­let “I care not for man.” I have a VERY low opin­ion of human nature. It is not unusu­al for peo­ple com­mand­ing pow­er and influ­ence to rou­tine­ly lever­age such grav­i­tas for finan­cial and/or sex­u­al gain. Nonethe­less, in the con­text of the Four B’s of Amer­i­can politics–Bullets, Bribes, Beds and Black­mail, I think the Cony­ers and Franken sit­u­a­tions bear more scruti­ny than they have received.
  11. From the stand­point of counter-intel­li­gence analy­sis, the #MeToo phe­nom­e­non sig­nals a superb tac­tic for polit­i­cal destruc­tion: a) infil­trate a woman into the entourage or pro­fes­sion­al envi­ron­ment of a male politi­cian, media or busi­ness fig­ure tar­get­ed for destruc­tion; b) have her gain the trust of her polit­i­cal tar­get and his asso­ciates (the car­di­nal rule for a good dou­ble agent is “make your­self indis­pens­able to the effort”); c) after suf­fi­cient pas­sage of time, sur­face the alle­ga­tions of sex­u­al harass­ment; d) IF the oppor­tu­ni­ty for actu­al sex play and/or flir­ta­tion presents itself, take advan­tage of it for lat­er use as political/rhetorical ammu­ni­tion; e) with accusers hav­ing the tac­ti­cal lux­u­ry of remain­ing anony­mous, the oper­a­tional tem­plate for a form of sex­u­al McCarthy­ism and the prece­dent-set­ting con­tem­po­rary man­i­fes­ta­tion of a sex­u­al Star Cham­ber is very real–the oper­a­tional sim­i­lar­i­ties between much of the #metoo move­ment and the Salem Witch Tri­als should not be lost on the per­se­ver­ing observ­er; f) prop­er vet­ting of the accu­sa­tions is absent in such a process; g) for a pub­lic fig­ure in the U.S., prov­ing delib­er­ate defama­tion (libel/slander) is extreme­ly dif­fi­cult and lit­i­ga­tion is very expensive–the mere sur­fac­ing of charges is enough to taint some­one for life and the exor­bi­tant expense of lit­i­ga­tion is pro­hib­i­tive for all but the wealth­i­est among us.
  12. The CIA has long been involved with the wom­en’s move­ment. (Check out Mis­cel­la­neous Archive Show M4: Glo­ria in Excel­sis: The CIA, the Wom­en’s Move­ment and the News Media.)
  13. We can’t help but feel a bru­tal­ly iron­ic degree of schaden­freude, with the so-called “pro­gres­sive sec­tor” now being impaled on the very one-dimen­sion­al iden­ti­ty pol­i­tics they have cham­pi­oned for so long. If Adolf Hitler had been a Pales­tin­ian les­bian, folks in Berke­ley would be walk­ing around in brown­shirt uni­forms, Sam Brown belts, jack­boots and swasti­ka arm­bands.
  14. The so-called pro­gres­sive sec­tor has had lit­tle to say about the rape charges against Julian Assange.
  15. We don’t expect so-called pro­gres­sives to take a crit­i­cal look at the issues we have raised here. Polit­i­cal come­di­an Mort Sahl hit the nail on the head decades ago, when he observed: “A lib­er­al’s idea of courage is eat­ing at a restau­rant that has­n’t been reviewed yet.”
  16. Past a point, we find it impos­si­ble to stom­ach what is going on. In the last elec­tion, with the first female major par­ty can­di­date in this coun­try’s his­to­ry (Hillary Clin­ton) and an open­ly avowed sex­u­al preda­tor (Don­ald Trump) run­ning against each oth­er, 52% of white Amer­i­can women vot­ed for Trump–#PhysiciansHealThyselves!

Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them by Al Franken; Dut­ton [HC]; Copy­right 2003 by Al Franken; ISBN 0–525-94764–7; p. 132.

