30Mar/140

Blagojevich agreed to let Chicago Tribune reporters lie about the tapes

Share

Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

This may come as no surprise, but Rod Blagojevich's get-out-of-jail deal not only involves the federal prosecutors and his defense team, it also included the direct involvement of the Chicago Tribune.

That's because, as part of his deal to get out of prison, Rod Blagojevich agreed to let Chicago Tribune reporters John Chase and Jeff Coen lie to the public about the wiretap tapes that put him there.

Due to some excellent investigative reporting by Barbara Hollingsworth, who now writes for CNS News, we know that the feds gave Chase and Coen copies of court-sealed tapes and transcripts from the Blagojevich case.

Gee, why would the FEDS do that?

Simple. Chase and Coen were instructed to tell the public that they listened to all the sealed tapes and found nothing interesting on them.

We know differently because Blago was caught on tape talking to some of the top power brokers in the country, including Obama and his chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel.

So the real question you must ask is:

Why would Rod Blagojevich and his lawyers, who knew very well the explosive contents of the conversations caught on those tapes, allow Chase and Coen to lie about them?

Facing 14 years in federal prison, Blagojevich should have dragged Chase and Coen in front of Judge Zagel and made them tell the court who gave them tapes and transcripts that he had placed under seal. But Blago didn't.

The $64k question is why?

Blago's attorney, Sheldon Sorosky, has confirmed that there is and never was anything stopping Blago from telling the public what is on the tapes, which he insist to this day prove his innocence.

So why did Blago and his attorneys let Chase and Coen's public proclamation that the contents of the sealed tapes confirm his guilt go unchallenged?

And why is Blago pretending he wants the tapes to be unsealed when he is completely ignoring the fact that the Chicago Tribune claims to have copies?

More importantly, why are the feds insisting the tapes stay sealed nearly 2 years after they gave copies to the two Chicago Tribune reporters-who have refused to make them public?

What possible reason could Chase and Coen have not to release the transcripts?

The answer is that Chicago Tribune reporters John Chase and Jeff Coen are lying to the public, the feds put them up to it, and Blago agreed to go along with the deception as part of his get-out-of-jail deal.

Share
15Mar/140

The real reason the Blagojevich tapes won’t be unsealed

Share

Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

The real reason the Blagojevich tapes won't be unsealed is because it would expose the widespread corruption at the highest levels of our government.

Like we at IP2P have been telling you for a long time, Blago will be set free. In other words, he is successfully blackmailing his way out of prison!

Here's how it will work:

A three-judge panel hearing Blago's appeal has already taken the first step by announcing that the Blagojevich tapes would remain sealed.

Next, the same three-judge panel will find that Blago did not try to sell the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama. The court will say that Blago was just engaged in "political horse trading."

Blago's conviction for trying to sell the Senate seat will be overturned, and combined with a few other slick legal maneuvers, his sentence will be drastically reduced. Instead of spending 12 more years in federal prison, Blago will most likely be home for the holidays this year.

Time served! Which will make Dick Mell's daughter, Patti, very happy.

But more importantly for people like Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel, the court will have bought the silence of Rod and Patti Blagojevich.

As IP2P has been pointing out all along, the issue has never been whether or not the wiretap tapes would prove Blago's innocence. From the very beginning, the real issue for Blago has been leverage, and who else would go down with him if the tapes were played.

And that's why Blago never really wanted the tapes to be played. If they were, he would lose his leverage. It's that simple.

If not for the fact that Patrick Fitzgerald was protecting other guilty parties, Blago would have most certainly faced even more charges and most likely would have been found guilty of them as well.

Conclusion:

Playing the tapes would not prove Blago's innocence or get him out of prison. It would just get him company in there.

However, not playing the tapes ensures that those who would join Blago in prison if the tapes were played will do everything in their power to get him out of prison so the tapes won't be played.

And just as we expected, there was no objection to the tapes remaining under seal from Blago and his attorneys. Even though all we've heard for years from them was "Play the tapes, play all the tapes."

