Another Analysis of the Charlottesville Operation

If you don’t have any reservations about the media reporting on Charlottesville, and you just accept whatever CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS have to say, maybe you should look a bit deeper.  You are being manipulated.  It’s happened several times in the past by master propagandists, and it’s happening now.   None of this takes away the tragedy of Heyer’s death, for which I am certain we all lament.  But even that wasn’t as recorded.

Here’s a nice analysis of the entire thing from DC Dave.   He’s sometimes a long read, but if you are too lazy to read it, stay comfortable in your confusion.


The Charlottesville Operation


It was May of 1970 and my wife and I, both graduate students at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, had joined hundreds of other people, most of whom were students, in an enormous march around Chapel Hill in protest of the shooting of demonstrators at Kent State University and incursion into Cambodia, expanding the Vietnam War.  As we were marching toward Franklin Street, the main drag in the town, someone near the front began the chant, “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the NLF is going to win.”*


As deep as my anger was toward the government that I had finished serving on active duty in the Army a scant two years before, the chant made me very uncomfortable.  It struck me as pro-communist, which its originators probably intended it to be, but virtually the entire crowd—very few of which I would think really had any Communist sympathies—joined in the chant.  It had a nice cadence, like the ones I had shouted with my platoon at Fort Bragg, but at the same time it managed to taint the march, giving opponents something easy to seize upon and denounce.


Flash forward to September of 2005.  Once again I’m in a march against a major American war.  This time it’s the war in Iraq and I’m part of a truly massive demonstration in Washington, DC.  It was probably the high water mark in the United States of resistance to the criminal Middle East wars so far in the 21st century.  But even more than the earlier march in Chapel Hill, people who I am certain were ringers and plants tainted the demonstration.  The largest and noisiest such group flew socialist banners, dressed similarly, and all seemed to be no older than thirty.  Where on earth did they come from, I wondered.  A friend accompanying me spotted one obvious ringer sporting a sign directing obscenities toward President Bush, positioning himself between the television cameras and the speakers’ platform on the Ellipse near the White House.  I have no guilt feeling over joining my friend in forcibly taking down the man’s sign after he refused to do so voluntarily, and tearing it up.


From this little bit of experience I can say that political demonstrations give a great opportunity for the practice of what in the Nixon era was called “dirty tricks” for propagandistic purposes.  I can also recognize the grain of truth in the “controversial” observation of President Trump that there were “very fine people on both sides” in the recent violent event in Charlottesville, Virginia.


But in contrast to the two demonstrations that I experienced, which were filled with genuine people with the best of intentions from all walks of life and of all ages, the percentage of such people in the melee at Charlottesville had to have been very low.  To be sure there are lots of people of good will who still revere the great Confederate General Robert E. Lee and are dismayed at the plans of the city of Charlottesville to remove a statue honoring him, but only the most deluded among them would participate in a rally led by a self-proclaimed “white nationalist” and peopled by assorted “neo-Nazis” and “white supremacists.”  Even without the violence, such support from such a quarter is clearly harmful to the cause of honoring General Lee, perpetuating, as it can’t help but do, the very simplistic notion that the War between the States was all about ending the racist oppression of black people by white people.


On the other side there might have been some well-meaning but weak-minded people among them who have succumbed to the steady diet of propaganda that has come almost monolithically from the national opinion-molding community, from the universities, the press, and from Hollywood on the subject of racism in the United States in general and the South in particular, and would be moved to go out and protest against it.  Perhaps there are more folks than I would like to believe who responded honestly to the clarion call of the Marxist Socialist Worker web site with its reasoning like the following: **


Here’s another obvious point about people who organize protests in defense of the Confederacy: They are hate-fueled racists whose actions quickly reveal that the only freedom they’re interested in protecting is their own freedom to oppress and intimidate others.

To halt this growing menace will require people coming together in large numbers to directly confront the hate-mongers before they can grow into a truly threatening force.


Still, if they are motivated enough to go out and protest—some of them traveling a long distance to do so—one would think that they would also have heard about a group called Antifa, a very violence-prone outfit that claims to be on a mission against “fascism.”  Since white nationalism from their perspective is fascism incarnate, one could well expect that theirs would be a heavy presence among the “protestors” of the white nationalists’ rally in Charlottesville, and so it was.  Would well-meaning “fine people” really want to be associated with mobs that throw containers of urine and feces on people and club them, set fires to cars, and bash out the windows of buildings as a form of expression?  I suppose it is possible that the counter-protest crowd had some few among it who could claim ignorance by dint of the fact that they got all their news from, say, MSNBC or CNN and had never heard of Antifa, but it is difficult to believe that there were very many such people.


President Trump also said in his initial statement, rightly though imprecisely and inarticulately, that there were “bad people” on both sides—both sides—who were responsible for the violence.  To be more accurate, what he should have said was that there were ringers and plants on both sides who were most likely primarily responsible for the violence.  In fact, if truth be told, what happened at Charlottesville might best be described as one big propagandistic dirty trick, from a beginning that stretches a few years back to a very bad end that we are only beginning to see.


Divisive Mischief


We didn’t realize it at the time, but race relations in the United States probably were at their historical best with the election of Barack Obama as president in 2008.  To be sure he had the same weak candidate to run against in the Democratic primary that Donald Trump faced in the general election last year and the Republicans put up very poor candidates against him both in 2008 and 2012, but it is undeniable that a very great number of white people voted for Obama for who they perceived that he was, not for who he wasn’t.  Martin Luther King’s vision of a colorblind society in which people are judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin seemed to be well on its way to being realized.


Around the beginning of Obama’s second term, though, race relations in the country began to worsen.  Looking at some of the key events of the period we can’t help but notice a certain contrived character to that worsening.  It probably started with the Trayvon Martin case in the spring of 2012.  One can get a good appreciation of the role the media played in fanning the flames of racial discord with my article, “Washington Post Distorts Trayvon Martin News.” Here is a key passage:


As The Post tells it, it was the Martin parents’ outrage over the lack of a criminal charge that led them to the lawyers and thence to this amazingly effective PR guy.  But was it really the family’s public relations campaign that has vaulted this story into the national news, or has something more sinister been at work?  You can read this Style section article as thoroughly and carefully as possible, and nowhere will you find any mention of the malicious role played by NBC and its editing of the tape of the 911 call that Zimmerman made, which makes Zimmerman out to be a racist.


From there we had the events in Ferguson, Missouri, and in Baltimore, accompanied by the rise of an organization called Black Lives Matter, whose very name suggests that we have returned to an era in which black people are considered to be of less consequence than white people are.


Over the same period, Hollywood made its contribution to worsened race relations with some very incendiary movies that might very well be described as Uncle Tom’s Cabin on steroids.  While the Martin-Zimmerman case was in the news, Quentin Tarantino’s hyper-violent Django Unchained was in the movies, giving black people a historical excuse to hate white people in general and Southern white people in particular.  That was followed up by the perhaps even more pernicious 12 Years a Slave in 2013, whose negative contribution to race relations in the country are well summed up by this article in World Net Daily by Scott Greer. This quote from author Colin Flaherty captures the essence of the article:


“Hollywood has a relentless and very singular view on racial relations. Their point of view is that racism is everywhere and it is permanent, and this is a point of view that is repeated in every major Hollywood movie about race. ‘Django Unchained’ and ‘The Butler’ are just the latest examples of this mindset,” Flaherty said.