. . . . Where did this mali­cious tone come from in the first place? I sub­mit that it can be traced to a day in 1981, when bil­lion­aire Richard Mel­lon Scaife field­ed a reporter’s ques­tion about his finan­cial back­ing of con­ser­v­a­tive groups.

“You fuck­ing Com­mu­nist cunt, get out of here,” he said to Karen Roth­my­er of the Colum­bia Jour­nal­ism Review. He went on to tell her that she was ugly and that her teeth were “ter­ri­ble.” Of Ms. Roth­my­er’s moth­er, who was not present, he said, “She’s ugly, too.” Sens­ing that it was time to wrap up the inter­view, ms. Roth­my­er thanked Scaife for his time. He bade her farewell with a cheery “Don’t look behind you.” . . . .

 

Discussion

2 comments for “The #MeToo Movement Missed This One: “You Fucking Communist Cunt, Get Out of Here!” (Richard Mellon Scaife’s Directive to a “Columbia Journalism Review” Reporter, Related by Al Franken)”

  1. I’m sure there are fas­cists who are relieved to know that Franken is not in their hair any­more.

    Posted by Uncle Grody | December 11, 2017, 1:33 pm
  2. Imag­ine that: a doc­u­ment pur­port­ing to be a draft law­suit com­plaint against Sen­ate Minor­i­ty Leader Chuck Schumer by a for­mer staffer Sen­ate over sex­u­al harass­ment alle­ga­tions was released exposed. But it turned out to be an obvi­ous hoax. And it also was sent to mul­ti­ple news orga­ni­za­tions on Tues­day, the same day of Alaba­ma’s spe­cial elec­tion where GOP Sen­ate can­di­date Roy Moore was fac­ing numer­ous sex­u­al harass­ment alle­ga­tions.

    So it would appear that there was anoth­er right-wing dirty-tricks oper­a­tion that was intend­ed to cre­ate a big “Chuck Schumer sued for sex­u­al harass­ment!” head­line on the very same day of a cru­cial elec­tion involv­ing a GOP fac­ing numer­ous sex­u­al harass­ment alle­ga­tions.

    But it did­n’t pan out because it was an obvi­ous forgery. First, it appeared to be lift­ed ver­ba­tim from the from the sex­u­al harass­ment law­suit against Demo­c­ra­t­ic rep­re­sen­ta­tive Cony­ers. That’s the doc­u­ment that was obtained by Buz­zFeed after ‘Alt Right’ media per­son­al­i­ty Mike Cer­novich pro­vid­ed Buz­zFeed them with doc­u­ments from a sec­ond com­plaint against Cony­ers. Recall that Cer­novich was a major pro­mot­er of the “Piz­za­gate” hoax dur­ing the 2016 elec­tion.

    Sec­ond, the fake doc­u­ment makes ref­er­ences to “House Rule 23”, which is a real rule for House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives. But Schumer is a Sen­a­tor. Oops.

    So it was an obvi­ous hoax. But who was behind it? Sur­prise! Mike Cer­novich and fel­low ‘Alt Right’ media per­son­al­i­ty Charles John­son are the two peo­ple who were push­ing it...until the it point­ed out by oth­ers how it was obvi­ous hoax. And now Cer­novich and John­son claim they were com­plete­ly fooled by it and are the real vic­tims of this hoax and maybe the ‘deep state’ was behind it all in order to dis­cred­it them:

    The Dai­ly Beast

    Alt-Right Hyped Sex­u­al Harass­ment Hoax to Attack Schumer
    The fake doc­u­ment accus­ing Sen. Chuck Schumer of sex­u­al harass­ment copied lan­guage from a real doc­u­ment that exposed Rep. John Cony­ers.

    Kel­ly Weill
    12.13.17 3:09 PM ET

    A forged doc­u­ment accus­ing the top Demo­c­rat in the Sen­ate of sex­u­al harass­ment copied lan­guage ver­ba­tim from a real sex­u­al-harass­ment com­plaint filed against Rep. John Cony­ers.