There's nothing complicated about it. This is BLACKMAIL 101.

And clearly Eric Holder and the DoJ is onboard.

Much more to come ..... including how John Chase and Jeff Coen of the Chicago Tribune are complicit in this corruption cover-up. And wait until you hear Blago attorney Sheldon Sorosky's incredible explanation of why Chase was never called to testify in the Blagojevich trial.

You won't believe what Shelly had to say!

Share
28Feb/140

Richard Perle feeds American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson

Share

Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

Not only was Richard Perle feeding the American Thinker what he wanted them to report during the Iraq war and Plamegate.

Turns out he was also sautéing foie gras for American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson and friends.

Lifson's good friend Bob Lee tells of an intimate gathering at the house of Washington insiders Clarice and Howard Feldman, where Perle played a co-host of sorts.

Yes, this is the same Clarice Feldman who writes for American Thinker and who recently insisted that Plamegate was not a deliberate plot by Goerge W. "Bush and pals to distract from Iraq."

It also turns out that Clarice Feldman considers Richard Perle such a good friend that she puts him to work in her kitchen when he attends her soirées.

Here's what Bob Lee wrote about the intimate gathering.

Richard Perle Sauteed The Foie Gras …

There were probably 1000s of other such conversational gourmands meeting inside the Washington Beltway on Friday night. Nine adults enjoying a 4-course gourmet dinner au conversation. Ours had a former Asst Secty of Defense, the ex-wife of The Head of The World Bank, a military historian, a Libby Trial aficionado, a right-wing fanatic from Berkley, and a North Carolina couple referred to as friends of Tom. … That grotesquely hilarious report about Apple Cheek Johnny's Poverty Castle ??? Wait til BobLee tells you THE REAL STORY!

If you want to skip down to the hilarious REAL STORY about Apple Cheek’s Monster Manse go ahead … but do come back up for this account of our Foggy Bottom Fandango.

Remember The Brunswick Stew Party a few years ago. Given my druthers I’d take that over Friday night for pure conviviality plus b-stew trumps foie gras every time with me. But, our dinner party in a prominent DC-A list neighborhood certainly added a few memories to the life larder. The Mizzus could not get out of Georgetown fast enough Saturday as urban congestion about did her in. With me it was the Euros and faux Euros that slink up /down M Street. They are sorta like Shineolas except they (the Euros) have greasier hair.

Our dear friend Thomas The Berkley Right-winger had invited us. Clarice and Howard were our gracious hosts. We had no idea who was on the guest list, nor did they. They likely still don’t know and we’re still not sure ourselves.

Howard perked up when I said I am a legendary humorist. So is my brother he said. Feldman ... yikes ... was this MARTY FELDMAN's brother??? ... Hump, what hump ... Walk this way ... I'll take the one in the turban. No ... Michael Feldman ... an NPR talk show guy that is well outside my interest sphere.

When the big man in the hat said his name was Richard Perle I first thought the guy that started those Vision Centers. Close … the former Reagan Asst Secty of Defense not affectionately known around DC as the Prince of Darkness. Richard, legend has it, was the first one to get GWB’s ear after 9/11 and strongly recommend taking down Saddam ASAP.

I introduced myself as the last remaining member of The Flying Wallendas and Mizzus said she was Stephanie Powers’ younger sister. I detected a glimmer of recognition with the name Wallenda but it flickered and died quickly. After game after game of “hey look, IT’S BOBLEE…” it was sort of nice to be naught but a whozit for an evening. Now I know how those three little white boys at the end of Dean’s bench musta felt all those years.

A pre-dinner conversational mini-joust highlighted by one of Thomas’ Napa Valley finest led us to the dinner table. I was seated between Thomas From Berkley and a little Jewish lady named Clare with a daughter at Chapel Hill and an ex-husband who was almost CIA Director and instead is Head of The World Bank – Paul Wolfowitz.