Oh, The Butler.  That one came out in 2013.  It is not about the slavery period.  Rather, it is based on the true story of Eugene Allen as written up by reporter Will Haygood in an article in The Washington Post.  The movie gives Allen the name of “Cecil Gaines.”  Here the left wing online publication Daily Beast rationalizes the liberty that the movie took with the truth in the latter’s outrageous, gratuitous smear of Southern white people:


The Butler, with its Forrest Gump-like ambition to touch on every significant moment and movement in the country’s 20th century racial history, begins by showing Cecil Gaines on a Georgia plantation picking cotton with his father (David Banner). After his mother (Mariah Carey, in a wordless performance) becomes catatonic after being raped by the plantation owner (Alex Pettyfer) and his father is subsequently murdered, Cecil is essentially orphaned. The woman in charge of the plantation (Vanessa Redgrave) takes pity on him and makes him a houseboy, the beginning of his life-long career as a domestic.


Allen, however, was born in Virginia, and, according to Haygood, never spoke bitterly about his upbringing or hinted at the monstrosities depicted in the film. He was a plantation houseboy in Virginia and did, as Cecil does in the film, leave in the pursuit of better employment.


How’s that for fanning the flames of racial and regional discord?


The Charleston Incident, Jared Taylor, and Richard Spencer


I was frankly shocked at the degree of anti-Southern animus that I encountered in online discussions in the wake of the pointless fatal shooting in Charleston, South Carolina, in June of 2015 of nine black churchgoers.  Considering the general historical ignorance of the American public though, and the extent to which their views are molded by popular culture, I suppose I should not have been surprised.


Then, in the wake of the Charleston shootings, came an urbane, Yale-educated man by the name of Jared Taylor who fashions himself as a “racialist” as opposed to a racist to explain in learned-sounding terms why the shooting by a young white man named Dylann Roof had not really been as pointless as it might seem.  His involvement in the matter probably did more than anything to persuade me that the whole thing had been a very sinister intelligence operation with the alleged young white alleged shooter a convenient fall guy cut out of the mold of Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray, Sirhan Sirhan, and Timothy McVeigh, to name just a few of such historical characters.  My interpretation of the Charleston event is in my essay, “Dylann Roof and Jared Taylor,” which begins like this:


From the beginning, there seemed to be a very contrived, orchestrated quality to the reported killing by a young white man of nine black Bible studiers at a famous old A.M.E. church in Charleston, South Carolina.  Who could miss it, what with all the carefully posed photographs that came to light with the alleged perpetrator, 21-year-old Dylann Roof, holding a Confederate battle flag, wearing white African colonialist patches on his jacket, holding a gun, burning an American flag, visiting a slave plantation, etc.?  No one has been identified as the person who took any of the photographs.  Who was it?


Roof, from a broken home, had dropped out of school after repeating the ninth grade and was only fitfully employed.  His main activities seem to have been playing video games, taking recreational drugs, and chilling out with his friends, several of whom are black.


If the orchestration had a purpose, as a CIA operation of some sort, it seems to have been to cement in the public mind the idea that traditional white Southern society, the Confederacy, and the Confederate battle flag that Roof flaunted in the photos represent racism, pure and simple, and that the Civil War was all about ending the South’s oppression of black people.  That was certainly the message that the media—almost as one—carried to the public, as did the politicians who took their cue from the media.  Playing his role in projecting that message, and more, that concern over rampant immigration is also based upon racism, has been a very unlikely character by the name of Jared Taylor.


More recently the much younger Richard Spencer has supplanted Taylor as the press’s favorite “white supremacist” bogeyman.  Like Taylor, Spencer is a highly educated, articulate unlikely racist.  Like Taylor, he gives interviews to unfriendly news organs that he can be certain will use what he says to make him, his purported cause, and anyone or anything with which they can associate him, to look absolutely as bad as possible.  It is very hard to escape the conclusion that that is the purpose in giving the interview.


Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who draws much of his support, like Donald Trump, from people concerned over the effect on his country of massive immigration, clearly felt that Taylor and Spencer were up to no good and were, in fact, political poison, when they traveled to his country in 2014 to hold a political conference.    Orbán banned the conference and slapped Spencer in jail for three days for defying the ban by holding an impromptu meeting with a number of the would-be attendees.


Taylor and Spencer are peas in a pod when it comes to justifying their white nationalism.  Both cite Israel as an exemplar.  Here’s Taylor:


Not long before he was assassinated, Yitzhak Rabin told U.S. News and World Report that as Prime Minister of Israel he had worked to achieve many things, but what he cared about most was that Israel remain at least 90 percent Jewish. He recognized that the character of Israel would change in fundamental-and to him unacceptable-ways if the non-Jewish population increased beyond a small minority.  Equally obviously, the character of the United States is changing as non-whites arrive in large numbers.


Now here’s Spencer speaking to an interviewer on Israeli television after the Charlottesville incident:


As an Israeli citizen, someone who understands your identity, you have a sense of nationhood and peoplehood and the history and experience of the Jewish people.  You should respect someone like me who has analogous feelings about whites.  I mean, you could say that I am a white Zionist in the sense that I care about my people.  I want us to have a secure homeland that’s for us and ourselves just like you want a secure homeland in Israel.


Could one better make the case against Trump and his supporters, who are concerned about what unbridled immigration from the Third World is doing to the country, than do Taylor and Spencer?  “Trumpism equals racism,” one might as well say.  The only people who really count in the Taylor-Spencer philosophy are the dominant majority group, which, at least for now, continues to be white.  Everyone else is, in effect, a Palestinian.  It is a perfect recipe for social disharmony, and it is in direct conflict the principles upon which this country—as opposed to the “Jewish state of Israel”—was founded.


But what did Taylor and Spencer have to do specifically with the Charlottesville incident?


“In August 2017, Spencer was given hierarchical primacy on poster advertisements for the Charlottesville, Virginia, Unite the Right rally, which devolved into a notorious and violent confrontation,” says Wikipedia, for what it is worth.  As for Taylor, unless he was writing tongue-in-cheek, he confirmed on Twitter what was reported at the time on a left-wing web site, that he met in Charlottesville with the rally planners back in June while wearing a disguise.


Taylor has also weighed in in the wake of Charlottesville, once again being interviewed, as is his and Spencer’s wont, by a hostile publication:


“I certainly hope that white advocacy does not become irrevocably linked in the public’s mind with violence and confrontation,” said Jared Taylor, the founder of American Renaissance, who hosts a white-nationalist conference every year and who Spencer has credited with “red-pilling” him, or converting him to the movement. Taylor’s conference has attracted an increasing number of young alt-right attendees in the past couple years; when I went last year, there was a large contingent of MAGA-hat-wearing young men.


If Taylor really doesn’t want to be associated with violence and confrontation, do you think he would be cozying up the The Atlantic, which can be counted on, going so far as to take liberties with the truth with respect to what happened at Charlottesville, to make precisely that association?


