sources  |  Isikoff  |  Biography  |  Hemingway  |  Liberal  |  JFK  |  Conspiracy  |  Targeting Clinton  |  Perjury
NEWSWORLD  SHOWDOWN
                                                                                                                                                          nsnews

 
 
Updated May 8, 1999
 
 
Hung Jury
 
Little Julie Hiatt Steele managed to get a hung jury in a conservative district where law enforcement officials receive the benefit of every doubt. Even the famous “rocket docket” refused to convict her. Starr did everything that anybody can possibly do to destroy Julie Hiatt Steele, but the tyrant who bullies any honest woman who gets in his way, has forever been disgraced. The trial that was supposed to bury Julie Hiatt Steele, proved that Kathleen Willey is a shameless liar who uses people as pawns of deception. Kathleen Willey admitted the fact that she was the one who had asked Steele to lie about her whereabouts, to hide a surreptitious relationship with a former boyfriend. Kathleen Willey is the sort that makes the skin of normal people crawl.

The bizarre fact about the trials and tribulations of Julie Hiatt Steele is that there are no winners and losers, just victims and predators. The verdict is relatively meaningless because in terms of winners and losers, Starr lost the case as soon as he indicted Julie Hiatt Steele. Starr uses legal license the way a criminal uses a gun, and while he could have successfully prosecuted Julie Hiatt Steele, he can never justify the indictment. To be sure, he almost repeated his keen ability to successfully cultivate fraudulent testimony, but in the final analysis, he should be glad about the failure to deliver the sort of blow that killed Jim McDougal. You can fool some of the people some of the time but...


                                                            
Blame it on Rio


The toxic culture that produced the Columbine school massacre is too common for comfort. But instead of cleaning it up, Monday morning quarterbacks who are intellectually challenged are lining up scapegoats and demanding the whole sale slaughter  of everything and anything that smells offensive. Blame it on the movies, blame it on guns, blame it on parents, blame it on the Internet, blame it on video games... Censor, sanitize, immobilize and ostracize. If that’s the plan, the Columbine school massacre is like a ticking time bomb. There is certainly a toxic culture at work, and it is called mass hysteria, ignorance and confusion. A Ph.D. psychologist who used national television to give his “talking heads” version of the massacre, blamed it on high self-esteem. In his own words, “there is nothing worst than crossing a kid with high self-esteem”. If you believe that, then I AM GOD. The kids that caused the massacre were emotionally disturbed and brainwashed, they did not have high self-esteem. All they needed was good counseling and a good education, they did not need a moron with a diploma who was hell bent on beating the self-esteem out of them. To be sure, it is much easier said than done, but do
not expect any light bulbs to shine, until the obvious is acknowledged. The kids that caused this massacre were emotionally disturbed and brainwashed. That is what they were before the massacre. Now, they are just cold blooded murderers.

The “talking heads” who monopolize television news should assume some responsibility for the mass produced ignorance they espouse, because the need for emotional stability and clarity has never been greater. In the absence of a media that provides reliable information, alternative sources like the Internet give students the unprecedented ease of opportunity to explore ideas they would not ordinarily confront until they reached a certain level of maturity, and if we are talking about students who are filled with hatred, it isn’t difficult to determine who they are likely to hero worship. Alexander Pope put it best many centuries ago when he said “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Drink deep or taste not...”  Now that everything is up for sampling, the need for reliable guidance has never been greater, and schools all across America are doing a wonderful job meeting the challenge. Good teachers and good schools routinely avert potential massacres, but a media that does not understand the relationship between high self-esteem and a healthy, stable society, routinely ignores the obvious. We hate to “blame it on Rio” and that’s not the point. But the need to upgrade responsibility is so obvious, it speaks for itself.

Glenbrook South, a large Chicago high school with 2320 students was named one of the  “Outstanding Schools in America”, and it doesn’t take very much time to determine why.
Students at Glenbrook South have evidently taken the huge, “EXPECT  RESPECT” sign that dominates the school stairwell to heart, and it is very difficult to imagine an outbreak of violence in a school where every teacher and every student expects and receives respect. In the final analysis, it is all a matter of attitude. You can demand obedience and create the impression that you are strict, punitive and vindictive, or you can create an environment where order and discipline are a consequence of the mutual respect and the dignity that every individual deserves. In particular, hatred and hostile rivalries are a malignant disease, and in the absence of mutual self respect, the cancer will never be rooted out.[posted May 5, 1999]

                                                            
The Stalker

President Clinton is maligned
for suggesting that Monica Lewinsky was a stalker. When you are young, immature, in love with the President of the United States and manipulated by Linda Tripp, you are a stalker. Linda Tripp made Monica a stalker and Monica made it plainly obvious during her interview with Barbara Walters when she said that Tripp encouraged her to have an affair with the President even before Tripp was aware of the relationship between Lewinsky and Clinton. Why did Linda Tripp want President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky to have sexual intercourse?
Who was she working for? Linda Tripp encouraged a young, immature girl
to have sex with the President of the United States. Lewinsky is admirably independent and if she does not appreciate the implications of the fact that she was manipulated, she certainly will if she is as intelligent as she claims. There is certainly enough blame to go around. Monica Lewinsky is young and immature, the President foolishly succumbed to temptation, but it is Tripp and Starr who are responsible for the terror that Monica Lewinsky is still feeling. It is Tripp and Starr who are the secret police in this entire ordeal. Even Ginsburg, who is repeatedly ridiculed and criticized, did a superb job protecting the rights and interests of Monica Lewinsky. Ginsburg faced off with the terrorists and made it absolutely clear that Ken Starr was the problem. The deluded few who believe that Starr is capable of reaching a compromise may criticize Ginsburg,
but they did not take a single step in the shoes of an underrated giant who refused to be intimidated. To be sure, the old pros that Lewinsky latter hired were smoother than silk, but Ginsburg was the ground troop, and he clearly defined the battleground. And so, when Monica grows up, she should give Ginsburg the bonus he so rightly deserves.[posted March 4, 1999]


                                                            

Czar Starr

Juanita Broaddrick claims that she said “stop, I’m a married woman!” But this “holier than thou” attempt to defame Clinton is rendered fraudulent. Clearly, the claim that she summoned the sanctimony of marriage to ward off an alleged rapist is an absolute fraud. A verified adulterer like Juanita Broaddrick was not prone to using a wedding vow to ward off a rapist and Bill Clinton was not even the subject of her affair. Even Ken Starr clearly understands the fact that Juanita Broaddrick is the sort of liar who cannot possibly survive cross examination. Does Starr actually believe that this back door introduction of absurd rape allegations is proper? If he agrees with the maintenance of a perpetual, anti Clinton crusade, it is proper. If he believes in justice, it is extreme obstruction. But do not expect any reason or logic from Starr or from any of his supporters any time soon. In particular, the effort to resist the need to fire Starr has overwhelmed reason. Starr supporters vehemently posit the absurd claim that while Attorney General Janet Reno can fire Starr, she must be denied the authority to investigate Starr. Try following that ludicrous proposition to its logical conclusion. The Doctor has a duty to cure the patient but is denied the opportunity to diagnose potential illness. As usual, Starr and his supporters continue to spin reason on its head. The New York Times has even picked up the spin and claims that Janet Reno is a politicized Attorney General. On the contrary, Janet Reno has earned the right to claim her independence. Having been pressured into appointing a Special Counsel to investigate Clinton when none was required, she has demonstrated her willingness to go the extra mile, to prove her independence. In retrospect, she went too far and was too accommodating and Starr proved that in nauseating spades. The purpose of the current effort to demonize the so called “politicized” Attorney General is to make Janet Reno a lame duck or to re-write the Independent Counsel statute to in effect, abolish the Attorney General’s right to fire Ken Starr. It’s a cute scam and it would give Ken Starr the power of an absolute monarch, but Starr doesn’t have a Kingdom to command. The lunatic fringe will continue to manipulate the legal system in effort to produce a Joe DiGenova to clear Starr, but even OJ Simpson did better than that -the entire jury cleared him. [posted February 25, 1999]


