Can Someone Explain This Proof Stanley Hilton Claims To Have Re: Bush?

[orleans]

i heard randi rhodes reading this piece today (monday) on her show, and in part it says:

"The controversies rage on yet today about the events of September 11, 2001. No steel building has ever collapsed from fire alone. Buildings falling precisely into their footprints are the marks of deliberate (and expert) demolition. The faulty construction/foreshortened lifespan/insurance angle. The collapse of a third building that was not hit at all. The short-selling of airline stock in previous days. The Pentagon hit by a missile, not a civilian airliner. Michael Rupert’s book “Crossing the Rubicon” lays the blame for 9/11 directly at Dick Cheney’s feet. Senator Robert Dole’s former chief of staff, Mr. Stanley Hilton, claims he can prove George Bush signed an order authorizing the attacks. Half the people polled in New York city believed the Bush Administration had prior knowledge of the attack, and “consciously failed” to act. Et cetera. "

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1203-21.htm

(i used the bold here)

this really caught my attention--i don't remember hearing this; i remember a lawsuit, and i've tried to google it. it looks like it was thrown out because you can't sue a sitting "president" (yeah, sure, tell paula jones).

my question is: what is the proof about bush having signed an order authorizing the attacks. has anyone heard of this? what proof?


and...what about the lawsuit? did he refile or anything?

[John Q. Citizen]

1. Wow, that's quite the article on Common Dreams. Well worth the read.

[salvorhardin]

2. If he can prove it, why hasn't he?

Every single newspaper in the world would kill to run this story. So why hasn't he simply contacted the New York Times? Oh I know, they're in on the conspiracy. How about The Guardian then? Or The Independent? Or Le Monde? Are they all in on the conspiracy?

Also, if he has proof, then that would mean Bushco really is as all-powerful as conspiracists would have us believe. So why is Stanley Hilton still alive?

[John Q. Citizen]

3. Did you read the article, or did you just provide your standard editorial comments?

[salvorhardin]

7. Nope... for you they're my special editorial comments.

You just need to know how to read the part written in invisible pixels.

[John Q. Citizen]

8. Well, that's cool. but the article itself is well worth the read. I'd be interested

in what you think about it.

[salvorhardin]

9. I was responding to the OP

Logic would tell us that Stanley Hilton can not have proof because if he did the proof would either already be published or he would be dead. If for some reason he is withholding information on this definitive proof of what would easily be the biggest crime in the history of this country, then he's definitely not acting in the best interests of anyone (inluding his self). And why would he be the only one with proof? Was he in the room when this order was signed?

Conspiracists won't accept the educated opinion of thousands of engineers when it comes to how the World Trade Center towers fell and yet you're willing to accept the word of someone who, until the time of these grandiose claims, has been an anonymous former government staffer at face value. Come on, I know even you aren't that credulous.

[John Q. Citizen]

10. The OP included a link to the article on common dreams. The article is

about much more than the excerpt the OP included in his OP.

There is no way that we sitting at our computers could possibly know if Stanley Hilton has proof or not, and besides, 9/11 isn't the biggest crime in the history of this country by a long shot.

We saw those "thousands" of engineers blindly and mutely except the pancake theory, and then, without explaination, just blindly except the next "core softening" theory. If they were involved, why didn't they point out that the pancake theory made no sense? Who stood up and said, that makes no sense? I didn't see you challange it. If you can explain this obvious hole in your assumptions, then i would be more likely to buy into your other assumptions.

But I disgress.

Read the article. It's maybe the most important article written this year.

[salvorhardin]

12. Ah but you can't answer my questions can you?

This is so patently ridiculous that it boggles the mind.

If he has proof why has he not disclosed it? And if he has proof why does Bushco allow him to live?

If Stanley Hilton has proof that Bush signed an order authorizing the 9-11 attacks then if he doesn't disclose his proof he's as much a traitor to the U.S. as Bush is (if he signed such an order, which obviously he hasn't).

[John Q. Citizen]

13. I can't read minds, but I can read articles.

[salvorhardin]

14. To take a different tack

Do you believe him? If so, why? What evidence has Hilton provided that would allow you to take the giant leap of faith required to believe his assertion?

[John Q. Citizen]

15. Hilton is but one sentence in a long and extremely well writen article. I

never heard of him before I read the article.

In fact, you may be making him famous right now.

I haven't the foggiest if he's got evidence or not. In fact, I don't care anywhere near about him as much as you seem to.

But the article is great. I recommend it.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1203-21.htm

[salvorhardin]

16. So you don't believe Hilton's claim?

Good for you! I didn't think you were that credulous.

[John Q. Citizen]

18. There is nothing to believe or disbelieve. Only a fanatic would sit at a

computer, read a blub, and think they could ascertain that Hilton was lying or wasn't lying.

However, if it makes you feel better, you, aren't alone.

Rupert, Hoffman, Robinowitz, and now you have all expended considerable time and energy doubting him. Perhaps great minds think alike?

However, this article, "The Surreal Politics of Premeditated War" by R.W. Behan
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1203-21.htm

at common dreams (where DUer Will Pitt also contributes) is a great read. I highly recommend it.

[greyl]

17. Here's another great article;

*

[John Q. Citizen]

19. If that's your idea of a great article, well to each his own. It isn't new. And it's

not as well written as a more indepth article I read on the same subject in Pychology Today many years ago while I was in High School.

But thanks, it does offer an explaination to some extent for salvorhardin's obsession with Hilton, and his need to repeatedly demonstrate why he is so sure that Hilton is lying and his need to have others agree with him on his opinion.

While salvorhardin's fellow travelers (Hoffman, Robinowitz and Rupert) share his view that Hilton is engaging in disinfo, they at least make a much broader case and provide a much more indepth critique.

I read your article now maybe you would like to read mine? While it's longer than the one you linked to, it's also (IMHO) better written and has a lot more information, some of which was actually new to me.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1203-21.htm

[HamdenRice]

4. A note on Paula Jones' precedent

Generally no one can sue a sitting president for his official acts as president. The Jones case established that a president could be sued for acts he committed before he became president.

So if Bush was involved in 9/11, that would be an act he did while in office. The remedy is impeachment first, removal, then indictment and conviction.

[KJF]

5. Hoffman, Robinowitz and Ruppert don't buy it

A lawsuit by Bob Dole's former chief of staff Stanley G. Hilton makes wide-ranging accusations against Bush administration officials for the crimes of 9/11/01 and subsequent crimes. Hilton's original suit, filed in the Northern California U.S. District Court on June 3rd, 2004, on behalf of 9/11 victims, names top officials in the Bush administration as defendants, and enumerates various charges against them.

...

We provide several criticisms of Hilton's lawsuit and strategy but do not take a position on whether his suit is a form of legal subterfuge or shows legal incompetence.
http://www.911review.com/disinfo/lawsuits.html#hilton

According to the piece, Hilton gets the plaintiffs wrong, the defendants wrong, uses red herrings, etc.

[savemefromdumbya]

6. I don't think Bush signed any order

no order was given, just agreed to it

[MervinFerd]

11. Bush "signed an order" for 9/11?

Let me get this straight. "Stanley Hoffman", whoever that is, maintains that Bush signed a Presidential Order authorizing 9/11.

So,

Somebody wrote out an order saying, "I authorize the CIA to attack NYC and the Pentagon and kill thousands of citizens", some secretary typed it up, Bush signed it, and now it is stored somewhere in the White House files.

Right.

[softwarevotingtrail]

20. Give me a break, Bush signed no order

There is no way Bush was in on 9-11. He's too stupid to be able to lie that good for that long.

Darth Cheney, on the other hand...

[wildbilln864]

21. I agree generally...

with you. But I believe he did know it was going to happen. Maybe he didn't know the details but he knew it was coming! Otherwise he would have gotten his ass out of that school before one of those planes came down on his head too! But see, they stayed there at least 30 minutes after he had been told the country was under attack because they knew there was no threat! Now you'd think that a terrorist wanting to attack valuable American symbols would have aimed for the school Bush was in. I would at least! And it was public knowledge weeks before that day that Bush was going to be there!
Strange!

[HamdenRice]

22. You guys (both sides) need to learn at least a little about trial litigation

Much of the argument on both sides in this thread is based on a very simplistic notion of how a lawsuit works. The idea that Hilton would have "proof" of anything before his case is allowed to go forward is ridiculous.

So here is a primer. A plaintiff's lawyer does not file a lawsuit (actually its called filing a complaint), because he has proof of the facts alleged in the lawsuit. He files the complaint in order to get access to the evidence in order to find the proof.

Most laymen get their understanding of litigation from movies. In movies, even good movies about litigation like say Ellen Brokovitch, the screen play has to have drama. The drama is created by having the righteous plaintiffs' lawyers snoop around and find the evidence.

That's not really how it works, however. The first step, the complaint, alleges facts that fit into a "cause of action," that is, a legally defined wrong. The plaintiff may have some facts, but lack others. If the plaintiff lacks certain facts, he can allege those facts "on knowledge and belief." Then the defendant files an "answer" which usually denies most of the facts of the complaint.

If the plaintiff has stated a proper cause of action and alleged facts that fit into the cause of action, and the complaint survives various defense motions to dismiss, then the judge will grant the plaintiff "discovery."

Discovery, a pretty amazing procedure invented in the United States early in the 20th century, allows unprecedented access by the plaintiff to the defendants files and property. A much more realistic movie version of litigation that shows and explains this process is the John Travolta vehicle, A Civil Action, in which the plaintiffs were permitted to dig up the defendant's property, question witnesses under oath and look through the defendant's files. Because of the many protections for the defendant's privacy built into the discovery process, the defendant has no excuse for not allowing such access. If the defendant and his lawyers hide evidence, that is considered extremely serious wrongdoing. That hiding of evidence was the main dramatic element of A Civil Action.

In this case, the plaintiffs have not yet demonstrated that they can proceed with the lawsuit and discovery has not begun. Hence, Hilton would have written into the complaint certain facts, alleged "on knowledge and belief." So he doesn't have proof of what he alleges, but he also isn't just making stuff up. He is saying, essentially, "I have a pretty good hunch that this is what happened, and if you grant me discovery, I can prove it."

So for OCTers to dismiss what he is saying because newspapers have not reported his alleged facts is absurd. Newspapers need documentary proof and he has presumably not provided that proof in the complaint. He is saying he has a pretty good hypothesis, and if discovery is granted he will be able to prove it. At that point, assuming the discovery is granted without various restrictions and gag orders, he can share his proof with the press.