Aletho News


Kill Them Over There, Not Here, Please.

By Jeremy Salt | American Herald Tribune | March 20, 2019

All of us must stand against hatred in all of its forms. – Barrack Obama

Israel mourns the wanton murder of innocent worshippers – Benjamin Netanyahu

White supremacist terrorism must be condemned by leaders everywhere – Hillary Clinton

People of all faiths must condemn these attacks and call out those who encourage Islamophobia. – Madeleine Albright

These are excerpts from some of the messages of condolence sent to New Zealand by ‘world leaders’ after the Christchurch massacre. There is no point in giving more names because all politicians and public figures would say the same, as they should, given the monstrosity of the crime.

Obama, Netanyahu, Clinton, and Albright have been chosen because they have been responsible for acts of murder infinitely greater than the slaughter of 50 Muslims in New Zealand.

The victims of their crimes and the crimes of their political predecessors in the past three decades run into the millions. Brenton Tarrant terrorized Muslims in two mosques in one country. They have terrorized Muslim populations in a number of countries. He has violated New Zealand law. They have violated international law. He will be punished but they never are.

Obama, Netanyahu, Clinton, and Albright have never uttered a word of remorse for the crimes they have committed. Not once has the head of any western government expressed regret for the millions of people killed in Muslim countries over the past three decades, not with Brenton Tarrant’s semi-automatic firearms, but bombs, missiles, and tank fire or, in the case of Syria, with the armed gangs set loose like attack dogs.

When asked whether she thought the ‘price’ paid for the first Gulf War (1991) and the decade of sanctions that followed, which took the lives of 500,000 children, was worth it, Madeleine Albright replied: ‘We think the price is worth it.’

For these governments and politicians, the price is always worth it as long as someone else pays. Even now there is nothing but estimates of how many Iraqis were killed or died as a result of the two wars launched against their country but the figure hovers around three million since 1991.

On top of this are the millions of wounded, many disabled for life, and the children born with deformities because of the use of uranium-depleted weapons.

Senior UN officials described the war and decade of sanctions against Iraq as genocide. No horror was expressed in the media for the enormous crimes that had been committed almost wholly against Muslims, men, women, and children as innocent as Brenton Tarrant’s victims.  Except on the margins, no demands were ever made for those responsible to face justice.

Every Tuesday Obama sat in his office and signed the death warrant for Yemenis or Somalis targeted in drone missile strikes that were totally illegal under international law. Thousands have been killed in these attacks, many if not most of them civilians, men, women and a lot of children. They are all Muslims. Did any of the politicians sending condolences to New Zealand and condemning terrorism ever bend their heads in shame at the killings in Yemen or Somalia and demand moral accountability and legal responsibility?

Has even one of them condemned Benjamin Netanyahu for the crimes committed against Muslims in Palestine, for the massacres of the innocent by sniper fire, missile strike, and artillery fire? Is the killing of Muslim children somehow different in New Zealand and Palestine?

After the destruction of Libya, Hillary Clinton laughed when told Muammar al Qadhafi had been killed, most brutally. This was her war, Obama’s war, a war of deceit that was carried on for seven months, destroying the most developed country in Africa and killing thousands. They were all Muslims. What else did Libya represent but Clinton’s ‘white supremacist terror,’ the same terror that has been delivered across the Muslim world by western governments for the past 200 years.

In Syria an estimated half a million people have been killed in a war orchestrated by western governments and their regional ‘allies.’ Their weapons of choice, the terrorist groups they have armed and financed, have assassinated, massacred and slaughtered in every way possible, thinkable and unthinkable.

Nearly all of their victims have been Muslims. In the face of this slaughter their paymasters, procurers, and enablers have remained morally mute, save for trying to blame the Syrian government for the war they initiated.

Over decades these enormous crimes have forced millions of people out of their wrecked countries. They have fled in all directions. Many have drowned in the Mediterranean trying to reach the presumed safety of Europe. Boats headed in the direction of Australia, only to be turned back at sea or for the desperate people they were carrying to be locked up in ‘detention centers’ if they managed to slip through. Many sank and many men, women, and children drowned.

Australia was a willing participant in the wars that destroyed their homes yet refused them entry, abusing them as ‘queue jumpers.’ They were locked up behind razor wire in the middle of the desert so the Australian people could not see them and feel sorry for them. All were Muslims and many were children, treated as cruelly as the adults.

No matter how many millions of innocent people are killed in the Middle East, the designation of terrorist is reserved for Brenton Tarrant or the Islamic State, not for the western governments and the gangs they and their regional allies have employed in Syria to do their dirty work.

The same media that has covered up the monstrous crimes committed against Muslims in the Middle East can now talk of nothing else but the danger of white supremacists, not the far greater danger that Muslims around the world have always faced from western governments.

Brenton Tarrant, the Islamic state, Israel, the US and its ‘allies’ and the armed groups they are sponsoring in Syria are all joined at the hip. Terror is terror whether state or individual. Brenton Tarrant now has to face the consequences of what he has done. The politicians who have destroyed Middle Eastern countries don’t.

There is a law for Brenton Tarrant. There is no law for the politicians. Tarrant will be jailed for life for the murder of 50 Muslims. Politicians responsible for the deaths of millions of Muslims never seen the inside of a jail.  We have a system of international law but only in theory. In practice, when the massive crimes of the powerful are involved, it does not work. It is broken.

Claud Cockburn (father of Patrick) called the 1930s the ‘devil’s decade.’ The devils were human, of course: nationalist socialists and fascists destroying Spain, Italian fascists poison- gassing Ethiopians and Japanese fascists slaughtering Chinese. Now, since the 1990s, we have had nearly three devil’s decades.

Today’s western liberal democracies – as they are called – are doing exactly what the fascists did in the 1930s. Instead of Spain, we have Syria. Instead of Guernica, we have hadFallujah. Country after country has been destroyed by these liberal democrats in their grey suits and pastel ties. Do they really need to wear black or brown uniforms for people to recognize them for the killers that they are?

In their pursuit of power, they have no more respect for international law than the fascists and national socialists did in the 1930s. They have no respect for human life over there.

Yet when it comes to the killing of Muslims over here, they, and their outliers in the media are shocked, appalled and outraged at this senseless act of terror. Brenton Tarrant is a sick, depraved and twisted individual but so is Benjamin Netanyahu and so are the politicians responsible for the deaths of millions of Muslims in distant countries. Over there, not here, and that is what counts.

March 21, 2019 Posted by | Islamophobia, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | 1 Comment

McCarthyism Then and Now: But There Was Reality Then

By Patrick ARMSTRONG | Strategic Culture Foundation | 27.02.2019

History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce. (Karl Marx)

Humor is reason gone mad. (Groucho Marx)

Every now and again, we hear about a “new McCarthyism“. Usually it’s the alternative media like Truthdig or Consortium News or left-wing outlets because mainstream outlets are so sunk in Trumpophobia that they have forgotten what the expression means. It’s not Trump who’s the new McCarthy (Trumpism Is the New McCarthyism or Is Donald Trump The New Joe McCarthy?) it is they: Is Trump Putin’s Puppet?Trump Is Making the Case That He’s Putin’s Puppet; calling other people Moscow puppets is precisely what McCarthy did. And today’s Russhysteria has spread outside the USA: France to Probe Possible Russian Influence on Yellow Vest RiotsWhy Putin Is Meddling in Britain’s Brexit VoteSpain: ‘Misinformation’ on Catalonia referendum came from Russia. Endless torrents of delirium, nothing too absurd: Russia could freeze us to death!Russian cricket agents14-legged killer squid found TWO MILES beneath Antarctica being weaponised by Putin? The Russophobes find Moscow’s influence everywhere: children’s’ cartoonsfishsticksPokemon. People who like to imagine that they’re taken seriously suggest the Russians are threatened by our “quality”.

But not so threatened, it appears, by our mental qualities.

Joseph McCarthy, making much of (and perhaps improving upon) his war record, was elected a US Senator in 1946. After three years in which he attracted little attention, he rose to national prominence with a speech in February 1950 in which he claimed to have a list of Communist Party members active in the US State Department. There is still debate today about the precise numbers he claimed and to what degree he was used by other actors. But he realised he was on to a good thing (he secured re-election in 1952) and kept “revealing” communists in the government and elsewhere. Televised hearings showed his vituperative and erratic nature; the Senate censured him in 1954 and he faded away. “McCarthyism” has become a doubleplusungood swearword so stripped of meaning that it can be shaped into mud to be thrown at Trump.

But – and a very big but – whatever McCarthy’s motivation or cynicism, however unpleasant, shifty and unshaven he looked on TV, there was a reality behind what he was saying.

  • ITEM. August 1945. Elizabeth Bentley approaches the FBI and eventually reveals the spying activities of the CPUSA.
  • ITEM. September 1945. Igor Guzenko defects in Ottawa, revealing the extent of spying on its allies by the USSR. Thanks to his information Alan Nunn May, part of the British contribution to the atomic bomb project, is arrested March 1946. A number of Canadians are arrested – including the MP Fred Rose.
  • ITEM. August 1948. Whittaker Chambers, a CPUSA member disgusted by the Hitler-Stalin pact, in testimony to HUAC, names Alger Hiss, a senior State Department official, as a CPUSA agent.
  • ITEM. February 1950. McCarthy’s speech.
  • ITEM. Beginning in summer 1951 with the defection of Burgess and Maclean and only ending with the discovery of the last member in 1979, the revelation of extensive penetration by the Soviets of British intelligence – the Cambridge Five – caused continuing investigations and suspicions which tied up the CIA and SIS for years.

In conclusion, whatever you think of the man himself, “McCarthyism” was based on reality: there was extensive Soviet penetration in the USA and elsewhere.

+ + +

And today? The equivalent of McCarthy’s speech are the Clinton campaign’s excuses for losing.

We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election. (Hillary Clinton, 19 October 2016.)

That strategy had been set within twenty-four hours of her concession speech. [9 November 2016] Mook and Podesta assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument. (From Shattered, quoted here.)

After the story had been happily re-typed by the complaisant media, the “intelligence community” weighed in with two fatuous “intelligence assessments”:

ITEM. The DHS/FBI report of 29 December 2016 carried this stunning disclaimer:

This report is provided “as is” for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within.

ITEM. The DNI report of 6 January 2017 crazily devoted nearly half its space to a four-year old rant about RT. But the real clue that the report was nonsense was its equally stunning disclaimer:

We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.

In other words, DHS told us to ignore its report and the one agency in the US intelligence structure that would actually know who hacked what refused to sign its name to it.

And not “all 17”, only three. Then – the final nail – not really the three but only “hand-picked” people from them. Eventually, the NYT issued a correction. (“Correction” being presstitute-speak for “you caught us”.)

The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community. (New York Times correction, 29 June 2017)

And that was the beginning of the story that has consumed so much effort, done so much damage, metastasised so far and continues today. No Elizabeth Bentley, no atomic spies, no Venona. Only 1) an excuse for losing, 2) “hand-picked” writers, 3) forced plea deals and 4) the pompous indictment of a Russian click bait farm.

The fons et origo of today’s Russhysteria, I am convinced, was a conspiracy in the security organs to derail Trump’s candidacy and when that failed, to overthrow him. Little by little that story is dribbling out:

Congressional testimony backs up former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe’s account that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was talking to high-level officials about invoking the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump from office.

One can only hope that the conspiracy will finally be so revealed and so proven and so obvious that even the consumers of CNN, MSNBC, The Guardian, the NYT and the rest will understand what was really going on. Then, maybe, we can hope to edge away from the highly dangerous anti-Russia hysteria.

McCarthyism was based on reality, today’s recurrence is not. A significant difference indeed.

+ + +

Lavrenti Beria is reputed to have said “give me the man, and I will give you the crime”. And sleep depravation and teeth and blood on the floor delivered the confession. How little he understood his craft. Maria Butina, an innocent if naïve Russian girl who liked the Second Amendment, arrested, stuck in solitary, on suicide watch (sleep deprivation – Beria knew about that), innumerable charges, after months, makes a plea deal. Michael Flynn, innumerable charges, savings burnt up, makes a plea deal. Paul Manafort, early morning SWAT attack (Beria recognises that), innumerable charges, makes a plea deal. Cohen, Papadopoulos and so on. That’s the American justice system – not Stalin’s “beat, beat and beat again” – just innumerable charges, bankruptcy by lawyers’ fees, endless interrogations, SWAT raids. Then the plea deal. Beria was an amateur.

So the Marx brothers are both wrong: the second time it’s a much more dangerous tragedy and, when you actually see it in reality, reason gone mad isn’t actually very funny.

February 27, 2019 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia, Timeless or most popular | , , , | 3 Comments

Getting Rid of Omar: Neoconservatives Dig Deep to Remove a Critic of Israel

By Philip Giraldi | American Herald Tribune | February 24, 2019

It has been observed that the neoconservatives are a lot like the legendary bird the Phoenix, which burns to death and then, miraculously, rises from the ashes in new plumage. The neocons first rose to prominence under President Ronald Reagan, when they took over key offices in the Pentagon. They were subsequently somewhat ostracized under George H.W. Bush who did not like them, but they got their revenge by joining in the chorus that brought the incumbent elder Bush down and replaced him with Bill Clinton, who, in fact, pursued an interventionist foreign policy much more to their taste. Again dominant in the Pentagon and White House under George W. Bush, the neocons went into exile under President Barack Obama, though they were at the same time infiltrating the foreign policy establishment of the Democratic Party. This transformation produced Hillary the Hawk and the Democrats have now become the party of war just as enthusiastically as the Republicans, with both favoring what might be described as a neocon foreign policy.

The emergence of Donald Trump was a shock to the neocon ascendancy. Most neoconservatives condemned his candidacy because of his critique of useless Middle Eastern wars and his stated intention to mend relations with Russia. While some neocons have crept back into the White House, most notably John Bolton and Elliot Abrams, some have continued to rail against Trump. Under the banner of the “Never Trump Resistance” neocon leaders like Bill Kristol have continued the struggle to replace Trump with a more to their taste Mitt Romney or Lindsay Graham, leaders who are fully prepared to crush the Mullahs in Iran and to wage perpetual war against Godless communism.

Kristol nevertheless paid a personal price for his obstinacy. The neocon flagship publication The Weekly Standard, long Kristol’s mouthpiece, ceased publication in December, partly over its waning popularity due to its hostile attitude towards Trump. But in today’s America, mendacity is nearly always rewarded and, in early January, a new webzine publication headed by Kristol emerged under the banner of The Bulwark, which was at least somewhat intended to take the place of the old Weekly Standard. The publication’s launch promoted the enterprise as the center of the “Never Trump Resistance.”

Given that pedigree, one might well have expected a barrage of articles condemning Donald Trump and all his works, which, indeed, are part of its still miniscule archive, but the first article on The Bulwark that has popped up somewhat into the mainstream is, predictably, all about Israel. It is entitled “How the Democrats Can Get Rid of Ilhan Omar: It’s going to take a primary opponent, but not just any primary opponent.”

Yes, the freshman congresswoman from Minnesota who dared to suggest that Jewish money just might be influencing congressional subservience to the state of Israel has now been elevated to public enemy number one in the eyes of the neoconservatives. “Never Trump” has been replaced by “Get Rid of Omar.” The Bulwark article refers to Ilhan Omar’s thinly veiled anti-Semitism and observes how she had resisted being properly schooled in the Israeli viewpoint on what is occurring in the Middle East so as to avoid inappropriate references to the Jewish state and its legion of diaspora supporters.

Ilhan Omar’s education in the realities of Jewish power has apparently been ongoing for the past year, since before she was elected to Congress. Minnesota media reports describe how “fellow Minnesotan U.S. Rep. Dean Phillips, a Jew representing a neighboring district, engaged her in a type of educational discussion following what he called an “impassioned face-to-face conversation with Omar.” And last year, leaders of the Minneapolis Jewish community came together for what might be described as an “anti-Semitic intervention of Omar.” It was organized by state Senator Ron Latz, who invited Omar to his house, where a number of Jewish leaders had gathered. “We wanted to reach out to her. We were a bit troubled about several things she had said.” Among their concerns was a 2012 tweet in which Omar wrote: “Israel has hypnotized the world…” Subsequently, Latz would not describe in any detail what was discussed but he personally commented that the problem wasn’t in the policy dispute over Israel, but the “diction and tone.”

It should be noted that Omar has spoken and tweeted about Israel but has never denigrated American Jews either as a religion or ethnicity. Nevertheless, at the same time, it is clear that some American Jews have determined that nearly any criticism of Israel equals criticism of Jews which is equal to anti-Semitism, so one has to wonder about the standard that is being applied to the congresswoman even given Latz’s denial that it is a question of foreign policy.

The Bulwark article, which pointedly seeks to get rid of the freshman congresswoman for her anti-Israeli views, goes on to lament that “Omar’s district is solidly Democratic. No Republican will ever win it. So is America just stuck with a prominent, very vocal, publicity-seeking anti-Semite in Congress for an indefinite period? Is there anything Omar’s critics can do? They need to beat her in a primary. But that must be done carefully… with the right primary opponent, she could be vulnerable in 2020.”

The Bulwark advises that beating Omar requires a perfect candidate and they have just such a person in mind: Minneapolis City Council Vice President Andrea Jenkins. Jenkins is a progressive dream candidate. She is the first transgender African-American woman elected to office in America. Enabling a generously funded and media-friendly campaign are child’s play for the Israel Lobby and the article notes that it would be impossible for Omar to depict herself as the victim of anti-Muslim bigotry in a race against Jenkins.

The Bulwark’s website features the subheading “Conservatism conserved.” Its article concludes that “Omar and her boosters had better hope that she stops alienating so many people so fast that her opponents could recruit, run, and vote for literally a tree trunk to replace her…” but the interesting point of the story is that while Bill Kristol and company paint themselves as principled America-first conservatives, they are anything but. They are prepared to do what it takes to get rid of a virtually powerless freshman congresswoman who suggested in a tweet that money fuels the congressional bias in favor of Israel, the protection of which is, of course, ever the neocons’ first priority. It is particularly ironic that Omar’s comment is something that everyone in politics and the media knows to be true about Jewish power in America but is afraid to talk about because of the intimidation coming from people like Kristol. And Kristol and his friends are proposing to get rid of the relatively minor nuisance represented by Omar by running a black transgender “woman” against her to undercut her support on the political left. Politics make for strange bedfellows, but perhaps it is time for the neoconservatives to cut the conservative part out of their own defining label while also removing it from top of the website of The Bulwark.

February 24, 2019 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Telling Only Part of the Story of Jihad

By Daniel LAZARE | Consortium News | February 21, 2019

A recent CNN report about U.S. military materiel finding its way into Al Qaeda hands in Yemen might have been a valuable addition to Americans’ knowledge of terrorism.