Liar Liar

Linda Tripp says that Clinton is out to murder her. And she’s so scared, you know what she’s gonna do. She’s gonna write a book to expose the Clinton Mafia. But we heard her say she is scared, is that what terrified people do? Welcome to the new and improved Linda Tripp -the one who describes her fear with a smile. If you didn’t almost fall off your chair laughing during her Larry King Live performance, we did. In particular, Linda Tripp had the unbearable audacity to use the words “pattern of evidence” to justify her plight. Let’s take her warning seriously and look at the “pattern of evidence”.

The only pattern that most people see is an out of control Independent Counsel who exploits desperate people and if Linda Tripp is desperate, it isn’t because Bill Clinton is after her. It is because she is Starr’s agent and she is under pressure to make the case against Bill Clinton. The fact that Starr has not muzzled Linda Tripp makes that quite obvious doesn’t it? It is a classic fraud operation -muzzle the witness who disputes the fiction and unleash the liar. We can write an entire manuscript to prove the point, but we have better things to do. [February 16, 1999]



                                     
Fire Starr Now !

The effort to discredit the need to fire Ken Starr is gathering force. “The Justice Department is more partisan than it has been in a long time”, Starr apologists thunder, to dissuade a Justice Department investigation of Ken Starr. Starr apologists further emphasize the New York Times, unnamed sources claim that Clinton is out for revenge, in order to simultaneously further the impression that anyone who goes after Starr is simply vindictive. It’s like blaming the Clintons for the murder of Vincent Foster, to make every plausible claim of foul play, sound absurd. These are old, tired tactics and they do not wash in the light of day. The simple fact of the matter is that every thinking being is clearly aware of the fact that Ken Starr has abused his office and that he must be fired. The purpose of the Independent Counsel Statute is to take the politics out of the law, and having done the exact opposite, there is no excuse for continuing to retain Ken Starr. The failure to fire Starr without delay is pure negligence, and if the Justice Department fails to do at least that, it certainly requires a major overhaul. [posted February 11, 1999] 


American Bar Association

The American Bar association has spoken out. It has overwhelmingly decided to recommend that the Independent Counsel statute be discarded when it comes up for renewal in June. Why? Because the statute has failed to take the politics out of the law. Will somebody please wake up and stop blaming “the statute” for this Inquisition. It is Ken Starr and his allies who have failed to take the politics out of the law. The American Bar association should maintain professional standards, it should not provide tyrants the opportunity to hide behind the law. Clearly, at every turn, it is Ken Starr and his perpetual need to “search his recollection” that is responsible for failing to take the politics out of the law and it is Ken Starr, not some stupid statute, that should be held accountable. For twenty years, the American Bar Association supported the statute when the potential for abuse was as real as it is today. It is not the statute, it is Ken Starr who abused the spirit of his Office, and the laughable suggestion that the statute made him do it, will never wash. Perhaps, instead of making the Independent Counsel Statute the scapegoat of this travesty of justice, the American Bar Association should seek to hold everybody accountable. Reasonable, seasoned prosecutors have testified under oath, they would not touch the Lewinsky allegations, and when the American Bar Association targets the statute rather than the Prosecutor, words fail. The irony of this entire fiasco is that if the Independent Counsel Statute was enforced, this would not be happening. Follow the simple logic: In the 1980's, Oliver North and his band of merry outlaws believed that the United States of America needed a better Congress -so they did everything they could possibly think of to subvert the Congress. Today, a similar band of outlaws believe that the United States needs a better President, so they are doing everything they could possibly think of to subvert the President. The American Bar Association should abandon the delusion that the statute did it because people rely upon the law for protection, not from the Independent Counsel statute, but from tyrants like Ken Starr. [posted February 9, 1999] 

Motions to Dismiss

The vote to dismiss charges of perjury and obstruction of justice was defeated, but the 44 Senators who voted to approve dismissal was 10 counts over the number that Clinton requires to survive a vote to convict. In that respect, the second Senate vote, which approved the request to re-depose witnesses who have repeatedly testified, was needless and meaningless. When 44 out of 45 Senate democrats share the conclusion that this impeachment process is seriously impaired, prosecutors cannot possibly hoodwink the Senate into believing otherwise. What is going on here? Isn’t it time to abandon the effort to force the verdict? Is the decision to subpoena Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan and Sidney Blumenthal, patently absurd, or is it a genuine effort to expose the truth?

First and foremost, the choice of witnesses is certainly fascinating. To begin with, Monica Lewinsky is anything but a credible witness. Monica Lewinsky is an excessively debriefed and muzzled witness -she can’t even talk to the media unless Ken Starr approves it. Moreover, what she says in the Senate is largely dictated by a Starr immunity agreement, unless of course, she errs on the side that Starr approves. It takes a huge stretch of the imagination to call Monica Lewinsky a truthful witness -yet the House prosecutors chose her and deliberately excluded Betty Currie, who carries none of the baggage that strains Lewinsky’s credibility. Why aren’t the House prosecutors seeking to resolve the conflict between the testimony of Monica Lewinsky and Betty Currie? What are they afraid of? Republicans keep insisting that they must resolve discrepancies in testimony, but they selectively maintain them. If trends speak louder than words, a cynic would leap to the conclusion that the truth is not at issue and that they are merely seeking to control the testimony of Monica Lewinsky, in effort to prove the outrageous allegations of discredited House prosecutors. Clearly, the "pitiful three" to quote the characterization of the witnesses, as ascribed by chief House prosecutor Henry Hyde, are certainly a pitiful choice if truth has anything to do with this fatally flawed end game. In particular, every impartial body places justice above party politics, and it is certainly disappointing to watch overzealous prosecutors and a partisan Senate squander the opportunity to derail an impaired impeachment. But it’s only a matter of time... [posted January 27, 1999]


To call or not to call...

The House managers are demanding the opportunity to call witnesses. On the surface, they need witnesses to resolve conflict in testimony. In fact, the House members are desperate. They have failed to prove their case and they seek a handful of prepared witnesses to further distort the truth by limiting the focus. Indeed, in cooperation with Ken Starr, the House managers forced Monica Lewinsky to further cooperate and to provide the Prosecution with yet another bout of testimony, under the threat of imprisonment if she refused to do so. They never fail to deservingly earn the wrath of the public. Clearly, Ken Starr and the House managers have never acted in a manner which is consistent to the claim that they seek the truth, and that makes their legal maneuvers exceedingly repugnant. House Republicans betrayed their reluctance to call witnesses for the intent of exposing the truth when they had contemplated introducing the Kathleen Willey sexual assault allegations, not through Kathleen Willey herself, but through her lawyers. The focus on process and legal maneuver has frustrated every sense of fairness, and the Democratic claim that this has been an impeachment in search of a crime is not rhetoric. It it an absolute travesty of justice. And the vast hypocrisy of citing the ‘rule of law’ to justify this witch hunt is beyond the comprehension of every reasonable human being. [posted January 23, 1999]

Julie Hiatt Steele

It all began when Julie Hiatt Steele opened her door and allowed Lucianne Goldberg’s favorite investigative journalist, Michael Isikoff, to enter her home. In the 1980's unindicted felon Richard Nixon operated on the assumption that a crime had not been committed unless the press reported it, and that is evidently the mentality that motivates people like Goldberg and Isikoff. By implication, Michael Isikoff created the impression that Julie Hiatt Steele is a criminal, and that, in the final analysis, is why Ken Starr indicted Julie Hiatt Steele.

Clearly, if the press functioned as it should, Michael Isikoff would be in the corner of an innocent underdog like Julie Hiatt Steele. If the press functioned as it should, Lucianne Goldberg would despise Michael Isikoff. If arrogant, cover up artists denounced Richard Nixon’s perverted insinuation that the truth does not matter, this would not be happening. But despite Michael Isikoff, Lucianne Goldberg, Linda Tripp and Ken Starr, the simple truth is always the strongest advocate. And that is why Julie Hiatt Steele has single-handedly disgraced Isikoff, Goldberg, Tripp, Starr and everybody else who hides behind the claim that crimes are not committed, unless the media reports them. Crimes are committed every single day, and the criminals who targeted Julie Hiatt Steele Steele are not any less guilty, simply because they may evade criminal prosecution.

In the final analysis, we are witness to the indefensible abuse of power that corrupt journalists and corrupt, "political refugees" unleash. Lucianne Goldberg, Linda Tripp, Michael Isikoff and Ken Starr may fudge their collective recollections to evade criminal prosecution, but innocent victims like Julie Hiatt Steele betray the travesties of justice they embrace. No American, let alone a law abiding citizen like Julie Hiatt Steele, should ever face the ludicrous prospect of 35 years in prison, for telling the truth. And if Michael Isikoff ever knocks on your door, do not expect him to tell you who he is working for. [posted January 20, 1999]


The Senate Trial is over

We started the week of January 4, 1999 with the frustration that it does not matter what we say or do -nobody is listening. So we just fired offf 800 e-mails to 800 newspapers across America. That should get their attention. Here's what we had to say:

Lest you have failed to discover the truth, the current assault on Clinton is merely the work of paranoid, anti-Communist hysterics. If you listen to Clinton's enemies very carefully, you'll get the clear impression that the reason that Clinton is under assault is that he has been perceived to be a Communist -but they don't openly call him that because they know it is a tough sell -so they call him a rapist, a murderer, a pervert, a perjuror -anything will do as long as it works. Wake up and smell the coffee -are you or have you ever been a Communist?

Much is made about the so-called trail of death that follows Clinton: The pattern is crystal clear. Any Clinton associate who does not promote anti-Clinton bullshit is targeted and destroyed. Look what happened to Jim McDougal. After his conviction, the party line was that he was cooperating with Starr, but the feeble McDougal claimed that he was the victim of fraudulent documentation -he was not actually guilty. In that context, his death was extremely convenient. And then there's Susan, who spent 18 months in prison for refusing to lie about Clinton. [Our brilliant readers bring this fact to our attention: Susan McDougal was in prison for refusing to answer questions. But there is a rich history of corrupt authorities who use the grand jury to prove the opposite of what is in fact true. Jim Garrison used the grand jury to "prove" that organized crime did not exist. Susan refused to testify because Starr asked her to lie, and if she told the truth she would be walking into a perjury trap. And so my dear Forrest Gump, we all know WHAT happened, but it is all a consequence of WHY.] Does anybody miss the pattern here? Weren't the lies of the desperate Kathleen Willey carefully cultivated because the only other available option was the pure torture that is reserved for anyone who refuses to cooperate with Starr? Look what happened to Julie Hiatt Steele and her family when she told the truth? Was Ed Willey murdered because he refused to cooperate with Starr's henchmen? Is there a single reason to doubt it? [Willey's death preceded Starr's appointment, but so did the witch hunt, and it is the Inquisition, it is not Starr's formal status, which claims innocent victims.] Did Starr hire former FBI agents like G. Gordon Liddy? If the Senate wants to hold a trial, shouldn't these questions be top priority, or are they more interested in sex? Should we all demand answers to these questions, to make it absolutely certain that we want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? If she is in fact a liar, why didn't Starr charge Julie Steele with perjury? Her testimony was under oath -or is Starr just after Clinton? The evidence is very clear. Starr is very predictable. If Willey was alive, Starr would have granted him immunity in exchange for evidence to hang Clinton. But if Mr. Willey threatened to expose the plot to hang Clinton, what then? I guess we now know the "what then".

Damn it, we used the word bullshit again. Frustration certainly has it's price -we hate exposing our limited language skills. We'd give anything to be able to write like William Saffire and even more to be able to restore his credibility. When Julie Hiatt Steele was indicted, only somebody like William Saffire is gifted enough to explain it away. On January 7, 1999, Ken Starr's Virginia grand jury indicted Julie Hiatt Steele for obstructing justice and for lying. That would be fine and dandy, but Julie Hiatt Steele is credible and Ken Starr is not. The truth is logical, methodical and beyond a reasonable doubt. The truth is not a paintbrush that you dip in a bucket every time you seek to create a public impression. When Ken Starr indicted Julie Hiatt Steele, he signed, sealed and delivered his own self-destruction. Kenn Starr had a choice to make. He could choose to include the Willey allegations in the Starr Report, or, like every reasonable prosecutor, he could choose to dismiss the frivolous allegations. Ken Starr did the right thing. But when Ken Starr indicted Julie Hiatt Steele, he became more of a joke than a serious prosecutor. Ken Starr is obviously getting some pretty bad legal advice -where is Sam Dash when he needs him?

And now that Ken Starr has chocked on his own smoke, the final chapter of this tragic saga is clear. The simple fact of the matter is, the United States Senate has two choices -it can be fair and impartial, or it can sself-destruct. Unfortunately, in this case, to be fair and impartial is the equivalent of denying a full blown trial. For starters, if the Senate wants a full blown, impartial trial, it would have to seek and to find answers to questions like: If the Willey allegations are so credible, why didn't Starr charge Clinton with sexual assault? Who, in his right mind, would charge Steele for lying, because Bill Clinton is allegedly guilty of sexually assaulting Kathleen Willey? Who is the target, is it Bill Clinton or is it simply a campaign to destroy Julie Hiatt Steele, so that Bill Clinton will look guilty? Isn't it nice to know that your life is subject to be destroyed if you simply tell the truth? Ask Susan McDougal and Julie Hiatt Steele, they are living examples of the fact that the simple truth conspires to destroy innocent people. And if the Senate wants to get to the bottom of the entire mess through a thorough, impartial trial, it would have to grant President Bill Clinton a third term, to expose all the puppeteers behind the Starr puppet. If we discount that unlikely prospect, President Clinton cannot be fairly prosecuted and for all practical intent, the witch hunt is over. It may take a while for the media to figure it out, but the Senate trial of the President is over.