    On Tues­day after­noon, right-wing social media per­son­al­i­ties Charles John­son and Mike Cer­novich boast­ed of obtain­ing a doc­u­ment that would put a sen­a­tor out of a job.

    “Michael Cer­novich & I are going to end the career of a U.S. Sen­a­tor,” John­son post­ed on Face­book on Mon­day.

    The sen­a­tor was Minor­i­ty Leader Charles Schumer of New York, Axios first report­ed.

    But the doc­u­ment was fake. A copy of the doc­u­ment, obtained by The Dai­ly Beast, pur­ports to be draft law­suit com­plaint against Schumer by a for­mer staffer. It accus­es him of sex­u­al harass­ment. Schumer’s office told The Dai­ly Beast the doc­u­ment and her sig­na­ture are forg­eries. Schumer’s office said the sen­a­tor was not in Wash­ing­ton, D.C. or the Unit­ed States dur­ing sev­er­al dates in the doc­u­ment when he is said to have harassed the staffer.

    “The doc­u­ment is a forged doc­u­ment and every alle­ga­tion is false,” Schumer spokesper­son Matt House told The Dai­ly Beast. “We have turned it over to the Capi­tol Police and asked them to inves­ti­gate and pur­sue crim­i­nal charges because it is clear the law has been bro­ken. We believe the indi­vid­ual respon­si­ble for forg­ing the doc­u­ment should be pros­e­cut­ed to the fullest extent of the law to pre­vent oth­er mali­cious actors from doing the same.”

    The for­mer staffer, who spoke on the con­di­tion of anonymi­ty, con­firmed the doc­u­ment was a forgery.

    “The claims in this doc­u­ment are com­plete­ly false, my sig­na­ture is forged, and even basic facts about me are wrong,” the for­mer staffer said in a state­ment. “I have con­tact­ed law enforce­ment to deter­mine who is respon­si­ble. I part­ed with Sen­a­tor Schumer’s office on good terms and have noth­ing but the fond­est mem­o­ries of my time there.”

    Indeed, ele­ments of the fake com­plaint against Schumer appear to have been lift­ed ver­ba­tim from a real sex­u­al harass­ment law­suit against Cony­ers. That com­plaint was unearthed by BuzzFeed—after Cer­novich, a right-wing media per­son­al­i­ty, pro­vid­ed them with doc­u­ments from a sec­ond, sim­i­lar com­plaint against Cony­ers.

    The Cony­ers com­plaint ref­er­ences “House Rule 23” and a “medi­a­tion” process between Cony­ers and his accuser. The fake Schumer com­plaint also describes alle­ga­tions as falling under “House Rule 23,” which of course does not exist in the Sen­ate. The “medi­a­tion” process in the Schumer doc­u­ment was nev­er men­tioned again.

    After Cer­novich claimed cred­it for bring­ing down Cony­ers, the longest-serv­ing mem­ber of the House, he pre­dict­ed bring­ing down an even big­ger Demo­c­rat.

    On Mon­day, Cer­novich tweet­ed a screen­shot of Johnson’s state­ment on Face­book (“Cur­rent­ly read­ing the sex­u­al harass­ment set­tle­ment doc­u­ments of a major Demo­c­ra­t­ic US Sen­a­tor”) and added: “Spoke with Chuck John­son on the phone, he told me he as the whole case file.”

    When a jour­nal­ist crit­i­cized Cernovich’s sourc­ing on Twit­ter, Cer­novich replied that the media was “already doing dam­age con­trol! It doesn’t mat­ter. I already have legal doc­u­ments, exact dates, same as with Cony­ers.”

    Cer­novich quick­ly back­tracked once it was report­ed Schumer’s office had gone to police on Tues­day. (Under D.C. law, forg­ing a doc­u­ment filed in a pub­lic office is pun­ish­able by up to 10 years in jail or a $25,000 fine.)

    “There’s lan­guage that looks like it came from some of the Cony­ers stuff, like it might have been copied from there,” Cer­novich said dur­ing a Tues­day evening broad­cast on Periscope. Cer­novich now said he thought the doc­u­ment was a hoax, but it “still could be con­firmed.”

