Freedom for the Speech We Hate: The Legal Ins & Outs of the Right to Protest

“If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought — not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.” — Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

There was a time in this country, back when the British were running things, that if you spoke your mind and it ticked off the wrong people, you’d soon find yourself in jail for offending the king.

Reacting to this injustice, when it was time to write the Constitution, America’s founders argued for a Bill of Rights, of which the First Amendment protects the right to free speech. James Madison, the father of the Constitution, was very clear about the fact that he wrote the First Amendment to protect the minority against the majority.

What Madison meant by minority is “offensive speech.”

Unfortunately, we don’t honor that principle as much as we should today. In fact, we seem to be witnessing a politically correct philosophy at play, one shared by both the extreme left and the extreme right, which aims to stifle all expression that doesn’t fit within their parameters of what they consider to be “acceptable” speech.

There are all kinds of labels put on such speech—it’s been called politically incorrect speech, hate speech, offensive speech, and so on—but really, the message being conveyed is that you don’t have a right to express yourself if certain people or groups don’t like or agree with what you are saying.

Hence, we have seen the caging of free speech in recent years, through the use of so-called “free speech zones” on college campuses and at political events, the requirement of speech permits in parks and community gatherings, and the policing of online forums.

Clearly, this elitist, monolithic mindset is at odds with everything America is supposed to stand for.

Indeed, we should be encouraging people to debate issues and air their views. Instead, by muzzling free speech, we are contributing to a growing underclass of Americans—many of whom have been labeled racists, rednecks and religious bigots—who are being told that they can’t take part in American public life unless they “fit in.”

Remember, the First Amendment acts as a steam valve. It allows people to speak their minds, air their grievances and contribute to a larger dialogue that hopefully results in a more just world. When there is no steam valve to release the pressure, frustration builds, anger grows and people become more volatile and desperate to force a conversation.

The attempt to stifle certain forms of speech is where we go wrong.

In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that it is “a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment...that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.” For example, it is not a question of whether the Confederate flag represents racism but whether banning it leads to even greater problems, namely, the loss of freedom in general.

Along with the constitutional right to peacefully (and that means non-violently) assemble, the right to free speech allows us to challenge the government through protests and demonstrations and to attempt to change the world around us—for the better or the worse—through protests and counterprotests.

As always, knowledge is key.

The following Constitutional Q&A, available in more detail at The Rutherford Institute (www.rutherford.org), is a good starting point.

Q:        WHAT LAWS GIVE ME THE RIGHT TO PROTEST?

A:         The First Amendment prohibits the government from “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Protesting is anexercise of these constitutional rights because it involves speaking out, by individual people or those assembled in groups, about matters of public interest and concern.

Q:        WHERE CAN I ENGAGE IN PROTEST ACTIVITY?

A:         The right to protest generally extends to places that are owned and controlled by the government, although not all government-owned property is available for exercising speech and assembly rights. However, beyond public or government property, a person cannot claim a First Amendment right to protest and demonstrate on property that is privately owned by someone else. This also applies to private property that is generally open to the public, such as a shopping mall or shopping center, although these areas sometimes allow demonstrations and other free speech activity with permission from the owner. You are also entitled to engage in protest activities on land you own.  The Supreme Court has ruled that the government may not forbid homeowners from posting signs on their property speaking out on a political or social issue.

Q:        WHAT ARE MY RIGHTS TO PROTEST IN A TRADITIONAL PUBLIC FORUM?

A:         Places historically associated with the free exercise of expressive activities, such as streets, sidewalks and parks, are traditional public forums and the government’s power to limit speech and assembly in those places is very limited. The government may not impose an absolute ban on expression and assembly in traditional public forums except in circumstances where it is essential to serve a compelling government interest.  However, expression and assembly in traditional public forums may be limited by reasonable time, place and manner regulations. Examples of reasonable regulations include restrictions on the volume of sound produced by the activity or a prohibition on impeding vehicle and pedestrian traffic.  To be a valid time, place and manner regulation, the restriction must not have the effect of restricting speech based on its content and it must not be broader than needed to serve the interest of the government.

Q:        CAN I PICKET AND/OR DISTRIBUTE LEAFLETS AND OTHER TYPES OF LITERATURE ON PUBLIC SIDEWALKS?

A:         Yes, a sidewalk is considered a traditional public forum where you can engage in expressive activities, such a passing out literature or speaking out on a matter of public concern. In exercising that right, you must not block pedestrians or the entrances to buildings. You may not physically or maliciously detain someone in order to give them a leaflet, but you may approach them and offer it to them.

Q:        CAN MY FREE SPEECH BE RESTRICTED BECAUSE OF WHAT I SAY, EVEN IF IT IS CONTROVERSIAL?

A:         No, the First Amendment protects speech even if most people would find it offensive, hurtful or hateful. Speech generally cannot be banned based upon its content or viewpoint because it is not up to the government to determine what can and cannot be said. A bedrock principle of the First Amendment is that the government may not prohibit expression of an idea because society finds it offensive or disagreeable. Also, protest speech also cannot be banned because of a fear that others may react violently to the speech.  Demonstrators cannot be punished or forbidden from speaking because they might offend a hostile mob. The Supreme Court has held that a “heckler’s veto” has no place in First Amendment law.

Q:        HOW DO THESE RIGHTS APPLY TO PUBLIC PLACES I TYPICALLY VISIT?

A:         Your rights to speak out and protest in particular public places will depend on the use and purpose of the place involved.  For example, the lobbies and offices of public buildings that are used by the government are generally not open for expressive activities because the purpose of these buildings is to carry out public business. Protesting would interfere with that purpose.  Ironically, the meetings of a governmental body, such as a city council or town board, are not considered public forums open for protest activities because the purpose of the meeting is generally to address public business that is on the agenda.  However, some government councils and boards set aside a time at the meeting when the public can voice their complaints.

The grounds of public colleges and universities are generally considered available for assembly and protest by students and other members of the institution’s community.  However, those who are not students, faculty or staff of the institution may be denied access to the campus for speech and protest activities under rules issued by the school.

Public elementary and secondary school grounds also are not considered places where persons can engage in assembly and protest.  However, students at these schools do not lose their right to free speech when they enter the school. The First Amendment protects the right of students to engage in expressive acts of protest, such as wearing armbands to demonstrate opposition to a war, that are not disruptive to the school environment.

Q:        DO I NEED A PERMIT IN ORDER TO CONDUCT A PROTEST?

A:         As a general rule, no. A person is not required to obtain the consent or permission of the government before engaging in activities that are protected by the First Amendment.  One of the main reasons for that constitutional provision was to forbid any requirement that citizens obtain a license in order to speak out.  The government cannot require that individuals or small groups obtain a permit in order to speak or protest in a public forum.

However, if persons or organizations want to hold larger rallies and demonstrations, they may be required by local laws to obtain a permit.  The Supreme Court has recognized that the government, in order to regulate competing uses of public forums, may impose a permit requirement on those wishing to hold a parade or rally.  Government officials cannot simply prohibit a public assembly according to their discretion, but the government can impose restrictions on the time, place, and manner of peaceful assembly, provided that constitutional safeguards are met. Such time, place and manner restrictions can take the form of requirements to obtain a permit for an assembly.

Whether an assembly or demonstration requires a permit depends on the laws of the locality.  A permit certainly is required for any parade because it would involve the use of the streets and interfere with vehicle traffic. A permit to hold an event in other public places typically is required if the gathering involves more than 50 persons or the use of amplification.

Q:        DO COUNTER-DEMONSTRATORS HAVE FREE SPEECH RIGHTS?

A:         Yes, they do. Just because counter-demonstrators oppose you and the viewpoint of your demonstration does not mean they have any less right to speak out and demonstrate. However, the same rules apply to counter-demonstrators as apply to the original assembly. The group cannot be violent and must assemble and protest in an appropriate place and manner.

Q:        WHAT CAN'T I DO IN EXERCISING MY RIGHTS TO PROTEST?

A:         The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the First Amendment protects the right to conduct a peaceful public assembly. The First Amendment does not provide the right to conduct a gathering at which there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic on public streets or other immediate threat to public safety. Laws that prohibit people from assembling and using force or violence to accomplish unlawful purposes are permissible under the First Amendment.

Q:       AM I ALLOWED TO CARRY A WEAPON OR FIREARM AT A DEMONSTRATION OR PROTEST?

A:         Your right to have a weapon with you when you protest largely depends on what is allowed by state law and is unlikely to be protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee to freedom of speech. Not all conduct can be considered “speech” protected by the First Amendment even if the person engaging in the conduct intends to express an idea. Most courts have held that the act of openly carrying a weapon or firearm is not expression protected by the First Amendment.

The right to possess a firearm is protected by the Second Amendment, and all states allow carrying a concealed weapon in public, although most require a permit to do so. Some states allow persons to openly carry firearms in public. However, it is not yet settled whether the Second Amendment guarantees the right to possess a firearm in public. Thus, the right to carry a firearm at a demonstration or protest is a matter that depends on what is allowed under state law. Carrying other weapons, such as stun guns, which are not firearms also is subject to restrictions imposed by  state law. Possession of weapons also may be prohibited in certain places where demonstrations might take place, such as a national park.

Even if possession of weapons is allowed, their presence at demonstrations and rallies can be intimidating and provocative and does not help in achieving a civil and peaceful discourse on issues of public interest and concern. Demonstrations often relate to issues raising strong feelings among competing groups, and the presence of counter-demonstrators makes conflict likely.  In these situations, where the purpose of the gathering is to engage in speech activities, firearms and other weapons are threatening, result in the suppression of speech and are contrary to the purpose of the First Amendment to allow all voices to be heard on matters of public importance.

Q:        WHAT CAN’T THE POLICE DO IN RESPONDING TO PROTESTERS?

A:         In recent history, challenges to the right to protest have come in many forms. In some cases, police have cracked down on demonstrations by declaring them “unlawful assemblies” or through mass arrests, illegal use of force or curfews. Elsewhere, expression is limited by corralling protesters into so-called “free-speech zones.” New surveillance technologies are increasingly turned on innocent people, collecting information on their activities by virtue of their association with or proximity to a given protest. Even without active obstruction of the right to protest, police-inspired intimidation and fear can chill expressive activity and result in self-censorship. All of these things violate the First Amendment and are things the police cannot do to censor free speech. Unless the assembly is violent or violence is clearly imminent, the police have limited authority under the law to shut down protesters.

Clearly, as evidenced by the recent tensions in Charlottesville, Va., we’re at a crossroads concerning the constitutional right to free speech.

As Benjamin Franklin warned, “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”

It must be emphasized that it was for the sake of preserving individuality and independence that James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, fought for a First Amendment that protected the “minority” against the majority, ensuring that even in the face of overwhelming pressure, a minority of one—even one who espouses distasteful viewpoints—would still have the right to speak freely, pray freely, assemble freely, challenge the government freely, and broadcast his views in the press freely.

This freedom for those in the unpopular minority constitutes the ultimate tolerance in a free society. Conversely, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American Peoplewhen we fail to abide by Madison’s dictates about greater tolerance for all viewpoints, no matter how distasteful, the end result is always the same: an indoctrinated, infantilized citizenry that marches in lockstep with the governmental regime.

Some of this past century’s greatest dystopian literature shows what happens when the populace is transformed into mindless automatons. For instance, in George Orwell’s 1984, Big Brother does away with all undesirable and unnecessary words and meanings, even going so far as to routinely rewrite history and punish “thoughtcrimes.”

Where we stand now is at the juncture of OldSpeak (where words have meanings, and ideas can be dangerous) and Newspeak (where only that which is “safe” and “accepted” by the majority is permitted). The power elite has made their intentions clear: they will pursue and prosecute any and all words, thoughts and expressions that challenge their authority.

This is the final link in the police state chain.

If ever there were a time for us to stand up for the right to speak freely, even if it’s freedom for speech we hate, the time is now.

# # # #

 

John W. Whitehead is an attorney and author who has written, debated and practiced widely in the area of constitutional law and human rights. He is the president and spokesperson of the Rutherford Institute. Mr. Whitehead is the author of numerous books on a variety of legal and social issues, including Battlefield America: The War on the American People.  He has a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Arkansas and a Juris Doctorate degree from the University of Arkansas School of Law, and served as an officer in the United States Army from 1969 to 1971.

Nothing Is Real: When Reality TV Programming Masquerades as Politics

A Phenomenon Called “Humilitainment”

“There are two ways by which the spirit of a culture may be shriveled. In the first—the Orwellian—culture becomes a prison. In the second—the Huxleyan—culture becomes a burlesque. No one needs to be reminded that our world is now marred by many prison-cultures…. it makes little difference if our wardens are inspired by right- or left-wing ideologies. The gates of the prison are equally impenetrable, surveillance equally rigorous, icon-worship pervasive…. Big Brother does not watch us, by his choice. We watch him, by ours…. When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments, when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when, in short, a people become an audience, and their public business a vaudeville act, then a nation finds itself at risk; culture-death is a clear possibility.”— Professor Neil Postman

Donald Trump no longer needs to launch Trump TV.

He’s already the star of his own political reality show.

Americans have a voracious appetite for TV entertainment, and the Trump reality show—guest starring outraged Democrats with a newly awakened conscience for immigrants and the poor, power-hungry Republicans eager to take advantage of their return to power, and a hodgepodge of other special interest groups with dubious motives—feeds thatappetite for titillating, soap opera drama.

After all, who needs the insults, narcissism and power plays that are hallmarks of reality shows such as Celebrity Apprentice or Keeping Up with the Kardashians when you can have all that and more delivered up by the likes of Donald Trump and his cohorts?

Yet as John Lennon reminds us, “nothing is real,” especially not in the world of politics.

Much like the fabricated universe in Peter Weir’s 1998 film The Truman Show, in which a man’s life is the basis for an elaborately staged television show aimed at selling products and procuring ratings, the political scene in the United States has devolved over the years into a carefully calibrated exercise in how to manipulate, polarize, propagandize and control a population.

Indeed, Donald Trump may be the smartest move yet by the powers-that-be to keep the citizenry divided and at each other’s throats, because as long as we’re busy fighting each other, we’ll never manage to present a unified front against tyranny in any form.

This is the magic of the reality TV programming that passes for politics today.

It allows us to be distracted, entertained, occasionally a little bit outraged but overall largely uninvolved, content to remain in the viewer’s seat.

The more that is beamed at us, the more inclined we are to settle back in our comfy recliners and become passive viewers rather than active participants as unsettling, frightening events unfold.

Reality and fiction merge as everything around us becomes entertainment fodder.

We don’t even have to change the channel when the subject matter becomes too monotonous. That’s taken care of for us by the programmers (the corporate media).

For instance, before we could get too worked up over government surveillance, the programmers changed the channels on us and switched us over to breaking news about militarized police. Before our outrage could be transformed into action over police misconduct, they changed the channel once again to reports of ISIS beheadings and terrorist shootings. Before we had a chance to challenge what was staged or real, the programming switched to the 2016 presidential election.

“Living is easy with eyes closed,” says Lennon, and that’s exactly what reality TV that masquerades as American politics programs the citizenry to do: navigate the world with their eyes shut.

As long as we’re viewers, we’ll never be doers.

Studies suggest that the more reality TV people watch—and I would posit that it’s all reality TV—the more difficult it becomes to distinguish between what is real and what is carefully crafted farce.

“We the people” are watching a lot of TV.

On average, Americans spend five hours a day watching television. By the time we reach age 65, we’re watching more than 50 hours of television a week, and that number increases as we get older. And reality TV programming consistently captures the largest percentage of TV watchers every season by an almost 2-1 ratio.

This doesn’t bode well for a citizenry able to sift through masterfully-produced propaganda in order to think critically about the issues of the day, whether it’s fake news peddled by government agencies or foreign entities.

Those who watch reality shows tend to view what they see as the “norm.” Thus, those who watch shows characterized by lying, aggression and meanness not only come to see such behavior as acceptable and entertaining but also mimic the medium.

This holds true whether the reality programming is about the antics of celebrities in the White House, in the board room, or in the bedroom.

It’s a phenomenon called “humilitainment.”

A term coined by media scholars Brad Waite and Sara Booker, “humilitainment” refers to the tendency for viewers to take pleasure in someone else’s humiliation, suffering and pain.

Humilitainment” largely explains not only why American TV watchers are so fixated on reality TV programming but how American citizens, largely insulated from what is really happening in the world around them by layers of technology, entertainment, and other distractions, are being programmed to accept the brutality, surveillance and dehumanizing treatment of the American police state as things happening to other people.

The ramifications for the future of civic engagement, political discourse and self-government are incredibly depressing and demoralizing.

This not only explains how a candidate like Donald Trump with a reputation for being rude, egotistical and narcissistic could get elected, but it also says a lot about how a politician like Barack Obama—whose tenure in the White House was characterized by drone killings, a weakening of the Constitution at the expense of Americans’ civil liberties, and an expansion of the police state—could be hailed as “one of the greatest presidents of all times.”

This is what happens when an entire nation—bombarded by reality TV programming, government propaganda and entertainment news—becomes systematically desensitized and acclimated to the trappings of a government that operates by fiat and speaks in a language of force.

Ultimately, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American Peoplethe reality shows, the entertainment news, the surveillance society, the militarized police, and the political spectacles have one common objective: to keep us divided, distracted, imprisoned, and incapable of taking an active role in the business of self-government.

If “we the people” feel powerless and apathetic, it is only because we have allowed ourselves to be convinced that the duties of citizenship begin and end at the ballot box.

Marching and protests have certainly been used with great success by past movements to foment real change, but if those marches and protests are merely outpourings of discontent because a particular politician won or lost with no solid plan of action or follow-through, then what’s the point?

Martin Luther King Jr. understood that politics could never be the answer to what ailed the country. That’s why he spearheaded a movement of mass-action strategy that employed boycotts, sit-ins and marches. Yet King didn’t march against a particular politician or merely to express discontent. He marched against injustice, government corruption, war, and inequality, and he leveraged discontent with the status quo into an activist movement that transformed the face of America.

When all is said and done, it won’t matter who you voted for in the presidential election. What will matter is where you stand in the face of the injustices that continue to ravage our nation: the endless wars, the police shootings, the overcriminalization, the corruption, the graft, the roadside strip searches, the private prisons, the surveillance state, etc.

Will you tune out the reality TV show and join with your fellow citizens to push back against the real menace of the police state, or will you merely sit back and lose yourself in the political programming aimed at keeping you imprisoned in the police state?

# # # #

John W. Whitehead, Newsbud Contributing Author & Analyst,  is an attorney and author who has written, debated and practiced widely in the area of constitutional law and human rights. He is the president and spokesperson of the Rutherford Institute. Mr. Whitehead is the author of numerous books on a variety of legal and social issues, including A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State. He has a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Arkansas and a Juris Doctorate degree from the University of Arkansas School of Law, and served as an officer in the United States Army from 1969 to 1971.

Processing Distortion with Peter B. Collins: The Israeli Propaganda Machine

Peter B. Collins presents Journalist Max Blumenthal

Framed around a new documentary that exposes the sophisticated Israeli message machine, and the influence of American media manipulator Frank Luntz in shaping perceptions of Israel as a victim, Max Blumenthal is candid, and critical. Blumenthal is one of many contributors to this important film. We also discuss the recent execution of a wounded, disabled Palestinian suspect by an Israeli medic, and how Netanyahu initially misjudged the Israeli public’s reaction. We talk about the Brooklyn debate between candidates Clinton and Sanders, and Blumenthal has strong remarks about each. And, he states that this is the first time he’s been asked about the attempted smears Blumenthal has been targeted for by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach and other allies of Israel.

*Max Blumenthal is a journalist, and author of Goliath and The 51-Day War. Get more information on the documentary mentioned, The Occupation of the American Mind here.

Listen to the Preview Clip Here

Listen to the full episode here (BFP Subscribers Only):

You can subscribe below to listen to this podcast, as well as all others on our site.

SUBSCRIBE

Processing Distortion with Peter B. Collins: 13 Questions About San Bernardino Bloodbath

Key points of the official narrative of the December 2 incidents in San Bernardino produce critical questions, or are contradicted by other information. The FBI director and a lawyer for the family of the suspects agree that “a number of things in this case don’t make sense”. But that hasn’t stopped James Comey from using unverified Facebook posts or unproven claims that the couple were “radicalized” before they married to define them as inspired, but not directed by Daesh. Live coverage presented at least 2 eyewitnesses who described 3 tall, white, male shooters, but the corporate media accepts the police version of two shooters, including a 5-foot-3, 90-pound female. My 13 questions are listed below, with links to source material.

13 Big Questions

What happened to the 3rd shooter described by eyewitnesses during live coverage?

Eyewitness accounts of 3 tall, male, white shooters seem to eliminate Tashfeen Malik, who was 90 pounds and about 5-foot-3? Video clips are here and the amateur “false flag” reporters’ video is here

How did the “active shooter” drill transform into a massive deployment of law enforcement, was it related to active shooter drill 11/30 at Victor Valley College? Local newspaper report here

The Facebook post where Malik allegedly “pledged allegiance” to al-Baghdadi is treated as fact, based on anonymous government and Facebook sources…can we see proof?

We’re told the FB post was made at or near the start of the shooting, but we are also told that Malik had a burner phone without apps or internet access…how’d she do it?

With no evidence, FBI Director Comey asserts that the couple was “radicalized” before Malik came to the US and married Farook. Will they disclose the sources?

News chopper video of final scene is very different from dramatic photos with hood raised and shot up windshield….where are the dashcam videos? Newschopper video is here

Why do photos show Farook lying dead, face down, with handcuffs on?

Corporate media is following up on Farook’s friend Enrique Marquez, Walmart worker who bought the 2 semi-automatic rifles, why does it ignore other issues?

Family attorney David Chesley joins FBI Director Comey in saying “It doesn’t add up” and mentions Sandy Hook as a precedent; corporate media dismisses Chesley’s Sandy Hook reference as “truther” bullshit, obscures his key objections. Why?

Corporate media detailed the apparent conflict between Farook and co-worker Nicholas Thalasinos as a “pro-Israel messianic Jewish Christian…really?

Listen to the Preview Clip Here

Listen to the full episode here (Open to all):

You can subscribe below to listen to all other podcasts on our site.

SUBSCRIBE

The People’s Campaign: The Real Hastert Case- All in One Place

Let’s Counter the Complicit US Media with Our Own!

Update: Dennis Hastert Pleads Guilty in Hush Money Case

We have been singlehandedly covering The Real Hastert Case here at Boiling Frogs Post. As we all know the complicit US media has been doing exactly the opposite: blacking out and censoring the real case together with all directly relevant facts and historical context. I believe we have a choice to make: Do we let them win again by shrugging in disgust and going away? Or do we give it our best and use every means and every channel to counter and challenge the institutionalized criminality and cover-up? Sure. They have all the mega print and TV outlets. But we have the power of numbers, resolve and persistence. And we have this website, the internet and all the social networks and forums that go with it.

Can we use these mediums and means and show that we are not as powerless and irrelevant as they want us to believe we are?

Can we use our numbers, our collective voices and various internet mediums and means to get out the quashed facts and the truth?

I cannot answer these questions. But together, we can. The least we can do is to try- and try our best. We can make this our own campaign- the people’s campaign.

To make this easier I’ve decided to combine all our coverage (podcast episodes, videos, articles and commentaries) in one post, place it at the center of our website, and suggest various ways to go about disseminating and shining light on the truth when it comes to The Real Hastert Case and related cover-ups.

What can we do with these truth sources and related information?

I am not as technologically savvy as many of you, but I will list a few suggestions, and then have you further those with your suggestions and channels communicated in the comments section of this post.

Make this page a top hit (link) at the Reddit Website. Rather than having multiple posts, let’s have a lead post, share the link with everyone else here & encourage people to keep the link active with their shares, votes and comments. Please let us know if you are willing to create and manage our primary Reddit link.

Use your social network mediums such as Twitter, Facebook, and Google+ to share this campaign page. Encourage your friends and followers to share and help with dissemination.

Share, download, and repost our YouTube video clips (BFP & Corbett Report)

Go to the comments sections of heavy-traffic news websites and forums and post your comments and the link to this campaign page.

Target local news and websites for Illinois; especially Chicago.

If you don’t have my books on this case and directly related cover-ups, go grab your e-copies at Amazon here and here. For this campaign I dropped the Kindle version price to $1.99. It is dirt cheap, thus easily affordable. I encourage you to post your reviews and ratings (By that I mean, honest and sincere ones!). If you’ve already read the books, consider grabbing e-copies to pass on. You can also use channels such as Twitter-FB and GoodReads to encourage others to take advantage of this campaign and grab their copies to read.

All right. These are my suggestions. Please add yours, take the initiative and come up with your own methods and channels, and share those with the rest of us here at Boiling Frogs Post.

We have started a campaign page at Imgur: Share the link, Go visit our campaign page and share it via channels available there (Reddit, Twitter, etc.), post comments. Here is the link: http://imgur.com/a/E8BxZ

Here are the video clips, links and pages to our ongoing coverage of The Real Hastert Case:

Videos

The Hastert Scandal: What the Media Isn't Telling You

Hastert Reaches Plea Deal to Cover Up Case

Spiro: “Sibel Edmonds Exposes Exactly What Could Bring Down This Entire Corrupt System!”

BFP Roundtable: Pedophiles Run the Government & No One Gives a Damn!

Articles & Transcripts

Why is FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds Boiling over Former Speaker Hastert’s Plea Deal?- By Cynthia McKinney

BFP Exclusive- Two Delays & Tight-Lipped Negotiations Point to
Graymail & Blackmail Tactics by Hastert’s Legal Team

Did Foreign Governments Blackmail Denny Hastert? By Philip Giraldi

Hastert Case, Clinton Scandals, FBI & the 1996 COINTELPRO II (Transcript)

How the COINTELPRO II Bucket Turned into a Can of Worms (Transcript)

The Mind-Boggling Media Censorship in the Real Hastert Case (Transcript)

Hastert to Plead Guilty of Sexual Abuse, Yet US Still Covers up Turkish Blackmail

 

Podcast (Audio Only- From Oldest to the Latest)

Probable Cause with Sibel Edmonds- Dennis Hastert: Why Prosecutors Will Be Forced To ‘Lose’ or ‘Drop’ the Case

Probable Cause with Sibel Edmonds- Hastert Case, Clinton Scandals, FBI & the 1996 COINTELPRO II Directive

Probable Cause with Sibel Edmonds- Hastert Case: How the COINTELPRO II Bucket Turned into a Can of Worms

Probable Cause with Sibel Edmonds- The Mind-Boggling Level of Media Censorship in the Real Hastert Case

Philip Giraldi Breaks the Media Blackout on Hastert Case

 

Books

Classified Woman: The Sibel Edmonds Story

The Lone Gladio

 

External Sources

Sibel Edmonds: An Inconvenient Patriot

Who’s Afraid of Sibel Edmonds?

Sibel Edmonds Testimony & Dennis Hastert (2009)

Dennis Hastert- A Portrait of a Political System Termite: The Erosion & Rotting of a Nation’s Foundation

Sibel Edmonds State Secrets Gallery

Two FBI Whistleblowers Confirm Illegal Wiretapping of Government Officials and Misuse of FISA

Gilbert Graham Case Filed with DOJ-IG

Dennis Hastert Indictment (Court Document)

Hastert, in hiding since indictment & molestation allegations, finally due in court

Judge grants extension for Dennis Hastert's pre-trial motions (Sep 11)

Who is Scott Palmer?

Dennis Hastert Reaches Plea Deal

Details of Dennis Hastert's Alleged Sexual Misconduct May Stay Buried Forever With New Plea Deal

# # # #

Sibel Edmonds is editor and publisher of Boiling Frogs Post, founder and president of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), and author of the acclaimed book Classified Woman: The Sibel Edmonds Story, and The Lone Gladio, a Political Spy Thriller. Ms. Edmonds is a certified linguist, fluent in four languages, and has an MA in public policy from George Mason University and a BA in criminal justice and psychology from George Washington University. She is the recipient of the 2006 PEN/Newman’s Own First Amendment Award.

Probable Cause with Sibel Edmonds- The Mind-Boggling Level of Media Censorship in the Real Hastert Case

Welcome to the 25th edition of Probable Cause. This is our fourth episode on the ‘Real’ case of Dennis Hastert. In our first segment I explained the case and predicted that it would be dropped or limited to eliminate airing the truth through real court hearings, and provided you with the broad picture of involved interests and those with much at stake if the case were to proceed as a real case. In our second episode we went back twenty years to when the new FBI covert and illegal operations targeting high-profile US officials began. And in our previous episode I covered the three-year period between 1999 and 2002 when the operation in question became complicated by inadvertently collected unwanted information, loss of control over lower-level FBI agents, and the change of administration in January 2001.

For this episode we are going to talk about the intentional and consistent censorship by the US mainstream media and pseudo-alternatives in the Real Case of Dennis Hastert. We are going to list some of the major omissions and blackouts in the case and pose the question why.

*Full Transcript available here

*To listen to our previous episodes on this topic click here

***Information on Dennis Hastert and ‘others’ are covered in my books Classified Woman & The Lone Gladio. For this campaign, until October 31, we are offering both e-books under $2.

Listen to the full episode here (Per many requests now open to public):

You can subscribe below to listen to this podcast, as well as all others on our site.

SUBSCRIBE

Show Notes

The REAL Hastert Scandal: Pedophilia, Drug Money & Blackmail

Dennis Hastert Reaches Plea Deal

Corbett Report-Hastert Reaches Plea Deal to Cover Up Case

Details of Dennis Hastert's Alleged Sexual Misconduct May Stay Buried Forever With New Plea Deal

Dennis Hastert: A Portrait of a Political System Termite

The Lone Gladio (Book)

Corbett Report Update: Hastert Reaches Plea Deal to Cover Up Case

In a move that should surprise absolutely no one, disgraced former House Speaker Dennis Hastert has reached a plea deal to keep the details of his case sealed for good. Given that prosecutors wanted the details under wraps and the Judge donated to Hastert's campaigns on multiple occasions, was there any doubt this would happen?

*Stay tuned to BoilingFrogsPost.com and CorbettReport.com for more details about the case, what really happened and what it really means.

Additional Links

Corbett Report Show Transcript

Classified Woman: The Sibel Edmonds Story

The Lone Gladio

BFP Exclusive- Two Delays & Tight-Lipped Negotiations Point to Graymail & Blackmail Tactics by Hastert’s Legal Team

BFP EyeOpener Video Report- The Real Hastert Case: Pedophilia, Drug Money & Blackmail

Hastert Case: How the COINTELPRO II Bucket Turned into a Can of Worms (Podcast)

Hastert Case, Clinton Scandals, FBI & the 1996 COINTELPRO II Directive (Podcast)

Dennis Hastert: Why Prosecutors Will Be Forced To ‘Lose’ or ‘Drop’ the Case (Podcast)

BFP EyeOpener Report- The Hastert Scandal: What the Media Isn’t Telling You

A scandal too deep, too dark, and covers too many people from both sides of the political aisle for it to ever proceed in public

When former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert was first indicted, the mainstream press treated it as a story of a long-ago transgression that has long since been swept under the rug. But a series of revelations from FBI whistleblowers reveal that this story is just the tip of a very seedy iceberg, one that implicates Hastert, his top aide, other Congress members and government officials in a criminal network involved in sexual intrigue, foreign espionage, blackmail, and drug money...

*Information on Dennis Hastert and ‘others’ are also covered in my books Classified Woman & The Lone Gladio. For this campaign, until October 31, we are offering both e-books under $2. Please spread the word; for truth & integrity.

Additional Information

BFP Exclusive- Two Delays & Tight-Lipped Negotiations Point to Graymail & Blackmail Tactics by Hastert’s Legal Team

Hastert Case: How the COINTELPRO II Bucket Turned into a Can of Worms (Podcast)

Hastert Case, Clinton Scandals, FBI & the 1996 COINTELPRO II Directive (Podcast)

Dennis Hastert: Why Prosecutors Will Be Forced To ‘Lose’ or ‘Drop’ the Case (Podcast)

Two FBI Whistleblowers Confirm Illegal Wiretapping of Government Officials and Misuse of FISA

Gilbert Graham Case Filed with DOJ-IG

Sibel Edmonds: An Inconvenient Patriot

Who’s Afraid of Sibel Edmonds?

Probable Cause with Sibel Edmonds- Hastert Case: How the COINTELPRO II Bucket Turned into a Can of Worms

Three FBI Field Offices, Four Agents, One Linguist, and A Bucket Full of Dirties … Literally Right & Left

Welcome to the 24th edition of Probable Cause. This is our third episode on the ‘Real’ case of Dennis Hastert. In our first segment I briefly explained the case and why it is likely to be dropped or lost-on-purpose, and provided you with the broad picture of involved interests and those with much at stake if the case were to proceed as a real case. In our second episode we went back twenty years to when the new FBI covert and illegal operations targeting high-profile US officials, elected and appointed, began.

For this episode I’ll be covering the three-year period between 1999 and 2002 when the Executive Branch’s ‘Perfect Plan’ became complicated by inadvertently collected unwanted information, loss of control over lower FBI agents leading multiple and overlapping operations, and the change of administration in January 2001- the period when their good plan proved to be far from a perfect plan. During this period the executive branch’s select COINTELPRO II bucket turned into a big can of worms- a can that was filled with not only dirty Republican representatives but dirty Democrats as well. A can that contained not only elected officials but several high-profile appointed figures- some of whom became major visible players in the new administration.

As always, our next episode will be based on your reaction, critique, responses and questions posed in the comments section below.

*Full Transcript available here

*To listen to our previous episodes on this topic click here

Listen to the full episode here (Per many requests now open to public):

You can subscribe below to listen to this podcast, as well as all others on our site.

SUBSCRIBE

Show Notes

Sibel Edmonds State Secrets Gallery

Dan Burton: Pakistan Lobbyist's Memo Alleges Shakedown by House Probe Leader

Dan Burton Fathered Child In Extramarital Affair

Dan Burton: Pro-Pakistan American lawmakers in trouble

Stephen Solarz as the Chairman of the U.S. Government-Funded Central Asian-American Enterprise Fund

An Ex-Leader in Congress Is Now Turkey’s Man in the Lobbies of Capitol Hill

The Price of Independence: $1 billion

Tom Lantos' Tarnished Legacy

Not Revising History on Tom Lantos

Chicago! Not the Musical, but the Action-Suspense Docudrama!

Who’s Afraid of Sibel Edmonds?

Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky’s Husband Indicted

Rep. Schakowsky's Husband Charged

Bob Creamer: Congresswoman’s Husband Pleads Guilty to Two Felonies

Bob Creamer: Truth, Justice ... and Fraud

Schakowsky is most-frequent flier among state's congressional delegation

Who is Marc Grossman?

Marc Grossman: Treason at the State Department

Sibel Edmonds Vindicated: FBI Reveals Investigation Continues

Obama Administration’s Neocon Easter

BFP Exclusive- Two Delays & Tight-Lipped Negotiations Point to Graymail & Blackmail Tactics by Hastert’s Legal Team

Hastert Legal Team & Government Prosecutors File Request for Yet Another Delay- Here’s Why

Former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert has again asked a federal judge to delay the deadline for pre-trial motions in his criminal hush-money case.

Hastert’s attorneys and prosecutors filed a joint motion today asking for another two-week extension. Ten days ago, on September 11, 2015, they had asked for a delay, which was granted.

As with the previous one, the new motion repeats that both sides, Hastert’s legal team and government prosecutors, are discussing issues Hastert "may raise in pretrial motions." Neither party has offered any details.

BFP Report has been publishing a series on the Hastert case, involved entities with much at stake if the case were to proceed as a real case, and various methods that could be implemented to limit or end the case. The back-to-back filings for the delay, consented by both parties, and the announcement by Hastert’s legal team on their intention to file a motion to dismiss all charges, point to the likelihood of the case being dropped.

There are grounds on which the parties may agree to have the charges dropped. Despite refusal by both parties to offer any details on the matters under negotiation, there are solid indicators pointing to the pressure points that are being utilized by Hastert’s attorneys to make the case go away. Here are some likely grounds that are being exploited by Hastert’s legal team to get the charges dropped (For more in-depth analyses see here, here and here).

Graymail Tactic

Based on previous government surveillance and evidence files on Hastert and past court cases directly related to the Hastert case, the defense may be utilizing the legal tactic commonly known as graymail.

Graymail is the threatened revelation of state secrets in order to manipulate legal proceedings. It is used as a defense tactic, forcing the government to drop a case to avoid revealing national secrets. Graymail can occur in two ways:

To straight forwardly blackmail the government, forcing it to drop the case using the threat that if the trial moves forward the defendant will reveal classified information he or she already knows.

To request the use of classified material as evidence in the trial, with an expectation that the government will be unwilling to make the material fully available to the case, and that this will raise the possibility, in the eyes of the judge or jury, that the unreleased material might clear the defendant, making it difficult to prove guilt.

Dennis Hastert and his legal team possess more than enough leverage to successfully execute these methods to force the government to drop all charges.

Hastert’s team has leverage to argue that the recent criminal investigation against Hastert was the extension and or continuation of previous operations that were targeting and surveilling Hastert during his tenure in the U.S. Congress. Based on this they could ask for all files and documents gathered on him dating back to 1996.

Hastert’s attorneys can easily point to the multi-page exposé by Vanity Fair Magazine on Hastert published in September 2005. The article was published based on disclosures from several credible witnesses from the FBI and DOJ regarding criminal evidence obtained on Hastert based on the FBI’s counterintelligence investigations from their Chicago and Washington D.C. Field Offices.

The counterintelligence operation in question was targeting the Turkish lobby and associated networks in the US. Hastert was said to have knowingly received foreign bribery from these networks, and engaged in illegal campaign financing and other financial fraud activities.

Less than two years after the publication of the exposé by Vanity Fair Hastert left the US Congress. Six months after leaving the House, Hastert began reaping the benefits of serving Turkish interests in Congress by joining the firm Dickstein Shapiro as a lobbyist representing the Turkish government, among other clients. He worked jointly with former House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt, sometimes traveling together to Turkey, and splitting millions of dollars in lucrative lobbying fees.

Knowing that the Department of Justice and the FBI have repeatedly invoked State Secrets Privilege in cases that entailed counterintelligence information on illegal foreign lobby operations in the United States, many of which included Hastert, Hastert’s attorneys can reasonably expect a similar response from the Department of Justice today. Meaning, if faced with discovery requests involving the FBI’s two-decades long files and operations related to Hastert, obtained via counterintelligence operations involving foreign lobbies in the U.S., the government would invoke classification and state secrets privilege again.

Blackmail Tactic

Hastert’s legal team can easily resort to indirect or direct blackmail that can lead to partial or complete dropping of the charges against Dennis Hastert.

Based on past cases, reports and disclosures Hastert’s attorneys can threaten the government with exposing its illegal domestic surveillance operations between 1996 and 2002 that were in violation of FISA laws. The attorneys can point to reports filed in 2002 with the DOJ Inspector General’s Office regarding ongoing FBI counterintelligence operations targeting public officials in violation of ELSUR (Electronic Surveillance) and FISA regulations.

In 2007, the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), obtained and released a copy of an official complaint filed by veteran FBI Special Agent Gilbert Graham with the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (DOJ-OIG). SA Graham’s protected disclosures report the violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in conducting electronic surveillance of high-profile U.S. public officials.

The illegal domestic surveillance operations began with the White House classified directive issued in 1996 directing the DOJ-FBI to begin conducting a new domestic operation using its counterintelligence divisions and bypassing FISA regulations in response to two sexual scandals, Jones and Lewinsky, and the likely risk of impeachment. Dennis Hastert, Bob Livingston and Dan Burton, were among those targeted by the operation.

Hastert’s legal team can utilize this information, and related witnesses and evidence, to blackmail the government. They can reasonably argue that the recent criminal investigation of the Justice Department in Chicago may be the continuation of previous illegal surveillance and investigations conducted by the DOJ and FBI in violation of FISA law and ELSUR regulations. By doing this they would be playing the Fruit of Poisonous Tree legal card. Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. The logic of the terminology is that if the source (the "tree") of the evidence or the evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as well.

Hastert’s attorneys can reasonably claim that since the use of FISA and FBI’s counterintelligence units in violation of FISA to target public officials were illegal, and since Hastert’s current case may be the extension of those illegal operations, the government would be exposing its own unlawful deeds if it were to move forward with the criminal charges against Hastert.

Currently both parties are engaged in intense discussions. The discussions are wrapped in absolute secrecy with neither providing a hint. Considering the facts on the ground, the two delay requests jointly filed back-to-back with the court, and the Hastert legal team’s self-assuredly expressed intention to demand that the government drop all charges against its client, point to a scheme that consists of graymail and blackmail legal tactics, backed up by solid historical evidence and witnesses.

Last week in our coverage of the Hastert Case we predicted and explained why and how prosecutors would be forced to ‘lose’ or ‘drop’ the Hastert Case. With the filing of this second request for delay we are getting closer to seeing that prediction come true. Meanwhile we’ll wait and see what transpires next.

# # # #

Sibel Edmonds is editor and publisher of Boiling Frogs Post, founder and president of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), and author of the acclaimed book Classified Woman: The Sibel Edmonds Story, and The Lone Gladio, a Political Spy Thriller. Ms. Edmonds is a certified linguist, fluent in four languages, and has an MA in public policy from George Mason University and a BA in criminal justice and psychology from George Washington University. She is the recipient of the 2006 PEN/Newman’s Own First Amendment Award. 

Related Information

Dennis Hastert: Why Prosecutors Will Be Forced To ‘Lose’ or ‘Drop’ the Case

Dennis Hastert Case, Clinton Scandals, FBI & the 1996 COINTELPRO Directive

Graymail

Protecting Classified Information & the Rights of Criminal Defendants

Two FBI Whistleblowers Confirm Illegal Wiretapping of Government Officials and Misuse of FISA

Gilbert Graham Case Filed with DOJ-IG

Sibel Edmonds: An Inconvenient Patriot

Hastert Contracted to lobby for Turkey

Hastert Should also be Investigated on Turkish Bribery Accusations

Bob Livingston Scandal

Dan Burton Scandal

The Speaker Who Never Was

 

Dennis Hastert Case, Clinton Scandals, FBI & the 1996 COINTELPRO Directive

How Jones-Lewinsky Scandals led to the 1996 White House Classified Directive for FBI COINTELPRO II

Hello everyone, and welcome to the 23rd episode of Probable Cause. This is our second episode on the case of Dennis Hastert. In our first segment I briefly explained the case and why it is likely to be dropped or lost-on-purpose, and provided you with the broad picture of involved interests and those with much at stake if the case were to proceed as a ‘real’ case.

For this episode I am going to take you back twenty years to when the FBI’s covert and illegal operations targeting high-profile US officials, elected and appointed, began. I will go on-record with the White House Covert Order during Bill Clinton’s Administration directing the FBI to begin conducting new COINTELPRO operations in response to two sexual scandals and the likely risk of impeachment.

I’ll talk about the FBI’s illegal surveillance of government officials and misuse of FISA, how the information was used by the US government, the cases of three FBI insiders who spoke up and reported these operations, how and why those cases were classified and gagged by the US government and censored by the US media, and finally, how all this will come into play in the coming trial of Dennis Hastert.

All right; I think this is a great point at which to start this episode, which is fully-loaded with explosive facts. I am going to start with a press release disseminated in March 2007 by NSWBC, National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, an organization I started in 2004, with over 150 former and current intelligence and law enforcement veterans.

Two FBI Whistleblowers Confirm Illegal Wiretapping of Government Officials and Misuse of FISA

The National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC) has obtained a copy of an official complaint filed by a veteran FBI Special Agent, Gilbert Graham, with the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (DOJ-OIG). SA Graham’s protected disclosures report the violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in conducting electronic surveillance of high-profile U.S. public officials.

Before his retirement in 2002, SA Gilbert Graham worked for the FBI Washington Field Office (WFO) Squad NS-24. One of the main areas of Mr. Graham’s counterintelligence investigations involved espionage activities by Turkish officials and agents in the United States. On April 2, 2002, Graham filed with the DOJ-OIG a classified protected disclosure, which provided a detailed account of FISA violations involving misuse of FISA warrants to engage in domestic surveillance. In his unclassified report SA Graham states: “It is the complainant’s reasonable belief that the request for ELSUR [electronic surveillance] coverage was a subterfuge to collect evidentiary information concerning public corruption matters.” Graham blew the whistle on this illegal behavior, but the actions were covered up by the Department of Justice and the Attorney General’s office.

The report filed by SA Graham bolsters another FBI whistleblower’s case that became public several months after Graham’s official filing with the Justice Department in 2002. Sibel Edmonds, former FBI Language Specialist, also worked for the FBI Washington Field Office (WFO), and her assignments included the translations of Turkish Counterintelligence documents and audiotapes, some of which were part of espionage investigations led by SA Graham. After she filed her complaint with the DOJ-OIG and Congress, she was retaliated against by the FBI and ultimately fired in March 2002. Court proceedings in Edmonds’ case were blocked by the assertion of the State Secrets Privilege by then Attorney General John Ashcroft, and the Congress gagged and prevented from investigating her case through retroactive re-classification of documents by DOJ.

Edmonds’ complaint included allegations of illegal activities by Turkish organizations and their agents in the United States, and the involvement of certain elected and appointed U.S. officials in the Department of State, Pentagon, and the U.S. Congress in these activities. In its September 2005 issue, Vanity Fair ran a comprehensive piece on Edmonds’ case by reporter David Rose, in which several former and current congressional and Justice Department officials identified former House Speaker Dennis Hastert as being involved in illegal activities with the Turkish organizations and personnel targeted in FBI investigations. In addition, Rose reported: “…much of what Edmonds reportedly heard seemed to concern not state espionage but criminal activity.”

Another Former Veteran FBI Counterintelligence and Espionage Specialist at FBI Headquarters in Washington DC also filed similar reports with DOJ-OIG and several congressional offices regarding violations of FISA implementation and the covering up of several espionage cases involving FBI Language Specialists and public corruption cases by the Bureau. The cases reported by this whistleblower corroborate those reported by SA Graham and Sibel Edmonds. In an interview with NSWBC investigators the former FBI Specialist, who wished to remain anonymous, stated: “…you are looking at covering up massive public corruption and espionage cases; to top that off you have major violations of FISA by the FBI Washington Field Office and HQ targeting these cases. Everyone involved has motive to cover up these reports and prevent investigation and public disclosure. No wonder they invoked the state secrets privilege in Edmonds’ case.”

I will post the link to the original press release and SA Graham’s redacted report signed and filed with DOJ’s Inspector General’s Office.

So you have two FBI insiders blowing the whistle on the same operations, and another veteran FBI agent doing the same thing but anonymously. One is a decorated veteran agent, Gilbert Graham, with 25+ years in FBI’s Counterintelligence Unit, one is a linguist-analyst who worked on the same counterintelligence operations, and another a senior special agent from the same division who had not retired at the time of the release. These cases were filled individually, totally separate from each other. All three cases resulted in classification, redaction, gag orders, invocation of State Secrets Privilege, and of course, severe retaliation.

Now: what were these illegal operations? When did they occur? By whose directive or order? Who were they targeting? Why? Ultimately, what happened to those operations? Why? How does all this relate to the Dennis Hastert Case? What is at stake as far as the FBI and DOJ go? What is at stake as far as the Clinton and Bush administrations are concerned? What do dozens of other very high-profile US officials have to worry about?

Rather than bombarding you with too much information, I am going to answer the first category of these questions for this episode. I will leave the others for following episodes. Okay Let’s begin.

1996- Bill Clinton Orders the DOJ & FBI to Begin COINTELPRO II

In mid-1996, still bogged down with the Paula Jones Scandal, a case that refused to quickly go away, while preparing for another sexual scandal, the Monica Lewinski case, Bill Clinton and his top White House team put together a political retaliation plan meant to retaliate against and then neutralize the Republican Party and key elected Republican officials. The main objective of the plan was to:

  1. Collect major dirt on key Republican officials
  2. Use the information to blackmail those Republicans as a means to prevent impeachment
  3.  Strategically release the cases of those who did not back down by blackmail if the impeachment process were to proceed

It was a good plan. However, this was not a plan that could be directly executed by the White House. They needed the Justice Department and the FBI, which not only had existing information on the target Republicans, but the ability to quickly gather more useable dirt.

After several meetings and consultation sessions, the White House had what they needed, including cover and justification, with Attorney General Janet Reno and FBI’s Director Louis Freeh, both their own hand-picked and appointed people.

One of the main divisions in the FBI, with full access and capacity to collect the needed dirt, was the FBI’s Counterintelligence Unit that operated under FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance ACT). So, with a special covert waiver from the White House, the FBI’s counterintelligence unit was directed to conduct a ‘Special Surveillance Program’ and given a set of operations and targets that went with that.

Of course, the lower-level agents, those who actually performed the operations, were told neither the reason nor the purpose. It was just that all of a sudden their operational scope, together with the means and certain abilities, was suddenly expanded.

But not all agents are equally blind or stupid. Based on hushed whispers, floating rumors, and what was taking place with Bill Clinton’s sexual scandals, some were able to add two and two and arrived at a solid unquestionable Four.

For their new operation certain previously strict FISA rules were relaxed, while others were totally over-ridden - eliminated.

Now, let’s go back and revisit the press release and the report by Veteran Special Agent Gilbert Graham, since he was one of those non-blind thinking agents:

SA Graham’s protected disclosures report the violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in conducting electronic surveillance of high-profile U.S. public officials.

On April 2, 2002, Graham filed with the DOJ-OIG a classified protected disclosure, which provided a detailed account of FISA violations involving misuse of FISA warrants to engage in domestic surveillance. In his unclassified report SA Graham states: “It is the complainant’s reasonable belief that the request for ELSUR [electronic surveillance] coverage was a subterfuge to collect evidentiary information concerning public corruption matters.”

Okay everyone, doesn’t it make more sense now?

Same with my own case:

Edmonds’ complaint included allegations of illegal activities by Turkish organizations and their agents in the United States, and the involvement of certain elected and appointed U.S. officials.

Now, back to the results and the Clinton Administration: Their strategy, the new covert COINTELPRO, proved to be highly successful. Let me give you a few examples:

In 1998, the Speaker of the House, Bob Livingston, resigned due to his exposed sex scandals. Let me read from an article published by Chicago Tribune in December 1998:

On the eve of the House debate to impeach President Clinton for lying about sex with Monica Lewinsky, House Speaker-elect Bob Livingston told his Republican colleagues Thursday night that he had strayed from his marriage and had adulterous affairs.

Guess what? He was not the only Republican targeted by the FBI’s new COINTELPRO, blackmailed, and later, strategically outed by never-identified insiders tipping off the media. I’ll continue to read:

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-Idaho), and Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) acknowledged affairs in the wake of the Lewinsky investigation. Hyde admitted to an affair 30 years ago, and Burton acknowledged having a child out of wedlock.

And here comes the most significant quote from CNN on December 21, 1998:

Early Saturday morning before the impeachment vote, House Speaker-designate Bob Livingston called majority whip Tom DeLay with a piece of news: I'm resigning. When he made the same announcement on the House floor, it was his second bombshell in three days. The first was his forced confession--the media were about to out him--that "I have on occasion strayed from my marriage." Livingston gave no details, which left Hustler publisher Larry Flynt to spread around whatever he pleased. With no sign of proof, Flynt claimed four women had told his staff about past liaisons with Livingston. Flynt said he has a tape of Livingston engaging in "raunchy" phone sex

Do you know where those phone records came from? That’s right. The information, the recorded sexual acts, all came from the FBI’s counterintelligence unit in Washington DC.

Guess what? Are you familiar with my State Secrets Privilege Gallery, released in 2008? You have the link at the bottom of this post. Let’s just say, Bob Livingston and Dan Burton are both in that gallery; they have been since 2008. Consistency and sticking to the facts is good; isn’t it?

In fact, Bob Livingston, as soon as he resigned, registered with DOJ as a Foreign Agent and lobbyist. His top client was, of course, Turkey. Clinton has much to thank the FBI’s Counterintelligence Unit on Turkey for.

Now, let me read a few quotes on Dan Burton and his Turkish ties and interests, published by the American Prospect in December 2001, six months before my case became public:

He also took thousands of dollars in legal contributions from people with business interests in Turkey. Afterwards, he made a statement on the floor of the House of Representatives he had cribbed from a Turkish government official. The statement defended Turkey against well-documented charges that its government committed serious human rights violations against the Kurds.

In 1996, Burton made another floor statement that almost exactly echoed materials that Turkey's lobbying firm gave to members of Congress, according to The Los Angeles Times.

I believe with my 13-year old on-record case, Veteran Agent Gilbert Graham’s report, NSWBC press release, and all the examples and media quotes cited, you’re starting to grasp what I’m talking about here. We are not looking at some circumstantial evidence collected here and there. I am providing you with rock solid facts, supported by reports, articles, under-oath testimonies, and much more.

Time to make a full circle and go back to the case of Dennis Hastert. Dennis Hastert, who became the Speaker of the House after Bob Livingston’s resignation. I have to say that of all the FBI’s new COINTELPRO targets he, Dennis Hastert, had the thickest file. I would say the dirt on him would not be matched even if you were to put together all the dirt from all the other dirty targets.

However, the incredible amount of criminal, corruption and sexual scandals gathered on Hastert by the DOJ-FBI between 1996 and 2002 was never used, other than for ‘Blackmail.’. They never had to release those. Did the Clinton Administration blackmail Hastert with what they had during the initial stage; around 1997-1998? You bet. Did he bow? Obviously. So they let him continue. They protected him. In fact, they gave him such a level of immunity and such an untouchable status that he went on breezing through several scandals during his tenure.

Dennis Hastert’s untouchable status, first granted to him by Clinton and later continued by the Bush Administration, made him so bold that after the exposé by the Vanity Fair Article he continued his tenure in Congress for another two years - while engaged in all those criminal-corrupt activities, and as soon as he left Congress in 2007 he formally registered himself as a Foreign Agent for Turkey, and became a lobbyist for several million dollars a year.

Interestingly, his protected status was not only granted and observed by the government. This status applied to the US media as well. Can you imagine? In 2005 Vanity Fair publishes an explosive seven-page article with facts supported not only by me, but also by several other government insiders and congressional officials, yet, not a single US mainstream media outlet publishes a single word on it. Not a single word.

Now, 20 years since the start of COINTELPRO II, somehow, for some reason, due to someone, somewhere, it’s been decided to bring some significant criminal financial activities and sexual abuse charges against this same Dennis Hastert.

What would happen if the case proceeded, if the case were treated as a ‘real’ case, if the case put on the stand ‘real’ witnesses, if the case admitted all real documents and evidence? What would happen?

Clinton and his counsel and advisors during his tenure would be exposed. The FBI and its new COINTELPRO operations re-sanctioned in 1996 and its violations of law, including FISA, would be exposed. Other US officials who have been successfully blackmailed and kept in line, together with all their criminal and sexual violations, would be outed. Previously quashed and gagged whistleblower cases such as mine and Graham’s and several others’ would see the light of day. The American public, at least many of them, would wake up and admit to the realities governing their government and so-called representatives.

As John Lennon said: ‘Imagine.’ But can you really imagine that? I can’t. This is why I expect the case to be dropped, or on purpose to be fought-to-lose.

Well, it is time to wrap up our second episode in the series on the Dennis Hastert case, the main players, the ‘real’ records, and a court case that will be going away.

Thank you for joining me on this 23rd edition of Probable Cause. Several links with related information and articles will be posted on the website under this episode. I am looking forward to your responses, questions and all your comments. I’ll be back soon to pick up where we left off. So long, and until then.

# # # #

Sibel Edmonds is editor and publisher of Boiling Frogs Post, founder and president of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), and author of the acclaimed book Classified Woman: The Sibel Edmonds Story, and The Lone Gladio, a Political Spy Thriller. Ms. Edmonds is a certified linguist, fluent in four languages, and has an MA in public policy from George Mason University and a BA in criminal justice and psychology from George Washington University. She is the recipient of the 2006 PEN/Newman’s Own First Amendment Award.

*To listen to the original podcast click here

Notes

Two FBI Whistleblowers Confirm Illegal Wiretapping of Government Officials and Misuse of FISA

Gilbert Graham Case Filed with DOJ-IG

Sibel Edmonds: An Inconvenient Patriot (Vanity Fair Expose on Dennis Hastert)

Who’s Afraid of Sibel Edmonds? (The American Conservative Magazine)

Sibel Edmonds Testimony & Dennis Hastert

Sibel Edmonds State Secrets Gallery

Dennis Hastert- A Portrait of a Political System Termite: The Erosion & Rotting of a Nation’s Foundation

Dennis Hastert Indictment (Court Document)

Hastert Indicted

Hastert, in hiding since indictment & molestation allegations, finally due in court

Judge grants extension for Dennis Hastert's pre-trial motions (Sep 11)

Monica Lewinsky Scandal

Paula Jones Scandal

Louis Freeh (FBI Director, 1993-2001)

FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance ACT)

COINTELPRO: Counter Intelligence Program

Bob Livingston Scandal

Dan Burton Scandal

Rep. Dan Burton

The Speaker Who Never Was

The Hypocrisy of Dan Burton

Probable Cause with Sibel Edmonds- Hastert Case, Clinton Scandals, FBI & the 1996 COINTELPRO II Directive

How Jones-Lewinsky Scandals led to the 1996 White House Classified Directive for FBI COINTELPRO II

Welcome to the 23rd edition of Probable Cause. This is our second episode on the case of Dennis Hastert. In our first segment I briefly explained the case and why it is likely to be dropped or lost-on-purpose, and provided you with the broad picture of involved interests and those with much at stake if the case were to proceed as a ‘real’ case.

In this episode we are going back twenty years to when the new FBI covert and illegal operations targeting high-profile US officials, elected and appointed, began. I will go on-record with the White House classified directive issued in 1996 directing the DOJ-FBI to begin conducting a new COINTELPRO operation using its counterintelligence divisions and bypassing FISA regulations in response to two sexual scandals and the likely risk of impeachment.

I’ll talk about the FBI’s illegal surveillance of government officials and misuse of FISA, how the information was used by the US government, the cases of three FBI insiders who spoke up and reported these operations, how and why those cases were classified and gagged by the US government and censored by the US media, and finally, how all this will come into play in the coming trial of Dennis Hastert.

As always, our next episode will be based on your reaction, critique, responses and questions posed in the comments section below.

*To listen to our previous episodes on this topic click here

*To read the entire transcript of this episode click here

Listen to the full episode here (Per many requests now open to public):

You can subscribe below to listen to this podcast, as well as all others on our site.

SUBSCRIBE

Show Notes

Two FBI Whistleblowers Confirm Illegal Wiretapping of Government Officials and Misuse of FISA

Gilbert Graham Case Filed with DOJ-IG

Sibel Edmonds: An Inconvenient Patriot

Who’s Afraid of Sibel Edmonds?

Sibel Edmonds Testimony & Dennis Hastert

Monica Lewinsky

Paula Jones Scandal

Louis Freeh (FBI Director, 1993-2001)

FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance ACT)

COINTELPRO: Counter Intelligence Program

Bob Livingston Scandal

Dan Burton Scandal

Rep. Dan Burton

The Speaker Who Never Was

The Hypocrisy of Dan Burton

Sibel Edmonds State Secrets Gallery

Probable Cause with Sibel Edmonds- Dennis Hastert: Why Prosecutors Will Be Forced To ‘Lose’ or ‘Drop’ the Case

Part I: What’s the ‘Real Case’ in the Hastert Case?

Welcome to our 22nd edition of Probable Cause. This is the introductory episode in our new series on the Dennis Hastert case, prompted by the silence of the US mainstream media per Washington’s calculated design.

With this new series I intend to shed light on obscured facts surrounding Dennis Hastert and his case, his Chief of Staff and loyal partner in crime, the illegal and immoral conduct involving Hastert and several other US officials that took place between 1997 and 2002, other high-profile participants, the parties that were not only fully aware of these activities but were also documenting-recording them, and the highest-level beneficiaries that have much to lose if real trials were to take place or real reporting were to be made public by the mainstream media.

For this episode I’ll begin to explain why the case is highly likely to be dropped or lost-on-purpose by providing you with the broad picture of the real case, talk about those with much at stake if the case were to proceed as a ‘real’ case, and various methods that could be implemented to limit and or end the case.

As always, our next episode will be based on your reaction, critique, responses and questions posed in the comments section below.

*To listen to our previous episodes on this topic click here

Listen to the full episode here:

You can subscribe below to listen to this podcast, as well as all others on our site.

SUBSCRIBE

Show Notes

Sibel Edmonds: An Inconvenient Patriot

Who’s Afraid of Sibel Edmonds?

Sibel Edmonds Testimony & Dennis Hastert

Probable Cause with Sibel Edmonds- Dennis Hastert: What Remains Beneath?

Dennis Hastert- A Portrait of a Political System Termite: The Erosion & Rotting of a Nation’s Foundation

Dennis Hastert Indictment (Court Document)

Hastert Indicted

Hastert, in hiding since indictment & molestation allegations, finally due in court

Judge grants extension for Dennis Hastert's pre-trial motions (Sep 11)

Who is Scott Palmer?

Processing Distortion with Peter B. Collins: If You Wanted to Join Islamic State Jihad…

Peter B. Collins Presents Peter van Buren

Our guest maxed out on the scary stories of the Islamic State using social media to recruit Americans to fight in Syria, so he decided to check out the action, knowing the risk of a visit from Big Brother. In this often-humorous exchange, Peter van Buren found some travel tips, direct flights to Syria and inspirational screeds, but no application form or screening process. We use this to open a deeper conversation about FBI frame-ups of Americans accused of trying to join IS, and the insertion of these largely unproven cases into the media fear machinery and Washington’s highly limited debate about the surveillance state. And van Buren has some choice words for his former boss, regarding Hillary Clinton’s email imbroglio.

* Peter van Buren spent 20 years working at the State Department and was forced into retirement after publication of his book We Meant Well, which described his misadventures managing reconstruction in Iraq. He is also the author of a novel, Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99Percent. You can find his blog post about jihadi travel here.

Listen to the Preview Clip Here

Listen to the full episode here (BFP Subscribers Only):

SUBSCRIBE

Probable Cause with Sibel Edmonds- When One for All-All for One Works: Power in Numbers?

Welcome to our seventeenth episode of Probable Cause. In our previous episode we discussed the realities of whistleblowing, and explored the reasons for there being dozens or more silent witnesses for every whistleblower-for every truth-teller. Today, in this episode, we are going to further this angle, and delve deeper into those reasons. We will expand our context from government whistleblowers to mainstream media reporters.

Do silent witnesses engage in ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’ when they cite obstacles and futility for their refraining from standing up for the truth? Would the outcomes be different if multiple whistleblowers unite and come forward to expose criminality and lies, and to stand up for the truth jointly? These are only some of the questions we will be posing before we move to a similar trend applicable to US mainstream media journalists. We will compare and contrast journalists around the world who unite for the truth and against lies and censorship to American journalists and the absence of such a trend among them.

As always, our next episode will be based on your reaction, critique, responses and questions posed in the comments section below.

*To listen to our previous episodes on this topic click here

Listen to the full episode here:

SUBSCRIBE

Show Notes

FBI Agent Stifles Investigation into Ptech Figures

Why Kansas Statehouse Reporters Staged a Walkout

Romanian Journalists Walk Out in Protest

Al Jazeera Staff Quit over ‘Misleading’ Egypt Coverage’

Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability

Oregon Earns 'D' Grade in National Judicial Review