Thank you for sharing the details behind the "Kokesh boycott" from anarchopolco. A no-brainer choice on Jeff's part.
I just have one issue with all of this, and that is that I don't see the evidence that Ben, never mind Adam, ever hired anybody.
The evidence only proves that Ben was thinking about using this tactic.
In this video, you say that Adam, or the campaign, "hired" someone and at the end you say they "tried to hire" someone. There is a big difference in those two allegations.
I have tried to express my concerns with Graham, but he just calls me names and then downvotes me so that my comments get hidden.
Some of my live friends listen to what I have to say because I tell them where I see proof and where speculation is used. But here I would have to speculate to say that Adam is in the wrong. In my personal judgement I tend to agree with Graham's and your assessments, but only thru speculation. I have seen the screenshot and Patrick's video, and there is strong proof that the conversation in the screenshot actaully happened, but still I do not see any evidence that they actually hired some one.
I have been following this story since the beginning, and the plot only thickens, maybe I missed it, but I have yet to see the smoking gun that pins Ben or Adam to having moved forward with this aggressive plot. Thinking about doing something and actually doing it are two different things, I am sure you would agree, Again it could be true that he hired someone but one has to speculate, which I try to avoid whenever possible, especially when I share a story with others.
Can you point me to the evidence that would eliminate speculations about at least haven actually hired someone?
And please don't downvote me just because I am asking about and looking for more evidence.
Thank you for understanding and for all of what you have done to enlighten many of us.
The screen shots SHOW Ben hiring him, and checking up on things, and SHOWS the hacker beginning to do work on it, recon and research. The hacker then figured out they were going after someone whose only sin way expressing his opinions--however loudly and caustically. If, by analogy, a hitman decides not to follow through on killing someone, that doesn't make it okay that someone hired him to do it.
I see what you are saying. I will look at Patrick's video again while keeping this in mind. Thank you.
@jayem seems to be another Branch Kokeshian apologist. Following me around like fish excrement telling me I’m blowing things out of proportion. Am used to this sort of thing by now, but funny to see this character suddenly become logical and civil, when there’s some social capital at stake.
I was always being logical and civil. I am just trying to get to the bottom of this. No ill will towards you or Kokesh, Trying to be unbiased and most importantly, not speculate.
I have reviewed Patrick's video and gathering my thoughts on what I saw. See my comment above, a bit later than this.
Here is @jayem, “always being logical and civil”:
-GS
Thank you for bringing this up.
Yes, there is good logic to the points that I was making there and I could have elaborated more on this, but since Graham was downvoting me, I felt I was wasting my time, At one point I had asked him if he wanted me to continue with a point that did not add up on Graham's side, but was treated with insults and downvotes.
jayem, I gotta say, right now you don't look at all like you are trying to get to the bottom of anything. You look like you are trying to spin, obfuscate and confuse things, to make them look less bad for the Branch Kokeshians.
I was trying to make a point about an inconsistency that I was seeing, in the limited platform that Graham was giving me by downvoting and having limited RC. So being frustrated I elected to put together an opinion based on what I was seeing.
Not one of my best comments. But there is a point in my opinion that Graham was an irresponsible parent based on what he wanted me to believe. Thanks for the dialog.
BTW this is posted late because I had to wait for my RC to replenish, adding to my frustration.
I was the one who made the decision to not follow through. After I investigated Graham and compiled his data ( superficial data you seen in the screenshots), I began to think of the repercussions of turning over this data to Ben. I concluded that Graham’s actions didnt warrant the outcomes of Ben’s intentions and my services were not completely rendered as a result. I then decided not to pursue any further data mining on Graham and instead chose to expose Ben's operation to Graham so he would be able to take precautions. This is my second time explaining this to you. Either you’re pretending to be obtuse for nefarious investigative reasons or you’re just plain stupid. I would suggest that people refrain from giving you any information from this point on.
Before today I have seen Partrick's video once and after maybe a month saw Marcus' video once.
And I would have to disagree with Marcus, Patrick's video was very well done in providing evidence without much, if any, conjection. He had some comment at the end that was his right and dty to say about his position on all of this.
Anyway, I came out of that with a conclsion that all that Ben did was to think about doing harm.
Upon seeing the video a second time with a more critical eye, I have to admit that there is evidence of more there than just thinking about it but at least the start an investigation when Ben said this;
"Alright, What do you need from me?"
So, I stand corrected, this is significant.. In my opinion, this is more than just casualy thinking of a bad deed, this is actaully moving in the direction a bad deed.
And one can assume that money probably changed hands. No one is going to start investigating without at least a downpaytment.
However, I do not see proof that it went beyond an investigation.
One could speclate that it did not go beyond this because of what infosec says when he/she submitted the list of bad deeds.
"Our goals would have been to cause you (harm)..."
Instead of this.
"Our goals was to cause you (harm)..."
Remember in the screenshot infosec says something in the effect that first they investigate then they figure ot a plan.
Anyway, just speclation here. Plausible denyablity! Something politicians like to have on their side.
Marcus, I know you have been following these comments from me. Can you explain the "Alright, What do you need from me?" statement? We would all rather hear from Adam on this but I'll take whatever you got to offer.
Anyway so there it is. I appreciate any constructive, negative or positive, comments.