Ironically, it is ultimately Monica Lewinsky who saved the Clinton Presidency. If it wasn't for Lewinsky, Clinton's enemies would have eventually pulled fraudulent Whitewater documents out of the pumpkin and would have held a public Bill and Hillary hanging. As it turns out, Joe McCarthy was right about spies in the State Department, but they were not Communists. They were the public relations-oriented, Linda Tripp-style hit squads. They are very easy to identify. They have a very distinct crawl and they shun the media. But they crawl out of their holes to promote themselves and the garbage which is supposed to destroy their political targets. Their claim to fame is the repulsive fact that they commissioned the motivation to murder their targets and you can clearly expect the Senate to wash its hands clean of this bloodbath -or to self-destruct. The Senate is too mature and too dignified to maintain a witch hunt. And while there is absolutely nothing that we would love more than a full blown trial, even the Courts have limits. [posted January 10, 1999]


High Crimes and Misdemeanors

What are high crimes and misdemeanors? Is it too much to assume that rational people would rise up in protest if the President defendant had indeed committed high crimes and misdemeanors? Does anybody who is reasonable and seeks to uphold the rule of law, actually believe that the public would tolerate a President who is in fact guilty of perjury, of obstruction of justice and of abuse of power? The standards of the vast majority are clearly too high to dismiss the sort of abuse that is alleged. But most of the charges have proved to be so utterly preposterous that they collapsed on their own transparent frivolity. The only thing that remains is the McCarthyite charge that crimes were committed but details cannot be exposed. It's the old, perpetual, pending investigation gimmick -keep the target under investigation, claiim phony secrecy privileges and he or she is always a suspect. And that is the sort of suspended animation that produced the desperate charge that President Clinton is guilty of perjury -but who says?

That is the question and it not entirely facetious because it goes to the heart of "specific intent". In particular, perjury is a specific intent crime that relies upon the mindset of the defendant. When, for example, Monica Lewinsky said she hadn't had a sexual relationship with Bill Clinton, she was telling the truth because Monica Lewinsky made a clear distinction between what she called "fooling around" and sexual intercourse. It is Linda Tripp who ultimately insists that Monica committed perjury because she is the one who persistently quareled with Monica, in effort to plant in her mind, the necessary elements that are required by law, to expose a target to the charge of perjury. It all sounds absurd and difficult to imagine but it's all on tape and the charge cannot simply be dismissed. Blinded by the mentality that the end justifies the means, criminal perpetrators do not appreciate the scope of self-incrimination. On tape, Linda Tripp is heard clearly insisting that Lewinsky and Clinton had sex, and she aggressively disputes the "fooling around" characterization that Lewinsky firmly believed. Indeed, she pushed and pushed and pushed to the point where Linda Tripp claimed that if you have an orgasm, it's sex. Can you imagine a grown woman, any grown woman, arguing with a young girl, any young girl, about the definition of sex? Can you imagine a grown woman, any grown woman, insisting that orgasm equals sex? Is masturbation also sex? If they are willing to re-write the dictionary to expose the President of the United States to the charge that he committed perjury, is there anything that they are not willing to do?

Like Linda Tripp, attorneys for Paula Jones were preoccupied by the bizarre obsession to define sex. In the end, the tortured definition they produced provided Bill Clinton a cover to deny a sexual relationship -and the trap was sprung. But it was a trap with an illusory bite. Perjury is not the failure or the reluctance to expose a sexual play by play. It was a nice try, but it was a trap that lacked substance and demanded the sort of zeal that reasonable prosecutors reject. Moreover, if collusion between Linda Tripp, the Jones camp and the Office of the Independent Council is responsible for the parsimonious definition about sex, the astounding scope of the behind-the-scenes set-up reflects unethical, clever lawyering, to say the very least. Having deliberately limited their questions to encourage Clinton to mislead, it certainly takes extraordinary contempt for the law to turn around and call that perjury. There is indeed no limit to the stretch of reason that Clinton's accusers claim. They even have the unbridled arrogance to call Jones versus Clinton a Federal civil rights action. Frivolous on merit, bogus on substance, Jones versus Clinton was about abusing the court system to procure a perjury charge about a non-criminal matter. Lawyers for Paula Jones essentially betrayed the fact that they were more anti-Clinton crusaders than advocates for Paula Jones when they claimed that Clinton was guilty of perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power. Having obliterated the distinction between the Jones camp and Starr's office, it is certainly naive to deny the evident collusion. Indeed, the assault was essentially treasonous, because Monica Lewinsky and the Jones case were used in a manner which was tantamount to manufacturing justification to criminally indict the President of the United States.

And when the Jones case was thrown out of court, even the inconsistent Dick Morris, the very man whose rhetoric is selectively used to demonize Clinton, claimed that Paula Jones owed the entire country an apology. Isn't it ironic that Paula Jones owes Bill Clinton what she in fact demanded from him? Indeed, isn't everything about a witch hunt ironic, when the rule of law comes to bear? Isn't the effort to turn Dick Morris into the John Dean of the Whitewater scandal, a laughable, transparent fraud? Black is not white and white is not black. Service justice my friend. Service justice well because if you do not, anybody can call you a murderer, and instead of substantiating the charge, they will simply compare you to other murderers and demand a confession. Confess and die fast, defy and die slow. Guilty today, or guilty tomorrow. You will be confined and the switch will be pulled. Your body will convulse and your eyes will pop. Justice for one, justice for all.

Resist the temptation to label and destroy. To borrow Mary Bono's repeated boast, this is not the work of lawyers. This is not a defense for Bill Clinton. This is simply a reflection of every single, reasonable person who is sick and tired of all the bullshit and you can take that poll to the bank. [posted December 14, 1998]


The Problem with Prosecutors

The problem with certain Prosecutors is that they do not know when to be tough, when to be human, when to back off, and how to be objective. Take Marcia Clark for example. What kind of a prosecutor was she? The entire world saw her in action, and it still does as media pundit Marcia Clark takes regular pot shots to condemn, to ridicule and to make a laughing stock out of the President of the United States, whom she suggests should have joined a band so that he could get the chicks. Perhaps, Marcia Clark should have been a cleaning lady and then, murderers like Simpson would not roam the streets and the neo-Nazi tactics of Starr's Office would not be defended by the likes of a media that bends over backwards to make Starr look like a Prosecutor. Clearly, Ken Starr is nothing more than the obsessive compiler of the anti-Clinton garbage that predictably flows into the OIC Office. Of course, according to the brilliant analysis of people like Marcia Clark, it cannot possibly be an organized, illegal plot to topple the President of the United States because the flow of information is all one way -that means there is no conspiracy, doesn't it? As long as we have Prosecutors like Marcia Clark, there is certainly no conspiracy.

But if Marcia Clark was a real Prosecutor, she would have charged Mark Fuhrman with abuse of power, perjury, obstruction of justice and every other possible charge which relates to assaulting the competence and the integrity of the Prosecution. What if, for example, Lucianne Goldberg and Mark Furhman were secretely hired to help O.J. Simpson evade a murder rap? During an interview where she was just about to compare the Clinton saga with the O.J. trial, Goldberg abruptly backtracked and refused to elaborate because she evidently did not want to reveal salient facts. What is she hiding? Does Marcia Clark appreciate the serious corruption that her own Office manifested during the trial of O.J. Simpson? Of course not, Marcia Clark would rather blame the jury, the Prosecution is infallible. Don't blame others for your own incompetence Marcia, in a world where justice prevails, O.J. Simpson and Mark Furhman would be cellmates. And then, you would have secured both justice and a jury which was willing to listen.[posted December 1, 1998]


The Legacy is Eternal

On the 35th anniversary of John F. Kennedy's death, you can expect the propagandists to come out swinging, to revive the absurd conspiracy fantasy that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. An absolutely fraudulent claim which was concocted by J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon to cover up the truth, the claim that Oswald shot Kennedy is still maintained through aggressive, deceptive, manipulative advocacy. But serious people who have taken the time to explore the evidence clearly understand the fact that it is simply not possible to defend such a transparent fraud. Indeed, Johnson was so obsessed by the need to cover up the truth that he appointed the Hoover-controlled Warren Commission, to blindly advocate the fraudulent claim that Oswald had acted alone -a claim which was obviously concocted even before the President was assassinated. The world was still grieving when Johnson authorized Hoover to control the so-called truth about the Kennedy assassination, but the world is now wise to that sort of time-honored fraud. Nothing terrified Lyndon Johnson more than the public outcry for a complete and thorough investigation and nobody was better suited to betray justice than the unaccountable, J. Edgar Hoover. Not surprisingly, J. Edgar Hoover used Lee Harvey Oswald to divert attention and to cover up the truth about the Kennedy assassination.

Lyndon Johnson claimed that the truth about Lee Harvey Oswald could never be determined -it was buried with Lee Harvey Oswald, and he is absolutely right. Lee Harvey Oswald was an aspiring James Bond at the height of the Cold War. History does not produce an accurate record about the adventures of young, intelligent Marines like Lee Harvey Oswald. But this is about the Kennedy assassination, and history has recorded everything about that. Specifically, the evidence that directly implicates Johnson is too consistent, too compelling and too exhaustive to deny. On the very day that John F. Kennedy was murdered, while the world was in shock, Lyndon Johnson unleashed a non-stop, pre-planned frenzy of deliberate conduct which betrayed the planning and the pre-meditation of the elaborate effort to conceal the truth. In particular, the truth that was deliberately and meticulously distorted is that John F. Kennedy did not plan to withdraw from the war in Vietnam and that the Johnson administration simply carried forth the intentions of the slain President. Indeed, despite the fact that Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson had diametrically opposed views about the Vietnam war, Johnson brilliantly created the impression that the stark contrast did not even exist. Even Kennedy's funeral did not distract Johnson -by then, he had already produced the foundation of the Warren report fraud and had instantly, meticulously and thoroughly created the impression that he did not intend to reverse the foreign policy course that Kennedy had planned to chart. The suggestion that he was not prepared well in advance for an event that only co-conspirators could predict, is simply not credible. A brilliant strategist, Lyndon Johnson was not a brilliant, spontaneous thinker, and the thought behind his deliberate actions, clearly exposes an undeniable, incriminating level of premeditation.

Richard Nixon exposed his hand in the plot to cover up the truth about the Kennedy assassination when he claimed that he called Hoover on November 22nd to ask him if one of those "right-wing nuts" had killed Kennedy. According to Nixon, Hoover replied, "No, it was a Communist." If that isn't a phony description of a phony dialogue, it's difficult to top it. Nixon further added that Oswald's wife latter disclosed that Oswald had been planning to kill Nixon when he went to Dallas. Nixon and Hoover were both in Dallas on the 21st of November, and in the process of seeking to concoct a violent image to demonize Oswald, they probably tossed all kinds of war stories around. Moreover, when Richard Nixon did not challenge Lyndon Johnson for the Presidency in 1964, he ultimately betrayed the secret collusion between political ideologues who were united over the determination to prosecute the Vietnam war and the obsession to cover up the truth about the Kennedy assassination. As late as November 22, 1963, Richard Nixon made it clear that the Kennedys were the only ones who stood in the way of his plans when he said, "I am going to work as hard as I can to get the Kennedys out of there. We can't afford four more years of that kind of administration." At the same time, Richard Nixon called Dean Rusk the ablest Secreatary of State that America has ever had and despite the fact that he was the most popular Republican Presidential candidate, he did not oppose Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Monday morning quarterbacks call that brilliant, a calculation that was deliberately made because Lyndon Johnson was allegedly unchallangeable in 1964. What they did not realize is that Nixon and his secret allies had engaged a bi-partisan plot to prosecute the Vietnam War and there was no room for partisan elections in an atmosphere where every move was defined by the obsession to win the Vietnam war. Indeed, as Nixon made clear, he did not challenge Johnson in the election of 1964 because his only concern was to work as hard as he could to "get the Kennedys out of there." Like Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon believed that John F. Kennedy was a foreign policy amateur whose repeated refusal to deploy combat troops to the conflict in Southeast Asia threatened the entire planet. Indeed, Nixon was so obsessed to deploy American power that he even recommended a full-scale military invasion of Cuba. In his own words: "I would find a proper legal cover and I would go in. There are several justifications that could be used, like protecting American citizens living in Cuba and defending our base in Guatanamo. I believe that the most important thing to do at this point is to get Castro and communism out of Cuba." Lee Harvey Oswald was the ideal patsy because he could be connected to Cuba and the Soviet Union through his political activism and to the Mafia through his relationship with Marcello associate, David Ferrie. Indeed, Lee Harvey Oswald was essentially the ideal patsy of every potential conspiracy, regardless of whether Oswald, Castro or the Mafia was used to deflect attention away from the truth. But in stark contrast to all the absurd, unsubstantiated, commonly promoted conspiracy theories, Lee Harvey Oswald expelled every single fraud when he simply said, "I am just a patsy". And FBI informant Jack Ruby, silenced the patsy. Beyond his relationship with Hoover's FBI, Jack Ruby was the Mafia contact who was responsible for corrupting the payoff-riddled Dallas Police. In other words, Jack Ruby was the pointman of the plot to silence the patsy -he handled the contract on Oswald's life. But every assassination plot has a hitch or two. Clinton's fatal shot was supposed to be delivered by a filibuster-free Senate. Oswald's fatal shot was supposed to be delivered by the long arm of the vigilante law while the alleged assassin was trying to evade the authorities. When Jack Ruby shot Oswald on national television, he exposed the desperate improvisatioon of an assassination plot that had skipped a beat. Lyndon Johnson certainly noticed the fact that the script had been modified and he panicked to the point where he called the hospital where Oswald lay dying and thundered the following demand: "Dr. Crenshaw, I want a deathbed confession from the accused assassin. There's a man in the operating room who will take the statement. I will expect full cooperation in this matter." Johnson apologists claim that Dr. Crenshaw lied, but there is no reason to dispute the ethical standards of a man like Dr. Crenshaw. Sooner or latter, people have to start listening to the simple truth and start ignoring elaborate spin -but unfortunately, some people routinely prove that they either deliberately ignore or are not able to distinguish the difference.

The ultimate point is that when deception dominates, the legacy of great Americans is distorted beyond recognition. Specifically, Camelot was neither myth, nor martyr, nor legend. Against the advice of his own military Chiefs, Camelot was not arrogant in the use of great power and he refrained from satisfying their fantasy to bomb Cuba back to the stoneage. Unbeknown to the world at the time, that decision actually averted an imminent nuclear war. Cuba was prepared to launch a nuclear missile and the Soviet Union and the United States were geared to respond. Indeed, despite all the propaganda, all the deceit, all the revisionists and all the fraud artists who manufacture documents to distort the Kennedy record, Camelot was real. [posted November 22, 1998]


[footnote]Hoover apologists dispute the claim that Nixon and Hoover were in Dallas on the 21st, but it doesn't matter -proximity is ultimately a moot point. The significant fact is that Hoover and Nixon were two peas in a single pod when it came down to plotting strategy to destroy their enemies. Nixon got a good taste of developing plots to assassinate his enemies during the Eisenhower Administration where, as a member of the National Security Counsil, he was the pointman of anti-Castro assassination plots. Hoover used the Mafia to destroy Communists at home and the covert merger of their anti-Communist resources was a typical phenomenon. During the McCarthy era, Hoover's FBI was the investigative arm that kept the witch hunts going and Richard Nixon was the beneficiary of the national attention that anti-Communist hysteria generated. It was well understood that J. Edgar Hoover had "made" Richard Nixon, and public pronouncements about their relationship are simply phony cover stories. In actual fact, Richard Nixon and Hoover were clearly aware of every single detail about who and what was behind the Kennedy assassination, the claim that some right-wing nut or some Communist was responsible, is transparently phony -and they both knew it.


Ken Starr provides the Proof

Ken Starr has done the world an enormous favor. Ken Starr has proven once and for all, when he claims that he is vindicating the rule of law, he is seeking to make the world safe for hypocrisy. Ken Starr has proven once and for all, that corrupt authorities who suborn perjury are guilty of obstructing justice. Ken Starr has proven once and for all, that corrupt, career Justice Department officials are still paying tribute to the felonious legacy of J. Edgar Hoover. Ken Starr has proven once and for all, that the capacity to manipulate the court system is responsible for covering up, rather than exposing the truth. Ken Starr has proven once and for all, how easy it is to fill our prisons with innocent people. Ken Starr has proven once and for all, that bragging about the capacity to win in court is like being thankful that Jim McDougal is dead and is consequently denied the right to every appeal. Ken Starr has proven once and for all, that "the facts" are a figment of his vast, hitherto unfathomable capacity to pervert justice. Ken Starr has proven once and for all, that it is simply not possible to have an Independent Special Prosecutor as long as Grand Inquisitors exploit the Courts. Ken Starr has proven once and for all, that he would rather defend Paula Jones and Linda Tripp, rather than the duties and obligations of the President of the United States. [The Paula Jones lawsuit was consistently and repeatedly used to divert the media and that is clearly an improper use of the judicial process.] Ken Starr has proven once and for all, that he can hide behind the practise and policy of legal manoeuvres, but he cannot find an independent jury to support a grand plot to topple a President. [posted November 19, 1998]

Fear is the Biggest Motivator

Linda Tripp said it all when she said: "He's not letting you in. He's not letting you in because it's dangerous to let you in. He let you in and now he's afraid. He's afraid! Fear is the biggest motivator. Self-preservation is everything. I don't think that your last conversation with him would have been the same before the fear took over." That is the world that Linda Tripp lives in, a world where everything is dictated by fear. It is really the grand revelation of anything that anybody can say about Linda Tripp because therein lies the point where people with kindness and compassion, and Linda Tripp part company. Intelligence can be kind and compassionate or it can be dangerous and treacherous, and is anybody confused about the category that Linda Tripp occupies?

Since fear is the key to unravelling the world according to Linda Tripp, this scandal will remain a mystery until every source of every fear is fully exposed. In terms of available evidence, the "talking points" appear to be one of the underexposed elements of the Monica affair. The notorious, highly publicized "talking points" document was supposed to substantiate perjury and obstruction of justice charges, but the effort did not survive the light of scrutiny. Regardless, the emotion that the "talking points" sparked has certainly heightened the perception that unanswered questions dominate. In particular, there is clearly a sense that fear lurks in the background. Indeed, with her entire body shaking like she was scared to death, Linda Tripp's voice trembled in fear as she publicly denied having had anything to do with the development of the "talking points" document. Who was Linda Tripp afraid of? Was she afraid of Monica Lewinsky? Was she afraid of President Clinton? Or was she afraid of betraying the plot to topple a President? [posted November 17, 1998]


Nazis Don't Know When To Back Off

Starr's conspiracy theories have failed to ignite public opinion. But instead of backing off, Starr's Office continues to target anybody who refuses to promote anti-Clinton hysteria. His latest targets, Julie Hiatt Steel, her family, her friends and even her accountant are all under investigation. There is no mystery about what Starr is currently seeking from them. Kathleen Willey had convinced her friend Julie Steele to tell Michael Isikoff of Newsweek that President Clinton had groped her. Linda Tripp enthusiastically promoted the sensational claim and fraudulent corroboration was desperately cultivated. But Julie Hiatt Steele refused to cooperate. She was supposed to tell Isikoff that Clinton had groped Kathleen Willey, that she was humiliated, distraught and upset about it and that she had exposed the details of the assault on the very night that it happened. While the effort to make the charges believable was exhaustive, the dramatic claim was obviously not authentic and an honest, experienced reporter should be in the business of exposing the truth. Isikoff was evidently more interested in documenting an obvious lie while Kathleen Willey pulled the equivalent of tape recording a good friend -albeit, in this case, a "human" tape recorder was used. Not surprisingly, the hysterical Goldbergs claim that Michael Isikoff is a fine investigative reporter, and that is exactly the sort of recommendation that strains credibility. All the deception and the "double dealing" is exceedingly repugnant, save for the integrity of Julie Hiatt Steele, who assumed her responsibility when she said: "Over a year ago, I made two mistakes. I did a favor for a person I thought was my friend, and I trusted a reporter." And that is all that is required to produce a fraudulent scandal.

There is plenty of scandal to refrain from simply echoing the tape recorded musing that are supposed to topple a Presidency. In the context of seeking to develop fraudulent evidence, Ed Willey was deliberately murdered because he got in the way. In particular, Ed Willey did not trade fraudulent testimony in exchange for leniency or for immunity from prosecution. And what has happened since Willey's untimely death? Ed Willey's wife was befriended and exploited to the point where the Office of the Independent Counsel escorted Mrs. Willey before the Grand Jury without a lawyer. If the Starr Inquisition has made one thing absolutely clear, it is the fact that there is absolutely no relationship between integrity and the willingness to cooperate with Ken Starr. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the entire plot to topple the Clinton Presidency is linked to Starr's willingness to accept the evidence of anti-Clinton hysterics and their fraudulent "talking points" efforts to corroborate lies. In retrospect, the fact that anti-Clinton hysterics have declared an all-out, covert war against the President of the United States cannot be seriously disputed, and if the blood of Vincent Foster, Jim McDougal and Ed Willey reflects the tyranny of the assault, the truth about these untimely deaths has never been told. We have made our position about the death of Vincent Foster absolutely clear, and you do not even have to take our word for it, to acknowledge the venom that targeted Vince Foster. As a matter of fact, the man was still alive when the Wall Street Journal made the case that Vince Foster was the embodiment of evil. On June 24, 1993, the Wall Street Journal compared Vincent Foster to Oliver North because he was allegedly the pointman of every evil plot that emanated from the White House. Foster was blamed for being the driving force behind the hated, Clinton agenda -in particular, he was allegedly responsible for making Hillary Clinton the head of the White House health task force, and that was viewed to be an unpardonable crime. Hysterics like Richard Nixon had claimed that the enactment of the Clinton health care policy would be the "revenge of the 1960's" and the battle lines were clearly drawn. Vincent Foster conveniently received a bullet in the head and his death was used to launch the Senate Whitewater/McCarthy Hearings. These are the basic, repugnant facts and even if you do not believe that Foster was murdered, only a fool can deny the existence of the hysterical plot to destroy the President of the United States.

Clinton's enemies did not think that he would survive the plot to destroy his Presidency past January and they are now in a state of improvisation. How long will they be granted the opportunity to improvise? How many bodies will the Nazis claim before they are stopped?How many liars will they seek to cultivate? Who has the unmitigated gall to call this an investigation? The battle lines are clearly defined. If you do not oppose the Nazis, you are a Nazi collaborator, and that is the only urgent proposition that the Congress of the United States must deal with. [posted November 5, 1998]


Keystone Lawyers

We cannot predict the future, but a single day after indicating that the Jones case and the Starr case are one and the same, we find out that there is no distinction between the serious allegations that both camps are making. Indeed, if the motivation of the Jones lawyers is to impeach the President, then allegations of perjury, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice and witness tampering are right on cue. But does that make the Jones lawsuit a serious case or is it an unprecedented example of "keystone lawyering"? [posted October 20, 1998]

Jones versus Clinton

In case you haven't figured it out, the Jones case and the Starr case are one and the same. It is popular to assert that both Jones and Clinton want to settle the case, but get a grip on reality, neither Jones nor Clinton are in charge of what is going on. This is a legal charade. Clinton simply wants the case to go away and Jones is simply going along for the ride. Anybody who thinks that Paula Jones has anything to do with this lawsuit is absolutely clueless. If a battery of self-righteous lawyers routinely lined up to protect the rights of American citizens, it is Paula Jones, not Bill Clinton, who would be in the hot seat. This case is an absolute joke. Merits are not decided by the capacity to cause trouble and if the Jones case ever amounts to anything beyond what Allan Dershowitz called "extortion," it will never amount to anything in the minds of reasonable people. [posted October 19, 1998]

Desperately Seeking Malleable Democrats

The effort to organize bi-partisan consensus to dump Clinton has a very dark precedent. In 1964, the bi-partisan consensus between Democrat Lyndon Johnson and Republican, Richard Nixon, is responsible for the longest, dirtiest, most futile war in American history. How do we know? Richard Nixon, who was always obsessed by the determination to oppose John F. Kennedy, did not oppose Lyndon Johnson in 1964, even though Johnson repeatedly pledged "to continue" the policy course Kennedy had charted. Why? Nixon knew that Kennedy had been assassinated because he obstructed the determination to prosecute the Vietnam War, and elections took a back seat to bipartisan scheming.

Nixon's memoirs betray the fact that Lyndon Johnson's pledges of continuity with the Kennedy administration were absolutely phoney. According to Richard Nixon: "I was disturbed by some of Kennedy's early foreign policy actions. During his first week in office, he was confronted with a crisis involving Communist aggression in Laos. After an initial show of strength in one of his press conferences, he pulled back and ended up accepting a supposedly neutral government that everyone knew would be heavily influenced by the Communists. I decided that it was time for the administration's honeymoon to end, and I agreed to give a speech before the Executives Club of Chicago on May 5, 1961." Given the extreme, anti-Communist paranoia that Kennedy's foreign policy incited, it is a rare degree of certainty which prompts the conclusion that Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson were secret allies of the determination to prosecute the Vietnam War. Clearly, if Johnson's pledge of "continuity" was anything more than a public relations ploy, Richard Nixon would have gone ballistic and, to use his term, the "honeymoon" would have been over as soon as Johnson pledged continuity. The evidence is astoundingly conclusive because when Richard Nixon said that Dean Rusk was "one of the ablest and most honorable men to serve as Secretary of State," it doesn't take a genius to determine the fact that John F. Kennedy was the only obstacle of the determination to prosecute the Vietnam War

Nixon initially denied being in Dallas on the 22nd of November, 1963, but by 1978, his memory was miraculously restored to the point where he said: "Early on the morning of November 22 on the way to the Dallas airport I saw the flags displayed along the motorcade route of the presidential visit." Wild horses couldn't keep Richard Nixon away from the stage of the plot to assassinate the President of the United States.

The media holds a vigil around Clinton's bedside and claims that he will die when Democrats and Republicans join forces to condemn him. It's very amusing to watch. If the media was in fact independent, it would have been clamoring for a bipartisan consensus which reflects the will of the American people.

Richard Nixon destroyed a couple of tapes, erased part of another and spent millions of dollars in legal fees to keep the majority of the tapes away from the public, in effort to bury his dirtiest secrets. Bill Clinton had a private, inappropriate sexual relationship of the sort that should not be discussed in public [posted September 30, 1998]


Unheralded American Hero

We would like to pay an overdue tribute to an unheralded American hero. A former OSS and Senate Investigator, Harold Weisberg is a man who has devoted his heart, his soul, his integrity and most of his life to the task of uncovering the truth about the Kennedy and King assassinations. If he has produced authoritative records, it is certainly not surprising. To make a long story short, Weisberg proved the fallacy of blaming Oswald for the Kennedy assassination and he disproved all of the evidence that implicates James Earl Ray because it was evidently all bundled up and waiting to be discovered even before King was shot. Harold Weisberg is an honest intelligent man who develops conclusions that are so well reasoned and so meticulously researched that they are impossible to legitimately reverse. Having proved that he is an overwhelming threat to exposing the truth, Weisberg was befriended by a secretely funded fraud artist whose sole purpose, it now appears, was to keep the real truth about the Kennedy and King assassinations covered up. Indeed, without even bothering to sacrifice the time required to study the Kennedy assassination, media darling Gerald Posner wrote what is essentially a "prosecutor's brief" to implicate Lee Harvey Oswald in the crime of the century. If it was an honest brief, the effort would be commendable, but Weisberg exposed Posner's work for what it is when he said: "The dishonesty is unending and, without this permeating dishonesty he has no book. Misrepresenting established fact is his forte and omitting what he knows and is true is one of the means by which he undertook to rewrite the truth about the assassination, whatever his motive or motives may be." Harold Weisberg knows what he is talking about and it takes a much bigger man than a fraud artist like Gerald Posner to destroy the legacy of an American hero.

Posner's attempt to savage the integrity of an honest giant like Harold Weisberg is contemptible. The fact that the media embraces Posner and grants him the opportunity to promote a "legal brief" that in Weisberg's unfailing words, "deceives and misleads the people" is deeply troubling. In his typically understated manner, Weisberg laments the deceptive state of affairs and muses about the manipulation of and by the media when he says: "What does all this say about the state of the 'fourth estate' of the nation, and of its future?" The media obviously has a long way to go to regain its credibility, and it can perhaps begin by acknowledging genuine American heroes like Harold Weisberg.

It is because independent, reasonable, meticulous researchers like Harold Weisberg advance the quest for the truth that we are now in a position to unravel some of the lies behind the Kennedy assassination. First and foremost, the assassination of John F. Kennedy was evidently motivated by the fact that the President refused to deploy combat troops in Southeast Asia and that he planned to pull out of the Vietnam war by 1965, win, lose or draw. It is not our position to claim that Lyndon Johnson was a murderer and we in fact doubt it. What we do know is that Lyndon Johnson passionately shared the belief that the failure to draw the line in Vietnam would have triggered World War III and Kennedy was essentially the first casualty of the determination to deploy combat troops. Having equated the need to win the Vietnam war and the prospect of saving the world from a nuclear holocaust, Johnson's choices were firmly and clearly pre-defined. It was a tragic circumstance that Lyndon Johnson agonized over and accepted because in his mind, every single Vietnam war casualty was a necessary sacrifice. He did not share Kennedy's historic perspective regarding the futile war that French combat troops had abandoned, and that made all the difference.

Dean Rusk betrayed the Kennedy assassination cover up when he repeatedly claimed that Kennedy had always planned to deploy combat troops to the war effort in Vietnam. In his own words, Rusk said: "There was never any question in Kennedy's mind that Southeast Asia was vital to the security of the United States. The only question in his mind was where we would make the fight if we had to make a fight, and his decision was we should make it in Vietnam." The bold, unadulterated lie that Kennedy had planned to deploy American combat troops in Vietnam was repeated over and over and over again by both Dean Rusk and McGeorge Bundy, and now we know why it took Robert McNamara over three decades to finally tell the truth about those lies.

No, no, no, we are not conspiracy kooks who claim that Chief Justice Earl Warren also engaged the plot to murder the President. Warren simply rubber stamped the "evidence" that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover compiled to fraudulently implicate Oswald -a controversial conspiracy is never shareed by the entire government.

The truth, as we now know, can be very elusive and shocking and we are not claiming infallibility -like everybody, we are certainly prone too be misled. All you have to do is read our newsletter to determine the fact that we had dismissed the legitimacy of reports about a semen-stained dress and they proved to be true. At the same time, how could we have possibly determined the fact that the Lewinsky dress was the insurance policy of the plot to destroy the President? What Clinton did was clearly wrong but it does not rise to the level of a fraudulent insurance claim where the fire is set even before the policy is purchased. Time has a way of sorting out the truth and having lived through one political assassination, we refuse to support another. But most important of all, it is absolutely vital to acknowledge the sacrifice and the contribution of genuine American heroes like Harold Weisberg. [posted September 18, 1998]


manufacturing a perjury trap

According to Howard Fineman of Newsweek, the claim that President Clinton did not technically commit perjury is ludicrous. Howard further describes Starr's additional interview with Monica Lewinsky, a secret meeting which was not before the grand jury but produced a sworn deposition, without offering a single word of objection. Clearly, the deposition of a liar like Lewinsky is as credible as the person behind it, and unless Howard Fineman is merely a cheerleader of the plot to charge the President with perjury, he should practice balanced reporting. It is one thing to allow Ken Starr to set a perjury trap and quite another to allow him to use excessive zeal and tactics that are practically unheard of, in effort to destroy the President of the United States. [posted September 5, 1998]

Chairman Nixon versus President Clinton

The word in the media is that impeachment is a political process while resignation is a matter of honor and integrity. Get it? The media is implicitly suggesting that an unindicted felon like Nixon was an honorable man. Just when you think that media integrity cannot possibly sink any lower... Where is the perspective? Criticizing President Clinton for lying about sex is like criticizing a rape victim for lying to her captor to avoid being murdered. That is what the road from Whitewater to Monica Lewinsky absolutely demonstrates, and that is why President Clinton should never, ever resign. By the way, if Nixon was an honorable man, I guess we are supposed to believe the same about Starr. Fat chance, Starr's well earned disapproval rating is a clear reflection of what we in fact think. And if the media does not represent the very same public that has clearly had more than enough of Starr's excessive abuses, then who does it represent? [posted September 4, 1998]

the consequence of suicide or murder

Gennifer Flowers advanced the possibility that Monica will commit suicide. Vince Foster did. At least that's what the authorities say, isn't it? But the evidence suggests that Foster was murdered. Why? Because if he was alive, the speculation of the Senate Whitewater Hearings would have been denied by the testimony of Vince Foster. Every witch hunt exploits ignorance and the purposeful speculation that the Senate Whitewater Hearings advanced would have all been denied, but for the death of Vince Foster -whether it was suicide or not. If that makes us conspiracy kooks, what does it make CNN and Fox? First they tell you about reports of Monica's dress, then they tell you that they proved to be false, and then they're true again. In the meantime, they miss the story. In terms of Foster, an analysis of all the available evidence leads to the terrible, detestable conclusion that Foster was murdered in a deliberate, calculated effort to exploit the void that a silent voice leaves behind. Vincent Foster was an honest, intellectual giant and in the absence of solid evidence that he committed suicide, it is difficult to accept the speculation. We do not seek converts nor do we invite ridicule, because in the final analysis, we are all victims of what we in fact believe. We can call each other ignorant and we can call each other conspiracy kooks, but we cannot dictate the truth.

And the leak out of Washington is that Starr is planning to charge Clinton with abuse of power because it reminds people of Watergate. Now that's very serious. Maybe he can get a wordsmith like William Saffire to write the editorial. Moreover, since her grand jury testimony, Monica is providing Starr with additional, written, sworn statements. Isn't that stretching it abit too much? [posted September 2, 1998]



In Retrospect

In retrospect, we were right. We are just sorry we did not have a larger audience, so that the culture of sexual exploitation did not lead to the murder of Chandra Levy. It's too bad, but it is now difficult to argue with the claim that the anti-Clinton Inquisition was the precursor of the murders of Chandra Levy and Laci Peterson. Sexual McCarthyism has arrived in its mature form, in the sense that the allegations against Bill Clinton failed to procure the result of the allegations that destroyed Gary Condit's political viability. Those allegations destroyed an otherwise infallible Congressman, and if the scandal machine that tried to destroy Clinton had been dismantled, it is difficult to understand how the private sexual relationship between Chandra Levy and Gary Condit would have mattered.

The anatomy of every Inquisition is the same. Steele testified under oath, that she was pressured to back up the story of onetime friend Kathleen Willey -- who accused President Bill Clinton of making an unwanted sexual advance -- before Starr's grand jury investigating the Monica Lewinsky matter. She said she was indicted on charges of obstructing justice and making false statements when she refused to lie.

Jim McDougal was convicted on May 28, 1996 of 18 charges against him. Facing up to 84 years in prison and $4.5 million in fines, McDougal agreed to cooperate with Starr's office. His cooperation netted a reduced sentence, and in April 1997 he was sentenced to three years in prison and a year of house arrest, three years of probation and a $10,000 fine. Jim McDougal died of a heart attack in jail in March 1998. His cooperation produced the allegation that Susan McDougal and Bill Clinton had been lovers. Was that statement worth 81 years in jail and almost 4.5 million dollars. Ken Starr evidently thought so. McDougall's death denied the opportunity to prove that his original indictment was a consequence of his refusal to lie. Perhaps, if somebody paid a hefty price for the death of Jim McDougal, Chandra Levy and Laci Peterson would still be with us today.




 

 

 
NEWSWORLD SHOWDOWN
Copyright © 2007
 

 
  
 Cosmetics  |  Computers  |  Cameras  |  Music  |  Books  |  Software  |  Travel  |  Toys |  Games  |  Jewellery