Comment: What Adam Kokesh said and did

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I know, that's why I am asking... (see in situ)

What Adam Kokesh said and did

Went far beyond legitimate criticism. In any event criticism of any kind in the middle of a campaign is in itself inadvisable. The time for such criticism is at the end when all the dust has settled and emotions have cooled. Then a calm critique can be made of what worked and what didn't. People outside the necessarily closed environment of the campaign can never know with certainty what is being said and done within the campaign and why it is being done. This is when trusting the people chosen by Dr. Paul to make these decisions must be paramount.

It has always been clear to me that the campaign was working in an entirely different and much more legally restricted set of circumstances than the grassroots. They had their job to do and the grassroots had theirs. They had to make decisions on the basis of legal requirements as well as what might best serve to win the nomination. They could not for obvious reasons announce their intentions to the world and it was incumbent upon the supporters to accept that they were acting in the best interests of everyone concerned. The notion that supporters could sit back and criticise people they knew little about who were working in a professional way that was completely unknown to most people makes no sense whatsoever and could only be destructive of the ends of the campaign and everyone else seeking to nominate Dr. Paul.

There was one blog by Doug Wead that covered all of these matters and he was very gracious in the way he described his own decision making and the difficulties he had faced. He also defended the other members of the campaign staff and since he was in a much better place to know I accepted what he said.

For what I believe were personal reasons Adam Kokesh decided to attack the campaign and individual staff members at a critical juncture in the campaign. Rather than work to ensure that those listening to him were focused on the task at hand he chose to take off on rambling discourses undermining the campaign staff, their personal probity and their decision making at a time when many people were feeling unsettled.

Using his professional communications skills he took advantage of these unsettled feelings to exacerbate the situation and turn it into dark pathways rather than seek to encourage his audience to be constructive in their responses to the tactical measures being taken by the campaign. He called into question their motivations and designs and accused them of actions that could well be criminally fraudulent and subject to a class action suit for redress and compensation by supporters. If one makes such accusations and allegations then one must be prepared to provide substantial supporting evidence or suffer the consequences when the time comes for judgement. My guess is that Mr. Kokesh does not have such supporting evidence and has therefore left himself open to legal action if such were contemplated against him.

As a comparison one only need look to TMOT to see how these same events could be turned around into a positive direction. If those who followed Adam Kokesh had only listened to TMOT then we would not be having this conversation.

As to particulars I am not prepared to rehash the sorry saga any further. As I say all the information is in the public domain. If you see nothing wrong with it then I must accept that your sense of what constitutes justice, wise actions and fair play is quite different than my own.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)