Flynt, Carville, Clinton, Stone (Oliver) - now what could these people
possibly have in common?
Well Oliver Stone was ARRESTED on a hash charge.......Carville worked up
Ehud Barak's campaign.....Flynt was front for drugs through his
pornography - and Clinton was the most obscene president we ever
had....the movie JFK was the biggest story every told but much of it was
plagiarized from the old Assassination Committee which was designed to
lead people away from the truth.....and the truth is the KGB ordred the
execution of JFK - and the Jewish Mafia (Russian Mafia) did the
hit......for many different reasons.
What do all of the above have in common? DRUGS.....DRUGS.....and more
DRUGS - the movie JFK was almost laughable because this was the crap the
committee put out over 30 years ago.....see Clinton when young standing
in JFK limelight and little John's limelight - putting him out of the
picture - this was the KGB Manchurian Candidate - the attempted look
alike President......the traitor and the liar and the sodomist....these
are lessor charges compared to the murder of the innocents through the
sale of polluted AIDS infested blood around the world by this
man.....will someone make a movie of this - well, believe it or not I
got word tonight someone is........this should be the deal of the
century .......anyone for golf?
Saba
The Clinton Team and Blackmail
Crime/Corruption News
Source: Insight Magazine
Published: 06/19/2000 Author: By J. Michael Waller
Posted on 05/26/2000 12:58:07 PDT by JeanS
Intelligence and security experts are outraged at the Clinton
administration's probable use of blackmail and susceptibility to it as
the Congress fails to investigate.
Catching people with their pants down was a prime way of compromising
and recruiting them," recalls former KGB general Oleg Kalugin, who was
decorated for, among other things, recruiting Americans to spy for
Moscow. The Russians call it gathering "compromising material," or
kompromat. In the West, it's known as blackmail.
After the 1994 elections, when the Republicans took control of the House
of Representatives, the Clinton administration ran an alleged
dirt-digging operation out of the Office of the White House Chief of
Staff, says Gary Aldrich, a former senior FBI special agent on White
House duty at the time. "They hired upwards of 36 lawyers to staff the
operation to handle 40 different cases," Aldrich tells Insight. "Once it
became known that they had such an operation, then the blackmail itself
took place." It all came in handy when the House impeached President
Clinton. "People like [James] Carville and [George] Stephanopoulos said
in the media that there would be a 'scorched-earth policy' and that
everyone who had skeletons in their closet would be exposed if they
didn't back off the impeachment policy," Aldrich says.
These threats allegedly were carried out during the 1998 impeachment
trial of Clinton, when White House operatives and allies such as
pornographer Larry Flynt not only dug up dirt on their Republican
opponents but openly threatened them with releasing it if they
persisted.
House leaders who didn't submit found themselves swamped by embarrassing
revelations about their past or present personal lives. Some, such as
House Government Reform Committee Chairman Dan Burton of Indiana and
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde of Illinois, went public
to preempt the revelations. Others, such as House Speaker-elect Bob
Livingston of Louisiana, otherwise an able and honorable man, saw their
political careers destroyed.
They wouldn't be blackmailed, but their fates would be an example to
others. According to Capitol Hill insiders, some Senate Republicans
caved under the implicit threat. "One of the things that always bothered
me was why senators we thought might be willing to do the right thing
[and vote to convict Clinton] backed off," David Schippers, the
Democratic Chicago lawyer who led the impeachment investigation, tells
Insight. "I still have in the back of my mind some thought that Filegate
had something to do with it."
Filegate is, of course, the still-unresolved scandal of the FBI's
illegal transfer to Clinton political operatives in the White House of
the secret, personal background files of at least 900 Republican former
officials. Those files, security experts say, are filled with raw,
unverified information of the most personal and often lurid kind.
Schippers says he believes the White House or its designees used leads
from some of those files to blackmail lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
Congress, despite his urging, has failed to probe the matter.
Blackmail, whether by political hacks or foreign spies, can be crude or
sophisticated. Some consists merely of confronting the targeted victim
with compromising documents, photos or videotapes. But it's usually done
more subtly. Dan Moldea, who was one of pornographer Flynt's lead
investigators, denies blackmail in a rambling self-defense: "No member
of our team ever approached any of our targets and posed any threats
and/or ultimatums � or participated in any other activity that could
even remotely be viewed as blackmail or extortion." That would be
illegal. But Aldrich says "blackmail is implied," and the recipient gets
the message.
Kompromat-type blackmail might work to hold a politician at bay or
extort policy decisions. But in the intelligence world it usually isn't
enough to recruit someone as an effective agent under operational
control. A 1989 KGB training manual on recruitment of foreigners titled
Political Intelligence From the Territory of the USSR, obtained by
Insight, says that recruitment based purely "on the basis of kompromat"
is "especially risky" because it often produces a resentful or
unreliable spy. Kompromat can be a good starting point from which to
begin recruitment, but often it takes place after the intelligence
service carefully has studied the target's personality and background to
detect vulnerabilities.
"Intelligence subunits working in cooperation with counterintelligence
organs take timely measures to ensure that the agent recruited on the
basis of kompromat is 'converted' into an ideological or
moral-psychological basis," according to the KGB manual, which was
obtained from a former Soviet republic.
This "moral-psychological basis," the manual states, "represents a broad
spectrum of moral, psychological and emotional factors. Separate
elements partly include: careerist ambitions, considerations of
prestige, feelings of revenge, hate and love, nostalgia, personal
sympathy for the operational worker or agent, and fear of the
consequences of illegal actions which have been committed." In other
words, in the last case, blackmail involves fear of exposure as a spy.
Kompromat breeds kompromat: To seal the recruitment of an individual who
has no present access to secrets, the KGB often would direct the target
"to collect descriptive and especially compromising information about
his countrymen." A former senior U.S. intelligence officer tells
Insight, "Russia has no strategic or ideological leverage on us any
more. All they've got is money and kompromat. Of course it's going to
play in their relations with us."
Asked about the Clinton sex scandal when it broke in early 1998, Russian
Foreign Intelligence Service Director Vyacheslav Trubnikov told a
Russian newspaper, "Our intelligence service some time ago anticipated
that powerful pressure would be brought down to bear on the U.S.
president and that it would be exerted in various fields, including this
one."
Do we know how such pressure was exerted? That question seemed to escape
a Senate that acquitted Clinton. But former senator Sam Nunn, the
Georgia Democrat who won a reputation as one of Washington's foremost
national-security experts, was deeply worried about Clinton. Nunn warned
that the president had opened himself � and the country � to
blackmail by foreign spy services. "For people to say that the president
of the United States having � allegedly � telephone sex, is strictly
private, has nothing to do with official duties," Nunn told CNN in
January 1999, "means they've never been acquainted with the world of
espionage and the world of blackmail." Nunn said that questions about
Clinton's phone sex should be treated as a national-security issue: "It
seems to me that the [Senate] Intelligence Committee and the Armed
Services Committee must ask the question about espionage."
Nunn's concerns, security experts say, should be prompting serious
congressional scrutiny. "And, certainly, the White House is one of the
most targeted places in the world in terms of foreign espionage. And so
you have to ask the question: What if a foreign agent heard a young
woman carrying on discussions and then tapped her telephone? Those are
the kinds of consequences and risks and dangers any time the president
has conversations on the phone which could be intercepted and could be
embarrassing to him personally."
Nunn added, "I have no idea whether there was any kind of intercept
here. I'm not on the committees, but those questions have to be asked
because you don't want any president, or any high-ranking official, in a
position to be leveraged by any kind of foreign power or even domestic
source. So that's the danger here. And private conduct that can be used
in that way becomes a matter of great public concern."
Great concern, indeed. Nunn fingered the ugly truth that politicians on
both sides of the aisle would rather avoid: how the way they conduct
their personal lives can affect their public and constitutional duties.
Nunn has not spoken about the issue since and does not plan to,
according to an aide. He was unavailable to comment for this story. Both
houses of Congress seem to have washed their hands of the matter.
The question is, why? And that brings us back to Filegate. The KGB and
other intelligence services devote huge resources to investigating the
backgrounds of foreigners they seek to recruit. To limit the potential
for foreign-espionage recruitment of U.S. citizens, career
civil-service, foreign-service, military and intelligence officers place
all their trust in a bureaucratic vetting process designed to assess
their good character and to detect if they can be subjected to blackmail
or otherwise be induced to betray the country. They voluntarily submit
to close scrutiny of their private lives in order to be entrusted with
the nation's secrets. They have placed their complete trust in the
system that trusted them.
That is, until Filegate, when the FBI and the White House broke the seal
of faith.
Former FBI special agent Aldrich has conducted more than 10,000
background interviews on about 2,000 individuals. "We look at a
potential blackmail issue," he tells Insight. "Especially when we know
that a spouse will generally cause great havoc in the person's life.
That is the hammer held over the head of the person undergoing the
background investigation." The hammer, he says, could be adultery,
perversion, drug use or information of a financial or criminal nature
that the individual fears being exposed lest it ruin a reputation,
career or marriage.