    Reached by The Dai­ly Beast on Wednes­day, Cer­novich said he was the vic­tim of a “sophis­ti­cat­ed forgery” and pro­vid­ed the sup­posed “num­ber of the hoax­er,” which was dis­con­nect­ed.

    John­son, for his part, would­n’t direct­ly answer ques­tions about the forgery.

    “There are no reporters at The Dai­ly Beast but I will give you a quote,” John­son told The Dai­ly Beast over email Wednes­day. “‘I enthu­si­as­ti­cal­ly look for­ward to an inves­ti­ga­tion.’”

    John­son referred The Dai­ly Beast to a Face­book post he recent­ly wrote, which read:

    “I was sent a very sophis­ti­cat­ed com­plaint that claimed Sen­a­tor Chuck Schumer had sex­u­al­ly harassed a sub­or­di­nate and paid her off. After com­mu­ni­cat­ing with the source through encrypt­ed email and texts the source went dark. I sent the doc­u­ment to mul­ti­ple jour­nal­ists, lawyers, and mem­bers of Con­gress, all of whom agreed it should be inves­ti­gat­ed. I am offer­ing $10k for the iden­ti­ty of the per­sons respon­si­ble and would be hap­py to coop­er­ate with any inves­ti­ga­tors.”

    ...

    “This is the jour­nal­ist process CNN doesn’t go through,” Cer­novich said on Periscope on Tues­day. “CNN, they go ‘oh shit, Don Jr. got an email about Wik­ileaks before any­body else? Boom boom boom front page news.’ But me, I go oh, wait, hold on a minute, let’s chill.”

    In fact, Schumer’s office said, CNN and oth­er out­lets includ­ing the Wash­ing­ton Post, Buz­zFeed, The New York­er, and ABC News all received the doc­u­ment on Tues­day, around the same time as Cer­novich and John­son. None of those out­lets post­ed in advance about being in pos­ses­sion of doc­u­ments that would “end the career of a U.S. Sen­a­tor” though.

    “Who­ev­er did this — I don’t know if it was a deep state oper­a­tion, a Soros thing, or if it was just a prankster,” Cer­novich said on Periscope, “but somebody’s in a lot of trou­ble for forg­ing doc­u­ments.”

    Cer­novich and John­son both have dubi­ous records as jour­nal­ists. John­son infa­mous­ly misiden­ti­fied a col­lege stu­dent as a woman who false­ly accused Uni­ver­si­ty of Vir­ginia stu­dents of rape. He also false­ly accused then-con­gres­sion­al can­di­date Cory Book­er of lying about his address, and false­ly accused a New York Times reporter of pos­ing for Play­girl. Cer­novich fanned the flames of the Piz­za­gate hoax, a con­spir­a­cy the­o­ry that accused high-lev­el Democ­rats of run­ning a child sex-traf­fick­ing ring through a pizze­ria.

    ———-

    “Alt-Right Hyped Sex­u­al Harass­ment Hoax to Attack Schumer” by Kel­ly Weill; The Dai­ly Beast; 12/13/2017

    ““Michael Cer­novich & I are going to end the career of a U.S. Sen­a­tor,” John­son post­ed on Face­book on Mon­day.”

    A Face­book post from Charles John­son on Mon­day. That was first hint of that some­thing was com­ing.

    But then it turned out to be a forgery:

    ...
    But the doc­u­ment was fake. A copy of the doc­u­ment, obtained by The Dai­ly Beast, pur­ports to be draft law­suit com­plaint against Schumer by a for­mer staffer. It accus­es him of sex­u­al harass­ment. Schumer’s office told The Dai­ly Beast the doc­u­ment and her sig­na­ture are forg­eries. Schumer’s office said the sen­a­tor was not in Wash­ing­ton, D.C. or the Unit­ed States dur­ing sev­er­al dates in the doc­u­ment when he is said to have harassed the staffer.

    “The doc­u­ment is a forged doc­u­ment and every alle­ga­tion is false,” Schumer spokesper­son Matt House told The Dai­ly Beast. “We have turned it over to the Capi­tol Police and asked them to inves­ti­gate and pur­sue crim­i­nal charges because it is clear the law has been bro­ken. We believe the indi­vid­ual respon­si­ble for forg­ing the doc­u­ment should be pros­e­cut­ed to the fullest extent of the law to pre­vent oth­er mali­cious actors from doing the same.”

    The for­mer staffer, who spoke on the con­di­tion of anonymi­ty, con­firmed the doc­u­ment was a forgery.

    “The claims in this doc­u­ment are com­plete­ly false, my sig­na­ture is forged, and even basic facts about me are wrong,” the for­mer staffer said in a state­ment. “I have con­tact­ed law enforce­ment to deter­mine who is respon­si­ble. I part­ed with Sen­a­tor Schumer’s office on good terms and have noth­ing but the fond­est mem­o­ries of my time there.”
    ...

    And it was­n’t just a forgery. It was an obvi­ous forgery:

    ...
    Indeed, ele­ments of the fake com­plaint against Schumer appear to have been lift­ed ver­ba­tim from a real sex­u­al harass­ment law­suit against Cony­ers. That com­plaint was unearthed by BuzzFeed—after Cer­novich, a right-wing media per­son­al­i­ty, pro­vid­ed them with doc­u­ments from a sec­ond, sim­i­lar com­plaint against Cony­ers.

    The Cony­ers com­plaint ref­er­ences “House Rule 23” and a “medi­a­tion” process between Cony­ers and his accuser. The fake Schumer com­plaint also describes alle­ga­tions as falling under “House Rule 23,” which of course does not exist in the Sen­ate. The “medi­a­tion” process in the Schumer doc­u­ment was nev­er men­tioned again.
    ...

    And now we have Mike Cer­novich and Charles John­son assert­ing that they had no idea it was a forgery and are them­selves vic­tims of this hoax (although Cer­novich sug­gests the doc­u­ment “still could be con­firmed”, which does­n’t exact­ly help his cred­i­bil­i­ty here:

    ...
    After Cer­novich claimed cred­it for bring­ing down Cony­ers, the longest-serv­ing mem­ber of the House, he pre­dict­ed bring­ing down an even big­ger Demo­c­rat.

    On Mon­day, Cer­novich tweet­ed a screen­shot of Johnson’s state­ment on Face­book (“Cur­rent­ly read­ing the sex­u­al harass­ment set­tle­ment doc­u­ments of a major Demo­c­ra­t­ic US Sen­a­tor”) and added: “Spoke with Chuck John­son on the phone, he told me he as the whole case file.”

    When a jour­nal­ist crit­i­cized Cernovich’s sourc­ing on Twit­ter, Cer­novich replied that the media was “already doing dam­age con­trol! It doesn’t mat­ter. I already have legal doc­u­ments, exact dates, same as with Cony­ers.”

    Cer­novich quick­ly back­tracked once it was report­ed Schumer’s office had gone to police on Tues­day. (Under D.C. law, forg­ing a doc­u­ment filed in a pub­lic office is pun­ish­able by up to 10 years in jail or a $25,000 fine.)

    “There’s lan­guage that looks like it came from some of the Cony­ers stuff, like it might have been copied from there,” Cer­novich said dur­ing a Tues­day evening broad­cast on Periscope. Cer­novich now said he thought the doc­u­ment was a hoax, but it “still could be con­firmed.”

    Reached by The Dai­ly Beast on Wednes­day, Cer­novich said he was the vic­tim of a “sophis­ti­cat­ed forgery” and pro­vid­ed the sup­posed “num­ber of the hoax­er,” which was dis­con­nect­ed.
    ...

