posted June 26, 2005 09:00 PM              

quote:

---

Wow TP, you just proved that George W. Bush is a Nazi and loyal supporter of Hitler. Congratulations!

---

And you just proved that you support people whos families funded them!

congratulations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

posted June 29, 2005 09:28 PM              

Klein on the many factual errors, distortions, and misleading claims in his attack book

on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), The Truth About Hillary (Sentinel, 2005). On the

June 24 edition of the Al Franken Show on Air America Radio, Klein acknowledged his

falsehood in portraying the chronology of the reporting of Clinton's Jewish

step-grandfather and her controversial meeting with Suha Arafat, first noted by Media

Matters for America. He also admitted that he had never seen Clinton's chief of staff

Melanne Verveer (whose name he misspelled in the book), although he described her

appearance as "mannish-looking." But he refused to retract other false claims when

confronted by Franken, Conason and Lanpher.

Following is a transcript of the interview in its entirety:

LANPHER: You're listening to the Al Franken Show. I'm Katherine Lanpher.

FRANKEN: And I'm Al Franken. In the studio with us is Joe Conason, and in Washington

is Ed Klein. Ed Klein's new book is The Truth About Hillary. It's published by Sentinel

from Penguin, which is my publisher, at Dutton. I'm just thrilled about that. He joins us

from the Center for American Progress in Washington D.C. Thank you, Ed, for joining us.

KLEIN: Thank you for having me, Al.

FRANKEN: Okay, and now would you call this book your best work?

KLEIN: I think this is the best book I've written, yes.

FRANKEN: Oh, good. Okay, good. Now I think I found a mistake.

KLEIN: Congratulations.

FRANKEN: Yeah, now do you have the book?

KLEIN: In front of me, no.

FRANKEN: Okay, but you wrote it, so you know the book.

KLEIN: I think so.

FRANKEN: Yeah. Okay, and on page 172 --

KLEIN: Yes.

FRANKEN: This is a thing about [Sen. Daniel Patrick] Pat Moynihan [D-NY] and not

being able to say her [Clinton's] name [during a press conference to announce her

candidacy for the New York seat in the U.S. Senate from which Moynihan was retiring], and

now let me quote the book and then I'll quote what...anyway, I'll just quote what you

wrote:

"God, I almost forgot," he said, with a mischievous grin."

Or mischievous grin. That's talking about Pat Moynihan, the late senator from New

York whose seat Hillary took.

"God, I almost forgot," he said, with a mischievous grin. "I'm here to say that I

hope she will go all the way, I mean to go all the way with her. I think she's going to

win. I think it's going to be wonderful for New York. For Moynihan, apparently, it was

easier to say "she" than 'Hillary.'"

Now did you leave anything out there, in between the two sentences you quoted?

KLEIN: Are you reading from my book?

FRANKEN: Yes.

KLEIN: What's the title of my book? I don't think you mentioned it.

FRANKEN: The Truth about Hillary. Now did you -- well, I did, and I actually did

mention it in the lead-in, and I think I just did.

KLEIN: Well, in any case, let me answer your question. Pat addressed -- as Joe

Conason who's sitting there with you can, I'm sure, attest -- Pat addressed the assembled

press and mentioned Hillary's name three times.

FRANKEN: Now did you leave anything out in between the two sentences that you quoted?

KLEIN: Not that I'm aware of.

FRANKEN: Well, you did, you know. And what you said after you quote the two sentences

from Moynihan was --

KLEIN: Were there ellipses between the two sentences?

FRANKEN: No.

KLEIN: No. No. So in other words, there's something that is missing.

FRANKEN: Yeah.

CONASON: Al, this is Joe. Why don't you read the actual, what Senator Moynihan really

said --

FRANKEN: This was --

CONASON: -- as opposed to what's in Mr. Klein's book.

FRANKEN: Well, this is what Moynihan said, and this is how he got into it. He said,

"Now I have the great pleasure to welcome Mrs. Clinton to the farm and turn over the

microphone to our candidate. Before you do, before I do... Oh, my God, I almost forgot.

Yesterday Hillary Clinton established an exploratory committee as regards to her

candidacy for the Senate, United States Senate from New York, a seat which I will vacate

in a year and a half." And then you pick up with, "I'm here to say, I hope she will go

all the way. I mean to go all the way with her. I think she's going to win. I think she's

going to be wonderful for New York." So you leave out --

KLEIN: I left out an ellipsis.

CONASON: You did not.

FRANKEN: You didn't leave out an ellipsis. You deliberately left out the --

KLEIN: There's no --

CONASON: I know you don't have the book in front of you. How much would you like to

bet there's no ellipsis on that page?

FRANKEN: No, he's saying that's what he left out.

KLEIN: That's what I'm saying, Joe.

CONASON: No, there's no ellipsis.

FRANKEN: No, he's saying he left it out.

KLEIN: I should have put in an ellipsis.

CONASON: Oh. And why would you have cut out the two references to her name and put in

an ellipsis? That would have been equally dishonest.

FRANKEN: You know why? Because I -- here -- this is what I think, Ed, and you may

take issue with this. I think you deliberately left it out because it would have hurt the

sentence where you say, "For Moynihan it was easier to say 'she' than 'Hillary.' " I

think that's why you left out the sentence that says, "Hillary."

KLEIN: Well I --

FRANKEN: Really, honestly now, could you address that?

KLEIN: I'd be happy to.

FRANKEN: Yeah.

KLEIN: First of all, I didn't know that you were a mind-reader, so that you're

reading why I did something.

CONASON: Oh, you're not in a good position to say that --

KLEIN: No? Why not?

CONASON: After writing this. Because you've read her mind over and over again, and I

doubt you've ever met her.

KLEIN: Oh, really?

CONASON: Oh, there's quite a bit about what's in her mind in this book that you could

have no possible way of knowing.

KLEIN: Well, let's start with the Moynihan --

CONASON: But answer this. Where, if you had put in an ellipsis, wouldn't the purpose

of that have been to deceive?

KLEIN: No, absolutely not. Joe, this is ridiculous. You know, we know you know very

well that the Moynihans had no use for Hillary.

FRANKEN: No, no, no. I'm just asking you about this specific --

CONASON: I happen not to agree with that, but --

KLEIN: You don't agree with that?

CONASON: But why -- if that were true -- why would you need to deceive the readers

into thinking he hadn't mentioned her name?

FRANKEN: That's true, you know, usually when you have a good case, you don't have to

deceive people.

