OK, So Don McGahn Refuses To Testify - Then Let's Look At What He Said In The Mueller Report (Vol.II)

Yes, I admit it would have been classic 'Watergate' -style TV to have Trump former Lawyer Don McGahn -  in front of the TV cameras-   telling the House Judiciary Committee how Trump tried to get him to fire Mueller.  It would have been spellbinding stuff, almost like seeing John Dean deliver his devastating account of Nixon's antics over 40 years ago.  But it was not to be as McGahn - following Trump's orders- failed to appear.  So the next best thing is to read about it, and in this post I have extracted the relevant sections on McGahn's interactions with Trump. (Let's recall that McGahn spoke to Mueller's special investigators for over 30 hours.)

 As the stonewalling by Trump and his minions continues it becomes more and more important Americans know what the hell was in the report that led House Dems to issue subpoenas for the same minions to testify.  .  All of this comes from the Mueller Report Volume II. When reading the relevant sections I have below,  try to imagine McGahn on TV - before the House -  repeating Trump's words, i.e. his orders, or what he related to the Special Counsel.  This is also an opportunity to try to get as many citizens as possible to read the report to get an idea of what these characters would be saying if ever forced to testify, say before the House Judiciary Committee.

--------------------------------------------------------
Commencing on P. 85 :

On Saturday, June 17, 2017, the President called McGahn and directed him to have the Special Counsel removed. McGahn was at home and the President was at Camp David. In interviews with this Office, McGahn recalled that the President called him at home twice and on both occasions directed him to call Rosenstein and say that Mueller had conflicts that precluded him from serving as Special Counsel.

On the first call, McGahn recalled that the President said something like, "You gotta do this. You gotta call Rod." McGahn said he told the President that he would see what he could do.

McGahn was perturbed by the call and did not intend to act on the request. He and other advisors believed the asserted conflicts were "silly" and "not real," and they had previously communicated that view to the President.  McGahn also had made clear to the President that the White House Counsel's Office should not be involved in any effort to press the issue of conflicts. McGahn was concerned about having any role in asking the Acting Attorney General to fire the Special Counsel because he had grown up in the Reagan era and wanted to be more like Judge  Robert Bork and not "Saturday Night Massacre Bork".

 McGahn considered the President's request to be an inflection point and he wanted to hit the brakes.

When the President called McGahn a second time to follow up on the order to call the Department of Justice, McGahn recalled that the President was more direct, saying something like, "Call  Rod, tell Rod  that Mueller has conflicts and can't be the Special Counsel."

McGahn recalled the President telling him "Mueller has to go" and "Call me back when you do it."

McGahn understood the President to be saying that the Special Counsel had to be removed by Rosenstein. To end the conversation with the President, McGahn left the President with the impression that McGahn would call Rosenstein.

McGahn recalled that he had already said no to the President's request and he was worn down, so he just wanted to get off the phone.

McGahn recalled feeling trapped because he did not plan to follow the President's directive but did not know what he would say the next time the President called.  McGahn decided he had to resign. He called his personal lawyer and then called his chief of staff, Annie Donaldson, to inform her of his decision.

He then drove to the office to pack his belongings and submit his resignation letter. Donaldson recalled that McGahn told her the President had called and demanded he contact the Department of Justice and that the President wanted him to do something that McGahn did not want to do. McGahn told Donaldson that the President had called at least twice and in one of the calls asked "have you done it?" McGahn did not tell Donaldson the specifics of the President's request because he was consciously trying not to involve her in the investigation, but Donaldson inferred that the President's directive was related to the Russia investigation.

Donaldson prepared to resign along with McGahn.

That evening, McGahn called both Priebus and Bannon and told them that he intended to resign. McGahn recalled that, after speaking with his attorney and given the nature of the President's request, he decided not to share details of the President's request with other White House staff. Priebus recalled that McGahn said that the President had asked him to "to do crazy shit," but he thought McGahn did not tell him the specifics of the President's request because McGahn was trying to protect Priebus from what he did not need to know.596 Priebus and Bannon both urged McGahn not to quit, and McGahn ultimately returned to work that Monday and remained in his position. He had not told the President directly that he planned to resign, and when they next saw each other the President did not ask McGahn whether he had followed through with calling Rosenstein.

Around the same time, Chris Christie recalled a telephone call with the President in which the President asked what Christie thought about the President firing the Special Counsel. Christie advised against doing so because there was no substantive basis for the President to fire the Special Counsel, and because the President would lose support from Republicans in Congress if he did so.

Analysis

In analyzing the President's direction to McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed, the following evidence is relevant to the elements of obstruction of justice:

a. Obstructive act. As with the President's firing of Comey, the attempt to remove the Special Counsel would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry. Even if the removal of the lead prosecutor would not prevent the investigation from continuing under a new appointee, a fact finder would need to consider whether the act had the potential to delay further action in the investigation, chill the actions of any replacement Special Counsel, or otherwise impede the investigation.

A threshold question is whether the President in fact directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed. After news organizations reported that in June 2017 the President had ordered McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed, the President publicly disputed these accounts, and privately told McGahn that he had simply wanted McGahn to bring conflicts of interest to the Department of Justice's attention. (See Volume II, Section II.I, infra.)  Some of the President's specific language that McGahn recalled from the calls is consistent with that explanation. Substantial evidence, however, supports the conclusion that the President went further and in fact directed McGahn to call Rosenstein to have the Special Counsel removed.

First, McGahn's clear recollection was that the President directed him to tell Rosenstein not only that conflicts existed but also that "Mueller has to go." McGahn is a credible witness with no motive to lie or exaggerate given the position he held in the White House. McGahn spoke with the President twice and understood the directive the same way both times, making it unlikely that he misheard or misinterpreted the President's request. In response to that request, McGahn decided to quit because he did not want to participate in events that he described as akin to the Saturday Night Massacre. He called his lawyer, drove to the White House, packed up his office, prepared to submit a resignation letter with his chief of staff, told Priebus that the President had asked him to "do crazy shit," and informed Priebus and Bannon that he was leaving. Those acts would be a highly unusual reaction to a request to convey information to the Department of Justice.

Second, in in the days before the calls to McGahn, the President, through his counsel, had already brought the asserted conflicts to the attention of the Department of Justice. Accordingly, the President had no reason to have McGahn call Rosenstein that weekend to raise conflicts issues that already had been raised.

Third, the President's sense  of  urgency and repeated requests to McGahn to take immediate action on a weekend-"You gotta do this. You gotta call Rod."-supports McGahn's recollection that the President wanted the Department of Justice to take action to remove the Special Counsel. Had the President instead sought only to have the Department of Justice re-examine asserted conflicts to evaluate whether they posed an ethical bar, it would have been unnecessary to set the process in motion on a Saturday and to make repeated calls to McGahn.

Finally, the President had discussed "knocking out Mueller" and raised conflicts of interest in a May 23, 2017 call with McGahn, reflecting that the President connected the conflicts to a plan to remove the Special Counsel. And in the days leading up to June 17, 2017, the President made clear to Priebus and Bannon, who then told Ruddy, that the President was considering terminating the Special Counsel. Also during this time period, the President reached out to Christie to get his thoughts on firing the Special Counsel.

