Political Opposition Firm Investigating a Hunt Talker

[Sytes]

Right or wrong I believe opposition research is a fact of life for every group whether Republican or Democrat or what ever your position is. With the information available on the internet on anybody what would one expect. When your in opposition of another you must learn everything you can about that person and find their weak spot. It's human nature to try to learn everything you can and then determine what strategy to take. Obviously the person being researched is being effective and considered a threat to their position. On the plus side if they find nothing of interest then that person is even more of a threat and may cause them to come to the table and negotiate. So in the long run it could be a positive thing. But that still doesn't mean it doesn't piss you off but it's a fact of life in todays world.
But hey that's just my opinion.
Dan

This... Spot on. It is what it is. Democrat, Republican, Corporation, News Outlet (guess that falls under Corporation)... Ben, think you need to accept the pen IS the sword and a swinging sword finds it's tango partner(s)...

Keep at it, Kat! I admire your investigative personality.

 

[Hunts]

Wouldn't surprise me if some of the flat earth operatives that hang around here are responsible for this.

 

[RobG]

Kat doesn't seem to bothered by it... we'll see what else they pull up. Maybe they will find she is from Texas or something.

 

[katqanna]

As a disclaimer, I understand opposition research on candidates, it is the nature of the political beast; though I don't respect outright lies, misrepresentation, dark money agendas, out of state corporate machinations, etc.

I knew when I got started in conservation and began the EMWH site and newsletter that at some point, someone would try something intimidating. The type of research I have done for decades, often pisses someone off. I didn't figure hunting/angling conservation would be any different, so I have done certain things to help insulate or protect from intimidation.

When a Bresnan exec targeted my newsletter a couple years ago, blacklisting it, I fought back and got it whitelisted, took a few months, but it was secured. When it was blocked from even going out by my Montana server later, I had to abandon my buy local philosophy and move my server out of state. Both of those situations had a common denominator, a particular congressman.

Since I rent now, I have to make sure my landlords don't have an issue with my work, so that pressure can't be brought from that angle. I don't have loans that banks could mess with, no charge card debt, no vehicle loan. I am pretty well insulated on that front. They can't threaten my job, as I have seen others threatened. I have already heard of threats involving the Crazy Mountain situation to someone's job, besides Sienkiewicz'.

I decided to say something about being investigated by opposition researchers, post the hunting license history request, not because I was worried or intimidated, but because there may be others, not so well insulated. I hope that by shining a light on this, it might give courage to someone else to speak up, to fight back. And I hope by posting the request that people would see for themselves where this originated from, that it was genuine, this is actually taking place.

I don't think they are going to find much, friends used to joke in HS that I was Rebecca of Sunny Brook Farms. So I tried being bad, skipped school for a few days, forged a note from my father. No one caught me, because I was so responsible all the time and my forged note was awesome, they didn't suspect a thing. Kind of defeated the purpose of intentionally being bad. I am sure they could take something innocuous and twist it if they want.

The attacks on groups, such as the Green Decoy bs, are broad. But to go after individuals, not candidates, in my opinion, is a whole other level. The fact that they were looking at my hunting/angling history tells me that is a disconcerting factor for them. They might have hoped that I didn't have one, which makes me wonder if it was the same group that looked into Quist. Now that is a thought! I should request the request for Quist's hunting license, to see who that was.

Recently, Troy Downing was interviewed on Voices of Montana. It showed up on my newsfeed. When I saw that they were questioning the source of the FWP citations I found the audio and listened. It was me they were talking about. They didn't mention my name, they said I was an environmentalist (like it was a dirty word) and named my website. It was not a convenient fact that I am a hunter and angler and approach most of my conservation work from that position. That bit wouldn't work with the narrative they were trying to promote for Troy Downing, that he is a sportsman, to try to appeal to all the hunters and anglers in Montana.

If anything, I think this is going to make me start looking closer at some key players in this, even if the subject matter doesn't deal with hunting & angling or public lands/access.

 

[u1299]

No longer a member of the NRA, no longer a Republican, cares about the environment and conservation, how on earth do you live with yourself Kat? Probably the same way I do, keep up the good work I really admire what you do.

 

[onpoint]

Wouldn't surprise me if some of the flat earth operatives that hang around here are responsible for this.

This one cracked me up.
The flat earther's who pose as "public land's folks" on here rarely fail to miss an opportunity to jump in and spew.
Not many on here with a few firing brain cells (sorry Ben) even take the time to engage with them anymore.
The site is now way less interesting, but understandably so. Debating some types is a futile effort, this stubborn ass included.
13" snow on the level in my yard - roosters and wapiti on the slate.................

 

[katqanna]

Weekends and evenings suck sometimes, not being part of the normal business hours that I can request information and such. Inquiring minds want to know...

Thankfully, I remembered seeing Quists hunting license history request, so I don't have to wait for Monday to get it.

The Quist request was placed by America Rising, the same Republican PAC that Naji Filali worked for, doing opposition research.

 

[rammac]

I'm not the one being investigated. I wouldn't complain if that were the fact. I'd take it as a sign of being effective and that my enemies fear me. I'm cool with what I've signed up for and expect to be attacked. Most often its by people like you, who appear anonymously and disappear when things get real. This is former RNC operatives who have hung their own shingle out to capitalize on the swamp wanting to keep their crony capitalism in place. That's what you are defending. Party over country can kiss my ass.

Actually I'm a registered Libertarian and no, I don't believe in party politics, in fact I don't believe that there is any difference between the two main parties, they play the game from both sides to manipulate us to where they want, just like your post, it's simply smoke to try to create a rift between people. If you're OK with being attacked what was the point of your post or your antagonistic response to me for that matter? And just exactly who are people like me? When things get real...what does that mean? I guess you think of yourself as some kind of warrior for truth and justice - golly, that's really impressive. I sure wished I were as cool as you.

 

[katqanna]

Naji Filali was originally a Libertarian when he was at Harvard, wrote a number of articles on it. He did an internship with Sen. Rand Paul in 2011. In 2014 he was the business manager for the Harvard Political Review (graduated that year). "He looks to make the ideas of Ron Paul and F. A. Hayek more digestible for a modern audience, and to encourage meaningful debate focused on issues, not party labels." In 2015 he clerked for a major Republican lobbying firm, BGR Group. Then onto Republican opposition research in 2016 with the Republican National Committee.

 

[MTGomer]

Naji Filali was originally a Libertarian when he was at Harvard, wrote a number of articles on it. He did an internship with Sen. Rand Paul in 2011. In 2014 he was the business manager for the Harvard Political Review (graduated that year). "He looks to make the ideas of Ron Paul and F. A. Hayek more digestible for a modern audience, and to encourage meaningful debate focused on issues, not party labels." In 2015 he clerked for a major Republican lobbying firm, BGR Group. Then onto Republican opposition research in 2016 with the Republican National Committee.

I hate how Ron Paul is so off in public lands, because he is so right on so many things.
If we listened to him on just a couple topics. foreign intervention and the drug war would be hood examples - we’d have more money we could direct to public lands than we could ever spend.

 

[katqanna]

I hate how Ron Paul is so off in public lands, because he is so right on so many things.

I agree, I was very disappointed with his perspectives of public lands/resources, especially his stance of litigation being the avenue for polluting, for example, instead of preventative regulations. Not only can that mentality lead to superfund sites, but we see this in public access here in Montana.

The regulations are not in place to prevent a private landowner from illegally blocking off public access. Instead, we as the public, have to spend our time, money and contributions to PLWA, for example to fight back for what is already public, for what we already have and currently pay for. The public is left with cleaning up the access mess. It cost a hell of a lot, spanning nearly 14 years, to clean up that access mess on the Ruby River.

Yesterday, someone anonymously sent me documents involving the Crazy Mountains and Special Use Permits for road access across NFS lands, involving some of the landowners who have blocked off public access. Now I have to place another FOIA.

I do not agree with the mentality of privatizing the profits and subsidizing the costs of private business utilizing our public resources mentality that leads to superfund cleanup sites. IMO, Paul's perspective is flawed on that front.

Public lands, their access and welfare, making sure we have it for future generations - where candidates stand on these issues, is what drives me.

 

[katqanna]

After reading the Chronicle article today on Downing's FWP citations, it reminded me that I wanted to call FWP and see if Naji Filali or Percipient Strategies had requested anyone else's hunting license history.

I was the only one requested. I have one other question I forgot to ask and follow up on that, which might shed some light on where it might originate from.

 

[katqanna]

Not specific to my being investigated, but this is part of what I addressed in my newsletter, the bigger picture I see transpiring; the divisive and derogatory labeling of conservation hunters and anglers as "green decoys" and "environmentalists" to marginalize us from the narrative.


His fellow conservatives call him a 'green decoy.' Here's why

He’s one of a growing number of hunters who are unhappy with recent attempts by Republican lawmakers to hand over control of federal public lands to states. Transferring public lands out of federal control was part of the 2016 Republican platform, but hunters like Stubblefield worry that means an end to access for them...

So while Stubblefield has traditionally voted Republican, when it comes to keeping public lands under federal control, he’s not afraid to cross party lines.

That has made him some enemies at home, in the community where he grew up...

So when Stubblefield started to see federal control of public land as good for hunters, that put him in an awkward position. He found himself having to pick a side: the timber industry and the people he had grown up with or hunting.

“I definitely have some people that we've severed ties. It got to the point where they started calling me an environmentalist because I wanted public lands to stay public,” Stubblefield said.

He has been called a “green decoy” —an environmentalist posing as a true conservative, but secretly pushing a hippie, treehugger agenda.

Stubblefield strongly disagrees with that characterization. Instead of hugging trees or peacefully protesting, he looks at his community of hunters and outdoorspeople and sees a group willing to take any means necessary to maintain access to land that they see as theirs by right.

“[If they try to take it away,] there will be some kind of war. There's enough people who value our lands the way they are now that it would be an all-out war. Our federal public lands is what shaped America. It is why we are the way we are today.”

 

[Ben Lamb]

Starting to look like the Downing campaign was the one who initiated the slime, Kat.

The campaign put out a statement today saying that the charges are part of the "deep state" and FWP is a bunch of liberals oh, and the courts are liberals too an nobody should question him because he's a veteran and rich. It's funny that they had the foresight 4 years ago to start this investigation, knowing that he'd one day try to buy the senate seat.

What a fool.

 

[bobbydean]

katganna.

Not familiar with your local politics. Do not want to be.

My take on this is that you are effective with your research and are making inroads with your newsletter. Let them attack you. If you are honorable (always in my dealing with you), do not sweat it.

There is not an attack mode for losers. Thank them for their compliment and continue your good work!

 

[BigHornRam]

Not specific to my being investigated, but this is part of what I addressed in my newsletter, the bigger picture I see transpiring; the divisive and derogatory labeling of conservation hunters and anglers as "green decoys" and "environmentalists" to marginalize us from the narrative.


His fellow conservatives call him a 'green decoy.' Here's why

Just like labeling man caused global warming/climate change skeptics flat earthers or people that are concerned with the debt tea baggers. It's an attempt to marginalize them from the narrative.

What do you think of this middle road approach to solving the public land issues we now face?


http://www.theforestblog.com/publiclands/

 

[JWP58]

Just like labeling man caused global warming/climate change skeptics flat earthers or people that are concerned with the debt tea baggers. It's an attempt to marginalize them from the narrative.

What do you think of this middle road approach to solving the public land issues we now face?


http://www.theforestblog.com/publiclands/

Obviously a no go, "war" and "battle" were not referenced enough. Remember, this is an all out war...