CONASON: I mean, I'm not able to read Sen. Moynihan's mind. He's gone. I didn't know

then, and I know he had disagreements --

KLEIN: You didn't have to read his mind.

CONASON: I know he had disagreements. You've also ... You got a lot of things wrong

about Moynihan in here, but certainly you didn't need to, if he really disliked her so

much, why would you need to deceive the readers about what he actually said that day? Did

you not look it up?

KLEIN: My intention in this book was not to deceive anybody.

CONASON: Why did you do that, then?

KLEIN: Well, I didn't do it intentionally, and if I left out some words, I'm sorry.

FRANKEN: And how was it vetted?

KLEIN: That certainly was not my intention, and we know that when Pat finally came to

do the endorsement, he didn't use her name.

CONASON: What?

FRANKEN: What? This is the endorsement!

CONASON: This is the endorsement. There's video, there's audio, it's on a transcript.

FRANKEN: Oh, come on, Ed! You can do better than that.

CONASON: He used her name. He used her name twice and you left it out.

FRANKEN: Just, just admit it that you did this, you left it out so you could make

your point which is "for Moynihan apparently it was easier to say 'she' than 'Hillary.' "

CONASON: I don't understand how you could write the sentence "It was easier to say

'she' than 'Hillary' " if you read the transcript where he mentioned her name twice.

FRANKEN: Three times. Anyway, Ed, we're going to have to come back. This is gonna be

fun. This'll really be fun. Honest.

CONASON: You think about the answer while we're taking a break.

LANPHER: We'll come back to our conversation with Ed Klein, the author of, of The

Truth about Hillary here on the Al Franken Show.

FRANKEN: See, it's -- it'll be fun, Ed. Really. Honest.

[break]

FRANKEN: Hey, welcome back to The Al Franken Show. I'm Al Franken.

LANPHER: I'm Katherine Lanpher, and sitting with us, of course, is Friday regular Joe

Conason. We're continuing our conversation with Edward Klein, who has out the new

biography, The Truth About Hillary, published by Sentinel.

FRANKEN: And, and Ed, ah, we, we want to give you a chance to, to kind of respond,

because, you know, you might get the feeling it's like three against one, but I've got to

tell you, Katherine just loves the book.

KLEIN: Well, that's good to know. Let me ask you a question, Joe.

CONASON: Sure.

KLEIN: I'm sorry. Al.

FRANKEN: Yeah?

KLEIN: Let me ask you a question.

FRANKEN: Sure.

KLEIN: When you, uh, asked me on this program --

FRANKEN: Mmmm.

KLEIN: -- ah, and spoke to my publisher --

FRANKEN: Yes.

KLEIN: Ah, did you tell them that Joe Conason was gonna be on?

FRANKEN: Yes!

KLEIN: You did? Well, I -- nobody told me.

FRANKEN: Well, your publisher should have told you, because I, I, I couldn't have

emphasized it more. I said, you know, Joe, I, we must have discussed this, ah, the

publisher's name, again, is Adrian --

KLEIN: Zackheim.

FRANKEN: Zackheim. No, no, no. I discussed that at great length.

KLEIN: Good. Well, he didn't discuss it with me, but in any case, in the interest of

full disclosure, don't you think you should tell your, ah, audience where Joe has stood

on this book, what -- what he's done up to now?

CONASON: We talked about that last week.

FRANKEN: In -- in full dis -- ah, yeah. We have done that.

KLEIN: OK.

FRANKEN: We really have.

KLEIN: Fine. Fine.

FRANKEN: And, you know, he's not alone. There are critics of the book that are even,

like John Podhoretz on the right. He says -- writes -- he's a conservative. He writes,

"This is one of the most sordid volumes I've ever waded through. Thirty pages into it, I

wanted to take a shower. Sixty pages into it, I wanted to be decontaminated. And 200

pages into it, I wanted someone to drive stakes through my eyes so I wouldn't have to

suffer through another word." Now this is a conservative, and I gotta say that it wasn't

that bad.

CONASON: Yeah, I've gotten, actually, I have to say, more positive mail from

conservatives about my column about this book in the Observer than I have from, from

right-wingers in a long time.

FRANKEN: But I'm sorry that Adrian didn't tell you, because you should have known

that, but that's really your publisher's fault.

KLEIN: OK.

FRANKEN: OK?

LANPHER: And we were getting back to a question that was asked right before the break

about just how conscious you were of putting deception in the book.

KLEIN: I don't believe there is deception in the book --

CONASON: [unintelligible]

KLEIN: -- and if I've left out, as I said, an ellipsis, I'm sorry. I certainly didn't

intend to.

FRANKEN: OK. Ah, let's talk about the FBI files that you talk about, sort of what was

called "Filegate." And you call it the "Purloined FBI Files," and you write about it on

page 39.

KLEIN: Mm-hmm [affirmative].

FRANKEN: And later, in a Salon interview, you said, "Like Nixon, Hillary has used FBI

files against her enemies."

KLEIN: Mm-hmm [affirmative].

FRANKEN: Now, you know that she was absolved of this by the Office of Independent

Counsel.

KLEIN: Well, she may --

FRANKEN: I mean, shouldn't you have written about that? Shouldn't you have given that

information to your readers?

KLEIN: It's still my -- it's still my belief and contention that Craig Livingstone

was responsible for taking those files, and that he was operating under direct orders

from Hillary.

CONASON: Do you know whose files those were? I mean, did you ever look at the names

of the people whose files they were?

KLEIN: They were a lot of Republican activists --

CONASON: There were not, actually. They were not. Can -- name one Republican activist

whose file was taken. One.

KLEIN: I couldn't do that 'cause I --

CONASON: You couldn't! 'Cause you haven't looked at the names! Did you ever look at

the names?

KLEIN: No, I haven't.

CONASON: Okay. Ah, you've never looked at the names, but you know they're a lot of

Republican activists. How would you know that if you've never looked at the names?

KLEIN: I've read it in The New York Times and other publications.

CONASON: Oh, no, you didn't. You did not. You did not.

FRANKEN: You know, Ed, the first --

CONASON: Because the people whose names were on that list were former White House

employees. Most of them were people like gardeners and janitors and people like that.

I've looked at every name on that list --

KLEIN: Former White House employees --

CONASON: That's correct.

KLEIN: in the previous Republican administration.

CONASON: Oh, no. James Carville's name was on that list!

KLEIN: Well, ah, yes, but there [inaudible] --

CONASON: Why was his name on the list?

