Fox News reported on a disturbing allegation of an alleged effort by conservative activists to push a false claim that Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg sexually assaulted another man. The man denies the published account and says that he was coerced into signing a statement as part of an effort by lobbyist Jack Burkman and blogger Jacob Wohl. The story appears entirely false and represents a new low for this town even after such disgraceful stories as the Pizzagate.
The story ran on the website Medium and was attributed to Hunter Kelly, 21, who said that Buttigieg sexually assaulted him in February. Yet, Kelly later went to Facebook to deny the entirety of the allegation. In addition, the Daily Beast reported that Burkman and Wohl recently tried to convince him to falsely accuse Buttigieg.
Kelly said that he was brought to D.C. and “When I arrived they discussed Peter Buttigieg and started talking about how they would be working a campaign against him. I went to bed and woke up to a fake Twitter @RealHunterKelly and an article that I in no way endorsed or wrote.”
However, Burkman then released a statement denying the framing of Buttigieg and said that Kelly approached him with the story. He released a photo of Kelly holding an id as well as a signed statement from Kelly detailing his accusation. That would seem to contradict the categorical denial on Facebook.
1. Very first thing Hunter Kelly did is sign a statement attesting to his accusation
2. He was in full control of all public disclosures, even taking a selfie with his ID to confirm his identity to @MediumSupport MSM bullied him & his family into submission4011:54 PM – Apr 29, 2019390 people are talking about thisTwitter Ads info and privacy
Hunter does not deny those facts but states “They basically forced me to sign that and take that photo. I had no say in either. In the photo you can clearly see I had been crying.” It is hard to see the evidence of the crying or why Hunter did not go public with the allegation of coercion. It is also not clear how or why he was coerced.
The dispute is far from resolved. However, what appears clear is the effort to smear Buttigieg, a gay man, with a false story of sexual assault. This type of low-grade attack should be condemned by both parties. It should also be the subject of a defamation action by Buttigieg. It is accusing him of potentially criminal conduct and the source now says that there was no basis for the claim. Even as a public official subject to the New York Times. v. Sullivan, Buttigieg could show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth.
He should do so. By suing, Buttigieg could bring a badly needed element of deterrence to defamation in Washington.
52 thoughts on “The Sliming Of Pete Buttigieg”
They just need to call the police and let them handle it, as well as sue, if appropriate.
No. See, Honey, that’s part of the Kellyanne free publicity plan. Make an outrageous, false claim, then the victim sues, and then media covers every filing and hearing, which then lends credibility to disciples like you. Faux News especially covers every salacious detail, as if there is any possibility of credibility. Fatso and his homely, fake blondie counselor sit on their asses, smiling at all of the free publicity.
just another bogus metoo moment. many of which have been procured by pressure and financial incentives to sketchy and unstable people willing to exagerrate the context of sexual contacts and even just make them up.
this one is really gay. if i may use the argot of the youth.
I don’t believe it. falls flat. pointless to further discuss
i guess I should add what a lot of lawyers and cops think about wild tales of sexual assault. in general the following is the rule for adults and pretty much anybody 18 or older:
NO TIMELY REPORT OF SEXUAL ASSAULT TO POLICE OR DOCTORS = NOT CREDIBLE, NO CASE
the story against Gay Mayor Pete fits the bill of a false accusation. like all these other garbage stories, they should just be ignored. instead the media feeds on them with glee, one way or another, while glossing over more grave matters.
What about the coup d’etat by Obama perpetrated against the very duly elected President Donald J. Trump?
It would seem that treason must trump giddy, frivolous gossip regarding a twisted, faux show candidate.
“The dispute is far from resolved. However, what appears clear is the effort to smear Buttigieg, a gay man, with a false story of sexual assault.”
In the same paragraph, you indicate the dispute has not been resolved, and yet you are clear that this is an effort to smear Buttigieg.
Rape is a deadly serious crime. False allegations of rape is a deadly serious crime.
We need to investigate to find out what happened. One side claims the other made it all up and forced him to hold his ID in front of his face to take a picture. The other side claims he came to them and signed a sworn statement about rape.
The correct procedure is to notify police, and release all evidence.
I see no rope or bruises in the photo that he claimed he was forced to take. I am aware of no police report that Hunter Kelly filed claiming he was kidnapped, forced to take a proof of identity photo, or forced to sign a false allegation of rape. If he was held against his will and forced to sign a false rape accusation, then why didn’t he burn rubber to the nearest police station? Or, perhaps he did, and we just don’t know all the facts.
