#durham investigation

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Special counsel John Durham’s investigation proved to be a rather embarrassing failure. As The Washington Post reported, it also proved to be quite expensive.

"The special counsel appointed to review the FBI’s investigation of the 2016 Trump campaign has so far cost taxpayers more than $6.5 million, according to a Justice Department report released Friday. ... The special counsel’s work appears to be winding down, but the Justice Department has not yet announced when it will end."

In other words, the $6.5 million figure �� in taxpayer money — is where things stand now. It’s difficult to say with confidence how much higher the final price tag will eventually end up.

For those who might benefit from a refresher — you’d be forgiven for thinking, “John Durham’s name sounds familiar, but I can’t remember why I’m supposed to care about him” — let’s revisit our earlier coverage and explain how we arrived at this point.

The original investigation into Donald Trump’s Russia scandal, led by then-special counsel Robert Mueller, led to a series of striking findings: The former president’s political operation in 2016 sought, embraced, capitalized on, and lied about Russian assistance — and then took steps to obstruct the investigation into the foreign interference.

The Trump White House wasn’t pleased with the conclusions, but the Justice Department’s inspector general conducted a lengthy probe of the Mueller investigation, and not surprisingly, the IG’s office found nothing improper.

This, of course, only outraged Trump further, so then-Attorney General Bill Barr tapped a federal prosecutor — U.S. Attorney John Durham — to conduct his own investigation into the investigation. That was more than three years ago.

At this point, Durham’s investigation into the Russia scandal investigation has lasted longer than Mueller’s original probe of the Russia scandal.

After an extended period of apparent inactivity, the prosecutor last year indicted cybersecurity attorney Michael Sussmann for allegedly having lied to the FBI. The case proved to be baseless; Sussmann was acquitted; and one of the jurors publicly mocked Durham’s team for having taken the case to trial.

Five months later, Durham and his team also tried to prosecute Russian analyst Igor Danchenko. That failed too, bringing the probe to an apparent, ignominious end.

The tale of the tape is brutal:

• Two trials

• Zero convictions

• One provocative resignation

• A largely meaningless guilty plea from an obscure figure

• A $6.5 million price tag

By any fair measure, this is the most misguided and inconsequential special counsel investigation in the modern history of American law enforcement.

But the humiliation is not limited to the prosecutor. Every once in a while, Trump still blurts out Durham’s name, hoping the prosecutor might yet bolster some of the former president’s conspiracy theories. As regular readers may recall, the Republican — who predicted that Durham would uncover “the crime of the century” — has even suggested at times that Durham’s probe could serve as a possible vehicle for retaliating against his perceived enemies.

So much for that idea.

Over the summer, The New York Times’ Charlie Savage wrote a report questioning why the Durham investigation existed. He added, “Mr. Barr’s mandate to Mr. Durham appears to have been to investigate a series of conspiracy theories.”

Those theories, however, lacked merit, which is why the Durham probe is ending with an expensive whimper.

There is a degree of irony to the circumstances: For years, Team Trump insisted that the Russia scandal was pointless but the Durham investigation was real. It now appears these Republicans had it exactly backward: The Russia scandal was real, and the Durham investigation was pointless.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Matt Gertz at MMFA:

On the right, the word of the week is “Rubicon.”  MAGA commentators from social media to Fox News are arguing that President Joe Biden and the Democrats passed a point of no return when a Manhattan jury found Donald Trump guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in connection with a scheme to conceal the hush-money payoff made to a porn star in the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign.  They claim Trump is the victim of a politicized prosecution that requires Republicans to respond in kind by trying to throw Democrats in jail.

But Trump’s supporters are just trying to concoct a righteous excuse for doing what they have already done. Trump and the right-wing press spent his presidency teaming up to demand federal criminal probes of his political foes, only for those investigations to collapse when Trump’s own law enforcement appointees assessed the purported Democratic crimes. Indeed, Republicans and Trump appointees have overseen nearly all of the high-profile investigations of political figures conducted over the last decade. When those Republicans and Trump appointees have investigated Republicans, the probes have regularly led to criminal charges and convictions, and when those Republicans and Trump appointees have investigated Democrats, they largely have not.  And for all the right’s claims of politicized prosecutions, the record shows Democratic presidents bending over backward to appear impartial, while Trump as president constantly and publicly accused his political opponents of crimes and demanded their prosecution.

Republicans keep finding Republican crimes

One of the huge holes in the right’s argument is their claim that Biden is connected to Trump’s myriad legal travails.  Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who successfully prosecuted Trump, is a Democrat — but he was elected by New York voters and charged Trump under state law, requiring the right to gin up a baroque conspiracy theory to explain how Biden supposedly masterminded the probe.  Fani Willis, the Fulton County district attorney who filed racketeering charges in Georgia over Trump’s election subversion plot, is likewise elected in her own right without a tie to Biden.

Meanwhile, Trump’s classified documents and January 6 federal prosecutions are led by Jack Smith, a political independent who prosecuted politicians of both parties as head of the Justice Department’s political corruption unit. Smith took over probes launched under FBI director Christopher Wray, a Trump-appointed Republican, and received special counsel status from Biden-appointed Attorney General Merrick Garland to keep him walled off from political pressure. Trump is now a convicted felon like many of his former associates, including his former legal fixer Michael Cohen, his former campaign chair Paul Manafort, and his longtime political consigliere Roger Stone. Robert Mueller, a Republican who was appointed as FBI director by President George W. Bush, led their successful prosecutions. Mueller in turn was hand-picked to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election by Rod Rosenstein, a Republican and a Trump appointee at the Justice Department.

Republicans keep not finding Democratic crimes

At the same time, the MAGA media spent years demanding the Trump Justice Department conduct criminal probes of high-profile Democrats and other public officials who had otherwise tangled with Trump. Fox hosts like Sean Hannity, a close adviser to the former president, would read long lists of purported crimes committed by Trump’s political opponents and demand they face justice. 

But when Republicans and Trump appointees actually tried to turn frothy right-wing media reports into real cases, they failed. Trump led chants of “lock her up” during his campaign against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, but FBI Director James Comey — a Republican who oversaw the probe of her use of a private server — recommended no charges against her, and Trump’s law enforcement appointees apparently found no cause to reverse that determination.  Nor did Trump-appointed Republicans bring charges following federal probes of the Clinton Foundation and the Hillary Clinton Uranium One pseudoscandal. And the much-touted probe into the origins of the Russia probe, overseen by a Trump appointee with the full backing of Trump Attorney General William Barr, ended with a whimper.

Ever since the 34-count felony verdict against Donald Trump was handed down last week, the MAGA cult and their mouthpieces have been screeching about a “Rubicon” by demanding frivolous investigations into from Democrats in retaliation.

[thepopoptic]

Special Counsel John Durham

[seagull-astrology]

C196 Dithering John Durham

U.S. Attorney John Durham may wait until after the 2020 presidential election to make his conclusions public on the Ukraine-gate scandal because as his ascendant shows, Aries 30, he needs to get his ducks all set up in a row. This meticulousness borders on procrastination and indecision — aka who can he afford to hurt more — is further shown by Venus in Aquarius in the tenth house — a constant…

[mr880fan]

Durham Report finds that FBI was biased against Trump, should never have opened Russian collusion investigation

Particular Counsel John Durham released the ultimate model of his report back to Congress Monday and condemned the FBI for opening up the investigation into Russian collusion with little proof. Durham was tasked with investigating the origins of the probe into allegations of collusion between the Trump 2016 presidential marketing campaign and the Russian authorities. His 300-page report discovered that the FBI inappropriately sought the investigation dubbed "Crossfire Hurricane." Durham mentioned the FBI utilized “uncooked, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence" to open the investigation into the Trump marketing campaign however didn't comply with the identical commonplace when approaching alleged election interference in relation to Hillary Clinton's presidential marketing campaign. Durham additionally discovered that the FBI “didn't and couldn't corroborate any of the substantive allegations” made within the notorious Steele File of lurid accusations in opposition to then-candidate Donald Trump. “As famous, it was not till mid-September that the Crossfire Hurricane investigators obtained a number of of the Steele Reviews. Inside days of their receipt, the unvetted and unverified Steele Reviews had been used to assist possible trigger within the FBI’s FISA purposes concentrating on (Carter) Web page, a U.S. citizen who, for a time frame, had been an advisor to Trump,” the report says, in response to CNN. Trump has vehemently criticized the FBI investigation and accused the Obama investigation of manipulating regulation enforcement with a purpose to tank Trump's marketing campaign and assist Clinton in 2016. Durham was in a position to receive just one conviction by way of his investigation, that of low-level FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith. The legal professional admitted to altering an announcement of proof, however mentioned he did so with a purpose to keep away from advanced paperwork. He was in a position to keep away from jail time after pleading responsible. Here is extra concerning the Durham Report:Trump Russia report: John Durham slams FBI, DOJ Russia investigations into Trump | LiveNOW from FOXwww.youtube.comLike Blaze Information? Bypass the censors, join our newsletters, and get tales like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here! Source link Read the full article

[the-eternal-quest-for-balance]

I'm seriously fed up with the people who can only regurgitate Democrat Propaganda. It's like saying the Steele Dossier was factual, that Russian Collusion was accurate. Well, fact based deniers, here's a little information to chew on. Not that facts, truth, honesty, integrity, or anything like that matters to any of you.

A senate report, a CNN source ( if you can believe that ) and an article from the Hill.

President Donald Trump's Presidential Campaign WAS SPIED ON.

Obamas DOJ and buddies in the FBI wiretapped Trump and his campaign.

There will never be enough facts to sway the blind sycophants of the Left.

May God have mercy on their souls.

[ukrfeminism]

The creation of sexually explicit "deepfake" images is to be made a criminal offence in England and Wales under a new law, the government says.

Under the legislation, anyone making explicit images of an adult without their consent will face a criminal record and unlimited fine.

It will apply regardless of whether the creator of an image intended to share it, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said.

And if the image is then shared more widely, they could face jail.

A deepfake is an image or video that has been digitally altered with the help of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to replace the face of one person with the face of another.

Recent years have seen the growing use of the technology to add the faces of celebrities or public figures - most often women - into pornographic films.

Channel 4 News presenter Cathy Newman, who discovered her own image used as part of a deepfake video, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme it was "incredibly invasive".

Ms Newman found she was a victim as part of a Channel 4 investigation into deepfakes.

"It was violating... it was kind of me and not me," she said, explaining the video displayed her face but not her hair.

Ms Newman said finding perpetrators is hard, adding: "This is a worldwide problem, so we can legislate in this jurisdiction, it might have no impact on whoever created my video or the millions of other videos that are out there."

She said the person who created the video is yet to be found.

Under the Online Safety Act, which was passed last year, the sharing of deepfakes was made illegal.

The new law will make it an offence for someone to create a sexually explicit deepfake - even if they have no intention to share it but "purely want to cause alarm, humiliation, or distress to the victim", the MoJ said.

Clare McGlynn, a law professor at Durham University who specialises in legal regulation of pornography and online abuse, told the Today programme the legislation has some limitations.

She said it "will only criminalise where you can prove a person created the image with the intention to cause distress", and this could create loopholes in the law.

It will apply to images of adults, because the law already covers this behaviour where the image is of a child, the MoJ said.

It will be introduced as an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill, which is currently making its way through Parliament.

Minister for Victims and Safeguarding Laura Farris said the new law would send a "crystal clear message that making this material is immoral, often misogynistic, and a crime".

"The creation of deepfake sexual images is despicable and completely unacceptable irrespective of whether the image is shared," she said.

"It is another example of ways in which certain people seek to degrade and dehumanise others - especially women.

"And it has the capacity to cause catastrophic consequences if the material is shared more widely. This Government will not tolerate it."

Cally Jane Beech, a former Love Island contestant who earlier this year was the victim of deepfake images, said the law was a "huge step in further strengthening of the laws around deepfakes to better protect women".

"What I endured went beyond embarrassment or inconvenience," she said.

"Too many women continue to have their privacy, dignity, and identity compromised by malicious individuals in this way and it has to stop. People who do this need to be held accountable."

Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper described the creation of the images as a "gross violation" of a person's autonomy and privacy and said it "must not be tolerated".

"Technology is increasingly being manipulated to manufacture misogynistic content and is emboldening perpetrators of Violence Against Women and Girls," she said.

"That's why it is vital for the government to get ahead of these fast-changing threats and not to be outpaced by them.

"It's essential that the police and prosecutors are equipped with the training and tools required to rigorously enforce these laws in order to stop perpetrators from acting with impunity."

[celticcrossanon]

Hello Celta, Long time no see. I hope all is well.

I’m writing to bring you some juicy gossip from 1. Bookworm2 on YouTube, 2. a jailing of a sugar, and 3. lady C will be unmasking ugly after all and 4. Meghan regrets telling kids she’s the most bullied.

Bookworm does have some far reaching long term contacts at the palace and elsewhere in the US., truly people in the know. When you publish my ask I will attach her latest video. Allegedly Archwell, is rumoured to be under investigation by the Feds and IRS. There’s the matter of the missing millions from Archwell, and failure to declare it. BUT BUT BUT there’s also the matter of the Harkles, Meghan in particular uttering death threats across state lines, as part of an FBI cyber bullying investigation. This latter charge relates to the extreme bullying and harassment Catherine underwent during her cancer diagnosis and treatment. Catherine allegedly received some really nasty death threats while she was secluded from the public, at the height of the ‘Wheres Kate’ psychodrama online. Remember William went to visit M15 and it was publicized everywhere?? Two card readers, Mad World Tarot included, did a reading that showed the 3 of pentacles card, involvement through a third party. I wonder if they were able to trace the financial angle ie payment from Archwell. Or one of the third party, ie the death threat poster, probably squealed about his motivation and bosses. MWT saw William’s energy behind this. They truly thought online threats were untraceable. Consequences people consequences.

Avid Gardener and Trevor Coult on YouTube has the woman accused of trying to bomb Buckingham Palace brought up on charges against them. She made the threat on Twitter brazenly and openly. She’s also issued death threats to Avid and her husband and had bullied Trevor out of his charity job and home. She’s been named in the press as Diane Durham, 62, and she’s an immense sugar. Stupid woman pleaded not guilty after first admitting everything. It moves on to the high court for sentencing. I think the police are concurrently investigating the YouTube harassment claims. She stands to lose her house to Trevor in damages. I have no sympathy. Consequences people consequences.

On a related topic Lady C will most likely take go fund me to court because of the illegal reopening of her money raising drive for Mr thomas Markle Snr. She alleges that someone with connections had go fund me reopen the fundraiser after it was closed as per her contract with them, and called the newspaper to accuse her of fraud, all within the space of a few days. First she threatened the newspaper with a lawsuit if they ran the story, and then she threatened go fund me after they tried to brush her off, by telling her they couldn’t identify the member of staff of go fund me due to privacy reasons. She’s not having it AT ALL. And will see them in court. She strongly hints that she suspects Meghan and Harry are behind it, again through third parties. They want to damage her reputation and get her off YouTube. I think they mistakenly identified Lady C as a pushover. Don’t they anything about her life? lol. Consequences people consequences.

There’s also a threat by the UK bullied staff to be released from their NDAs to speak on camera about Meghan’s Bullying Report buried by the Queen. This, after she went to some girls charity last week. and claimed to be the most bullied person in the world. I bet she’s regretting that now. Consequences people consequences.

They both must be sweating bullets. No wonder Harry is nowhere to be seen. I hear a rumour he’s either in Australia to harass his father, or he’s in the UK hoping to be named counsellor of State while dear old pop is away. Harry is so dumb, all he cares about are the perks of the BRF and never about the consequences of his actions. He’s thicker than a brick.

There you go. It’s quite a lot, and I hope sooner rather than later they face justice in some form or another.

Hi AnonymousRetired,

All is very well with me, thank you for asking.

Thank you as well for sending in such a lot of lovely gossip. It looks like things are starting to move against the Harkles. Like you, I hope that all the perpetrators face justice, and sooner rather than later.

Videos referred to in the gossip (I hope these are the right ones): Note: I still need the ones from Lady C

Bookworm 2

Avid Gardener

Trevor Coult MC

Mad World Tarot

[freezingmcxn]

is jane is your au? if she is can you talk about her and will she be in the fic??

JANE RICHARSON

Jane is in my AU and will be in the fic! Jane is part of The Residents/Townsfolk, I will make I post about The Residents/Townsfolk another time!

Jane has always been drawn to spooky and creepy things even as a child, she blames it on Maine.

She grew up constantly sensing that something wasn’t quite right about it, specifically the shadowy forests that surrounded her childhood home.

She could never pinpoint what it was, but a cold feeling always lingered in the air, clinging to her skin sometimes and sinking into her bones, it facinated her.

When seventeen year old Jane stumbled upon the Weird Maine Sightings forum she quickly became one of the forum’s most active and loved members.

Now twenty seven, Jane is a self proclaimed paranormal investigator that throws herself into solving any “mysteries” that plague Maine, focusing her attention on Durham (currently the most known hotspot for supernatural activity.)

Jane currently lives on the outskirts of Carmel in a small one bedroom cottage with her wife, Mary.

Armed with her camera and a shotgun (incase), she often ventures out with her wife, to explore the strange and dark forests. They explore lots of backroads and forgotten parts of forests, hoping to capture evidence of something spooky to share with the forum or her Twitter.

Though she’s had many scary encounters, Jane’s love for the paranormal only deepens, almost spiralling into an obsession…almost.

HER TWITTER:

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Newly-appointed special counsel Jack Smith is moving fast on a pair of criminal probes around Donald Trump that in recent months have focused on the former president's state of mind after the 2020 election, including what he knew about plans to impede the transfer of power, people familiar with the matter tell CNN.

Though he remains in Europe recovering from a biking accident, Smith has made a series of high-profile moves since he was put in charge last month, including asking a federal judge to hold Trump in contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena ordering him to turn over records marked classified.

Since Thanksgiving, Smith has brought a number of close Trump associates before a grand jury in Washington, including two former White House lawyers, three of Trump's closest aides, and his former speechwriter Stephen Miller. He has also issued a flurry of subpoenas, including to election officials in battleground states where Trump tried to overturn his loss in 2020.

Smith takes over a staff that's already nearly twice the size of Robert Mueller's team of lawyers who worked on the Russia probe.  A team of 20 prosecutors investigating January 6 and the effort to overturn the 2020 election are in the process of moving to work under Smith, according to multiple people familiar with the team.

Smith will also take on national security investigators already working the probe into the potential mishandling of federal records taken to Mar-a-Lago after Trump left the White House.

Together, the twin investigations have already established more evidence than what Mueller started with, including from a year-long financial probe that's largely flown under the radar.

"Mueller was starting virtually from scratch, whereas Jack Smith is seemingly integrating on the fly into an active, fast-moving investigation," said Elie Honig, a former federal prosecutor and senior CNN legal analyst.

Smith also won't be constrained in the same way as Mueller, who deferred decisions on whether to charge Trump because he was a sitting president.

VIEW INSIDE TRUMPWORLD

While Trump lambasted Smith's appointment on social media, some of the former president's attorneys think it could've been worse, according to people familiar with the matter. Those lawyers maintain the former president is unlikely to be indicted, according to two sources familiar. They also believe Smith's appointment is a good thing because he is "not emotionally attached" to the original case and can look at it "dispassionately and factually," one of the sources said.    

"The fact that they found a guy who has been Europe for the past several years, without his brain marinating in the soup of January 6th coverage, that's a good thing," the source said.   

But others on Trump's team are concerned that Smith's appointment signals a more aggressive stance from Attorney General Merrick Garland, characterizing him as a "hit man" who is likely to bring a prosecution, people familiar with their thinking said.

On Friday, the Justice Department's approach in the Mar-a-Lago case hit a small bump, with a federal judge declining to hold Trump in contempt of court and urging DOJ and Trump's team to work out a resolution as investigators attempt to make sure all national security records are back in the possession of the federal government.

Behind the scenes, in separate sealed proceedings related to January 6, Smith has already told the federal court he is in charge of the investigation, according to some of the sources. And while Trump lawyers on the January 6 probe have not been in touch directly with Smith at this point, according to some of the sources, they anticipate they will eventually speak with him once he returns to the US.

It's unclear how long Smith may continue to work before deciding on any charges in either probe. While both investigations may result in charges within months, Smith could still spend time organizing and expanding his team, and continuing to pick through information that's been collected, according to people familiar with parts of the probe.

"It could well be that Jack Smith moves more quickly than Merrick Garland would and forces a decision to Merrick Garland's desk more quickly than it might have otherwise," said Honig.

COMPARISONS TO MUELLER

According to a handful of people familiar with the probe, there is still work to be done to centralize all the moving parts of large prosecution teams under the new special counsel's office.    

Smith is expected to set up a physical office for the two investigative teams away from the downtown Justice headquarters, as Mueller did for his probe and as did John Durham, who is nearing the end of his examination of 2016 Trump-Russia investigation.