KLEIN: Many Republican officials on that list, as well.

CONASON: There were --

KLEIN: Are you saying there weren't?

CONASON: No, I'm saying there was no, there were no Republican activists of any note

on that list. If you look through that list, it's hundreds of names of people that you

had never heard of and that the Republican Party had no significant connection to.

KLEIN: OK --

CONASON: And the fact is that those names were taken by mistake, which is what the

Office of Independent Counsel determined, and that Mrs. Clinton never used them for any

purpose. And you know what, Ed? If you'd done any reporting, you would know that, but you

didn't even look at the list.

KLEIN: No, I haven't seen the list. I --

CONASON: You didn't bother to look at the list!

KLEIN: Well, I didn't look at the list because I wasn't doing a book, Joe, on the

list. I was doing a -- that was one paragraph in a 300-page book, and --

CONASON: But, but --

KLEIN: -- it was a summary of what the charges, if you recall --

CONASON: But you --

KLEIN: -- were against her. What about --

FRANKEN: But you've been going on, you've been going on like, like, ah, talking in

interviews saying, "Like Nixon, Hillary has used FBI files against her enemies." Now,

that's a very serious charge.

KLEIN: How about the, how about the, the, um, Internal Revenue Service --

CONASON: Don't change the subject, Ed.

FRANKEN: Oh, wait a minute. I asked you -- let's address --

KLEIN: Why can't we talk about various --

FRANKEN: Because I want you to --

KLEIN: -- organs of the government?

FRANKEN: I want you to answer --

CONASON: Because he can't answer the question, that's why.

FRANKEN: Because I want you to answer one question at a time. "Like Nixon, Hillary

has used FBI files against her enemies." I think that's a very, very serious charge.

Would you characterize that as a serious charge?

KLEIN: I certainly would.

FRANKEN: Yeah.

KLEIN: And I would say that there are many publications who have said the exact same

thing.

CONASON: Name one that has any, any, any --

KLEIN: The New York Times, for one.

FRANKEN: Said that, no, it never --

KLEIN: The Washington Post, for two.

FRANKEN: Baloney!

CONASON: The New York Times? You mean William Safire wrote that? Is that who you're

talking about? 'Cause he had no evidence for it, either.

KLEIN: Well, you think -- you think Safire's a congenital liar -

CONASON: I do. I think he -- I've said it many times in print.

KLEIN: [laughing]

CONASON: He said a lot of things about Hillary Clinton that were totally wrong. He

predicted that --

FRANKEN: You know what, let's move on to something --

CONASON: He predicted she would be indicted and said that he would "eat crow" if she

wasn't. And she wasn't.

FRANKEN: Well, but, but -- and, and he did eat the crow, and I saw it. Okay. Let's,

ah, let's turn to page 188 and Suha Arafat and that hug and Hillary's step-grandfather.

Would you like to correct the record on that?

KLEIN: Yeah, one should have gone before the other, and that was a mistake.

FRANKEN: Okay, now, now what was the significance of that mistake, do you think?

KLEIN: Well, I think that Hillary was trying to position herself with the Jewish

voters in New York. I think we can all agree on that.

FRANKEN: But what you said was --

CONASON: Unlike every other politician.

KLEIN: Yeah, yeah.

FRANKEN: Well, you said --

KLEIN: But she had a particular problem, which was that she was perceived by many

Jewish voters, I think Mr. Conason even would admit to this, as not being sufficiently

pro-Israeli -- pro-Israel.

FRANKEN: Well, but what you do is you try to draw a cause and effect. You say that --

KLEIN: I said that that was, in fact, a chronological mistake. She in -- discovered

her grandfather, great grandfather or grandfather, step-grandfather, had been partly

Jewish --

FRANKEN: Let me read --

KLEIN: And then she went to the Middle East. That's true.

FRANKEN: Let me read you what you wrote. "At the end of Mrs. Arafat's speech, Hillary

applauded enthusiastically, then gave Suha Arafat a big hug and kiss."

KLEIN: Is that true?

FRANKEN: The photo -- the photo --

KLEIN: Is that true, Joe?

FRANKEN: Let me read the thing, and, and then you can respond. "The photo of the two

women kissing, which played around the world, sewed serious doubts about Hillary in the

mind of many Jewish voters. When Hillary realized that she had gotten herself in a jam

with Jewish voters, she suddenly turned up a long lost Jewish step-grandfather-an

announcement" okay, "that was dismissed by many"--

CONASON: This is such sloppy work.

FRANKEN: Well --

LANPHER: Hang on! I want--

FRANKEN: No, no. But what I'm saying --

LANPHER: -- Ed Klein to respond.

FRANKEN: Yeah, and Ed, but what I'm saying, what I'm saying is, Ed, the, the, the

chronology there is there for a reason. You're saying, you're saying that she suddenly

discovered this because of the hug.

KLEIN: Yeah, well, we -- this is a chronological mistake in the book, and I've

admitted to it.

FRANKEN: Okay.

CONASON: Okay.

FRANKEN: Okay. How about the, ah, LAX thing? The haircut that supposedly held up

traffic at LAX.

KLEIN: Mm-hmmm [affirmative].

FRANKEN: Now you know that that's not true, right?

KLEIN: No, I don't know that's not true.

CONASON: Again because you didn't do any reporting. That was, that story was debunked

at the time that it came out 12 years ago. You, you, I mean it's just astonishing to me

--

KLEIN: What?

CONASON: -- how little work was put into this book --

KLEIN: Well, you know --

CONASON: -- in terms of trying to establish whether any of this stuff that you've

written here is true!

KLEIN: So, you're saying, Joe, that the president did not hold up traffic --

CONASON: Yeah.

KLEIN: -- at LAX?

CONASON: I'm saying that not only would I say that, but that's the established fact

that's been reported after that story came out in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the FAA

made it very clear that not one flight was held up as a result of that.

KLEIN: Well, Joe --

CONASON: And that was established a long time ago.

KLEIN: You and I are reading different, ah, newspapers, I think.

CONASON: No It's, it's not a matter of reading different newspapers; it's a matter of

what the Federal Aviation Administration said about this incident. It was debunked at the

time.

FRANKEN: Do you want to read -- do you want to hear what the, ah, St. Louis

Post-Dispatch said?

KLEIN: Well, if you'd like to read it, that's -- it's your show.

FRANKEN: Well, okay. The story that -- was the planes were kept circling as President

Bill Clinton had his hair clipped on Air Force One at Los Angeles Airport. This was 1993,

not last month. The haircut by Beverly Hills stylist Christophe became such a metaphor

for perceived White House arrogance that the president himself felt compelled to

apol...ah, apologize for reported flight delays. But the reports were wrong. According to

the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), records obtained through the Freedom of

Information Act, the haircut May 18th caused no significant delays of regular scheduled

passenger flights, no circling planes, no traffic jams on runways. Commuter airlines that

fly routes routinely affected by the President's haircut confirmed that they had no

record of delays, etc. etc. etc.

CONASON: What's peculiar to me is, you don't seem to care whether you get these

things right or not.

KLEIN: What's peculiar to me, Mr. Conason, is that you're still stuck back in 1993

instead 2005. This book is --

CONASON: No, you were, you were writing about something that happened in 1993.

KLEIN: Yeah, but this book is about whether Hillary Clinton is qualified by virtue of

her character --

CONASON: You mean whether you --

KLEIN: -- to be President of the United States.

LANPHER: Well, let me ask you a question, Edward Klein, and that is, when you have so

many errors that accumulate, why should we take your interpretation seriously?

KLEIN: Well, but I dispute that there are so many errors accumulating.

CONASON: Well, let's ask about another one. There's a woman you name in this book

named Nancy Pietrafesa--

KLEIN: Mm-hmmm [affirmative].

CONASON: Who you say was rumored to be Hillary's lesbian lover.

KLEIN: Mm-hmmm [affirmative]. That's true.

CONASON: Now there are two things about that -- well, I don't know if it's true or

not.

FRANKEN: That's true, that she was rumored?

KLEIN: There were rumors, yes.

CONASON: Yeah, those are great journalistic standards. But you misspell her name

throughout the book, did you know that?

KLEIN: Well, do you know that three other authors have also misspelled her name?

CONASON: Yes, I figured they must have because that's where you got it from.

KLEIN: Yeah, well, I certainly didn't get it from the three, the other two who spelt

it differently than I did.

CONASON: You, you, you got it --

KLEIN: But her name appears in Gail Sheehy's book --

CONASON: Right.

KLEIN: -- on Hillary--

CONASON: On Hillary. Is that where you got it?

KLEIN: It appears in, um --

CONASON: Is that where you got it?

KLEIN: Roger Morris's book.

CONASON: Right. Is that where you got it?

KLEIN: And it also appears in David Maraniss's book.

CONASON: So you're a terrible reporter, but a good stenographer.

KLEIN: All three of these writers spelt her name in three different ways. I'm sorry

that I misspelled --

CONASON: Did you try to find them?

KLEIN: -- used an "E" instead of an "A."

CONASON: Well, let me ask you something. Did you try to find her so you could ask her

about this rumor?

KLEIN: Of course I did!

CONASON: You did.

KLEIN: Of course!

FRANKEN: And you had trouble, because The New York Post didn't seem to have trouble.

CONASON: Did you try with all the different -- you tried with all the different

spellings?

KLEIN: No. I, I --

CONASON: I guess not!

KLEIN: I tried, I tried to reach her, and in fact, left messages for her.

CONASON: Really? Where?

KLEIN: Where she lives!

CONASON: Which is -- where's that?

KLEIN: Listen, Joe, I don't have her address in front of me.

CONASON: You have no idea where she lives, and you're lying right now.

KLEIN: I'm not lying, Joe.

CONASON: Yeah, you are.

KLEIN: Okay, let's - look -- let's, ah --

LANPHER: I'd like to go back to the --

FRANKEN: No, I want to go back to something.

LANPHER: All right, you can. Go ahead.

FRANKEN: Melanie Vermeer.

CONASON: Verveer.

KLEIN: Verveer.

FRANKEN: Yeah.

CONASON: Who is Melanie Verveer?

KLEIN: She was her chief of staff for a while.

FRANKEN: Yeah. You know what?

CONASON: There is no person named Melanie Verveer. There's Melanne Verveer, who you

refer to as "mannish looking," which she's not. But her name is Melanne, M-E-L-A-N-N-E.

FRANKEN: Now, I know Melanne.

CONASON: Now, since you don't know the first name of her chief of staff, why should

anybody think that you know anything at all about Hillary Clinton?

FRANKEN: Well, I want to go to --

LANPHER: It's not -Please --

FRANKEN: Oh, let him, let him, let him.

LANPHER: Please, let him respond!

KLEIN: I don't think the question is worth my responding.

CONASON: Because you don't know, right?

KLEIN: Not -- no.

CONASON: You don't know, you didn't know her real name.

KLEIN: She was referred to as "Melanie" to me many, many times, and --

CONASON: By who? [laughing]

LANPHER: Really?

KLEIN: I think that's how --

CONASON: No one calls her "Melanie."

KLEIN: Well, I think that's how a lot of people referred to her.

CONASON: Nobody refers -- nobody calls her that.

FRANKEN: Now I know Melanne. I know her husband, and I have to take offense on

calling her mannish, 'cause I know Melanne, and she's -- ah, I think she's a good-lookin'

woman. And like, let's say, Ed, someone referred to your wife in a book as "simian," say.

You know. Would you -- which, by the way, I doubt your wife is simian looking. I'm sure

that she's very beautiful, because you're a very manly looking man. You're very

heterosexual looking, I must say, in the back of the book. You look like you're in really

good shape. So...

CONASON: I have this feeling that he's never seen Melanne Verveer, whose name he

doesn't know. Have you ever seen her?

KLEIN: Ah, no, I have not.

CONASON: But she's mannish-looking to you? Even though you've never seen her?

KLEIN: She has been described to me that way, yes.

CONASON: She's been ... Who described her to you that way?

KLEIN: Several people who worked -- knew her,

FRANKEN: Who knew her as "Melanie"?

KLEIN: Yes, and who called her "Melanie" to me.

CONASON: Well, maybe they knew someone else. This could all just be a -- another case

of terrible reporting or mistaken identity.

FRANKEN: There is a Melanie. There is a Melanie who is -- used to be a male, and is a

tennis player, you know, a professional tennis player.

CONASON: You know, Ed, you've been a reporter for a long time, or I know at least

purporting to be a journalist. Isn't it true that the first thing you learn when you're

starting to be a journalist is to spell the names right?

FRANKEN: Oh, come on --

KLEIN: It's such a silly comment, Joe, that it's beneath --

CONASON: You got a lot of them wrong.

KLEIN: I got some of them wrong, but I, I'm sure you've misspelled names in your

career.

CONASON: I try to correct them. And I didn't pretend --

KLEIN: Well, I will try to correct these in my second edition.

FRANKEN: Okay, let me --

KLEIN: And third and fourth edition.

FRANKEN: Okay, let's go to your, your, your -- just your motivation. Ah, you write,

"Isn't it Dr." -- or you said, I'm sorry, to Salon, "Isn't it Dr. Johnson who said that

any writer who doesn't write for money is a fool? What I do for a living is write popular

non-fiction, and the more popular it is, the more books I sell, and the more money I

make." Now that, I, I write books, too, and I just gotta tell you that that's not my

motivation.

KLEIN: No, you're a political analyst. I'm not.

FRANKEN: Oh. Okay.

KLEIN: You're a political person. I'm a biographer.

FRANKEN: Mm-hmmm [affirmative].

KLEIN: There's a difference.

FRANKEN: And do you think that maybe some of these, ah, conservatives who are

reacting to the book, like Peggy Noonan and John Podhoretz and others --

KLEIN: Mm-hmmm [affirmative].

FRANKEN: Are reacting because it feels like you're just cashing out here?

KLEIN: No. That's...I don't think that's the reason. If you'll let me answer, I'll

answer that.

FRANKEN: Yeah, go ahead, go ahead.

KLEIN: I think there's a great deal of confusion on the part of the conservatives,

how to deal with Hillary. They don't know whether to deal with her directly and in a

forcible manner, because the last time they tried that with the Clintons during the whole

Whitewater and impeachment imbroglio, they were criticized for going overboard and for

being too extreme. And they felt they were, um, burned by that experience. So they have

recently been cozying up to her and debating how they're going to handle her. And I think

this book, which, um, I've written, is a book that could be written about a man. In other

words, it takes, ah, Hillary Clinton seriously, and it treats her as I would have treated

a male subject of a biography. And there's a great deal of concern on the part of

conservatives that this is gonna turn her into a victim and make her stronger than ever.

So that's the fundamental reason there's been this split among conservatives about this

book.

FRANKEN: Okay. Well, thank you, Ed. And I will say that John Podhoretz did write his

-- the headline on his thing was "Smear for Profit." So I think that he actually does

believe that, ah, that you did this for money, which actually you do say that that's why

you write books. So -- but I want to thank you for joining us, and I know that this

couldn't have been, ah, fun, because it really was us ganging up on you, so I really

appreciate it. And, you know, talk to Adrian, because I really did tell him that Joe was

gonna be here. Thank you! Really, honestly, thank you for coming on.

You're welcome.

posted June 29, 2005 09:47 PM            

Legally, the traitor Kerry is restricted from holding any office of the United States by the United States Constitution.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14604

And then there's Commander Corruption.
When the ex Liar in Chief was supposed to be studying in Britain...the Rhodes Scholarship thing, Clinton was off leading anti-war protests, in Europe...while the United States was in a war with communist North Vietnam. Clinton also took a little vacation...behind the Iron Curtain..to get his marching orders from the communists and swap some spit with communist leaders.

Later, Clinton, as President, directly participated in the transfer of restricted advanced nuclear and missile technology to the communist Chinese...who used the technology and announced they were now in a position to nuke LA.

Clinton also participated in a plan...along with the idiot Jimmy Carter to build nuclear power plants and deliver thousands of tons of food to the little warped communist madman Kim Jong-il. Of course Kim was supposed to stop his nuclear weapons programs. From day one, Kim stopped nothing and continued to develop nuclear weapons...because Commander Corruption omitted one small detail...there was no inspection of North Korean weapons facilities built into the agreement. Very nice.

Now TP, why is it that the heroes of leftists, Clinton and Kerry were hell bent to sell America out to communist regimes? And more importantly, why would the left make heroes out of anyone who did sell America out?

See, I have a real problem believing the left loves America when they embrace America's enemies and support American traitors who sold America out. So, when a leftist says they love their country, the only conclusion I can draw from that is that it isn't America they're talking about.

posted June 29, 2005 10:03 PM              

All I did was post bill and hillary's composite chart.

posted June 29, 2005 10:23 PM            

quote:

---

And you just proved that you support people whos families funded them!

congratulations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hail Hitler and hail the rednecks!

---

posted June 29, 2005 10:26 PM            

Despite a near total embargo by TV networks against his book, Edward Klein’s sensational new biography will hit the #2 spot on the New York Times bestseller list, NewsMax has learned.

The Times’ non-fiction list, which will debut July 10, indicates the book -- "The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President” -- has generated an avalanche of interest.
The book was released just last week, but has already created a storm of controversy throughout the liberal media world.

In an unusual move, Sen. Clinton’s staff immediately and publicly condemned the book. Quietly, they also have been contacting television programs to keep Klein off major shows.

So far, the TV censorship effort has worked, with major networks like Fox, MSNBC, NBC and others canceling scheduled appearances with Klein.

But Sen. Clinton’s efforts to stop the book – perhaps the most revealing account of her public and private life ever written – has backfired, if book sales are any indication.

The book has also drawn strong controversy among conservatives. Some, like Washington Times editorial editor Tony Blankley have strongly endorsed the book, calling it "required reading.” Others, such as Peggy Noonan, have panned the book.

But the book’s success despite the media blackout is probably due to NewsMax.com’s intense coverage of Klein’s book and the censorship effort against it. The New York Times, the Associated Press and liberal groups close to the Clinton have credited NewsMax’s key role in the book’s notoriety and its sales success.

Klein’s work has presented a unique problem for Sen. Clinton and her allies, however. Klein himself is no "right winger.” As a former top editor at the New York Times, Newsweek and Vanity Fair, he carries impressive liberal media credentials.

Still, several of his allegations against the former first lady and the apparent frontrunner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination have so spooked several media outlets they have banned any discussion of the book on top shows.

For example, after Fox News canceled three scheduled appearances with Klein on its top rated shows, Fox spokeswoman Irena Briganti claimed to the New York Times that interest in Klein's book at her network had "been tepid at best."

She also said that after Klein’s interview on "Hannity & Colmes," the book "dropped off everyone's radar screen."

posted June 29, 2005 10:31 PM            

CNN's Lou Dobbs broke the self-imposed television embargo on the new biography of Hillary Clinton Monday night with an in-depth interview with author Edward Klein.

Describing Klein’s "The Truth About Hillary” as a "highly controversial and provocative book,” Dobbs challenged Klein on allegations he is reported to have made, including charges that Hillary is a lesbian and that Bill Clinton once "raped” his wife.

Dobbs noted the "salacious nature” of the biography and "the highly personal attacks that you bring to bear .. But this is reaching to a personal level that is extraordinary.”

Klein noted some allegations, such as claims Bill raped Hillary, are not to be found in his book. He reminded Dobbs that some of the sensational items about Hillary simply could not be avoided.

"It's impossible to do a biography of Hillary without discussing” such matters, he said, referring to sex scandals that plagued the Clinton presidency.

Today, Sen. Clinton is trying to remake her image, Klein suggested. Klein cited her appearance this weekend with Billy Graham in New York as an effort to do so.

"I don't believe in coincidences,” Klein said, adding, "And I don't believe that Hillary Clinton was sitting on the stage with the most famous evangelist in America at a time when she's trying to convince the entire country that she believes in God, prayer, family, patriotism, and (that) she isn't a leftist.”

Dobbs also asked the bestselling author about efforts to keep him off TV.

"A number of networks and broadcasts have cancelled your show. We thank you for being here. When do you appear again on television?"

Klein responded, "Well, whenever the Clintons stop preventing me from appearing, since they've done a full court press with ABC, CBS, and NBC to keep me off."

Since his first appearance on Fox News early last week, Klein has been hit with a deluge of cancellations from most of the major television networks who had scheduled him.

NewsMax reported Monday that Klein had been the victim of an organized censorship effort by the Clinton camp to keep him off major television shows.

CNN host Howard Kurtz also reported this weekend that Sen. Clinton's office was actively trying to suppress the book by encouraging television shows not to give Klein air time.

On his "Reliable Sources" show Kurtz said, "A spokesman for Senator Clinton told me that when news organizations call, they do make the argument, 'Why give this guy airtime?'"

In most cases, the effort has apparently worked. For example, Klein had been scheduled for MSNBC's "Scarborough Country" Monday night, but his appearance was abruptly cancelled earlier in the day.

In a thinly veiled dig at others who have succumbed to pressure to keep Klein off the air, Dobbs concluded his interview by noting: "We'll continue to have folks [on], irrespective of what the other folks are doing."

Klein had been booked on nearly a dozen shows, besides Dobbs. But only the Fox News Channel and the Sinclair Broadcasting’s News Central kept their initial commitment – though Fox has since cancelled three scheduled appearances with the author.

Sinclair managing editor Carl Gottlieb said on Monday that he wasn't fazed by the rest of the media's disdain for Klein's book.

posted June 29, 2005 10:42 PM              

heheh jwhop you dont seem to mind kleins' opinion of nixon?? at least he's dead accurate about that......

quote:

---

"I think she's the closest thing we have today to what I would call a Nixonian character," he said of Clinton. "Like Nixon, she is paranoid; she has an enemy list. Like Nixon, she has used FBI files against enemies. Like Nixon, Hillary believes the ends justify the means, and like Nixon, she has a penchant for doing illegal things."--Klein

---

posted June 29, 2005 11:11 PM            

Bill Clinton's affair with Voodoo
by Judi McLeod, Canada Free Press.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Toronto-- When it comes to dabbling in the black arts, former U.S. President Bill Clinton has much in common with deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Saddam reportedly wore a stone around his neck to ward off evil. When he was ensconced in his Iraqi palaces, he summoned up the jinn (genies) to do his bidding.

According to historian Joel A. Ruth, a Voodoo sorcerer, supplied to Clinton by the exiled-by-coup John-Bertrand Aristide, once put a curse on incumbent President George W. Bush, "by manipulating a doll made in the president’s image."

Neither Saddam’s magic stone, a special talisman meant to keep the Grim Reaper at bay, nor the Voodoo sorcerer’s curse against George W. worked. Saddam languishes in prison awaiting trial. Clinton, relegated to the public speaker’s tour, was last week paid a $300,000 fee to address a business audience in Bogotá, Colombia.

The long road of destruction Aristide carved through poverty-stricken Haiti was paved in part by one William Jefferson Clinton.

Clinton’s friendship with Aristide, a former Catholic priest turned Voodoo practitioner dates back to 1991 when Aristide, ousted in a coup, took up residence in Washington, D.C. Joining the cocktail circuit and networking for the political aid needed to help restore his power, he soon found his way within the inner circle of the soon-to-be Democratic presidential hopeful Bill Clinton.

As time would tell, Clinton paid more than a politician’s lip service to the practice of Voodoo.

According to the Haiti Observateur, "During a March 31, 1995 visit to Haiti under Aristide’s restored rule, Clinton took part in a Voodoo initiative ceremony intended to keep him impervious to Republican attacks and to guarantee his re-election." (FrontPageMag.com, Feb. 20,. 2004).

No Voodoo ceremony could ward off Monica Lewinsky and the rest, as they say, is history.

His friendship with Clinton now cemented, Aristide later began shipping Haitians to the U.S., many of them to Florida shores 600 miles away.

In 1998, Senator John F. Kerry followed in Clinton’s footsteps and co-sponsored a bill that resulted in amnesty for an estimated 125,000 Haitians granted "temporary asylum" before 1996 because they were fleeing the chaos, terror and poverty inflicted on them, largely by Aristide.

Aristide, whose last act for Haiti was to declare Voodoo an official religion, fled the country on February 29, 2003 amid a rebellion and pressure from the U.S. and France.

"Voodoo," Aristide professed in a speech to Congress attendees, "is one of the great religions in the world alongside Christianity, Islam and Judaism".

Since June 2004, a United Nations stabilization force has been in Haiti. The presence of UN "blue helmets" notwithstanding, lack of security remains the number one problem.

The interim government leading the country since Aristide’s ignominious departure has not improved the life of its citizens. Government commissions are being disbanded as quickly as they are being created and would, were it not for the tragedy, be the stuff of television sitcom comedy.

The children of Port-au-Prince continue to die of hunger. Marauding armed guards still loyal to Aristide battle police and there are signs of UN corruption.

A recent spate of violence in which at least 20 people were killed, is forcing U.S. officials to consider deploying American troops to help maintain order ahead of a general election slated for the last quarter of 2005.

While Aristide is living a life of a king’s ransom in exile, most Haitians are subsisting on less than a dollar a day.

posted June 29, 2005 11:23 PM            

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti -- In this land where witch doctors carry more clout than conventional PhDs or professional campaign advisers, the average citizen has been provided a mind-boggling explanation for why Bill Clinton so handily beat President George Bush in 1992, triumphed to re-election easily in 1996 and is now facing impeachment.

Acting on the advice of a "houngan" or sorcerer, supplied by then-exiled President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Clinton did not change his underwear the last week of the 1992 campaign, voodoo practitioners say.

The same houngan also cast a "malediction" on President Bush by manipulating a doll made in the president's image, goes the story. The torment climaxed when the houngan caused Bush's projectile vomit into the lap of the Japanese prime minister as the world press looked on, disgracing him with the public.

Those and other bizarre stories were being told the Haitian people through the Lavalassien, a newspaper published by Aristide's ruling Lavalas party. They were written by the Rev. Gerard Jean-Juste, who was a priest in Aristide's entourage. The Rev. Gerard claimed that Aristide had developed a powerful grip on Clinton's psyche through the power of voodoo.

The appeal and belief of voodoo and witchcraft in this largely illiterate nation cannot be overstated. Surveys have put the number of voodoo adherents as high as 85 percent, even among the educated classes. Houngans are even more important in the Haitian capital than psychiatrists are in Washington, D.C.

Grotesque as they are, the stories about voodoo's role in the 1992 election -- and its influence on Clinton are important because officials at Aristide's National Palace accepted them as factually true. They also help explain why Aristide was able to maintain an emotional grip on the Haitian masses, and why he felt he could repudiate promises to hold fair national elections in return for Clinton's help in regaining control of Haiti.

The voodoo scenario is a classic example of how, in a Third World country, what the general public accepts as truth is often more important than the truth itself.

As told in Lavalassien, in the Haiti Observateur, another popular paper, and in private interviews by participants, Clinton staffers first got the idea of invoking voodoo during conversations with Aristide who was living in exile in Washington, D.C. The aim was to learn what the future held for then candidate Clinton, and to cast spells to help influence the election. In return for what the Rev. Gerard called a "large sum of money," a houngan was retained by the Clinton campaign, the story goes, and a "wanga" or malediction was cast upon Bush to cause his electoral defeat. Clinton, for his part, agreed to wear the same pair of underpants the last week of the campaign.

Both Haitian officials and the Haiti Observateur stated that Clinton reaffirmed his faith in voodoo during his March 31, 1995 visit to the island. The official purpose of the visit as told by the American media was to celebrate Haiti's supposed "return to democracy." However, the Haitian press had a much different story. The headlines of the March 29, 1995 issue of the Haiti Observateur read: " CLINTON ASSISTERA A UNE CEREMONIE VAUDOU EN HAITI" (Clinton to assist in a voodoo ceremony in Haiti). The story, confirmed by Haitian officials, stated that initiating Clinton under the power of voodoo had two purposes -- to render him impervious to the attacks of his Republican enemies in Washington, and to guarantee his re-election. While the initiation could protect Clinton from his political enemies, they say, it could not protect him from himself.

The ceremony was said to have been hidden within a public event touted as a dedication of a monument to Haiti's boat people. The focal point was a "magic well" concealed inside a sculptor's rendition of a brick and concrete boat which was hurriedly constructed for the event in the vicinity of Aristide's residence at Tabarre.

It should be noted that Aristide, a de-frocked priest, earlier in 1995 had renounced the Catholic Church and said he was returning to the voodoo faith of his ancestors. In July of the same year, he held a large voodoo congress at the National Palace attended by over 300 leading houngans and "bocors" (black magicians -- including leaders of the dreaded "Bizango Cult," which practices zombification and human sacrifice)). Upon addressing the first voodoo congress, Aristide proclaimed voodoo to be one of the "great religions of the world alongside Christianity, Islam and Judaism and also announced funding for a national voodoo temple. Both Aristide's renunciation of the Catholic Church and his voodoo congress, while widely publicized in the Haitian press, were completely suppressed in the American news media.

In the days leading up to Clinton's visit, according to sources in Haiti, many occult preparations took place. These were intended not only to grant Clinton the power to overcome the challenges facing his presidency and defeat the Whitewater investigations, but also to give Aristide the power to continue to control Clinton.

One account that circulated in Port-au-Prince is that when Aristide dedicated the "secret well" before Clinton's visit that he "shed the blood of a newborn infant in gratitude to the gods whom he believes allowed his return to power." Whether true or not, this report is widely accepted by the Haitian people as fact.

Thereafter, in the days just before Clinton's arrival, according to the Observateur, the well became the scene of eerie nightly voodoo ceremonies with drums and incantations as the site was further empowered and sanctified.

To maximize the occult forces at work, even the date chosen for Clinton's visit -- March 31 -- was part of an elaborate ritual. The digits are the reverse of "13," which the voodoo calendar considers the most propitious date for casting spells. Thus, the voodoo practitioners say, while Clinton believed that he was coming to the well at Tabarre to sell his soul to Lucifer for power and protection through the initiation of voodoo, he was also the victim of a classic Haitian double-cross.

Several persons close to Aristide stated that they believed that Clinton's will and fate would be permanently at the mercy of "Father Aristide" -- a zombie slave so to speak, who would suffer dire consequences if he ever betrayed his pact with the dark forces invoked at Tabarre.

Since then, Clinton forced Aristide to step down at the end of his term and hold more bogus elections. True to his nature, however, Aristide has continued to rule in secret through his hand-picked surrogate, President Renee Preval. Clinton has, according to the voodoo practitioners, also betrayed his old friend by withholding millions of extra dollars that he promised would follow, an act which has undoubtedly resulted in a Haitian revision of Clinton's original contract at Tabarre.

With Clinton now facing impeachment, the Haitian sorcerers are able, once again, to claim credit for the power of their black magic.

posted June 30, 2005 01:08 AM            

The fact Kerry wasn't tried for treason is a function of a rabid leftist Congress, a leftist Congress which insisted the US lose the Vietnam war to their buddies the North Vietnamese communists and limited the US military options. Notice this is the same Congress which gave Kerry his platform to spew his lies against the US military.

Treason is a disqualifying offense to hold any US office.

Kerry's discharge was tampered with by Carter. Notice, Kerry left active duty but didn't get a discharge until almost 7 years later. Notice, Kerry keeps saying he's going to sign a standard form S-180 but won't do so. To do so would open his entire file to scrutiny. Note, it was the leftists, in the Congress and in the press who insisted Bush open all his military records but gave Kerry a pass. Notice, a special discharge panel was convened during the Carter administration to grant Kerry an honorable discharge. I'm not going back through all the records again. I posted all the links to Kerry's documents...those he picked through to post on his website..one of which shows the special panel. That's what Kerry is hiding and that's the reason there's a lot of talk by Kerry that he intends to sign that S-180 but never seems to get around to it. If Kerry had done so during the presidential campaign, he would have taken all the wind out of the Swift Boat accusations. Notice he didn't.

Nevertheless, another provision found in the 14th Amendment specifically spells out the disqualification to hold a US office....and it says not one thing about a trial and conviction. The act itself is sufficient to disqualify.

posted June 30, 2005 03:17 AM            

If ONLY conservative sites and blogs are saying there is a cover-up does it make logical sense that it would be true? I mean if the reverse were true would you be inclined to believe it? Kerry's files were on display on his site during the election. Now you do a search, and literally there are ONLY conservative sites claiming to have information. THAT'S the power of the conservative media machine. Flood the net with misdirection, and unfounded claims. Page after page saying the same thing, but not a single word from the left (even though there are obviously Vets who are Democrats).

posted June 30, 2005 10:01 AM            

It does not take a public confession to convict. Nor does it even take so much as a trial for "treason" to disqualify someone who "gave aid and comfort to their enemies" to disqualify them from holding office.

It is not a matter of interpretation since we have the statements of the commanding General of North Vietnam and his subordinate they were ready to surrender but drew strength from the American antiwar movement waged by Kerry, Fonda, Hayden, other communists and of course the disreputable press and members of Congress. They decided to let the Press, Marxist war protesters...led by and coordinated with communist agents, and the American press win the war for them...when they lost every single battle on the battlefields of Vietnam.

Kerry is or was the fair haired boy of the radical left and one of you. Now, common sense tells me you are not going to find the radical left investigating Kerry's military record..the vehicle he hoped to carry him into the White House...the issue he built his campaign around.

It is sufficient to note the radical leftist press did not rip Kerry for failing to open all his military records but continued to question Bush long after he had.

Let me repeat, if Kerry had signed the S-180, opened his entire military record to public scrutiny...as Bush did, and if there is nothing there but the citations, good fitness reports, after action reports, health and injury records and all the normal files which would collect in the course of active duty...IF that was the case and IF Kerry had authorized the release of ALL the documents in his file, THEN, I think there's a very good chance Kerry would now be addressed as Mr. President.

Now don't further insult logic and reason by suggesting Kerry simply wanted to maintain his privacy and had nothing to hide.

It's my opinion...though I haven't consulted a constitutional legal scholar, that any US citizen could file a petition with a federal district court to have Kerry disqualified from holding an office of the United States. The case might be a little shaky..in the case of Kerry's US Senate seat and perhaps it would need to be a Massachusetts citizen but in the case of Kerry running for a national office...like President, I would tend to think any US citizen could file the petition for disqualification.

posted June 30, 2005 04:37 PM            

AG - you consistently discount fact and use the line "open to interpration" as though you need the person to look you in the eyes and say "Yes, I did it and I don't care". But even then you would most likely use the argument "Well, it is only a crime if one feels it is a crime and the word crime can mean so many things to so many people".

When you do finally make a judgement call based on the facts before you? It seems to me that you are extremely wishy-washy in your assessments of people, facts and history. When do you finally draw the line?

If someone commits a wrong, but is not held accountable because of the intervention of another, does that mean that the wrong does not exist?

If you steal money and you don't get caught and are therefore not prosecuted, does the theft still exist?

posted July 01, 2005 12:47 AM            

Are you really trying to put words in my mouth now?

Ok, I wouldn't make that argument at all. What I'm saying is, in fact, the truth. Republicans interpret Kerry's actions as Treason. Not even ALL Republicans interpret his actions as that. As I said before, McCain's a personal friend of Kerry's, and you never heard him once proclaim that Kerry ought to be tried for Treason, or that his public office was illegitimate. He DID, on the other hand, ask President Bush to denounce the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads, which Bush didn't. So if I stand with John McCain on this I'm crazy? Is that what you're telling me?

-------------------------------------
(this part's in reaction to both Jwhop and Pid's posts)

Regarding the other supposed, "facts," that he shouldn't hold office due to his treasonous acts, isn't it completely and undeniably logical that this conclusion would have to be made inside a courtroom? I'm not a great lover of Kerry, but levying this kind of accusation (while perhaps par for the course for conservatives) is serious business. I don't believe any of us can make that judgment reasonably.

This IS exactly the same situation we were in with the Clinton picture. It's not at all wishy-washy to state the obvious, which is that none of us can state with certainty what happened in the moments surrounding that picture.

I'm really not getting how I'm the unobjective one when I'm merely pointing out the completely obvious.

Neither of you can state why Kerry wasn't tried for treason, why he's been able to hold office, and why 59,000,000 people voted for him in the last election. With 48% of the country voting for him I don't think I'm at all odd for defending his right to a trial on these charges.

But there's no trials with conservatives are there? There's just their own judgement and damnation at an individual level.

quote:

---

When you do finally make a judgement call based on the facts before you?

---

posted July 01, 2005 01:04 PM            

We shouldn't throw about accusations lightly? Well, is this more talking out of both sides of mouths? Let's see; were/are you one of those cautioning others to not call Michael Jackson a child molester? Were/are you one of those cautioning others not to call OJ Simpson a murderer? Were you one of those cautioning others not to call corporate executives crooks, thieves, inside traders and generally scum of the earth...all before they were so much as charged with a crime?

I know from experience, the left would like to have it every way. No doubt an indication they have no fixed values..except as events can be used to further their political aims. If leftists came upon Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton or John Kerry standing over a body with 6 bullet holes in the back and one of their illustrious leaders standing over the body with the smoking gun in their hand, leftists would claim it was self defense. And if later, there was no prosecution, they would claim there was no crime.

The record on Kerry's treason is far more substantial than any of the evidence files used to prosecute Jackson or Simpson. I'm not talking about rumor, innuendo or supposition. I'm talking about what he is documented to have done, with whom he conspired and to whose benefit his actions inured. Giving aid and comfort to an enemy is a gross understatement of the facts. Facts which have been posted here before, so I will continue to call Kerry a traitor and point out he has disqualified himself from holding any office of the United States. Kerry, as others who were never charged or convicted of their crimes has been tried in the court of public opinion and found guilty. That's the primary reason Kerry is not President and will not be, leftist objections notwithstanding.