This evidence shows that the President was not just seeking an examination of whether conflicts existed but instead was looking to use asserted conflicts as a way to terminate the Special Counsel.

b. Nexus to an official proceeding. To satisfy the proceeding requirement, it would be necessary to establish a nexus between the President's act of seeking to terminate the Special Counsel and a pending or foreseeable grand jury proceeding.

Substantial evidence indicates that by June 17, 2017, the President knew his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury. On May 23, 2017, McGahn explicitly warned the President that his "biggest exposure" was not his act of firing Comey but his "other contacts" and "calls," and his "ask re: Flynn."


By early June, it was widely reported in the media that federal prosecutors had issued grand jury subpoenas in the Flynn inquiry and that the Special Counsel had taken over the Flynn investigation.On June 9, 2017, the Special Counsel's Office informed the White House that investigators would be interviewing intelligence agency officials who allegedly had been asked by the President to push back against the Russia investigation.

On June 14, 2017, news outlets began reporting that the President was himself being investigated for obstruction of justice. Based on widespread reporting, the President knew that such an investigation could include his request for Comey's loyalty; his request that Comey "let[] Flynn go"; his outreach to Coats and Rogers; and his termination of Comey and statement to the Russian Foreign Minister that the termination had relieved "great pressure" related to Russia.

And on June 16, 2017, the day before he directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed, the President publicly acknowledged that his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor, tweeting, "I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director!"

c. Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that the President's attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel's oversight of investigations that involved the President's conduct-and, most immediately, to reports that the President was being investigated for potential obstruction of justice.

Before the President terminated Comey, the President considered it critically important that he was not under investigation and that the public not erroneously think he was being investigated. As described in Volume TI, Section TI.D, supra, advisors perceived the President, while he was drafting the Comey termination letter, to be concerned more than anything else about getting out that he was not personally under investigation. When the President learned of the appointment of the Special Counsel on May 17, 2017, he expressed further concern about the investigation, saying "[t]his is the end of my Presidency." The President also faulted Sessions for recusing, saying "you were supposed to protect me."

On June 14, 20 17, when the Washington Post reported that the Special Counsel was investigating the President for obstruction of justice, the President was facing what he had wanted to avoid: a criminal investigation into his own conduct that was the subject of widespread media attention. The evidence indicates that news of the obstruction investigation prompted the President to call McGahn and seek to have the Special Counsel removed. 

By mid-June, the Department of Justice had already cleared the Special Counsel's service and the President's advisors had told him that the claimed conflicts of interest were "silly" and did not provide a basis to remove the Special Counsel. On June 13, 2017, the Acting Attorney General testified before Congress that no good cause for removing the Special Counsel existed, and the President dictated a press statement to Sanders saying he had no intention of firing the Special Counsel. But the next day, the media reported that the President was under investigation for obstruction of justice and the Special Counsel was interviewing witnesses about events related to possible obstruction-spurring the President to write critical tweets about the Special Counsel's investigation. The President called McGahn at home that night and then called him on Saturday from Camp David. The evidence accordingly indicates the news that an obstruction investigation had been opened is what led the President to call McGahn to have the Special Counsel terminated.

There also is evidence that the President knew that he should not have made those calls to McGahn. The President made the calls to McGahn after McGahn had specifically told the President that the White House Counsel's Office-and McGahn himself-could not be involved in pressing conflicts claims and that the President should consult with his personal counsel if he wished to raise conflicts. Instead of relying on his personal counsel to submit the conflicts claims, the President sought to use his official powers to remove the Special Counsel. And after the media reported on the President's actions, he denied that he ever ordered McGahn to have the Special Counsel terminated and made repeated efforts to have McGahn deny the story, as discussed in Volume II, Section II.I, infra. Those denials are contrary to the evidence and suggest the President's awareness that the direction to McGahn could be seen as improper.


Commencing on P. 113:

I. The President Orders McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel

Overview

In late January 2018, the media reported that in June 2017 the President had ordered McGahn to have the Special Counsel fired based on purported conflicts of interest but McGahn had refused, saying he would quit instead. After the story broke, the President, through his personal counsel and two aides, sought to have McGahn deny that he had been directed to remove the Special Counsel. Each time he was approached, McGahn responded that he would not refute the press accounts because they were accurate in reporting on the President's effort to have the Special Counsel removed. The President later personally met with McGahn in the Oval Office with only the Chief of Staff present and tried to get McGahn to say that the President never ordered him to fire the Special Counsel. McGahn refused and insisted his memory of the President's direction to remove the Special Counsel was accurate. In that same meeting, the President challenged McGahn for taking notes of his discussions with the President and asked why he had told Special Counsel investigators that he had been directed to have the Special Counsel removed.

Evidence

I. The Press Reports that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel


On January 25, 2018, the New York Times reported that in June 2017, the President had ordered McGahn to have the Department of Justice fire the Special Counsel. According to the article, "[a]mid the first wave of news media reports that Mr. Mueller was examining a possible obstruction case, the president began to argue that Mr. Mueller had three conflicts of interest that disqualified him from overseeing the investigation."The article further reported that "[a]fter receiving the president's order to fire Mr. Mueller, the White House counsel ... refused to ask the Justice Department to dismiss the special counsel, saying he would quit instead." The article stated that the president "ultimately backed down after the White House counsel threatened to resign rather than carry out the directive."After the article was published, the President  dismissed the story when asked about it by reporters, saying, "Fake news, folks. Fake news. A typical New York Times fake story."

The next day, the Washington Post reported on the same event but added that McGahn had not told the President directly that he intended to resign rather than carry out the directive to have the Special Counsel terminated. In that respect, the Post story clarified the Times story, which could be read to suggest that McGahn had told the President of his intention to quit, causing the President to back down from the order to have the Special Counsel fired.


2. The President Seeks to Have McGahn Dispute the Press Reports

On January 26, 2018, the President's personal counsel called McGahn 's attorney and said that the President wanted McGahn to put out a statement denying that he had been asked to fire the Special Counsel and that he had threatened to quit in protest. McGahn's attorney spoke with McGahn about that request and then called the President's personal counsel to relay that McGahn would not make a statement. McGahn 's attorney informed the President's personal counsel that the Times story was accurate in reporting that the President wanted the Special Counsel removed. Accordingly, McGahn's attorney said, although the article was inaccurate in some other respects, McGahn could not comply with the President's request to dispute the story. Hicks recalled relaying to the President that one of his attorneys had spoken to McGahn's attorney about the issue.

Also on January 26, 2017, Hicks recalled that the President asked Sanders to contact McGahn about the story. McGahn told Sanders there was no need to respond and indicated that some of the article was accurate. Consistent with that position, McGahn did not correct the Times story.

On February 4, 2018, Priebus appeared on Meet the Press and said he had not heard the President say that he wanted the Special Counsel fired.After Priebus's appearance, the President called Priebus and said he did a great job on Meet the Press. The President also told Priebus that the President had "never said any of those things about" the Special Counsel.

The next day, on February 5, 2018, the President complained about the Times article to Porter. The President told Porter that the article was "bullshit" and he had not sought to terminate the Special Counsel. The President said that McGahn leaked to the media to make himself look good.The President then directed Porter to tell McGahn to create a record to make clear that the President never directed McGahn to fire the Special Counsel. Porter thought the matter should be handled by the White House communications office, but the President said he wanted McGahn to write a letter to the file "for our records" and wanted something beyond a press statement to demonstrate that the reporting was inaccurate.

