Could We Coverup Watergate Today? And Twice On Sundays?

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 19:30


The death of Mark Felt (AKA "Deep Throat") has Former Washington Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie, Jr., wondering "Could We Uncover Watergate Today?"

Over at Dkos, LithiumCola notes that Downie had been  "executive editor of the Post from 1991 (after Ben Bradlee stepped down) to earlier this year, when he retired.  Downie therefore held Bradlee's post for most of the Bush Administration.  A point which makes his column in Sunday's edition of the Post particularly mystifying, or maddening, at any rate revealing."  

LithiumCola goes on to note:

The recently retired executive editor of the Washington Post is musing about what "would" happen if a "story such as Watergate" were to emerge once again.

A wild hypothetical, to be sure.

It put me in mind of an article I wrote for Random Lengths News back in June of 2006, constituting "a conservative list of 25 reasons to impeach President Bush."  For by now, one thing, at least, should be blazingly clear: the entire Washington establishment was in on this particular crime spree, every last step of the way.

Paul Rosenberg :: Could We Coverup Watergate Today? And Twice On Sundays?
25 Reasons to Impeach
By Paul Rosenberg, Senior Editor

"Legally, there are no significant differences between the investor fraud perpetrated by Enron CEO Ken Lay and the prewar intelligence fraud perpetrated by George W. Bush. Both involved persons in authority who used half-truths and recklessly false statements to manipulate people who trusted them."

    -Former Federal Prosecutor Elizabeth Del Vega

With little fanfare, polls over the past year have found support for censuring or impeaching President Bush for various offenses ranging as high as the 40s to the low 50s-despite a virtual media blackout, leaving most Americans woefully ignorant of the scope of lawbreaking involved. Yet, the only official investigation concluded, "These charges appear to be more serious than the articles of impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 against then President Nixon".

That conclusion comes from the "Conyers Report" by the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff, "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Cover-ups in the Iraq War." The 273-page report did not take into account the illegal NSA spying program, or a number of possible "high crimes and misdemeanors" raised by others outside of government.

The Conyers Report grew out of frustrated attempts to get the Administration to respond to questions raised by the Downing Street Memo-minutes of a British War Cabinet meeting revealing that the Bush Administration had decided to invade Iraq at least 10 months before the invasion, and five months before Congress authorized military force. Despite Republican stonewalling, and lack of subpoena power, the report was amassed with considerable evidence, and concluded:

"There is little doubt that the allegations of misconduct set forth in this Report - misleading Congress and the American public concerning the decision to go to war; misstating and manipulating the intelligence to justify a preemptive war; encouraging and countenancing torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; covering up wrongdoing and retaliating against administration critics - rise to the level of 'Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors' within the meaning of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution."

The report "also found that there is at least a prima facie case that these actions... violate a number of federal laws," which fell into seven categories: (1) Fraud Against the United States (2) False Statements to Congress (3) the War Powers Resolution (4) Misuse of Government Funds (5) federal laws and international treaties prohibiting torture and maltreatment, (6) federal laws regarding retaliation against witnesses and whistleblowers, (7) federal laws and regulations regarding leaking and other misuse of intelligence information.

The reasons listed below are not exhaustive. Most could be charged as multiple items, and would be in a criminal case, thus reaching into the hundreds. In addition, we have not listed several major items still requiring investigation to establish basic facts of culpability--most notably, failure to take reasonable steps to prevent 9/11 and the destruction of New Orleans, failure to investigate the role of allies (particularly Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) in 9/11, and interference with the FBI investigation of 9/11 (hurriedly removing bin Laden family members from the US.)

Here, then, is a conservative list of 25 reasons to impeach President Bush:

A. Fraudulent War. Bush decided to invade Iraq-which had no relationship to 9/11-within weeks of the terrorists attack, a position that was fully realized by the British War Cabinet by the time of its meeting on May 23, 2002. Bush committed multiple counts of fraud-in violation of in 18 U.S.C. ß 371-in the process of bringing the nation to war. Each deception is a separate crime (actually involving multiple criminal acts) and a separate reason to impeach:

1. He and those working for him fraudulently lead the American Congress and people to believe that Iraq sought to purchase uranium from Niger.

2. He and those working for him fraudulently lead the American Congress and people to believe that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

3. He and those working for him fraudulently lead the American Congress and people to believe that Iraq had purchased aluminum tubes that could only be intended for refining uranium to make nuclear weapons.

4. He and those working for him fraudulently lead the American Congress and People to believe that Iraq and Al Qaeda had a cooperative relationship in alliance against the US.

5. He and those working for him fraudulently lead the American Congress and People to believe that Iraq possessed WMDs.

6. He and those working for him fraudulently lead the American Congress and People to believe that Iraq possessed mobile weapons labs.

7. He and those working for him fraudulently lead the American Congress and People to believe that Iraq possessed ultralight planes to attack the US.

8. Under his authority, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld established the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon-staffed with ideologues, rather than trained analysts-to circumvent professional CIA analysts and pass on unreliable information as "fact" in order to take us to war on fraudulent grounds.

9. He secured the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) from Congress under the fraudulent pretence that he desired peace, and wanted the authority only for the purposes of being able to pressure Saddam Hussein to allow full and complete inspections, so as destroy all WMDs.

10. He invaded Iraq under the fraudulent pretence it was necessary to destroy WMDs that the weapons inspectors could not find.

B. Additional counts related to the Iraq War:

11. He first threatened and then invaded Iraq without justification, as Iraq had not attacked the US first, and posed no danger of doing so. This violated the UN Charter provisions against threatening and making war against another nation, thus violating US law as well.

12. He invaded Iraq without a declaration of war from Congress, thus violating Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, giving Congress, not the President, power to declare war.

13. He began intensified bombing of Iraq in August, 2002, as part of an undeclared war, months before even securing the AUMF. This violated the US Constitution, the UN Charter and the War Powers Resolution, Pub. L. No. 93-148.

14. In July, 2002, he approved 30 projects, eventually totaling $700 million appropriated to fight in Afghanistan, to begin preparations for war against Iraq. This violated the Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution, giving Congress the power of the purse, and laws prohibiting the Misuse of Government Funds, 31 U.S.C. ß 1301.

15. Under his command, the U.S. Military used White Phosphorus [WP], an incendiary weapon, in combat, although the U.S. Battle Book states, "It is against the Law of Land Warfare to employ WP against personnel targets." This violates the Geneva and Hague Conventions and the War Crimes Act.

16. Under his authority, the identity of CIA Agent Valerie Plame was leaked in retaliation for her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson, revealing evidence that Iraq had not sought uranium from Niger. At minimum, this involved Misuse of Government Funds in violation of 31 U.S.C. ß 1301 by Bush's subordinates, and Bush's own violation of Executive Order 12958, requiring corrective action for leaks of classified information.

17. Under his authority, retribution has been sought against other critics or dissenters-such as Bunnatine Greenhouse, Chief Contracting Officer of the Army Corps of Engineers, and Army Chief of Staff General Erik Shinseki. Some of these actions constitute violations of law, including the Whistleblowers Protection Act, 5 U.S.C. ß 2302; Obstruction of Congress, 18 U.S.C. ß 1505; the Lloyd-La Follette Act, 5 U.S.C. ß 7211; Retaliating Against Witnesses, 18 U.S.C. ß 1513; and Misuse of Government Funds, 31 U.S.C. ß 1301.

C. Additional counts related to the "War on Terror":

18. Under his authority, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld bears responsibility for torture and other illegal conduct in Iraq in violation of the Anti-Torture Statute.

19. Under his authority, Attorneys General Ashcroft and Gonzales violated the Convention Against Torture, Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment (requiring frameworks to deter and punish torture and other human rights violations) and the Geneva and Hague Convention (requiring investigations for such violations).

20. Under his authority, then Attorney General Ashcroft and then White House Counsel Gonzales bear responsibility for documented, unlawful removal of detainees from Iraq in violation of the War Crimes Act.

21. Under his command, Canadian citizen Maher Arar was illegally arrested in the US (JFK airport) and sent to secret prison in Syria for ten months of torture and interrogation. An unknown number of others have been similarly seized and sent to countries that use torture to extract information.

22. Under his command, Khaled al-Masri, a German citizen, was kidnapped in Macedonia, flown to a CIA cite in Afghanistan and tortured, drugged and interrogated for five months. The US later said it made a mistake in detaining him. An unknown number of others have been similarly treated.

23. Under his authority, the National Security Agency (NSA) conducted sweeping warrantless wiretaps in violation of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the Fourth Amendment, despite the fact that Congress had offered additional amendments to FISA and the Administration had said they were not needed.

D. Additional Counts:

24. Under his authority, there has been a widespread corruption of the scientific advisory process, substituting personal opinion for objective fact-similar to the corruption of intelligence leading to the Iraq War. This constitutes fraud against the United States and misuse of government funds.

25. Under his authority, Medicare actuary, Richard Foster, was threatened with loss of his job if he shared his cost estimate of $600 billion for the Medicare Drug Benefit with Congress-an estimate substantially higher than the Administration's $400 billion. This constitutes fraud against the people of the United States.

This is what it looks like when the entire political class goes into a permanent state of collective criminality.  This is what happened to France before the French Revolution.  And we all know how that ended.  Our political leadership is, quite literally, playing with fire, and have been for longer than most of us can seem to remember.  Stealing the 2000 election actually came much more toward the middle of it all than the beginning.  But no one knews where it will end.  We only know that we'll be lucky if it all ends with less than several hundred thousand dead, and our living standards closer to the First World than the Third, even by just a hair.

Oh yes.  And with something still left in the way of the polar ice caps.

The odds do not look good from where I stand.


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
the culture of corruption (4.00 / 4)
the entire Washington establishment was in on this particular crime spree, every last step of the way.

For anyone who thinks this is an exaggeration, behold, the entire Versailles Village roar with laughter as Bush mocks dead soldiers.


feeling pissed and pessimistic, are we? (4.00 / 1)
I sure am! you are right on the money just like Zinn and Chomsky and other shrill people have been shouting from the rooftops for years.

The Big Lie tactic, that is something everybody knows. What about the Endless Lie tactic? It's not just 25 Reasons to Impeach, it's 25 Reasons to Impeach this month, and 25 More Reasons to Impeach next month, and 25 More Reasons to Impeach the month after that, on and on, a stream so endless and awful you can't pick out one lie, it is like sipping from a firehose, all you can do is stand back. That's what congress did and that's what we all did when we failed to hold Bush to account.

And they laughed and gave us the finger because being king is fun and sacking the wogs is fun, and trashing 60 years of government regulations and 200 years of constitutional protections is fun, and loading up Santa's sleigh with $2 trillion in goodies for you and your friends is even more fun.


Nixon's mistake was attacking people with real power (0.00 / 0)
If Bush had done the same, and been so cavalier and sloppy about it, I suspect he would have met a similar fate.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/N...

"The bombing of Cambodia did not even appear in Nixon's Articles of Impeachment. It was raised in the Senate hearing, but only in one interesting respect -- the question that was raised was, why hadn't Nixon informed Congress? It wasn't, why did you carry out one of the most intense bombings in history in densely populated areas of peasant country, killing maybe 150,000 people? That never came up. In fact, that whole thing was a gag -- because there was no reason for Congress not to have known about the bombing, just as there was no reason for the media not to have known: it was completely public. So in terms of all the horrifying atrocities the Nixon government carried out, Watergate isn't even worth laughing about. It was a triviality. Watergate is a very clear example of what happens to servants when they forget their role and go after the people who own the place: they are very quickly put back into their box, and somebody else takes over. You couldn't ask for a better illustration of it than that -- and it's even more dramatic because this is the great exposure that's supposed to demonstrate what a free and critical press we have. What Watergate really shows is what a submissive and obedient press we have, as the comparisons to COINTELPRO and Cambodia illustrate very clearly."


Actually, It Was Raised In The House (4.00 / 2)
Elizabeth Holtzmann, among others wanted to include it.  There was greater support for that sort of direct confrontation then than there is today within the halls of power.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Greater, certainly. (0.00 / 0)
No question the Democratic Party is far more passive now. This is in large part due to the success of the "center-right country" dogma. Democrats would have laughed at that notion in the 70s and thus were more emboldened. Though not by a whole lot. The article of impeachment regarding Cambodia that Holtzman championed lost 26-12 in committee and it didn't even touch Nixon's actual atrocities (or else it never would have even come up for a vote). Holtzman's article just stated that Nixon had lied to Congress, conducted a secret war with money they were supposed to appropriate, yada yada. All quite obvious facts, extremely blatant abuses of power, but still of little concern to Congress because Nixon's genocidal campaign in Laos and Cambodia was never a problem for the real power brokers.

As you say, this time around the whole establishment was in on it with Bush, so only the very fringe of the Democratic Party even dared to consider the possibility of impeachment.  


[ Parent ]
Not Exactly (4.00 / 1)
Mostly, I agree, but not here:

Holtzman's article just stated that Nixon had lied to Congress, conducted a secret war with money they were supposed to appropriate, yada yada. All quite obvious facts, extremely blatant abuses of power, but still of little concern to Congress because Nixon's genocidal campaign in Laos and Cambodia was never a problem for the real power brokers.

Although established on paper, there really wasn't anything nearly as strong a living tradition of international law against war crimes and torture as there is today.  There just weren't as many people willing to consider a remedy in law, even if they were horrified. This is one of the important ways in which progress is made.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
In other words, the laws were there but the will was not (4.00 / 1)
The establishment wasn't about to allow Nixon to be held accountable for his war crimes, as that would have been an assault on Washington itself and its standard M.O. of committing them. Stuff like the Nuremberg Principles and the Geneva Convention were for other countries, particularly the losers of war like Japan and Germany.  Democrats were not about to bring up war crimes when they'd just had two presidents recording their own set. So in flouting international law Nixon was just going along with the program.

There remains very little acknowledgment of Nixon's war crimes. He's just some misguided crook with self-esteem issues. Nixon's right-hand war criminal, Henry Kissinger, is so eminently respected that, as they faced an audience of 60 or so million, Obama and McCain actually fought over whose policy Kissinger had endorsed on diplomacy with Iran.

Before we even get to applying the actual laws, we'll have to get to a point where these war crimes can at least be acknowledged. I do agree we're closer than 35 years ago, though.


[ Parent ]
The political, media, legal, military and beaurocratic establishment (0.00 / 0)
is like a huge, powerful and evil corporation (which is kind of redundant these days), and everyone in it works for it. So long as you do your job competently enough--or have enough friends in the right places--you'll be ok. Stick your neck out, though, and it'll be cut off. Speak or act against it, and you will be destroyed. This applies to everyone from the bottom to the top--including the president--and no matter how talented and accmomplished. You either play ball, or you're out. Period. There is no room for free agents or having one's own agenda in it.

Everyone in it knows the rules, and plays by them. Some might push the envelope a tiny bit, but within tolerable limits, and if someone important enough indicates their displeasure, they back off, fast. Even the "good guys" and dissenters know it, and make sure to keep their virtuous behavior and dissent to acceptable levels. Thus Russ Feingold's near muteness since his censure resolution was mocked and rejected so soundly. He was sandbagged. And thus the idiocy that we get from the likes of Ruth Marcus and her executive lawbreaking-defending op-ed POS today in the WaPo. She's just being a good little propagandist, playing her role as the staunch defender of the establishment. A gold star for her!

Which is why it will never, ever reform itself from within. It will either implode from within, or be brought down from outside. And since, absent massive social and economic dislocation, violent revolution is very unlikely (which I think is a good thing, as revolutions simply replace one evil for another), only some combination of both is likely to bring about positive change. We're seeing some of both these days, but not nearly enough. '06 was much more about a change in establishmentleadership than a change in the underlying establishment itself. And, while the jury's still out on it, '08 looks very much to be a repeat of this. But we'll see.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


It's More Ambiguous, I Think (4.00 / 3)
I think there are enclaves where there's considerably more lattitude to actually, you know, do your job and actually serve the public interest.  In fact, I think this is part of the system's strength and resiliency.  If it were all 100% totally corrupt, then more folks would actually rise up against it.  But there's just enough room for the Joe Wilsons of the world to do their bit in good faith, to keep them believing that they can do some good.

Still, I agree with your larger perspective.  It's just that I think the micro-structure is a little more complex.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Yeah, I know (4.00 / 2)
I just get so pissed off whenever I come across the patented kind of faux "concerned liberal" crap that fatuous windbags like Marcus regularly spit out that I momentarily see the world in a more monochromatic way. I think to myself, how does this person lie so brazenly, if not to us, then to herself? Do people like her actually believe this idiocy, and if so, well, isn't this what happens when many self-styled "liberals" unmask themselves as the amoral shits that they always were, when the hypothetical becomes the actual?

One of my greatest disappointments has been to find out that people whom I thought I knew well, whom I'd always assumed held liberal values, turned out to be, to one degree or another, apologists for establishment policies, under the guises of "they're just keeping us safe" and "well I'd assume that they know what they're doing or else they wouldn't still have their jobs". Turns out that when push comes to shove (or when it merely feels like it), an awful lot of people decide that their personal safety (or the illusion of it) outweighs all else. Never mind that such calculations rest upon false premises. So did the Milgram experiment--no one was actually being shocked. Doesn't matter. But it's when people are convinced that their personal safety is at stake (or, at least, their jobs, or their positions in their professional and social hierarchies), that they show their true colors. Marcus just showed hers.

Most better-known journalists are like her, I believe, to one degree or another. Not all, but most. For every Herbert, Priest or Hersh, there are twenty Marcuses.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
This nit doesn't affect the whole post (4.00 / 1)
But I would not call Feingold mute. On the FISA Amendments Act, Feingold supported the filibuster, had an interview with bloggers, and put up a fact sheet which remains very helpful. This was a battle more important to win than a symbolic censure.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  

[ Parent ]
He's definitely been less prominent (0.00 / 0)
than he was a couple of years ago. I think that he was told to shut up and stop making trouble and being such a bleeding heart liberal by the leadership (their imagined words, not mine), and decided that, for the time being, shouting into the wind just wasn't going to get him, or these causes, anywhere, so better to save it for another day, when he might get more traction. I do hope that he reemerges once again when Obama's in office as one of the leading progressive voices in congress, along with Kucinich, Stark, Boxer, Sanders, etc.

In their own ways, both he and Obama realized that while the country was rejecting conservatism and conservatives and moving left, it was not yet ready to enthusiastically embrace progressive ideas and policies, especially with the media still plugging the opposite ones, so better to do this slowly, than to get into political spats that would likely lead nowhere. Slow and steady vs. dramatic and static. Incrementalism is what works best sometimes, especially when your foes are destroying themselves. Now that that's done, it's time once again to move faster. I think that Feingold will be part of that.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
Has this Downie Jr. guy ever heard of blogs? (0.00 / 0)
Is he familiar with the rise of this form of media, or not? And the fact that his industry's failure to question the Bush administration lent generously to blogging's success?

Time for him to pull his head out of where the sun don't shine.

And time for us to remember where we came from, and how we are at our best -- when we are doing the job the traditional media cannot or will not do.


one more thought on Paul's closing (0.00 / 0)
This is what happened to France before the French Revolution.  And we all know how that ended.

As much as I celebrate the work done in the tubes over the past eight years, I often think that we'd have had the success of the French if there were no internets. We are often content to don virtual pitchforks and torches, and I wonder if our online collective might just be the last barrier to true change.


[ Parent ]
It's Impossible To Tell, But (4.00 / 2)
I think that folks would most probably have retreated into apathy and despair, rather than advancing into anger.

Don't forget, the French people were starving.  We haven't hit the mass starvation point yet.  But we can see the collapse of middle-class America coming at us like an oncoming freight.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Yeah ... (0.00 / 0)
but what will it take for the middle class to hit the streets with said torches and pitchforks?

[ Parent ]
No, blogs do a phenomenal job of finding the little gaps in the system (4.00 / 2)
and bringing them to our attention. Say, bringing together the BBC story or the local newspaper account together with a Media Matters blurb that pokes holes in the Versailles account and giving it a wide audience. We see this all the time in the blogs, and those stories would just never have caught sunlight otherwise. They very much incite to activism, rather than placate.
      Of course, you could argue that they've taught us all to play the game a little bit, i.e. we give money to the right candidates and advocate in ways that are themselves fairly systematized.  

[ Parent ]
my point. (0.00 / 0)
Bloggers and online organizations ("Netroots") do the job the press doesn't do.

That is not revolution, however, particularly on the level of the French circa 1789-99.

And that I think the ability to organize online, combined with the tendency of leading bloggers to work within the existing political framework, diminishes the chances of violent revolution, even if the economy collapses.

They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom for trying to change the system from within...First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin.  -- Leonard Cohen


[ Parent ]
Would Woodward and Bernstein even have jobs today? (4.00 / 3)
Could two reporters so low on the totem pole be given that much of a free rein to investigate a potential story that didn't go very far for a very long time?

If they don't put in the time and effort into the early investigation, Watergate might well have been forgotten about within a couple of weeks.


consider the US attorney scandal (4.00 / 4)
not pursued by any journalists representing any mainstream newspaper or magazine.

Without Josh Marshall, that story would have successfully been covered up.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.


[ Parent ]
they couldn't "cover it up" today (4.00 / 3)
But they can and do ignore what's out in the open.

In the early 1970s more Republicans were honest brokers who were genuinely horrified by Nixon's lawlessness.

Now that the Republican Party stays 100 percent behind any official lawbreaking by Republicans, it's easier for the media to dismiss criticism of the administration as partisan noise.

It's been known for decades that the mainstream journalistic establishment is more likely to treat a story about presidential wrongdoing as newsworthy if members of the president's own party are criticizing it.

Robert Entman showed this 20 years ago in his book Democracy Without Citizens. Media coverage of Carter administration "scandals" like Billygate and Bert Lance bouncing checks got way more media coverage than more significant stories from the Reagan era, like when Labor Secretary Raymond Donovan was indicted. No Republican criticism of Reagan's corruption = not newsworthy. Extensive Democratic criticism of Carter administration = newsworthy.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.


Is this related to this post? (4.00 / 1)

Man who set up alternate email for White House dies in plane crash.

The Suspicious, Disturbing Death of Election Rigger Michael Connell

Investigative journalists online have been digging into the story of Mike Connell for two years. Connell's largely unknown role in elections and government technology infrastructure should be a top story of the year, yet major media have ignored it.

Last night, (this last Friday Dec19th 2008, ed.)  a small plane crashed and burned near Akron, Ohio, reportedly carrying only one person, Mike Connell.

Connell was close to Karl Rove, but Rove reportedly had threatened him of late.  Connell's testimony re the Ohio 2004 election was being compelled in an Ohio court.

Ohio election attorney Cliff Arnebeck sent a letter to US Attorney General Mukasey, July 24, 2008:


   Dear Attorney General Mukasey:

   We have been confidentially informed by a source we believe to be credible that Karl Rove has threatened Michael Connell, a principal witness we have identified in our King Lincoln case in federal court in Columbus, Ohio, that if he does not agree to "take the fall" for election fraud in Ohio, his wife Heather will be prosecuted for supposed lobby law violations ...




Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


I Don't Think It's Related, Because (0.00 / 0)
This is certainly very suspicious, and I've been following this case some.  But that made it quite unlike most of the things I listed in my article, which were pretty much all publicly known, not requring anything much at all in the way of investigation.

Which was pretty the point of this post--there's no need to investigate stuff, the papers just have to publish what's been on the blogs for years.


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search