Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Harper's: Scott Horton Updates Siegelman Case - 'Significant' New Evidence 'Will Link Rove'

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 08:50 PM
Original message
Harper's: Scott Horton Updates Siegelman Case - 'Significant' New Evidence 'Will Link Rove'
Edited on Fri Dec-14-07 09:43 PM by Hissyspit

Scott Horton UPDATES Siegelman Case: "Significant" New Evidence "Will Link Rove"

Posted by Kathy at

The latest on Siegelman from Harper's:

For those of you who missed last nights segment on MSNBC with Dan Abrams, here it is. As Abrams said, the prosecutors have had a pass on their completely outrageous conduct for far too long, and now its time for the mainstream media to keep on top of them and expose the extremely seedy underside of a political hit job. The story is coming out.

I am hearing from three different news groups suggestions that each is close to breaking a significant further lead in this case. The new information, it was suggested, will show that prosecutors in the case used evidence that they knew, or had substantial reason to know, was simply false, and will link Karl Rove much more closely to Alabama Governor Bob Riley and to the plans to get Siegelman using a false corruption charge. The journalists in question are pushing for further corroboration before going with these stories, but I am still expecting more by the end of the year.

Another thing I keep hearing from the network folks who have researched the case: whats up with these two Alabama newspapers? Their coverage is absolutely bizarre. As if they existed in some alternate reality. Exactly.

Larisa, would you be one of these journalists Scott Horton is alluding to? You can tell us ;)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 08:58 PM
Response to Original message
1. $20 this amounts to absolutely nothing and Siegleman stays in jail
More heavy breathing from the "Bush is toast" crowd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
farmbo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #1
14. If by the "Bush is Toast Crowd" you mean: 76% of the American Public
Edited on Fri Dec-14-07 10:22 PM by farmbo
And a solid journalistic investigation backed up by an affidavit from the former prosecutor is not "heavy breathing".

And, yes. Siegleman will stay in jail indefinitely-- last time I checked Bush-appointees controlled all levels of the Alabama criminal justice system-- but that doesn't make his case any less compelling.

I'm in for $20. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
2. Dan Abrams had a good section on this last night n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sicksicksick_N_tired Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
3. If Rove ever ends up in prison,...I will praise all gods and Jesus and Buddha,...
,...and Mohammad et al. and will get on my knees and thank the stars and universe,...then, buy a bottle of bubblies and drink it around a huge campfire.

I'll frame the newspaper article with that puffy-faced bastard walking out of the courtroom and proudly display it in the middle of my living room, laughing every damn time I walked by it.

Oh yes. I'd celebrate!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sicksicksick_N_tired Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Oh, and, of course,...I must recommend even the possibility of a soaped-up ROVE!!!


He's so soft.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
4. Rec'd...Thanks, Hissyspit..
we have to keep Don Siegelman's story front and center!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. That's what I think. Dan & Scott Horton get credit for keeping this alive. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Right! And you
for posting this..there's so much crap and so little justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Scott Horton has been especially productive. Also TPM, Time, .....


Scott Horton = Siegelman, Don - Subject of 41 Blog Posts

DU: Follow what DU has been saying here, with links to many articles and previous threads.

"60 Minutes" preparing report on Siegelman case
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
5. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 09:39 PM
Response to Original message
6. This is pretty evil thing and goes against our democracy
Karl Rove tampered and abused the whole justice system
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
7. VIDEO: Dan Abrams with Scott Horton and Rep. Artur Davis: Bush League Justice: Don Siegelman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
farmbo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
11. Rove used federal grand juries like Dems used yard signs
...and, to their enduring shame, the United States Department of Justice played right along.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 10:10 PM
Response to Original message
13. I'm wondering about this US Atty Ken Wainstein in Miami, who is involved in
what appears to be a Bush/CIA sting against the governments of Argentina and Venezuela (both leftist governments). The new president of Argentina, Cristina Fernadez Kirchner, is hopping mad about it, as are officials in both countries.

Read about it here:

Kenneth L. Wainstein is described as the "Assistant U.S. Attorney General for National Security." Like, money changing hands in a South American election is a matter of our "national security"? Oh, I forgot, WE have dirty hands as to tens of thousands of our tax dollars flowing into the rightwing oppositions in these countries, through the Bush USAID/NED and other budgets! I guess then it IS a matter of "national security"--indeed, it is vital for the Bushites to throw mud on leftists down there, and do covert ops against them, to cover BUSHITE corrupt meddling.