And if you want to see how phony Spencer is—and, indeed, how phony the Spencer vs. Antifa conflict is—take a careful look at this video of Spencer being “assaulted” by a black-clad ostensible Antifa member while giving an interview during Trump’s Inaugural weekend.  Notice first that silly haircut that Spencer is sporting.  It virtually screams “neo-Nazi” and Spencer acts oblivious to it when someone in the audience hurls that charge at him.  He might as well be the yuppie-coiffed “Progressive Liberal” professional wrestler Daniel Richards working the mountain circuit of Eastern Kentucky and West Virginia.  In Washington, D.C., Spencer is playing the quite intentional red flag waver to a bull, but as it turns out, the forthcoming violent reaction is clearly anything but natural and spontaneous.  Like the pre-match bluster, the “punch” thrown by the “Antifa” guy is taken right from Daniel Richards’ trade.  It’s not a punch at all but a forearm with all the steam taken out of it, all show and no blow, if you will.  It served its purpose, though, focusing national attention upon Spencer as the symbol of everything people are supposed to hate about Trump, while at the same time solidifying in the minds of Trump supporters what they hate about the Left and liberals.  Talk about divisive mischief!


Now recall the celebrated “sucker punch” thrown by supposed Trump supporter John McGraw against the face of young black “protestor,” Rakeem Jones, as he was being led out an arena in Fayetteville, North Carolina, at a rally during the campaign.  That little episode probably did more than anything else to fix in the public mind the idea that Trump supporters were racists.  And even the little provocative interview that McGraw gave at the end of the rally, after inexplicably having been permitted to go back to his seat after he engaged in his “assault,” comes across as every bit as phony as Spencer’s prior to his being “assaulted.”  (To see my full take on the Fayetteville “sucker punch” episode, read my series of articles on the subject, starting with the most recent one and working back.)


Jason Kessler


The actual nominal organizer and leader of the Charlottesville rally was not Taylor or Spencer but a real latecomer to the white nationalism philosophy by the name of Jason Kessler.  Kessler, like Spencer a graduate of the highly selective University of Virginia, with his recent background as an Obama supporter and even as an Occupy Wall Street activist, makes Taylor and Evans look almost genuine by comparison.  I can’t think of any occupation that I admire more than the professional provocateur, who has the courage & self-determination to court controversy despite all slings & arrows of the world,” is a statement that he has made in writing.


And check out this quote from another web site:

According to a woman (who wished to remain anonymous) who was part of the Occupy movement camp in what was then called Lee Park, Kessler was present there for several weeks in late 2011. She said Kessler ultimately removed himself from the camp after activists there started to make it known that his presence was not welcomed.

“He was just so disagreeable that he’d start fights between other people. He was very manipulative and very aggressive,” the woman said.

“He wanted people to be more violent and aggressive. He wanted to be the leader of things. … Even if his politics had been good, I don’t think people would have liked him,” she said.

To me, that sounds exactly like the working style of someone practicing the occupation that Kessler has said he admires the most.  “Unite the Right” he called his collection of lightning rods for national opprobrium supposedly gathered to protest the removal of the statue of General from an honored place in his native city.  He might better have called it “Embarrass the Right,” “Discredit the Right,” or if he was determined to make it rhyme, “Indict the Right.”


Dovetailing with this information about Kessler, we have this, with anonymous sources but with the ring of truth, from the web site True Pundit:


The FBI has Intel assets implanted in several white supremacy sects, as well as the radical ANTIFA group, according to federal law enforcement sources who spoke to True Pundit.


The FBI sources said it is unlikely an asset would be charged for stoking violence in Virginia if for instance that asset had or was providing valuable information on another domestic terrorism case.


“We wouldn’t do a solid informant for this,” one FBI insider said.


The word “do” here pertains to indict.


The FBI, as we have seen in countless previous instances, has a very broad definition for what it calls “informants.”  They might well be, as hinted at here with the term, “stoking violence,” as the leading perpetrators, themselves.  If so, Kessler would be high on the list.  There could be a number of other, more sinister individuals as well, including the possible orchestrators of the fatal car crash.


Purposeful Crisis Mismanagement?


Kessler appears to be on solid ground when he blames the police and their superiors for their role in failing to prevent the violence that took place in Charlottesville.  The record appears to be clear that Kessler’s group had a proper permit to hold its rally in Emancipation (formerly Lee) Park where Lee’s statue is located beginning at 12:00 noon.  At 11:30, though, the police informed them that theirs was an unlawful assembly, forcibly flushed them out of the park and its environs, and, in effect, drove them into the arms of violent protestors.  Mayhem ensued while the police made no effort to keep the groups apart. 


This is a dereliction of their responsibility of the highest order upon the part of the city and state authorities.  They acted as though their intent was to promote and encourage violence rather than to prevent it, and their actions have led to a spate of finger-pointing, particularly from Mayor Mike Signer toward City Manager Maurice Jones.  We in the public might well point a finger at Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe who gave the peremptory order to declare the rally an unlawful assembly just before it was to begin, opening the gates for the chaos and disorder that followed.


Rather than making any attempt to unravel the events at Charlottesville and present them in a factual and dispassionate manner, the mainstream press has chosen to turn the whole affair into a morality play in which the only “bad guys” are the bigoted “white supremacists.”  Anyone opposing them, or just pretending to oppose them, almost by definition can do no wrong.  The Washington Post has even gone so far as to use the event as an occasion to tout the Clinton acolyte McAullife as a good Democratic candidate for president in 2020, making one wonder if building up the infinitely malleable McAulliffe might have been one of the objectives of the Charlottesville operation from the beginning.


When it comes to assigning ultimate blame for the Charlottesville violence, we turn to a quote from an unlikely source, The New York Times, written on August 11:  “The fight over the Lee statue — in a downtown park that was called Lee Park until it was recently renamed Emancipation Park — has opened up old wounds and brought simmering tensions over race to the fore.”


What a fine idea that was to open old wounds and fan the flames of those simmering tensions that we have shown to be artificially ginned up by the media in the first place!   The Times, in its article that depicts the expected counter-protestors as so many angelic choir boys arrayed against the forces of racist evil and never once scribbles the dreaded “Antifa” word, informs us that the opening of the old wounds began in the form of a petition begun by an African-American high school student to have Lee’s statue removed.


Has Charlottesvillie succumbed to its own version of the Red Guard?  Where were the responsible adults?  Really, what would you expect of high school students steeped in today’s popular culture and with only a puerile grasp of General Lee’s historical significance?


The nation has really come to a fine pass when the purest horse sense on the Confederate statue controversy should come from the mouth of former NBA great Charles Barkley: “I think if you ask most black people to be honest, they ain’t thought a day in their life about those stupid statues. What we as black people need to do: we need to worry about getting our education, we need to stop killing each other, we need to try to find a way to have more economic opportunity and things like that,” and that statement gets him attacked as a “white supremacist.”


The Heather Heyer Death


Readers will notice that up to this point we have not yet gotten around to the central dominant event in the media narrative.  That can be summed up by the headline, “Violent White Supremacist Rally in Charlottesville Turns Deadly.”  Of course, we are talking about the “turned deadly” part of that headline, which the press has covered almost to the point of frenzy.  Although they seem to want to talk about almost nothing else except the death of counter-protestor 32 year-old Heather Heyer, as a result of the ramming of a car into two cars in front of it in the midst of a crowd of protestors and then dashing speedily away in reverse, they have exhibited a curious lack of interest in the specific details of the incident.  In that regard it has been so similar to the Vincent Foster death case in the first year of the Clinton administration that one can’t help but be suspicious.


