You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Kokesh Spin
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.
Wow thanks for the name calling. I was just trying to get to the bottom of these claims that Graham was putting out there. You did not have to explain your position the second time, I understood it the first time, All I was asking is if you (the one that stopped it) were also the one that was supposed to execute the operation. Small insignificant detail that I was just wondering about. Like I said in another comment, I stand corrected because I saw some evidence the second time that I looked at Patrick's video that showed that an investigation most likely started, and that is something that the Kokesh team needs to explain. I don't know why everyone thinks I have nefarious intentions. As I stated above I became frustrated at one point because people reacted negatively just because I felt that I did not have enough proof. Either way I do not need more information thanks, I am now siding with Graham, and will announce it again next time he comments on the next Kokesh post. The least I can do. I would appreciate, but do not need, a comment on my corrective statement below.
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.