Your guide to anti-Trump ‘resistance’ grifters

The Left had been largely free of this condition since the President George W. Bush administration.

Then came President Trump and the rise of the resistance grift.

Like the self-styled “grassroots” leaders and scam PACs that targeted the Tea Party, many self-declared Russia “experts” and anti-Trump activists knowingly exploit an already angry and discombobulated audience. And like the phony patriots of 2010, these resistance performers benefit from the spread of disinformation and resentment. Of course, there are some notable differences between the two scams. For starters, the resistance fakers prefer social media to the traditional direct mail fundraising swindle. Further, the amount of cash being pocketed by resistance actors is so far a drop in the bucket compared to what certain Tea Party “patriots” took home during the Obama years. Overall, though, they are the same basic thing: Bad-faith actors exploiting a political moment for personal benefit.

Some resistance fraudsters have been rewarded with massive followings on social media; others have been elevated by broader media; some have even figured how to monetize the con. All of this despite being intentionally dishonest, hilariously misinformed, aggressively ignorant or a combination of all three.

The following list represents the worst-of-the-worst in the resistance grift. Some are still influential in their respective circles, while others have nearly fallen off the radar altogether. In any case, consider the following a “no go” list. If you see these names on social media, just keep walking:

Louise Mensch:

This former British Conservative member of parliament made a good run of the resistance game early on with her bold prognostications on Russia’s alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. She was rewarded immediately with multiple cable news appearances, and even earned herself a spot in the New York Times op-ed pages, proving once and for all that Americans are suckers for an accent.

But it was painfully obvious even before her Times op-ed that she actually has no idea what she is talking about, and that her supposed White House “sources” are about as real as the Tooth Fairy. Consider this tweet from July 2017:

John Schindler:

This disgraced ex-Naval War College professor has figured out a way to get paid to speak cryptically about Russia, the intelligence community, and the Trump White House. He’s like an astrologer, making overly broad and vague predictions that allow him to claim “victory” whenever something comes close to fulfilling one of his acronym-laden prophesies. The best part: He’s charging people for the privilege of reading his best wild guesses about national security and foreign policy issues.

Via the Outline:

Claude Taylor:

As far as the resistance scam goes, Taylor is one of the most untrustworthy actors available, which is impressive for a guy whose Twitter handle is “@truefactsstated.”

Taylor claims he is a “veteran of 3 presidential campaigns.” A review of Federal Election Commission data shows he has never worked for a federal campaign. Taylor also claims he “served on White House staff” for President Bill Clinton, which is a slight variation of when he used to claim he was a “former Clinton administration staffer.” Records show he did indeed work briefly in the volunteer office in 1993. The position, which paid a salary of $35,000, isn’t exactly plugged into the national security community, where Taylor claims to have connections.

Naturally, he has used his newfound popularity as a supposedly fearless and well-sourced resistance fighter to launch a PAC, because of course. There’s also the issue of Taylor’s love of anti-Trump propaganda. This particular tweet didn’t age so well:

Eric Garland:

Garland isn’t so much a case of outright deception and dishonesty as he’s a case of an astonishingly delusional person having access to Twitter.

He has a major following, and at least a few self-proclaimed resistance fighters still seem to be interested in what he has to say about Trump and Russia. But I’ll be damned if I can figure out what he’s on about. Garland’s tweets read more like they were written by a child whose mother allowed him stay up past his bedtime:

This “strategic intelligence advisor” first gained attention in December 2016 with a rambling 2,849-word screed that inexplicably won praise from several national reporters.

“These days, Garland still has a lot of followers, but no influence. People don’t even ridicule him that much anymore,” Spinter News notes. “But he did yell at Adrian Chen, the reporter who exposed Russian troll armies in the first place, for not taking Russian influence seriously enough. That was cool.”

Like Schindler, Garland has also decided it is worth charging the resistance faithful to read his wild and disjointed thoughts on Trump, Russia and basically anything else that pops into his head.

Seth Abramson:

If you have a hankering for hundreds of tweets per day promising to expose the truth of Trump’s supposed collusion with Moscow, then this English-professor-turned-full-time-Kremlin-expert is your guy. There isn’t a Russian conspiracy theory that he hasn’t embraced and then tried to explain later in a not-at-all-crazy 100-plus-tweet thread.

Abramson is also on the record admitting he lied — er — engaged in “experimental journalism” during the 2016 Democratic primary when he claimed repeatedly that Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., was on his way to victory:

Following the Democratic primary, Abramson aimed his unique brand of “truth” at the Trump administration, which has resulted in multiple media appearances on CNN, CBS, BBC, and elsewhere.

Scott Dworkin:

At last, a more traditional con. Dworkin, who is an active voice in resistance social media, heads your average, run-of-the-mill scam PAC routine: He asks the faithful to send him money so he can better take back America (where have you heard that before?), and he pockets a significant chunk of the returns.

Dworkin’s Democratic Coalition, “one of the many new progressive-minded organizations to bloom in the age of anti-Trump fervor, took in approximately half a million dollars last year,” the Daily Beast reported. “The vast majority of its funds, however, have come from people whose names don’t make it into Federal Election Commission disclosures: the small, ‘unitemized’ donors who give $200 or less,” the report added. “The Democratic Coalition paid more than half of the money it raised last year to its employees or their consulting firms, according to Federal Election Commission records. Dworkin’s Bulldog Finance Group was the chief beneficiary, drawing more than $130,000 from The Democratic Coalition.”

In 2016 the Democratic Coalition said its goal was, “making sure that Donald Trump never became President.” That same year, the Daily Beast noted, “Dworkin and other staff members received more than 90 percent of all of the Democratic Coalition’s expenditures, either personally or through a consulting company.”

A classic (and perfectly legal) political scam.

Rogue Government Agency Twitter Accounts:

I’m not sure what the game is here, but these accounts are obvious fakes. Though it appears certain “rogue” accounts are just poor attempts at humor, it seems some are also 100 percent serious when they claim their tweets are coming from inside the White House. You’d be a fool to believe this.

My best guess is that these accounts represent the intersection of delusional fan-fiction and political activism.

Nevertheless, and despite the absurdity of it all, these “rogue” accounts have thousands of followers on social media. Their tweets are eagerly shared and passed around, particularly in “resistance” corners. You’d think people would be suspicious by now of the fact that these accounts have yet to break a single story about this administration. Yet, here we are.