Mizzus was between Richard and Peter The Lawyer From Annapolis. During the course of four courses and about two hours of chitting and chatting, Peter actually used the word Parenthetically ... TWICE. In well over 50 years I’ve never used in once nor do I ever intend to. Peter used it with a deftness that would lead one to believe he uses it daily if not hourly. I wonder if Paul Johnson, a football coach who lives in Annapolis, has ever used the word parenthetically? I doubt it.

A French onion soufflé began our epicurean journey. At about the 15-minute mark Richard left the table. When he returned he had grease stains all over the front of his blue oxford button-down. Since I’ve been known to get a tab rowdy in eating I chose not to inquire “yo Perle, whats with the grease spots?”

Clarise explained it all … she had asked Richard to sautee the foie gras. Although he knew one should slide the foie gras delicately into the hot pan, silly Prince of Darkness DROPPED the foie gras from several inches above the skillet … voila … grease spots all over his shirt. And this was the man that convinced GWB to take out Saddam! I wonder if Cindy Sheehan knows how to sautee foie gras?

The thought occured to me twixt Course Two & Three ... suppose Ol' Fruitcake Freddie From Franklin Street had been hiding under the table? That silly wabbit's tin foil hat woulda been spinning like a top. Lord have mercy, Freddie would have been dialing up the Mutha Ship for sure to report a new CONSPIRACY!

I cleaned my plate because that’s how I was raised plus, like Mikey, I eat most anything. Mizzus nibbled and later expressed her pique at the goose liver. The Beef Wellington of Course Three was equally tasty to me but a bit too rare for Mizzus.

As the evening progressed everyone seemed to assume familiar roles … listening to Richard Perle tell about meeting with world leaders and getting the Chi Coms to reduce the price of AK47s to the Mujaheedin. Richard Perle does NOT care much for The Saudis. In other words, the same chit chat you get about anywhere. Richard did ask me which other humorists I admire the most. Since I did not mention PJ O’Rourke or Robert Benchley it didn’t much matter who I mentioned. I deftly dropped Dave Huxtable’s name and I thought I noticed a slight shiver from ex-Mrs Wolfowitz.

John McCain’s name came up. Mizzus did that finger down the throat gag sign which took Peter Parenthetical aback. The military historian lady even pretended to care on that. Richard seconded Mizzus’ low opinion of McCrazy with a few stories on him that likely are not in his official bio. Apparently John McCrazy has a hair trigger temper and the attention span of a gnat. But, unlike Barack, he has normal ears ... and unlike Hilly, he has discernible ankles.

I noted to ex-Mrs Wolfowitz that out-of-state tuition had just been increased at UNC. She said she didn’t care since her(daughter’s) father can afford it. He’s head of The World Bank. She’s likely right. I tried a second question tied to 40 Point Frank’s next career move. I lost ex-Mrs Wolfowitz … never to regain her. I later learned she is a somewhat famous anthropologist specializing in Sumatra. She woulda lost me quickly on that.

We did learn all about the shadow government that really runs Washington … the insidious webees that have been in place forever and defy all administrations and/or new personalities.

Clarice, our gracious host, attends the Scooter Libby Trial each day. She had many harsh words for Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. I later learned from Thomas that there are at least two websites devoted to people who dislike Clarice a lot. TWO … My kinda woman!

On the drive home Saturday we stopped at the Silver Diner at Potomac Mills. Mizzus had a grilled cheese. I had a crab cake melt. It was good.

>>><<<

Wow. Although no doubt unintentionally, Bob Lee has opened a serious can of worms for the American Thinker by preserving for the record the events of that little get-together.

First thing we have to ask is this:

If Richard Perle was feeling chatty enough to talk about "meeting with world leaders and getting the Chi Coms to reduce the price of AK47s to the Mujaheedin", why did Lifson and Feldman not find this interesting enough to write about?

And as long as Perle was telling war stories, why didn't Lifson or Feldman ask him about more current topics, such as the 550 Tons of yellowcake that was then still sitting in Iraq?

And while we're at it, why didn't the American Thinker editor ask Clare Wolfowitz about the letter she wrote to George W. Bush that derailed ex-husband Paul Wolfowitz's bid to be the director of the CIA.