Entitled “Sold to an ally, lost to an enemy,” the 10-minute segment, broadcast on Feb. 4, featured rising CNN star Nima Elbagir cruising past sand-colored “Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected” armored vehicles, or MRAPs, lining a Yemeni highway.

“It’s absolutely incredible,” she says. “And this is not under the control of [Saudi-led] coalition forces. This is in the command of militias, which is expressly forbidden by the arms sales agreements with the U.S.”

“That’s just the tip of the iceberg,” she adds. “CNN was told by coalition sources that a deadlier U.S. weapons system, the TOW missile, was airdropped in 2015 by Saudi Arabia to Yemeni fighters, an air drop that was proudly proclaimed across Saudi backed media channels.” The TOWs were dropped into Al Qaeda-controlled territory, according to CNN. But when Elbagir tries to find out more, the local coalition-backed government chases her and her crew out of town.

U.S.-made TOWs in the hands of Al Qaeda? Elbagir is an effective on-screen presence. But this is an old story, which the cable network has long soft-pedaled.

In the early days of the Syrian War, Western media was reluctant to acknowledge that the forces arrayed against the Assad regime included Al Qaeda. In those days, the opposition was widely portrayed as a belated ripple effect of the Arab Spring pro-democracy uprisings elsewhere in the region.

However, in April-May 2015, right around the time that the Saudis were air-dropping TOWs into Yemen, they were also supplying the same optically-guided, high-tech missiles to pro-Al Qaeda forces in Syria’s northern Idlib province. Rebel leaders were exultant as they drove back Syrian government troops. TOWs “flipped the balance,” one said, while another declared: “I would put the advances down to one word – TOW.”

CNN reported that story very differently. From rebel-held territory, CNN’s Nick Paton Walsh described the missiles as a “possible game-changer … that may finally be wearing down the less popular side of the Shia-Sunni divide.” He conceded it wasn’t all good news: “A major downside for Washington at least, is that the often-victorious rebels, the Nusra Front, are Al Qaeda. But while the winners for now are America’s enemies, the fast-changing ground in Syria may cause to happen what the Obama administration has long sought and preached, and that’s changing the calculus of the Assad regime.”

Foreign Policy, The Washington Post, The Guardian, and The New York Times all reacted the same way, furrowing their brows at the news that Al Qaeda was gaining, but expressing measured relief that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was at last on the ropes.

But now that Elbagir is sounding the alarm about TOWs in Yemen, CNN would do well to acknowledge that it has been distinctly more blasé in the past about TOWs in the hands of al Qaeda.

The network appears unwilling to go where Washington’s pro-war foreign-policy establishment doesn’t want it to go. Elbagir shouldn’t be shocked to learn that U.S. allies are consorting with Yemeni terrorists.

U.S. History with Holy Warriors

What CNN producers and correspondents either don’t know or fail to mention is that Washington has a long history of supporting jihad. As Ian Johnson notes in “A Mosque in Munich” (2010), the policy was mentioned by President Dwight Eisenhower, who was eager, according to White House memos, “to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect” in his talks with Muslim leaders about the Cold War Communist menace.” [See “How U.S. Allies Aid Al Qaeda in Syria,” Consortium News, Aug. 4, 2015.]

Britain had been involved with Islamists at least as far back as 1925 when it helped establish the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and both the U.S. and Britain worked with Islamists in the 1953 coup in Iran, according to Robert Dreyfus in “Devil’s Game” (2006).

By the 1980s a growing Islamist revolt against a left-leaning, pro-Soviet government in Afghanistan brought U.S. support. In mid-1979, President Jimmy Carter and his national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, armed the Afghan mujahideen — not at first to drive the Soviets out, but to lure them in. Brzezinski intended to deal Moscow a Vietnam-sized blow, as he put it in a 1998 interview.

Meanwhile, a few months after the U.S. armed the mujahideen, the Saudis were deeply shaken when Islamist extremists seized the Grand Mosque in Mecca and called for the overthrow of the royal family. While Saudi Arabia has been keen to repress jihadism at home, it has been a major supporter of Sunni extremists in the region, particularly to battle the Shi‘ite regime that came to power in Tehran, also in 1979.

Since then, the U.S. has made use of jihad, either directly or indirectly, with the Gulf oil monarchies or Pakistan’s notoriously pro-Islamist Inter-Services Intelligence agency. U.S. backing for the Afghan mujahideen helped turn Osama bin Laden into a hero for some young Saudis and other Sunnis, while the training camp he established in the Afghan countryside drew jihadists from across the region.

U.S. backing for Alija Izetbegovic’s Islamist government in Bosnia-Herzegovina brought al-Qaeda to the Balkans, while U.S.-Saudi support for Islamist militants in the Second Chechen War of 1999-2000 enabled it to establish a base of operations there.

Downplaying Al Qaeda

Just six years after 9/11, according to investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, the U.S. downplayed the fight against Al Qaeda to rein in Iran  – a policy, Hersh wrote, that had the effect of “bolstering … Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.”

Under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, policy toward Al-Qaeda turned even more curious. In March 2011, she devoted nearly two weeks to persuading Qatar, the UAE and Jordan to join the air war against Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, only to stand by and watch as Qatar then poured hundreds of millions of dollars of aid into the hands of Islamist militias that were spreading anarchy from one end of the country to the other.  The Obama administration thought of remonstrating with Qatar, but didn’t in the end.

Much the same happened in Syria where, by early 2012, Clinton was organizing a “Friends of Syria” group that soon began channeling military aid to Islamist forces waging war against Christians, Alawites, secularists and others backing Assad. By August 2012, the Defense Intelligence Agency reported that “the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the [anti-Assad] insurgency”; that the West, Turkey, and the Gulf states supported it regardless; that the rebels’ goal was to establish “a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria,” and that “this is exactly what the supporting powers want in order to isolate the Syrian regime….”

Biden Speaks Out

Two years after that, Vice President Joe Biden declared at Harvard’s Kennedy School:

“Our allies in the region were our largest problem in Syria… The Saudis, the Emiratis, etc. what were they doing? They were so determined to take down Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war, what did they do? They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of military weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad, except the people who were being supplied were al Nusra and al Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world.” (Quote starts at 53:25.)

The fact that Obama ordered the vice president to apologize to the Saudis, the UAE and Turkey for his comments provided back-handed confirmation that they were true. When TOWs turned up in the hands of pro-Qaeda rebels in Syria the following spring, all a senior administration official would say was: “It’s not something we would refrain from raising with our partners.”

It was obvious that Al Qaeda would be a prime beneficiary of Saudi intervention in Yemen from the start. Tying down the Houthis — “Al Qaeda’s most determined foe,” according to the Times — gave it space to blossom and grow. Where the State Department said it had up to 4,000 members as of 2015, a UN report put its membership at between 6,000 and 7,000 three years later, an increase of 50 to 75 percent or more.

In early 2017, the International Crisis Group found that Al Qaeda was “thriving in an environment of state collapse, growing sectarianism, shifting alliances, security vacuums and a burgeoning war economy.”

In Yemen, Al Qaeda “has regularly fought alongside Saudi-led coalition forces in … Aden and other parts of the south, including Taiz, indirectly obtaining weapons from them,” the ICG added. “… In northern Yemen … the [Saudi-led] coalition has engaged in tacit alliances with AQAP fighters, or at least turned a blind eye to them, as long as they have assisted in attacking the common enemy.”

In May 2016, a PBS documentary showed Al Qaeda members fighting side by side with UAE forces near Taiz. (See “The Secret Behind the Yemen War,” Consortium News, May 7, 2016.)

Last August, an Associated Press investigative team found that the Saudi-led coalition had cut secret deals with Al Qaeda fighters, “paying some to leave key cities and towns and letting others retreat with weapons, equipment, and wads of looted cash.” Saudi-backed militias “actively recruit Al Qaeda militants,” the AP team added, “… because they’re considered exceptional fighters” and also supply them with armored trucks.

If it’s not news that U.S. allies are providing pro-Al Qaeda forces with U.S.-made equipment, why is CNN pretending that it is? One reason is that it feels free to criticize the war and all that goes with it now that the growing human catastrophe in Yemen is turning into a major embarrassment for the U.S. Another is that criticizing the U.S. for failing to rein in its allies earns it points with viewers by making it seem tough and independent, even though the opposite is the case.

Then there’s Trump, with whom CNN has been at war since the moment he was elected. Trump’s Dec. 19 decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria thus presented the network with a double win because it allowed it to rail against the pullout as “bizarre” and a “win for Moscow” while complaining at the same time about administration policy in Yemen. Trump is at fault, it seems, when he pulls out and when he stays in.

In either instance, CNN gets to ride the high horse as it blasts away at the chief executive that corporate outlets most love to hate. Maybe Elbagir should have given her exposé a different title: “Why arming homicidal maniacs is bad news in one country but OK in another.”

February 22, 2019 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mass Protests in Haiti, Like France’s Yellow Vests, Threaten Modern Oligarchic Structure

By Whitney Webb | MintPress News | February 12, 2019

PORT-AU-PRINCE, HAITI – Throughout recent Latin American history, it is hard to find a country that has been as thoroughly manipulated and plundered by the United States as Haiti has. After over a century of U.S. intervention — from the 19-year-long U.S. military occupation that began in 1915 to the 2010 election rigged by the Hillary Clinton-run State Department — Haiti has become the ultimate neoliberal experiment that has forced its people to live in conditions so horrible that rivers of sewage often run through the city streets.

Even Haiti’s own president, Jovenel Moise — who has presided over the most recent phase of U.S.-backed plunder — recently called the entire country a “latrine.”

Yet — much as in 1791, when Haiti was the site of the first successful slave revolt in the Americas — today the people of Haiti seem to have finally had enough of being slaves in all but name and are taking to the streets en masse in an effort to end the rule of the Haitian Bald-Headed Party (PHTK), the U.S.-backed political party with close ties to the Clintons.

For six days, thousands of Haitians have marched through the country’s capital of Port-au-Prince and other major cities, calling for Moise’s ouster for corruption and gross economic mismanagement in recent years, much of which can be traced directly back to the 2010 earthquake and the subsequent U.S.-UN “relief” effort that let to rigged elections, caused a deadly cholera outbreak and sought to turn the entire country into one massive sweatshop for American clothing companies.

More specifically, Moise has ignited popular ire after being implicated in the embezzlement of a $4 billion loan given to the Haitian government to develop the country via Venezuela’s PetroCaribe program and for his failure to combat the double-digit inflation that has further impoverished the Caribbean nation.

President Moise has thus far responded to the protests much like the president of Haiti’s former colonial ruler, France, where President Emmanuel Macron has sought to disperse the Yellow Vest popular protest movement with police violence. Similarly, Moise has ordered police to shoot tear gas and live ammunition into crowds of unarmed protesters, killing at least four people, including a 14-year-old boy who was not even a part of the protests, and injuring scores more.

Despite the violent response from the Moise-led government, protesters have continued to come out in force, even stoning Moise’s personal home on Saturday. That same day, Moise declared that he would “clean the streets” of every protester by Monday.

Yet the mass protests continued through Monday, when police were seen standing down in Carrefour (a suburb of Port-au-Prince), no longer willing to fire on protesters. In a video of the incident shared on social media, one female protester yells that “the police are afraid.” Late Monday afternoon, local reports asserted that PHTK ruling elite were evacuated via helicopter from the wealthy enclave of Petionville to the Toussaint L’Ouverture International Airport, apparently planning to flee the country — at least temporarily. Other reports stated that at least one police officer had been shot during Monday demonstrations that turned violent and saw several businesses looted.

Local media on Tuesday reported high turnout for protests in several cities.

The international response to the protests in Haiti has been limited, with the UN warning Haitian protesters on Sunday that “in a democracy change must come through the ballot box, and not through violence.” This unintentionally ironic statement ignores the documented meddling of the United States in massaging vote totals and other manipulative tactics in the last two presidential elections. This, combined with the fact that the U.S. has kidnapped and overthrown Jean-Bertrand Aristide, a left-leaning populist politician, each time he won an election — first in 1991 and then in 2004 — has greatly reduced Haitians’ faith in their “democracy.”

The U.S. knows something about election meddling

Since he came to power in February 2017, Moise’s policies have resulted in several mass protests — including last July, when protesters forced Moise’s government to abandon a planned hike in fuel prices; and last November, when protesters demanded Moise’s ouster for the embezzlement of PetroCaribe funds. With so many protests in such a short span of time, the anger among the Haitian population at this unpopular president is pungent and will likely prove difficult to placate this time.

A large part of Moise’s unpopularity is likely related to the fact that he was never popularly elected to begin with. The 2016 election that Moise allegedly won was disorganized and had turn-out so dismal that Moise, the “winner,” received only around 600,000 votes out of a national population of over 11 million. Prominent Haitian politicians called the election an “electoral coup.”

In addition, that election was overseen by Ken Merten, former Obama administration ambassador to Haiti and then Obama’s Haiti Special Coordinator, and was wracked by accusations of vote-buying and -stealing and other fraudulent activities. Merten’s involvement is particularly nefarious given that he oversaw the previous Haiti election (2010) where the U.S. State Department had altered the vote count.

If that were not enough, in addition to the election fraud, Moise was widely believed to have been ineligible for office soon after having been “elected,” after it was revealed that he had laundered money through his personal bank account and was tied to a drug-trafficking operation.

Ultimately, Moise’s unpopular rule is the continuation of that of his predecessor, Michel Martelly, who chose Moise — then a political neophyte — as his successor. Martelly’s rise to power was similar to Moise’s but even more fraudulent. In the 2010 election that saw Martelly “win,” the Hillary Clinton-run State Department changed the vote totals in order to place Martelly in a runoff election for which he hadn’t in fact qualified. When the previous Haitian government resisted, Clinton herself traveled to Haiti and threatened to withdraw all U.S. aid from Haiti if Martelly did not replace the second runoff candidate, Jude Celestin.

After coming to power, it took little time for observers to realize why the U.S., particularly the Clinton-led State Department, had chosen Martelly. Not only was Martelly an avid supporter of neoliberal policies that impoverished his people, he also supported the outright theft of Haitian land by wealthy foreign corporations to create so-called “Free Trade Zones,” and brokered a deal with the Clintons to release Americans who had been arrested for child trafficking.

Furthermore, Martelly also helped squander much of the foreign aid that did make it into Haiti, cementing his reputation as notoriously corrupt, although most of that aid never even made it to Haiti and instead remained in the hands of corrupt foreign contractors.

In addition, Martelly was also a supporter of the Duvalier family — which ruled Haiti with an iron fist during the dictatorships of “Papa Doc” Duvalier and his son “Baby Doc” Duvalier. Indeed, when “Baby Doc” Duvalier returned from exile in France to attend a Haitian government ceremony, Martelly — along with Bill Clinton, who was also in attendance – rose to greet him.

Martelly’s government included several officials who were connected to the Duvalier dictatorship, including his prime minister, Garry Conille, whose father held a cabinet position in the Duvalier dictatorship. In addition, Conille served with Bill Clinton on the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission and had previously worked as a development manager for the United Nations before receiving his prominent position in the government installed by both the U.S. and the UN.

Thus, Haiti under Martelly and Moise has been little different in practice from the Duvalier era. Indeed, as Amy Wilentz noted in a 2014 article in The Nation, “[The Duvalier] political toolbox — authoritarianism, trumped up elections, distrust of free speech, corruption of the forces of order, and no justice — are the methods by which Haiti’s ruler [Martelly] still controls the country.” With Moise serving as the new face of PHTK and Martelly’s chosen successor, this neo-Duvalier era in Haiti that has largely been orchestrated by the U.S. is now in danger of falling apart.

Haiti puts the neo-colonial oligarchy on edge

If the movement to oust the U.S.-backed and illegally installed rulers of Haiti is successful, it could easily send shockwaves through the power structures of the United States and its client states, much as the Haitian revolution did to the colonial powers two centuries ago. Indeed, the Haitian revolution instilled fear in European colonial masters throughout the Americas and the world and inspired countless slave revolts in the United States alone. Today, it still serves as a reminder that the most repressed class of a society can rise up to declare their equality and independence — and win. Perhaps that is why the current oligarchical system has invested so much in robbing Haitians of their economic and political power.

Though today is unlike the late 18th century in the sense that those at the bottom of the rung are no longer called “slaves” and those at the top are no longer called “masters” and “kings,” the record inequality that now exists throughout the world, the U.S. included, has recreated in today’s power structures an ethos eerily similar to that of the feudal-colonial systems of centuries past.

As both Haiti and France have become the new epicenters of popular unrest against predatory elites, much as they were two centuries ago, it is time to see both of these current movements as part of the same struggle for basic human dignity in an era of neocolonialism, imperialism and global oligarchy.

Whitney Webb is a staff writer for MintPress News and has contributed to several other independent, alternative outlets. Her work has appeared on sites such as Global Research, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire among others. She also makes guest appearances to discuss politics on radio and television. She currently lives with her family in southern Chile.

February 12, 2019 Posted by | Corruption, Economics, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

The Broken Presidential Destiny of JFK, Jr.

Israel’s “Kennedy Curse”?

By Laurent Guyénot • Unz Review • February 11, 2019

On July 16, 1999, John Fitzgerald Kennedy Junior was flying his private Piper Saratoga II, with his wife Carolyn Bessette and his sister-in-law Lauren Bessette. He was to drop Lauren off at Martha’s Vineyard, then fly on with Carolyn to Hyannis Port for the wedding of his cousin, Rory Kennedy, the following day. At 9:39, as he was approaching Martha’s Vineyard airport, John radioed the control tower for landing instructions, giving no sign of difficulty. At 9:41 p.m., witnesses heard and saw an explosion in the sky, at the precise moment when John’s plane suddenly plummeted into the ocean at the radar-recorded speed of 4,700 feet per minute. The next day, pieces of luggage from the plane were found floating nearly two miles away from the point of last radar contact.

The search and recovery operations were conducted by the Air Force and the Navy under national security conditions, with news reporting controlled from the Pentagon. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concluded its investigation eleven months later, and announced as “probable cause” of the plane crash “the pilot’s failure to maintain control of the airplane”, with “haze and the dark night” being possible factors.[1] The corporate media amplified the implication that John was an inexperienced and reckless pilot who ignored the dangerous weather conditions and who is to blame for his own death and the death of his wife and sister-in-law.

But many facts and testimonies inconsistent with that story have been concealed, while some convenient ones seem to have been fabricated. Independent investigators have found enough omissions and contradictions in the official and mainstream narrative to ask the questions: Was JFK Jr., in fact, assassinated? Was he killed by the same cabal that had killed his father 36 years earlier, and for the same motive as his uncle Bobby 5 years later: his plans to conquer the White House and bring his father’s murderers to justice? (On JFK’s and RFK’s assassinations, read my article “Did Israel kill the Kennedys?” on ). I will examine the evidence of foul play and cover-up in JFK Jr.’s death in the second part of this two-part article. In this first part, let’s see if we can establish the following two things:

1) At age 39, John had made up his mind to launch his political career by seeking an electoral mandate in New York State, and he was about to announce it publicly. He had also expressed to his friends his ambition to ultimately reach for the presidency. Given his personality and his popularity, he had high chances to make it in less than 20 years. He might realistically have become U.S. president in 2008 or 2016.

2) Brought up in the worship of his father, John had taken a keen interest in “conspiracy theories” about his death at least since his late teens. His knowledge deepened in his thirties, made him aware of State and media cover-ups in other affairs, and motivated him to publish, eight months before his death, a cover article by Oliver Stone, director of the groundbreaking film JFK, titled “Our Counterfeit History”.

If those two things can be proven — and they will — they must be connected. John’s quest for the truth about President Kennedy’s assassination cannot be separated from his political ambition to reclaim the White House, anymore than it could be in the case of his uncle Bobby, who, as David Talbot has shown (Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years, Simon & Schuster, 2007), was planning to reopen the investigation on the Dallas coup as he was campaigning for the presidency in 1968. These are two sides of the same destiny. The heir and the avenger are one and the same person. Therefore, the deep power network that had decided to eliminate Bobby on the threshold of the White House had every reason to make the same decision about John Junior.

True, John Junior was probably not yet ready for the presidency — although some, like Pierre Salinger, believed he would have run for president in 2000. But on the other hand, for many reasons, he was a more natural candidate than RFK, with more potential. If he had to be stopped, didn’t it make sense to stop him before he made his political ambitions public? July 1999 was the right time; after that, the motive would be harder to conceal. Even for media-brainwashed Americans, a second heir to JFK killed on the road to the White House would be hard to swallow. Not to mention the fact that to let JFK Jr. live longer would be taking the risk of having a JFK III coming into this world: more trouble in perspective. Indeed, Carolyn may have been pregnant when she died with her husband.


JFK Jr. and the Camelot legacy

John’s life and personality are movingly presented in the film I am JFK Jr. (2016)

John Junior was literally born with the Kennedy presidency, precisely 17 days after his dad won the election. From the minute he came into this world, he had been in the national spotlight. As Americans watched him grow up in the White House, they developed a strong affection for him, which did not displease his father. While Jackie was trying to keep the photographers away from her children, “JFK had another view,” recalls Pierre Salinger, President Kennedy’s Press Secretary. Whenever Jackie was away, “he was in touch with me and told me that now it was time for the media to get some wonderful pictures of John Jr. and Caroline in his office in the White House. I arranged for Jacques Lowe, who had been hired as the photographer of the Kennedys, to do those photos.”[2]

Little “John John” turned three the day of his father’s funeral, and he broke the world’s heart when he solemnly saluted his father’s coffin. That iconic image encapsulated a nation’s grief, and impressed on millions of Americans the dream of seeing him reclaim the Oval Office one day. For in the American collective psyche, the Kennedys represented royalty, and JFK Jr. was the legitimate heir to the throne. He was, wrote the New York Daily News the day after his death, the “charismatic crown prince of America’s royal family.”[3] “He was the closest thing we had to a crown prince,” says Chris Cuomo in I am JFK Jr.

Little “John John” saluting his father’s coffin, on his third birthday

The Kennedys didn’t attain that royal status by just buying media coverage. It was conquered by the patriarch Joe Kennedy, whose philosophy Laurence Leamer has well captured in his great book Sons of Camelot: The Fate of an American Dynasty (2005). Joe Kennedy, he writes:

“believed that in each generation a few powerful men were the rightful leaders of their generation. He thought that he and his sons were part of this natural aristocracy. … Joseph P. Kennedy created one great thing in his life, and that was his family. With acumen as great as his wealth, and limitless purpose, he built a family of sons who sought to reach the peak of American political life. … Joe knew that he had achieved so much in America because of the liberty and opportunities. He believed that sons of privilege and wealth had an obligation to serve their country and to return something of the bounty that they had inherited. Joe taught that blood ruled and that they must trust each other and venture out into a dangerous world full of betrayals and uncertainty, always returning to the sanctuary of family. His sons took on part of Joe’s psychological makeup, the sense of lives without boundaries and ambitions without restrictions.”[4]

After their father’s death, their uncle Bobby played the role of surrogate father for John Jr. and his sister Caroline. When Bobby was assassinated in his turn in June 1968, Jackie said: “If they are killing Kennedys, my kids are the number one targets. I want to get out of this country.”[5] She married shipping magnate Aristotle Onassis, whose assets included a seventy-five-member, machine-gun-equipped security force.

Jackie wanted her son to grow up knowing who his father was. As early as 1967, writes biographer Christopher Andersen in The Good Son,

“Jackie made sure that John was constantly exposed to the people who knew John [President Kennedy] best — from longtime pals like Red Fay, Chuck Spalding, Oleg Cassini, Bill Walton, and his ubiquitous sidekick Dave Powers to such New Frontier stalwarts as Pierre Salinger, Theodore Sorensen, and Arthur Schlesinger Jr. These were the folks ‘who knew Jack well and the things Jack liked to do.’ As long as they were around, she reasoned, ‘each day John will be getting to know his father.’”[6]

And so, although John could hardly have kept real personal memories of his father, he was constantly, so to speak, steeped in the memory of him: “Whenever another child was visiting,” writes Andersen, “he would inevitably ask, ‘Would you like to hear my father?’ Then he turned to a small stack of records and selected one to play.”[7] In 1972, Jackie asked Pierre Salinger to join her and her children for a month: “I want you to spend an hour or an hour and a half a day with John Jr. and Caroline and explain everything about what their father did.” And so Salinger did.[8] John’s craving for information about his father was never quenched. His friend and French biographer Olivier Royant reports that, when running his magazine George, John hired Jacques Lowe, JFK’s official photographer, and kept questioning him about his father for hours.[9]

Even John’s irresistible yearning for flying, despite his mother’s plea not to do so, can possibly be traced back to his childhood, “when he and his mother watched as Daddy’s helicopter took off from the South Lawn in 1962,” or watched him reappear from the sky. When Nanny Shaw announced to little John in the morning of November 23, 1963, “John, your father has gone to heaven to take care of Patrick [JFK and Jackie’s third child, who did not survive his first month],” John asked, “Did Daddy take his big plane with him?” “Yes,” she answered. “I wonder,” John said, “when he’s coming back.”[10] Significantly, John gave his first private plane the registration number N529JK, a reference to his father’s May 29 birthday.

Did John intend to follow his father’s footsteps in politics? John Quinn, a pioneer researcher on his mysterious death, writes:

“Committed to the legacy of his compelling father, there was never any question about where John F. Kennedy Jr. was heading. Is there any doubt about the fact that it was only a matter of time before he claimed his father’s legacy? Anybody who claims that we will never really know, does not know anything about John F. Kennedy Jr.”[11]

We don’t know at what stage in his life John fully endorsed that responsibility. But the thought had certainly been in his mind for many years already when he introduced his uncle Teddy at the 1988 Democratic convention. Like millions of Americans, Salinger was “very excited about that speech”:

“I took John Jr. to meet alone with me for several hours. I was telling him that this speech showed strongly that he should start thinking about going into politics. He said he was interested, but he was still too young. He told me that he had an idea that he should go into politics in the next century.”[12]

Jackie, the guiding spirit in John’s life, definitely saw her son as Camelot’s standard-bearer. In her last letter to him before dying to lymphoma in 1994, she wrote: “You, especially, have a place in history.”[13] According to presidential historian Doug Wead, interviewed in the film I am JFK Jr., Jackie “knew in her heart that, some day, the stars are gonna line up, and he’s gonna be president.” “My mom sort of pressured me to get into politics,” John told Lloyd Howard in 1997. “She expected me to follow in my father’s footsteps, and of course I will. But I don’t think the time is right just yet.”[14]

In 1995, John launched his political magazine George. Under the appearance of superficiality, it engaged in controversial issues of deep politics that reflected John’s interests. His longtime friend Robert Littell wrote, in The Men We Became: My Friendship with John F. Kennedy Jr. (St. Martin’s Press, 2004): “George was also an opportunity for John to build a platform from which he might possibly move into political life.” After all, his father had also pursued a career in journalism before entering politics. George was also a means for John to interact with political actors and thinkers.

John didn’t avoid letting people know his interest for his father’s legacy. The September 1996 cover of George features Drew Barrymore grimed as Marilyn Monroe with the caption: “Happy Birthday, Mister President,” an obvious — and, to some, indecent — reference to Marilyn’ serenade in front of JFK at the Madison Square Garden in 1962. In October 1997, for the 35th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, John travelled to Cuba to meet Fidel Castro (the interview he had wished didn’t materialize, but Castro invited him for dinner and for a swim in the Bay of Pigs, and rumor has that Castro gave him his view on his father’s death).[15]

John’s interest for the presidency also transpired heavily in George, particularly in the recurrent section “If I were president,” in which various personalities were asked for suggestions. For the October 1998 issue, for example, Tony Brown, author of Empower the People: A 7-Step Plan to Overthrow the Conspiracy That Is Stealing Your Money and Freedom, declared that, if he were president, he would repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

John’s plans in 1999

In 1999, at age 39, John was trying to sell his magazine. He had new plans. According to Gary Ginsberg, a close collaborator who was with John the night before he died, “That last night he was very focused on two things: finding a buyer for George and his political future.”[16] Christopher Andersen writes in his biography The Good Son :

“There seemed little doubt in the minds of those who knew him that John was on the brink of a bright political future. ‘He was probably a more natural politician than any of the other Kennedys,’ David Halberstam said, ‘and that includes his father. John had all the makings of a political superstar — once he decided that’s what he wanted.’”

In July 1999, his decision was made. His closest friends have testified that he was preparing to enter an election contest. Pierre Salinger, who knew him well, declared on French radio Europe 1, on July 19, 1999:

“I felt that in the coming year John Junior would also become a politician. It’s my point of view. And with other people, we thought he was going to be a Democratic candidate for the next presidential election.”[17]

John Junior and Pierre Salinger in 1997

More plausibly, John Jr. would have started by seeking a political office in New York State, where he had lived since 1963. He loved New York, and New York loved him. A 1997 private poll ranked JFK Jr. as New York’s “most popular Democrat,” giving him 65 percent approval rating among fellow Democrats.[18] John had several options. One he excluded was mayor of New York City. His assistant at George, RoseMarie Terenzio, recounts that when New York Senator Al D’Amato suggested he should run for mayor, John laughed it off. When Terenzio asked him afterward if he would ever consider it,

“He said ‘Well, Rosie, how many mayors do you know that became President?’ I was so shocked I didn’t say anything. Then he smirked as if to say ‘That’s not the road you go down — we’ll see what happens.’”[19]

Terenzio also made the following comment to the news website TheWrap :

“I think he would’ve run for president. I thought he would’ve run in 2008. I had dinner with a friend from George last night who thought for some reason he would’ve waited for 2016. He would be 56.”[20]

Donald Trump and John Kennedy Jr. in 1999: Were they up to something?

According to Gary Ginsberg, JFK Jr.’s close collaborator at George,

“He had been thinking about running for the N.Y. Senate seat — he even had meetings about it that spring — but by July had concluded he would focus his attention on running for governor of N.Y. in 2003. By temperament and interest, John, I think, realized he was far more suited to being a governor than a legislator. He knew from running George that he could be an inspiring, strong chief executive of a state, setting the tone for government and successfully running a complex operation. That idea became very appealing to him at some point that summer. Had the stars aligned over the next couple of years, I’m pretty convinced that’s what he would have pursued.”[21]

Others around John believed he was about to enter the race for the Senate seat that Daniel Moynihan, a former assistant to President Kennedy, was going leave vacant in 2000. This is the seat that Bobby Kennedy had occupied from 1964 to 1968. On July 19, 1999, New York Daily News reporter Joel Siegel interviewed two unnamed friends of JFK Jr., who said “they believed he would have run for office some day. Earlier this year, in one of the best-kept secrets in state politics, Kennedy considered seeking the seat of retiring Sen. Daniel Moynihan (D-N.Y.) in 2000, friends confirmed yesterday.” Democratic Chairman John Marino, also quoted in Siegel’s article, did not believe he would have run for the Senate seat, but had little doubt that, if he did, “It would have been ‘Goodbye, anyone else. This is a guy who everybody recognized who would have had any nomination for the asking.’”[22]

Christopher Andersen supports the view that, after consulting with Democratic leaders, John had made up his mind for the Senate. It clashed with Hillary Clinton’s plan. The Clintons, who were to leave the White House in January 2001, were about to purchase a home in Chappaqua, N.Y., and Hillary was gearing up to run for the Senate as a stepping-stone to the presidency.

“In the end, John was still convinced his best shot was at running for Moynihan’s Senate seat. Hillary Clinton had hesitated to enter the race largely because she feared John, who was being touted behind the scenes as her principal rival for the nomination, would be a formidable foe. John was both heir to the Kennedy magic and People’s ‘Sexiest Man Alive,’ as well as the consummate New Yorker, a resident of the city since the age of three. Although New York had no residency requirements, Hillary, who had never spent more than a few days at a time in New York, would almost certainly be branded a carpetbagger. … As late as the summer of 1999, Hillary actively worried about JFK Jr. and sought assurances from state party officials that he would not be a last-minute entry into the race. … In early July, Hillary finally made her move and formally announced her candidacy. But she was still concerned about the possibility that John might decide to toss his hat into the ring. As it turned out, she was right. John was now more confident than ever that he could easily beat her at the polls. He believed Hillary was vulnerable not only because of the Monica Lewinsky affair, her husband’s subsequent impeachment, and a slew of brewing scandals in the Clinton White House, but mainly because she simply had no connection to the state he loved. As Hillary had feared, young Kennedy planned on making much of Hillary’s carpetbagger status. ‘Wait until she gets here,’ John told his friend Billy Noonan. ‘She’s gonna get her head handed to her.’ He was going to fill Noonan in on the details of his upcoming campaign for the U.S. Senate — how and when he intended to make the announcement, what advice he was getting from Uncle Teddy, the endorsements and backing he was already lining up — when they all got together on Nantucket to celebrate Noonan’s fifth wedding anniversary on July 16. Then they’d be off to attend his cousin Rory’s wedding in Hyannis Port. If, of course, all went according to plan.”[23]

Christopher Andersen’s interview on Eyewitness News:

Andersen relies on the testimony of John’s longtime friend Billy Noonan, who authored in 2006 Forever Young: My Friendship with John F. Kennedy, Jr. (Viking Press). Here is what Noonan writes precisely, referring to the last phone conversation he had with John, whom he was supposed to meet on July 16:

“He had been making vague references on the phone about shutting things down, and starting things up. During the week before our anniversary dinner, he told me that he had something pressing to talk about, but with curious ears in the office, John was cautious. ‘We’ll talk about it this weekend.’ … I asked him now what was up with that [1997] poll, to rib him about how the press was pushing for Hillary Clinton to replace Moynihan. ‘Wait until she gets here,’ John said. ‘She’s gonna get her head handed to her.’ He was in.”[24]

This is the only mention by Noonan of John’s intention to run for the Senate. On one hand, it is not much. On the other, it should be taken very seriously, coming from one of John’s most intimate friends. Given the importance of the issue, there can be no doubt that Noonan weighed every word he wrote. One gets the impression that he wanted to say what he knew for the record, yet felt restrained from saying it too clearly, even when hinting at John’s awareness that his telephone conversations were tapped the day before he died. In his 2009 article, Wayne Madsen quotes an unnamed “close friend of the late John F. Kennedy, Jr.” (who may be Billy Noonan), who said JFK Jr. “was about ready to announce his run for the U.S. Senate from New York. Kennedy was acutely aware of his vulnerability and hired on a personal security team just prior to his announcing for the Senate.”[25]

Noonan and Andersen are not the only ones to think that John was upsetting Hillary’s plans. Andrew Collins writes:

“Approaching the end of two terms in the White House, the Clintons began preparing for their political future. They focused their attention on developing Hillary as a politician (even though she had no actual experience), and selling influence while they had it — buy now, pay later — payable to what would become ‘The Clinton Foundation’. Hillary refused to return to Arkansas, and suggested the purchase of a home in New York which would allow her to run for the Senate in the upcoming election. There was just one obstacle…. JFK Jr. had entered the political scene. New York was electric with word of JFK Jr. reclaiming his father’s legacy! A piece of Camelot was still alive in America, and donors began to line up. She knew she could never defeat the son of JFK in New England.”[26]

April 1999: “Why Hillary won’t be senator”

November 1999: “Hillary Comes Clean”

After reviewing all those testimonies, I feel that no certainty can be reached about John’s immediate plan, other that he was at the dawn of a bright political future and that he had several options in New York State. If we believe Noonan — and why shouldn’t we — then Laurence Leamer, author of Sons of Camelot: The Fate of an American Dynasty (HarperCollins, 2011) is right when writing that “John watched with growing dismay as Hillary subtly insinuated herself into what he considered his state.”[27] It is easy to guess that, in return, Hillary saw John as a serious rival, on the state level in the short term, and on the national level in the long term. She stood no chance if John ever stepped across her way, and that was sure to happen sooner or later.

It is true, as some authors object, that John never frontally attacked the Clintons in his magazine George, perhaps out of Democratic loyalty. But one of the very last issues of George that he oversaw himself (April 1999) was hostile to Hillary’s bid on the Senate seat, posting on the front-page: “Why Hillary won’t be senator.” In April 1996, the cover had: “Why Women Will Dump Hillary.” But with John out of the way, Hillary did win the seat and, disturbingly, the November 1999 issue of George contained an exclusive interview of her, together with — in tragic irony — an article on “How Bobby Kennedy Seduced New York.”

JFK Jr. as conspiracy theorist

Let’s move on to the next question: how dedicated was John to getting to the bottom of his father’s assassination?

According to testimonies from his friends, John Junior was haunted by the death of his father and quite knowledgeable about independant investigations contradicting the Warren Report. In 1999, he was not a newcomer to JFK conspiracy theories; his quest for truth had started as early as the late 1970s. His old high school girlfriend Meg Azzoni, in her self-published book, 11 Letters and a Poem: John F. Kennedy, Jr., and Meg Azzoni (2007), writes that as a teenager, JFK, Jr. was questioning the official version of his father’s death: “His heartfelt quest was to expose and bring to trial who killed his father, and covered it up.”[28] Don Jeffries, author of Hidden History, claimed that “another friend of JFK, Jr.’s adult inner circle, who very adamantly requested to remain anonymous, verified that he was indeed quite knowledgeable about the assassination and often spoke of it in private.”[29] JFK Jr., said Jeffries in a radio interview, was on “a Shakespearian quest,” “to avenge his father’s death,” like young Hamlet.[30]

October 1998 “Conspiracy Issue” with an article by Oliver Stone

John is the only Kennedy to have shown a serious determination to pursue this truth, besides his uncle Bobby. And he took the risk of making his interest public in October 1998, when he released a special “Conspiracy Issue” of George magazine, which included an article by Oliver Stone titled “Our Counterfeit History,” introduced on the cover as “Paranoid and Proud of It!”

In an article published in 2009, journalist Wayne Madsen claimed that, two weeks after John’s death, “I was scheduled to meet with Kennedy at his magazine’s offices in Washington, DC to discuss hiring on as one of a few investigative journalists Kennedy wanted to dig deep into a number of cases, but most importantly that of his father’s assassination.”[31] (There is no confirmation of Madsen’s claim.)

As many truth seekers who had started with the Kennedy assassination, John had developed an awareness that other events of great historical consequence were the subject of State-orchestrated lies and cover-ups, with corporate media complicity. And so the JFK assassination was not the only “conspiracy issue” explored by George. It is worth taking a look at two others, for they may inform us on the direction John Jr. was taking in his quest for truth.

In December 1996, George delved into the theory claiming that TWA Flight 800, which had exploded on July 17, 1996, soon after leaving JFK International, had been downed by a missile, rather than as the result of a short-circuit near the central fuel tank, as the National Transportation Safety Board concluded. The claim was based on the testimonies of 375 witnesses who saw one or two bright flare objects hit the plane, many of them believing it was a missile (read Ron Unz’s 2016 article on the subject, or watch on YouTube the 2001 documentary Silenced: TWA 800 and the Subversion of Justice). Although I have not been able to read the George article on TWA 800 (I will appreciate a comment from anyone who has), I assume it supported Pierre Salinger, who had been the most prominent journalist arguing that TWA 800 was shot down by a missile fired from a US Navy ship. Salinger was severely attacked by his peers, and his notoriety suffered permanent damage. But in May 27, 1999, he reaffirmed his belief and asked to be vindicated in a Georgetowner column, based on new research confirming his views. In this piece, Salinger mentions that “retired Navy commander William Donaldson has also come out with a new view: TWA 800 was shot down by a missile — fired not from a Navy ship but a terrorist group.”[32] That could explain the presence of a mysterious ship caught on radar while speeding away near where the plane exploded. Details can be read in a piece written by Philip Weiss for the New York Observer in July 1999 (days before JFK Jr.’s death), titled “Radar Shows ‘Getaway Boat’ Fleeing Flight 800 Crash”:

“‘Radar data collected during the last minute of the T.W.A. flight revealed the two closest objects to the plane, both between three and four miles away, as a Navy P-3 airplane and what the exhibit called simply a ‘30-knot target.’ Radar data for the next 20 minutes showed the mystery boat heading on a beeline out to sea, on a south-southwest course, even as other boats rushed to the crash to try to help out. It was nearly 9 o’clock at night, not the usual time for an excursion. … [FBI officer] Lewis Schiliro acknowledged the presence of the mystery boat, which he said was at least 25 to 30 feet long and reached speeds of 35 knots, close to 40 miles per hour. ‘Despite extensive efforts, the F.B.I. has been unable to identify this vessel,’ he said. / The response is somewhat alarming given the F.B.I.’s assurances that it had turned over every stone.”[33]

Alarming, but understandable if the mystery boat was in fact Israeli. Israel’s LAP (LohammaPsichologit, the Mossad’s department of psychological warfare) had been busy blaming Iran from the day of the crash, and “thousands of media stories perpetuated the fiction,” recounts Gordon Thomas in Gideon’s Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad (2009), with the London Times claiming that land-air Stinger missile systems had been smuggled across the Canadian border into the United States by Islamic terrorists. A year later, the FBI’s chief investigator, James K. Kallstrom, would tell his colleagues: “If there was a way to nail those bastards in Tel Aviv for time wasting, I sure would like to see it happen. We had to check every item they slipped into the media.”[34]

Some researchers into JFK Jr.’s plane crash have suggested a connection to the TWA 800 crash, which happened three years earlier almost to the day, and in the same vicinity. Jackie Jura, author of Orwell Today website, wrote:

“I remember when TWA 800 exploded and Salinger was going to give a press conference in Paris to expose the truth. But then he cancelled it. The rumour on the net at the time was that the powers-that-be told him that if he gave the press conference they’d kill John-John, and so he backed down.”

“TWA Conspiracy Theories” (December 1996)

“Who was behind the killing of Yitzhak Rabin?” (March 1997)

Back down he did, but in May 27, 1999, he reiterated his claim, and John Jr. would die 50 days later. I don’t subscribe to that theory, but it is worth mentioning.

In March 1997, three months after the issue featuring the “TWA Conspiracy Theories” cover article, George magazine published a 13-page article by the mother of Yigal Amir, the man convicted of assassinating Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Rabin had offended the Israeli far-right by wanting to trade land for peace. Amir’s mother revealed that her son had operated under the tutelage and training of a Shin Bet agent, Avishai Raviv, working for forces seeking to halt the peace process.[35] Canadian-Israeli journalist Barry Chamish, who investigated the Rabin assassination in his book Who Murdered Yitzhak Rabin? (1988), agrees. He also believes that JFK Jr. was determined to “get the full story on the Rabin assassination,” and finds support in several news releases following JFK Jr.’s death:

“Catherine Crier of Fox TV’s The Crier Report, announcing that JFK Jr. was about to meet high ranking Mossad officers. Then the German newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, reported that Kennedy had met with the deputy chief of the Mossad, Amiram Levine, to get the full story on the Rabin assassination two days before his plane went down. Then Maariv ran an interview with JFK’s chauffeur, who happens to be Israeli. Then people started noting that Ehud Barak was in Washington at the time of Kennedy’s finale in life.”[36]

Barak’s visit to the U.S. around July 16, 1999 — with a battalion of Intelligence and security agents — is a fact, but I have not been able to verify Chamish’ sources in the Crier Report, the Frankfurter Allgemeine or the Maariv. Chamish concluded:

“Yes, I’m sure he [John] was murdered. And yes, the Israeli political establishment had a motive for involvement. The latest Kennedy to die violently was the only American editor to expose (in the March 1997 issue of his magazine George ) the conspiracy behind Rabin’s assassination. And he had every intention of continuing his exposes until he got to the bottom of the matter. We don’t know what drove him to stand alone in seeking the truth, but it may have had much to do with the information contained within Final Judgment.”[37]

There is no confirmation that John Junior read Michael Piper’s book Final Judgment blaming Israel for the Kennedy assassination, and released in 1993. But it is in the realm of possibility, given his personal quest for the truth on his father’s death, and his consideration for the theory that Rabin was assassinated by the Israeli Deep State, rather than by a lone nut.

So, was JFK Jr. himself assassinated? Here is man whose road to the presidency seemed traced. No other man of his age had better chances to reach the White House one day. And no other man in the world had more reasons to want the 1963 Kennedy assassination reinvestigated. He was already trying to educate the public through his magazine, at the risk of exposing his own beliefs, something no other Kennedy had ever done (even RFK had kept his doubt on the Warren report private, and his plan to reopen the case secret). And this man, his best friend Noonan believes, was just about to announce his candidacy for a New York Senate seat, which everyone would have understood as the first step toward the White House. Pierre Salinger and others even believe he would have run for president in 2000. What are the odds that he would die at this precise moment by accident? How lucky for his enemies to be spared the trouble of eliminating him, as they had his uncle in 1968! If that was an accident, then that alone deserves to be called a “Kennedy curse,” doesn’t it! If it was an accident, then the Devil caused it. Or was it Yahweh?

As I have argued in “Did Israel kill the Kennedys?”, John’s uncle Bobby had been assassinated because he was, in his own eyes and in the eyes of most Americans—and therefore also in the eyes of his brother’s killers —, the continuation of his brother, his heir and avenger. Even before David Talbot, Laurence Leamer has shown how close Jack and Bobby had been. He writes in Sons of Camelot:

“Bobby had been the president’s alter ego and protector. He could finish his brother’s sentences and complete a task that Jack signaled with no more than a nod or a gesture. He had loved his brother so intensely and served him so well that within the administration it was hard to tell where one man ended and the other began.”[38]

A bond of blood and spirit of a comparable nature existed between John F. Kennedy and the son that bore his name. Although John Junior could not speak with his father, nor even remember speaking with him, his love and loyalty to his father, nurtured by his mother, was the driving force in his life. From the point of view of JFK’s murderers, JFK Jr. was JFK redivivus, and RFK redivivus at the same time. All three were like one man who had to be killed three times.


Was JFK Jr. assassinated? As we are going to see, the evidence may not be absolutely compelling, but what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is that federal authorities and corporate media engaged in a massive cover-up of any facts that contradicted the theory of the accident due to the pilot’s error. And that is enough, I think, to decide between accident and assassination. The transgenerational cabal who had the motive, means and opportunity to murder JFK and RFK (and the power to get away with it) had the same motive, means and opportunity to murder JFK Jr. (and the power to get away with it). We know for sure that, in 1968, RFK had both the ambition to win the White House and the determination to reopen the investigation on the death of his brother (read my article “Did Israel Kill the Kennedys?”). I have now shown that the same can be ascertained about JFK Jr. in 1999. Obviously, that made him a target, the next Kennedy on the list.

The 9:39 call and the explosion

According to Wayne Madsen, “JFK Jr.’s Plane Crash Was Originally Treated As Murder Investigation” (the title of his 2009 article):

“The FBI had discovered that there was ‘suspicious boating activity’ in an area of Martha’s Vineyard where Kennedy’s plane was descending to 2000 feet for its final approach to the airport. The ‘suspicious’ boaters claimed to be fishing for striped bass. … after the plane’s wreckage was discovered, investigators found, according to Kennedy’s friend, that every light bulb, including that in the emergency flashlight, had been blown out on the plane and every circuit board, including those in the engine sensors and other electronic equipment, had been literally ‘melted.’ FBI agents on the scene preliminarily concluded that a ‘massive electromagnetic event’ caused Kennedy’s plane to crash. … Before the FBI could begin examining the ocean floor for any ‘special equipment’ that may have been thrown overboard from the fishing boat, their ‘murder’ investigation was abruptly called off by FBI headquarters in Washington.”[39]

Unfortunately, I have found no source supporting Madsen’s claim about an aborted FBI investigation (that’s always the problem with Madsen). But the fact that no news of a criminal investigation ever reached the public is in itself very puzzling, given the history of Kennedy assassinations and the natural assumption that JFK Jr. could be a target. That JFK Jr. had powerful enemies was well-known to the whole world, and the lack of a criminal investigation may be taken as confirmation of their power.

Independent investigators have gathered a fair amount of evidence that JFK Jr.’s death was a criminal act. I will summarize what I hold to be the most solid evidence, based on my reading of all the relevant articles I could find on the Net (including those by early researchers such as John Quinn), and of the following two books: first, chapter 7 of Donald Jeffries’s book Hidden History: An Expose of Modern Crimes, Conspiracies, and Cover-Ups in American Politics (Skyhorse publishing, 2016), which I recommend (you may also want to listen to Jeffries’s one-hour interview); second, John Koerner, Exploding the Truth: The JFK Jr., Assassination (Chronos Books, 2018), which adds little. In addition, John Hankey’s video “Dark Legacy II: the Assassination of JFK Jr” is very useful. However, I advise to skip Koerner’s Part I, meant to exonerate the Clintons and blame the Bushs; for the same reason, I recommend to start Hankey’s video at 15 minutes.

The basic fact that seems firmly established by radar data is that JFK Jr.’s plane suddenly nose-dived into the Ocean at 9:41. That cannot be explained simply by an engine failure, as the Boston Globe correctly asserted:

“Even if the engine died, a federal aviation source said, it is unlikely that the plane would reach such a high rate of descent, because the plane is designed to glide without power at a much slower rate for several miles. And if Kennedy had run out of fuel, it is likely he would have made a distress call.”[40]

The most likely explanation, apart from suicide, is that the plane suffered a structural damage, possibly by explosive, making it impossible to maintain in the air; blowing off a part of a wing or the tail would have been enough, and would have required only a very small device fixed to the plane.

The next element to consider is that, from the early hours of July 17, it was reported that JFK Jr. had made a call to Martha’s Vineyard airport at 9:39 pm, asking for landing instructions in a perfectly calm tone, less than two minutes before his plane suddenly dropped and disappeared from radar. That information was broadcast on Boston WCVB-TV and was relayed by ABC News. A United Press International article dated July 17 said:

“At 9:39 p.m. Friday, Kennedy radioed the airport and said he was 13 miles from the airport and 10 miles from the coast, according to WCVB-TV news in Boston. He reportedly said he was making his final approach. … In his final approach message, WCVB-TV said Kennedy told controllers at the airport that he planned to drop off his wife’s sister and then take off again between 11 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. for Hyannis Airport.”[41]

WCVB-TV repeated that information continuously during their first two days of reporting on the story. They broadcast, at 12:35 p.m. on July 17, a phone interview by anchor Susan Wornick of U.S. Coast Guard Petty Officer Todd Burgun, who confirmed the information. Here is a transcript of the footage, which Hankey has included in his valuable film (19:40):

Wornick: “We have been told by the Coast Guard that in fact there is now evidence of a last communication last night with JFK Jr.’s plane as he was making an approach to Martha’s Vineyard airport. Petty officer Todd Burgun joins us from the Coast Guard Base in Boston. He is a Petty officer, and a public information officer. Thank you for being with us, sir. What can you tell us about this last communication with JFK Jr.’s plane?”

Burgun: “All I really know at this time is that it was at 9:39 p.m. and it was with the FAA. And he was on his final approach to Martha’s Vineyard.”

Wornick: “So at 9:39, to the best of your information, JFK Jr. made a contact with the airport, with the flight controllers that he was on his final descent.”

Burgun: “That is correct.”

Todd Burgun’s interview on WCVB-TV Boston, from Hankey’s Dark Legacy (19:40)

That is all that remained of WCVB-TV’s report on the subject, when researchers later obtained archive copies; “hours of time on the tape archive of WCVB’s July 17 broadcast, during which information on Kennedy’s radio contact was continually reported, have been intentionally cut,” complained John Quinn.[42] According to Jeffries, the original interview of Burgun was much longer:

“On the uncut tape, Burgun went on to delineate all the points from the UPI’s article: Kennedy was calm, on approach to the airport, had provided his position and trajectory, and had even made a comment about dropping Lauren Bessette off at the airport. Some five hours of coverage was edited out.”[43]

This crucial information was reported by news services on Saturday July 17 and early Sunday, July 18. By Monday morning, the FAA claimed that there was never a communication from Kennedy to the tower. Todd Burgun became utterly unreachable. According to the Boston Globe, Martin Wyatt, a controller at the Martha’s Vineyard Airport tower the night of Kennedy’s flight “declined comment on whether he had radio contact with Kennedy’s plane.”[44] Simultaneously, on July 18, FAA and NTSB officials produced some “newly found” radar “evidence” which supposedly showed Kennedy’s flight exhibiting signs of difficulties and irregularities long before 9:39; obviously, Kennedy’s perfectly normal call at 9:39 did not fit with that new version of events.

Of course, it is not inconceivable that the crucial piece of information of JFK Jr.’s 9:39 radio call was mistaken, false, or fake. Yet it seems highly implausible that the Coast Guard would charge their spokesman Todd Burgun — whose identity is not in question — to release it to the public without double-checking it. The fact that the news was originally broadcast by a Boston TV station is perhaps significant, as is the fact that, among major newspapers, the Boston Globe was the most critical of the official story (I’ll mention other cases along the way). Since Boston is the Kennedys’ historical stronghold, we can conjecture that an information war of some sort was going on between Boston and Washington, Boston trying to resist the disinformation assault from federal agencies.

The only available photo believed to be of the wreckage of JFK Jr.’s plane

The second element to consider is the testimony of Victor Pribanic, a trial lawyer from White Oak, Pennsylvania, who was fishing for striped bass off Squibnocket Point that night. He gave an interview to The Martha’s Vineyard Times, cited in the New York Daily News, July 21, 1999: “I heard an explosion over my right shoulder. It sounded like an explosion. There was no shock wave, but it was a large bang.” He also said, according to the Daily News, “that just before hearing the noise, he noticed a small aircraft flying low over the water toward the island.”[45] Pribanic repeated his story to filmmaker Anthony Hilder of the Free World Alliance: “I heard a loud impact like a bomb.” The next day, when Pribanic heard the news of the Kennedy crash, he gave his information to Hank Myer of the West Tilsbury Police Department. Myer accompanied Pribanic to the site where he’d heard the explosion, which would turn out exactly where the plane went missing. Police, he was told, forwarded his information to the investigators.[46] Pribanic was apparently not the only witness of the explosion. The July 17 UPI article mentions:

“A reporter for the Vineyard Gazette newspaper told WCVB-TV in Boston that he was out walking Friday night about the time of the crash and saw ‘big white flash in the sky’ off Philbin Beach.”

When John DiNardo contacted the Vineyard Gazette in an attempt to talk with this reporter, a few days later, he was told that the “whole thing” was a mix-up due to some fireworks having been set off at “Falmouth”, and, when he insisted, he was told that the reporter was no longer employed by the paper.[47]

Like the 9:39 radio call, the ear- and eye-witnesses disappeared from news reports from July 18 on. The National Transportation Safety Board initial report, released on July 30, 1999 makes no mention of them. It states that there was no “in-flight break-up or fire, and no indication of pre-impact failure to the airframe,” which excludes an explosion damaging the plane. On June 7, 2000, eleven months after the plane crash, the NTSB released its final report. That report was announced to the press by a short official NTSB news release which included the following statement: “The probable cause of the accident, as stated in the accident report, is: ‘The pilot’s failure to maintain control of the airplane during a descent over water at night, which was a result of spatial disorientation. Factors in the accident were haze and the dark night.’” A first problem must be pointed out: that statement from the NTSB news release which is supposedly taken from the final report does not appear in the final report. In fact, as I will show, it is hard to see how the full report supports the conclusion of that news release. One gets the impression that the person who wrote the news release didn’t even read the full report.

For example, the sudden drop of altitude from 2,200 feet to 1,100 feet in 14 seconds, stated in the full report, is hard to reconcile with the news release statement. Disorientation implies that the pilot was not aware that he was flying straight into the ocean. But that is impossible, as the NTSB Investigator-in-Charge, Robert Pearce, had admitted as early as July 20, 1999: “They were aware they were going down. With that kind of descent rate, it is going to be noisier than hell in the cockpit.”[48]

Jeb Burnside, commercial pilot and editor-in-chief of Aviation Safety Magazine, did a careful analysis of the NTSB report and radar data and confirms that weather conditions and pilot experience (or lack of) fail to explain the crash:

“On paper, this accident shouldn’t have happened. Despite most of his time being in a training environment, a typical 310-hour instrument-rating student in a well-equipped airplane should have had no problem with this flight.”[49]

The mainstream media hardly paid attention to the full report, and focused on the short news release. But they even distorted it to make its hesitant conclusion (“probable cause”) more assertive and dramatic. “Haze and the dark night,” which are mentioned as “factors in the accident,” were exaggerated and declared totally unsafe for flying. “The pilot’s failure to maintain control … as a result of spatial disorientation,” became proof that JFK Jr. was incompetent to fly in such terrible weather at night. And the implication was that JFK Jr. was reckless and irresponsible to fly that night, especially with his wife and sister-in-law on board.

So, after the first step of crucial omissions in the NTSB report (JFK Jr.’s 9:39 call to the airport and Pribanic’s report of an explosion), the disinformation process continued in two more steps: first, a NTSB news release about the “probable cause” of the “accident” is falsely presented as “stated” in the NTSB final report, whereas it is in reality a far cry from the picture presented in the report; second, that relatively prudent statement is exaggerated and dramatized in mainstream news, while all contradictory details in the full report are ignored. Let’s see out that works for the two following crucial points: 1) weather conditions and visibility, 2) the pilot’s experience and cautiousness. My point is not so much to determine exactly the visibility and the level of JFK Jr.’s skill, but rather to demonstrate a concerted effort to distort credible reports on these matters, with the obvious intention to convince the public that the lack of visibility and John’s inexperience are sufficient explanations for his plane crash, although in fact, they are not.

Fake news on visibility

Even the NTSB initial report (July 20, 1999) noted that there was no report of “significant meteorological conditions” along the flight. We also read

“At about 6:30 on the night of the accident, the pilot received an Internet weather forecast for flight from Teterboro, New Jersey, to Hyannis, Massachusetts. The report was for VFR (visual flight rules) weather, visibility 6 to 8 miles.”

So two hours before taking off, JFK Jr. received a forecast of very good flying conditions. The NTSB final report also quotes the Martha’s Vineyard tower manager as stating:

“The visibility, present weather, and sky condition at the approximate time of the accident was probably a little better than what was being reported. I say this because I remember aircraft on visual approaches saying they had the airport in sight between 10 and 12 miles out. I do recall being able to see those aircraft and I do remember seeing the stars out that night.”

This tower manager must be Marvin Wyatt, interviewed for the Boston Globe: “Marvin Wyatt, a controller at the Martha’s Vineyard Airport tower the night of Kennedy’s flight, said visibility was good at the airport at Kennedy’s expected arrival time.”[50] Wayne Madsen quotes an unnamed close friend of JFK Jr. (probably Billy Noonan, who was supposed to meet him that night) who said “that visibility around the Vineyard was clear at 9:41 p.m. when the plane disappeared from the sky.”[51]

Mainstream news outlet, however, repeated over and over again, in contradiction even to the NTSB report, that the weather was so bad, the fog so thick, that John should have cancelled his plan to fly, had he been a responsible man. FAA Flight Specialist Edward Meyer, who had prepared for the NTSB the FAA’s official report of weather conditions over Martha’s Vineyard on July 16, 1999, and had determined that they were “at least very good,” was disturbed by the way his conclusions were distorted, and released a public statement:

“Nothing of what I have heard on mainstream media makes any sense to me… The weather along his flight was just fine. A little haze over eastern Connecticut. … I don’t know why the airplane crashed, but what I heard on the media was nothing but garbage.”[52]

One of the most dubious witnesses brought forward by the corporate media to support their claim of fatal visibility was Kyle Bailey. Here is how the Washington Post introduced him on July 21st:

“Kyle Bailey, 25, a pilot with more than a decade of flying experience who also keeps his plane at Essex County Airport and who frequently flies the same route as Kennedy — Fairfield to the Vineyard — took special note of Kennedy that night because Bailey had just decided against making the flight. / Bailey said he feared the combination of darkness and haze could be treacherous, causing him to lose sight of the horizon, lose his bearings, maybe even lose control of his plane. Visibility was four to five miles in Fairfield due to haze, near the margin for flying by visual rules, as opposed to instruments.”[53]

According to the NY Daily News of the same day, Bailey said:

“I saw him taxi [drive the plane on ground to prepare for take off], and I saw him take off. I [later] told my family, ‘I can’t believe he’s going up in this weather.’ At night, you don’t know where the sky ends and the ocean begins. You have no sight of the horizon. It can give you a false sense of flying level.”

“Bailey,” commented the Daily News, “was staggered by what he feared was another ghastly Kennedy tragedy. ‘It never seems to end for this family,’ he said. ‘He’s so young, with a life full of promise.’”[54]

How moving! But who is Kyle Bailey, “the last man to see Kennedy alive at the Fairfield airport”? I had no difficulty to find the answer to that question: it happens that Kyle Bailey later became an aviation analyst regularly working for major network and cable televisions such as Fox News, CBS, ABC, NBC, BBC. Bailey even appeared in the documentary Curse on the Kennedys? and very recently in the ABC documentary The Last Days of JFK Jr., aired in January 2019, in which he repeats his story. Can you swallow that blue pill?

Kyle Bailey at work

In the same documentary The Last Days of JFK Jr. appears another private pilot by the name of Bob Arnot, who claims to have flown the same night along the same route as John. He declares there was no visibility, to the point that, when approaching Martha’s Vineyard, he could not see any lights at all. Unlike Bailey, who somehow escaped the attention of NTSB investigators, this Bob Arnot is most probably the unnamed pilot mentioned in the NTSB report as follows: “when his global positioning system (GPS) receiver indicated that he was over Martha’s Vineyard, he looked down and ‘… there was nothing to see. There was no horizon and no light. … I turned left toward Martha’s Vineyard to see if it was visible but could see no lights of any kind nor any evidence of the island. … I thought the island might [have] suffered a power failure.’” That testimony completely contradicts Martha’s Vineyard tower manager (Marvin Wyatt), who is quoted in the NTSB report as saying visibility was great. Which shows that the NTSB report is self-contradictory in some areas.

Now, it is a very small world. You can find on Wikipedia that “Dr. Bob Arnot is a journalist, author, former host of the Dr. Danger reality TV series, and previously medical and foreign correspondent for NBC and CBS.” Can you swallow that too? Or do you start to smell a media conspiracy?

What JFK Jr. inexperienced and reckless?

Let’s now talk about JFK Jr.’s flying experience and skill. Kyle Bailey’s testimony implies that JFK Jr.’s is solely to blame for his own death and for the deaths of his wife and her sister. That view was reinforced by hundreds of comments on air about how inexperienced JFK Jr. was. Just like on weather conditions, the mainstream media gave a grossly negative view of JFK Jr.’s flying experience and skill, unrelated to the NTSB report and to the real testimonies of flight instructors who knew him. The NTSB report reckoned that JFK Jr. had a flight experience of “about 310 hours, of which 55 hours were at night.” During the last fifteen months, he had made 35 flights between Fairfield airport, N.J., and Martha’s Vineyard, including five at night. Three certified flight instructors (CFI) quoted in the report describe John as an “excellent”, “methodical” and “very cautious” pilot. In the early days, some newspapers echoed that view with their own research. John McColgan, JFK Jr.’s federal licensing instructor from Vero Beach, Florida, was interviewed for the Orlando Sentinel, July 18, 1999, and said: “He was an excellent pilot. … In fact, by now he probably has enough hours to be a commercial pilot.”[55] One the same day, the New York Daily News quoted flight instructors Ralph and Chris describing John as a careful pilot, always checking meticulously “every nut and bolt on the airplane. … He was very safety oriented. … John was a natural in flying.”[56] On July 21, USA Today published an article titled “Pilot Kennedy was ‘conscientious guy,’” whose lead paragraph said: “John F. Kennedy Jr. attended the Harvard of flight schools, may have had far more flight experience than has been reported and was known at his New Jersey airport for prudence in the cockpit.” The article quoted other people who knew Kennedy as a good pilot.[57]

But as days passed, major TV channels and newspapers gave a more and more negative assessment of John’s flying skills and of the weather conditions. They emphasized that he didn’t have the proper license to fly with instruments only, as the absence of visibility would have required. It is true that John’s license was for visual flight only, meaning visibility of at least 4 miles. But although John had not yet obtained the license allowing him to fly by instruments only, he had passed the written test and completed the training for the inflight test. According to the flight instructor who trained him, as quoted in the NTSB report, “the pilot’s basic instrument flying skills and simulator work were excellent.” So even if the visibility had been very bad — which it was not — John could have guided his plane safety to the airport, using his autopilot if necessary. According to Scott Meyers, a foremost expert on the death of JFK Jr. who was interviewed for the program “Encounters with the Unexplained: The Kennedy Curse, JFK, Jr.’s, Death – Accident or Assassination?” aired February 15, 2002:

“The fact that Kennedy knew how to use his plane’s navigational instruments casts serious doubt on the official explanation for the crash, because even if he had gotten lost, his knowledge of the plane’s instruments would have allowed him to flip a switch and allow the autopilot to guide him to a short distance from his runway destination. A little haze should have never stopped him from landing safely.”[58]

One question has been the focus of much attention from independent researchers: was there a flight instructor as co-pilot in the plane? Officially, there wasn’t. No fourth body was recovered in the wreckage. But strangely enough, one seat was also missing, and conspiracy theorists such as John Hankey have speculated that it might have had a flight instructor’s body seat-belted on it, which might have been spirited away for the sake of building up the story of an incompetent and reckless John. For if John had flown with a flight instructor, then the whole argument of his recklessness falls. Again, I am mentioning this issue here, not to make any definite conclusion, but mainly to point out evidence of a concerted effort to close the case and satisfy the public that JFK Jr. died—and killed his wife and sister-in-law—by his own recklessness.

JFK Jr. had owned his Piper Saratoga for a little more than two months, and he had never flown it without a flight instructor. He had flown to Martha’s Vineyard 8 times in the previous month with that plane, always with a flight instructor. Since he had his wife and her sister on board, it doesn’t seem like him to fly without an instructor, especially at night. According to Donald Jeffries, “Early reports, such as the one that appeared in the New York Times on July 17, 1999, indicated that a flight instructor was on the plane. JFK Jr.’s George magazine coeditor Richard Blow recounted that Kennedy had told him he was taking a flight instructor with him during their last lunch together.”[59] Then, from the next day on, any mention of a flight instructor on board disappeared. Different explanations were offered for the fact that John flew without a flight instructor that particular night, for the first time on his new plane. His biographer Christopher Andersen writes:

“On today’s trip up from New Jersey, Jay Biederman, the flight instructor who had recently helped John pass his written instrument test and was preparing him for his instrument flight test, was scheduled to go along as he had several times before. But when Biederman canceled to join his parents on a hiking trip in Switzerland, John made the fateful decision not to find a replacement.”[60]

Curiously, that explanation contradicts a key testimony included in the NTSB final report, of which John Hankey provides a good critical analysis at the end of his film. I quote here the shorter presentation from Donald Jeffries:

“… one of Kennedy’s flight instructors, Robert Merena, told the NTSB, some six months after the crash, that JFK Jr. had turned down his request to fly with him by saying he wanted to “do it alone.” These dramatic, ironic words were reported widely in the establishment press and solidified the image of JFK Jr. as an irresponsible daredevil. Merena’s own lawyer would deny he’d ever made such a statement, and the memorandum produced by the NTSB regarding it was suspiciously irregular, with no date, location, or signature on it. Most crucially, Merena had been interviewed five days after the crash by the NTSB, and he never mentioned anything about this, which would certainly seem to have been a pertinent fact. Merena did tell the NTSB in this early interview, however, that he’d never seen JFK Jr. fly without an instructor.”

The damning story of John rejecting the offer of a flight instructor and stubbornly insisting to pilot alone was included in the NTSB’s final report and became widely quoted.[61] Here it is from ABC News on July 7, 2000: “John F. Kennedy Jr. turned down an offer by one of his flying instructors to accompany him the night of his fatal flight to Martha’s Vineyard, saying he ‘wanted to do it alone,’ federal investigators say.” The same could be read in the Los Angeles Times on the same day, and in The New York Times.[62]

I personally feel that the question of whether there was a co-pilot in the plane or not cannot be conclusively answered either way. But the important thing here is the strong probability that Robert Merena’s testimony was fabricated or forced, to hammer in the point that there was no co-pilot and that JFK Jr. acted irresponsibly.

In this whole affair, we cannot prove directly that JFK Jr. was murdered. What we can prove, however, is that federal agencies and mainstream media conspired in a massive fraud, including the concealment of key evidence (the 9:39 call and reports of an explosion), the distortion of facts (visibility and pilot’s ability) and false testimonies (Kyle Bailey and Bob Arnot being the most likely). That can be taken as indirect proof that JFK Jr. was murdered.

Eight hours of video footage taken by recovery divers might have helped to solve the mystery, but the Navy preferred to destroyed them (Sidney Morning Herald, February 13, 2001)

The National Security protocol

Truth seekers such as Donald Jeffries, John Koerner or John Hankey have raised important questions concerning the 10 hours (they say 15 hours) it took for a search to begin after the plane was reported missing by Bessette and Kennedy relatives, at 10 p.m. on July 16th, and for the 4 or 5 days it took to locate and retrieve the wreckage and the bodies. The plane was equipped with an Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT), which sends out a beacon signal in the event of a crash. According to the original UPI article mentioned earlier, “the beacon was heard by the Coast Guard in Long Island, N.Y., at 3:40 a.m. But as the search went on, authorities seemed to discount the relevance of the beacon signal.”[63] Was the search intentionally directed away from the crash site during three days, in order for the perpetrators to secretly destroy the evidence from the cockpit voice recorder (the NTSB report says that “its backup battery was missing, and it had retained no data”), remove the log book which John kept in a waterproof box and, more importantly in Hankey’s view, remove the body of the co-pilot (together with the missing seat reported by the NTSB)? That is a possibility that finds support in the testimony of Lieutenant Colonel Richard Stanley of the Civil Air Patrol, who “would report seeing what he thought were Coast Guard helicopters around the crash site at about 7 a.m., hours before the Coast Guard or anyone else arrived.”[64] For lack of space, I will not dwell on those issues, which are thoroughly discussed by the above-mentioned researchers.

Rather, let’s focus on the tight military control of all procedures following the tragedy, from the search and rescue missions to the news reporting, all conducted under national security standards. The search was done by military planes and vessels. According to John Koerner, “the military immediately instituted in the hours after the crash a 17-nautical mile no-fly zone, and no entry zone, around the crash site. No civilians or media were allowed in this area until the bodies and wreckage were recovered.” On July 20, 1999, we read in the NTSB report, “the airplane wreckage was located by U.S. Navy divers from the recovery ship, USS Grasp.” Why was the Navy, rather than civilian rescue craft, tasked with the retrieval of JFK Jr.’s crashed airplane?[65] More disturbing still, why did the Pentagon take control of news reporting from July 18?

Pentagon Press conference, from Hankey’s Dark Legacy II (24:08)

There are issues also with the autopsies. Joanna Weiss and Matthew Brelis of the Boston Globe wrote on July 23, 1999, in an article headlined “JFK Autopsy Rushed”:

“the autopsies in the Kennedy case were performed especially quickly, pathologists said. The remains were taken to a Bourne hospital at about 7:15 p.m. Wednesday night and released to the victims’ families at 11 p.m., according to the medical examiner’s office and the Cape and Islands district attorney’s office. / Many jurisdictions refuse to perform autopsies at night, said Robert Kirschner, a former deputy chief medical examiner for Cook County, Ill. The haste in this case, he said, could lead to questions about the investigation’s thoroughness. … The timing of the Kennedy investigation, Kirschner said, makes it unlikely that pathologists performed autopsies on Carolyn Bessette Kennedy or Lauren Bessette. ‘You can’t possibly do three investigations in four hours,’ he said.”[66]

But, to me, the most suspicious thing of all is the way the bodies were disposed of after their rushed autopsies: they were cremated in Duxbury’s cemetery crematorium. Then their remains were taken aboard the Navy destroyer Briscoe, and scattered into the sea, near the place where they had found their death.

Why? “The burial for the 35th president’s son,” noted local Duxbury journalist Paula Maxwell, “was reportedly carried out in keeping with his expressed wishes.”[67] The Boston Globe reported on July 22 , “Kennedy’s family requested a burial at sea, and the Pentagon granted that request.”[68] But, the next day, the same newspaper expressed surprise:

“The cremated remains of John F. Kennedy Jr., his wife, and her sister were cast from a warship to the ocean currents in a manner not favored by the Catholic Church and in a ceremony that occurred only after the intercession of Pentagon brass. The Roman Catholic Church prefers the presence of a body at its funeral rites. And the Defense Department rarely accords the honor of burial at sea to civilians.”[69]

Moreover, no other Kennedy had ever been cremated. The reasons given for cremating JFK Jr. body do not make any sense and are contradictory. The New York Times wrote: “Kennedy family members, citing his wishes and hoping to avoid having a spectacle made of Mr. Kennedy’s final resting place, have decided to have his body cremated and his ashes scattered at sea in a Navy ceremony, a family adviser said.”[70] Can we believe that the Kennedy family, who had always showed respect for Catholic traditions, wanted no grave for JFK Jr., by fear that his grave might become a pilgrimage site? And can we believe that John, at age 39, had expressed “his wish” to be cremated? CNN added more bizarre explanations to that already incredible story:

“Sen. Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, had requested the burial at sea, saying it was his nephew’s wish to be cremated and his ashes spread on the waves. The request was approved by Defense Secretary William Cohen. / The family of the Bessette sisters requested that the two women be buried in the same ceremony, the Pentagon said. / John Jr., like his father, the late President John F. Kennedy, had a love of the sea. He spent many summers sailing and kayaking the waters where his plane crashed. / Pentagon officials tell CNN there are two grounds for granting permission for a naval burial at sea. First, there is a provision allowing for such burials for people providing “notable service or outstanding contributions to the United States. / Also, protocol allows sea burials for the children of decorated Navy veterans. President Kennedy was a naval officer wounded and cited for heroism in World War II.”[71]

How ridiculous! JFK was a decorated Navy veteran, and he surely loved sailing, yet he was buried in Arlington. It seems to me unconceivable that JFK Jr. would not have wished to be buried near his father. Even Pierre Salinger asked to be buried at Arlington Cemetery, not far from JFK. It is just as unbelievable that the Bessettes, who are said to hold John responsible for their daughters’ death, and to have received 10 million dollars in compensation from the Kennedys, would decide just the same. According to information found in RFK Jr.’s diary, published by the New York Post, Ann Freeman, Carolyn and Lauren Bessette’s mother, “began asking that her two daughters be buried near her home in Greenwich, Connecticut.” It was Edwin Schlossberg, Caroline Kennedy’s wife, who convinced her to have her two daughters cremated and their ashes spread in the ocean. “He bullied, bullied, bullied the shattered grieving mother,” writes RFK Jr., also commenting: “All the Bessette family knows that Ed hated Carolyn and did everything in his power to make her life miserable.” After Carole Radziwill, the wife of Anthony Radziwill, JFK Jr.’s cousin and close friend, complained to RFK Jr. about Schlossberg, RFK Jr. wrote in his diary: “She says she wants to start an ‘I hate Ed Club.’ There would be many, many members. John & Carolyn would have certainly applied.”[72] That surely makes us wonder about Edwin Schlossberg’s interest in the whole affair.

Navy destroyer USS Biscoe, where the funeral ceremony took place

Who did it?

So, have we proven without a reasonable doubt that JFK Jr. was assassinated? Admittedly, no. None of the elements analyzed above is entirely conclusive by itself. Perhaps, after all, Todd Burgun was mistaken about John’s radio call to Martha’s Vineyard airport at 9:39 (but why didn’t he come forward to retract his statement?). Perhaps Victor Pribanic lied, or mistook the sound of John’s plane crashing into the Ocean for an airborn explosion (but what about the other witnesses?). Perhaps, among the conflicting reports about the visibility, we should give the benefit of the doubt to the worst reports. Perhaps Kyle Bailey, the last man to see JFK Jr. alive, was really there, before becoming an aviation analyst expert regularly appearing on Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network, MSNBC, CNBC, The Weather Channel, CBS, ABC, NBC, BBC, CTV, I24 News, and HLN, as his LinkedIn account says. And perhaps we should trust Bob Arnot too. Perhaps flight instructor Robert Merena did suddenly remember in January 2000 that JFK Jr. had rejected his offer to fly with him because “he wanted to do it alone.” Perhaps John Junior, at age 39, did ask to be cremated and his ashes spread into the ocean he loved so much. And so on.

It is the accumulation of such doubtful elements that is hard to accept. It is also the military control over the operations, right down to news reporting from the Pentagon, which is odd. Add the fact that the regional director of the NTSB in charge of the investigation, Robert Pearce, according to his official profile, later “briefed State Department officials and the Egyptian Ambassador in the wake of the EgyptAir Flight 990 crash [the jet plane that crashed into the Atlantic Ocean after leaving JFK airport, with 33 high ranking Egyptian military officers on board, allegedly by the fault of a suicidal Egyptian co-pilot] as well as supported the FBI on scene at the World Trade Center in the aftermath of the events of September 11, 2001.” I sure wouldn’t trust Robert Pearce to investigate my own plane crash.

In the final analysis, it is the explanation of the crash that is strikingly implausible. As Anthony Hilder put it:

“A finely-tuned, well-kept first-class airplane doesn’t just drop out of the sky and head straight down into the ocean unless it’s blown out of the sky or the pilot deliberately sends it into a dive to kill himself and his passengers.”[73]

There is evidence of an accumulation of deliberate omissions, lies and false testimonies from the NTSB investigation to mainstream reporting, in order to blame the plane crash on the pilot alone, regardless of inconsistencies. And so, between accident and assassination, I lean strongly toward assassination.

Who orchestrated the plot, then? Behind every Kennedy assassination, John Hankey sees the Bushs, heirs to the Nazis, he insists. Hankey belongs to the category of half-truthers who would rather see the hands of Nazis than of the Mossad. He believes JFK Jr. named his magazine George as a way to “tell everyone who he thought killed his father, by hiding the answer in plain sight.” Hankey doesn’t suspect the Clintons at all. Neither does John Koerner, who starts his book Exploding the Truth by a chapter for “exonerating the Clintons”: the Clintons loved the Kennedys so much they would never have done them harm, he wants us to believe.[74]

Donald Jeffries is more rational when suggesting to add John F. Kennedy Jr. to the list of the notorious “Clinton Body Count”, which already includes quite many deaths by plane crash: Victor Raiser, the Clinton presidential campaign’s national finance cochairman (July 30, 1992), Dr. Stanley Heard, a member of Clinton’s health-care advisory committee (September 10, 1993), Hershel Friday, Clinton’s Finance Committee chairman (March 1, 1994). After all, the Navy takeover of the rescue and recovery missions, and the whole national security protocol around the case, can only have been ordered by President Clinton. Roger Stone, a longtime aide to President Richard Nixon and investigator into JFK’s death, believes the Clintons ordered the murder of JFK Jr.’s because he was planning to run for the Senate seat that Hillary coveted.[75]

Yet the Clintons certainly had nothing to do with JFK or RFK’s assassinations. So whatever role they played in the case of JFK Jr.’s assassination, they must have been part of a larger scheme. Even if Hillary had a motive to eliminate JFK Jr. from the New York Senate race, I don’t think she would have gotten away with it without higher protections. Let us not forget also that, in all Kennedy assassinations, the key factor for success is the complicity of the mainstream media for more 50 years. The Clintons don’t own the media.

Like Michael Collins Piper long before me, and like Ron Unz more recently, I believe that Israel assassinated both JFK and RFK. From there follows naturally the hypothesis that Israel also killed JFK Jr., and for the very same reason as they killed RFK: to prevent him from ever reaching the White House and reopening the investigation on his father’s death. When I say “Israel”, I mean it in the broad sense, as including all the Machiavellian crypto-Zionists infiltrated in all layers of the U.S. power structure, including corporate media.

Israel did not just assassinate Kennedys. They keep assassinating their memory, through a constant flow of anti-Kennedy books attacking their character and vilifying their family. This is what JFK researcher James DiEugenio calls “the posthumous assassination of JFK,” the obsession to “smother any legacy that might linger”; for “assassination is futile if a man’s ideas live on through others.”[76] Take for example pseudo-biographer C. David Heymann, who after working for the Mossad in Israel (from his own admission), returned to the U.S. only to write Kennedy biographies, including the salacious Bobby and Jackie: A Love Story, and went on, after JFK Jr.’s death, to claim a ten-year secret acquaintance with him in order to fill the media with rubbish.[77] Why do publishers and mainstream media keep taking Heymann seriously? Why does the New York Post give a positive review of his latest book, American Legacy: The Story of John and Caroline Kennedy (2007), which portrays John Junior as a “novice pilot” who boarded his plane half-drunk and under heavy medication (“Vicodin to relieve the pain of a recently broken ankle, plus Ritalin for attention-deficit disorder and medication for a thyroid problem”), who took off while “the haze had already grown thick and viscous,” and who spent the last 30 seconds of his life “not knowing up from down, frantically pulling at his plane’s controls in a panicked attempt to right its deadly spiral,” “with whirling instruments sending him messages he couldn’t read”?[78]

The Jewish elites have hated the Kennedys ever since Joseph Kennedy, as U.S. ambassador in London, tried to prevent Roosevelt from entering World War II, resigned when he did, and then complained that “the Jews have won the war.”[79] Kennedys must pay for “the sins of the father,” as Ronald Kessler titled his book (The Sins of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty He Founded, 1996), a not-so-subtle reference to Exodus 20:5 asserting Yahweh’s right of vengeance on three generations. The Jewish elites also hated the Kennedys for everything they represented, including a very strong sense of blood kinship that Jews prefer Gentiles not to have.

Paradoxically, in a nation founded on the rejection of monarchy, the Kennedys embodied the idea of ​​royalty, the highest form of a dynastic aristocracy founded not just on the accumulation of wealth and power, but on a patriotic dedication to civil service. It is as if the archetype of royalty had crystallized in the United States on this family, to the point that the name of King Arthur’s court, Camelot, has stuck to their legend. The Kennedys also embodied the Irish Catholic root of the American people, with its deep-seated antagonism to British puritanism, the more Israel-friendly branch of Christianity, which has come to dominate American politics since Lyndon Johnson (“Our First Jewish President” as one American Jewish newspaper calls him).[80] From this point of view, the triple assassination of President Kennedy, his younger brother and his only son are the equivalent in Western Christendom of the extermination of the Romanov family in Orthodox Russia. And I believe that, just like Russia with the Tsar family, America will only be great again when it opens the archives and honors the Kennedys as national martyrs of a foreign power.

But wait: there is still one male heir to John F. Kennedy: Jack Schlossberg, son of Caroline Kennedy and Edwin Schlossberg. Will he become “our first Jewish president,” asks Rabbi Jeffrey Salkin? I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure he won’t be assassinated.



[2] Pierre Salinger, “Mourned for what he might have been,” UPI, August 6, 1999, reproduced on

[3] Dave Saltonstall, Austin Fenner, Helen Kennedy And Greg B. Smith, “John F. Kennedy Jr. went missing after taking a flight with his wife and her sister in 1999,” New York Daily News, July 18, 1999, on

[4] Laurence Leamer, Sons of Camelot: The Fate of an American Dynasty, HarperCollins, 2005, kindle, k. 225-67.

[5] Jackie’s words reported by Pierre Salinger, quoted from Christopher Andersen, The Good Son, JFK Jr. and the Mother He Loved, Gallery Boosk, 2014, kindle, k. 1912-4.

[6] Andersen, The Good Son, op. cit., k. 1645-52

[7] Andersen, The Good Son, k. 1962-7.

[8] Pierre Salinger, “Mourned for what he might have been,” UPI, August 6, 1999, reproduced on

[9] Olivier Royant, John, le dernier des Kennedy, Éditions de l’Observatoire, 2018.

[10] Andersen, The Good Son, op. cit., k. 671-3

[11] John Quinn, “Like Father Like Son”,

[12] Pierre Salinger, “Mourned for what he might have been,” UPI, August 6, 1999, reproduced on

[13] Andersen, The Good Son, op. cit., k. 4300-4309

[14] Andersen, The Good Son, op. cit., k. 4808-11.

[15] Read Robert D. McFadden’s report on

[16] Liz McNeil, “Would JFK Jr. Have Run for President? His Best Friends Reveal His Last Days”, July 19, 2016,

[17] Dominique Page, “Kennedy Junior: La pure hypothèse de l’assassinat,”

[18] Joe Siegel, “JFK Jr. Mulled Run For Senate in 2000,” New York Daily News, July 20, 1999,

[19] Liz McNeil, “Would JFK Jr. Have Run for President? His Best Friends Reveal His Last Days”, July 19, 2016,

[20] Matt Donnelly, “JFK Jr Would Have Run for President in 2016, Top Aide Says,” The Wrap, July 29, 2016, Asked for People magazine if she tought JFK Jr. would have run for president, Terenzio answers: “I do think that eventually he would have made the leap” (video on at 3 minutes).

[21] Liz McNeil, “Would JFK Jr. Have Run for President? His Best Friends Reveal His Last Days”, July 19, 2016,

[22] Joe Siegel, “JFK Jr. Mulled Run For Senate in 2000,” New York Daily News, July 20, 1999,

[23] Christopher Andersen, The Good Son: JFK Jr. and the Mother He Loved, Gallery Books, 2014, kindle k. 4918-44.

[24] Read on Google.books. The audio recording of the book is on Youtube: this passage starts at 7:52.

[25] Wayne Madsen, “JFK Jr.’s Plane Crash Was Originally Treated As Murder Investigation,” August 12, 2009, on

[26] Andrew Collins, “Hillary Clinton & The Mysterious Death of JFK Jr.,” May 8, 2016,

[27] Laurence Leamer, Sons of Camelot: The Fate of an American Dynasty, HarperCollins, 2005, kindle k. 8297, quoted in Keith J. Kelly, “JFK Jr. Mad at Hill Senate Run: Book,” New York Post, March 16, 2004,

[28] Quoted in John Koerner, Exploding the Truth: The JFK Jr., Assassination, Chronos Books, 2018, kindle k. 540-45.

[29] Quoted in Koerner, Exploding the Truth, op. cit., k. 540-5.


[31] Wayne Madsen, “JFK Jr.’s Plane Crash Was Originally Treated As Murder Investigation,” Wayne Madsen Report, August 12, 2009, on Madsen told more details to Jeffries, who reports them in his book Hidden History: An Expose of Modern Crimes, Conspiracies, and Cover-Ups in American Politics, Skyhorse publishing, 2016, kindle k. 3981.

[32] Pierre Salinger, “TWA 800: The Truth Is Out There; Tell It,” Georgetowner, May 27, 1999,

[33] Philip Weiss, “Radar Shows ‘Getaway Boat’ Fleeing Flight 800 Crash,” The Oberver, July 12, 1999,

[34] Gordon Thomas, Gideon’s Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad, St. Martin’s Griffin, 2015, p. 95-99.

[35] Guela Amir, “A Mother’s Defense”, George, March 1997, reproduced on!msg/soc.culture.usa/P-mc7BFF1Nc/K3S6Bizg-U4J

[36] Barry Chamish, “The Murder of JFK Jr – Ten Years Later,”, reproduced on

[37] Barry Chamish, “A Zionist Looks at Final Judgment,”, reproduced on

[38] Laurence Leamer, Sons of Camelot: The Fate of an American Dynasty, HarperCollins, 2005, kindle k. 225-67.

[39] Wayne Madsen, “JFK Jr.’s Plane Crash Was Originally Treated As Murder Investigation,” August 12, 2009, on

[40] Mitchell Zuckoff and Matthew Brelis, “Plane fell fast, probe finds,” Boston Globe, July 20, 1999,

[41] UPI article saved on

[42] John Quinn, “Hard Evidence Obtained of Conspiracy, Cover-up in JFK Jr. Death,” on

[43] Donald Jeffries, Hidden History: An Expose of Modern Crimes, Conspiracies, and Cover-Ups in American Politics, Skyhorse publishing, 2016, kindle k. 3908-14.

[44] Mitchell Zuckoff and Matthew Brelis, “Plane fell fast, probe finds,” Boston Globe, July 20, 1999,

[45] Dave Saltonstall and Bill Hutchinson, “Angler May Have Heard Crash,” New York Daily News, July 21, 1999,

[46] Anthony Hilder’s article, “The explosive story: a Second Opinion on the Kennedy Crash,” Free World Alliance, was recently accessible at, from which I secured a copy, but is no more.

[47] John DiNardo, “JFK Jr. Sky Flash Reporter Unapproachable”, August 9, 1999, on Also in John Quinn, “JFK Plane Explosion Eyewitness ‘Compromised’ And/Or Missing,” 8-6-99,

[48] Mitchell Zuckoff and Matthew Brelis, “Plane fell fast, probe finds,” Boston Globe, July 20, 1999,

[49] Jeb Burnside, “Revisiting JFK, Jr.,” Aviation Safety Magazine, June 2016,

[50] Mitchell Zuckoff and Matthew Brelis, “Plane fell fast, probe finds,” Boston Globe, July 20, 1999,

[51] Wayne Madsen, “JFK Jr.’s Plane Crash Was Originally Treated As Murder Investigation,” August 12, 2009, on

[52] First reported by John Quinn, “Hard Evidence Obtained of Conspiracy, Cover-up in JFK Jr. Death,” on, reproduced by Donald Jeffries, Hidden History: An Expose of Modern Crimes, Conspiracies, and Cover-Ups in American Politics, Skyhorse publishing, 2016, kindle k. 3956-61, and by John Koerner, Exploding the Truth: The JFK Jr., Assassination, Chronos Books, 2018, kindle k. 1228-46.

[53] Dale Russakoffand Lynne Duke, “JFK Jr.’s Joyful, Fateful Final Hours,” Washington Post, July 21, 1999,

[54] Dave Saltonstall, Austin Fenner, Helen Kennedy And Greg B. Smith, “John F. Kennedy Jr. went missing after taking a flight with his wife and her sister in 1999,” New York Daily News, July 18, 1999, on

[55] John Quinn, “Was JFK Jr Murdered?”, August 2, 1999,

[56] Michael Daly, NY Daily News, July 18, 1999, quoted from John Koerner, Exploding the Truth: The JFK Jr., Assassination, Chronos Books, 2018, kindle k. 1211-19.

[57] Alan Levin, Kevin Johnson, and Deborah Sharp, “Pilot Kennedy was ‘conscientious guy,’” USA Today, July 21, 1999, quoted in Koermer, Exploding the Truth, op. cit., k. 1211-19.

[58] Quoted in John Koerner, Exploding the Truth, op. cit., k. 1179-95.

[59] Donald Jeffries, Hidden History: An Expose of Modern Crimes, Conspiracies, and Cover-Ups in American Politics ,Skyhorse publishing, 2016, kindle k. 3879-81.

[60] Christopher Andersen, The Good Son: JFK Jr. and the Mother He Loved, Gallery Books, 2014, kindle k. 141-43.

[61] Ricardo Alonzo-Zaldivar, “Instructor Offered to Fly with JFK Jr., Report Says,” Los Angeles Times, July 7, 2000,

[62] Koerner, Exploding the Truth, op. cit., k. 1392-1427.

[63] UPI article reproduced on

[64] Jeffries, Hidden History, op. cit. k. 3930-32.

[65] L. C. Vinvent, “On the Elimination of Natural Leaders,” January 22, 2013,

[66] Joanna Weiss and Matthew Brelis, “JFK Autopsy Rushed,” Boston Globe, July 23, 1999,

[67] Paula Maxwell, “Kennedy Cremated in Duxbury,” Duxbury Clipper, July 28, 1999.

[68] Mitchell Zuckoff, “Bodies of 3 are recovered,” Boston Globe, July 22, 1999,

[69] Quoted in Jeffries, Hidden History, op. cit., k. 4121-25.

[70] Mike Allen, “Bodies From Kennedy Crash Are Found,” New York Times, July 22, 1999,

[71] “Remains of JFK Jr., wife and sister-in-law buried at sea,” July 22, 1999,

[72] Michael Zennie, “The Kennedys fought Over Where Bodies Would Be Buried… “, Daily Mail, November 3, 2013, on

[73] Anthony Hilder, “The explosive story: a Second Opinion on the Kennedy Crash,” Free World Alliance, read on

[74] Another artile of the same vein:

[75] Darren Boyle “Conspiracy theorist claims Hillary Clinton ‘murdered’ John F Kennedy Jnr because he was planning to run for the same senate seat as her in shocking new book,” MailOnline,

[76] James DiEugenio, “The Posthumous Assassination of JFK”, in The Assassinations: Probe Magazine on JFK, MLK, RFK, and Malcolm X, edited by Jim DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, Feral House, 2003.

[77] Andrew Goldman, Observer, August 2, 199, “Kennedy ‘Expert’ C. David Heymann: Do His J.F.K. Jr. Stories Hold Up?”, Read also David Cay Johnston, “C. David Heymann’s Lies About JFK and Jackie, Marilyn Monroe and Elizabeth Taylor”, Newsweek Magazine, August 27, 2014,

[78] Elizabeth Wolff, “Inside JFK JR.’s Daze of Doom”, New York Post, June 17, 2007,

[79] Quoted in Herbert Druks, John F. Kennedy and Israel, Praeger Security International, 2005, p. 10

[80] Morris Smith, “Our First Jewish President Lyndon Johnson? – an update!!,” 5 Towns Jewish Times, April 11, 2013, on

February 11, 2019 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Hillary Clinton: Trump’s INF Treaty Withdrawal is “Gift to Putin”

Sputnik – 07.02.2019

Last week, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that Washington would suspend its obligations under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and begin a six-month withdrawal process. The following day Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that Moscow was providing a mirror response.

Former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has slammed the Trump administration’s decision to pull out from the INF Treaty as a “gift to [Vladimir] Putin”.

Speaking at an event hosted by Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service and its Institute of Politics and Public Service on Wednesday night, she claimed that the current administration withdrew “without really holding Putin accountable for his cheating on the treaty”.

“I think there is agreement, it started in the Obama administration, that the Russians were not only developing intermediate-range capacity, but deploying it — and so, when that happens… it seems to me that you want to do some public diplomacy. We clearly have pictures and we clearly know a lot about their cheating, and we should have done a better job in making it abundantly clear, not only to the American people but the Russian people, and Europeans, and others who are on the front lines, that the Russians were evading responsibilities in the INF”, Clinton said.

She went on to tell the crowd that instead of demanding talks on the matter, the US decided to pull out, and claimed that Russia was going “to go forward and develop even more of these” weapons.

Looking at the situation from a global perspective, Clinton suggested that the world could face some bleak prospects following the collapse of the landmark treaty:

“It increases the unpredictability, and I believe the danger, that can come from throwing around more missiles and weapons of all kinds, but particularly nuclear ones, within the European theatre. […] The last thing the world needs right now is a nuclear arms race”.

Last week, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that Washington would be suspending its obligations under the INF Treaty starting on 2 February.

He further said that the accord would be entirely terminated if Russia doesn’t meet Washington’s demands regarding the alleged treaty violations, namely to destroy all ground-based 9M729 missiles and their launchers, as well as other associated equipment that purportedly breached the agreement.

Pompeo stated that Russia has six months to save the deal while the US goes through the process of withdrawing from it.

Shortly after the withdrawal announcement, Russian President Vladimir Putin held a meeting with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu, during which the head of state said that Moscow was suspending its obligations under the INF Treaty in response to Washington’s move. While saying that Moscow was still open to negotiations, President Putin instructed the ministers not to initiate talks on the matter.

In addition, President Putin stressed that the use of target rockets and the deployment of Mk 41 launchers in Europe since 2014 by the United States was a direct violation of the arms control treaty and reiterated that Moscow had been fully complying with the agreement.

Putin further emphasised that notwithstanding reciprocal measures, Russia should not and would not be drawn into an arms race.

In December, the US gave Russia a 60 day warning about withdrawing from the treaty, asking Moscow to return compliance by destroying the missiles that allegedly violate the treaty. The 60 days were up at the beginning of February.

The United States has repeatedly accused Russia of violating the 1987 treaty with the development of its 9M729 ground-based missile systems (known as the SSC-8 under US classification), which Washington claimed had a range of over 1,000 km, while the agreement bans missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 km.

Moscow has vehemently denied the claims, citing a lack of proof, and stressed that the range of these weapons was 480 km, which is in full compliance of the INF.

The INF Treaty was signed by the Soviet Union and the US, and envisages the destruction of all nuclear-armed ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometres (about 300 to 3,400 miles).

February 7, 2019 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | , , , | 4 Comments

Why are Democrats Driving Regime Change in Venezuela?

By William Walter Kay | Ron Paul Institute | February 6, 2019

Many see President Trump conspiring with oilmen to capture Venezuelan petroleum reserves. Trump’s earlier blunt talk about seizing oilfields buttresses this thesis. As well, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips and Chevron appreciate better than anyone the astronomic value of Venezuela’s heavy oil. There are, however, flaws in the petro-conquistador thesis. Foremost, it does not explain why oil-resistant Democrats and Europeans play lead roles in this regime change travesty.

On December 18, 2014 a Democrat-led Senate passed the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act. This legislation, sponsored by Democratic Senator Robert Menendez, imposed sanctions on Venezuela while promising support for Venezuelan “civil society.” The Act also sought to meet “the information needs of the Venezuelan people” through publications and broadcasts; and through “distribution of circumvention technology.” Obama signed immediately.

On March 9, 2015 Obama declared:

… a national emergency with respect to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States presented by the situation in Venezuela.

His accompanying Executive Order 13692 extended sanctions while undertaking to: “support greater political expression in Venezuela.”

At this time the US deep state conducted an orchestra of American and European agencies and foundations disbursing $50 million a year to Venezuelan “civil society” (opposition politicians, student activists and journalists). Key agencies were USAID and National Endowment for Democracy. Participating foundations included: (Jimmy) Carter Centre; (Soros’s) Open Society; (Democratic Party-affiliated) National Democratic Institute for International Affairs; plus several Spanish and German concerns.

On January 16, 2017, four days before Trump’s inauguration, Obama renewed his declaration designating Venezuela a national security threat. Venezuela’s Foreign Minister called the move “new aggression by Barack Obama” extending Obama’s “legacy of hate and serious violation of international law.”

On January 4, 2019 a Democrat-led House of Representatives swore in.

On January 10 House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair, Eliot Engel (Democrat-NY) said he would waste no time holding “Mr. Maduro” accountable. Simultaneously, former DNC Chair and Hillary Clinton fixer, Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz unveiled her Venezuelan-Russian Threat Mitigation Act. She was flanked by former Clinton cabinet member and Clinton Foundation boss, Democratic Congresswoman Donna Shalala who announced her Venezuelan Arms Restriction Act to prevent weapons sales, including non-lethal police gear, to Venezuela. Next up was Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, sponsor of the Venezuelan Humanitarian Assistance Act aimed at allowing US operatives to bypass Venezuelan authorities and distribute “aid” directly to Venezuelans.

On January 24, less than 24 hours after Juan Guaido declared himself Venezuelan President, Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff (House Intelligence Committee Chair) blamed Maduro’s “dictatorial” rule for devastating Venezuela’s economy, then recognised Guaido as Venezuela’s “rightful leader.” Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (Democrat-IL) piped in calling Venezuela’s 2018 election a sham before endorsing Guaido’s presidency.

Of 280 Democratic Senators and Representatives 3 dissented. This troika did not include Bernie Sanders. On January 24 Bernie boarded the war-train with a battle-whoop beginning:

The Maduro government in Venezuela has been waging a violent crackdown on Venezuelan civil society, violated the constitution by dissolving the National Assembly and was re-elected last year in an election that many observers said was fraudulent. Further the economy is a disaster and millions are migrating.

Bernie goes on to warn of the perils of regime change while leaving wide open the door to punitive sanctions. His statement is silent on America’s economic war on Venezuela. His support for “civil society” is willfully naïve about such groups’ involvement in political meddling up to and including regime change. (Bernie supported starvation sanctions against Iraq, and the bombing of Serbia. He calls Hugo Chavez a “dead communist dictator.”)

Regarding Venezuela the Democrats march in lockstep with: the Liberal Party of Canada under PM Trudeau; Merkel’s ruling coalition in Germany; French President Macron; and the governments of Sweden, Denmark, Austria and Spain.

These governments are committed to phasing petroleum out of their economies. All champion the Paris Climate Accord. None can be quickly dismissed as Exxon’s goons. None take orders from Trump. Thus, the petro-conquistador thesis appears ill-equipped to explain their behaviour.

No doubt Washington DC hosts cabals of oilmen and politicos coveting unfettered access to the Orinoco Belt. Here, however, it seems fantastical that President Maduro might be removed by anything short of civil war; or that the Orinoco Belt might be exploitable amidst the Vietnam-style conflagration surely to ensue. Then, arises the enigmatic spectacle of a dozen “liberal-leftist-environmentalist” Western parties and governments frantically tilting at the same windmill. Pourquoi?

February 6, 2019 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism | , , , , | 3 Comments

“How I Lost by Hillary Clinton,” a Book Review

By Ann Garrison | Black Agenda Report | February 6, 2019

Rich and manipulative people like Hillary Clinton and her DNC cohorts were defeated by their own emails.

“How I Lost By Hillary Clinton” is a collection of the DNC and Podesta emails published by Wikileaks in 2016, introduced and annotated by Consortium News Editor Joe Lauria, with a foreword by political prisoner Julian Assange. Believe it or not, you don’t have to buy it from Amazon unless you want to toss a few more dollars into the bursting coffers of Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest man, who says his only business option now is to search for new markets in outer space.

Instead you can order a paperback, e-book, or both from OR Books and dive back into the election year that just won’t die. On January 28, CNN reported that “Hillary Clinton tells friends she’s leaving 2020 door open.” A day earlier the New York Daily News had reported less charitably that “Hillary Clinton hasn’t learned her lesson yet.”

Back in November, upper-tier Clinton operatives Mark Penn and Andrew Stein penned “Hillary Will Run Again,” a bullish Wall Street Journal op-ed opening thus:

“Get ready for Hillary Clinton 4.0. More than 30 years in the making, this new version of Mrs. Clinton, when she runs for president in 2020, will come full circle—back to the universal-health-care-promoting progressive firebrand of 1994. True to her name, Mrs. Clinton will fight this out until the last dog dies. She won’t let a little thing like two stunning defeats stand in the way of her claim to the White House.”

I read “Hillary Will Run Again” three times to make sure it wasn’t just a little joke, or maybe even a more sophisticated attempt at satire. Then I read it again, and I still don’t think so, much as I wish it were. I’ll be gladly embarrassed if anyone can convince me I’m wrong.

But what about Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Tulsi Gabbard, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillebrand, and whoever announces next? No worries, write Penn and Stein: “You can expect her to run for president once again. Maybe not at first, when the legions of Senate Democrats make their announcements, but definitely by the time the primaries are in full swing.”

Anyone remember “Night of the Living Dead” (1968), “Dawn of the Dead” (1978), “Day of the Dead” (1985), and “Land of the Dead” (2005)? Still watching “The Walking Dead” (2010-) or its spinoff “Fear the Walking Dead” (2015-)? Another grisly sequel or series could be coming soon. “How I Lost by Hillary Clinton” might fortify your psychic battlements before it begins.

We’ve all heard of the Wall Street speeches, finally published as a subset of the Podesta emails, but on the first page of this book, Lauria explains that they were just some of Hillary’s more high-profile influence peddling:

“Clinton spoke to just about anyone who would pay, including a scrap metal and recycling conference in Las Vegas, the automobile dealers association in New Orleans, and the National Association of Convenience Stores in Atlanta. Clinton said that fees from speeches at universities went to the Clinton Foundation and not directly into her pocket.”

Sounds like a tax dodge to me, and it “didn’t stop students at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas protesting her $225,000 haul as the university was hiking tuition.” Between April 2013 and March 2015, Hillary Clinton gave 91 paid speeches averaging $235,304.35 apiece, for a total of $21,648,000.

But she’d rather we didn’t dwell on it

When Joe Lauria was last in the Bay Area, I asked him how he got away with the title “How I Lost by Hillary Clinton.” He said that he, OR Books, and Julian Assange were all of the opinion that the Clinton camp wouldn’t want to attract attention to the book by pestering or suing them, and they haven’t yet. It’s an apt title anyway because so much of the book’s contents are DNC and Podesta emails, mostly penned by Hillary staff if not by Hillary herself.

Clinton the Elitist

The body of the book comes in two sections, the first being “Clinton the Elitist.” Here we read about how Hillary climbed from the upper middle class to the uber-rich via elite schools, specifically Wellesley and Yale Law School, then on to her and her husband’s political careers and all the wealth generated by post-presidential, post-cabinet speeches, book contracts, corporate board appointments, the Clinton Foundation, and other forms of bribery and influence peddling.

Despite the Wellesley and Yale Law School degrees, she sounds incoherent because of her mutually exclusive promises to protect both the financial elite and the rest of us. At Goldman Sachs’s 10/24/2013 AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium in New York City, she said that she had bravely faced Americans still bitter about the 2008 financial crisis that cost millions their homes followed by the bank bailout that transferred enormous wealth to the very Wall Street elites who engineered the crisis. “Too Big to Fail” hadn’t gone down well in the hinterland, but she had taken the flak:

“That was one of the reasons that I started traveling in February of ’09, so people could, you know, literally yell at me for the United States and our banking system causing this everywhere. Now, that’s an oversimplification we know, but it was the conventional wisdom. And I think that there’s a lot that could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really politicizing what happened with greater transparency, with greater openness on all sides, you know, what happened, how did it happen, how do we prevent it from happening? You guys help us figure it out and let’s make sure that we do it right this time. And I think that everybody was desperately trying to fend off the worst effects institutionally, governmentally, and there just wasn’t that opportunity to try to sort this out, and that came later.”

In other words, “You owe me. I’m one of you. That’s why I say ‘we.’” And Wall Street agreed. The financial services industry and associated PACs contributed $115.5 million to Clinton’s second presidential run, close to 10% of the $1.2 billion raised. They contributed to both the Democratic and Republican Parties, and their presidential candidates, as major corporations and business sectors always do to make sure they own a piece of whoever wins. However, Wall Street gave Trump a measly $7.9 million, most likely because of the widespread certainty that Clinton would win.

Hillary the Hawk

Most of those likely to read “How I Lost by Hillary Clinton” will know Hillary the Hawk, but the book is full of grim elaboration, much of it in her own words. Here’s one choice quote:

“And there is still an argument that goes on inside the administration and inside our friends at NATO and the Europeans. How do you intervene—my view was you intervene as covertly as is possible for Americans to intervene. We used to be much better at this than we are now.”

Here’s another:

“To have a no-fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we’re not putting our pilots at risk—you’re going to kill a lot of Syrians. So all of a sudden this intervention that people talk about so glibly becomes an American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians.“

Civilians aside, Clinton pushed for a no-fly zone in Syria right up and into her final debate with Donald Trump, despite his “America First” crusade against foreign military quagmires. Simultaneously, Obama’s UN Ambassador Samantha Power shrieked at Russia and China for vetoing her demand for a no-fly zone at the UN Security Council. Clinton brushed off fears that bombing Syria risked conflict with nuclear-armed Russia, even after it entered the Syrian theater of war at Syria’s request in October 2015.

I had a hard time putting “How I Lost By Hillary Clinton” down until I was done. Like most Wikileaks releases, it drew me into the minds of those who decide who will live, who will die, who will be impoverished, and who enriched. Not only Hillary Clinton’s mind, but also those of the macabre power elites surrounding her. Who matters and who is collateral damage? Most of us, here and abroad, are in the latter category, and she lost because too many of us knew that.

February 6, 2019 Posted by | Book Review, Corruption, Deception, War Crimes | , , | 1 Comment

Did Khashoggi Really Die?

By F. William Engdahl – New Eastern Outlook – 23.01.2019

I have not been convinced about the claims coming from Turkey and from the Washington Post and others regarding the allegations of a gruesome murder of intelligence asset, Jamal Khashoggi, in October, 2018. There are too many anomalies as it was portrayed by various statements from Turkey President Erdogan, and echoed by a chorus of the Western mainstream media. Recent research suggests that perhaps Khashoggi was never in that Saudi Consulate in Istanbul that day, and in fact may still be quite alive and in hiding. If so, it suggests a far larger story behind the affair. Let’s consider the following.

The best way to outline this is to go back to the events around the surprise arrest and detention of numerous Saudi high-ranking persons in late 2017, by Prince Mohammed bin Salman or MBS as he is known. On November 4, 2017 MBS announced via state TV that numerous leading Saudis including one of the wealthiest, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, had been arrested on charges of corruption, and were being detained in the Riyadh Ritz Carlton hotel. Prince Alwaleed is clearly the critical person.

The son-in-law of President Trump had reportedly made a non-publicized visit to Riyadh for private talks with MBS just days before the mass arrests. A report in the UK Mail newspaper in 2018 claimed that Jared Kushner, representing the President, had informed MBS of a rival Saudi Royals plot to eliminate the Crown Prince. Prince Alwaleed was reported to be at the center of the plotters.

After three months imprisonment, Alwaleed was released from detention on 27 January 2018, following a reported financial settlement. In March 2018 he dropped out from Forbes’ World’s Billionaires’ list. Before his arrest Alwaleed was the largest shareholder in Citibank, a major owner of Twitter, once partner of Bill Gates in Gates Foundation vaccine programs, and generous donor to select Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. According to media reports, Hillary campaign aide Huma Abedin’s brother, Hassan Abedin, Muslim Brotherhood member, worked with Bin Talal on a project called “Spreading Islam to the West.” Bin Talal and other Saudi sources donated as much as $25 million to the Clinton Foundation as she was preparing her Presidential bid. The Prince was also an open foe of Donald Trump.

Who was Khashoggi Really?

Jamal Khashoggi was no ordinary journalist. He actually worked for Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. In an interview in the Gulf Times in November last year Alwaleed stated, “Jamal wasn’t only my friend. He was working with me. Actually, his last job in Saudi Arabia was with me…” Jamal was, or is, nephew of CIA-linked asset, the recently deceased Adnan Khashoggi, a nefarious arms dealer involved in the CIA-Saudi BCCI bank and Iran-Contra. Nephew Jamal also worked for the then-Saudi Ambassador in Washington, Prince Bandar, someone so close to the Bush family that George W. nicknamed him “Bandar Bush.” In short, Khashoggi was part of Saudi circles close to the Bush-Clinton group. When King Abdullah decided to skip over Alwaleed’s father, Talal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, dubbed “The Red Prince” for his reformist views, in his succession, a move that led to Salman, father of MBS, as successor, Alwaleed was on the outs in the Saudi power calculus of King Salman and Crown Prince MBS.

The Saudi government as well as the Brookings Institution confirm that Khashoggi had been a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood was banned from Saudi Arabia in 2011 following the Obama-Hillary Clinton Arab Spring, when the Saudi monarch, King Abdullah, and those around him realized that the royal house itself was a potential target for brotherhood regime change, as in Egypt and Tunisia.

The Obama Administration, as I detail in Manifest Destiny, working with the CIA, planned a drastic series of regime changes across the Islamic world to install Muslim Brotherhood regimes “friendly” with the CIA and the Obama administration. Key members of the Obama Administration, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s special assistant, Huma Abedin, had deep ties to the Saudi part of the Muslim Brotherhood where Abedin’s mother lives. Her mother, Saleha Abedin– an academic in Saudi Arabia where Huma grew up– according to a report on Al Jazeera and other Arab media, is a prominent member of the womens’ organization of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Huma’s brother is also reported linked to the organization. Notably, the late John McCain, whose ties to leading members of ISIS and Al Qaeda is public record, tried to discredit fellow Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann for pointing to Abedin’s Muslim Brotherhood ties. This is the faction within Saudi Arabia that Khashoggi was tied to.

As President, Trump’s first foreign trip was to meet MBS and the Saudi King, a trip sharply criticized by Democrat Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi. Once a Trump Presidency moved to rebuild the frayed relations that had developed between Obama and the Saudi monarchy under King Abdullah and later King Salman, father of Crown Prince MBS, the faction around pro-Obama Prince Bin Talal Alwaleed was out of favor, to put it mildly, especially after Hillary Clinton lost. In June 2017 Alwaleed’s former employee, Jamal Khashoggi, fled into self-imposed exile in the US where he had studied earlier, after the government banned his twitter account in Saudi.

Khashoggi alive?

Once MBS acted to arrest Alwaleed and numerous others, the future of the money flows between Alwaleed to not only Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and to other Democrats he had “supported” with Saudi millions, was in jeopardy. While it is difficult to confirm, a BBC Turkish journalist in Istanbul reportedly told an arab language paper after the alleged gruesome murder and dismemberment of Khashoggi that, in fact, Jamal Khashoggi was alive and well, somewhere in hiding.

It is a fact that former CIA head and now Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, along with then-Defense Secretary James Mattis, gave a briefing to the US Senate in which they told the senators that there was no evidence to suggest MBS was behind this alleged crime. They added that they couldn’t even confirm a crime had happened! Only CIA head Gina Haspel, former CIA London station chief, disputed their claims. The Erdogan claims that the body was chopped up and then dissolved in acid for disposal without trace harkens back to the account of the Navy Seal disposal of the dead body allegedly of Osama bin Laden, which the Obama Administration claimed they dumped at sea “according to Muslim tradition.” Conveniently in both cases there was no body to forensically confirm.

Indeed the allegations to world media around the Khashoggi affair were tightly controlled by Turkey’s President Erdogan who repeatedly promised then failed to reveal, what he said were secret Turkish intelligence tapes of the alleged murder. Erdogan is reported very close to the Muslim Brotherhood if not a hidden member, one reason for his close support of Qatar after MBS and the Saudi king declared economic sanctions on Qatar for support of terrorism, in fact Qatari support of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Here we are dealing with shifting political alliances with huge consequences potentially for US and world politics given the enormous size of the Saudi financial resources. It’s also bizarre that Khashoggi allegedly agreed to go to a Saudi Consulate in Turkey and to supposedly get divorce papers. Further, his reported fiancée, Hatice Cengiz, seems to be equally mysterious, with some asking whether she in fact is an agent of Turkish intelligence used to discredit Saudi Arabia.

The claims of Erdogan of the assassination of Jamal by a Saudi team were buttressed by a mysterious Khaled Saffuri, who told Yahoo News reporter, Michael Isikoff, that Khashoggi became a bitter foe of MBS for his articles in the media criticizing the arrests of Prince Bin Talal and others. Research reveals that Saffuri, media source on the Khashoggi alleged murder, also has had close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood front organization, American Muslim Council, and to Qatar, host to the exiled Brotherhood for years. Qatari support for the Muslim Brotherhood was a factor in the break between MBS and Qatar two years ago.

Saffuri is also the protégé of al-Qaeda fundraiser Abdurahman Alamoudi, reportedly also an influential Muslim Brotherhood supporter who before 2004 met with both G.W. Bush and Hillary Clinton. Alamoudi is currently in US federal prison since 2004 for his role as bagman for a Libyan/Al-Qaeda assassination plot to assassinate then-Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. In brief, the prime sources on the Khashoggi murder are few and hardly without bias.

At this point it is difficult to go beyond speculation. Clear is that Jamal Khashoggi is missing from public view since early October. But until the Turkish government or someone else presents serious forensic evidence, habeas corpus, that indeed shows Alwaleed’s former employee, Jamal Khashoggi was murdered by a Saudi assassination team, let alone by one commanded by Crown Prince bin Salman, the situation warrants more serious examination. It is curious that the same liberal media such as Jeff Bezos’ Washington Post that attacks MBS for the alleged murder of their reporter, Khashoggi, fails to criticize previous Saudi executions or even subsequent ones.

Did Khashoggi really die at the Istanbul Consulate or was something else going on? To stage a fake execution of Khashoggi to discredit and even possibly topple MBS might possibly have appeared to Alwaleed and his CIA friends in Washington to be a clever way of restoring their power and financial influence. If so, it seems to have failed.

January 23, 2019 Posted by | Deception | , , , , , | 1 Comment

Kamala Harris Dons Progressive Mantle in Public, Strips it Off in Private as She Courts Israel Lobby

By Whitney Webb | Mint Press News | January 21, 2019

Confirming long-held speculation, Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) has announced that she will be running for president in 2020, pitting her against other Democratic senators such as Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) as well as Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI). Harris’ announcement has generated some buzz but surprised few, as she has been considered a likely 2020 contender for the Democratic nomination since early 2017. Harris first tweeted on Monday morning out her plans to run for president along with the Clinton-esque slogan “Let’s do this together.”

She then repeated her announcement on ABC’s Good Morning America, stating that “I am running for president of the United States. I’m very excited about it.” Harris, who decided to launch her campaign on the federal holiday celebrating Martin Luther King Jr., later added, “I love my country. And this is a moment in time that I feel a sense of responsibility to stand up and fight for the best of who we are.”

However, despite the long-promoted “inevitability” of Harris’ campaign, she has failed to garner much enthusiasm from progressive voters, owing to her history of supporting neoliberal policies as well as her pro-Zionist leanings, which she has attempted to keep from public view.

Though hardly “progressive,” Harris – much like another 2020 hopeful, Elizabeth Warren – has sought to cast herself as such in recent years in an effort to unite a fractured Democratic party by publicly catering to progressives while also privately catering to special interests, including the Israel lobby.

In this two-part series, MintPress News will examine how Harris is set to emulate much of Hillary Clinton’s failed 2016 campaign — particularly the distinction between her “private” and “public” positions — while using identity politics to her advantage. This has already begun, with Harris having courted past Hillary campaign staffers and millionaire donors alike. In addition, top establishment liberals like Joy Ann Reid of MSNBC and Clinton advisor Neera Tanden are claiming that legitimate criticism of, and a lack of enthusiasm for, a Harris presidential run on the part of progressives stem from “racism” and “sexism” among left-leaning Americans — reviving the Clinton campaign’s “Bernie bros” narrative that characterizes Bernie Sanders-supporting progressive voters as “all-white” and “all-male.”

One of the clearest examples of Harris’ practice of courting special interests in private while painting a different picture in public is her position on the Israel/Palestine conflict. While Harris once, in 2012 while serving as California’s attorney general, stood up to Israeli government pressure to persecute activists working with the pro-Palestinian rights movement Boycott, Divest, Sanctions (BDS), she made a concerted effort to court pro-Israel interests as she began to pursue her higher political ambitions, namely when she kicked off her 2016 campaign for the Senate.

Since then, Harris has sought to keep a public persona of neutrality on the divisive issue by evasively responding to questions on the issue or avoiding them altogether. At the same time, Harris has been privately pandering to Israel lobby groups in “off-the-record” speeches and during trips to Israel that she and her staff chose not to publicize. This clearly reflects the image that Harris seeks to build of herself as a “progressive centrist” candidate, meaning one who cultivates a public persona of progressivism while also supporting many of the hallmark policies of establishment “centrist” Democrats and courting the mega-donors of the Democratic Party.

A quiet courtship

Once her 2016 Senate campaign was underway, Harris made it clear that she was willing to “look the other way” when it comes to the human-rights abuses regularly inflicted on Palestinians by the state of Israel. That year, in a questionnaire from Jewish News of Northern California, Harris asserted that “Lasting peace [between Israel and Palestine] can only be found through bilateral negotiations that protect Israel’s identity, ensure security for all people and include the recognition of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state” — i.e., a Jewish ethnostate that gives other ethnoreligious backgrounds an “inferior” status.

In that same questionnaire, Harris also praised Israel’s Supreme Court, which has helped to enshrine apartheid and also legalized the targeted assassinations of hundreds of Palestinians during intifadas (uprisings), as “a beautiful home to democracy and justice in a region where radicalism and authoritarianism all too often shape government.”

Harris went on to resoundingly reject the non-violent BDS movement, stating:

The BDS movement seeks to weaken Israel but it will only isolate the nation and steer Israelis against prerequisite compromises for peace. At a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise – especially in Europe – and the Middle East is growing increasingly unstable, I believe we should not isolate Israel, the only democracy in the region.”

In 2017, a few months after winning her Senate seat, Harris gave her first public address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), in which she stated:

I believe Israel should never be a partisan issue, and as long as I’m a United States senator, I will do everything in my power to ensure broad and bipartisan support for Israel’s security and right to self-defense.”

Several months later, Harris quietly visited Israel, a trip that she did not post on her website or social media accounts but that was instead announced by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and another Israeli politician, Yair Lapid, via social media. During the trip, Harris also briefly visited 10 female students at Al-Quds University in the occupied West Bank, where she asked the students whether Israel’s massive separation wall posed “a real barrier” to their movement.

Though her trip to Israel and photo-op with Netanyahu raised some concern, Harris’ decision to court pro-Israel interests has since grown substantially. Much as with her Israel trip though, the California senator has sought to court these interests just out of public view. For instance, in March of last year, Harris spoke to the Israel lobby organization AIPAC at an event called “A Conversation with Senator Kamala Harris.” The event was not listed on the AIPAC conference’s program or website, nor was it promoted by Harris herself. AIPAC Director of Communications Beth Robbins later confirmed to the Intercept that Senator Harris’ remarks were part of “an off-the-record session.”

Though the transcript of her remarks was never made public, one anecdote shared by a participant in the session recounted how Harris had, as a child, helped fundraise for the Jewish National Fund (JNF) “to plant trees in Israel” as opposed to selling Girl Scout cookies or something similar. However, it’s unlikely that Harris mentioned at this gathering that JNF pine plantations are largely used to cover and effectively erase the bulldozed remnants of Palestinian villages that were destroyed by the state of Israel soon after its founding.

In addition to her AIPAC conferences and speeches, Harris’ national security adviser up until May 2018 was Halie Soifer, a long-time advocate for Israel who was also the Obama campaign’s Jewish outreach liaison in Florida in 2008 and a former advisor to former U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Soifer was also previously a speechwriter for the Israeli ambassador to the United States and was a “Next Generation National Security Fellow” with the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), which is headed by Victoria Nuland, of the neo-conservative “Kagan clan,” and Richard Fontaine, former foreign policy advisor to John McCain.

Soifer is now the executive director of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, an Israel lobby organization that “actively promotes foreign and domestic policies consistent with socially progressive, pro-Israel, Jewish community values.”

Having it both ways

While being a pro-Israel senator is hardly uncommon in American politics, what stands out about Kamala Harris is that she has sought to obfuscate her courting of Israel lobby organizations and Israeli politicians. This shows that Harris is not only seeking to make inroads with the powerful pro-Israel lobby and win its support but is also seeking to construct a public persona that courts progressive voters.

However, if Clinton’s 2016 campaign is any indication, separating one’s “public” and “private” positions in order to win votes, while privately courting special interests, is a recipe for disaster — one that assumes progressive voters are easily duped and can be silenced by identity politics.

As the second part of this series will show, Harris’ Clintonesque construction of both a “private” and “public” platform is hardly a coincidence, since she has surrounded herself for much of her young Senate career with numerous Clinton campaign staffers and Obama administration officials and has been zealously courting Hillary Clinton’s former political patrons.

Whitney Webb is a staff writer for MintPress News and a contributor to Ben Swann’s Truth in Media. Her work has appeared on Global Research, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has also made radio and TV appearances on RT and Sputnik. She currently lives with her family in southern Chile.

January 21, 2019 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , , | 2 Comments

FISA shocker: DOJ official warned Steele dossier was connected to Clinton, might be biased

By John Solomon | The Hill | January 16, 2019

When the annals of mistakes and abuses in the FBI’s Russia investigation are finally written, Bruce Ohr almost certainly will be the No. 1 witness, according to my sources.

The then-No. 4 Department of Justice (DOJ) official briefed both senior FBI and DOJ officials in summer 2016 about Christopher Steele’s Russia dossier, explicitly cautioning that the British intelligence operative’s work was opposition research connected to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and might be biased.

Ohr’s briefings, in July and August 2016, included the deputy director of the FBI, a top lawyer for then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and a Justice official who later would become the top deputy to special counsel Robert Mueller.

At the time, Ohr was the associate attorney general. Yet his warnings about political bias were pointedly omitted weeks later from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant that the FBI obtained from a federal court, granting it permission to spy on whether the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia to hijack the 2016 presidential election.

Ohr’s activities, chronicled in handwritten notes and congressional testimony I gleaned from sources, provide the most damning evidence to date that FBI and DOJ officials may have misled federal judges in October 2016 in their zeal to obtain the warrant targeting Trump adviser Carter Page just weeks before Election Day.

They also contradict a key argument that House Democrats have made in their formal intelligence conclusions about the Russia case.

Since it was disclosed last year that Steele’s dossier formed a central piece of evidence supporting the FISA warrant, Justice and FBI officials have been vague about exactly when they learned that Steele’s work was paid for by the law firm representing the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

A redacted version of the FISA application released last year shows the FBI did not mention any connection to the DNC or Clinton. Rather, it referred to Steele as a reliable source in past criminal investigations who was hired by a person working for a U.S. law firm to conduct research on Trump and Russia.

The FBI claimed it was “unaware of any derogatory information” about Steele, that Steele was “never advised … as to the motivation behind the research” but that the FBI  “speculates” that those who hired Steele were “likely looking for information to discredit” Trump’s campaign.

Yet, in testimony last summer to congressional investigators, Ohr revealed the FBI and Justice lawyers had no need to speculate: He explicitly warned them in a series of contacts, beginning July 31, 2016, that Steele expressed biased against Trump and was working on a project connected to the Clinton campaign.Ohr had firsthand knowledge about the motive and the client: He had just met with Steele on July 30, 2016, and Ohr’s wife, Nellie, worked for Fusion GPS, the same firm employing Steele.

“I certainly told the FBI that Fusion GPS was working with, doing opposition research on Donald Trump,” Ohr told congressional investigators, adding that he warned the FBI that Steele expressed bias during their conversations.

“I provided information to the FBI when I thought Christopher Steele was, as I said, desperate that Trump not be elected,” he added. “So, yes, of course I provided that to the FBI.”

When pressed why he would offer that information to the FBI, Ohr answered: “In case there might be any kind of bias or anything like that.” He added later, “So when I provided it to the FBI, I tried to be clear that this is source information, I don’t know how reliable it is. You’re going to have to check it out and be aware.”

Ohr went further, saying he disclosed to FBI agents that his wife and Steele were working for the same firm and that it was conducting the Trump-Russia research project at the behest of Trump’s Democratic rival, the Clinton campaign.

“These guys were hired by somebody relating to, who’s related to the Clinton campaign and be aware,” Ohr told Congress, explaining what he warned the bureau.

Perkins Coie, the law firm that represented both the DNC and the Clinton campaign during the 2016 election, belatedly admitted it paid Fusion GPS for Steele’s work on behalf of the candidate and party and disguised the payments as legal bills when, in fact, it was opposition research.

When asked if he knew of any connection between the Steele dossier and the DNC, Ohr responded that he believed the project was really connected to the Clinton campaign.

“I didn’t know they were employed by the DNC but I certainly said yes that they were working for, you know, they were somehow working, associated with the Clinton campaign,” he answered.

“I also told the FBI that my wife worked for Fusion GPS or was a contractor for GPS, Fusion GPS.”

Ohr divulged his first contact with the FBI was on July 31, 2016, when he reached out to then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and FBI attorney Lisa Page. He then was referred to the agents working Russia counterintelligence, including Peter Strzok, the now-fired agent who played a central role in starting the Trump collusion probe.

But Ohr’s contacts about the Steele dossier weren’t limited to the FBI. He said in August 2016 — nearly two months before the FISA warrant was issued — that he was asked to conduct a briefing for senior Justice officials.

Those he briefed included Andrew Weissmann, then the head of DOJ’s fraud section; Bruce Swartz, longtime head of DOJ’s international operations, and Zainab Ahmad, an accomplished terrorism prosecutor who, at the time, was assigned to work with Lynch as a senior counselor.

Ahmad and Weissmann would go on to work for Mueller, the special prosecutor overseeing the Russia probe.

Ohr’s extensive testimony also undercuts one argument that House Democrats sought to make last year.

When Republicans, in early 2018, first questioned Ohr’s connections to Steele, Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee sought to minimize the connection, insisting he only worked as an informer for the FBI after Steele was fired by the FBI in November 2016.

The memo from Rep. Adam Schiff’s (D-Calif.) team claimed that Ohr’s contacts with the FBI only began “weeks after the election and more than a month after the Court approved the initial FISA application.”

But Ohr’s testimony now debunks that claim, making clear he started talking to FBI and DOJ officials well before the FISA warrant or election had occurred.

And his detailed answers provide a damning rebuttal to the FBI’s portrayal of the Steele material.

In fact, the FBI did have derogatory information on Steele: Ohr explicitly told the FBI that Steele was desperate to defeat the man he was investigating and was biased.

And the FBI knew the motive of the client and did not have to speculate: Ohr told agents the Democratic nominee’s campaign was connected to the research designed to harm Trump’s election chances.

Such omissions are, by definition, an abuse of the FISA system.

Don’t take my word for it. Fired FBI Director James Comey acknowledged it himself when he testified last month that the FISA court relies on an honor system, in which the FBI is expected to divulge exculpatory evidence to the judges.

“We certainly consider it our obligation, because of our trust relationship with federal judges, to present evidence that would paint a materially different picture of what we’re presenting,” Comey testified on Dec. 7, 2018. “You want to present to the judge reviewing your application a complete picture of the evidence, both its flaws and its strengths.”

Comey claims he didn’t know about Ohr’s contacts with Steele, even though his top deputy, McCabe, got the first contact.

But none of that absolves his FBI, or the DOJ for that matter, from failing to divulge essential and exculpatory information from Ohr to the FISA court.

John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists’ misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He is The Hill’s executive vice president for video.

January 17, 2019 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment