Posted on | October 2, 2013 | 63 Comments
After his Monday meltdown, we might have hoped Bill Schmalfeldt would spend a day or two recuperating, but such hopes were inevitably disappointed. Instead, the deranged cyberstalker spent Tuesday and Wednesday ranting about how John Hoge’s “STALKING AND HARASSMENT” and “FALSE CHARGES” were driving him to an early grave. Because, you see, Bill Schmalfeldt is a pitiful helpless victim.
In between ranting about Hoge, Schmalfeldt also repeatedly sent Twitter messages to Ken White of Popehat (I counted 43 such messages in about 24 hours), who responded by reminding Schmalfeldt of his well-documented history of vicious harassment:
This refers to a threatening Facebook message that Bill Schmalfeldt sent to a Wisconsin woman in 2011:
“Now . . . you’re going to wind up being the Monica Lewinsky for Jeremy’s Bill Clinton unless you start telling the truth and start telling it quick. I’m done fucking around, and I am not going away. You’ve already had “the media’s” interest in this case explained to you. Now, do you wanna play dumb and lose your kids? Or do you wanna play smart and keep what you got? I am not making any threats. I am just trying to help you avoid a shit storm for some giggling fuck who doesn’t give a rat’s ass about you. Do you really want to be dragged through the mud for THIS giggling shitwit. I’ll wait to hear from you. But I send what I have … EVERYTHING … to the Wisconsin Media tomorrow.”
Is that “a trick of investigative reporting,” or is that harassment and attempted extortion? Do investigative journalists routinely threaten potential sources with harm to their children? John Hoge answers that question with an emphatic “no.” But criticizing the helpless victim Bill Schmalfeldt, is not journalism:
What I linked there was Bill Schmalfeldt’s rather notorious December 2012 article attacking Patrick “Patterico” Frey and Ken White, which you can read for yourself. OK, so why was Schmalfeldt attacking Frey and White? Because Frey was the defendant in a nuisance lawsuit which Neal Rauhauser had encouraged Nadia Naffe to file, and White was one of Frey’s defense attorney:
Bolstering my conclusion that this was a politically motivated attack were the admissions by Neal Rauhauser (the hatchet-man associate of Brett Kimberlin) that he had arranged counsel for Naffe. Rauhauser proudly trumpeted his silly but telling hope that the lawsuit would accomplish his (and Kimberlin’s) long-held goal of costing me my job.
Why would Bill Schmalfeldt be publishing personal contact information of the defendant in a lawsuit and one of his lawyers?
What had Frey or White done to deserve such treatment from Schmalfeldt? One might suspect that Schmalfeldt was acting in concert with Neal Rauhauser and Brett Kimberlin to help them accomplish their “long-held goal” of getting Frey fired from his day job.
One might suspect this — it would be a common-sense surmise of the available evidence — but it’s impossible to say for certain what Bill Schmalfeldt’s motive was, because Bill Schmalfeldt is both crazy and dishonest. Attributing rational motives to a madman is always risky, and nobody can accept the word of a proven liar. But, according to the Bill Schmalfeldt School of Journalism Ethics, a mere suspicion justifies all manner of “investigative reporting” tricks, such as the threats Schmalfeldt made against a man named Doug:
All Doug had done was to “like” a Facebook page that contained negative comments about Bill Schmalfeldt. Therefore, Schmalfeldt threatened Doug that he would “dig deeper into your background and find out what there is to find about you,” unless Doug would agree to “tell me everything you know about [a certain person's] relationship with the [Knot My Wisconsin blog]. Is [the person] Jerry Fletcher? WHO is Jerry Fletcher? I want it all Doug.”
You see the typical deadline — “5 pm today, October 26, Eastern Time” — attached to the angry demand that Doug must supply the requested information, or else Bill Schmalfeldt would publish (presumably derogatory) information about Doug.
Go ask any professional journalist in America if they have ever used this type of tactic, especially in pursuit of so trivial a goal as discovering the identity of someone associated with a blog. Who is Jerry Fletcher? Why on earth would anybody care?
Perhaps Bill Schmalfeldt can explain all this. But I doubt anyone will take his explanation seriously, because Bill Schmalfeldt is crazy.