Instead, Thomas Lifson and Clarice Feldman continued to publish stories attacking those who disagreed with Perle or Wolfowitz without disclosing that they were close personal friends.

How is that for journalistic integrity?

We now know that Clarice Feldman's ridiculous attack on Sibel Edmonds' credibility, claiming Edmonds "misunderstood what she had overheard," certainly must have come from Richard Perle.

We also know that Feldman cannot name Perle as her source for that dubious claim due to the fact that Edmonds made it clear that if the FBI wiretap tapes she translated were ever made public, Perle would go to prison.

Remember, the Department of Defense, Perle's old stomping grounds, was instrumental in invoking states secrets privilege on Edmonds so that she could not talk publicly about what was on those tapes.

Bit of a conflict there, don't ya think, Clarice?

If that's not enough to make you ask who's running things at the American Thinker, we have reason to believe that the "military historian lady" at this private gathering was none other than Laurie Mylroie.

If so, we have a few questions for Clarice Feldman's "dear friend" Mylroie as well.

Perhaps Lifson or Feldman will get back to us on that.

In any case, we can hardly wait to read Judith Miller's tell all book due out this spring.

Judith, can you give us a preview?

Share
12Feb/140

Did Clarice Feldman just say “Plamegate was a deliberate plot by Bush and pals to distract from Iraq”?

Share

Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

American Thinker writer Clarice Feldman is not only on record stating that Plamegate was a "hoax", she has also at one point or another accused half of Washington of being involved in a "conspiracy" against George W. Bush.

Right, Clarice. Poor George Bush and Dick Cheney were being picked on by all those bad people that worked for them. Ok. Got it.

While being questioned about her "conspiracy" theories, Feldman let loose with this unexpected gem:

" When do we get to Ernie's fantastical notion that Plamegate was a deliberate plot by Bush and pals to distract from Iraq? "

Holy cow! Where did that come from?

Clarice, we never said that "Plamegate was a deliberate plot by Bush and pals to distract from Iraq." But now that you mention it, that scenario would explain a great deal of unanswered questions.

For example:

Why would the CIA send Joe Wilson to Niger to investigate Saddam Hussein's alleged attempt to purchase yellowcake uranium, when the CIA and George W. Bush knew Hussein had 550 tons of yellowcake 19 miles outside of Baghdad?

And why were the yellowcake documents that Wilson said he read long before they were actually ever made available to anyone in the CIA such poor forgeries? Were the forgeries designed to be easily discovered?

Would a President really tolerate any high-ranking officials in his administration keeping secrets from him, especially during wartime, as Feldman contends?

Of course he would not.

President George W. Bush meets with Secretary of State Colin Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, Wednesday, Aug. 6, 2003.

 

So while IP2P was trying to get Feldman to explain how she came to the conclusion that the CIA, the State Department, the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the DoJ Inspector General's Office were all involved in a "conspiracy" against President George W. Bush, she answered with this out-of-the-blue defense of Bush and his Defense Dept.

And in doing so could very well have helped solve the mystery of what the "Plamegate hoax" was really all about.

Coincidentally, the DoD is where Feldman's close personal friends Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith were practically running the show during the lead up to the invasion of Iraq.

Clarice, you may have really turned us on to something here. Thank You!

Share
9Feb/140

Rod Blagojevich continues to insult the people of Illinois

Share

Hugo Floriani, Investigative Reporter

Rod Blagojevich continues to insult the people of Illinois. He obviously thinks we are stupid.

That is the only way to explain Blago's ridiculous behavior when it comes to the subject of federal wiretap recordings in his case.

Here's the latest:

Rod Blagojevich's attorney's recently filed a motion objecting to prosecutors' request to have the tapes continue to remain under seal.

No kidding, Blago apparently thinks that the people of Illinois will believe the fairytale that he actually wants the tapes and transcript to be made public.

Rod, let me try to put this delicately for you.