According to several people familiar with his appointment, Smith will operate more like a US Attorney -- managing an existing team of career prosecutors already working on the cases, and signing off on evidence they bring him -- rather than as a de facto-department head like Mueller, who tapped several lawyers from outside the Justice Department to pursue parts of the Russia investigation from scratch.  

Mueller also had his own set of legal advisers akin to a shadow Justice Department appeals and policy team. Smith likely won't have the same set-up -- with lawyers from throughout the Department assisting as needed, according to multiple people familiar with the office's development.

Garland already turned to a long-time criminal appellate section leader, Patty Stemler, who retired earlier this year from DOJ, to advise as a consultant on the January 6 investigations throughout this year. 

Others from Stemler's former unit and other sections are likely to shepherd cases and policy issues as needed, in a departure from Mueller's soup-to-nuts approach of preparing for thorny Constitutional issues and appeals in the Russia investigation, some of the sources said.

A spokesman for the Justice Department didn't provide any comment for this story. 

CIRCLING TRUMP 

Publicly released court filings have already made clear Trump is under investigation for the mishandling of national security secrets after his presidency.    

But the other investigative team, looking at efforts to block the transfer of power from Trump to President Joe Biden after the 2020 election, had even a year ago been given the greenlight by the Justice Department to take a case all the way up to Trump, if the evidence leads them there, according to the sources. Work that's been led by the DC US Attorney's Office into political circles around Trump related to January 6 now will move under the special counsel.

Partly led by former Maryland-based federal prosecutor Thomas Windom, DOJ has added prosecutors to the January 6 team from all over the Department in recent months. Windom and the rest are also expected to move over to the special counsel's office. Some, like Mary Dohrmann, a prosecutor who's worked on several other Capitol riot cases already, appear to be reorienting, according to court records of open Capitol riot cases.   

Another top prosecutor, JP Cooney, the former head of public corruption in the DC US Attorney's Office, is overseeing a significant financial probe that Smith will take on. The probe includes examining the possible misuse of political contributions, according to some of the sources. The DC US Attorney's Office, before the special counsel's arrival, had examined potential financial crimes related to the January 6 riot, including possible money laundering and the support of rioters' hotel stays and bus trips to Washington ahead of January 6.

In recent months, however, the financial investigation has sought information about Trump's post-election Save America PAC and other funding of people who assisted Trump, according to subpoenas viewed by CNN. The financial investigation picked up steam as DOJ investigators enlisted cooperators months after the 2021 riot, one of the sources said.

In interviews with people in Trump's orbit over the past several months, some of the DOJ focus has been on the timeline leading up to January 6 and Trump's involvement and knowledge of potential events that day, according to a source familiar with the questioning.

Trump allies have consistently maintained that nothing Trump did related to the election and January 6 itself amounts to a crime. They have also suggested that if Trump were to ultimately face an indictment, the bar to prove he committed a crime is extremely high, and that a jury would hear he was getting conflicting advice from different lawyers. For example, Trump allies point out, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone told Trump that Vice President Mike Pence couldn't block the election certification on January 6, while Rudy Giuliani and others believed he could.

Even earlier this year, federal prosecutors were specifically asking witnesses whether there was a plan to steal the election and for Trump not to concede, according to a source with knowledge of the questions posed during this stage of the DOJ criminal probe.  

The DOJ probe has evolved significantly since that time, but sources familiar with testimony before the grand jury in recent months have told CNN that prosecutors are still focused on the core question of whether there was a plan to steal the election and Trump's understanding about the relevance of January 6.  

[fancyfeathers]

The Games We Play of Dust and Ash (Yandere Moriarty the Patriot Masterlist)

Thinking about when the darlings of William and Sherlock finally meet, I think it would happen after one of the murders in Durham, probably after both of them because two murders in such a short period of time is strange.

After class one day a young lady knocks on the door to William’s classroom and asks for a moment of his time. She is a crime reporter and is looking into the murders of Leonard Tomas Dublin and Dudley Bale and wonders if she could ask him about it because he knew both of them. He excuses himself because his brothers and wife are expecting him home for dinner but invites her over for tea tomorrow to conduct a proper interview.

The next day she shows up to the estate and William introduces her to his own darling wife. The three of them sit around the table and she conducts her questions, all pretty basic, William’s relationship with the deceased, who he think killed them, and any clues he may have. She is fairly polite, not pushing too much into his answers.

Then of course the professor has his own questions for her, like what drove her to choose to be a criminal reporter? What her favorite story to cover was? Has she ever been in danger during her field work?

Then there is knock at the front door and Louis, who was just making tea for his own wife is sick, goes to open the door, and into the lounge comes in a messenger boy.

“A telegram for you Miss, from a Mr. Sherlock Holmes.”

“You have to be kidding me! This man- oh sorry, apologies for raising my voice like that, thank you.”

She tips the messenger boy and takes the telegram from him. She is reads it over and sighs, tucking the paper back into her pocket and then William’s darling chimes in with her own question…

“How do you know Mr. Holmes?”

“Well we are partners in a sense, work partners that is, I help him with his investigation of the crime scene and then he gives he his finding from his field work. Because of our little partnership I always am the first to publish… but he is a bit protective, ever since I started working with him he won’t let me take any of my own cases, only covering whatever he is working on, but you can’t blame him, took a nasty bullet to the shoulder one time, took weeks for me to recover… but honestly I would love to become a detective myself.”

“A detective… that sounds amazing.”

She excuses herself since she's he telegram told her how Sherlock needed her help immediately, but as William's darling lays down in their bed that night she realizes how different their lives are...

She is jealous, but she admires her all the same.

The next time they met it was that day on the train back from York to look into the death of the Viscount where Sherlock and William saw each other again. The detective had come and sat himself at their table in the dining car and a few minutes later she comes in running after the detective, scolding him for his childish mood today towards her and John.

"Just because the truth behind the death of Lord Drebber is driving you mad and- oh it's you."

There stands that crime reporter who simply looks like she is working off coffee at this point, she honestly looks exhausted. Sherlock looks at his darling then back at the darling of William.

"You two know each other?"

"Yes we do in fact, after the deaths of Leonard Tomas Dublin and Dudley Bale I was asked by my editor to look into the deaths, thinking they may be linked, but while I was there I was able to interview Professor Moriarty on the cases since he knew both of the deceased. As strange as the deaths were I could not find anything , not a scrap of evidence that could help identify the killer, then I got that telegram from you and I was back down to London.”

“That is true, your lady friend here as quite the eye for a story, after my interview I went to the library and found old stories of hers in the archives, quite impressive work.”

“That’s sounds like my girl.”

The conversation continues and the detective and the reporter seem to be quite good partners, friendly and quite close.

Then the murder happens…

And as William and Sherlock investigate the death, William’s darling notices how Sherlock’s darling keeps on trying to help with the case but the detective keeps on shutting her down.

“Sherlock I found-“

“William and I are handling this case, I am sure you will be able to cover it in the next story of yours when it is solved.”

“Did you think of-“

“Love, there is a murderer on this train and less than an hour to solve this. Go sit down with William’s wife, I don’t want you getting hurt-“

“Sherlock I can handle my own-“

“Last time you said that you got shot in the shoulder, I would rather not you get stabbed, so go sit down!”

She is left in silent shock and goes to sit down next to the wife of Professor Moriarty. Just by watching the two of them when there was a death she could see the change of demeanor between the two of them. The reporter was more than a capable woman, she was indeed a professional but it felt like she was not even allowed to do her job and-

“Your sister in law, married to Lord Albert James Moriarty.”

The sudden words from the reporter caught her off guard, mentioning Albert’s darling who was in an arranged marriage to him.

“Y-yes, what about her?”

“I was hired by her sister to look into the death of their parents a few months ago before I got shot and well I dropped the case for a while.”

“I am sorry I hear that-“

“My client thinks Lord Albert or his brothers to be behind it and after my interview with William awhile back I am thinking the same and I would be a fool to skip such an opportunity to speak to the wives of one of them alone.”

“So irritating Sherlock earlier…”

“Was just to get him to tell me to shut up and sit down, and since he and Mr. William are working together it is only natural that I converse with his wife, yes? Though I will say he does get pissy when I try and look into a case more than he’s like, he is quite scared something will happen to me if something goes wrong.”

“So you wanted to speak to me to see if I know anything about the murder?”

“I never explicitly said it was a murder, ai just said a death, but judging by your expression and voice, you know something don’t you?”

“I-I…”

She looks down at her hands that are resting on the table to see them violently shaking and feels a lump in her throat. In her state of shock she doesn’t notice the reporter coming to rest a hand on her own.

“You can tell me and I promise to do everything in my power to protect you.”

William’s darling looks around the cart to see if anyone is listening or nearby.

“I-I c-can’t, if you know…”

“Please, I am only trying to help.”

A few moments of tense silence pass and…

“The opera house that burned down a few months ago… it-“

“Ah there you are, good to see you two getting along.”

The voice of William interrupts their conversation as he steps through the train carriage door and an panic fills both of them as they realize he has been listening to their conversation from behind the door. He walks over to them, kissing his wife’s head before looking over at the reporter.

“The murderer has been taken into custody, I do hope this makes for a good story for you instead of just some rumor.”

“Yes, I believe it will be… if you would please excuse me, I should go find Sherlock.”

The reporter stands up from the table and as she is about to walk away William grabs her by the hand and she looks back at him to see him smiling at her.

“Do feel welcome to stop by anytime, I am sure my wife would love to have tea with you again.”

“Have a good evening, Professor Moriarty.”

When the detective drops her off at her apartment that night, she immediately goes digging through her old newspapers and articles that she kept, looking for something, the clue she got…

And then she finds it…

A paper from months ago…

“Fire at the Royal Opera House: Three Dead, Ten Casualties.”

Who is the woman that is called William’s wife? But more importantly, what were the Moriarty brothers up to?

Perhaps it is time to end her little deal with the detective and investigate this case alone.

[dailyanarchistposts]

Bibliography

Ahmad, Asam. “A Note on Call-Out Culture.” Briarpatch, March 2, 2015. http://briarpatchmagazine.com/articles/view/a-note-on-call-out-culture.

Ahmed, Sara. The Promise of Happiness. Durham: Duke University Press, 2010.

Alston, Ashanti. An Interview with Ashanti Alston. Interview by Team Colours, June 6, 2008. https://inthemiddleofthewhirlwind.wordpress.com/an-interview-with-ashanti-alston/.

Amadahy, Zainab. “Community, ‘Relationship Framework’ and Implications for Activism.” Rabble.ca, July 13, 2010. http://rabble.ca/news/2010/07/community-%E2%80%98relationship-framework%E2%80%99-and-implications-activism.

———. Interview with Zainab Amadahy. Interview by Nick Montgomery and carla bergman, January 15, 2016.

———. “Protest Culture: How’s It Working for Us?” Rabble.ca, July 20, 2010. http://rabble.ca/news/2010/07/protest-culture-how%E2%80%99s-it-working-us.

———. Wielding the Force: The Science of Social Justice. Smashwords Edition. Zainab Amadahy, 2013.

Anonymous. “Robot Seals as Counter-Insurgency: Friendship and Power from Aristotle to Tiqqun.” Human Strike, August 27, 2013. https://humanstrike.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/robot-seals-as-counter-insurgency-friendship-and-power-from-aristotle-to-tiqqun/.

anzaldúa, gloria. “(Un)natural Bridges, (Un)safe Spaces.” In This Bridge We Call Home: Radical Visions for Transformation, edited by gloria anzaldúa and analouise keating, 1–5. New York: Routledge, 2002.

Ayers, Bill. Fugitive Days: Memoirs of an Antiwar Activist. Boston: Beacon Press, 2009.

Bædan. “The Anti-Social Turn.” Bædan, no. 1: Journal of Queer Nihilism (August 2012): 186.

Bennett, Jane. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham: Duke University Press, 2010.

bergman, carla, and Corine Brown. Common Notions: Handbook Not Required, 2015.

Berlant, Lauren. Cruel Optimism. Durham: Duke Univ Press, 2011.

Bonanno, Alfredo M. Armed Joy. London: Elephant Editions, 1998. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alfredo-m-bonanno-armed-joy.

brown, adrienne maree. Interview with adrienne maree brown. Interview by Nick Montgomery and carla bergman. Email, November 11, 2015.

———. “That Would Be Enough at Adrienne Maree Brown.” Adrienne Maree Brown, September 6, 2016. http://adriennemareebrown.net/2016/09/06/that-would-be-enough/.

Carlisle, Claire. “Spinoza, Part 7: On the Ethics of the Self.” The Guardian, March 21, 2011, sec. Philosophy. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/mar/21/spinoza-ethics-of-the-self.

Cham C., Kelsey Cham. “Radical Language in the Mainstream.” Perspectives on Anarchist Theory, no. 29 (2016).

Cham C., Kelsey Cham, Nick Montgomery, and carla bergman. Interview with Kelsey Cham C., October 26, 2013.

Colectivo Situaciones. “Something More on Research Militancy: Footnotes and Procedures and (In)Decisions.” In Constituent Imagination: Militant Investigations, Collective Theorization, edited by Erika Biddle and Stevphen Shukaitis, 73–93. Oakland: AK Press, 2007.

Coulthard, Glen. Interview with Glen Coulthard. Interview by carla bergman and Nick Montgomery. In person, March 16, 2016.

Coulthard, Glen Sean. Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition. Univ Of Minnesota Press, 2014.

Crass, Chris. “White Supremacy Cannot Have Our People: For a Working Class Orientation at the Heart of White Anti-Racist Organizing.” Medium, July 28, 2016. https://medium.com/@chriscrass/white-supremacy-cannot-have-our-people-21e87d2b268a.

Creative Interventions. “Toolkit.” Creative Interventions. Accessed December 1, 2016. http://www.creative-interventions.org/tools/toolkit/.

CrimethInc. “Against Ideology?” CrimethInc. Ex-Workers’ Collective, 2010. http://www.crimethinc.com/texts/atoz/ideology.php.

crow, scott. Black Flags and Windmills: Hope, Anarchy, and the Common Ground Collective. 2nd ed. Oakland: PM Press, 2014.

Day, Richard J. F. “From Hegemony to Affinity.” Cultural Studies 18, no. 5 (September 1, 2004): 716–48. doi:10.1080/0950238042000260360.

———. Interview with Richard Day. Interview by Nick Montgomery and carla bergman. Phone, March 18, 2014.

Day, Richard JF. Gramsci Is Dead: Anarchist Currents in the Newest Social Movements. Toronto: Between the Lines, 2005.

Deleuze, Gilles. Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza. Translated by Martin Joughin. New York: Zone Books, 1992.

———. “Lecture on Spinoza’s Concept of Affect.” Lecture presented at the Cours Vincennes, Paris, 1978. https://www.gold.ac.uk/media/deleuze_spinoza_affect.pdf.

———. “Postscript on the Societies of Control.” October 59 (1992): 3–7.

Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.

Deleuze, Gilles, and Claire Parnet. Dialogues II. European Perspectives. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007.

Dixon, Chris. “For the Long Haul.” Briarpatch Magazine, June 21, 2016. http://briarpatchmagazine.com/articles/view/for-the-long-haul.

Dohrn, Bernardine, Bill Ayers, and Jeff Jones, eds. Sing a Battle Song: The Revolutionary Poetry, Statements, and Communiques of the Weather Underground 1970–1974. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2006.

Editors of the American Heritage Dictionaries, ed. Word Histories and Mysteries: From Abracadabra to Zeus. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2004.

Esteva, Gustavo. Interview with Gustavo Esteva. Interview by carla bergman and Nick Montgomery. Email, April 26, 2014.

———. Interview with Gustavo Esteva in Oaxaca. Interview by carla bergman and Nick Montgomery. Video, 2012.

Esteva, Gustavo, and Madhu Suri Prakash. Grassroots Postmodernism: Remaking the Soil of Cultures. London: Zed Books, 1998.

“Ethics — Definition of Ethics in English.” Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ethics.

Federici, Silvia. Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation. New York: Autonomedia, 2004.

———. Feeling Powers Growing: An Interview With Silvia Federici. Interview by carla bergman and Nick Montgomery. Telephone, January 18, 2016.

———. Losing the sense that we can do something is the worst thing that can happen. Interview by Candida Hadley, November 5, 2013. http://halifax.mediacoop.ca/audio/losing-sense-we-can-do-something-worst-thing-can-h/19601.

———. Permanent Reproductive Crisis: An Interview with Silvia Federici. Interview by Marina Vishmidt, July 3, 2013. http://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/permanent-reproductive-crisis-interview-silvia-federici.

———. Preoccupying: Silvia Federici. Interview by Occupied Times, October 25, 2014. http://theoccupiedtimes.org/?p=13482.

———. “Putting Feminism Back on Its Feet.” Social Text, no. 9/10 (1984): 338–46. doi:10.2307/466587.

Fernández-Savater, Amador. “Reopening the Revolutionary Question.” ROAR Magazine, December 9, 2015.

Foucault, Michel. “Preface.” In Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, xi–xiv. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.

“Freedom — Definition of Freedom in English.” Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/freedom.

Freeman, Jo. “The Tyranny of Stuctureless.” Jo Freeman.com, 1973. http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm.

———. “Trashing: The Dark Side of Sisterhood.” Jo Freeman.com, n.d. http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/trashing.htm.

Fromm, Erich. Man for Himself: An Inquiry Into the Psychology of Ethics. Oxon: Routledge, 1947.

Gatens, Moira, ed. Feminist Interpretations of Benedict Spinoza. University Park: Penn State University Press, 2009.

Goldman, Emma. Living My Life. New York: Dover Publications, 1970.

———. “The Hypocrisy of Puritanism.” In Red Emma Speaks: An Emma Goldman Reader, edited by Alix Kates Shulman, 150–57. Amherst: Humanity Books, 1998.

Gould, Deborah B. Moving Politics: Emotion and ACT UP’s Fight against AIDS. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009.

Haraway, Donna. “Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making Kin.” Environmental Humanities 6, no. 1 (January 1, 2015): 159–65. doi:10.1215/22011919-3615934.

Hardt, Michael. “The Power to Be Affected.” International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 28, no. 3 (September 1, 2015): 215–22. doi:10.1007/s10767-014-9191-x.

Harper, Douglas. “Free (Adj.).” Online Etymology Dictionary. Accessed November 30, 2016. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=free.

Hern, Matt. “The Promise of Deschooling.” Social Anarchism 25 (1998). http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display_printable/130.

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Oxford: Oxford Paperbacks, 2008.

Holloway, John. Change the World Without Taking Power: The Meaning of Revolution Today. 2nd Revised edition. London: Pluto Press, 2005.

hooks, bell. Outlaw Culture: Resisting Representations. New York: Routledge, 2006.

Illich, Ivan. Letter to Madhu Suri Prakash. “Friendship,” n.d.

———. Tools for Conviviality. New York: Harper & Row, 1973.

Imarisha, Walidah. Angels with Dirty Faces: Three Stories of Crime, Prison, and Redemption. Oakland: AK Press, 2016.

———. Interview with Walidah Imarisha. Interview by Nick Montgomery and carla bergman. Email, December 22, 2015.

INCITE! Women of Colour Against Violence. “INCITE! Critical Resistance Statement,” 2001. http://www.incite-national.org/page/incite-critical-resistance-statement.

Institute for Precarious Consciousness. “Anxiety, Affective Struggle and Precarity Consciousness-Raising.” Interface: A Journal for and about Social Movements 6, no. 2 (2014): 271��300.

———. “We Are All Very Anxious.” We Are Plan C, April 4, 2014. http://www.weareplanc.org/blog/we-are-all-very-anxious/.

Jameson, Frederic. “Future City,” New Left Review 21 (2003): 65–79.

“Joy — Definition of Joy in English.” Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/joy.

Kidane, Luam, and Jarrett Martineau. “Building Connections across Decolonization Struggles.” ROAR Magazine, October 29, 2013. https://roarmag.org/essays/african-indigenous-struggle-decolonization/.

Killjoy, Margaret. Interview with Margaret Killjoy. Interview by carla bergman and Nick Montgomery. Email, March 8, 2014.

Landauer, Gustav. Revolution and Other Writings: A Political Reader. Edited by Gabriel Kuhn. Oakland, CA: PM Press, 2010.

LeGuin, Ursula. The Lathe of Heaven. New York: Scribner, 1999.

———. “Ursula K Le Guin’s Speech at National Book Awards: ‘Books Aren’t Just Commodities’.” The Guardian, November 20, 2014, sec. Culture. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/nov/20/ursula-k-le-guin-national-book-awards-speech.

Lorde, Audre. Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches. The Crossing Press. Berkeley: Crossing Press, 1984.

Malcolm X. Malcolm X: An Historical Reader. Edited by James L. Conyers and Andrew P. Smallwood. Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2008.

Manno, Tony. “Unsurrendered.” Yes! Magazine, 2015. http://www.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=b24e304ce1944493879cba028607dfc7.

Marcos, Subcomandante Insurgente. Ya Basta!: Ten Years of the Zapatista Uprising. Edited by Ziga Vodovnik. 1 edition. Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2004.

Massumi, Brian. Politics of Affect. Cambridge: Polity, 2015.

Matining, Mel. Interview with Mel Matining. Interview by carla bergman and Nick Montgomery. In person, May 6, 2014.

Mies, Maria. Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the International Division of Labour. London: Zed Books, 2014.

“Militant.” Wikipedia, December 12, 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Militant&oldid=754366474.

Mingus, Mia. “On Collaboration: Starting With Each Other.” Leaving Evidence, August 3, 2012. https://leavingevidence.wordpress.com/2012/08/03/on-collaboration-starting-with-each-other/.

Molina:, Marta Malo de. “Common Notions, Part 1: Workers-Inquiry, Co-Research, Consciousness-Raising.” European Institute for Progressive Cultural Policies, April 2004. http://eipcp.net/transversal/0406/malo/en.

———. “Common Notions, Part 2: Institutional Analysis, Participatory Action-Research, Militant Research.” European Institute for Progressive Cultural Policies, April 2004. http://eipcp.net/transversal/0707/malo/en.

Negri, Antonio. The Savage Anomaly: The Power of Spinoza’s Metaphysics and Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1991.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Genealogy of Morals and Ecce Homo. Edited by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Vintage, 1989.

Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. Thus Spake Zarathustra: A Book for All and None. Translated by Thomas Wayne. New York: Algora Publishing, 2003.

Piercy, Marge. “The Grand Coolie Damn.” CWLU Herstory Project: A History of the Chicago Women’s Liberation Union, 1969. http://www.cwluherstory.org/the-grand-coolie-damn.html.

Rollo, Toby. “Feral Children: Settler Colonialism, Progress, and the Figure of the Child.” Settler Colonial Studies, June 29, 2016, 1–20. doi:10.1080/2201473X.2016.1199826.

Ruddick, Susan. “The Politics of Affect: Spinoza in the Work of Negri and Deleuze.” Theory, Culture & Society 27, no. 4 (2010): 21–45. doi:10.1177/0263276410372235.

Samaran, Nora. “On Gaslighting.” Dating Tips for the Feminist Man, June 28, 2016. https://norasamaran.com/2016/06/28/on-gaslighting/.

Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. “Paranoid Reading and Reparative Reading, Or, You’re so Paranoid, You Probably Think This Essay Is about You.” In Touching Feeling: Affect, Pedagogy, Performativity, 124–51. Duke University Press, 2003.

Shukaitis, Stevphen. Imaginal Machines: Autonony & Self-Organization in the Revolutions of Everyday Life. New York: Autonomedia, 2009. http://www.minorcompositions.info/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/ImaginalMachines-web.pdf.

Simpson, Leanne. Dancing On Our Turtle’s Back: Stories of Nishnaabeg Re-Creation, Resurgence, and a New Emergence. Winnipeg: Arbeiter Ring Press, 2011.

———. Dancing the World into Being: A Conversation with Idle No More’s Leanne Simpson. Interview by Naomi Klein, March 5, 2013. http://www.yesmagazine.org/peace-justice/dancing-the-world-into-being-a-conversation-with-idle-no-more-leanne-simpson.

Simpson, Leanne Betasamosake. “I Am Not a Nation-State | Indigenous Nationhood Movement.” Indigenous Nationhood Movement, November 6, 2013. http://nationsrising.org/i-am-not-a-nation-state/.

———. “Indict the System: Indigenous & Black Connected Resistance.” Leanne Betasamosake Simpson, November 28, 2014. http://leannesimpson.ca/indict-the-system-indigenous-black-connected-resistance/.

———. Interview with Leanne Betasamosake Simpson. Interview by Nick Montgomery and carla bergman. Email, November 2, 2015.

Sitrin, Marina. Everyday Revolutions: Horizontalism and Autonomy in Argentina. London: Zed Books, 2012.

———, ed. Horizontalism: Voices of Popular Power in Argentina. Oakland: AK Press, 2006.

———. Interview with Marina Sitrin. Interview by Nick Montgomery and carla bergman. Email, February 4, 2016.

———. “Occupy Trust: The Role of Emotion in the New Movements.” Cultural Anthropology, February 14, 2013. https://culanth.org/fieldsights/75-occupy-trust-the-role-of-emotion-in-the-new-movements.

Situaciones, Colectivo. 19&20: Notes for a New Social Protagonism. Translated by Nate Holdren and Sebastian Touza. New York: Minor Compositions, 2012.

Smith, Andrea. Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide. Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 2010.

———. “Heteropatriarchy and the Three Pillars of White Supremacy: Rethinking Women of Colour Organizing.” In The Color of Violence: The Incite! Anthology, edited by INCITE! Women of Colour Against Violence, 66���73. Oakland: South End Press, 2006.

Solnit, Rebecca. A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities That Arise in Disaster. Reprint edition. New York: Penguin Books, 2010.

———. “We Could Be Heroes.” presented at the EMMA Talks, Vancouver, February 17, 2016. http://emmatalks.org/session/rebecca-solnit/.

Spade, Dean. “For Lovers and Fighters.” In We Don’t Need Another Wave: Dispatches from the Next Generation of Feminists, edited by Melody Berger, 28–39. Emeryville: Seal Press, 2006. http://www.makezine.enoughenough.org/newpoly2.html.

———. On Normal Life. Interview by Natalie Oswin, January 15, 2014. http://societyandspace.org/2014/01/15/on-6/.

starr, amory. “Grumpywarriorcool: What Makes Our Movements White?” In Igniting a Revolution: Voices in Defense of the Earth. Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2006.

The Invisible Committee. The Coming Insurrection. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e), 2009.

———. To Our Friends. Translated by Robert Hurley. South Pasadena: Semiotext(e), 2015.

“The Wild Beyond: With and for the Undercommons.” In The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning & Black Study, 2–13. Wivenhoe: Minor Compositions, 2013. http://www.minorcompositions.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/undercommons-web.pdf.

Thoburn, Nicholas. “Weatherman, the Militant Diagram, and the Problem of Political Passion.” New Formations 68, no. 1 (2010): 125–42. doi:10.3898/newf.68.08.2009.

Tiqqun. Introduction to Civil War. Translated by Alexander R. Galloway and Jason E. Smith. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e), 2010.

Touza, Sebastián. “Antipedagogies for Liberation Politics, Consensual Democracy and Post-Intellectual Interventions.” PhD Dissertation, Simon Fraser University, 2008. https://www.academia.edu/544417/Antipedagogies_for_liberation_politics_consensual_democracy_and_post-intellectual_interventions.

———. Interview with Sebastián Touza. Interview by Nick Montgomery and carla bergman. Email, February 2, 2016.

Trần, Ngọc Loan. “Calling IN: A Less Disposable Way of Holding Each Other Accountab.” Black Girl Dangerous, December 18, 2013. http://www.blackgirldangerous.org/2013/12/calling-less-disposable-way-holding-accountable/.