From the beginning the media narrative was set and has not varied from what one hears in this MSNBC interview of the witness, Brennan Gilmore, who is never asked what he was doing at the rally, why he was where he was at the time the events he describes take place, and how he was so nimble in using his phone to film the car as it sped toward the car and crowd in front of it and then backed speedily away. We can gather from the interview at least that Gilmore is not one of those infamous crisis actors.  If he were any kind of decent professional actor he wouldn’t lay on the heavy editorializing about the racists and Nazis and how such horrible deaths are the natural consequence of their philosophy of violence, in contrast to their deeply peace-loving and non-violent opponents that he observed at the rally.  He seems not to realize that he would be a lot more believable if he didn’t try to usurp the Rachel Maddow role.  If you didn’t even know who the guy was you’d think that this was really bad propaganda that would embarrass Pravda in the heyday of the Soviet Union…or perhaps even Pyongyang.


Within a day of the interview the following revealing headline appeared on The Gateway Pundit: “Random Man at Protests Interviewed by MSNBC, NY Times Is Deep State Shill Linked to George Soros.”  Perhaps Gilmore’s background had already been revealed elsewhere, because on the same day he had a highly polemical article on Politico revealing his State Department and Democratic Party ties.  The nature of that article is well captured in one paragraph:


As a result of this decades-long flirtation, we now have a president who has emboldened white supremacists. Many of the marchers I saw on Saturday wore Make America Great Again hats, and the former KKK leader David Duke forthrightly said the purpose of the rally was to “fulfill the promises of Donald Trump.” If Trump doesn’t want this kind of support, he needs to say so.


Actually, I believe Trump has said so quite a number of times.  But isn’t it really a great coincidence that this key witness with government and top political connections should now be a leader of the big rhetorical pivot from “Russia, Russia, Russia” to “racist, racist, racist?”


As it turned out I was hardly the only one to think that there might be a little more than coincidence involved here, and the online disclosures an speculation of these other folks moved Gilmore to write a week later another Philippic in Politico, this time against those who had caught him out entitled “How I Became Fake News,” with the subtitle “I witnessed a terrorist attack in Charlottesville.  Then the conspiracy theories began.”  Imagine that.


As one might expect Gilmore makes heavy use of nos. 2 and 5 or the Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression, “Wax indignant,” and “Call the skeptics names.” He also concedes that the George Soros connection in that Gateway Pundit was correct, that Soros was a heavy contributor to the unsuccessful Virginia gubernatorial candidate for whom Gilmore was chief of staff.


Contrary to Gilmore’s charges, the various people raising questions about the car collision incident can hardly be characterized, without any evidence, as Nazis or white supremacists. It is hardly off the mark, though, to suggest that they suspect a conspiracy of some sort and that we are not being told the full truth.  That is hardly any excuse for Gilmore to employ the essentially meaningless pejorative, “conspiracy theorist,” though.


Furthermore, nobody, to my knowledge, has maintained that Gilmore, himself, “staged the attack,” but very quickly a number of people on YouTube were pointing out anomalies.  Not long after Gilmore’s MSNBC interview, a YouTube poster with the screen name of The Outer Light, speaking with what I believe is a New Zealand accent, had put up “Some odd things about the event in Charlottesville.”  He noted, among other things, as have others, that the driver of the Dodge Challenger responsible for the carnage doesn’t really look like the young man who has been arrested, 20 year-old James Alex Fields of Maumee, Ohio.  What he fails to note is that, although you can’t make out the driver’s face very well, you can see very clearly that he is not wearing glasses.  In the one formal portrait-like photograph that the press has shown over and over Fields wears a somber expression, a black and white shirt, and no glasses, but if you do a Google images search for Fields you will see that in every shot that was taken of him at the rally that day he was wearing corrective lenses.  The formal glum photo spread around by the press was the only one I was able to find, in fact, in which he was not wearing glasses.  They are clearly not reading glasses; he obviously needs to use them for his outside activities.  Does it make any sense at all that he would not use them while driving a car?


The Outer Light also found it strange that the driver-side air bag did not deploy in spite of the force of the collision into the car ahead of it, a search of the records for the vehicle using the Ohio license plate number revealed that the Dodge Challenger with that vehicle identification number (VIN) has a sun roof while the colliding Challenger clearly does not, and the driving skills exhibited by the person who backed the car down that street at high speed seem to surpass what one would expect from someone without any known special training at it.


Others on YouTube, which is where the real action from ostensible citizen journalists can be found on Charlottesville, have noted that the Challenger had windows that were deeply tinted, such as one might see on a limousine and that when he was arrested, the Challenger that Fields was driving had racing stripes while the one in the collision video did not.  There is also a question about the formal posed photograph of Fields.  Where did it come from?  If it’s not his police mug shot, where is that photograph and why has it not been made public?  If it is, why is he wearing a shirt that is clearly different from the one that the driver of the collision car was wearing?


At this point a couple of weeks after the event, many of the best questions that have been raised have been in a series of videos by a baseball-cap wearing man who uses the screen name of SonofNewo.  I have not yet taken the time to watch all of his videos, but I would heartily recommend his 54:55 minute opus entitled “Analyzing Charlottesville’s Zapruder Film: the Ford Fischer LiveStream.”  His big discovery in that film is that the maroon colored minivan that was at the front of the three-car collision was sitting there in the crosswalk parked—and without a driver—for at least five minutes prior to the collision.  In a subsequent video he shows the official police report that says the van had stopped to allow pedestrians to pass, which is clearly not true.  And, oh yes, no one appeared to be in the driver’s seat at the time of the collision, either.


We have also learned that the accused driver Fields had washed out of the Army on account of the fact that he was suffering from schizophrenia.  SonofNeworeminds us that the FBI was just caught setting up a 23-year-old schizophrenic by the name of Jerry Drake Varnell.  Might not James Alex Fields, he asks us, be another Jerry Drake Varnell?  Or might he be another Lee Harvey Oswald, Timothy McVeigh, or Dylann Roof?


* The NLF was the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam, called Viet Cong by the Americans, short for Vietnamese Communists.  At that point of the war, in fact, the NLF was pretty much a spent force, having suffered very heavy losses in the strategically successful Tet offensive of early 1968. From then on the war had come down mainly to a battle between the North and the South.

** They should not be confused with the Communist Socialist Workers Party, whose house publication online is The Militant.  Interestingly, concerning the “growing menace” of racism in the country, Seth Galinsky of The Militant, in his coverage of the Charlottesville incident, made this observation:

But it’s simply not true that there is a rise in racism or anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim sentiment among the working class in the U.S.

On the contrary, there is less racism, bigotry or sexism among workers in the U.S. today than at any time in U.S. history. The historic conquests of the Black rights movement of the 1950s, ’60s and early ’70s dealt a crushing blow to Jim Crow segregation, pushed back racism and changed the United States forever.

David Martin

September 1, 2017






Home Page    Columns    Column 5 Archive    Contact




Perhaps it’s me who is confused….Russia/Communism

Directly after World War II, folks here and in Europe recognized that we had been allied with the USSR in our fight against the Nazis in Germany.

Waking to this realization, the Cold War became very real for quite a long time.  The problem was the USSR was Communist, and wanted global communism.

One Wisconsin Senator,  Joseph McCarthy in the Senate, and in the House, the HUAC, Unamerican Activities Committee, investigated, held hearings, did speeches.  The world was anti-communist, or at least the US and Western Europe were.


Then McCarthy was excoriated, the HUAC shut down, and Hollywood and the news media celebrated freedom, and free speech.  (Just not Joe McCarthy’s free speech.)

And there were no communists in government.  No boogymen to worry our silly little heads!  How evil it was to accuse folks!