Now I understand.

Anyway, who IS this guy, and does he owe his position to Karl Rove (or Donald Rumsfeld, who recently interested himself in South America, virtually declaring war on Venezuela, in an op-ed in WaPo last week)?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
seafan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. I thought that name was familiar.....Ken Wainstein. Look at this:
From a post I entered yesterday:

Wainstein was working for the FBI in 2002 when Bob Graham was the Chariman of the Select Committee on Intelligence. Graham wanted to subpoena the FBI informant who was living at the same house in Los Angeles as two of the 9-11 hijackers.

Graham tried to give the subpoena to Wainstein to deliver it to the informant, who was being kept in a secret location. Wanstein refused to take it into his hands from Graham.

Here is the link to all of this:

Bob Graham stated:

We had just finished a hearing and had asked various representatives of the FBI to come into a conference room and discuss our strong interest in being able to interview the San Diego informant. It was clear that the FBI representatives were not going to voluntarily allow that to happen, and we had already prepared a subpoena, which I had in my coat pocket. I walked over to the principal representative for the FBI, Ken Wainstein, and I was approaching him with this subpoena, he clasped his hands tightly behind his back. I tried to hand him the subpoena, but he acted as if it were radioactive. Finally he said he didn't want to take the subpoena, but he would get back to us on the following Monday. Well, nobody ever got back to us. It was the only time in my senatorial experience that the FBI has refused to deliver a legally issued congressional subpoena.

Small world, huh??

Ken Wainstein
United States Attorney, District of Columbia

Ken Wainstein Mr. Wainstein was confirmed on October 7, 2005 to be the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. He served as the Interim United States Attorney prior to his confirmation. Prior to his appointment as Interim United States Attorney in May of 2004, Mr. Wainstein served at FBI Headquarters. He was Chief of Staff to Director Robert S. Mueller, III, from March 2003 to May 2004 and General Counsel of the FBI from July 2002 to March 2003. From August 2001 to July 2002, he served as Director of the Justice Department's Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, where he provided oversight and support to the 94 United States Attorneys' Offices around the country. Ken was the Interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia between April and August of 2001.

Ken is a 1984 graduate of the University of Virginia, and a 1988 graduate of the Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley. He clerked for Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before beginning his Justice Department career as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York in 1989. While in the Southern District, he handled a variety of prosecutions, including narcotics, fraud, and public corruption cases.

In 1992, Ken transferred to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, where he served for nine years before his first appointment as Interim United States Attorney. As a line prosecutor and Deputy Chief of the Homicide Section between 1994 and 1999, he specialized in the prosecution of federal racketeering cases against violent street gangs. He later served as Deputy Chief of the Superior Court Division and Principal Assistant U.S. Attorney, and was awarded the Director's Award for Superior Performance in 1997 and 2000.

Kenneth L. Wainstein Sworn in as First Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division, September 28, 2006

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. Thanks, Seafan! His background doesn't seem typical Rove School of Law, but
he has to have played a toady role to get a job like "U.S. Attorney for National Security" in 2006 (Gonzales tenure). He seems to have risen steadily under Gonzales. Boalt Law School means that he's basically competent. And he's pre-Bush (got awards and advancement under Clinton--and, whatever one thinks of Clinton's attachment to global corporate predator economics, and his softening up of Iraq for the Bush kill, he rewarded competence and ran an efficient, lawful "balance of power" government, at least to appearances).

These two bizarre incidents--about the FBI 9/11 informant (refusing to deliver a subpoena), and the "suitcase-full-of-money" covert op against Venezuela and Argentina--to me indicate that he is a high level operative of the Bush Cartel. They have their stupids, their dirty (bribed, blackmailed), their ambitious wingers and toadies, but they also have people like James Baker and David Addington and Donald Rumsfeld--shrewd, cold, Machiavellians, of the kind who don't attend G-8 conferences, or the Bilderberg Group, but whose meetings are far more secret than that, and who consider the U.S. to be merely their lootable, convenient launching pad for World Domination. It seems that Wainstein does special jobs for them. He is reserved for particularly important, high level work--like the 9/11 coverup--not wasted on ordinary Rove-Gonzales (crass, low level) political ops.

Although this Venezuela-Argentina thing is pretty crass and political, it is part of a very high level strategy to regain control of the oil fields in the Andes region, and smash the peaceful, democratic Bolivarian revolution that has occurred there and is quickly spreading. It is also cover for covert ops and black ops in South America. It is the Bushites who are carrying around "suitcases full of money"--in support of fascist political and paramilitary groups. And they need to slander democratic leaders in South America both as cover for their own vile activities, and to retain some control of the narrative in high level financial circles in Europe and other places.

Rumsfeld laid out the general strategy in an op-ed in the WaPo last week, called, "The Smart Way to Defeat Tyrants like Chavez," in which he virtually declares war on Venezuela and on democracy in South America. This covert op against Venezuela and Argentina is no small time, Miami-Cuban political thing. It is part of Corporate Resource War II. Rumsfeld envisions Colombia as the launching pad--Colombia, where they chainsaw union leaders and throw their body parts into mass graves. Rumsfeld wants to bully Congress into a "free trade" deal with Colombia, and is no doubt using billions of dollars stolen from us in Iraq to plan economic war, covert war and outright war against Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina (allied to the three Boliviarian oil/gas rich countries)--a war that is already under way, in its covert aspects, and has been for some time, in Venezuela (in support of a rightwing military coup attempt, a crippling oil professionals' strike, a rightwing recall election, and the rightwing opposition in several regular elections), and in Bolivia (in support of rich rural rightwing landowners who are trying to split off the oil/gas resource rich provinces from the leftist federal government of Evo Morales).

Smearing and slandering two Bolivarian leaders in one blow--the suitcase caper--is psyops. The op itself was ludicrous. But Wainstein's involvement--using the justice system to further this political plot--is a very serious abuse of power. Wainstein's role was to get the Bushite operative out of Argentina and safely back to Miami, where he is being used as an "informant" in a case filed against three others who are accused of being "agents of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela." But it was the Bushite operative--the "informant"--who was carrying the money: $800,000 in US cash that allegedly was being spirited into Argentina, by the Venezuelan government, to support Cristina Fernandez Kirchner's campaign for president (which she easily won without this money, by way.) The Bushite operative who was carrying the money is wanted in Argentina. They have an extradition request to the U.S. They caught him at the border, confiscated the money, but he somehow got back home to Miami (he is a US citizen). (US/Bush Embassy intervention? I'm not sure. Possibly just a mistake of the Argentinian border authorities.)

Now what is the "U.S. Attorney for National Security" doing involving himself in this matter between Argentina and Venezuela? It is of absolutely no value to US "national security" and the US government has no business whatever in interfering with Argentinian and Venezuelan affairs.

Until you consider Rumsfeld's op-ed. THEN you see whose interests are being served by Wainstein--Exxon Mobile's interests, the Bush Oil Cartel's interests, Blackwater's interests.*

Cristina Fernandez is furious about this smear, as are other officials in Argentina and Venezuela. She publicly stated that she would renew and reinforce Argentina's close alliance with Venezuela, and would not be bullied by the Bushites. They all see it as a Bush covert op and a "divide and conquer" tactic.**

And if that is true--and I side with the Argentinians and Venezuelans on this (it was an absurd and transparent covert op)--Wainstein's corruption becomes clearer. His behavior is in fact outrageous. Here's what he says...

"'The complaint filed today outlines an alleged plot by agents of the Venezuelan government to manipulate an American citizen in Miami in an effort to keep the lid on a burgeoning international scandal,' said Wainstein."**

You hear any crime in there? HOW DARE Venezuelans try to "manipulate an American citizen in Miama"?!

He is alleging that the carrier of the money, who is now his "informant," was the victim of attempted "manipulation" by two Venezuelans and a Uruguayan, who were trying to cover up the source of the money. The money, and the informant's action (trying to take it into Argentina) have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE U.S. The conversations among these people have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE U.S. And I cannot think of ANY U.S. law they broke, merely having conversations about something that occurred in an Argentinian airport, of interest to the Argentinian government (wads of U.S. cash coming in). WHAT is criminal--and of such interest to the "U.S. Attorney for National Security"--about foreign nationals trying to "manipulate"--talk to--an American citizen about a political "scandal" in South America?

Was the money connected to a U.S. crime, or any other crime? There is no evidence of it. And if it was, the money was carried by THE INFORMANT. The other three people involved merely TALKED ABOUT something that is of no interest to the U.S. in any way (except politically to the Bushites). And whether they are "agents of the Venezuelan government" or not, THAT IS NOT A CRIME. What if they had been Bolivians, visiting Miami, and TALKED ABOUT, say, Bush larding billions of dollars in military aid on the Uribe government in Colombia, and were trying to "manipulate an American citizen" (convince him) to expose the real purposes of this money? Would that be a crime? Lobbying? Talking? Trying to convince?

The real criminal here is Wainstein--for unwarranted spying, and abuse of power! And the real crime is the covert op. Because, ONLY IF IT WAS A BUSHITE COVERT OP, is it of ANY interest to a U.S. Attorney, and the only kind of U.S. Attorney it would be of interest to, is a bought and paid for Bushite POLITICAL operative.

I think maybe they're pissed off that they lost their money. It never reached its target--Cristina Kirchner. And they didn't get it back. It was a FAILED op. So then they had to start making shit up, to CREATE a "scandal" where none occurred, and to imply some sort of crime. (Note: It is NOT a crime in Argentina to use foreign money in a political campaign, as it is here and in Venezuela. The crime--why Argentina wants extradition--is the covert op.) The Bushites also, obviously, were UNABLE to successfully tie the money to the Venezuelan government (OR to Kirchner, at the other end), so they had to scramble to invent SOME Venezuelan connection, and likely used their agent (Wainstein's "informant") for that purpose (to lure the other three into conversations that were taped).

If my suspicions on this matter (and those of Venezuelan and Argentinian officials) are true, Wainstein's behavior is totally reprehensible. And you have to wonder at the Bushites' "waste" of this high level operative (Wainstein) on such a sloppy, Keystone cop operation. And you can only conclude that slandering these governments, and trying to break up their alliance, is a TOP PRIORITY of the Bush Junta (a notion reinforced by Rumsfeld's op-ed). They do tend to "burn" their operatives, one after another. They often "waste" people. Only top Bushites get any real protection. Still, a 9/11 coverup operative--someone who used his position to deny Congress key information on pre-9/11 events, in an unusual and notable way (refusing to deliver a subpoena)--would not likely be "wasted" on this suitcase business unless it was very important. Also, it's hard to believe that a smart, Boalt Law School, high level law enforcement official like Wainstein--a former top aid to Mueller--would let himself be used this way, on a ridiculous case--which leads me to wonder: do they have something on him?


*"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chvez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07

Discussion here:


Discussion here:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. You've hit on so many great points, with a huge point coming from one of your links, from Cabinet
member Fernandez, of Cristina Fernandez's administration, concerning the transparently contrived accusation against the Venezuelan government in pretending they were attempting to underwrite Fernandez' campaign! Well, first it's important to thank you for the information this isn't illegal in Argentina, anyway! That would surely explain how the Bush family friend, the horrendously corrupt former President Carlos Menem, who drove the economy off the road, into the ditch, got elected in the FIRST PLACE!

The indisputable quote from President Fernandez' Cabinet Minister Fernandez, concerning the suitcase of money, alleged by Bush's administration to be a pay-off (and they should know about pay-offs!): He pointed out that Antonini was detained by the Argentinean officials upon entering the country, and the money was confiscated. Fernandez explained that if the Chavez government wanted to bring in money to finance the campaign of Cristina Fernandez, they could have easily done it a few days later when President Chavez visited the country.

"If the objective was to enter {the country} with a suitcase of money he could have entered the next day in Chavez' airplane and no one would have noticed," he said.

"But this thing has the characteristics of being a dirty trick to tarnish the presence of Chavez in Argentina," said Fernandez. "I have no doubt of that."
blockquote]What important points were made.
1.) If the money came from Venezuela, it would have been brought in a day or two later without having to go through any inspection.

2.) It was important politically to the Bush administration to set this up BEFORE Chavez got there, so his entire visit would be clouded by accusations of corruption.
Crude, vicious, ugly. That's our unelected pResident's way of working, isn't it?

Thank you for your references to the smelly little bomb Donald Rumsfeld dropped on us through the Washington Post. He obviously is not going to be fading away any time soon. Looks as if he also hopes people will notice he's around just almost as if he had never really left!