In a pigs eye! We already know that there is not a snowball's chance in hell that you want those tapes in the public domain.

Because if you did, your lawyers would be filing motions to drag Chicago Tribune reporters John Chase and Jeff Coen into court to explain who gave them copies of tapes and transcripts that were under court seal.

And Rod, you and your attorneys sure as hell would not have just sat there silently as Chase and Coen told your potential jury pool that the contents of the "sealed tapes and transcripts" prove your guilt rather than your innocence.

Which is exactly what they did while touring Illinois promoting their book, Golden.

In addition, Blagojevich's attorney, Sheldon Sorosky, has admitted that there is nothing legally stopping the former governor from revealing to the public the full details of conversations that were captured on tape. But so far Blago has chosen not to do so.

However, we know for a fact that he has been using the tapes to blackmail his way out of prison.

We also know that Blago, the prosecutors, and an untold number of other miscreants want the tapes to remain sealed forever.

So Rod, contrary to what you think, we are not that stupid. Either drag Chase and Coen into court and start telling us what is on those tapes, or shut the hell up about them!

 

Share
1Feb/140

Murray Waas: Plamegate cover-up is “something that is bigger than Watergate”

Share

Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

In a recent phone interview Murray Waas, the reporter who claimed to be the recipient of anonymous Plamegate grand jury leaks, confessed that the Plamegate cover-up is "something that is bigger than Watergate".

Keep this in mind as the Plamegate cover-up continues to be exposed.

Waas is now desperately trying to distance himself from the book he purportedly wrote entitled United States v. I. Lewis Libby, and the reporting he did on Plamegate.

Why would a journalist distance himself from the very body of work that earned him national recognition?

What would cause an author to disown his own book?

And, even more perplexing, what makes Waas think that American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson would be sympathetic to his fear of his confession getting out?

Waas has been communicating with the American Thinker in hopes of defusing the current predicament his recent statements have created for him, so perhaps the better question is:

Why would Waas think the American Thinker would be sympathetic to his attempt to conceal the Plamegate cover-up, and his part in it? A cover-up Waas admitted was bigger than Watergate.

Strangely enough, since Waas' confession American Thinker contributor Clarice Feldman has also called Plamegate a "hoax". And she has now added former FBI Director Robert Mueller to her list of people who "conspired to conceal" this from the White House.

When looked at logically, Feldman's list of conspirators-which now includes the State Department, the Department of Justice and the FBI-fully supports Waas' admission of a big Washington cover-up.

Feldman and the American Thinker want us to believe that top officials at these three different agencies, who all served at the pleasure of the President, kept him in the dark for three years that Dick Armitage was Robert Novak's source.

Why is the American Thinker still clinging to the official Armitage "disinformation campaign" version of the Plamegate story, and ignoring the recent confessions of both Judith Miller and Murray Waas?

I wonder, could this ludicrous position the American Thinker is taking have been in any way influenced by their close relationship with members of the discontinued 501(c) 3 known as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC)

More to come....

Share
25Jan/140

American Thinker’s credibility is dissipating quickly

Share

Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

American Thinker's credibility is dissipating quickly.

You see, not disclosing conflicts of interest is turning out to be the norm at American Thinker.

For example: IP2P recently informed its readers of Clarice Feldman's close personal relationship with Richard Perle, whom she frequently goes on the attack for and staunchly defends. As in the case of her baseless attack on Sibel Edmonds.

Now IP2P has also learned that Feldman shares a close friendship with Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. And as is the case with Perle, she has never disclosed her conflict of interest when attacking others on their behalf.

Nor has American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson required her to do so.

Keeping American Thinker's failure to disclose in mind, let me tell you some other disturbing facts that will have you asking this question: Who is really running the show over at American Thinker?

On September 20, 2012 American Thinker posted an article by Lee Cary entitled "Obama's Chicago Arab-American network comes into focus".

Cary's article states some unflattering facts about a man named Nadhmi Auchi, aka. Saddam Hussein's bag man.

Naturally Auchi did not appreciate this article and to no one's surprise he instructed his lawyers at the London law firm Carter-Ruck to send a letter threatening legal action if said article was not taken down.

Upon receiving Auchi's letter, Lifson took the article down momentarily to verify that it was completely factual. After determining that it was correct, Lifson promptly reposted Cary's article unchanged.

That's because Lee Cary's work was solid, and contributor John A. Shaw is as honest and credible a man as you will ever find.

Taking down that article would have given the public the perception that there was something wrong with the story. And that clearly would not be fair to either Cary or Shaw.

At that time IP2P, which was also named in the letter from Auchi's law firm, posted an article praising American Thinker for doing the right thing.

Due to many factors, including Auchi's inability to legally enter the United States, the letter from his lawyers was an idle threat. And that should have been the end of the story.

Unfortunately that happy ending was not to be.

What happened next was that someone on this side of the pond told Lifson to take the article down. And he did, a second time!

We can not tell you exactly who it was at the moment, we can tell that it was not Nadhmi Auchi or his people, according to Lifson.

Could it have been one of Clarice Feldman's close friends? Perhaps Wolfowitz, Perle or Feith?

In any case, if that wasn't bad enough, Lifson then had the audacity to think that IP2P would take the article down as well. And for some peculiar reason, he would not even tell us why.

Of course Lifson received a prompt, "Hell no!"

In fact, we at IP2P still feel that Thomas Lifson owes Cary and Shaw a formal apology for removing their article a second time from American Thinker without even giving them the courtesy of an explanation.

And more importantly, due to recent revelations about American Thinker's close ties to the Washington elite, Lifson needs to publicly address his publication's controversial policy of not disclosing conflicts of interest.

Read the article that Thomas Lifson took down twice here:

Obama's Chicago Arab-American network comes into focus

 

Related articles by John A. Shaw

REZKO, OBAMA, AND THE NADHMI AUCHI RAILROAD LINKING CHICAGO, WASHINGTON, AND BAGHDAD (Part 1 of 3)

REZKO, OBAMA, AND THE NADHMI AUCHI RAILROAD LINKING CHICAGO, WASHINGTON, AND BAGHDAD (Part 2 of 3)

REZKO, OBAMA, AND THE NADHMI AUCHI RAILROAD LINKING CHICAGO, WASHINGTON, AND BAGHDAD (Part 3 of 3)

 

Share
15Jan/140

Plamegate Update: American Thinker fails to disclose conflicts of interest!

Share

Ernie Souchak, Editor-inChief

American Thinker's failure to disclose conflicts of interest raises serious ethical questions about the website.

Case in point.

Meet Clarice Feldman, attorney, Washington insider, and close personal friend of Richard Perle and his wife Leslie Barr.

That's Clarice up front and center, enjoying herself at former Chairman of the Defense Advisory Board Richard Perle's annual 4th of July bash in the South of France. Looks like she is having a wonderful time.

That's great Clarice!

Although it does present a bit of a problem for us common folk back in the States.

You see, very serious allegations have been made against Richard Perle (see email below)

The American Thinker thought it was OK to publish Feldman's baseless hit pieces on those who make allegations against her friends.

And if that's not bad enough, American Thinker did not feel obligated to disclose Feldman's conflict of interest. This is deplorable, and should not be tolerated.

From: <redacted>
To: thomas@americanthinker.com
Sent:Tue Jan 14 03:52:33 UTC 2014
Subject: Conflict of interest (Clarice Feldman)

Thomas,

Please tell me how Clarice Feldman's close personal relationship with Richard Perle and his wife Leslie Barr is not a conflict of interest, as it pertains to Feldman's "prerogative" to attack Sibel Edmonds' credibility.

(name redacted)
Writer, American Thinker website

Military.com Covers Edmonds Disclosures, Reports 'Denials' From Several Fingered Bush Officials

Feature article offers comment from Perle, Feith, spokesman for Grossman, as well as information and comment in support of the FBI translator/whistleblower's charges of nuclear treason...