Free speech prevailed!  Everyone could have whatever ideas they liked, and express them because we had a First Amendment!  The people loved it!

Then “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” occurred, and the old USSR dissolved.  Eastern Europe became free and everyone loved it!

No more fear, no more worry about that old boogyman Communism.

But since the election of Pres. Donald J. Trump, our own left, those who have drifted so far left it’s impossible to recognize the Democrat Party now, without calling it socialist, is Russia crazy!  Why?

Probably more democrats wanted Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist (think communist-lite, on the way to communist) than wanted Hillary Clinton to be president.  The Democrats WANT socialism.  They aren’t afraid of socialism becoming communism because they arrogantly think “we will do it right, where it hasn’t ever been done the right way before!”

I suspect the majority of Democrats wanted Sanders.

Yet since the election, the shrill, and constant shriek of the left over Russia! Russia! Russia!  Why?

Are they afraid Russia will turn us communist?

Are they afraid Russia will invade?  (I’m aware the whole Russia/Collusion issue was a ruse to drive the “resistance” into concerted efforts to bring down the newly elected president, but can’t figure out on the basis of what?  What’s the big Russia fear?

It can’t be the influence over our election causing all this hair pulling.  The US has interfered in more countries, and more elections than any other country, probably.

It could just be the “Trump Derangement Syndrome” we read of so often.  Yes.  Maybe so.

Antifa wants Sharia Law?

I can’t get over the news from the demonstrations over the weekend organized by ACT for America.  Breitbart is reporting that while there were demonstrations in 28 major cities across the nation calling for Congress to outlaw Sharia Law.  There were significant violent and ugly counter demonstrations, that included Antifa and many others shouting down speakers, and bullhorning the crowds calling marchers bigots, and islamophobes and hateful.  There were several violent interactions as well.

I have to wonder how people can go out and stand up for a system of law that is contrary to our Constitutional system of law.  So, innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers is not good enough?  Lying, cheating, stealing, violence of all sorts, are all unlawful here.  We have the protection of the law of THIS land.

Yet Sharia would punish women with stoning, and whips, visit female genital mutilation on young girls, throw homosexuals off buildings, toss acid in the faces of people not dressed to their strict notions, and kill apostates.  Don’t these people know that???

I can see we have many Muslims, and most are good people.  But as things stand now, they are protected by our system of laws.  As their numbers grow so do the calls for Sharia among the larger communities.  We can see how well that is working across Europe today, where whole Muslim enclaves have become no go zones, and women do not have the liberties American women have.  Here, our Muslim women have liberties and freedoms Muslim women elsewhere do not have.

Indeed, I agree that where possible, large prosperous nation should take in refugees and aid them during times when living in their own countries is terribly dangerous.  But assimilation to the laws and rights of the citizens must be respected by those refugees.  Demanding host nation to adapt to the culture of the refugees is wrong.  Assimilation in style of dress is one thing, but demanding places to wash feet, demanding special food preparation, demanding  safe spaces they don’t grant to others is wrong.

I feel that as a nation, in order to protect our own culture and laws, as well as the individual rights and freedoms of our Muslim women, asking Congress to outlaw Sharia Law in our courts, and all our states is essential for peace.

Why does Antifa want Sharia Law???  Ask yourself if Antifa is really something you would take a stand with, after this incredible eye opener into what they really want.  Seems they desire to destabilize the nation.  Not anti-fascist at all, but anti-America.  Who needs them?



DCDave analyses the Seth Rich/Vince Foster comparison

Once again, DCDave has an excellent analysis of current events as they relate to historical events.  This is a long read, for sure, but does a great job of comparing the murder of Seth Rich on the street in Washington, DC and the alleged suicide of Vince Foster in Ft. Marcy Park, in suburban Virginia long ago.  Filled with great detail, and demonstrating how the “Seventeen Techniques of Truth Suppression” are once again used to obfuscate, confuse and deceive the public.


Seth Rich Equals Vince Foster?


A PizzaGate Connection?


To tell you the truth, following the story of Seth Rich, the young staffer for the Democratic National Committee who was murdered on July 10, 2016, on a Washington, DC, street while returning home from a bar, I had not thought to compare the incident to the violent July 20, 1993, death of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr.  After all, Foster was a much more prominent figure and the claim in his case was that he had committed suicide.  The closest parallel that quickly came to my mind was that of Mary Caitrin “Caity” Mahoney, the young former Clinton White House intern shot to death in 1997 along with two other employees of a Starbucks in Georgetown.  That incident was also called a “botched robbery” because no money or valuables were taken.


Then out comes The Washington Post on May 17 with a long article entitled “In rumors around a DNC staffer’s death, a whiff of a Clinton-era conspiracy theory.” * The “theory” to which they refer is that Foster did not kill himself with a .38 caliber revolver pressed into his mouth that produced no exit wound that any witnesses saw nor any blood and gore behind his head.  Rather, irresponsible “rumormongers” actually claimed that Foster, whose time and manner of disappearance from the White House compound was never checked using surveillance camera records and who, according to the best witnesses, somehow arrived at Fort Marcy Park in Virginia without driving his own car there, was murdered.  As I read The Post article, though, I do see one very strong point of similarity in the two cases.  It is in the very energetic selling job being done by the mainstream media, and especially The Washington Post, for the botched-robbery story, similar to the equally unlikely suicide-from-depression story that they peddled with the Foster death.  So obvious and over-the-top have they been, in fact, that if I had not been suspicious of Rich’s death in the first place, I certainly would be after seeing the way The Post compares it to the Foster case.


Check out this opening paragraph:


Depressed and losing sleep after a few months in the White House, Vince Foster became convinced that the turmoil surrounding his work for President Clinton would never stop. He’d already been the subject of a scathing newspaper editorial that had raised questions about his long association with Bill and Hillary Clinton, and his name kept appearing in White House controversies.


Lying for the Cover-up


How about that for a sales job, and for mind reading?  You’d never guess from this opening sally that initially Foster’s family, friends, and colleagues at the White House were unanimously clueless as to any reason he might have had for taking his own life.  Here is how Hugh Turley describes those early days in “Vince Foster’s Indignant but Curiously Unconcerned Sister”:


On the night of Vince Foster’s death, July 20, 1993, the Park Police went to the Foster home to notify the family and interview them as part of their investigation.  The police arrived at the home at the same time as Foster’s sister Sheila Anthony.


Park Police Investigator John Rolla testified to the Senate Banking Committee, “Sheila Anthony was talking with us, I spoke to her, [Investigator] Cheryl [Braun] spoke with her, she was very cordial.  I remember asking her, did you see any of this coming, and she stated no.  Nobody would say anything about depression or that they noticed some signs, they were worried.”


Foster’s widow Lisa was also interviewed by Investigator Rolla. His FBI interview report states,  “[Rolla] does recall eventually conversing with Mrs. Foster specifically asking her if she had any indication that anything was wrong with her husband, with Mrs. Foster responding in the negative.”


Four days later on July 24, the family, through Sheila’s husband Beryl, was still denying Foster was depressed.   The Washington Times reported, “’Close friends told [Foster] to cool things and relax and not take things so personal,’ the [anonymous] source said, citing Mr. Foster’s ex-brother-in-law, former Rep. Beryl Anthony, as one who had talked to Mr. Foster about his depression…’There’s not a damn thing to it.  That’s a bunch of crap,’ Mr. Anthony said yesterday, slamming down the telephone at his El Dorado, Ark. home.”


The Washington Post concealed that the family told the police Foster was not depressed by falsely reporting, “Police who arrived at Foster’s house the night of the death were turned away after being told Lisa Foster and family members were too distraught to talk.  Investigators were not allowed to interview her until [July 29.]”


Walter Pincus, a Washington Post reporter, was at the small Georgetown townhouse when the police investigators interviewed the family for over an hour and were told Foster was not depressed.


Did you catch that, readers?  The Washington Post, in obvious furtherance of the cover-up of Foster’s murder, flat-out, knowingly lied, saying that the police were turned away from the Foster house.  Turley has a link to a copy of the original print version of the story; I have since located it online.  Here it is with an intriguing follow-up sentence:


Police who arrived at Foster’s house the night of the death were turned away after being told Lisa Foster and family members were too distraught to talk. Investigators were not allowed to interview her until yesterday. “That was a matter between her lawyers and the police,” [White House counselor David] Gergen said, and the White House “had no role in it.”


In “The Reign of the Lie,” which is part 6 of my “America’s Dreyfus Affair: The Case of the Death of Vincent Foster,” I reveal how my skepticism of that story yielded additional fruit:


[Park Police] spokesman, Major Robert Hines, even embellished the lie a bit for me. Explaining my interest from having gone to college with Vince, I called him and asked how it would have been possible for a private lawyer to stand in the way of police carrying out an investigation. He told me that I was right, that he couldn’t, but that the newspaper had misreported the facts. He said that the police had left the residence upon determining that the widow, Lisa, was too broken up to talk to and that they had returned the next day for an interview. That version of events, like the one told by The Post, was also made “inoperative,” to borrow a Watergate-era term, a year later by the released police report and the Senate testimony of Park Police investigators Rolla and Braun about their visit to the Foster home.


So The Post and the Park Police spokesman, it turned out, were lying about that first night at the Foster house.  They were stalling for time, it is clear, to get all their suicide-from-depression ducks in a row.  Even four days later, as Turley reports, sister Sheila’s husband wasn’t yet on board with the depression concoction, saying that it was “a bunch of crap.”  The very same edition of The Washington Times that has the Anthony quote, also had an article about depression that contained the following quote about Foster from White House spokesperson Dee Dee Myers: “His family says with certainty that he’d never been treated (for depression),” as I report in part 1 of “America’s Dreyfus Affair.”


I don’t know about you, but when I discover that someone has lied to me, I tend to lose confidence in anything that they might say.  Known liars also make very poor witnesses in a court of law.


The Post and its brothers in propaganda also consistently do violence to the truth in a host of slightly subtler ways.  A collection of them are enumerated in my “Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression.”   “Boldly and brazenly lie” doesn’t come up until #15.   In the very title of the Post article, written by Avi Selk, a man who would have been around six years old when Foster died, we see the use of technique number three, “Characterize the charges as rumors.”


One can be caught out in a lie, so the deceivers in the press would rather not resort to that crude method of deceit.  Of course, to suggest that the only thing that critics have against the press-peddled story, official or otherwise, is based upon nothing more substantial than some vague “rumors” amounts to a lie in itself, but it leaves some room for quibbling, which a bald-faced lie does not.  One can read everything that I have written challenging the absurd suicide-from-depression story and nowhere will he find me passing on anything as unsubstantial as a rumor.  The case for the murder of Vince Foster, I can assure you, rests upon very solid evidence.


Foster’s Closest Friends Puzzled by “Suicide”


Now let’s pick up young Selk’s narrative in The Post:


“In Washington you are assumed to have done something wrong even if you have not,” he told a friend in 1993, a few weeks before the deputy counsel left his office midday, went to a park and shot himself.

“He thought the matter would never end,” the friend later explained to federal investigators looking in to Foster’s death.

And it never did.

To find out who that “friend” was you have to click on the link, which leads you to a heavy-duty propaganda article by The Post’s David Von Drehle and Howard Schneider eagerly and uncritically accepting the poorly substantiated suicide conclusions of special prosecutor Robert Fiske in 1994.  It turns out that the friend was assistant attorney general Webster Hubbell, who was also Foster’s partner along with Hillary Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock.


This is hardly a disinterested witness whose word one should take implicitly, especially when he gives it after enough time has passed for him to know what the official story has come to be.  What Selk does not tell you is what we learned from Foster’s mentor at the Rose Law Firm associate, Phillip Carroll, as reported byEsquire magazine in November 1963: “Webb called me at midnight the night it happened.  He said, ‘Don’t believe a word you hear.  It was not suicide.  It couldn’t have been.”


Hillary Clinton echoed Hubbell when she said, “Of a thousand people who might commit suicide, I would never pick Vince.”  When she got the news of Foster’s death she was in Little Rock meeting with friend James “Skip” Rutherford.  This is from the FBI interview of Rutherford:


RUTHERFORD had lunch at HILLARY CLINTON’s mother’s residence.  HILLARY CLINTON was in complete disbelief and shock at the thought of FOSTER committing suicide.  HILLARY CLINTON told RUTHERFORD that she could think of no indication or reason for the suicide.  HILLARY CLINTON and RUTHERFORD were trying to determine a motive for FOSTER’s suicide.


Here we resume the Selk narrative exactly where we left off:


Not after the investigation concluded beyond any doubt that Foster killed himself [sic. It’s Selk’s incomplete sentence.]. Not decades later — after multiple inquiries by police, FBI agents, Republicans, Democrats and two special prosecutors had all debunked the still-persistent falsehood that the Clintons had Foster killed to protect themselves from what he knew.


Now just think about it.  These strong words of assurance that everything was on the up-and-up in the Foster case come from a news organ that went so far as to lie in service of the suicide-from-depression story.  Consider as well that The Post accepted the Park Police’s suicide conclusion announced on August 10, 1993, even when the cops withheld all the evidence that they had collected that might have supported their conclusions.  The only reporter who objected when Justice Department spokesman Carl Stern said they would have to file a Freedom of Information Act request to get it was Sarah McClendon of the independent McClendon News Service.  In fact, the mainstream press did not even report that no supporting documentation would be forthcoming.  As late in the game as August 1, after the depression narrative had started to crystalize, Von Drehle, the lead writer of that Fiske-Report endorsement mentioned above, told us that the Edwin Arlington Robinson poem, Richard Cory, about a man who committed suicide for no apparent reason, was a sufficient explanation for him for how Foster died, strongly suggesting that it should be sufficient explanation for the public as well.


How Dare You?


Reflecting upon this truly sorry performance by our Fourth Estate, I began “The Press and the Death of Vincent Foster” this way:


The most basic charge to be made against the American press in the coverage of the death of Vincent Foster is that it has not behaved as we should expect a free and independent and minimally competent press to behave. It has not demonstrated the curiosity or the natural suspicion of even the average man on the street nor has it shown any resourcefulness at all in putting known facts together and making plausible inferences. Lacking the time or the means to gather the information for himself, the citizen is dependent upon the press to gather the information for him. This the press has simply not done. It has done virtually no independent investigation such as interviewing witnesses nor has it shown a fraction of the diligence of some few private citizens who have taken the time to look into the official record and report upon what they find. At best it has merely been a conduit for the executive branch’s official announcements and conclusions; at worst it as been a cheerleader for and an embellisher of those conclusions.