The President referred to McGahn as a "lying bastard" and said that he wanted a record from him. Porter recalled the President saying something to the effect of, "If he doesn't write a letter, then maybe I'll have to get rid of him."

Later that day, Porter spoke to McGahn to deliver the President's message. Porter told McGahn that he had to write a letter to dispute that he was ever ordered to terminate the Special Counsel. McGahn shrugged off the request, explaining that the media reports were true. McGahn told Porter that the President had been insistent on firing the Special Counsel and that McGahn had planned to resign rather than carry out the order, although he had not personally told the President he intended to quit.

 Porter told McGahn that the President suggested that McGahn would be fired if he did not write the letter. McGahn dismissed the threat, saying that the optics would be terrible if the President followed through with firing him on that basis. McGahn said he would not write the letter the President had requested.807 Porter said that to his knowledge the issue of McGahn's letter never came up with the President again, but Porter did recall telling Kelly about his conversation with McGahn.

The next day, on February 6, 2018, Kelly scheduled time for McGahn to meet with him and the President in the Oval Office to discuss the Times article.The morning of the meeting, the President's personal counsel called. ,McGahn's attorney and said that the President was going to be speaking with McGahn and McGahn could not resign no matter what happened in the meeting.

The President began the Oval Office meeting by telling McGahn that the New York Times story did not "look good" and McGahn needed to correct it.

 McGahn recalled the President said, "I never said to fire Mueller. I never said 'fire.'  This story doesn't look good. You need to correct this. You're the White House counsel."

In response, McGahn acknowledged that he had not told the President directly that he planned to resign, but said that the story was otherwise accurate.The President asked McGahn, · "Did I say the word 'fire'?"McGahn responded, "What you said is, 'Call Rod [Rosenstein], tell Rod that Mueller has conflicts and can't be the Special Counsel. "' The President responded, "I never said that."

 The President said he merely wanted McGahn to raise the conflicts issue with Rosenstein and leave it to him to decide what to do. McGahn told the President he did not understand the conversation that way and instead had heard, "Call Rod. There are conflicts. Mueller has to go." The President asked McGahn whether he would "do a correction," and McGahn said no. McGahn thought the President was testing his mettle to see how committed McGahn was to what happened. Kelly described the meeting as "a little tense."


The President also asked McGahn in the meeting why he had told Special Counsel's Office investigators that the President had told him to have the Special Counsel removed. McGahn responded that he had to and that his conversations with the President were not protected by attorney-client privilege.

The President then asked, "What-about these notes? Why do you take notes? Lawyers don't take notes. I never had a lawyer who took notes." McGahn responded that he keeps notes because he is a "real lawyer" and explained that notes create a record and are not a bad thing.The President said, "I've had a lot of great lawyers, like Roy Cohn. He did not take notes."

After the Oval Office meeting concluded, Kelly recalled McGahn telling him that McGahn and the President "did have that conversation" about removing the Special Counsel. McGahn recalled that Kelly said that he had pointed out to the President after the Oval Office that McGahn had not backed down and would not budge. Following the Oval Office meeting, the President's personal counsel called McGahn' s counsel and relayed that the President was '"fine" with McGahn.

Analysis

In analyzing the President's efforts to have McGahn deny that he had been ordered to have the Special Counsel removed, the following evidence is relevant to the elements of obstruction of justice:

a. Obstructive act. The President's repeated efforts to get McGahn to create a record denying that the President had directed him to remove the Special Counsel would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness if he testified consistently with his memory, rather than with what the record said.

There is some evidence that at the time the New York Times and Washington Post stories were published in late January 2018, the President believed the stories were wrong and that he had never told McGahn to have Rosenstein remove the Special Counsel. The President correctly understood that McGahn had not told the President directly that he planned to resign. Tn addition, the President told Priebus and Porter that he had not sought to terminate the Special Counsel, and in the Oval Office meeting with McGahn, the President said, "I never said to fire Mueller. I never said 'fire."' That evidence could indicate that the President was not attempting to persuade McGahn to change his story but was instead offering his own-but different-recollection of the substance of his June 2017 conversations with McGahn and McGahn's reaction to them.

Other evidence cuts against that understanding of the President's conduct. As previously described, (see Volume IT, Section ILE, supra), substantial evidence supports McGahn's account that the President had directed him to have the Special Counsel removed, including the timing and context of the President's directive; the manner in which McGahn reacted; and the fact that the President had been told the conflicts were insubstantial, were being considered by the Department of Justice, and should be raised with the President's personal counsel rather than brought to McGahn.

In addition, the President's subsequent denials that he had told McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed were carefully worded. When first asked about the New York Times story, the President said, "Fake news, folks. Fake news. A typical New York Times fake story." And when the President spoke with McGahn in the Oval Office, he focused on whether he had used the word "fire," saying, "I never said to fire Mueller. I never said 'fire"' and "Did T say the word 'fire'?" The President's assertion in the Oval Office meeting that he had never directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed thus runs counter to the evidence..

In addition, even if the President sincerely disagreed with McGahn's memory of the June 17, 2017 events, the evidence indicates that the President knew by the time of the Oval Office meeting that McGahn's account differed and that McGahn was firm in his views. Shortly after the story broke, the President's counsel told McGahn 's counsel that the President wanted McGahn to make a statement denying he had been asked to fire the Special Counsel, but McGahn responded through his counsel that that aspect of the story was accurate and he therefore could not comply with the President's request.

The President then directed Sanders to tell McGahn to correct the story, but McGahn told her he would not do so because the story was accurate in reporting on the President's order. Consistent with that position, McGahn never issued a correction. More than a week later, the President brought up the issue again with Porter, made comments indicating the President thought McGahn had leaked the story, and directed Porter to have McGahn create a record denying that the President had tried to fire the Special Counsel.

At that point, the President said he might "have to get rid of' McGahn if McGahn did not comply." McGahn again refused and told Porter, as he had told Sanders and as his counsel had told the President's counsel, that the President had in fact ordered him to have Rosenstein remove the Special Counsel. That evidence indicates that by the time of the Oval Office meeting the President was aware that McGahn did not think the story was false and did not want to issue a statement or create a written record denying facts that McGahn believed to be true. The President nevertheless persisted and asked McGahn to repudiate facts that McGahn had repeatedly said were accurate.

b. Nexus to an official proceeding. By January 2018, the Special Counsel's use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments. The President also was aware that the Special Counsel was investigating obstruction-related events because, among other reasons, on January 8, 20 I 8, the Special Counsel's Office provided his counsel with a detailed list of topics for a possible interview with the President.

 The President knew that McGahn had personal knowledge of many of the events the Special Counsel was investigating and that McGahn had already been interviewed by Special Counsel investigators. And in the Oval Office meeting, the President indicated he knew that McGahn had told the Special Counsel's Office about the President's effort to remove the Special Counsel. The President challenged McGahn for disclosing that information and for taking notes that he viewed as creating unnecessary legal exposure. That evidence indicates the President's awareness that the June 17, 2017 events were relevant to the Special Counsel's investigation and any grand jury investigation that might grow out of it.

To establish a nexus, it would be necessary to show that the President's actions would have the natural tendency to affect such a proceeding or that they would hinder, delay, or prevent the communication of information to investigators. Because McGahn had spoken to Special Counsel investigators before January 2018, the President could not have been seeking to influence his prior statements in those interviews.

But because McGahn had repeatedly spoken to investigators and the obstruction inquiry was not complete, it was foreseeable that he would be interviewed again on obstruction-related topics. If the President were focused solely on a press strategy in seeking to have McGahn refute the New York Times article, a nexus to a proceeding or to further investigative interviews would not be shown. But the President's efforts to have McGahn write a letter "for our records" approximately ten days after the stories had come out-well past the typical time to issue a correction for a news story-indicates the President was not focused solely on a press strategy, but instead likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it.

c. Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn 's account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the President's conduct towards the investigation.

Several facts support that conclusion. The President made repeated attempts to get McGahn to change his story. As described above, by the time of the last attempt, the evidence suggests that the President had been told on multiple occasions that McGahn believed the President had ordered him to have the Special Counsel terminated. McGahn interpreted his encounter with the President in the Oval Office as an attempt to test his mettle and see how committed he was to his memory of what had occurred. The President had already laid the groundwork for pressing McGahn to alter his account by telling Porter that it might be necessary to fire McGahn if he did not deny the story, and Porter relayed that statement to McGahn.

Additional evidence of the President's intent may be gleaned from the fact that his counsel was sufficiently alarmed by the prospect of the President's meeting with McGahn that he called McGahn's counsel and said that McGahn could not resign no matter what happened in the Oval Office that day. The President's counsel was well aware of  McGahn's resolve not to issue what he believed to be a false account of events despite the President's request. Finally, as noted above, the President brought up the Special Counsel investigation in his Oval Office meeting with McGahn and criticized him for telling this Office about the June 17, 2017 events. The President's statements reflect his understanding-and his displeasure-that those events would be part of an obstruction-of-justice inquiry.
----------------------------------

Reading the sections above --  extracted verbatim from the Mueller report - should see every reasonable citizen concur with Justin Amash that Trump committed obstructive acts, i.e. impeachable offenses.  Again, don't just take my word for it, read the whole report yourself and form your own conclusions, e.g.


www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

What should also be obvious from reading these sections from the Mueller Report is that it is absolutely critical that the House Democrats get McGahn's in-person testimony - televised live before millions. Why? Because most Americans will not read any of the Mueller report, including the sections for which I've provided a transcript here (minus the footnotes, to reduce the content. To see the footnotes go the pages referenced in the link shown above..)

Let me also remind readers the branches of government are not "co-equal".  By the Article I powers designated in the Constitution the legislative branch (congress) has precedence, and hence oversight over the executive. This is why today's lead WSJ editorial ('Don McGahn's Immunity' )  is rubbish, based as it is on "co-equal" branches.

See also:

Ilana Novick

Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (0)

Impeachment | Nancy Pelosi

Democrats in House Leadership Rebel Against Pelosi on Impeachment

And:

Donald Trump | Impeachment

Impeachment Will Succeed If It Demonstrates Very Publicly That Trump Is a Tyrant Unfit for Office and GOP Are His Enabler

And:

Donald Trump

Trump’s War on the Constitution Has Reached a Breaking Point

Trump Proves He's A Congenital Liar With Zero Credibility

"The President has one of two choices: either retract  his claim or provide the information that the American people deserve. Because if his predecessor - President Obama - violated the law, we've got a serious issue here to say the least." - Sen. John McCain, Sunday on CNN

If Trump announced today or tomorrow that North Korea shot down a U.S. plane over international waters and it was a cause for war, would you believe him? I sure as hell wouldn't, not without ironclad evidence because of the shameless history of lying this turd has shown. The latest coming from his Twitter account the Saturday before last when he  launched a series of tweets that began at 5.35am audaciously accusing Barack Obama of an impeachable offense.

In one he wrote: “Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wire tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!”

Note the demented asshole used the specific term "wire tapped" which has a specific meaning. In fact, he reinforced that meaning (and intent) when he went on to  make the  comparison of the alleged surveillance of his Trump Tower communications to Watergate.  As any history nerd knows, actual wire tapping -specifically of phones - was big around that time, and Nixon did it with impunity. This was before the FISA law that required warrants for any action and these had to come out of the Dept. of Justice.

Every manjack with half a brain knew all this, which is why Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse and Lindsey Graham called Trump's bluff by demanding the DOJ produce evidence (it must have if they exist) of said, claimed wiretaps.  But by the end of Monday they were unable to, only offering a weak, measly excuse that they "needed more time".  Actually, they could have all the time in the world but it is clear they will no more find such evidence then I will find evidence of an alien visitation in my backyard right now. It is just stonewalling for no purpose, plain and simple.

Then there were Trump's asinine acolytes like Sean Spicer  (whose former "job" was acting as Bush Jr.'s Easter Bunny for the WH Easter egg hunt)  yesterday trying to spin it away by insisting Trump shouldn't be taken literally because he tweeted with "wiretaps" in quotes. As if we are at the level of such imbeciles we'd all agree that a tweet from a cartoon medium has any gravitas at all. Apart from which, only a certified imbecile would accept such nonsense ....or ...the gibberish expelled from Kellyanne Conway's mouth that he meant wiretapping in a generic way. It was really done via microwaves and TV.

Do these inveterate liars truly believe the rest of us are as dumb and gullible as their fake news groupies and most of their voters? 

But this is something that can't be laughed away because it impacts on the very basis of presidential credibility. This unqualified stooge, basically a failed businessman who exploited bankruptcy laws, made a serious attack on the legitimate extant government of the United States, predicated on the Constitution, legal evidence in jurisprudence and adherence to civil and national law.  Hence, this attack cannot go down any memory "holes" like his stupid other claims, including that he didn't really lose the popular vote by nearly 3 million, or that he had the biggest inaugural crowd in history.

If then Trump doesn't retract his charge, and admit he shot from the hip unthinkingly, or lied openly, then we can only conclude nothing he says can be trusted. Hence, even if he makes a claim for war, it can't be trusted. Not without absolute evidence to back it up. Indeed, the evidence, given his stream of lies since Jan. 20th, must now be of a vastly higher standard than for any other President. This is because he has himself painted himself into a corner by crying 'wolf!' too many times. 

It is therefore essential not to allow this reckless charge to just pass into oblivion, with no one held accountable.  Indeed, Trump's tweets also suggested agents of the Justice Department also engaged in a felony, as well as the FBI. So ALL of these have the obligation to pursue this charge through every channel - either proving it valid, or proving Donald J. Trump is the congenital, psychotic liar he always has been.  As Chris Matthews put it yesterday: "I don't understand how a sitting president can get away with accusing his predecessor with a felony and get away with it."

Indeed, because as I pointed out a president can't just order a wiretap after the passage of the 1978 FISA law. IF there was a wiretap it was more plausibly ORDERED by a judge on account of suspicion of criminal activity in Trump Tower or collusion - possibly with a foreign power.  So in fact, Trump's tweets - as opposed to any victimization - may actually be open admissions that he has something to be guilty about, if such wiretaps were actually FISA -warrant approved.

Trump's inability to deliver hard evidence, combined with his DOJ's inability to find any wiretap evidence, shows this deranged mutt doesn't deserve to be president. Hell, he isn't even fit to run a landfill or a dog kennel.  Any so-called commander-in -chief who lies habitually like this asswit, can't be trusted to ever tell the truth. And if he can't he will not be believed even if there is a real national emergency.

His howling and vehemence for support will simply be interpreted as histrionic exploitation for more lies. Ditto with his wild, exuberantly exaggerated positive claims for health care (the Ryan Repuke 'make America sicker' plan) e.g.

"I will see that everybody gets covered! No one will be without!"

when there will actually be 14 million more without the ACA next year, and 24 million without care in less than ten years. (According to the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office's assessment yesterday).

Again, nobody but an outright fool can believe anything coming out of his mouth.

It is now time the media go on the offensive against this lying swine, and that means - as per a piece in The New Republic (April,  pp. 16-17) - that the pretense of objectivity be dropped. From the article:

"What if, instead of assuming its reflexive posture of 'objectivity', the press embraced the opportunity to go full on offense?"

This is predicated on the fact that any noncommital parsing of the blizzard of lies, falsehoods issuing from the reprobates in power is woefully inadequate to keeping citizens abreast of what's going down.  Instead, adopt  ab initio the POV Trump is a compulsive liar and put every news story or Trump tweet in that framework. Cease trying to chase down these tweeted turds as "true", always adopt the take they are false from the get go.

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/eric-boehlert/71626/trumps-lies-are-no-laughing-matter-for-the-press

Top Ten Ways To Test Conspiracy Claims? (Howler Alert!)

A major section of the Skeptics Society pamphlet I referenced yesterday is headed  'Top 10 Ways to Test Conspiracy Theories’ – which like the dime store psychology content (on p. 4),   ends up as just useless  The authors could as well ask readers to use tea leaves.

Anyway, let’s look at what’s on offer:

1)Proof of conspiracy supposedly arises from connecting the dots. But if no evidence supports the connections the conspiracy is likely false.

In principle, this only works if the evidence is somehow manifest– either through some visual (film, photo) material, mathematical computations - such as Richard Charnin’s computations of  JFK assassination witness deaths, or securing once classified CIA files. But in many historical conspiracies either none of these were available  at the time the conspiracy was carried out (e.g. the bombing of Cubana Airliners flight CU-455 off the Barbados coast in Oct. 1976), or were only uncovered in the aftermath (e.g. Iran-Contra, Watergate, BCCI) so the investigator must indeed connect dots.

One of the best examples was Operation Northwoods. In Operation Northwoods the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the U.S. military planned a campaign of terror, to include the sinking of refugee boats (carrying Cuban refugees) on the high seas, as well as the killing of innocent citizens on American cities’ streets, plus random bombings carried out in Washington, DC, Miami and other places. What was the  motivation? Author James Bamford shows it was to incite an invasion and war against Cuba and enable the U.S. to invade and overthrow Fidel Castro.[1]

But the documents to support suspicions of this (failed) conspiracy were only released years later – though many smelled a ‘rat’. When I first heard of Northwoods, I had trouble processing how any U.S. government agency or entity could remotely conceive of such foul deeds, far less carry them out. Then I quickly recalled the blowing up of Cubana Airlines Flight 455 over Barbados, on October 6. 1976 by Luis Posada, Freddie Lugo and other renegades sponsored in the extremist Alpha 66 enclave by the CIA. 73 innocent victims perished in that terrorist act, the worst one in the western hemisphere prior to 9/11. James Bamford, in his discussion of Northwoods (Body Of Secrets) , further notes that the extent of it included getting England (UK) to side with the U.S. against Castro by also launching attacks against Jamaica and Trinidad, both (then) Commonwealth members.  Does anyone seriously believe, given the vile extent of such plans, they’d have been the least  bit squeamish about assassinating a president who consistently thwarted and humiliated them? If so, the person isn’t paying attention.

 Bamford notes that around the same time, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) issued a report on the problem of “right wing extremism in the military” and warned of “considerable danger in the education and propaganda activities of military personnel”[2]

Bamford (ibid.) stated that the SFRC Report went so far as to warn of a military takeover of the country not dissimilar to that portrayed in ‘Seven Days in May’ the excellent John Frankenheimer film. Meanwhile, James Douglass notes in his book JFK and the Unspeakable,  that on July 27, 1963 Lee Oswald was giving a talk at a Jesuit school in Mobile, Alabama concerning a possible “military coup” in the U.S.,[3] and that lax Americans wouldn’t see it coming until too late.

Bottom line: Many defunct or once active conspiracies like Northwoods can never be subject to the evidence criterion until long after they go forward or fail.

2) The agents behind the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off.

Another widely circulated canard. In fact, all it takes is sheer determination by the principals to see it through and in the process, ensure as many loose ends as possible are tied up before it is launched.  Even then, a certain phase may misfire but the architects can improvise via a ‘Plan B’. For example, by all accounts of most investigators the original plan was to kill Oswald in the Texas Theater to silence him forever. This wasn’t done because he had no gun, didn’t fire any, so provided no excuse to kill him. Then when he was trotted through the Dallas PD announcing “I am just a patsy!” the planners knew they needed a plan B so called on Jack Ruby to provide it – and had him kill Oswald who was being directed through the Dallas PD basement to a new venue.

The plan worked, because so many were stupid enough to buy Ruby’s excuse that he “merely intended to save Jackie from having to testify”. Yeah right! Years later, release of files under the JFK Records Act disclosed in return for offing Lee, Ruby’s back excise and other taxes – totaling over $40,000 – were paid off.

Similarly in the Iran-Contra conspiracy the agents didn’t need superhuman powers only the sheer determination to get those Hawk and TOW missiles to the Iranians any which way they could- devil take the hindmost. The fact the conspiracy was later exposed and the agents brought up on charges doesn’t mean it never existed – only that it didn’t fully succeed.

3) The conspiracy is complex and successful completion demands a large number of elements.

Another canard. In fact, a conspiracy only demands enough complexity or elements to make it work – if even partially. And if it works, as the JFK conspiracy clearly did, who’s to say the elements were excessive? Also, let's bear in mind as long time JFK researcher Peter Dale Scott has pointed out, in the Kennedy case we are actually looking at THREE separate conspiracies but which are often conflated by the media or careless critics. These were: 1) The pre-assassination framing of Lee Harvey Oswald, 2) the actual killing of JFK on Nov. 22, 1963 and 3) the extended cover-up of the facts starting with the Warren Report itself and extending to "Operation Mockingbird" assets preventing subsequent revelations, insights in the media. Oh, and let's not forget the latter day disinformationists like Gerald Posner and Vince Bugliosi - serving the mandate of CIA doc. 1035-960.

Who is also to say that over 100 components –say  to make the BCCI banking conspiracy work, was too much or “too complex”? This is a totally subjective take that need not be vindicated objectively.  In the case of the BCCI banking conspiracy, since it entailed moving money to thousands of "dummy accounts" all over the world, the complexity was implicit. In fact, reams of evidence were culled from that criminal bank's operations in 73 countries and exposed. But whether anyone could comprehend all aspects of its workings - which were deliberately rendered complex- is another matter. (What we do know is thousands of Barbadians lost their savings when BCCI was shut down in that island state more than 30 years ago.)

Surely, if reason is a guide, complexity will plausibly be proportionate to the magnitude of the effects of the conspiracy. Thus, murdering a president or "executive action", would likely tally a number of complex aspects and certainly if success was paramount, exposure of the perps unacceptable. To carry it out effectively, and not do it half-assed, the architects would have to take the time to plan for any and all contingencies and have manpower at every phase to deal with them. This could surely be expedited if key personnel in one or more government agencies were also involved, for example, in eliminating key evidence. (Thus, Hoover dispatching 5-8 FBI agents to collect film from those nearest the JFK assassination site on Elm Street. Recall here that Hoover had a visceral hatred for the Kennedys.)

In the Iran-Contra conspiracy too, WHO is to say that 65-75 agents to effectively carry it out, from securing the hush money, to falsifying manifests to actual delivery was “too much”?  In fact the whole concept of “too much”  is entirely in the mind of the beholder.

4) The conspiracy involves large numbers of people  who would all need to keep quiet about their secrets.

Dispensed easily, along the lines of dispensing (3). Again, who is to say what constitutes “large numbers of people” ? If 75 was enough to make Iran –Contra work to the extent it did was that too much? Hardly! Was 94-95 too much to make the Kennedy assassination work – as it has for over 50 years now – thanks to the many useful idiots in the media and beyond who make up rationalizations to try to explain it away?

As for keeping secrets, killing witnesses is an excellent way to achieve that end which is why Richard Charnin’s book (analyzing JFK witness deaths) and website material is so important to disabuse those who opt to don the pseudo-skeptic robe. In other words, learn before bloviating about what limits you believe attend to the claim!

5) The conspiracy encompasses some grandiose ambition for control of a nation, economy or political system.

Another epistemological misfire.  That’s exactly what the JFK assassination achieved! Control of our national direction and even political system by an entrenched national security state. And besides, the definition of "grandiose" is also subjective and relative. Were the objectives of Operation Northwoods "grandiose"?  That is, setting off bombs in the U.S. - on streets in Miami, Washington D.C. etc. and blowing up planes, ships in order to trigger a war against Castro for the purpose of takeover of Cuba? It sounds "grandiose" but when the actual files were released to do with the nascent plan, there it was in all its grotesque aspect:

This is why it's stupid and non-productive to try to assert what is or isn't a "grandiose" ambition in a conspiracy, other than in a common sense context (i.e. the claim of the UN taking over the U.S. via black helicopters and storm troops clearly violates common sense so one needn't posit (5) to expunge it. All (5) succeeds in doing is impeding the exposure of actual, real world conspiracies - perhaps by keeping people silent (out of fear of looking foolish) when they know something. 

6) The conspiracy ratchets up from small events that might be true to large events that have much lower probability of being true.

Again, WHO is to make this determination?  WHO is to reckon what is a "small event" in relation to what is a "large event" in the context of the conspiracy? In principle the occurrence of  "slush fund" withdrawals by Oliver North, John Poindexter at all ca. 1985-86 might have seemed inconsequential in the scheme of things. Only later was it learned these were used to fund the purchase of Israeli Hawk and TOW missiles to ship to Iran, and then that purchase money used to fund the Contras in Nicaragua.  The import was uncovered only by connecting the dots which the Skeptic authors seem to be hyper--concerned about.  But if no one ever does that, the warp and woof of a given conspiracy never becomes visible! 

In the Kennedy assassination, likewise, assorted cables sent from the CIA station in Mexico City might have seemed like 'small potatoes'. But only in retrospect, as Peter Dale Scott observes, did it become apparent those cables were part of what was used to frame Lee Harvey Oswald - Part One of the conspiracy leading to the assassination and the installation of a national security state.

In a similar vein, it might have appeared a "small event" when in September, 1963, JFK confronted David Bell of AID (a CIA cover organization) about the funds from the Commodity Import Aid Program having “already been cut off”,  essentially assuring a coup would ensue with the Diem government in South Vietnam.   No one at the time would have recognized the implications, and also that JFK had been set up for assassination on the the same date (Nov. 2) the Diems were murdered (see James Douglass' book, JFK and Unspeakable). 

Kennedy was evidently livid and directly asked Bell: " Who told you to do that?"  to which Bell replied, “No one” (op. cit). The will to power disclosed here indicated the CIA felt it more powerful than Kennedy himself or his decision-making authority.  If they felt that way, there is nothing that they wouldn’t do to prevent the President from getting in their way.  The incident was confirmed by New York Times journalist Arthur Krock  in his piece  ‘The Inter-Administration War in Vietnam’, The New York Times, Oct. 3, 1963). wherein he wrote:

"If the United States ever experiences an attempt at a coup to overthrow the government, it will come from the CIA”

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, JFK assassination conspiracy skeptics!

7) The conspiracy theory assigns portentous and sinister meanings to what are most likely random and insignificant events.

Right, like Kennedy's argument with David Bell (see above) was most likely an "insignificant event" and the beatings of Sylvia Duran (by Mexican police) was just a "random event" - delivered if she didn't recant her account that the Oswald seen at the Cuban Consulate was not Lee Oswald. 

Or, I guess it was an "insignificant event"  when Freddy Lugo and Hernan Ricardo deplaned in Barbados Sewell's Airport on October 6, 1976 and got a taxi, all the while laughing about the bombs they planted - which later went off killing all on board. Later, it was uncovered the CIA paid the two, along with Luis Carriles Posada, to blow up the plane.

Once again, the generalization in (7) is too wide, cuts too wide a track, to be useful in distinguishing the signal from the noise in detecting genuine conspiracies.

8) The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability and factuality.

Totally ludicrous! First, in the case of revealed conspiracies and investigations to do with them - the best place to start in examining (8)), we find there is little agreement.  For example, if one accepts the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) finding that a conspiracy occurred in the case of JFK's assassination (with 95% probability) then one must reject many of the "facts" trotted out in the Warren Report. (Which again, was LBJ's creation, not a genuine federal government investigation). 

Further, the HSCA itself is deficient in the presentation of all the facts. In examining the actual autopsy photos it's clear the HSCA conclusion of a rear shot  (from the Book depository) is absurd, no matter who said what on what panel (i.e. Clark Panel).  A mere examination of the bogus Warren autopsy photo (below left) and the real one sets the record straight, and exposes the HSCA's own brand of cowardice: you simply cannot physically have the rear of a skull blown out by a rear shot! Rather the linear momentum of a bullet fired from the FRONT will blow out the rear of a skull!

For reference, the Warren Commissioners used the fake photo without a blown out rear skull, to try to make people believe the shot came from behind, i.e. the Texas School Book Depository. The HSCA - rather than accepting the evidence of the actual autopsy photos, opted to stick with the earlier ones from the WC, and hence arrived at a contradictory conclusion to the evidence.  Note also, the actual rear shot hit Kennedy in the middle of the upper back. (Bullet hole in suit coat to prove it, but the suit coat was destroyed). It thus seems the HSCA was trying to "square the circle" by finding for conspiracy on the one hand yet unwilling to diverge from the Warrenites' misbegotten fake evidence for the head shot on the other!

So, contrary to the presumptions of (8) there is no clear delineation of accepted facts to go by. What we who are serious researchers do is therefore do our own investigations, often using established principles of physics (as I have done- see my assorted FAQs from November last year) to arrive at our own conclusions. That the majority of us agree on the basic facts is a remarkable sign that we have reached a level of objective truth which LBJ's fraud and then later the only government investigation haven't. (Again, as to the reasons they haven't see my FAQ Parts 4a, 4b on the Warren Commission, and Part 7 on the HSCA). 

As for the claim that probabilities are to be assigned, don't make me laugh. In the standard theory of probability we are looking at computing the frequency of occurrence of an event. Hence, if it occurs 49 times out of 1,000 the probability of occurrence is 0.049. But in many conspiracies (e.g. Iran-Contra) it is a one off, so how are you going to compute probability? (This, of course, includes each component, such as the probability of preparing the first manifest for shipping Hawk and TOW missiles to Iran, or in the JFK case, the probability that the CIA cables were forged.)

What we can do is what investigator D.B. Thomas did in his 2001 acoustic analysis. He found that for a given configuration for 2 motorcycles at designated locations in Dealey Plaza, 1 for the grassy knoll  shooter location and one for alignment of muzzle blasts with one pair of echoes, the p -value is 0.000012 or about 1 in 100,000 against the null hypothesis, i.e. that the impulses were from random noise. An alternative way to put this is that the odds were 100.000 to 1 in favor of the impulses comprising actual rifle shots and not motorcycle backfires or other noise.

9) The theorist is extremely and indiscriminately suspicious of any and all government agencies or organizations.

Again, laughable as a useful generalization or principle - to ferret out the real from the unreal. By this cartoonish criterion, The Washington Post's Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein ought to never have been suspicious of the Watergate break-in and the role of Nixon's government.  Had that been the case, the Watergate conspiracy would never have been exposed, and Nixon would never have been forced from office! So much for that one!

Similarly, had no serious investigators been suspicious of the slush funds that came to light in 1986, and the mysterious manifests with Israeli Hawk and TOW missiles bound for Iran, we might never have uncovered the Iran-Contra conspiracy. 

Likewise, had no one been suspicious of David Bell's confrontation with JFK, or David Atlee Phillips' fake cables implicating Oswald in October, 1963, we might never have learned of the NSA-CIA Staff D assassinations program under the oversight of William Harvey. And how it later mutated from taking out Castro (as part of ZR/Rifle) to taking out Kennedy.

The takeaway on (9) then, is that it's actually a perverse way for real n'er do wells in government agencies to get away with literal murder. It's also a way to justify useful idiots like the skeptic authors ensuring they do.

10) The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence for his theory and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence.

Again, this is only partly applicable - and mainly to the loopy mode of pseudo-conspiracies like the faked Apollo Moon landing,  UN hegemony over the U.S. and aliens kept in vaults at Area 51.  For the real, serious, historical conspiracies, like Watergate, the Kennedy assassination, BCCI, and Iran-Contra it is woefully inapplicable. 

In fact, in the case of the Kennedy assassination, all the "disconfirming evidence" is that which inveighs against the validity of the Warren Commission Report, as I showed in Part 5 of my FAQ from November, 2013. Other disconfirming evidence exists in the HSCA Report, on account of the original head (Richard Sprague ) being released and the CIA being given presumptive control of the investigation - deciding what evidence to admit and what to leave out.  

The moral of the story is simple: For false or pseudo-conspiracies (which I refer to as rubbish conspiracy claims) no special "top ten" analytic principles or criteria are required to expose the gibberish. Common sense, in most cases, is sufficient.  In the case of genuine conspiracies, such criteria more often obstruct than advance the cause of exposing the events.  I showed above how that works.

---

[1] James Bamford:2001,  Body of Secrets,  Doubleday Books, p. 82.

[2] Bamford, op. cit., p. 80.

[3] James Douglass: 2006, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, Orbis Books, p. 331.

Why I Trust Oliver Stone over Bob Woodward

Quick! Trick question here: What is the fastest way to get a Beltway Goombah's ripe head to explode in front of you? Give up? Come on now, only ten seconds left! It's to inform the Goombah with a totally straight face that you trust Oliver Stone more than Bob Woodward, in terms of politics and recent history. As you do that you will behold the expression of the Goombah change before your eyes from stark disbelief to visible pain. "STONE! AWWW NOOOO! EGAD MAN! WHAT'RE YOU ON!"

Actually, reality....that's what I'm on, as opposed to the D.C. bubble fodder fed incessantly to pinheads in the Beltway! Much of it by 35+ year Über hack Bob Woodward,  who is treated like some kind of prescient Guru or Washington Wizard with powers beyond those of Harry Potter, Spiderman and Superman combined. Why any President would kowtow to this numskull is beyond me, as he's devolved into a total sellout hack unlike his other Watergate half, Carl Bernstein. Bernstein has at least done yeoman, serious journalistic work, worth reading as opposed to using for emergency firewood.

As documented by Kathryn Olmstead: 1996,Challenging the Secret Government: The Post-Watergate Investigations of the CIA and FBI,  1996, Univ. of North Carolina Press, who notes that Watergate investigative reporter Carl Bernstein found (p. 21) " that the total number of U.S. journalists who worked for the CIA was actually much higher. In a controversial article in 'Rolling Stone', Bernstein showed that more than 400 American journalists secretly carried out assignments for the CIA from the early 1950's to the mid-1970's. The 'New York Times' alone, Bernstein insisted, provided cover for ten CIA officers from 1950 to 1966."


Is that not MUCH more substantive, of vastly more need -to know import than presidential "atmospherics" or  how Bush teased his dog Barney, or the so-called goings on and gossip at presidential confabs? So why is it that Carl Bernstein's work (like Oliver Stone's) is apt to set off  apoplectic reactions but not Woodward's? Curtis White, author of The Middle Mind offers a clue (p. 12):


"We have the lovely pretense of serious inquiry: no one gets hurt and no one has to worry that something undesirable might come of it. Like a demand for real thought. We are free to say anything we like so long as what we say does not suggest...that the ruling order has no right to rule"


Well, I think he hit pay dirt, or at least close to the truth! Thus, those like Bernstein and Stone have in their work (in Stone's case, the new Showtime series, 'The Untold History of the United States') exposed the ruling order's hands, while those Neoliberal propagandizers like Woodward (And Fareed Zakaria, Tom Hanks etc.)  are there to protect the ruling order. The Overclass or ruling order are protected from any historical content challenges as well as economic incursions (hence the yen for the once FDR Dems to now give the Repukes the Chained CPI) and to protect them from any serious investigative inquiries into the reasons for their power, or political assassinations - which we are expected to believe are all accomplished by "lone nuts".

And woe betide your sorry ass if you don't 100% buy into the PR spun by these Neolib protectors of the establishment! You are then deemed a "crazy", a "whacko", a "conspiracy nut, a "commie", a "terrorist" or worse. All because you are truly invested in deep politics, have done decades of research on your own - without being spoon fed - and are prepared to think for yourself.  The extent of much of the U.S. Media -Corporate PR industry I laid bare in a series of blogs in January, 2010, e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/01/us-propaganda-industry-part-ii.html

And what about Stone? In the second instalment of the blog series referenced above I noted the WaPo spinoff mag NEWSWEEK, in its Dec. 23, 1991 cover - for example- fairly screamed: The Twisted Truth of 'JFK': Why Oliver Stone's Film Can't Be Trusted'  

The actual article, bordering on the hysterical and penned by a Kenneth Auchincloss, lambasted Stone for attempting to "recreate history", and concluded that anything which does , "distorts history".  Now, this is intriguing because it's very close to what the assorted mainstream corporate media critics have written concerning Stone's new Showtime series. My question here is: Why the need to go almost ballistic? Are you so insecure with your own version of history you're unable to tolerate any challenge?

At one point Auchincloss asks: "Was it true that Kennedy was planning a pullout from Vietnam?" - the answer given so definitively by Auchincloss presumed that in no way was this the case.  

However, just six years later, with the benefit of Freedom of Information Act released files (thanks to Stone's film 'JFK' by the way), The Baltimore Sun featured this story: Declassified Documents Hint at Plan to Bring Troops Home in 1965, (Dec. 23, 1997, p. 3A). A subsequent book by Lt. Fletcher Prouty, 'JFK and Vietnam', disclosed this was not merely a "hint" but an actual, hands-on plan to remove all personnel by the issuance of National Action Security Memorandum 263. Hence, it was clear that Stone was spot -on correct in his prescient selection of at least one motive for the assassins.  Egg on the face? All over Auchinchloss!

Many in the Beltway- New York Media axis still harbor a grudge at Stone for his movie 'JFK'. They hysterically assert he "defiled history", "lied about the assassination" and "misled moviegovers" - much like the flak Stone is catching now for his Untold History. But is it true? I have at least three Stone interviews on video tape from 1991, including one on CNN's then 'Larry King Show' in which Stone clearly states - for the record and anyone paying attention- that the film was never intended to be a faithful historical reproduction but "a countermyth to the myth of the Warren Commission". And believe me, friends, by postulating 7 wounds in two men made by one bullet and it ending up near pristine on a Parkland stretcher, the Warren Commission is indeed a myth! So why the hell make such a big deal if Stone portrays a counter myth showing multiple interests, assassins? Why such a big deal? Because it's on film? Grow up already! But again, it discloses the infantile level to which our media have devolved that they feel it incumbent on them - as big daddies - to protect us from Oliver Stone's "Theories".

Then there's the other canard that Stone's film was befouled because he relied overly much for his source material on Jim Garrison and his trial of Clay Shaw. No one, not any critic I've met, has ever done the necessary background reading that showed in fact that Garrison's case was upended by the judge (Haggerty) who peremptorily excluded any mention or use of Clay Shaw's alias "Clay Bertrand". This is crucial since without it, Garrison couldn't make his case that Shaw was working for the CIA and had a  supportive role in the hit.

Years later, with release of files under the JFK Records Act, it would become evident that Shaw was indeed a CIA Contract Agent. As CIA Doc. (JFK 1993: 6.28.16.07.26.560280) notes:

"A memorandum marked for files says that J. Monroe Sullivan, #280201, was granted a covert security approval as of 10 December 1962 so he could be used in Project QKCHANT [Clay L. Shaw has #402897]"

And "Clay Bertrand" was tied to this Project ID.

And what of Bob Woodward? The guy at the time of Watergate (ca. 1973) was actually a real reporter, and had the yen to challenge the power order, as he did Nixon's White House, along with Carl Bernstein. Had it not been for their first class detective work and fearless journalism,  Nixon's nefarious plans might never have been exposed. However, since the assorted Washington Post buyouts, and executive changes, especially after Phil Graham took control, Woodward became more and more a sellout, mainly to the meme of Presidential Neoliberalism, pushing it - while making loads of money with his assorted books (the latest 'The Price of Politics' on Obama .)

So why waste time and reap few rewards and little money, like a real reporter - say of the Carl Bernstein mold- when you could make thousands of times more with goofy, PR pabulum in a sequence of well-received  "President" books?  Especially when you posture and pose as an "insider" and imply all informed and educated people will take you seriously. (Because this D.C. wannabe "insider" lot mainly doesn't know any better!)

A case in point is Woodward's latest book, ‘The Price of Politics’ , in which Woodward blames Obama for failing to be "presidential enough" for failing to finally solve what all true people in the know understand is the REAL, REAL problem:

"Unsustainable entitlement spending on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security as highlighted by Republican House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan and familiar to all informed politicians and economists....has been left largely unaddressed."

This is critical because we see the sure signs of Neoliberal hackism all over the remark (See also my blog on Fareed Zakaria earlier). The problem for us, the average citizens, is presidents tend for whatever reason to take this hack's books on them seriously. Is Obama doing so? Well, since Woodward makes such a big deal out of the "Grand Bargain" one could argue that Obama has been caught in the trap. Last I read he appears prepared to give away the store by giving Boehner and the 'pukes the horrific "chained CPI" to cut Social Security via the back door in return for tax increases only on income above $400,000. As Bernie Sanders put it yesterday on the Ed Schulz show, this is a travesty since the revenue won't be enough and there are much better ways to deal with Social Security like raising the payroll tax cap.

But is Woodward merely echoing what the Beltway jerks want to hear, or is he being original with this "entitlement hysteria"? The true fact is that he's likely merely echoing the Neoliberal palaver which has been spouted by BOTH parties since the 1980s. The Dems, make no mistake, are as bad as the repukes.  Some perspective on this is provided by Robert McChesney in his excellent book, ‘The Problem of the Media’, Monthly Review Press, 2004, p. 49:

"With the election of Ronald Reagan, the neoliberal movement had commenced. Neoliberal ideology became hegemonic not only among Republicans but also in the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Joseph Liebermann. Differences remained on timing and specifics, but on core issues both parties agreed that business was the rightful ruler over society.


It was a return to the 1920s - if not the Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century. Few industries seized the neoliberal high ground as firmly as the media and communications industries."

  Thus, Woodward's shtick is not original but one must admit that he IS a very powerful voice for the Neoliberal "cut the fuckin' entitlements" idiom, because so many take his word seriously, almost as seriously as fundies take their biblical inerrancy. That both parties have fallen into this pervasive trap is also no surprise, since both parties get the bulk of their funding from corporate sources whose interests are served by going after social insurance. These assholes don't give a flying fuck about any election results or "mandates", they want the rich - including all their investors, to keep getting the major benefits of society's wealth because they believe in their little hearts they are the "producers". Short of a people's action, as advocated incidentally in 'The Declaration of Independence' (to forge "new government whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends") nothing will change that. Voters will keep getting shafted year after year after year.

This is why we need now more than ever courageous voices like Oliver Stone's (in his 'Untold History of the United States')  to remind us just how badly we've been shit on in the real history of the country (see also 'A People's History of the United States' by Howard Zinn), not the vanilla  PR substitute junk fed our kids in high schools - which is why most hate history, as they rightfully should. Hell, I'd hate history if I was in a high school class today being taught the far out American exceptionalist bullshit that these kids are. No hint of conflicts, of contradictions, of plots. Do these kids even know about the Haymarket riot in Chicago, or the Bonus Army confrontation in 1932? No, wait, they're probably still also taught that Lee Oswald killed JFK in 1963! No wonder Americans are so pathetically and profoundly clueless on their own history. They ape and eat the crappola fed them by the propagandizers.

My best advice to any H.S. kid reading this: Put down your U.S. history text and get hold of Zinn's text, and try to watch Stone's Untold History of the United States! Your brain may yet be salvaged! More importantly you may then actually aspire to be a REAL CITIZEN as opposed to a mere "consumer" and PR puppet.