"Once the [questionable] activity is discovered, the question is, 'Are
people who are close to you aware of your conduct?' If the answer is
yes, we ask if we can confirm that. If the answer is no, we suggest that
they have to disclose it to the parent or loved one and then we confirm
it, or that they drop out of consideration [for a sensitive government
post]. So that's one way it works," explains Aldrich, who now heads the
Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty, which supports the right of
government workers to engage in ethical dissent from policy.
The system has worked for more than a half-century, with total
confidence that the material in one's background file always would be
protected against leaks or misuse. However, says Aldrich, other former
and current FBI agents, officials from the CIA, Defense Intelligence
Agency, or DIA, and other security and intelligence services also
believe that the system has broken down under the Clinton
administration.
Seasoned counterintelligence professionals are outraged, and some blame
not only the Clintons but the FBI director. "It was the height of
irresponsibility for Louis Freeh to allow this to happen," a veteran
tracker of Russian spies tells Insight. "That was a disgrace. He broke
faith with millions of people on that one. The buck stopped with him. He
knew what was going on."
Even Third World dictatorships ran operations to entrap, blackmail or
extort U.S. congressmen and senators. And it's nothing new. In the
1980s, Panama's then-dictator Manuel Noriega kept some potential Senate
critics at bay, well-connected Panamanian sources tell Insight, by
hosting them at a special resort on exotic Contadora Island. There, in
private compounds, Noriega's agents were able to cater to the senators'
every whim � and recorded the activities. Those sources name at least
three U.S. senators still serving, two Democrats and a Republican, who
allegedly engaged in activity that could have subjected them to
blackmail.
Panama is a hotbed of gossip and conspiracy theories, but former senior
U.S. government sources who served in Panama confirm seeing intelligence
traffic concerning Noriega's operation to co-opt U.S. politicians,
including senators, at his Contadora Island compound. "That could
explain one of the reasons why Noriega escaped congressional scrutiny of
his atrocious records on human rights and corruption," says a retired
U.S. military officer who dealt with Noriega and Congress.
Long-term intelligence operations can span generations, moving from
father to son. That's how it was with Julius Hammer and his son Armand,
who laundered money to establish the first Soviet espionage networks in
the United States and who waged an espionage and agent-of-influence
campaign for Moscow that began under Vladimir Lenin and outlived the
Soviet Union, ending with the younger Hammer's death. Some U.S.
intelligence professionals have viewed with deepening concern the two
generations of relations between Armand Hammer and the family of Vice
President Al Gore.
In a recent cover story on Gore's lifelong connection with Hammer,
Insight's John Elvin quoted Center for Public Integrity Director Charles
Lewis as saying, "Al Gore's relationship to the late Armand Hammer is
important for many reasons" (see "Gore Family Ties," May 22). Among
them: "There is no U.S. company that Gore is closer to, financially or
socially, than Occidental [Petroleum Corp.], one of the most
controversial in America." Elvin reported, "FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover
had been observing Hammer's operations since the 1920s and was
well-aware of his role as a Soviet agent, but Hoover also was aware of
the political realities.
"During the Franklin Roosevelt administration, when Hoover was gathering
power and building the FBI into a first-class investigative agency,
Hammer was all but invulnerable due to close ties as a White House
regular and benefactor of Eleanor Roosevelt. Later, Al Gore Sr. chaired
the Senate committee overseeing FBI activities. Through Gore and other
top Washington connections, Hammer continued to checkmate Hoover."
Former Hammer personal assistant Neil Lyndon said that the Soviet agent
liked to claim that he had the elder Gore "in my back pocket." Lyndon
said that when he worked for Hammer the younger Gore, now vice
president, often dined with Hammer and did political favors for him.
Gore Jr. orchestrated VIP treatment for Hammer during President Reagan's
1981 inauguration and the 1989 inauguration of President Bush. Gore and
Hammer appeared together in Moscow for a Soviet-orchestrated meeting in
1987 of Physicians Against Nuclear War.
"Why did Gore Jr. allow himself to be so closely embroiled in a
compromising connection with such an unalloyed crook?" asked Lyndon. "He
had little choice. He inherited from his father the mantle of being
Hammer's principal boy in Washington. Gore's father effectively
delivered his son into Armand Hammer's back pocket."
Even though Hammer has been dead for eight years, the vice president and
would-be successor to Clinton still is in the pocket. He recently told
reporters that he does not own any stock, except for a chunk of
Occidental shares in his late father's trust that he administers for his
mother and the rest of the family.
"Are you unwilling to ask the public if they want a president who owes
his personal family wealth to a known Soviet agent?" challenges a
retired senior CIA official. "That's not in the past. That's the future.
One of the first [Soviet] goals is to perpetuate the value of the
operation. They fill up files with information the subject knows is
there." Gore has stated that there was nothing improper about his
relations with Hammer, but he is notoriously sensitive about the
questions.
Blackmail has a variety of targets in Washington. Secret personnel
information has been misused, often illegally, to blackmail career
officials within the federal bureaucracy to toe the administration line
on a range of defense, foreign-policy, national-security and
law-enforcement issues, sources say. "They will pull such things as your
financial-disclosure forms and find a variety of ways of putting
pressure on you," a longtime intelligence officer at a large security
agency tells Insight. "They have a number of leverage points that they
can use against people in the structure that constitutes blackmail.
"People get the message on that, and they behave accordingly," the
security-agency source says. "You're dealing with human nature. People
have jobs and families, and when they get into a position of GS-15 or
SES [senior civil service and senior executive service pay grades] and
colonel or general or admiral, their kids are in college, right? They're
vulnerable. There are a lot of leverage points on people. From my
experience in the bureaucracy, I have never seen, never ever seen, it
this bad."
"When you have the abuse of power and authority at senior levels, it has
a very corrosive effect on the bureaucracy," a military-intelligence
veteran tells Insight. "The bureaucracy refuses to stand up to that kind
of pressure. You never get a senior official in the DIA or anywhere else
going to bat for their people. They don't protect their people any
more."
Those who don't submit to blackmail, under the Clinton-Gore rules,
simply are destroyed. "Look at what happened to Linda Tripp," says a
former Pentagon colleague. Tripp is the career civil servant stationed
at the White House in whom Monica Lewinsky confided her liaisons with
Clinton and who recorded the conversations and passed them to the
special prosecutor when Lewinsky allegedly asked her to commit a felony.
"There was a youthful indiscretion in her personnel file, and look at
what they did with that," says her former colleague.
"Once you get the politicians abusing power, the protection of the
bureaucracy itself is only as good as the integrity of the senior civil
servants. If they're intimidated by power, they lose their protection.
That is accessed by them, the same way [Assistant Defense Secretary
Kenneth] Bacon betrayed Linda Tripp's file, which should have been
protected. Once the pattern of abuse from on high for violating
confidentiality starts, it's very hard to protect down in the
bureaucracy."
It happened to Tripp and to volunteer Kathleen Willey in the White House
as well as in the Office of Naval Intelligence to Lt. Cdr. Jack Daly,
who angered the administration by refusing to go along with a cover-up
of a Russian spy ship that injured his eyes with a laser (see "Fixing a
Photo to Fit a Policy," Feb. 14).
The Clinton-Gore politicization of private personnel files has shattered
many a professional's faith in the system. "My civil-libertarian nodes
are more sensitive than they were before," says a 30-year intelligence
veteran. "I have a little sensitivity for the civil libertarians that I
never thought I would have. I don't trust the government any more."
What Would an Individual's FBI File Contain?
Individual security background files can be full of the most
embarrassing and damaging information � and disinformation �
imaginable, say those involved in the security-clearance process. Almost
everyone has a skeleton in the closet. It's up to government lawyers and
review panels to try to determine what aspects about one's present or
past might preclude someone from holding a sensitive post.
"Background investigations turn up raw, raw data," says a senior U.S.
intelligence officer. "Hear-say, vendettas � that's raw stuff. That
stuff doesn't get filtered." It all goes into the file for evaluation:
childhood offenses and youthful indiscretions, mental-health records,
past substance abuse or venereal disease, employment histories,
financial records and more.
For people holding senior posts, the investigations are even more
intrusive. "Your spouse is investigated, too. Your personal life, your
bank accounts, your investments, everything is in there. If you're GS-15
or above, the excruciating detail, down to the numbers of your bank
accounts" go into the file, according to a senior officer at a large
security agency. "And they get down to the neighbors, friends,
relatives. Anything can get [into the file]. A lot of people have this
inordinate respect for power, and they feel like they have to tell
everything [to investigators]. All of this goes on, and it's raw, raw,
raw data. Would you like Hillary playing with that stuff? Or any of
those other creeps? Snakehead Carville, plowing through your personal
family life?"
1 Posted on 05/26/2000 12:58:07 PDT by JeanS
[ Reply | Private Reply | Top | Last ]
To: JeanS
bttt
2 Posted on 05/26/2000 13:05:31 PDT by Travis McGee
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
To: Alamo-Girl
You might be interested in this article.
3 Posted on 05/26/2000 13:09:31 PDT by JeanS
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
To: JeanS
A BUMP AND A BOOKMARK!
4 Posted on 05/26/2000 13:13:17 PDT by japaneseghost
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
To: JeanS
Pretty scary. How can anyone here not vote for Bush? Don't people want
this stuff to end? The one-issue voters may elect Gore. I don't want to
hear any whining if that happens. It will be their fault.
5 Posted on 05/26/2000 13:13:50 PDT by Wait4Truth
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | Top | Last ]
To: JeanS
btt
6 Posted on 05/26/2000 13:13:55 PDT by staytrue
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
To: Joe Murphy
FYI
7 Posted on 05/26/2000 13:17:23 PDT by Travis McGee
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
To: JeanS
former senator Sam Nunn, the Georgia Democrat who won a reputation as
one of Washington's foremost national-security experts, was deeply
worried about Clinton. Nunn warned that the president had opened himself
� and the country � to blackmail by foreign spy services. "For
people to say that the president of the United States having �
allegedly � telephone sex, is strictly private, has nothing to do with
official duties," Nunn told CNN in January 1999, "means they've never
been acquainted with the world of espionage and the world of blackmail."
Nunn said that questions about Clinton's phone sex should be treated as
a national-security issue: "It seems to me that the [Senate]
Intelligence Committee and the Armed Services Committee must ask the
question about espionage."
Oh, but it is only about sex. Private matter. Doesn't rise to the level
of an impeachable offense. Has nothing to do with his job performance.
He's doing the work of the American people...yada yada yada...
Where was Senator Sam when we needed him during the Senate trial? Why
didn't he speak out about this view?
8 Posted on 05/26/2000 13:18:55 PDT by Charlie from Boston
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
To: JeanS
Now, here's a scary picture:
HilLIARY digging through your files
Wait a minute, what about Willie, himself? He was in Moscow for 63 days
after being thrown out of Oxford. With his libido and taste for drugs,
what do you think he was doing there and who do you think was taking
pictures of what he was doing. For this article to go into so much
detail without mentioning Willie seems to be a case of pointing the
finger elsewhere, more distraction. We know that the dems will try to
impeach the the next republican president where they hold the congress.
The next Republican president, in self defense, should trade/buy
Willie's KGB file.
10 Posted on 05/26/2000 13:29:12 PDT by Tacis
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
To: all
Along with the personal blackmail, Clinton has been blackmailing the
whole government with Mena.
11 Posted on 05/26/2000 13:30:32 PDT by Michael Rivero
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
To: Wait4Truth
Waiting for truth from you will be a long time in coming...
Perhaps you don't recollect Craig Spence's toy-boy late night tours
through the Bush White House {exposed because of stolen antique plates},
his fund-raising activities for Bush {special donors' club}, and his
blackmail operations {run out of his place in Northwest D.C.}--all
published accounts? And all co-inky-dinks, I'm sure...
12 Posted on 05/26/2000 13:36:49 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | Top | Last ]
To: JeanS
Filegate shows that the whole system of security investigations is
wrongheaded, especially now that the Cold War is over. A few traitors
undiscovered in the government are far less of a danger than a whole
government that can be intimidated through the use of the background
files. It ought in particular to be illegal for any government agency to
develop or possess such files on members of Congress, or on judges.
Those two separate, independent branches of government should not be
subject to the whimsy of the FBI or any other executive agency.
13 Posted on 05/26/2000 13:37:25 PDT by aristeides ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
To: JeanS
Yet more proof that Clinton is Scum of the Earth. But no surprise there.
I long suspected the blackmail of congressional leaders. Remember how Al
D'Amato became such a pussycat sometime after about the summer of 1995?
14 Posted on 05/26/2000 13:38:36 PDT by PJ-Comix
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
To: PJ-Comix
Remember how Al D'Amato became such a pussycat sometime after about the
summer of 1995?
I wonder why D'Amato, hitherto such a scrappy campaigner, ran such a
lousy campaign against Chucky Schumer in 1998. Schumer, who just a few
days before the first, BATF attack on Mt. Carmel introduced the Brady
Bill in Congress.
I wonder how Pat Moynihan was persuaded not to run again for his Senate
seat this year, after he had somehow been induced, against his obvious
convictions, to vote to acquit Clinton in the Senate trial.
15 Posted on 05/26/2000 13:47:20 PDT by aristeides ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | Top | Last ]
T
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a392ed74f419d.htm