    ““There’s lan­guage that looks like it came from some of the Cony­ers stuff, like it might have been copied from there,” Cer­novich said dur­ing a Tues­day evening broad­cast on Periscope. Cer­novich now said he thought the doc­u­ment was a hoax, but it “still could be con­firmed.”

    And Charles John­son describes the source of the forgery as a source he com­mu­ni­cat­ed with through encrypt­ed email and text:

    ...
    John­son, for his part, would­n’t direct­ly answer ques­tions about the forgery.

    “There are no reporters at The Dai­ly Beast but I will give you a quote,” John­son told The Dai­ly Beast over email Wednes­day. “‘I enthu­si­as­ti­cal­ly look for­ward to an inves­ti­ga­tion.’”

    John­son referred The Dai­ly Beast to a Face­book post he recent­ly wrote, which read:

    “I was sent a very sophis­ti­cat­ed com­plaint that claimed Sen­a­tor Chuck Schumer had sex­u­al­ly harassed a sub­or­di­nate and paid her off. After com­mu­ni­cat­ing with the source through encrypt­ed email and texts the source went dark. I sent the doc­u­ment to mul­ti­ple jour­nal­ists, lawyers, and mem­bers of Con­gress, all of whom agreed it should be inves­ti­gat­ed. I am offer­ing $10k for the iden­ti­ty of the per­sons respon­si­ble and would be hap­py to coop­er­ate with any inves­ti­ga­tors.”
    ...

    And note how it sounds like mul­ti­ple news out­lets also received these same forg­eries on Tues­day, the same day of Alaba­ma’s spe­cial elec­tion and one day after John­son’s Face­book post:

    ...
    In fact, Schumer’s office said, CNN and oth­er out­lets includ­ing the Wash­ing­ton Post, Buz­zFeed, The New York­er, and ABC News all received the doc­u­ment on Tues­day, around the same time as Cer­novich and John­son. None of those out­lets post­ed in advance about being in pos­ses­sion of doc­u­ments that would “end the career of a U.S. Sen­a­tor” though.

    “Who­ev­er did this — I don’t know if it was a deep state oper­a­tion, a Soros thing, or if it was just a prankster,” Cer­novich said on Periscope, “but somebody’s in a lot of trou­ble for forg­ing doc­u­ments.”
    ...

    That sure seems like extreme­ly sus­pi­cious tim­ing. Specif­i­cal­ly, that sure seems like extreme­ly sus­pi­cious tim­ing that points in the direc­tion of a right-wing dirty tricks oper­a­tion designed to cre­ate a one-day sto­ry on the same day of the Alaba­ma spe­cial elec­tion where sex­u­al harass­ment charges against the GOP loomed large.

    Don’t for­get that it does­n’t mat­ter if the doc­u­ment lat­er revealed to be a hoax as long as the intend­ed impact is to shift the vote towards the GOP can­di­date in a spe­cial elec­tion on Alaba­ma on the day the forgery becomes a pub­lic sto­ry.

    That’s why the Tues­day dis­tri­b­u­tion of this forgery to new out­lets one day after John­son’s cryp­tic Face­book post is so suspicious...it appears that John­son and Cer­novich were build­ing up hype with the intent of ensur­ing the sto­ry got at least some nation­al expo­sure dur­ing the cru­cial vot­ing peri­od in Alaba­ma before it was iden­ti­fied as a hoax.

    Maybe that was­n’t the actu­al intent, but it sure appears that way. And as dirty-tricks hoax­ers like Cer­novich and John­son know well, appear­ances mat­ter. A lot. That’s why they’re dirty-tricks hoax­ers smear mer­chants. It works. So while we don’t know yet the motive behind this hoax, it’s hard to come up with a more appro­pri­ate pair of indi­vid­u­als than Cer­novich and John­son to point out over and over how this appears to be an inten­tion­al smear job know­ing­ly pushed by Cer­novich and John­son on the day of the Alaba­ma spe­cial elec­tion for the pur­pose of a one-day shock sto­ry. We don’t know that’s true, but boy does it look like it.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | December 13, 2017, 5:00 pm

Post a comment