Burdens of Proof

[H2O Man]

{1} "He gave me a little lecture about breaking a conspiracy like Watergate. ‘You build convincingly from the outer edges in, you get ten times the evidence you need against the Hunts and Liddys. They feel hopelessly finished – they may not talk right away, but the grip is on them. Then you move up and do the same thing on the next level. If you shoot too high and miss, then everyone feels more secure. Lawyers work this way. I’m sure smart reporters must too.’ I recall he gave me a look as if to say I did not belong in that category of smart reporters." – The Secret Man; Bob Woodward; 2005; page 91.

{2} "Deep Throat moved close to Woodward. ‘Let me explain something,’ he said. ‘When you move on somebody like Haldeman, you’ve got to be sure you’re on the most solid ground. Shit, what a royal screw-up!’

"He stepped even closer, speaking in a whisper. ‘I’m probably not telling you anything you don’t know, but your essential facts are right. From top to bottom, this whole business is a Haldeman operation. He ran the money. Insulated himself through those functionaries around him. Now, how do you get at it? …. This guy is bright, and can be smooth when necessary …. But most of the time he is not smooth. He is Assistant President and everyone has access to him if they want to take it. He sends out the orders; he can be very nasty about it.’

"Haldeman had four principal assistants to whom he delegated orders but not responsibility: Lawrence Higby – ‘a young-punk nobody who does what he is told’; Chapin – ‘smarter and more urbane than Higby, but also a dedicated yes-man’; Strachan – ‘soldierly and capable’; and Alexander Butterfield – ‘an ex-Air Force colonel who knows how to push paper and people.’ …..

"Deep Throat stamped his foot. ‘A conspiracy like this … a conspiracy investigation … the rope has to tighten slowly around everyone’s neck. You build convincingly from the outer edges in, you get ten times the evidence you need against the Hunts and Liddys. They feel helplessly finished – they may not talk right away, but the grip is on them. Then you move up and do the same thing at the next level. If you shoot too high and miss, then everybody feels more secure. Lawyers work this way. I’m sure smart reporters must, too’." – All the President’s Men; Woodward & Bernstein; 1974; 195-6.


Monica Goodling will "take the 5th." When her attorney, John Dowd, said that "one need look no fuirther than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby" to understand why his client would exercise this option, many of us did look further – to the Iran-Contra and the Watergate scandals. Indeed, historians and political scientists recognize the advantages of looking to numerous "circumstances and proceedings" – just as good attorneys and journalists do. And the current scandal provides another good example of why we should let history be our guide.

Mr. Dowd has hinted at something many of us suspect: that there is at least one person who is providing the Senate with "inside" information on what is happening within the Department of Justice. It is likely that some investigators close to the Senate took stock of the people at the levels below the Attorney General, and below Ms. Goodling, and determined who would be most likely to have some appreciation for the integrity of the law. More, they likely have decided who would be most interested in self-preservation. These two descriptions might fit one person, or two, or more.

A good investigator will compare the various statements each person has made with previous statements, and with other things such as e-mails and information provided by others. Each piece of evidence becomes a thread that combines to form the rope that Mr. Felt said "has to tighten slowly around everyone’s neck."

I appreciate that every citizen of the United States should enjoy the freedoms and the protections provided by the Constitution, and of that Bill of Rights in particular. We should not allow our emotions to cloud our vision when it comes to the 5th Amendment – as Benjamin Franklin said, "When passions drive, let reason hold the reins."

Yet there is something disturbing about a senior official in the highest law enforcement office in this nation refusing to testify about his/her role in a Congressional investigation. The extent of the corruption that Felt’s rope ties to this administration is staggering. They have betrayed this nation.

[lonestarnot]

1. I've been accused of "footstomping" demands for peace.

I see some footstomping went on there too, "Deep Throat stamped his foot."

[lonestarnot]

2. dublet.

[Me.]

3. Interesting

"that there is at least one person who is providing the Senate with "inside" information" I guess even publicans can't stand how bad it's gotten.

[H2O Man]

4. I keep thinking

of how when George W. Bush was so openly hostile to the suggestions of the Baker group, I wondered if he had made a serious error. It may be that, similar to the Nixon gang, the powers who operate largely behind the scenes are growing tired of this administration's screw-ups. I thought it curious that both CNN and MSNBC were so focused on the issue of impeachment yesterday evening. I do not think it was due to any liberal influence.

[Me.]

9. The Power Elite

as you've referred to them in previous days must be furious, because basically he has blown their cover. A combination of corruption, incompetence, outright arrogance and petulance has insured the fact that Americans will not trust their government for decades, and probably longer,to come. By the time the next 665 days have passed the scrutiny will be so intense and I believe that the "business as usual" aspect of govt., will be ended for all time. I also think that juniors behavior has been as much a deliberate slap in the face to those behind the scenes too. He knows they're there, they're the ones who got him anointed. Their buyer's remorse makes me think of the saying, :be careful what you wish for".

And yes, impeachment talk has been growing. Pelosi needs to pay attention to that, or it may over take her.

[H2O Man]

12. Right.

I recall that after the 2006 elections, I wrote that it was time to move towards impeaching VP Cheney. Many DUers wrote that we should impeach Bush; others advocated impeaching officials at lower levels (a position soon taken by John Dean); while still others sincerely questioned where would the votes come from if a move to impeach was made? And I recall saying that we need to have some trust in the system .... and that we need to recognize the signs along the path we travel. The removal of the Nixon gang was accomplished largely because of brave and insightful leaders in congress. And It was also accomplished because the powers behind the scenes -- that Power Elite -- made the determination that Nixon had to go.

[Straight Shooter]

15. "the powers behind the scenes made the determination Nixon had to go"

America's Caligula wannabe may well meet the same fate, metaphorically speaking, as did Caligula. I think the knives are out to cut bush away from the GOP, like the cancer he is.

[DemReadingDU]

16. Would Patrick Fitzgerald have come across info

that he could share with with Congress? He sent Waxman a letter that he wouldn't answer questions during the Plame hearing, but does that indicate he can't divulge any info at all?

Or is Fitzgerald one of the people behind the scenes supplying info to Congress? Or maybe someone on Fitz's staff is assisting the investigation into the corruptness of the Bush administration.

I just am not sure what is legal protocol among lawyers and Congress.

[Me.]

17. It Would Be Entirely Out Of Character For Fitzgerald To Go Behind The Scenes

in this matter. That he has maintained the integrity of the trial and verdict is apparent by the letter he sent to Congress. What he has done, quite in the open, if you read his letter carefully (page 2) is laid out a trail of breadcrumbs for them to follow.

[H2O Man]

19. There is a large record

of documentation associated with the Plame investigation. However, I would suggest that DUers look to another leaf on this clover: the neoconservative/AIPAC espionage scandal. Note who had been the prosecutor there.

[Uncle Roy]

21. Paul McNulty? Care to elaborate?

I confess I didn't follow the Franklin/AIPAC case very closely. Franklin plead guilty, as I remember.

In googling around now I could only find the names of Paul McNulty and Kevin DiGregory as prosecutors, and apparently Mr McNulty was later promoted to Assistant AG. Are you suggesting he might be some kind of Deep Throat in DOJ?

Sometimes you go into "oracular" mode. It can be frustrating.

In any event, as you suggested in the closing line of your original post, it is indeed remarkable that now they are taking the 5th in the freaking Justice Department!.

Have we come to this?

Roy

[H2O Man]

22. Not a "Deep Throat."

Mark Felt & friends were not participants in the numerous crimes that we collectively refer to as "Watergate." It appears that, to some extent, Mr. McNulty was working with the people who may have committed some crimes in this scandal. He would seem to be at least on the fringes, though it is fair to question if he was more deeply involved. I would suggest that he might be aware that there are others involved who would be willing to place a large share of the blame on him. And it is possible that he has taken some actions to turn the tables on them.

I share your disgust with the Justice Department being transformed into a political/criminal operation. The spirit of John Mitchell is upon them.

[myrna minx]

24. Please review Sydnie' s excellent catch from the recent document dump...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=513593&mesg_id=513641

[H2O Man]

25. Yes, indeed.

I have seen Sydnie's on-target catch. Very impressive!

[Uncle Roy]

33. The spirit of John Mitchel indeed. Where's Martha now that we really need her?

I really liked that gal, as loopy as she sometimes was. She seemed like the only human being in the whole sorry lot of them. Remember "The Pipe" and "The Brush"? Gawd, it was like a bad gangster movie, except those clowns weren't acting.

It sounds like Mister McNulty might be in a position similar to the one John Dean was in before he changed sides. He got the feeling he was being set up to take the rap as "the mastermind of the coverup" and started cooperating with the special prosecutor almost immediately. He couldn't wait to sink his little fangs into "Mr President", cancer on the presidency notwithstanding, and his testimony did a LOT of damage.

You know things must be bad when the geezers on the park bench are indulging in Watergate Nostalgia.

And speaking of bad gangster movies... do you think the public would have figured these guys out already if the capo di famiglia had been named Prosciuto Bushi instead of Prescot Bush?

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

41. IIRC, He has offered this information to Conyers and/or Waxman

IIRC, either he made an overt offer or he said he was open to sharing what he had.

I'm not sure of the circumstances and don't have time to research it properly right now, but Fitz said something about that either at his press conference after the Libby verdict or within the following couple of weeks.

[H2O Man]

42. I believe that you

are making reference to Mr. Fitzgerald's 3-14-07 letter in response to Rep. Waxman's 3-8 letter, which invited Mr. Fitzgerald to meet with the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. In the 5th and 6th paragraphs in his letter, after explaining why he could not participate in the hearings or provide them with anything beyond the public record, he noted:

"You may wish to review the substantial information gathered during our investigation, (especially as it concerned Mr. Libby in particular), which has become a matter of public record as a result of the court proceedings and the trial. Many of the court filings are publicly docketed and, of course, the trial testimony and all trial exhibits are matters of public record.

"I appreciate the Committee's important oversight interests, but also trust that you will appreciate my position in this matter, particularly while the criminal case remains pending and in light of the confidentiality and private interests at stake."

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

50. Thanks for the specifics

nm

[blm]

11. That was EXACTLY my thought. The power elite don't want to be completely outed by

Bushboy's incompetence and arrogance.

They grew stronger under Clinton while remaining in the background and maintaining global influence. They grew TOO big under Bush2 so that his arrogance and missteps are dangerously exposing the global reach and power behind their agenda.

[Blackhatjack]

18. You echo my thoughts as well.... and I do not believe the MSM change is coincidental...

The columns written by Bob Novak lately, especially characterizing Bush as being 'more isolated' from his party than Carter and Nixon while facing impeachment, are confirmation of the coming catastrophe that will befall this Administration.

It is like Novak has announced to the 'party faithful' that the time has come to cut the Bush Administration loose, batten down the hatches, and ride this one out like Watergate for the sake of the Republican Party's future.

I agree that Bush was given the last opportunity to survive when the Baker Group came on the scene and made their recommendations. Bush rejected that opportunity, and now Bush must be taken care of to protect the powers behind the scenes.

IMHO it will be the Republicans who come to the White House and deliver the death blow that brings this Administration down, in hopes that people will view them as being part of the solution.

If the powers behind the Bush Administration decide that Bush is unsalvagable, there are myriad ways and means for them to take him out.

History has not been kind to figureheads who are hated by the public.

[ljm2002]

48. Yes, the Novak column jumped out at me too...

...Mr. Novak's change of heart is really nothing short of phenomenal. Although it makes sense if you consider that maybe Mr. Novak has been pushing the Vice President's agenda all along. If you look at it that way, it all begins to make sense. Because right now -- especially since Libby's conviction -- the interests of the Pres and the Veep offices have begun to diverge. So when Novak parrots what he is fed from the Veep office (as always), he sounds different because now he is attacking the President.

Just my take.

[Laurab]

36. I think he did (make a serious error)

I also think he made a serious error when he messed with the CIA, and then with the Prosecutors. I would guess he's not all that popular in certain circles where it would behoove him to be popular.

Recommended!

[cassiepriam]

38. Usually their crimes are covered up by a pretense of law and order.

But Bush doesn't even do that. He and Rove are arrogant
and self serving in a very public way.

[Pithy Cherub]

5. Goodling signaled that she is

unsure of where the "mole" is by taking the 5th. My guess is there is more than one person who has given the senate information and evidence. One, possibly more, may be at the White House flying under the radar. It also seems that immunity deals are being negotiated (Bob Dole's treacherous manipulations in Iran Contra notwithstanding) so that any charges forthcoming go to higher level functionaries.

Goodling's career is now in free fall and she needs a deal in order to testify while she's on leave. The senate can squeeze her by saying we have other sources with better info. So, behind the scenes there is some serious wheeling and dealing going on and her attorney leaked the taking of the 5th to send a signal to the White House. Who shall crack first? Leahy seems entirely confident and the fact that they want Rove and Miers under oath means somebody somewhere has spilled some serious beans. The White House is quietly under the radar trying to figure out who to cover and they are running out of blanket on the executive privilege front. White House functionaries gabbing with each other is not usually covered with executive privilege - that has to involve the president. That is one of the key lessons from Watergate the bush leaguers missed.

:popcorn:

[H2O Man]

6. Right.

Leahy's level of confidence is a clue that they have something big here.I've noted this with a few other democrats on the news this past week. (The lack of republican cheerleading for the Attorney General is another clue.)

[CrazyOrangeCat]

7. Thanks for that analysis.

Really, really interesting weeks ahead . . .

[CrazyOrangeCat]

8. I've been waiting . . .

. . . for you to weigh in on Goodling.

And I'm not disappointed. Thanks.

K&R

[La_Fourmi_Rouge]

10. k & r and a Q:

Dude, do you ever sleep? You have been on an absolute tear lately, on point every day - one of the best and brightest of a very talented group of posters here at DU. Frankly, I can hardly keep up!

The echoes of Watergate are deafening - cover-up, changing stories, cockroaches running for cover.

I really appreciate the Franklin quote... I think we have a gem in Leahy because he leads with reason and backs it up with passion.

[TahitiNut]

13. The Fifth Amendment is the dike that holds back the dark waters of the Inquisition.

It is, as is the entire Constitution, a statement of the limitations of authority of the federal government ... a "they shalt not." I have often imagined myself giving testimony and invoking my rights as referenced by the Fifth Amendment ... SOLELY to exercise that right and for no other purpose. I believe that exercising our rights needs no other apologetic.

That said ... I do not believe that any person holding an office of Public Trust should continue to hold that office, or any such office in the future, if they do not willingly and honestly bear witness in the appropriate forum (such as Congress) to the manner in which the Public's Interests were pursued ... or not.

I regard FindLaw's annotations regarding the Fifth Amendment to be lucid and revelatory.

SELF-INCRIMINATION

Development and Scope

Source of this clause was the maxim "nemo tenetur seipsum accusare," that "no man is bound to accuse himself." The maxim is but one aspect of two different systems of law enforcement which competed in England for acceptance; the accusatorial and the inquisitorial. In the accusatorial system, which predated the reign of Henry II but was expanded and extended by him, first the community and then the state by grand and petit juries proceeded against alleged wrongdoers through the examination of others, and in the early years through examination of the defendant as well. The inquisitorial system, which developed in the ecclesiastical courts, compelled the alleged wrongdoer to affirm his culpability through the use of the oath ex officio. Under the oath, an official had the power to make a person before him take an oath to tell the truth to the full extent of his knowledge as to all matters about which he would be questioned; before administration of the oath the person was not advised of the nature of the charges against him, or whether he was accused of crime, and was also not informed of the nature of the questions to be asked.

The use of this oath in Star Chamber proceedings, especially to root out political heresies, combined with opposition to the ecclesiastical oath ex officio, led over a long period of time to general acceptance of the principle that a person could not be required to accuse himself under oath in any proceeding before an official tribunal seeking information looking to a criminal prosecution, or before a magistrate investigating an accusation against him with or without oath, or under oath in a court of equity or a court of common law. The precedents in the colonies are few in number, but following the Revolution six states had embodied the privilege against self-incrimination in their constitutions, and the privilege was one of those recommended by several state ratifying conventions for inclusion in a federal bill of rights. Madison's version of the clause read "nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself," but upon consideration by the House an amendment was agreed to insert "in any criminal case" in the provision.

The historical studies cited demonstrate that in England and the colonies the privilege was narrower than the interpretation now prevailing, a common situation reflecting the gradual expansion, or occasional contracting, of constitutional guarantees based on the judicial application of the policies underlying the guarantees in the context of new factual patterns and practices. The difficulty is that the Court has generally failed to articulate the policy objectives underlying the privilege, usually citing a "complex of values" when it has attempted to state the interests served by it. Commonly mentioned in numerous cases was the assertion that the privilege was designed to protect the innocent and to further the search for truth. It appears now, however, that the Court has rejected both of these as inapplicable and has settled upon the principle that the clause serves two interrelated interests: the preservation of an accusatorial system of criminal justice, which goes to the integrity of the judicial system, and the preservation of personal privacy from unwarranted governmental intrusion. In order to protect these interests and to preserve these values, the privilege "is not to be interpreted literally." Rather, the "sole concern (of the privilege) is, as its name indicates, with the danger to a witness forced to give testimony leading to the infliction of penalties affixed to the criminal acts."

"The privilege afforded not only extends to answers that would in themselves support a conviction ... but likewise embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute ... (I)f the witness, upon interposing his claim, were required to prove the hazard ... he would be compelled to surrender the very protection which the privilege is designed to guarantee. To sustain the privilege, it need only be evident from the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked, that a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result." Thus, a judge who would deny a claim of the privilege must be "'perfectly clear, from a careful consideration of all the circumstances in the case, that the witness is mistaken, and that the answer(s) cannot possibly have such tendency' to incriminate." The witness must have reasonable cause to apprehend danger from an answer, but he may not be the sole judge of the validity of his claim. While the trial judge may not require a witness to disclose so much of the danger as to render the privilege nugatory, he must determine whether there is a reasonable apprehension of incrimination by considering the circumstances of the case, his knowledge of matters surrounding the inquiry, and the nature of the evidence which is demanded from the witness. One must explicitly claim his privilege or he will be deemed to have waived it, and waiver may be found where the witness has answered some preliminary questions but desires to stop at a certain point.

(more)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/07.html#1

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition."

[PhilipShore]

14. I think it has been proven that -- Monica Goodling -- is now in Contempt...

I am not a lawyer, but the Libby trial is a separate proceeding; and I think the subject of the Congressional hearing is unrelated to Libby.

It is simply about the breaking of ethical codes of lawyers -- and the wrongful firing of government employees (people on staff with the AG office) -- she has not even been asked any questions yet, so how could she know the Congressional questions would be prejudicial to justice?

Thus giving her the right to refuse to answer under the Fifth Amendment, so she therefore -- is in my opinion "now" in contempt of congress, and charges should be drafted, ASAP.

No deal, No immunity; she would just lie -- if they gave her immunity.

[Jackpine Radical]

47. She would be very ill-advised to lie under immunity.

A proven lie immediately invalidates the immunity, and, since she doesn't know what information is already in the hands of her examiners, she can't possibly know what she can safely lie about and what she cannot. Lying under immunity is walking in a minefield.

[PhilipShore]

51. I disagree

I am not a lawyer; but what I would do if I was Congress is appoint a special prosecutor, and turn over all information that it has -- if any -- and/or if it's about the Miami scandal (Abramoff) -- I would turn it over to the Miami prosecutor.:)

[antigop]

20. Question for Me and/or H20Man

Would you care to describe who, exactly, are the "power elite"?

(And a thank you for your posts.)

[Me.]

23. For Me. They Are The Faceless Ones

Rich, powerful men and women who, without being elected exercise a great influence on what goes on in the world. Have you ever noticed that all our presidential candidates, at one time or another are invited to go to a Bilderberg Conference? Many believe there is also a great deal of power vested in the trilateral commission. Link provides a list of their members.

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/weektc.htm

If you do research. you'll find a lot of conspiracy theories about these groups, and as we don't really have access it's hard to know how much power they actually have. In addition you must ask what part the BFEE plays in all this, despite the fact that junior is related. Poppy and his group have not been happy at all about what he's doing and may want him taken to the woodshed before he brings them all down.

Also, the question you must also ask is if there are players even above these mentioned, the real power, behind the power, behind the power?

Edited to add: There are also very powerful figures who stay behind the scenes in both intelligence and the military.

In fact, there are a whole lot of people who think they should be the determinors of what happens in our world.

[antigop]

28. Yes, I have read about Bilderberg Conferences, and Trilateral Commission

I'm not sure what is tin-foil hat and what is real.

Thanks for your reply.

[Me.]

30. That Is The Problem, What Is Tin Foil & What Isn't

It all sounds so woo-woo, and we Americans like to believe we are in charge of our destiny, one person, one vote. Though that didn't happen in 2000, 2004 for that matter. And in one sense we should thank KKK for his nefarious deeds, for he has taught us moderns that even in this day and time, perception can be manipulated.

As to what is real and what isn't, the reference made by Churchill about a high cabal is true. Who they actually are, the names we may never know.

[H2O Man]

32. For what it's worth:

Prouty writes that most historians will not try to "name the individuals who comprise such an elite. One point must be clarified. They are not the Bilderburgers, the Trilateralists, or the members of the Council of Foreign Relations." I do not think he meant that no member of the power elite ever belongs to any of these groups, but rather that the groups themselves are not the elite.

