US Presidential profiles in violations of Justice. (Part 9 – former President W. J. Clinton)

English: Official White House photo of Preside...
English: Official White House photo of President Bill Clinton, President of the United States. Русский: Президент США Билл Клинтон,официальное фото Белого Дома. Ελληνικά: Επίσημη φωτογραφία Λευκού Οίκου του Προέδρου Μπιλ Κλίντον, Προέδρου των ΗΠΑ (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The 42nd US President William (“Bill”) Jefferson Clinton

 “Part  of  our  essential  humanity  is  paying  respect  to  what  God  gave  us  and  what  will  be  here  a  long  time  after  we’re  gone.”   – Bill Clinton.  (1946 –      

Born 1946 in Hope (Arkansas), Clinton graduated at both Yale Law School and Oxford. Between 1973 and 1976 he lectured law at the University of Arkansas. Before he was elected to the position of State Attorney General in Arkansas (1976) he married Hillary Clinton in 1975. His childhood was somewhat troubled the least and it has amazed what he made of his life. It makes you realise there is for most of us in the more advanced countries a free choice in life to make the most of it. Despite my critical remarks perhaps we need to keep this in mind as from my perception – whatever will be said about Clinton, and whatever flaws he had – he did very well from this point of view. He made the most of it and his 2007 book about “Giving” (>”how each of us can change the world”<) shows Clinton at a different dimension, more mature than at the early stage of his Presidency, – not to speak about his time as Governor in  Arkanson. I guess most US Presidents in retrospect may realise that there have been times that circumstances could have been dealt with differently, – with a better outcome for humanity.

In 1978 he became at the age of 32 the youngest person ever being elected to the position of Governor in Arkansas. He served 5 terms until 1992.  He worked on educational reforms and Arkansas’s roads, with his wife Hillary leading a successful committee on urban health care reform.

Clinton became a prominent figure among the New Democrats.The New Democrats, organized as the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC),  has been a branch of the Democratic Party which called for welfare reform and smaller government, a policy supported by both Democrats and Republicans. As a Chair of the National Governors Association from 1986 to 1987, Clinton was in a position to give the Democratic response to the then US President Ronald Reagan after Reagan held his State of the Union Address in 1985, which brought Clinton to an audience  beyond Arkansas. Obviously this was the purpose  as Clinton had ambitions beyond Arkansas. The Clinton’s’ had  however personal & business matters during the 1980s included various transactions which became the reason of the Whitewater investigation later on.

Ken Starr became later a relentless investigator on Clinton’s affairs.  This really troubled the later President in person but not as such his Administration. After really most extensive investigations over several years, no convictions were ever made against the Clinton’s related to the years in Arkansas. This most to the sadness perhaps of Ken Starr.

Readers of the series about US Presidential profiles in violations of justice may recall the last edition about the former US President G.H Bush. In particular in this case the Iran-Contra scandal in which an airport in Arkansas (Mena) was used for a large illegal CIA operation, involving large quantities of drugs to be sold with the profits to be transferred to a fund to support the Contras. The details are reflected in the last edition about President Bush,sr, – but underneath is reflected what President Clinton had to say about those issues when he was US President:                                                                                                                                         (What President Clinton had to say about the Iran-Contra scandal and Mena airport in Arkansas being used)

On the issue of violations of Justice Clinton may argue differently, but the controversy is quite clear and the incriminating reason is that he did neither act in terms of facilitating Congress to make formal enquiries and investigations, nor did he support the legal system to do its work once this was requested in his own State where he was the Governor of State, apart from ignoring a public request to take matters further. It is fair to say that he started his US Presidency compromised over the Mena issues and the question is why. His achievements in general have been so good, his prospects were already so positive at this young age that courage and integrity would have been an added bonus on this otherwise remarkable man. We don’t know why he did not act. However not acting whilst seeing high level Federal Crime in such a position and at such an amazing level makes you a culprit in conspiracy as well. There is a duty to report at this level of politics and there are many ways to prevent an assassination if this would have been his concern.  Sharing information at an proper forum as detailed and correct as possible would have been a preventative and the best forum would have been US Congress. At the highest place in politics we are not allowed to be indifferent against the injustice we face and life asks from us in such positions of power and capacity to act in the positive, to act against evil and injustice. Always however with common sense and extensive research or intelligence being available. Like the Press has a duty to face the  facts as they are and present them candid and clear, US Congress has a duty as well to face illegal dealings and present the facts both candid and with clarity as well, if such occurs at the highest Executive Branch. It is just a matter of following protocol.

What could be the reason Clinton did not act?

The other reason could have been his potential concern that if he would obstruct Bush/Reagan and the CIA his chances of ever becoming US President would be obstructed from various corners. We really don’t know what his considerations were at the time. We only know from this video that he tried to talk his way out with incorrect information, and the last happened on more occasions, not only as US President. It would be however interesting to know from him why he decided as he did in retrospect. Obviously if a genuine concern would have been that he could ruin his chances on the US Presidency, it does show both ways. Again a reflection on character and integrity, but on the other hand the political system. The last perhaps neither allowing nor permitting facing crime and injustice “head on”. Having said this, it is required to do so sometimes when Government actions are both against the law and the Constitution.

George H. Bush left a legacy of economic recession and public dissatisfaction whilst Bill Clinton during the Presidential elections in 1992 was able to inspire change and hope. When he did defeat George H Bush, as such an era of a 12 years lasting Republican Administration in the White house ended.

Clinton was inaugurated as the 42nd President of the United States on January 20, 1993. In his inaugural address he declared: >”Our democracy must not only be the envy of the world but the engine of our own renewal. There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America”<.  Let’s face it, he was an excellent speaker, this was spot on! But the reality was different for both him and America, as the reality is often different from what we like to see. The US is still not the engine of its renewal and the efforts and proportion of success in this direction is highly dependent on the quality of law enforcement, maintaining the principles of Democracy and both the required level of perception and application of justice.

Bill Clinton’s achievements in the White House were  most considerable in various areas, including the shift from a record deficit to a record surplus, creating new jobs, helping families and communities, improving education, really challenging crime, and moving many Americans from welfare to work. Both healthcare and environment got significant attention and on foreign policy he was importantly able to keep peace. The last being the topic perhaps of our time, a topic much underestimated by so many.

Clinton’s Presidency started actually less than two years after the fall of the Soviet Union, and his administration’s foreign policy  dealt with conflicts in Herzegovina, Kosovo, Haiti, Somalia and Rwanda. He really made personal  efforts to try to end conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland, and the Middle East, with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict having special attention. Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which was a bipartisan agreement indicating  support to change the regime in Iraq. I will come back on this as it may be fair to say that intelligence at the background of his Administration increased both efforts in Afghanistan and issues surrounding  Iraq, – the last being an increasing concern. It is difficult to believe however that the 9/11 matter as it presented at the early start of the G.W.Bush Administration arrived totally out of the blue, that there has never been any intelligence warning before.  The administration unsuccessfully attempted to capture or assassinate Osama Bin Laden on three different occasions, the last finally being  killed by U.S. special forces in 2011.

The Iran Contra affair with the use of  Mena airport in Arkansan when Bill Clinton was a Governor there, was for some a continuing issue of concern. There was more.  Patrick Matrisciana created a film in 1994. This video investigated the deaths of Vincent Foster and  BCCI, Dan Lasater.  Those deaths were part of a conspiracy theory known as the “Clinton Body Count“. The deaths listed in this  film have been largely discredited and debunked as containing deliberate bias, produced by people opposing Clinton. The Kenneth Starr investigations started in August 1994, which was a profound predicament for Clinton. He kept however concentrating on his work despite his anger about injustice being done to him, which he claimed to be a Republican conspiracy. However in a 1994 letter to congressional leaders, William Dannemeyer listed 24 people with some connection to Clinton who had died “under other than natural circumstances” and called for hearings on the matter. His list was largely taken from a longer list compiled by Linda Thompson.  Areas of controversy included:

Without going too much in detail on those issues, it is fair to say that some questions remain questions but that Kenneth Starr was not particularly Clinton’s best friend. If Kenneth Starr would have found any slightest evidence of Clinton being involved in privately arranged assassinations, – needless to say that Clinton would have been impeached. Bill Clinton became reelected in 1996 and he was both a charismatic and popular President, able to keep up peace besides promoting peace at an international level.

Legislative achievements are as mentioned considerable:

1993: Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993  ,Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act ,1994: Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement ActCommunications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, 1995:  Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act, 1996:  Telecommunications Act of 1996Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act,   Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act,   Defense of Marriage Act,    Mental Health Parity Act,    Balanced Budget Act of 1997, 1997: Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, 1998: Workforce Investment Act of 1998,   Iraq Liberation Act,    Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act,   Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, 2000: Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000

His Administration unfortunately however was also attracting much public attention of the “Lewinsky affair” in the White HouseMonica Lewinsky was a White House intern and a relationship developed with the President which he denied followed by charges of  perjury and obstruction of justice. Though being initially impeached he was quitted by the Senate and he was able to finish his second term. The fact however remains that he acted both against the law and against the usual obligations of a President not to get engaged in this type of matters.  Apart from this he failed to act on the Iran Contra scandal before he became President. In 1994 the Arkansas State Trooper L.D.Brown told publicly via the American Spectator in 1994 that he had procured close to hundred women for Clinton from 1982 until he left the office of Governor in Arkansas. As it would seem, reportedly Monica Lewinsky was only one of the many female encounters during the Clinton Presidency.                                                                                                                       (Female encounters..)

Dick Morris worked with Bill and Hillary Clinton during Bill Clinton’s successful 1978 bid for the position of Governor of Arkansas. He did engineer Clinton’s re-election to the Arkansas governorship after a major defeat at the end of Clinton’s first term. Clinton turned to Morris again after the mid-term elections of 1994, when Republicans gained control of the U.S. House and Senate. Clinton’s own chance for a second presidential term appeared to be limited. From early 1995 to August 1996, Morris was a principal architect of the Clinton-Gore re-election strategy.The friendship broke down.   (Dick Morris commented later: ” He (Clinton) had hundreds of women since he’s been in the White House.” Reflecting on the Clinton Cabinet members who blindly accepted his denials of “a potential affair” with Lewinsky, Morris said, “You had to be a moron to believe this guy after his record.” In taped conversations with Linda Tripp, an other White House intern revealed the president had once told her he’d slept with more than a hundred women during his Arkansas days.)

Morris became a critic of the Clinton’s since his departure, in particular Hillary Rodham Clinton and her run  for the US presidency. Morris has published various articles about the Clinton’s and also contributed to Hillary: The Movie, a documentary about her when she was a 2008 Presidential candidate. I guess there was at least a degree of frustration him being so outspoken about those issues when his friendship with the Clintons’ ended as during the friendship there were never comments of this nature, however it can’t be denied that Clinton had various legacies.

(In April 1998, former White House steward Michael McGrath detailed for Star magazine (April 1998) what he considered were Oval Office assignations between Clinton and former West Wing secretary Debra Schiff. A New York Times article reflected that Schiff’s access to Clinton was almost as close to Hillary Clinton’s and that of Vice President Al Gore. As the Lewinsky case became a “hot topic” up,  Schiff was transferred to the State Department.  Former White House staff director David Watkins went public in 1996 with claims that one-time Clinton girlfriend Marsha Scott (a trusted White House insider to both the Clinton’s), had continued a sexual relationship with the President. Scott remained at the White House as part of the few close associates from the Arkansas time. In this 1996 interview, Watkins indicated that Clinton was carrying on with 25-year-old Catherine Cornelius. Cornelius was mentioned in official White House reports as Clinton’s “distant cousin.” But neither Watkins nor the late Vince Foster, both of whom knew Clinton from his earliest days in Hope, Ark., had ever heard of Cornelius before.)

Tolerating Bill’s weakness,” said Hilary’s close friend Susan Thomases, “has always been part of her relationship with him.”

Harder to tolerate was public humiliation for Hillary Clinton. Time after time  again, she did defend her husband, even when the facts overwhelmingly suggested that he was lying.

It was not unlikely a  strange atmosphere to bring up their only child in such a White House environment and it may be assumed that it was a big job for Clinton to keep his secrets outside the public domain. It seemed more “headache” than benefit, some would say.

Whatever he did in private, whatever he disclosed incorrectly in public, – this behaviour has been a touchstone of his character as well, besides the many positives.

Like many Presidents he was not always that candid and honest. Knowing he reflected not rarely on matters besides the truth it seemed in crucial matters difficult to assess whether he spoke the truth.

In biblical terms we may compare somehow  or draw a comparison with David in terms how far one may be prepared to go against what is known to be wrong and hide matters. If required at all costs.

David committed adultery with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite. This woman becomes pregnant. David sends for Uriah, who is with the Israelite army at the siege of Rabbah. Davis asks him to lie to his wife and hide the identity of the child’s father. Uriah refuses to do so. David then sends him back to Joab, the commander on the battle field, with the instruction to abandon Uriah on the battlefield, “that he may be struck down, and die.”  David then marries Bathsheba and she bears his child, “but the thing that David had done displeased the Lord.” The prophet Nathan confronts David, saying: “Why have you despised the word of God, to do what is evil in his sight? You have smitten Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife.” Nathan presents three punishments for this………….. The difference is that David (unreported) had neither to hide an Iran Contra scandal pointing at Mena, nor was he in a place to conceal Government involvement in 9/11 as part of a “Presidential Camorra”. Life was perhaps more simple in those days, but the temptations have been always the same. However for some more than for others.

From earlier editions of “US Presidential profiles in violations of Justice” we learnt that against all odds and justice Presidents were/are able to hide the truth on most vital issues, as they have background powers working for them, as long as they are working with those  background powers. The code of silence is a matter of Presidential honour and those who don’t stick to those code because they have the courage, and the vitality to do what is right are indeed at risk of an assassination, regardless whether they are US President or not. Presidents, whether they want it or not, have to keep secrets, – and some secrets are darker than others.  In essence it  is a reflection of good nature that Clinton after his Presidency continued working on matters adding value to both his life and others.

Obviously during the Clinton Administration there were the financial favors on various issues and favoring businesses who did support him or his campaign with moneys. Issues needless to say which could have been handled differently. On purpose I don’t go too much in detail about this as we may otherwise be sidetracked and loose the main issues.

Generally spoken  Clinton was in his different way very committed and his legacy after his Presidency may even exceed his achievements in the White House. He became involved in public speaking and humanitarian work and travelled across the world. Obviously his fees for those speaking tours were much, the least. With his evolving world view  related with his role as previous US President (but also restricted in this previous role), his philanthropic  legacy increased and Clinton created the William J. Clinton Foundation . The last to promote and address international causes including the treatment and prevention of HIV/AIDS and global warming.  His candid autobiography My Life was published in 2004 and obviously he became involved in his wife Hillary’s 2008 presidential campaign. Once Barack Obama got the Democratic ticket he supported the Presidential campaign in favour of  Barack Obama in 2008. In 2009, he was involved in the  United Nations Special Envoy to Haiti.  After the 2010 Haiti earthquake, Clinton together with George H.W. Bush created the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund. In 2010, Clinton declared support with a keynote address for the inauguration of NTR, Ireland’s first ever environmental foundation.  Clinton visited Haiti on the 21st of July 2011 to witness the inauguration of a large permanent refugee village to give homes for the victims of the earthquake still living in temporary refugee camps in Port-au-Prince.

Besides the positives there are more serious issues to explore as well. Interesting before going to the next chapter is to look into the way the Clinton Administration dealt with the terror threat in the face of the 9/11 attack due to be happening  at the beginning of the Bush,jr Administration.  Did this attack came totally out of the blue?  – Was there no “work up” nobody was aware of?  – Clinton always defended the Government position, including the outcome of the 9/11 Commission.

Samuel Richard “Sandy” Berger  was the  United States National Security Advisor, under President Bill Clinton from 1997 to 2001. In this  position he assisted towards the foreign policy of the Clinton Administration. During this time he advised the President regarding the Khobar Towers bombing, Operation Desert Fox, the NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia, responses to the terrorist bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the administration’s policy of engagement with the People’s Republic of China. He was also one of the prominent advisers and facilitator of the Camp David 2000 Summit.  We all know that the outcome of policies such direction is not based on the act or decision of one person. We know that a whole staff is involved besides military and CIA  intelligence during the preparations and before. We know as well that during the Clinton years there has been a significant  “intelligence build up” in Afghanistan and Pakistan for various reasons. We’ll discuss 9/11 and the reasons to go to war in both Afghanistan and Iraq later on discussing the Profile of Bush,jr.  But if we make a little jump in time and just go beyond 9/11. What do we see when the 9/11 Commission is starting its activities”?


Late 2003, Berger was called to testify before the 9/11 Commission about steps taken against terrorism during his earlier mentioned position and the way he provided information to his successor, Condoleezza Rice.  On the 19th of July 2004 it was announced that the U.S. Justice Department was investigating Berger for unauthorized removal of classified documents in October 2003 from a National Archives reading room before testifying before the 9/11 Commission. The documents were five classified copies of a single report commissioned by Richard Clarke,  detailing various internal assessments of the Clinton administration’s handling of the 2000 millennium attack plots. An associate of Berger said Berger took one copy in September 2003 and four copies in October 2003. After a long investigation, Justice Department prosecutors determined that Berger only removed classified copies of material stored on hard drives stored in the National Archives, and that no original material was destroyed.Berger eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material on the 1st of April 2005. Berger was sentenced. Not important as such in the total picture of things. But we need to consider that those issues have been discussed between Clinton and Berger, and that Berger was prepared to do this on behalf of the former US President.  There are however mixed story’s whether all material returned and that nothing, not even a fraction  did not return.

Could it be possible that vital information was at stake and that this was one of the reasons that Clinton had “to show anger” in public about people who claimed 9/11 was (in part) “an inside job”?  The Justice Department initially said Berger stole only copies of classified documents and not originals. But the House Government Reform Committee later revealed that an unsupervised Berger had been given access to classified files of original, not copied, not inventoried documents on terrorism. Several Archives officials acknowledged that Berger could have stolen any number of items and they “would never know what, if any, original documents were missing.” Well, I guess this is interesting. It did raise obviously some questions, but not all questions are taken further if there are risks of a more “explosive background” to be revealed. We discussed the JFK assassination already. Likewise we discussed “Watergate”, US Presidents ensuring ongoing cover up’s. An illustration as well was the Iran Contra scandal. However also the “9/11 Commission” left more questions than that it answered.

According to the House report, Clinton “designated Berger in 2002 as his representative to review NSC documents” to the 9/11 inquiry. Berger made four trips to the National Archives.  He did so likely to refresh his memory before testifying first to the Graham-Goss Commission and then to the 9/11 Commission. Berger made his first visit in May 2002, his last in October 2003. What happened with the material in the meantime and why was he allowed to have such an unprotected access?  Perhaps the better question to ask is who did approve this? We know that part of the 9/11 investigations  took place behind strict closed doors and that the “behind doors conversations” with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Clinton and al Gore were private conversations, touching base on national security. Reportedly Berger destroyed some documents during his four visits.  “The full extent of Berger’s document removal,” reports the House Committee, “is not known and never can be known.” Brachfeld met with DOJ attorney Howard Sklamberg. Obviously concerned that Berger had obstructed the 9/11 Commission’s work, Brachfeld wanted assurance that the Commission knew of Berger’s crime and the potential ramifications of it. Did he get it?  The documents do say he did not get it. What was the reason? On the 22nd of March, two days before Berger’s public testimony, senior DOJ attorneys John Dion and Bruce Swartz got back to Brachfeld. They told him that the DOJ was not going to tell the 9/11 Commission of the Berger investigation before Berger’s appearance. Again the question is why?  Who ordered the DOJ to refrain from this notification as part of normal procedure?

We can’t help it to think that to keep Clinton’s version of events leading up to 9/11, (for which he had to testify privately) he had dispatched Sandy Berger to the National Archives, at the risk of Berger’s career and reputation, and to edit the official record. If we look at the broader context of Clinton being a person trying to hide vital matters becoming public (like he did with the Iran Contra scandal and the CIA activities at Mena airport in Arkansas),  this would seem to be a reasonable assumption.

 On the 4th of October  Clinton descended on Weldon’s Pennsylvania district. In campaign mood but not without reason. “I will not make a single stop in this campaign season that means more to me than this one — not one,” he told a crowd of nearly nine hundred at a Sestak rally. On this occasion, Clinton was really telling the truth. But there was a very personal interest for him.
Weldon the Republican opponent, who had secured 59 percent of the vote in 2004, held a seven-point lead in the polls over the Democratic nominee Sestak. This would not last. During the week after Clinton’s visit, events took a less public but more sinister turn. It is difficult to say who orchestrated these events. If there were investigations, the former assistant U.S. attorney Melanie Sloan and the assistant U.S. attorneys should be questioned with the DOJ who shared the  Democratic sympathies, especially Howard Sklamberg, Bruce Swartz, and Glenn Fine. It seemed trivial but it was not trivial. On the 13th of  October Greg Gordon of the liberal McClatchy Newspapers Washington Bureau revealed a profound damning story, detailing on the Justice Department  investigating whether Weldon had traded his influence for “lucrative” lobbying contracts for his daughter. Gordon referred to “two sources,” both anonymous (obviously). One being described “a federal law enforcement official. ” The second was  not described at all. Although Gordon admitted that “it is possible at this stage of the investigation that nothing will come out of it” this uncertainty did not stop the McClatchy Newspapers from blasting the anonymous leak nationwide. Still, Gordon had not come looking for this story. Someone had to alert him to it and introduce him to two sources willing to talk. Nothing ever did come out of this but the damage was done, for an election purpose obviously. For Weldo things got dramatic  quickly. On Monday morning the 16th of  October, the FBI raided the homes of Weldon’s daughter and a friend, allegedly for fear that documents would be destroyed. This prompted very public raids.  Midday that same day a group of some  twenty Democratic activists were protesting outside Weldon’s district office in Upper Darby, carrying matching signs that read, “Caught Red-Handed.”  Obviously this was coördinated action. Why Clinton had such a personal interest was not because he was a Democrat. There was something else.  On the 7th of November  Sestak won with 56% of the vote. Americans were told  having  enough of that Republican “culture of corruption.  FBI Director Robert Mueller appeared before a Senate Judiciary Committee on December 2006 with serious issues to answer for. According to the Associated Press, he admitted to being “exceptionally disappointed” about the leak made public on October 13, 2006 that Pennsylvania congressman Curt Weldon was under investigation for influence-peddling. The question that the media should have asked was  “Why Weldon?” What  inspired Sandy Berger, the Clinton’s, the Democratic Alliance, CREW, and just about every key player in the Clinton national security apparatus to get rid of Weldon’s potential political status?
Berger was not the only Sestak supporter to have a cloud hanging over his head. Donor John Deutch, formerly Director of Central Intelligence, had signed a criminal plea agreement in connection with his mishandling of national secrets a day before being pardoned by the outgoing President Clinton. The 10-term Republican Congressman Curt Weldon had committed one unforgivable crime: investigating the intelligence failures of the Clinton era. Members of Bill Clinton’s national security team have joined together to defeat Pennsylvania Republican Curt Weldon’s House re-election bid that particular  November – in what looks like retaliation for Weldon’s efforts to expose  the Clinton administration’s “Able Danger scandal”.

Weldon went reportedly public in June 2005 with news that Clinton administration lawyers prevented the Defense Intelligence Agency’s “Able Danger group” from blowing the whistle on two al-Qaeda terrorists who would later pilot the planes that destroyed the World Trade Center.

Though the media downplayed Weldon’s bombshell, a number of high-ranking Clinton officials apparently had not forgotten.

The “Sept. 11 Commission”  did investigate  a claim that U.S. defense intelligence officials identified ringleader Mohamed Atta and three other hijackers as a likely part of an al Qaeda cell more than a year before the 2001 hijackings but did not send the information to law enforcement. Republican Curt Weldon, vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, said that the men were identified in 1999 by a classified military intelligence unit known as “Able Danger.” An earlier link to al Qaeda than any previously disclosed intelligence about Atta is correct if this is true. “The 9/11 commission did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior to 9/11 of surveillance of Mohamed Atta or of his cell,”  co-Chairman of the “September 11 Commission”  Lee H. Hamilton said.

The reaction of many 9/11 families on this late information is not surprising as it would seem this has not been properly investigated.  The question is about why  didn’t “Able Danger” report their finding to the FBI? Why wasn’t Atta and other 9/11 terrorists put on a watch list even though there was evidence of their terrorist ties? Have there been profound failures or were there other reasons which needed to be concealed at all cost?

The truth is that “Able Danger” was banned from sharing information with the FBI. One of the 9/11 commissioners herself was  deep in Clinton scandals including “Chinagate”. Jamie Gorelick was Janet Reno’s right hand “man” in the Justice Department.

The answer to the question about why this new information came that late, being banned from the Commission, is because Jamie Gorelick was on the Commission for the purpose to hide information, as such to protect the position of former President Clinton, – as it would seem.

Whilst  the Republican Curt Weldon was no longer a Congress man and in a place to raise fundamental questions based on “transparency”, being  replaced now by the Bill Clinton-sponsored retired Navy Admiral Joe Sestak, debunking “Able Danger”  appeared to be  just a piece of cake, and this was Clinton’s aim. He was long enough in politics to know how the system works. The FBI was deliberately out of control and directed as such as there were higher interests at stake, by no means to be revealed. It is early day to say whether the “9/11 Commission” was a deliberate attempt to give a cover up for public satisfaction, as did the “Warren Commission” at the time of the JFK assassination. Personally I tend to think they did, on the other hand I have some difficulty to really believe it now, – lacking access to vital information, as such an assessment is subject to prove. However more about this in the chapter about President George W.Bush.

Weldon believes he became the target of the National Democratic Party because of his investigations into Clinton-era National Security scandals, including the sell-off of military technology to communist China.

Weldon had for sure marked reservations on the intelligence community, for clear reasons. He made efforts to urge  Congress to apply a stricter oversight of an intelligence community he believed was “out of control.” Without commenting on the broader context and background his assessment was correct.

It’s an issue both former US President Truman and Eisenhower warned for. It is part of the reason former US President John F Kennedy died for as well, as he did resist conspiracy and the overpowering  CIA  presence  in  the  United  States and elsewhere.  Clinton did not carry this  torch forward in terms of personal courage and integrity, he was too much compromised already. However: bright, talented and charming. Having said this, Clinton’s White House legacy could have been far more, far better, with an enduring impact on American history if had shown more courage and integrity at times of controversy.

The YouTube images below are interesting: What role takes Clinton?

The last one is the Kennedy (JFK)  speech about the dangers of secret societies. It still applies, it even got worse. Bear this in mind for the next chapter in particular about George W.Bush.

The Presidential pardon’s of Bill Clinton: ?Deserved

This includes the list of people pardoned by a United States president. (Bill Clinton’s pardon’s have been widely considered as controversial)


Paul Alexander Wolf

Profiles In US Presidential Violations of Justice – Front page (Part 1 of 11) on July 5, 2011

Related articles

2 responses to “US Presidential profiles in violations of Justice. (Part 9 – former President W. J. Clinton)”

  1. Hank Warren Avatar
    Hank Warren

    Forget Huckabee and his propaganda 9/11 cartoon (about as accurate as the 9/11 Commission Report). Don’t waste your hard-earned money, instead read a BANNED 9/11 book like “America Deceived II” by a real rebel and the “World’s Most Hated Author”, E.A. Blayre III.

  2. john Avatar

    What about credible accusations of rape and sexual molestation by Bill Clinton and Hillary’s assistance in covering them up?