“Translators Foreword: Pleasures of Philosophy.” In A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, ix–xv. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987.

Turje, Mik. Interview with Mik Turje. Interview by Nick Montgomery and carla bergman, March 4, 2014.

Vaneigem, Raoul. The Movement of the Free Spirit. Translated by Randall Cherry and Ian Patterson. Revised ed. edition. New York; Cambridge, Mass.: Zone Books, 1998.

———. The Revolution of Everyday Life. Translated by Donald Nicholson-Smith. 2nd Revised edition. Seattle: Rebel Press, 2001.

Victoria, Law. “Against Carceral Feminism.” Jacobin, October 17, 2014. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/10/against-carceral-feminism/.

VOID Network. “VOID Network on the December 2008 Insurrection in Greece.” presented at the B.A.S.T.A.R.D. Conference, University of California, Berkeley, March 14, 2010. https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/03/18/18641710.php.

Voyer, Jean-Pierre. Letter to Ken Knabb. “Discretion Is the Better Part of Value,” April 20, 1973. http://www.bopsecrets.org/PS/Reich.add.htm.

———. “Wilhelm Reich: How To Use.” In Public Secrets, translated by Ken Knabb. Bureau of Public Secrets, 1997. http://www.bopsecrets.org/PS/reich.htm.

Walia, Harsha. “Decolonizing Together: Moving beyond a Politics of Solidarity toward a Practice of Decolonization,” January 1, 2012. https://briarpatchmagazine.com/articles/view/decolonizing-together.

Wang, Jackie. “Against Innocence: Race, Gender and the Politics of Safety.” LIES Journal 1 (2012): 1–13.

Wilkerson, Cathy. Flying Close to the Sun: My Life and Times as a Weatherman. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2007.

Zellars, Rachel, and Naava Smolash. “If Black Women Were Free: Part 1.” Briarpatch, August 16, 2016. http://briarpatchmagazine.com/articles/view/if-black-women-were-free.

Zibechi, Raúl. Dispersing Power: Social Movements as Anti-State Forces. Translated by Ramor Ryan. Oakland: AK Press, 2010.

———. Territories in Resistance: A Cartography of Latin American Social Movements. Translated by Ramor Ryan. Oakland: AK Press, 2012.

Zournazi, Mary. “Navigating Movements: A Conversation with Brian Massumi,” in Hope: New

Philosophies for Change, by Mary Zournazi (New York: Routledge, 2002), 210–243.

[bighermie]

FUCK YEAH

[thefreethoughtprojectcom]

It's no wonder why the mainstream media is refusing to cover much of the findings of the Durham probe, the levels of corruption being uncovered here are unprecedented

Read More: https://thefreethoughtproject.com/government-corruption/top-fbi-officials-sabotaged-investigation-into-clinton-foundation-durham-report

[memento-yuumori]

I started writing this post a while ago but I never finished it, and I don’t remember exactly where my train of thought was going so I’m not going to finish it, but I figured I’d post it as-is.

Here it is:

I’ve been thinking what about what could have happened if Sherlock and William hadn’t met on the Noahtic.

Maybe the staircase had been a boring straight staircase so William didn’t stop, or the Ladies didn’t ask about William, or the group was standing somewhere else.

Sherlock would have been dragged around playing their game for who-knows-how-long without any interesting interludes.

Supposing Sherlock still decided to go see the performance (I don’t think meeting William could possibly have influenced Sherlock’s presence there, unless he went to see if he could spot him in the audience, which I find unlikely but very cute), he would have still stopped Enders and inspected the body, and we still would have gotten these lovely panels:

One of the minor tragedies of the anime (in my opinion) is that they didn’t include that shot of William watching Sherlock inspect the body. But anyway, William would still see that there is an unexpected factor, a strange man inspecting the body.

Because they didn’t meet by the staircase, Sherlock wouldn’t have sought William out when they disembarked the Noahtic. There are two things that could maybe happen instead that I’ll go into.

1) William seeks Sherlock out instead. I admittedly didn’t think of this option when I started writing this post, so I haven’t thought as much about it, but William could have chosen to approach Sherlock to see if he would be a potential threat/useful to the plan. He could approach Sherlock on the dock under the guise of an inquisitive and possibly gossip-seeking noble (or have Albert do it), maybe opening with some misleadingly-vapid line about how difficult it must be to examine a dead body. If this is what happens, I think events might unfold similarly to how they do in canon, with maybe some changes to their attachments to each other (William didn’t have that moment of forgetting about his plan, Sherlock didn’t get his life choices validated), but, again, I haven’t thought as much about this scenario.

However, my instinct says that William wouldn’t do this, because making contact and forming an association between himself and the crime in Sherlock’s mind could be too dangerous/show too much of his hand.

The rest of this post will be following the other scenario:

2) They go their separate ways and William potentially conducts some background research on Sherlock to find out who he is.

Maybe he doesn’t have Jefferson Hope leave Sherlock’s name at Drebber’s murder scene or have him extend his proposal, because while William may have noticed Sherlock on the Noahtic, having not spoken to him, he hasn’t had his interest piqued enough to test him yet.

Sherlock still solves the case (it’s A Study in Scarlet. He has to) and connects that there is a third party (assuming Hope losing his temper when confronting Drebber and thus making the scene messy wasn’t calculated in William’s plan for Sherlock). William is still impressed, and John still writes his book, making Sherlock Holmes a celebrity.

However, Sherlock doesn’t get the proposal from Hope, so he doesn’t get as frustrated when there isn’t a new Lord of Crime case so he doesn’t go to York?

During the Scandal in the British Empire, it’s Sherlock’s first time “negotiating” with the Lord of Crime rather than the second, so maybe he’s even less inclined to trust him, but I think events should still play out the same way.

At some point, Sherlock researches the guests on the Noahtic and looks for similar names surrounding other cases of nobles being killed. The names Albert James Moriarty and William James Moriarty come up as both passengers on the Noahtic and in Being in Durham when Baron Belfor and Dudley Bale died.

Instead of going all the way to Durham, he first investigates the local brother, and upon sneaking in somewhere (maybe a meeting with the House of Lords? I don’t know… anything about parliament or who was allowed observe what) and hears Albert speak and confirms he was the voice he heard in the church.

Further digging on Albert reveals that he was promoted in the military but then went to work at a trading company.

Either he shows up at Universal Exports pretending to be interested in working with them (like he does with Bond after the time skip) or he visits Mycroft in the Stranger’s Room and is like “so, let’s talk about Albert James Moriarty, head of your secret MI6”.

Honestly that’s about as far as I’ve gotten with the “Sherlock takes interest in Albert” thread.

But if we’re pretending that doesn’t happen and just follow canon events, I imagine the Jack the Ripper and Scotland Yard arcs remain relatively the same, (RIP Durham Date), and I guess in The Dark Night of London he might not have a solid answer for Mycroft

I did also think about how their meeting at Milverton’s villa would go.

This would probably be

Aaand that’s how the draft ends whoops! I’m just as curious what I was going to say as anyone else haha. I’d love to hear everyone’s thoughts/ideas regarding anything in this thread!