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7478&print=1

Tasty Food to Celebrate American Freedom in the South of (Clarice Feldman)

http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2012/07/26/tasty-food-to-celebrate-american-freedom-in-the-south-of-france/?singlepage=true

American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson still feels he has no obligation to disclose Feldman's close personal relationship with Perle.

From: thomas@americanthinker.com
To:<redacted>
Sent:Fri Jan 10 12:48:05 UTC 2014
Subject: RE: American Thinker's dishonest attempt to discredit

(name redacted),

Clarice does not believe Edmonds, as is her prerogative. I trust Clarice far more than I trust you. You throw around ugly words. I don't know what you think is going on, but your tactics have alienated me.

Please do not correspond any further with me. Such correspondence is unwelcome and may constitute harassment.

Thomas

It is also apparent from Lifson's email response above that he thinks someone's use of ugly words(?) is all the justification he needs to ignore evidence that proves Clarice Feldman's attacks on Sibel Edmonds are based on falsehoods. And that publishing them is unethical.

As for the rest of Feldman's reporting on "Plamegate"......much more to come......

Share
12Jan/140

Plamegate update: Clarice Feldman says Sibel Edmonds misunderstood

Share

Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

American Thinker contributor Clarice Feldman came up with a stunning justification for her hit piece on Sibel Edmonds' credibility.

After she was criticized for failing to provide any facts or references to support her public declaration that FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds is not credible, Feldman finally offered this journalistic gem:

"p to p has no secret info to my knowledge. As I recall the investigation of Sibel's charges was mixed--She was found credible respecting claims of the operation of the FBI's Arabic translation group. Not so with her assertions that a variety of high govt officials were engaged in treasonous stuff with Turkey. As to those things I thing she misunderstood what she had overheard"

So, according to Clarice Feldman, the woman who testified before the 911 Commission and had state secrets privilege invoked on her twice, simply "misunderstood what she overheard" on the FBI wiretap tapes.

Wow, thanks for clearing that up for us, Clarice.

Now if you don't mind, just tell us the correct translation of what is on the FBI wiretap tapes that Edmonds "misunderstood".

And please show us where DoJ Inspector General Glenn Fine says Edmonds is not credible as it pertains to "her assertions that a variety of high govt officials were engaged in treasonous stuff with Turkey" in his unclassified report.

Because we can't find that in the report. Or anywhere else for that matter.

Unless of course Clarice received a copy of the classified report. Well, did you Clarice?

But Feldman is right about one thing: "Plamegate" was a hoax. However, she is not telling the truth about the who, what, why, when, and where of the hoax. Or the more accurate description - disinformation campaign.

And now Feldman is continuing the disinformation campaign by quoting from a new book by John Rizzo, a CIA attorney and self described friend of Patrick Fitzgerald.

Really?

Will get back to you on that one......more to come...

Share
10Jan/140

American Thinker’s dishonest attempt to discredit a hero

Share

Ernie Souchak, Editor-in Chief

Clarice Feldman and the American Thinker's dishonest attempt to discredit a true American hero by the name of Sibel Edmonds exposes their hidden agenda.

Feldman's coverage of "Plamegate" coupled with another story IP2P is currently working on involving the American Thinker  will not only raise very serious questions about American Thinker's credibility in the minds of their readers. It will also prove to be very upsetting to many of the fine writers who contribute to the American Thinker. And who deserve better.

Let's start with a few things you may or may not know about Clarice Feldman that will help paint a picture of what is clearly her agenda.

You may know that Clarice Feldman was a DC lawyer. However, did you know that Clarice Feldman's career as an attorney was spent employed by the federal government at the National Labor Relations Review Board (NLRB)?

Did you know that Feldman was a Washington insider who was nominated to be on the federal bench three separate times?

And did you know that Feldman's husband is a Washington insider as well?

Howard J. Feldman - Van Ness Feldman LLP

Keep these facts in mind as you read the following communication between American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson and one of the contributors to his website.

