It is either a pretty amazing coincidence or a connection. The name is not that common. It is a question not a comment.

But you do not have to participate in this thread if you do not want to. It seems that you are ok with journalists doing hit pieces on people based on incorrect facts and then doubling down when those facts are proved absolutely wrong. Do yourself a favor and just skip these threads.

Three months before Bernie announced he was even running.

I think it is likely that the classmates made innocent mistakes, its the journalist who did not correct the record after seeing the forensic photographic proof that is the problem.

I am curious if this Richard Shmitt is related to Nick Schmit which might give some clue as to why Capehart did not retract his story when confronted with the photographic proof.

I think the most logical explanation is that Capehart is a Hillary fan and thought he could "get" Bernie by going after the photo. It was idiotic on his part and he should be castigated for his sloppy reporting (to put it mildly).

I believe that anything beyond that is conspiracy theory territory, but that is just my opinion.

I thought about this when posting and tried to emphasize the word coincidence that the names are so similar.

Capehart references Richard as the driving force in changing the archive caption.
If he was related to Capehart's partner I thought it might explain the reluctance to come out against him in a non-conspiratorial but personal manner. It would actually lower my anger against him for doubling down. He might be caught in a personal box.

Your name Oberliner piqued my curiousity. I am an Oberlin College graduate. Is your name a reference to the College or town?

I think the name similarities are a coincidence, but who knows.

And, yes, I did go to Oberlin College. Send me a PM for more details if you're interested!

Ms Cook - a retired lawyer, supposedly - helped get the ball rolling too. I suspect all of these alumni were plants, if someone could ferret out their identities. It won't be easy, of course.

I hadn't even noticed that. I was too focused on Nick Schmit's resume (given in one of the photo articles), and how fortunate he was to have the Clintons build it for him straight out of the U. of North Dakota, continuing to today.

My instincts are the alumni are not the driving force of this. I can believe that Time and Capehart pushed the issue and converted a question of whether it was Sanders in one old ambigous picture into a certainty that it was not Sanders.

They contacted some Core participants looking for something to use against Sanders and when shown the picture one expressed a question of whether it was Sanders. The journalists then pushed the issue effectively planting the suggestion in people looking at one picture which did not show him head on.

The smear was just unlucky in that it ran into Danny Lyons who had actual proof that the claim was wrong.

He is actually the primary source who was never interviewed before publication. I wonder why? (sarcasm)

What's fishy is the number of high profile participants in it: WaPo, Time, U of Chicago, John Lewis, and Brock. Plus of course the alumni and the widow as non-politicos (as far as we know).

That big of an effort was looking for a big payoff, which clearly they won't get now, thanks to Danny Lyon. It sort of reminds me of the Watergate burglars, writ small.

At least in some parts of the country.

I think you're running down a dead end with this.