[Me.]

34. I'm With You On That

I think of them as lower level management (not that those self importants would agree), and their names are recorded. It's the names we don't know that count the most. I hope historians get them.

[H2O Man]

39. It's interesting to look

at people's view of the Plame scandal. I think it is fair to say that a majority of democrats would have rather seen Karl Rove arrested and convicted, than having Libby arrested and convicted. Yet, in terms of which of the two men pushed the agenda to invade Iraq for a decade, and who manipulated intelligence, and who engineered the operation to damage Joseph and Valerie Wilson .... Rove's role was relatively insignificant when compared to Libby.

So why the desire to nail Karl Rove? Simply because people are familiar with him. Rove is a high profile, arrogant political operative. But he is just that -- a political operative who has had the ability to exploit some domestic issues. But he should never be mistaken for being important for his insights on international affairs. Libby, on the other hand, absolutely understood the power of being unknown, and playing behind the scenes roles.

[warren pease]

56. Why the desire to nail Rove?

I think it's largely because, like Bush, he epitomizes the nonchalant arrogance and abuse of power that characterize this administration's dealings with everything from the near-useless white house press corps (or corpse, more like it) to the concept of Congressional oversight.

Past that, I think it's easy to hate Rove because he's such an obvious creep and weenie. He's the schoolyard fat kid everybody messed with, and now he's going to make them pay. I can easily envision him spending his evenings pulling the wings off flies, and then buggering a couple of terrified alter boys for dessert. Crude, but then so are he and the rest of his cronies. He's a charmless, smarmy piece of shit and I expect that most people, even his alleged allies in the white house, know not to trust him with anything more important than yesterday's newspaper.

Great OP, by the way.

wp


On edit: tpyos

[H2O Man]

57. I agree. n/t

[conscious evolution]

35. I have always believed

those groups were where they sent their emmisaries to give out their marching orders.The members are just the employees of the unseen.
The groups mmentioned can also be considered the international versions of our own countries think tanks such as AEI.

[Greyhound]

40. "The greatest trick the Devil ever played was convincing the world he didn't exist"

- Kaiser Sosai

:hi:
:kick:

[rman]

44. "Unwarranted influence, disastrous rise of misplaced power, pretending not to exist"

Can't be up to much good if this power pretends not to exist."

As i was saying in another threat.

[H2O Man]

26. On a number of

essays in the past, I've used information from Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty's book "JFK" to define the "power elite." He quotes R. Buckminster Fuller ("....we continualy explore for the invisible power structure behind the visible kings, prime ministers, czars, emperors, presidents, and other official head men, as well as for the underlying, hidden causes of individual wars and long drawn-out campaigns not disclosed by the widely published and popularly accepted causes of these wars.")

He also notes tha Churchill called this group the "High Cabal."

In 2002-03, for example, the nation was told that we had to confront Iraq because of Saddam's WMD programs. We find out that this was a purposeful lie. It raises the question of why we invaded, and who made the decision to?

In small towns and cities alike, going across the USA, there are politicians on the town and city boards. There are mayors. But they aren't the real power: they are the public face of it. If there is a decision to undertake a major project -- including those that are controversial -- the major decisions are not usually made at the public meetings. They are made during private lunches with unelected power brokers in the community. And it's the same on the state, federal, and international level.

[antigop]

27. Yes, I have read your essays, but what I was really asking....

was WHO are these people on the federal level? I was asking for names.

Maybe you mentioned some in previous essays and I missed them.
(Thanks for your reply.)


<edit to add> Kind of reminds me of "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" -- Who ARE those guys?

[H2O Man]

29. I'll give two

examples that you might find interesting. They are people I've mentioned before, in the context of those rare members of the power elite that at times step out into a public position: W. Averell Harriman and Paul Nitze. A current example would be James Baker III.

[antigop]

31. Oh, yes, you did mention Harriman and Nitze before....

And I had wondered about James Baker III...he seems to always pop up, doesn't he?

Thanks.

[TacticalPeek]

37. The one and only Buckminster.

He wrote in Critical Path

In our tracing of the now completely invisible power structures it is important to note that, while the British Empire as a world government lost the American Revolution, the power structure behind it did not lose the war. The most visible of the power structure identities was the East India Company, an entirely private enterprise, whose flag as adopted by Queen Elizabeth in 1600 happened to have 13 red and white horizontal stripes with a blue rectangle in it's upper lefthand corner. The blue rectangle bore in red and white the superimposed crosses of St. Andrew and St. George.

When the Boston Tea Party occurred, the colonists dressed as Indians boarded the East India Company's three ships and threw overboard their entire cargoes of high-tax tea. They also took the flag from the masthead of the largest of the "East Indiamen", the Dartmouth. George Washington took command of the U.S. Continental Army under an elm tree in Cambridge, Mass. The flag used for that occasion was the East India Company's flag, which by pure coincidence had the 13 red and white stripes. Though it was only coincidence, most of those present thought the 13 red and white stripes did represent the thirteen American colonies--ergo, was very appropriate--but they complained about the included British flag's superimposed crosses in the blue rectangle in the top corner. George Washington conferred with Betsy Ross, after which came the thirteen white, five-pointed stars in the blue field with the 13 red and white horizontal stripes. While the British government lost the 1776 war, the East India Company's owners who constituted the invisible power structure behind the British government not only did not lose but moved right into the new U.S. economy along with the latter's most powerful landowners.

By pure chance I happened to uncover this popularly unknown episode of American history. Commissioned in 1970 by the Indian government to design new airports in Bombay, New Delhi and Madras, I was visiting the grand palace of the British fortress in Madras, where the English first established themselves in India in 1600. There I saw a picture of Queen Elizabeth I and the flag of the East India Company of 1600 A.D., with it's 13 red and white horizontal stripes and it's super-imposed crosses in the upper corner. What astonished me was that this flag (which seemed to be the American Flag) was apparently being used in 1600 A.D., 175 years before the American Revolution. Displayed on the stairway landing wall together with the portrait of Queen Elizabeth I painted on canvas, the flag was painted on the wall itself, as was the seal of the East India Company.

Buckminster Fuller, observer extraordinaire.

[Me.]

45. Fascinating

and scary

[ljm2002]

49. Thank you so much!

That was a fascinating bit of history!

[rman]

43. I'd guess there's a lot of overlap between the power elites,

and the couple of hundred multi-billionaires on this planet.

money = power, follow the money

I think most of the money is not with (large) corporations, but with the financiers of those corporations.

[antigop]

46. Re: The Power Elite

Perhaps this should be its own thread.....

Me. said, "It all sounds so woo-woo, and we Americans like to believe we are in charge of our destiny, one person, one vote."

One thing I've wondered about for some time now is -- how much "democracy" really exists? How much of our destiny can we really shape, given the so-called power elite who call the shots? How much of a difference will the Internet make in letting us shape our own destiny?

[Me.]

52. The Internets Have Been Integral To Pulling Back The Curtain

IMO. Before it came into being we were hostage to what they wanted us to know and, their perspective. We didn't have the immense ability to fact check and research like we do now. Nor did we have huge communities where we could exchange ideas and information, place like DU where the research is both vast and informative. It also has given us an easy communication tool which allows us to contact anyone we wish to express out thoughts and opinions. I hear that readership of newspapers has dropped 35 points, from 65% to 25%. There is good reason for that. Although many like to think so, and find it convenient to their interests, to believe that the American people are either stupid or apathetic, they are neither. They just didn't have the tools at their disposal to counteract what the MSM was dishing out. I fully believe the internet played a large role in winning this last election for the dems. For example: the calling campaign Move-on initiated was brilliantly organized and so easy to use. I could make calls in-between doing laundry, answering the phone, door etc. And it was with no small amount of pleasure that i noticed how many candidates they gave me to make calls for actually won their election.

I know that many people are worried they will try to limit the ability people have to access the INTERNET. That is not a big concern of mine. I see it as a catch-22 fr anyone who tries to do so. And the reason is simple. Business is entirely vested in the internet now and their sales grow daily. Limiting access would have a debilitating effect on business and there would be a mighty howl Also, ingenuity and creativity has reached such a point that anything restrictive they try to initiate can and will be swiftly countered. As per the way people in China are being helped to leap over the restrictions placed on them.

[antigop]

53. Good post, Me.! I agree. n/t

[Me.]

54. Another Example Of The Value Of The Internet

TPM pushing the attorney firing story while the so called journalists snoozed. It will be interesting to see where it goes tomorrow when Sampson testifies, especially after the latest doc dump.

[antigop]

55. Yep. TPM kept the story alive. n/t