It is entirely possible that either side may be telling the truth. We need to suspend judgement and discover who is telling the truth, and who is lying. In the meantime, it is not at all clear whether this is either a smear effort, or a rape.
It is entirely possible that either side may be telling the truth.
This 21 y/o Hunter has far bigger problems than a Grindr hookup going badly
“Hunter does not deny those facts but states “They basically forced me to sign that and take that photo. I had no say in either. In the photo you can clearly see I had been crying.”
he needs to grow some cojones
Why do we only read stories of Americans being victims?
Seriously, how did they force him to sign a rape accusation against his will? Is he saying they beat him up? Said unkind things? What does that mean? What did they allegedly do that made him cry? Why didn’t he go to the police?
If you are raped, you have to go to the police right away to preserve evidence. Otherwise, it’s more difficult to prove. If you are kidnapped, tied up, and forced to sign a false rape accusation, you have to go to the police right away. Otherwise, it’s more difficult to prove.
Everyone seems to want to be believed, but they have to prove it. That goes to both sides in this latest debacle. I don’t know anything about any of the 4 people involved, so I have no idea about anyone’s character or history.
the kidnapping and coercion stuff is equally bogus
here we have revealed what the public which is not involved in the complicated business of investigating crimes and torts does not generally grasp
stories often are ambiguous and just cancel out
for police, the choice is easy. ignore and move on to triable offenses.
for lawyers, in private practice, it’s harder, because some of these cruddy cases are the ones we get paid to make one way or another.,
I would not waste my effort trying to figure out or try this bogus story in one direction or another. i don’t see any successful defamation case coming out of it from the other direction, either. it stinks in both directions.
No, Honey, it’s not “entirely possible” that any claim drummed up by pro-Trumpsters to smear someone who could unseat der Fueher Drumpft could possibly be truthful. This is part of the Faux News indoctrination: anything bad about an opponent of Trump, no matter how obviously false, is “entirely possible.”
Turley: “…represents a new low for this town…”
Get this: Turley states this allegation of a political smear by independent political hacks is “below” (worse than) a conspiracy between the FBI, FBI spies, HRC, the DNC, the MSM, a foreign retired spy and his Russian contacts to insure HRC is not indicted, to insure Trump lost the election, and failing the latter to destroy Trump’s presidency.
Is it April 1st in a distant galaxy? Turley makes me laugh sometimes.
Re. the subject homosexual: he hardly needs to be smeared. His city’s rate of violent felonies including rape and murder has skyrocketed under his “administration.” As should all progressives, he should (but won’t) take Jordan Peterson’s advice: “Learn to clean your room before attempting to fix the world.”
For a few decades Western MSM loudly proclaims homosexuals better and wiser than heterosexuals. Why, even in the west, do homosexuals still die younger and self-medicate more than the general population? If homosexuals are wrongly persecuted, why do progressives always and only persecute all non-progressive homosexuals like Milo Yiannoupolis?
Progressives publicly demand the only thing they constantly seek to kill, diversity.
Re. the subject homosexual: he hardly needs to be smeared. His city’s rate of violent felonies including rape and murder has skyrocketed under his “administration.”
Over the period running from the beginning of 2002 to the end of 2011, the frequency of the following sorts of offenses bounced around the annual rate noted:
Murder: 12.2 per 100,000
Rape: 64.6 per 100,000
Robbery: 326.7 per 100,000
Assault: 320.2 per 100,000
Arson: 65.5 per 100,000
Over the period running from the beginning of 2012 to the end of 2016, the rates bounced around…
Murder: 16.8 per 100,000
Rape: 86.9 per 100,000
Robbery: 345.7 per 100,000
Assault: 233 per 100,000
Arson: 33.6 per 100,000
Give the demographics of St. Joseph County, a murder rate of 6 per 100,000 in South Bend is a realistic goal. The political class there is like the political class anywhere in regard to this issue, a chronic underperformer. Buttigieg’s administration is of a piece with that.
The political class is usually handpacked by the billion dollar plus budget a year spender nearby, the University of Notre Dame.
If South Bend fails, it fails in the shadow of the university. The trustees have some inkling of this it seems, and have made an effort to gentrify the nearby neighborhoods.
The overall situation is similar in some ways to Champaign-Urbana and the U of Illinois.
I hear that the far left do not like P.B. who has worked hand in glove with Notre Dame to advance adjacent real estate developments. And perhaps some of the black folks who have been forced out don’t like him either, as their rents have gone up, which is what they call gentrification, and I can accept that as a fair label. Although I don’t find it a bad thing, it just is what it is, shifting patterns of real estate development.
What you say about the murder rate is fair. It’s clearly too high. But, it has been too high for a long time and like some other Rust Belt cities, some deeply troubled pockets of South Bend has never quite recovered from the race riots of the late 60s. You can go from Chicago to Detroit and pick cities and neighborhoods with basically the same situation.
I would dispute that gay Mayor Pete lead a big comeback. That narrative is exaggerated. But I think it’s also wrong to blame him for the murders. HE didn’t do the bad things, bad people did the bad things.
Some of South Bend’s tenacious attempts at redevelopment owe their modest successes to Steve Leucke, the preceeding mayor, and even the Vietnam POW mayor before him, Joe Kernan.
When I read some of the glowing press about Mayor Pete, gay wunderkind, I wonder if his predecessors have been given their due?
But they were just old white guy hard working beer drinking type Democrats and lacked the fancy Harvard degree and gay credentials.
I find Democrats are usually very likable people, a perplexing situation because i find the Democratic leadership a pack of scurrilous dogs.
I’ll go a little deeper into the neighborhood development thing. Let me start with a dynamic I saw in Chicago, specifically Old Town, decades ago.
The gays are often the vanguard of white gentrification. They have DINC and are men. They don’t fear crime like parents with little kids do. they have the money and time to redo empty industrial shells and make them into “Lofts” and things like that.
Rents go up, black people in poverty have to move out. They don’t like the gay white men because they see them as having profited of locations they once occupied, often quite handsomely.
I am aware from various sources, that certain residential neighborhoods in South Bend, mostly a couple decades ago, witnessed a similar phenomenon, where the good old pre WW II housing stock that had fallen into decay and disrepair, was “rehabbed” by various gay couples who basically effectuated a process that the far left calls “gentrification.” So I think Pete is seen as an agent of this, and his gayness actually will not help him at all with black people.
He will not win the primary. I would lay 100 to one odds on that.
This smear attempt on him, to whatever degree of reality, seems to have been a stupid and pointless prank. I suspect it may have been a hatchet job coming from a Democrat rival. This is pure speculation on my part. But it is not outside possibility that same party rivals would try dirty tricks to gain advantage in primaries, by employing opposing party tricksters. Unlikely perhaps but not impossible.
By your logic every pro sports team that fires its HC for underperformance is wrong.
To whom are you replying?
Joe Biden is the obvious suspect behind it, since it clearly replicates his weaponization of Anita Hill in the Clarence Thomas nomination: “with a false story of sexual assault. This type of low-grade attack should be condemned by both parties. It should also be the subject of a defamation action”.
The culprits were Jack Burkman and Jacob Wohl. They have established histories of perpetrating hoaxes. Burkman and Wohl are not disputing their involvement in this false allegation. They are, however, trying to minimize their culpability. Maybe you should forward your conspiracy theory about Biden to Burkman and Wohl. There’s an excellent chance that they’d cook up yet another crock of cockamamie to back you up.
L4D on the Job.
that seems unlikely but not impossible. Biden could make it happen. And having been in DC so long and so successfully, no doubt he has a cadre of ruthless operatives at hand.
I can’t see why Republican operatives would bother with this kind of thing unless they were being paid for the hit job by someone with a strategic interest.
I thought it might be the Russians😲 who were behind it.
The story appears entirely false and represents a new low for this town even after such disgraceful stories as the Pizzagate.
After Christine Blasey Ford, you’re going to have to do better than this if you’re looking for new lows.
Why is JT publicizing this story? There’s no legal principle of note and it is hard to see as anything but a purposeful spreading of an unsubstantiated smear.
Turley has a pet theory of scandalous allegations. Whoever sues for defamation is supposedly telling the truth. OTOH, whoever sues for defamation also keeps the story in the news cycle. Turley surely knows that. Or does he? Maybe Turley wants to provoke a public denial from Buttigieg. Or not.
Maybe just a tangential reference to NY Times v. Sullivan in the context of a public figure.
There’s that as well. Has Turley ever missed an opportunity to bring that subject up? It must have been a formative experience for him as a law student. He’s probably got it committed to memory like fifth graders do with The Gettysburg Address.
Scandalous accusations need to be confined to a setting where they belong.
I.E., confirmation hearings.😉
Ah, the complexities of gay coupling. If the former student is truthful about lying (coercion is ridiculous), why did he pose for the authenticating photo? If the lobbyist is lying about being truthful, how did he find this guy? Personal ad? No way to discern who is lying so I choose to believe neither. And it doesn’t matter. Buttigieg is a footnote.
Burkman and Wohl have done this before. They are notorious hoaxsters. See the linked Wikipedia articles below on Burkman and Wohl.
“No way to discern who is lying ”
The left has long recognized that fact so it has used innuendo and false claims against the right for a long time. The right occassionally does the same to the left but generally we note how the left defends its own even where tremendous proof exists and the right generally walks away from its own even where proof is lacking.
This type of lying and libel is the left’s bread and butter. Look at Kavanaugh and a number of other major cases where the left without evidence tried to impugn the reputations of good people. It continues because it works and even people like Professor Turley bend over backwards to permit such slander to occur.
I will agree with the professor. This type of action is disgusting no matter which side does it, but we the people should reject it outright. Do we reject outrageous claims that have no proof? On this blog the left can easily call someone a liar and walk away from the truth. Just listen to all the unproven accusations (most proven false) promoted by our left leaning friends.
mespo ….”Buttigieg is a footnote.”
and dare I say he is “but a gigue” in the Symphonic Suite of life.
Touche’! Fugue him!
mesperanzo……………Fugue, si’!!! Fugue col homophony!!!
I give. You win the Internet today.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court in Sullivan destroyed that “badly needed deterrence to defamation.” They are solely responsible for the insane mess our politics is now.
They are solely responsible for the insane mess our politics is now.
Roe v Wade was the license the godless needed to denigrate all life.
If the Left (e.g. Governors Andrew Cuomo and Ralph Northam) celebrate, without batting an eye, decapitating a newborn baby, what is to prevent them from decapitating you, your loved ones, those whom you value?
Cause and effect.
Sonogram of an Abortion
Estovir………..that is such a diabolical practice! I can’t believe it’s such a pedestrian act in our culture. What is wrong with this society???!!!
Anon…….you would have wanted that baby saved if the mother had been an illegal.
That’s the only time you libs get teary-eyed about abuse and murder of children. tears and remorse are only for the illegal losses.
Sliming of political opponents dates back millennia but the Clintons perfected it in 1992 and elevated it to a virtue, while the left wing media kneeled and kissed their scepter and bejeweled toes.
The Indictment That Made Bill Clinton President
In the wake of FBI Director James Comey’s decision to reopen the Hillary Clinton email probe, there has been an explosion of Clinton and media criticism alleging that the investigation could influence the outcome of the election. And at a rally in Florida on Saturday, Secretary Clinton emphatically charged that Comey’s action was “unprecedented.”
Contrary to her claim, she herself contributed to an even bigger influence on an election: the October surprise four days before Election Day in 1992 that helped then-Gov. Bill Clinton defeat then-President George H.W. Bush. This event was the last-minute indictment of Caspar Weinberger, which the Clintons and the press turned into an indictment of Bush. (The prosecutor himself later claimed credit for having affected the outcome of the election.)
As the 1992 race drew to a close, the polls tightened dramatically, and, in spite of the presence of third-party spoiler Ross Perot, it looked as though Bush would pull it off and win reelection.
Then things started to get strange. Out of the blue, Bill Clinton spent a full day early in the last week of the campaign aggressively accusing George Bush of being a liar. This marked a dramatic shift in the tone of his campaigning. The New York Times took note and described how a stump speech Clinton gave in Louisville, Ky., “marked the climax of a day devoted to the Clinton campaign’s most concentrated effort to date to turn against Mr. Bush the issue of trust that the Republicans had used against Mr. Clinton.”
In Louisville, Clinton said, “Every time Bush talks about trust, it makes chills run up and down my spine.” He also added, “The very idea that the word ‘trust’ could come out of Mr. Bush’s mouth, after what he’s done to this country and the way he’s trampled on the truth, is a travesty of the American political system.” At a different rally, in Houston, Clinton told his supporters, “There’s just no such thing as truth when it comes to him.” And Clinton claimed on NBC’s Today show, “he has gotten away with the most flagrant distortions of the truth in this campaign that I have ever seen.” These attacks seemingly came out of nowhere.
For evidence, Clinton quoted editorials from the New York Times, Sacramento Bee, Portland Oregonian, and Minneapolis Star-Tribune that argued that Bush couldn’t be trusted. Essentially, the New York Times reported that Bill Clinton reported that the New York Times reported that Bush was a liar. That evening on Larry King Live, King asked Clinton directly, “Are you calling the president a liar?” to which Clinton replied, “I’m reading what these newspapers said.” Per his own admission, Clinton and the newspapers were working in tandem.