From:<redacted>
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 6:55 PM
To: thomas@americanthinker.com
Subject: American Thinker's dishonest attempt to discredit

Thomas,

I wish to bring to your attention egregious misrepresentations and falsehoods written by Clarice Feldman and published in the American Thinker, that by all indications appear to have been intentional.

I recently asked you the following: What was the purpose of the Clarice Feldman article titled Spy vs Spy? To which you replied "I am not a mind reader". OK Thomas, I believe you when you say you are not a mind reader. However, you are the editor of American Thinker and you should have a clear understanding of what you publish.

So, I am going to take this opportunity to explain to you what you allowed to be published under your watch. Feldman's article Spy vs Spy was the most transparently feeble underhanded cowardly dishonest attempt to discredit a credible bonafide whistleblower that I have ever seen.

As Feldman is fully aware, the media did not have "well-supported questions about Edmonds' credibility" as she stated. In fact the opposite was true. The media that did report on Edmonds touted her as being completely credible. And members of congress including the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) stepped up and went on programs such as CBS 60 minutes to say so.

Not to mention the fact that Sibel Edmonds the most gaged women in America was credible enough to be called to testify in front of the 911 commission.

Furthermore, Feldman's attempt to discredit Edmonds with the tactic of guilt by association using an indirect connection to as Feldman puts it "the oddly-named Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPs)", was disgraceful.

And is further conformation that Clarice Feldman was motivated by an agenda and not a desire to report the truth.

Thomas, you have been provided documents and sworn testimony of Sibel Edmonds that as you know has not been challenged by anyone in the media or the federal government, including the Department of Justice and the FBI.

With that evidence in hand, it is time for the American Thinker to do what is right, and correct a wrong. Print a retraction of the hit piece Clarice Feldman and the American Thinker did on Sibel Edmonds and her credibility (attached below) along with a long overdue apology to Sibel Edmonds, who is a true American hero that deserves our thanks and admiration.

(name redacted)
Writer, American Thinker website

January 31, 2008 Spy vs Spy
Clarice Feldman

The UK Sunday Times has run a series of articles detailing sensational charges by Sibel Edmonds, a short term translator for the FBI who claims that Marc Grossman, a key prosecution figure in the Scooter Libby case, was involved in espionage against the U.S., divulging nuclear secrets and warning people that Plame's cover Brewster-Jennings was a CIA front.

Annie Jacobsen of Pajamas Media asks why no major US outlet has covered this, suggesting fear of being involved in charges of divulging state secrets.

My own view is that the media have well-supported questions about Edmonds' credibility. Interestingly, there is a whistleblowers operation supporting her that has some overlapping membership with the oddly-named Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPs) which insisted the government's case against Libby was solid, that Plame's career was destroyed when she was "outed" and that she was involved at the time in very important, top secret matters.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/01/spy_vs_spy.html

Feldman knows that if Edmonds was lying she would have faced criminal prosecution.

So, ask yourself the following:

Why would Feldman, who is the lead cheerleader for the Bush family, try to discredit the one person Washington wants to silence, Sibel Edmonds?

Why would Clarice Feldman, a DC insider who was nominated to be a federal judge, ignore all the documented facts and evidence that prove Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative was exposed in 2001?

And why would Feldman choose to believe Dick Armitage's ridiculous lie that he did so in 2003, over Sibel Edmonds' sworn testimony?

And why would Thomas Lifson' the founder and editor of American Thinker, participate in this lie?

Could it be because of the fact that Edmonds telling the truth exposes that Dick Armitage was not part of a conspiracy against the White House as Feldman and the American Thinker want you to believe, but rather part of a disinformation campaign/cover-up orchestrated by the White House?

And the fact that if that were exposed, the Bush family and a whole bunch of Washington insiders friendly to Feldman and the American Thinker would have a lot of explaining to do?

And most likely, time to do as well! As in prison time.

Yep, not only could it be. It is.

Much more to follow.....

Just wait until you hear who was quoted saying "it is bigger than Watergate" when talking about the "Plamegate cover-up". And who they are collaborating with now!

Share