Beware. Stewart Rhodes and Dan Johnson the latest targets, but not the first.
Via Sipsey Street. As the Dutchman notes, this is probably an “Empire Strikes Back” attempt. But even if it’s only a “friends of the empire” trick, it’s a filthy dangerous one.
Another reason to not open attachments from people you don’t know. And you might have to go into the email’s source code to confirm that something really is from the person you think it’s from. And as Dan Johnson did, it is a good idea to have your anti-virus scan an email or attachment before opening the attachment.
The criminals amongst the feds just don’t like it when people attempt to pressure them to actually obey the Constitution that they swore an oath to obey.
I use webmail hosted by a proxy service. Attachments don’t get to my machine just by opening an email, I must deliberately download them. Even so, if I have the slightest doubt about an email I delete it and contact the sender to see what’s up. I haven’t used a local email client for years and see little reason to do so. I don’t archive emails anymore either. Once I have read them they are gone, with very few exceptions. I have a few gmail accounts that I use for obfuscation and they get deleted on a regular basis as well.
“If you haven’t done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about” v. 23,942.
It’s part of the reason I never jump on the bandwagon and condemn someone who gets kidnapped by govthugs for possessing child pornography. Too easy to plant. Even after they kidnap the person, just pop in a memory stick with the forbidden images and POOF- guilty!
If the official enforcer spokesvermin says it in front of a TV camera, it is probably a lie.
I totally agree with Kent on this. Hell even Lifetime made a movie about the McMartin case.
Kinda hard to plant porn on a computer using full disk encryption…
Have any of you considered that perhaps these Patriot Rockstars did this to themselves? It is really outside the realm of possibility that these prima donnas who assert that nearly everything the government does is “a false flag” essentially “false flagged” themselves? How much credibility does Oathkeepers have, especially whenever they assert copyright infringement on the term “oath keeper” (like what Adam Kokesh mentioned when he cut up his Oathkeepers membership card) or refuse to follow the “Ten Orders We Will Not Obey” when in fact many of their card carrying members still SWAT team somebody’s home?
Consider also Luke Rudkowski’s own record. The Committee of Safety-Common Law Court found 5 counts of probable cause against Rudkowski, which seems to center around embezzlement and its subsequent coverup, thereby proving Louie Bee actually told the truth about the lack of transparency in We Are Change, Inc. For proof of all this, you can download the CoS-CLC’s Unanswered Indictment @ http://www.committee.org/LibertyTree/index.php?t=msg&th=308&start=0&rid=0&S=b7eebac0d86b1d83c85c35851ecec542
Well, Paul, in that case they just lie and claim that’s where they found the images.
Assuming an at least semi-functioning court system, all you’d have to do is ask them in court to show the images on your computer. Good luck with that…
Kyle, as to oathkeepers not being perfectly consistent, yeah sure. But looking for consistency in humans is a waste of time. To me the point is not to expect perfect philosophical consistency in humans, but to drive a wedge between them and the ruling class. I don’t care if an oathkeeper is perfectly consistent. All I care is that he will refrain from shooting me, or look the other way when I need that to happen.