Given that Bush was known for his sterling character and Clinton was known as “Slick Willie,” it was a bold move for Clinton to do this. The media tried to give a rational explanation for Clinton’s accusations. They claimed that his feelings had been hurt by mean Bush political ads. The Times explained, “Mr. Clinton, aides said, was driven to attack by radio advertisements the Bush campaign has in recent days spread across battleground states in the South and the Midwest.” Newsweek identified one specific television ad that they claimed spurred Clinton’s accusations, writing:
What spooked them [the Clinton campaign] was the sheer, scorched-earth ferocity of Bush’s assault. Its epiphany was the president’s closing attack ad, picturing Arkansas as a wasteland while a narrator did a savage recital of Clinton’s record there; the closing shot showed a buzzard perched on a barren tree.
They added that “for a day or two it rattled Clinton, knocking him off his own message and onto the president’s strongest ground.” But in criticizing the ad, the Newsweek reporters observed it was “only too obviously overstated, and focus groups laughed [it] off.” But if the ad was a flop, why would it have influenced Clinton’s campaign strategy? It defies logic to suggest that Clinton was driven to attack Bush’s character by an ineffective political ad.
So the question remains: what prompted Bill Clinton to call George H.W. Bush a liar?
The answer to this question arrived two days later—the Friday before the Tuesday election—when Lawrence Walsh, the special prosecutor for the Iran-Contra affair, indicted Reagan Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger for the second time in four months. The Iran-Contra affair had plagued Ronald Reagan for much of his presidency, but the prosecutor failed to discover any evidence of criminality on the part of the White House.
The reindictment included notes from Weinberger’s diary that fleetingly mentioned George Bush’s attendance at a meeting and appeared to contradict something Bush had previously said, but not in a way that had any legal significance. And Walsh himself writes in his memoir, “the story of the meeting was not new.”
Apart from the Clinton-media hype, the whole reindictment was flaky to begin with. It involved just one of five counts from the original June 1992 indictment, four counts of which were still pending. The count in question was beyond the statute of limitations, as the judge later ruled. Walsh claimed he was under some unidentified court schedule, but he should have requested an extension, which would have been difficult if not impossible for a judge to deny under the circumstances.
Nevertheless, the media and the Clintons seized upon the indictment to bludgeon Bush. The Associated Press claimed that the indictment “contradicted President Bush’s claim he never knew that arms were being traded for hostages in the Iran-Contra affair or that two Cabinet members were opposed to the deal.” In the New York Times, Anthony Lewis pummeled Bush, asking, “How does George Bush live with the knowledge of his disregard for truth in politics?” The indictment monopolized the news the weekend before Election Day, and Bush’s upward trend in the polls came to an abrupt end.
As president, Bush had considerable successes in the realm of foreign policy, but he stood accused of a criminal foreign-policy act. Thus, the press reaction wasn’t just any condemnation of Bush. It was a condemnation of Bush in his wheelhouse. Moreover, in spite of Bush’s being a decorated World War II veteran, the press had long used his admirable personal qualities to depict him as a “wimp.” Now they were stripping him of these attributes altogether.
The same day the indictment fell, the Clinton campaign emailed its supporters a press release by George Stephanopoulos (Clinton’s communications director) claiming that the indictment was a “smoking gun showing that George Bush lied to the American people about his role in the arms-for-hostages affair.” But the press release was dated the day before the indictment was filed. Also, the two-and-a-half-page, single-spaced release quoted material from twelve different sources: transcripts and articles and a book ranging in date of publication from March 1987 to October 1992. It is difficult to think that they would have been able to pull together such disparate materials, including a quotation from page 244 of Bush’s book Looking Forward, in a matter of hours. Obviously, the Clintons knew ahead of time what the special prosecutor was going to do.
On the evening of the indictment, Bush appeared on Larry King Live, and one of the calls King took was actually from Stephanopoulos, who hammered Bush over Weinberger’s diary notes. After a couple minutes of volleying back and forth, Bush commented about Stephanopoulos, “It’s wonderful how his call gets in,” which elicited cheers from the studio audience. This incident, coupled with King’s weak defense for having taken the call—“We don’t have a private number, we really don’t, I don’t control the calls”—offers further evidence of collaboration between the Clintons and the press.