One particularly repellent segment of his epistle bears repeating, for sinister value, although the entire article is bizarre, and threatening beyond belief:
Meanwhile, a new generation of foes has mastered the tools of the information age -- chat rooms, blogs, cellphones, social-networking Web sites -- and exploits them to spread propaganda, even while the U.S. government remains poorly organized and equipped to counter with the truth in a timely manner. The nation needs a 21st-century "U.S. Agency for Global Communications" to inform, to educate and to compete in the struggle of ideas -- and to keep its enemies from capitalizing on the pervasive myths that stoke anti-Americanism.
(my emphasis, of course)
It doesn't take too much soul searching to guess who the "foes" are. Maybe they will be the targets when Bush calls a state of emergency and treats himself to yet another 4 years in 2008.

(Looks as if his finger is pointing the wrong way in his accusation of spreading propaganda! It's the American right-wing under Reagan that started getting censured officially, in Congress, for blatant extraordinary propaganda planting all over the world.)

One look at Rumsfeld's article, a close brush with mental/spiritual disease, tells anyone these people are not concerned in this lifetime with peaceful pursuits. Last thing in the world they want. Their idea of peace only will come after they have killed everyone who would protest what they have done, and will do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
seafan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Ken Wainstein is ALSO *handling the initial assessment* at DOJ of the destroyed torture tapes.
Good God.

The Presidents Coming-Out Party

Scott Horton
December 15, 2007

.....This is the background against which the current acts of the new Attorney General, Michael B. Mukasey must be judged. As I noted previously, there is a strong basis to fear that Mukasey came up through a litmus test under which he was required to do two things: (1) to give his commitment to continue to provide cover for the torture system, and (2) to block any effort to have a meaningful criminal investigation that would disclose the torture system or any of its details. As things now stand, it looks like Mukasey is delivering on these test points. Hes been on the job for a month, and he continues to publicly refrain from expressing an opinion on waterboarding. This signals that there has been no change in the status quo ante, namely, torture techniques including waterboarding remain on the agenda, available for use.

So that takes us to the key question of getting to the bottom of it. The Justice Department has announced an initial probe into the destruction of the CIA torture tapes. There is no credible basis upon which this can be viewed as anything other than a conscious crime. The tapes were destroyed, even according to sources within the CIA, because of imminent fear that they would constitute evidence in a criminal prosecution of persons involved in the acts of torture. And even beyond this more general concern, they were destroyed so they would not be turned over to a federal judge who was demanding them. They were destroyed to protect a series of false official statements about the way individual prisoners, whose statements would be used in evidence, were in fact being treated.


All that being said, we should ask: why do we need an initial assessment? Things couldnt possibly be more clear. It is as if Julius Caesar was stabbed to death on the floor of the senate with a hundred onlookers, and now the Justice Department wants to weigh carefully whether there is evidence sufficient to justify a homicide investigation.


Also, the matter is passed to Kenneth Wainstein, the head of the National Security Division, for study. It could have been given to the Justice Departments Inspector General. He and his team have garnered the universal respect of Washington watchers for their relentless fairness and objectivity. But instead it goes to a division within the Justice Department which is itself a focus of strong suspicion. If anyone other than OLC is involved with the official torture program, and certainly has knowledge of it, then that person is Mr. Wainstein. In other words, he has the strongest possible motivation to deep-six this investigation as quickly as possible.



Kenneth Wainstein:

1. He refused to deliver a subpoena issued by Senate Intel Chair Bob Graham to the FBI informant who lived in the same house as two of the 9-11 hijackers.

2. He is involved in the suspiciously contrived case in Miami this week, of a *Venezuelan conspiracy* to use money to affect the election in Argentina.

3. He is the firewall at DOJ in the *initial investigation* into the deliberate destruction of the CIA torture tapes.

Yes, he seems to be a very senior Bush/Cheney operative.

These assignments are only for the inner circle.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
17. it doesn't matter, we have no justice department.....they will not prosecute
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
donkeyotay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
20. Does anyone know if Hillman, who acted as the gatekeeper on corruption at DoJ
is related to Gerald Paul Hillman of Trireme, the partnership of Perle, Kissinger and Hillman formed to profit from the war on terra while Perle chaired the Defense Policy Board? Any chance Noel Lawrence Hillman is related?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Jan 22nd 2018, 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC