Ye probably have read this before, but if not, please check out Uh-oh... THIS GUY!!!?
Larisa Alexandrovna, Ron Brynaert's buddy, was the first to spread the "double secret exoneration" schtick.
Progressoid: So, tell us the story of his arrest and what really happened. Frankly, I couldn't care less about pot issues, but bombs...that's a bird of a different feather.On November 14th, Brett Kimberlin offered the same kind of historical revision. Compare the following Larisa schtick to what Brett said in court.
Alexandrovna: I can only say that he was wrongly convicted, released, sued the government and won. As part of the agreement, he cannot discuss the particulars publicly....
Anyway, I know him. I vouch for him. The reason he has so little money by the way, is that he spends it all on promoting causes, like election fraud. He helps Brad Friedman, Clint Curtis, and so forth.
Take it or leave it, but for what it is worth, I vouch for him....
he was convicted wrongfully and he even served time for something he did not do while is attorneys fought the conviction... it was overturned, he was exhonirated, and then he sued and won!
he was put into jail because he was talking about Danny Quayle's drug habbit... welcome to Amerika
i have an idea...Maybe Larisa actually believes that. I doubt it, but who knows? Kimberlin has had amazing success at sweet talking certain people into his corner. There was Doonesbury's Gary Trudeau and the esteemed Erwin Griswold.
given that as part of the agreement, he has not been allowed to discuss it, consider how someone sentenced to 51 years on terrorism charges is not in jail? how is it someone like this is simply let go and has a clean record on this original charge? how many court cases would a fight to be cleared require?
better still, since you seem to believe you have an idea of what the truth is here (and frankly, you don't), based on some smear pieces that appear in Google searches, perhaps you can expand your research out and look through legal filings? you seem to have spent some time already on this topic, so why not take a few more minutes and do some of the work?
you may also wish to contact him directly, he is more than happy to privately discuss as much as he can.
but i do not have a link nor am i going to spend the day looking for one to documents that i have seen first hand, and don't even know if they are in the public sphere, given that the government made silence part of the agreement to begin with. i know him and vouch for him. take it or leave it. Brad Friedman also vouches for him, take it or leave it. David Swanson vouches for him, take it or leave it. and the late Andy Stephenson, also ironically attacked as a fraudster, also was Brett's friend. everyone he is close to, as well as members of Congress he works closely with, were all informed by him of the situation and everyone is quite comfortable with the facts of the story, which are supported by court documents and various agreements and attorneys (those who worked to get him cleared).
so off you go, find the links... and share them with the class.
I wouldn't say Mark Singer was snookered. He was under a strict deadline for Tina Brown's first edition of the New Yorker. His job was to report on Kimberlin's isolation during the Dan Quayle thingie. Afterwards, Kimberlin agreed to work with Singer in the writing of a book. It didn't take long before Singer was saying wow and wtf with his head spinning around 360 degrees. Singer scoured court documents, newspaper clippings, and conducted interviews. As a man with integrity, it is no surprise his outstanding book Citizen K did not turn out the way Brett had expected.
Larisa said Mark Singer was a bad "journalist joker" who took short cuts and "wet himself" by writing a "smear piece." She even had the audacity to write, "The journalist is trying to blame his shoddy reporting on his source."
Mark Singer is an accomplished journalist who has written for the prestigious New Yorker for around two decades. He has never backed off from what he wrote in his book, one which was based on facts.
The Team Numbnut spin is that I am a supertroll cyberstalker. That couldn't be further from the truth. Making relevant posts concerning a public figure is not stalking. As for defamation and libel, there's a truism that says it's not libel, if it's the truth. Brett nor Brad Friedman have ever explained what exactly has been posted that is disinformation concerning themselves. On the other hand, it is easily proven that Brett has spun himself as an exonerated ex-political prisoner, which couldn't be further from the truth.
Anyone can look into the history of BradBlog and see that Brad Friedman was a relatively unknown blogger, before Brett provided him with the Clint Curtis story, one with as many holes in it as Swiss cheese. One can look into Dieb-Throat and the Michael Connell threatened by Karl Rove nonsense and see, that BradBlog and Velvet Revolution have built their reputations on the deceptive appearance they have either proven black box voting or are very close to doing so.
Here is an excerpt from Yvonne Abraham's excellent piece, Crime and Publishing.
And Kimberlin soon began undermining his own credibility. The more Singer got to know him, the stranger the prisoner became. Believing himself exceptionally talented, Kimberlin was certain he'd become an international recording star, and he thought he might just ask Sting or Paul McCartney to co-write some songs with him. He'd also tried to intervene in the Iraq crisis of 1990, in the hopes of averting the Gulf War, thereby making a hero of himself. "The plan was for Hussein to release these hostages -- the human shield -- to my mother," he told Singer. Naturally, his own subsequent release would have been a given had the Iraqi ambassador to the United States acted upon the letters Kimberlin had his mother hand-deliver.If Brett Kimberlin had such a propensity to tell whoppers back in the day, why should anyone believe things such as the Connell threatened by Karl Rove story?
It dawned on Singer that he'd been "sucked whole and cast adrift inside Kimberlin's narcissistic universe." But rather than abandon the project, Singer became more interested in it than ever. "I knew I was going to finish writing this book," he says. "I never toyed with the idea of tossing it. Not even for a moment. If what this guy was telling me was right, that means I got it wrong the first time. I had to figure it out. I didn't have a choice."
Singer checked out Kimberlin's stories, from the big ones (his innocence in the bombings, for example) to the small ones (his proficiency in Russian), and dug away at them for four years and 363 pages. In the end, the only part of Kimberlin's original tale left standing is the essence of the 1992 New Yorker piece -- that the prisoner's rights had been violated in 1988.
Clearly, that piece would have been quite different had Singer concluded in 1992 that Kimberlin was deceiving him, which he might have done with more time and under less pressure, his comfort with his deadline notwithstanding. Believing Kimberlin guilty of the crimes of which he'd been convicted would have made him "question the credulousness of the people who vouched for [Kimberlin's] credibility," says Singer. "It would have made me more skeptical of both Trudeau and Griswold, not to mention Cody Shearer, who had political motives." How would "The Prisoner and the Politician" have been different? When pushed on this question, Singer says he would have cast Kimberlin less as a victim and more as a protagonist. Is it possible the article would not have run at all?
"Would it have existed is another question," Singer says. "I don't think I can answer that."
Larisa wants the world to believe there is no merit to proven claims concerning the Speedway bombings. She is the modern day version of Trudeau and Cody Shearer. She has been a major cog in promoting the Michael Connell related bunk. Has there been a deep connection between Raw Story and Velvet Revolution? Of course there has! It's been proven.
So when one sees Ronnie Brynaert peddling plenty of supertrolling, it should come as no surprise that he has been an editor of Raw Story and a recent front page blogger for Brad Friedman. Is Brynaert collecting checks for his ramblings originating at Twitter and other blogs? And there's the rub. Without paystubs, such speculation is a dead end. Hence one comes full circle and sighs, "Isn't this idiotic?"