In his memoirs, Walsh feigns cluelessness about the indictment and its impact. In addition to acknowledging that the Bush reference contained nothing new, he claims of the Weinberger diary notes, “I did not think the quotation would be newsworthy, despite its reference to President Bush.” Walsh reacts to Stephanopoulos’s attack on Bush on Larry King Live, stating, “Although I was not a Bush partisan, I did not want him hurt unfairly.” He then muses:
As I sat with my wife watching the president falter on national television, incredibly I found myself thinking of Tolstoy’s classic narration of the events leading up to the battle of Borodino, which emphasized the role of happenstance in massive operations and a turning point of history. Was it possible that, after six years of contentious, costly, and painstaking effort, the independent counsel could affect the outcome of a presidential election through sheer inadvertence?
While professing that it never occurred to him that the indictment would touch the election, Walsh flatters himself, essentially claiming that, without even trying, he had changed the course of history—and by citing King and Stephanopoulos, he acknowledges the media and the Clintons for helping make this happen.
Six weeks after the indictment was filed, on December 11, 1992, a federal district judge threw it out. The New York Times reported that Judge Thomas F. Hogan “said the new charge violated the five-year statute of limitations in the Iran-contra case and improperly broadened the original indictment that was filed in June against Mr. Weinberger.” On January 20, 1993, William Jefferson Clinton was sworn in as the 42nd president of the United States.
As the press continues to fuss over Comey’s “unprecedented” actions, it is worth remembering that they are wrong, and that they were largely responsible for giving us the Clintons in the first place. And as for Secretary Clinton’s emphasis on the “unprecedented” nature of these circumstances, it raises further questions about her memory, or her dishonesty, or both.
The media which put that out also says: Pork em if ya gottem.
Jacob Wohl – Wikipedia
Jacob Wohl (born December 12, 1997) is an American far-right conspiracy theorist, fraudster, and internet troll. He was formerly an online blogger and a columnist for the website The Gateway Pundit. Wohl drew national attention in 2018 after news outlets reported his and Jack Burkman’s …
Jack Burkman – Wikipedia
Jack Burkman is an American lobbyist and conspiracy theorist. Burkman drew significant media … The next day, The Daily Beast reported that Burkman and Jacob Wohl had tried to convince young Republican men to make false accusations of …
The Clinton operative, Robert Creamer:
Robert “Bob” Creamer is a long-time Democratic operative who is accused of being involved in alleged efforts to incite violence at Donald Trump rallies and possibly organizing voter fraud, allegations he denies.
Creamer was captured on undercover video recorded by Project Veritas. Project Veritas is spearheaded by conservative activist James O’Keefe, who has used undercover stings before to advance conservative causes, targeting organizations like ACORN, which does community organizing.
Scrutiny of Creamer has grown after Donald Trump mentioned the O’Keefe videos in the third presidential debate and as the Republican nominee continues to say the election might be rigged. In turn, Democrats and some in the media have sharply criticized Trump for the latter comments. According to USA Today, President Barack Obama said Trump had made voter fraud allegations “without a shred of evidence.”
Records revealed that Creamer, a felon, had visited the White House hundreds of times.
1. Creamer Is Discussed in a James O’Keefe Video on Alleged Incitement of Violence at Trump Rallies (video address below)
2. Creamer Is Married to Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky
3. Creamer Was Helping Hillary Clinton’s Campaign but Resigned After the Videos’ Release
4. Creamer Has Visited the White House at Least 340 Times, Reports Say
5. Creamer Was Sentenced to Prison in a Check-Kiting Scheme
Any allegation of rape, or of being forced to make a false rape claim, needs to be reported to the police to investigate.
The story appears entirely false and represents a new low for this town
meh. Antifa buying Guns from Mexican Cartel for inciting rebellion at the US Border is infinitely worse on a logarithmic scale but, typically, you ignore the coddled Antifa anarchists, the Left’s saintly Fascists. Che Guevara wishes he had been as insidious
FBI Investigating Antifa Plot to Buy Guns from Mexican Cartel for ‘Armed Rebellion’ at the Border
When federal law enforcement officials last year began collecting dossiers on mostly American journalists, activists and lawyers in Tijuana involved with the migrant caravan, one part of their investigation focused on an alleged plot by a drug cartel to sell guns to protesters, according to a Federal Bureau of Investigation report.
A Dec. 18, 2018, document from the FBI, obtained by the Union-Tribune, specifies an alleged plan for activists to purchase guns from a “Mexico-based cartel associate known as Cobra Commander,” or Ivan Riebeling.
The protesters wanted to “stage an armed rebellion at the border,” the FBI reported to dozens of federal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and Mexico.
The unclassified report was provided to the Union-Tribune on the condition the person providing it would not be named, and with the request that the entire document not be shared online because of the ongoing nature of the investigation.
The document warns of “anti-fascist activists” that “planned to disrupt U.S. law enforcement and military security operations at the US/Mexican border.”
Two additional law enforcement officials confirmed the investigation is ongoing, although no one has been charged. “Unclassified” means information can be released to people without a security clearance, but the document was also labeled “law enforcement sensitive,” which means it was intended to be seen only by those in law enforcement.
“This is an information report, not finally evaluated intelligence,” the six-page report states. “Receiving agencies are requested not to take action based on this raw reporting without prior coordination with the FBI.”
The FBI sent its report with “priority” to the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Drug Enforcement Agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Administration, among other agencies.
Two people named in the report, Ivan Riebeling and Evan Duke, said the accusations are untrue and illogical.
Duke said he never met Riebeling and that Riebeling was not someone he would have associated with.
Riebeling also said the accusations in the FBI’s report are illogical.
“It doesn’t make any sense that someone from the United States would purchase guns in Mexico. And the Hondurans certainly didn’t bring money to buy guns. It doesn’t make any sense; in fact it’s extremely absurd to say the Hondurans wanted to attack the United States at the border,” said Reibeling.
A few names included in the FBI report overlap with names included in a secret database of people being monitored by Customs and Border Protection and Homeland Security Investigations, originally reported by NBC San Diego and Telemundo 20.
However, the database includes many others not included in the FBI’s report, and it remains unclear why those people — mostly American journalists, activists and attorneys — were targeted and monitored.
In March, it was discovered that Customs and Border Protection had compiled lists of people it wanted to stop for questioning at the border. Agents questioned or arrested at least 21 of them, according to documents obtained by NBC San Diego. On that list, Reibeling is described as an “instigator,” and Duke’s name and picture is also included.
CBP said the names on the list are people who were present when violence broke out at the Tijuana border in November and January, when agents deployed tear gas. The agency said people were being questioned so that the agency could learn more about what started the altercations.
Some of the people detained and questioned said they were asked whether anyone was encouraging migrants to rush the border during the two incidents. Several people confirmed they were told they were being questioned as part of a “national security investigation.”
The FBI’s report says a group of activists in Tijuana supporting the migrant caravan “were encouraged to bring personally owned weapons to the border and the group also intended to purchase weapons from a Mexico-based cartel associate known as Cobra Commander, AKA the Mexican Rambo, and smuggle the weapons into the United States.”
Several activists involved with the migrant caravan said the accusation that they would try to purchase weapons in Mexico is especially absurd, given that buying guns in the United States is easy and legal.
“Here I find the government again trying to tie me into some (stuff) I wasn’t involved in,” said Duke, a U.S. activist who is opposed to President Donald Trump’s immigration policies and whose work in Tijuana was monitored by federal authorities.
Duke said Riebeling was not someone he would have associated with because he didn’t trust him and because Riebeling had expressed negative views in social media videos about the migrants in the caravan.
“We were warned to look out for him,” said Duke. “We took the precaution to find out who he was and where he was, but we never had any contact with him. And we never saw him around the migrant caravan.”
Riebeling said he was originally helping an earlier caravan of mostly women and children who arrived in Tijuana, but he quickly decided he “no longer wanted to help Hondurans.”
“I can send you several videos of myself attacking the Hondurans because they are my enemies,” Riebeling said during a recent interview.
Reibeling said he was never detained or interrogated by the FBI about his involvement with the migrant caravan. He said he took no part in trying to sell guns to anyone and that he’s not a cartel member.
“I am not cartel. I don’t sell drugs. I don’t sell arms,” said Riebeling. “I’m a revolutionary. A man who believes in his ideals, and I’m going to defend Mexico.”
The unclassified FBI report identifies Riebeling as being “associated with the Jalisco New Generation Cartel,” but Riebeling, a Tijuana resident, said he is not.
“If I were selling drugs, or guns, they would kill me,” said Riebeling.
Riebeling said he was upset by the accusations in the report.
“The government of the United States knows perfectly well that I am not a member of any cartel,” said Riebeling. “I have associates with several of the cartels, yes I do, but I am not a narco-trafficker and they know that.”
Riebeling said he became angry with members of the Central American caravan in Tijuana after he discovered some were selling items he brought them for humanitarian relief, like blankets, water and shoes.
“They were exchanging these items for drugs and it made me mad, and I no longer wanted to help them and I was vocal about it,” he said.
In a video he posted online, he encouraged members of drug cartels to attack migrants with bats and “hunt down” migrants to take them to Mexican immigration authorities to be deported.
Many members of the migrant caravan were attacked with rocks and tear gas. Two Honduran teenagers were brutally killed.
Duke said he was told to avoid Riebeling because of his negative views about migrants.
“I was warned about him when I arrived in TJ,” said Duke. “His name came up to me from a couple different sources to watch out for this guy.”
The FBI’s report says Duke was working with Riebeling and others not just to procure weapons, but to help set up camps to train activists to become “community defense militias, also known as autodensas.”
“Organizers planned for the camps to be used as staging platforms from which five person units would form to train anarchists in fighting, combat, and conducting reconnaissance, and then launch to disrupt U.S. government operations along the border,” the report states.
After the report was distributed to dozens of law enforcement agencies, Duke faced intense scrutiny when crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.
Duke said that along with another activist, he was twice hot-stopped — held at gunpoint by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers and detained for hours — as he tried to cross.
In one instance, Duke said, he was driving into San Diego from Tijuana at the San Ysidro Port of Entry after delivering supplies to migrants at shelters in Tijuana.
When he got near the CBP checkpoint, border officials drew their guns and ordered him out of the car, Duke said.
“My first thought was: ‘Wow I don’t think this is good. This can’t be good,’” said Duke. “I overheard their radios and someone was saying, ‘You’ve got so many guns on these guys. You’re only supposed to have six guns on them.’ I think there were 25 guns on us at that moment.”
Based on questions investigators asked him, Duke said he believes it’s possible that authorities are acting upon information provided to law enforcement by right-wing conspiracy groups. He said a North Dakota radio talk-show host bragged on the air about reporting him and his colleagues to law enforcement.
In mid-November, Duke and a group of activists began renting a house in Tijuana and hosting about 25 volunteers at a time working to counter what they viewed as the U.S. government’s violation of asylum seekers’ human rights.
The FBI’s report says the rental house in Tijuana was guarded by armed group members.
Riebeling, who also goes by the names Ivan del Campo, Ivan Mariano Martin del Campo and Jose Ivan Reiveling Sierra, has criminal records in Mexico and the United States, according to a Mexican state police document and confirmed by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.
Riebeling was arrested in 1997 by CBP for allegedly trying to smuggle nine to 10 pounds of marijuana into the United States, but the charges against him were dropped, according to a June 2017 letter from the DEA to Baja California’s Policía Estatal Preventiva.
In March 2007, Chula Vista police arrested Riebeling on suspicion of carrying a concealed stolen gun in his car, according to the letter. DEA agents in San Ysidro arrested Riebeling in March 2008, and he was convicted in federal court for kidnapping and robbery. He was sentenced to 48 months in prison but received clemency, the DEA’s letter states.
The “Procuraduría de Justicia del Estado de Baja California,” which is the equivalent of the attorney general for the state of Baja California, confirmed that Riebeling has at least two criminal records in Mexico for assaulting police officers.
On the issue of “deterrence to defamation in Washington”. How absurd to denounce that now. Let’s name the people who have been defamed over the last 2 years: Gen Kelly, Brett Kavanaugh, Sarah Sanders, Covington Catholic, Jared Kushner, Bill Barr, Chicagoans wearing MAGA hats, Ivanka Trump, Carter Page, George Papadapoulus, ANYONE associated with Republicans or Trump campaign. Reporting on the reporting on anonymous allegations is the new standard for the Press. Prof Turley – time for you to come out as harshly against the defamation on conservatives.
As to why the person signed an accusation and is now refuting it, who knows and who cares? I don’t care if Buttigieg is gay and no one else does either. Of course, having claims of rape thrown against you when they are totally false is just the new normal the Left and Democrats have institutionalized. Democrats are just lucky that Republicans wont’s subject them to the 8-10 weeks of televised lies, smears and accusations, as the Democrats did to Brett Kavanaugh. Maybe Republicans should start though?
@SBG – Well said.
The whole matter stinks. I can’t see how someone could be coerced into making up a story by people he never knew previously. I can see him being coerced into a retraction.
One the other hand I am very suspicious of these victims who come out of the woodwork at opportune times.
This is the kind of story that should not be so readily promoted until the facts can be established.
Comments are closed.