When the information imparted by the executive branch has had inconsistencies and anomalies, it has made no effort to resolve them, or even to point them out. When witnesses have testified before Congress it has virtually ignored the proceedings, and it even has failed to do substantive reporting on such events as the press conference by the Justice Department, the FBI, and the United States Park Police on August 10, 1993, when the first official conclusion of suicide was announced or of the inclusion of the dissident witness’s submission with the report of the Independent Counsel on Vincent Foster’s death. In a word, America’s press has not acted in this matter as though it felt any obligation at all to be of service to the public. Rather, it has acted little differently, on its face, from what one would expect if it were the official public relations department of the executive wing of the federal government.


Calling skeptics “rumormongers” is hardly the only truth suppression technique that The Post has recycled in the Seth Rich case.  Check out this passage from the Selk article:

As with Foster, local authorities have tried to dispel rumors that politics played a role in Rich’s death. In this case, D.C. police believe he died in a random robbery attempt.

Relatives have also begged rumormongers to lay off. On Tuesday, a family spokesman decried a Fox News report suggesting Rich was involved in leaking Democratic Party documents before his death.

But Foster’s family had tried that, too — both men became conspiracy victims anyway. The Fox News story continues to collect comments like “Seth Rich has joined Vince Foster in the pile of bodies that follow Hillary Clinton around.”

This is #2 in the techniques, “Wax indignant.  This is also known as the  ‘How dare you?’ gambit.”   The indignation is expressed in this instance, as in the Foster case, by invoking the family of the victim.  At this point we should note that when the family of a victim joins the “conspiracy theorists” in challenging the official story, as in the cases of, say, Martin Luther King, Jr., Kenneth Trentadue, or Tommy Burkett, The Post falls back on #1 and dummies up, as though the victim had no family with a strong opinion.


Clicking on that “family spokesman” link in Selk’s article leads eventually to another strong parallel to Foster.  It takes some reading, but eventually we get down to the name of the spokesman, one Brad Bauman.  What The Post does not tell us is that Bauman is a regular Democratic Party publicist.  That is to say, he is a flack for a prime suspect in the hit.  Bauman may be compared with the “Foster family lawyer,” James Hamilton.  Take a look at this excerpt from my letter to Robert Anderson, the producer of the infamous 60 Minutes episode on Foster featuring reporter Christopher Ruddy, in which I take Anderson to task for using Hamilton as his authority on Foster’s presumed “depression”:


Unmentioned is the fact that Hamilton was also an important member of the Clinton political transition team and the author of a memo to Clinton counseling stonewalling in the Whitewater case. His word, which is not only tainted, but is in this case obvious nonsense if you just think about it a little, is simply taken as final.


The criminal lawyer Hamilton is also cited by Mike Wallace as his authority that Foster was depressed, but when interviewed on screen Hamilton hardly corroborates the characterization, saying only that he “had been told” that Foster had been experiencing bouts of anxiety, or something to that effect. Was there no doctor in the house? Were you unable to interview Dr. Larry Watkins of Little Rock, Arkansas, the man who Fiske tells us prescribed an anti-depressant to Foster after talking to him on the phone, or are you as lacking in confidence in him as you are [autopsy doctor] Dr. [James] Beyer?


In that episode, by the way, Wallace showed that The Washington Post has nothing on CBS when it comes to #15 in the techniques, boldly and brazenly lying.  At one point, he looked squarely into the camera and in his authoritative baritone stated, “The forensic evidence shows that the fatal bullet had been fired into Foster’s mouth from the gun found in Foster’s hand and that Foster’s thumb had pulled the trigger.”


He had to have known that there is not a word of truth in that statement.  There was no way to match the bullet with the gun when the bullet was never recovered.  Furthermore, Foster’s fingerprints were not on the gun and the body scene, as described by numerous witnesses, was inconsistent with the scenario that Wallace paints.


Turning to the Post article to which Selk links, we find Bauman playing the “how dare you” card with even greater vigor than we have seen in the Foster case, “This is devastating to the family,” Bauman said. “They have confidence in the police investigation and believe that every single one of these fake news stories actually harms the ability of the police department to get to the bottom of what actually happened.”


Before they get too confident in the DC police, perhaps the Rich family should get in touch with the family of Chandra Levy.


Who Did it and Why?


Later in his piece Selk, at the same time, employs #12 in the techniques, “Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely,” and inadvertently points out a major difference between the Foster and Rich cases:

But why even have Foster killed? He was just a deputy counsel — and the early Clinton scandals for which he’d blamed himself did not amount to much.

For this problem, the theorists had baseless rumors that Foster and Hillary Clinton, his former partner at an Arkansas law firm, had been having an affair. Or alternatively, that the Clintons’ longtime friend was simply privy to too many of their secrets.

It is certainly not necessary to know who killed Foster and why to see from the evidence that he was murdered.  What the motive might have been for Foster’s killing has been a puzzle from the beginning.  One probably needs greater insight into the sordid affairs of the Deep State than we currently have to get completely to the bottom of it.  Lacking the law enforcement powers that the state has, and chooses not to use, regular citizens can hardly be expected to do it.  I cover various conjectures and take a stab at the latest possibility with my December 2016 article, “Was Vince Foster’s Murder PizzaGate Related?


In Rich’s case, by contrast, you can start with the motive, which almost screams out at you.  He is strongly suspected of being the source of the leaks of the DNC emails to Wikileaks that supposedly did so much damage to the Hillary Clinton campaign.  Wikileaks has even published an email from campaign manager John Podesta that says, “I’m definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it.”  That might explain why nothing was taken from Rich in the “botched robbery.”  If you make the murder look too much like it was simply the byproduct of a garden-variety street crime, the intended message would not be sent.  That might explain as well why no money was taken from the Starbucks cash registers in the Caity Mahoney killing.


Oh, but wait a minute! Those leaked emails from John Podesta are what started all the suspicions about a high-level pedophilia ring, PizzaGate for short.  We reveal in our article speculating on the motive for Foster’s murder that for some reason the FBI’s Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit was involved in the Foster death investigation.  Now that’s something that could get a person killed.  Perhaps there is a real connection between the two deaths, not just the phony or superficial ones that The Post would point to in order to mislead us.


No. 7: Invoke Authority


In Part 1 of “America’s Dreyfus Affair,” in the section called “The Search for a General Mercier,” I speculate that the whole purpose of the appointment of a special prosecutor was to get a central authority figure, like General Auguste Mercier in France’s railroading of Captain Alfred Dreyfus for spying, to put his seal of approval on the cover-up.  My big cause for suspicion is that the ostensible precipitator of the appointment of Special Prosecutor Robert Fiske was an article in The Washington Times.  That article, by Jerry Seper in December of 1993, cited anonymous Park Police sources reporting that Whitewater Development Corporation documents were removed by White House officials from his office on the night of Foster’s death.  The link between the two scandals provided the excuse for a special prosecutor to investigate all of them.  Since at the time of Foster’s death the Whitewater mess was still far below the public radar, I surmised that it would have been highly unlikely that any Park Police investigator would have any idea what a Whitewater document was.  Dan E. Moldea later confirmed that suspicion in his book A Washington Tragedy, How the Death of Vincent Foster Ignited a Political Firestorm.  He interviewed all the Park Police investigators, and they told him that they could not have been the source for Seper’s article precisely because they knew nothing about Whitewater.


As we have seen, Robert Fiske with his weak little “investigation” was a good enough authority figure for The Post, but Attorney General Janet Reno had appointed him.  When the Congress renewed the Ethics in Government Act, a three-judge panel appointed by Chief Justice William Rehnquist appointed, in turn, Judge Kenneth Starr to take over Fiske’s investigative responsibilities.  He became the key authority figure for the prevailing molders of public opinion to rally around.  The following five short paragraphs encapsulate The Post’s latest rallying, as manifested in the Selk article:

In 1997, independent counsel Ken Starr concluded the last of them — after probes by the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Government Operations, a Senate committee and previous independent counsel all backed up the police conclusions.

Starr was no Clinton ally. He would go on to expose the president’s affair with Monica Lewinsky and to this day accuses the administration of many misdeeds.

But after a three-year forensic investigation that looked into nearly every conspiracy theory around Foster, Starr concluded the man simply killed himself.

No matter. Weeks after the report came out, a book called “The Strange Death of Vincent Foster” hit the shelves and rekindled every theory.

Written by a reporter who is now CEO of Newsmax, the book poked new holes in the police investigations, compiling examples of sloppiness and the accounts of a dissenting investigator to suggest “something dastardly happened,” as a New York Times book review put it.

Let us address each paragraph in turn.


The ranking Republican on the House committee that Selk speaks of was William Clinger.  What Selk calls a “probe” was simply Clinger’s eight-page endorsementof Fiske’s conclusions. ** The Senate committee mentioned was not commissioned to determine the cause of Foster’s death.  Its stated purpose was only to look into the behavior of White House officials in the wake of the death, particularly the handling of those documents in Foster’s office.


Kenneth Starr had been solicitor general in the justice department of President George H. W. Bush.  In its policies, the Bill Clinton administration might as well have been a continuation of the Bush administration.  In recent years, the two former presidents have shown themselves to be very close.  The Monica Lewinsky episode was a prime example of #13 in the techniques of truth suppression, Starr drew attention away from the Foster investigation while he dragged his feet and at the same time created the impression that he was really out to get the Clintons, when, in fact, they were all on the same team.  President George W. Bush rewarded two of Starr’s assistants, Brett Kavanaugh and John Bates, by making them federal judges.  Most recently, Starr was forced to resign in disgrace as president of Baylor University for the role he played in covering up a major sex scandal there involving the football team.


What Selk calls a “three-year forensic investigation” might better be called the result of three years of delay.  One might well ask what took so long.  The really important thing in that sentence is the link to The Post’s reproduction of Starr’s report.  Please notice this sentence in bold letters in the introduction: “This file does not contain the report’s footnotes or appendix.”  For a number of years that statement was not there and The Post, with its usual level of dishonesty when it comes to the Foster case, left the impression that what you were reading was the entire report.  Why leave off the footnotes and appendix, one might ask.  The footnotes often lead to reports by hired “experts” that are not available to the public.  The appendix contains the letter of John Clarke, the lawyer for Patrick Knowlton, the dissident witness in the case.  That letter was ordered to be included with Starr’s report over Starr’s strenuous written objections, because, as Judge John D. Butznerput it, “I suspect that if we deny [Knowlton’s] motion we will be charged as conspirators in the cover-up.”  The 20-page letter completely destroys Starr’s conclusion of suicide.  The car that Knowlton saw in the parking lot at Fort Marcy Park when Foster lay dead at the back of the park was not Foster’s, even though the FBI changed Knowlton’s testimony to say that it was.  To this day neither The Post nor anyone anywhere in the supposedly free American press has told us even about the existence of that Clarke letter, much less what is in it.  In part 3 of “America’s Dreyfus Affair,” I called it “The Great Suppression of ’97.”  Sadly, that bit of news suppression, a shining example of #1 in the truth suppression techniques, continues. (For the record, both Knowlton and I, as lifelong Democrats, voted for Bill Clinton for president in 1992.  We are not right-wing zealots.)


Then Selk tells us about Christopher Ruddy’s book, The Strange Death of Vincent Foster, that he says was published in the wake of the Starr Report.  Actually, the book came out on October 1 and the Report was published on October 10, 1997.  That was part of the master cover-up plan, as we can now see clearly in retrospect. The Free Press, a division of Simon and Schuster, published Ruddy’s book and The New York Times gave it publicity by reviewing it.  Simon and Schuster had also published the heavily publicized cover-up book, Blood Sport, by James Stewart. The use of Ruddy, writing first for Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post and then for Richard Mellon Scaife’s minor newspaper, the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, is a shining example of #16 of the techniques, “Have your own stooges ‘expose’ scandals and champion popular causes.”   As I show in “Double Agent Ruddy Reaching for Media Pinnacle,” one can hardly find a better example of a Deep State stooge than Christopher Ruddy.


Curiously, Selk does not see fit to give us Ruddy’s name.  Rather, he detours us through a 2015 Washington Post article entitled “Conservative Christopher Ruddy is now in full-throated defense of Hillary?” that is behind the link for “now CEO of Newsmax.”  At this point The Post is being too cute by half, because they give away the game that Ruddy was really nothing but a false critic and fraud all along, something that serious students of the Foster case had known for quite a long time.


Another name that Selk conspicuously does not give us is that of Starr’s “dissenting investigator” described in Ruddy’s book.  For that, we have to go to the link for the New York Times review of Ruddy’s book to discover that his name is Miguel Rodriguez.  It’s interesting that the Times should spell the first name correctly, because Rodriquez was hardly a public figure and Ruddy spells his name “Miquel” in his book.  Ruddy also made it a point to tell me, and others interested in the case, that that was how it was spelled.  That’s why you will see it that way in my “America’s Dreyfus Affair,” Ambrose Evans-Pritchard’s The Secret Life of Bill Clinton, and in the work of other Foster case investigators like lawyer Allan Favish and the late Accuracy in Media head Reed Irvine.  I only learned the correct spelling when we found Rodriguez’s resignation letter in the national archives and published it in 2009.  Following the “dummy up” technique #1, no one in the press—certainly not The Washington Post—has made any mention of that resignation letter.  Neither has anyone in the mainstream media touched the dissenting memorandum that Rodriguez wrote for the record and we published in 2013 or the recorded telephone recordings between Rodriguez and Irvine in which Rodriquez spoke, among a lot of other revealing things, of the numerous conversations he had had with reporters in a futile effort to get the truth out.  Finally, before we leave the subject of that New York Times review of Ruddy’s book, which I discovered for the first time from reading the Selk article, I must say, in all modesty, that one would be much better served by reading my review.  I also sent it to, and it used to be touted there, based upon other readers’ approval, as the leading critical review of the book.  Now, though, Amazon has made it almost impossible to find, although it is still there.  Someone must have given Amazon owner and now Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos a heads-up.


So The Post and others in the mainstream media have done us a big favor—albeit inadvertently—by drawing parallels between the shooting deaths of Seth Rich and Vince Foster.  If folks weren’t suspicious before, they surely should be now.


* On May 22, The Post changed the title to “In the debunked story on a DNC staffer’s death, a whiff of a Clinton-era conspiracy theory.”  I am unaware of any actual debunking that has been done.  The Post, it would appear, has decided in this instance to trade in #3 for #15 in the “Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression.”


** The Clinger Report, including the one-page cover, is on the web site as exhibit #168 on pp. 593-601 of the 630 pages of official government document exhibits that support the court document and book, Failure of the Public Trust.  A link to the exhibits is found at the bottom of the homepage.


David Martin

May 25, 2017






Home Page  Column  Column 5 Archive    Contact





%d bloggers like this: