An Interesting Admission: The Lies of Team Kimberlin and ‘The Gaped Crusader’

Posted on Comments

“Especially important is the warning to avoid conversations with the demon. . . . He is a liar. The demon is a liar. He will lie to confuse us. But he will also mix lies with the truth to attack us. The attack is psychological, Damien, and powerful. So don’t listen to him. Remember that — do not listen.”
— The Exorcist (1973)

Patterico cites Paul Lemmen’s retraction of false accusations he made last year against Brett Kimberlin’s enemies:

Robert Stacy McCain
Patrick “Patterico” Frey
Ali A. Akbar
Blog Bash
National Bloggers Club
Lee Stranahan

Lemmen says the “friends” who fed him these lies were:

Brooks Bayne
Osborne Ink
Crooks and Liars
Alex Brant-Zawadzki
Bill Schmalfeldt

This admission is interesting, I say, and quite timely considering certain allegations in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et. al, lawsuit. Because I think anyone can see the purpose of these smears. I wonder which of Kimberlin’s unnamed associates might be implicated?

“Facts don’t matter, that’s the perception of the situation, and the world is going to act on that basis.”

Hi, Neal.

 

124 comments

  1. IIRC Lemmen has been here before? Isn’t he the ex-con who is, to say it politely, rather on the edge? Or maybe borderline would be the more apt term.

  2. I doubt he’s a player. That doesn’t fit with the modus of Team Kimberlin.

    Which is not to say that he wasn’t a willing participant.

    People blog for all sorts of motives, and some needs are not so easily understood.

  4. That is a sweeping assertion. Do you truly live up Neal’s backside to be privy to every single interaction between the two?

    Or is that what Neal told you?

  5. It is important to remember that con-men are, by definition, sociopaths.

    The exact motives for their behavior might be a desire for easy money, but not always. Sometimes it is a need for things far darker.

  6. Exactly. It is entirely possible that PL, NR, and BK are all using each other, thinking that each one has the upper hand.

  8. Never trust a liberal/prog/whatever because every strain of that benighted school of ‘thought’ freely accepts lying as a valid tactic, whether it harkens back to Alinsky, Lenin, Hoffman or Tip O’Neill.

    At the very least, Lemmen can now play the game of, ‘I reached out, but those haters wouldn’t have me,’ and continue his attacks as the supposedly wounded party. ‘I’m the victim here!’

    Mr. Lemmen, when Anthony Profumo betrayed the trust of his constituents and was caught out, his response was to resign from politics and spend the rest of his life doing anonymous good works.

    Just a suggestion.

  11. I think Hoge means that what Lemmen is saying now is giving insight on events in 2012, not that Lemmen was an “inside man” at the time.

  13. Words are words, and deeds are deeds, but it is the fruit of those words and deeds that tell you what’s in a person’s heart. Forgiveness, an arm’s length, and patience. IMO

  17. Frankly this question seemed a lot more legitimate before it became clear that the IRS fights tax exempt status for a lot of legitimate charities. I have no idea if they did approve the club or not… i wouldn’t give the IRS bureacrats that much power over my decisions until they show some transparency about their recent scandals.

    I do recall asking Aaron if he was really getting help for his legal fees and he said that he was getting significant and much needed help at the time. That’s what the donations at the time were intended for, so I don’t see what other questions there should be. If we need the IRS’s stamp of approval then we’re probably lost.

    Any additional level of transparency would be some kind of accounting for each individual donation and expense reports, but I don’t see how they could produce that without putting the donors in the line of fire. Harassment of those who stand up to these bad guys is not theoretical, so that kind of report will need to be generalized and probably sent via email to the real donors, and this won’t satisfy the loudest critics.

  23. I’ve never heard of you prior to Paul’s confession, but you’re the one who made the assertion defending Neal from being associated with Paul. What did you base it on? When challenged you immediately fell back to ‘well duh, I am only saying I didn’t see them cooperate’ which given that we’re talking about private emails means nothing.

    What was your initial assertion based on? Did you communicate with Neal about it? If so, ask him if he’s still a fugitive.

  25. My E-Mail Exchange:

    Richard M Nixon Deceased

    Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 6:55 PM

    Reply-To: Richard M Nixon Deceased

    To: Robert Belvedere

    Close enough, Paul H. Lemmen to be precise. However, I am going to remain as Richard M. Nixon deceased.

    Did you receive my email last evening that [blogger name redecated] wants to talk to you?

    Richard M Nixon (DeRP-Purgatory)
    #VoteDeadDick2016

    ——————————————————————————–
    From: Robert Belvedere
    To: [email protected]
    Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2013 6:46 PM
    Subject: You Have Not Answered My Question

    Are you Paul Lemmon?

    Comment by Bob Belvedere (df1784) — 10/13/2013 @ 3:10 pm

  27. I saw that over on Paterico’s.

    It’s very important to me if that’s true or not. “RMNixon(deceased)” is one of my very few followers. I’ve been uneasy, but I thought (rationalized?) that was just because I found the joke faintly distasteful.

    So I need to know if this is true.

  28. Oh, and speaking of which – are you RMNixon (deceased)?

    If so, it will be such a relief. I will know why I disliked that persona, not a character flaw on my part.

  30. Thanks for the humor, though I doubt Mr. Ludlum – were he still alive – would bother with constructing moves twisted as this; he preferred elegance. No matter how Gordian the knot seems, it still comes down the predictable and banal. Getting needs met to stay relevant at any cost.

  32. I don’t need that – I do not believe you would edit an exchange in a hostile fashion. What I need is the evidence chain that led you to the conclusion, if you are able to share that.

  33. Er? I read what Hoge wrote, and shared my interpretation.

    I did not claim there were no alternative explanations.

    What have I done wrong?

  34. I read what he wrote too. I guess the level of our reading comprehension is somewhat different. I’ve also noted on other subjects your skin is just bit sensitive and you get the vapors with just a little inspiration, shall we say.

    There’s a lot else that could be said, but you would take it wrong, just as you took Hoge wrong. People like you aren’t to be trusted.

  36. If Bob Belvedere is correct about Nixon and Lemmen being the same person, it’s interesting that Nixon posted this link and upvoted my interpretation that it meant he and Hoge were working together.

    Hoge says ” That alignment stayed intact until early this year, when Paul decided that he had had enough of the dark side. Since then, he has been assisting those of us on Team Lickspittle in finding information about Team Kimberlin.”

    This reads like Hoge is saying that since early this year he has been assisted by Lemmen. I hope this is further explained or corrected.

  37. If she read a confusing and vague paragraph wrong we can’t trust her? If I had a nickel for every thread that exposed the bad guys and started getting unreasonable attacks on people’s character or conflict cupid instigation I would be able to buy at least ten or twenty cokes. It’s not much, but every bit helps in the Obama Economy.

  38. I believe Imay have mis-read the text. I’m not certain if I did so because I read this in haste or due to over reading.

    If I was wrong, I apologize.

  39. Don’t sweat it. There’s nothing to apologize for. It’s a confusing and surprising point that was not clearly explained.

    I have no reason to think Quartermaster is here in bad faith, but it gets so old seeing these discussions turn into really bizarre and over the top attacks that I almost assume the worst of people who launch into that.

  40. Quartermaster is not required to like me. Or trust me.

    I am frequently wrong. It’s the way things work, some times.

Comments are closed.