Fred Thompson: Still "stupid," ugly, uncharismatic, and sending me inane email-newsletters

WWW--I and others "outed" this asshole, sort of. Apparently, he was in the research of Larry Flynt Publications of the DC Madam's, though I haven't seen any corroboration.

Nonetheless, such a disgusting turd as onion-head would have to pay for it, I cannot see any woman with any kind of standards having sex with such a disgusting, decayed asshole as Fred. Did the Emperor Claudius or Henry the VIII look like him the last stages of syphilis or what?

Here's the rub: no sooner had I written my past screed against the shithead that I start getting on his email mailing-list, so he and/or his people were watching. It's good to have a spam blocker, that's all I'm saying. Isn't he more like the redneck asshole you usually have to get poor directions from when you're lost in bum-fuck Egypt?

Who thought he was actually ever going to win the Republican nomination to run for president? If you have the name of this person, please send it my way, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell him, but he's going to have to get in line, Rudy Giuliani has first dibs.

Do these people get off on wasting millions of other people's money on a sure loser? They must have friends on Wall Street, that's all I'm saying. When, when are they all going to walk backwards all the time and shit-in-reverse? Fred's still ugly, alright, and he's getting uglier every day.

But if you wonder, "Would he screw a prostitute? Did he have sex with one of Palfrey's girls?" just take a long, hard look at his wife.

I never read any of his "Fred Talks" emails, curiously titled like "Mao Speaks," but there you go. Any woman who would fuck him is doing it for the money and is a de facto whore.

Postscript: No, no, sorry--he's "grandpa" from the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, just look at him.

Larry Flynt, Dan Moldea, & Fred Thompson

St. Paul, Minnesota--In one of the final e-mails I received from the late DC Madam, she conveyed to me that Larry Flynt's private investigator (and author) Dan Moldea had found calls from Fred Thompson (who, like Richard Nixon appears to be fashioned out of mud), John McCain, and Vice President Dick Cheney (allegedly a 1999 call to her escort service when he was CEO of Halliburton).

I don't have context for the rest, though if she was telling myself and my defense co-researcher Monique Rawlings the truth (and conversely, if Moldea and Flynt had told her the truth), that Larry Flynt is sitting-on these names.

Why? You--the press--need to ask Larry Flynt "why," but I guess you're preoccupied chasing stories about bigfoot. Why isn't Flynt naming names? I have my suspicions, but in my opinion, it comes-down-to the fact that he's a thoroughly establishmentarian chicken-lover. If only I were jesting, if only, if only. The other option is Palfrey was desperate and lying about it. Take that, Wayne Madsen.

So: what are you waiting for with Fred Thomspon, Larry? Was it a lie on-her-part, or yours? I don't know, and I'm sure the rest of America wants to. I've heard you're trying to rehabilitate your legacy. Some transparency would be a good start. So start now, today, and expose Fred Thompson for what he really is on the day he speaks before the GOP National convention.

If it's not true, that settles it. Looking at Thompson's wife, I suspect that it's true. Coupled together with the late Richard Nixon's assessment of Thompson ("dumb"), and it makes a lot of sense. Trophy wife, hooker--what's the difference? Nice tits (Fred's). You know where to stick those Cuban cigars.

Jackass of the Month: DC Madam's Former Condo Manager, Joe Strizack

Orlando, Florida--No, it's not Alex Jones, but the same kind of vulture. Proving that the parapolitical is a great way to get attention (and dollars), Joe Strizack is making-the-rounds of everyone with a working-microphone, lunch, and some cab money, telling us that Jeane Palfrey was "afraid for her life."

This is untrue, and it's unlikely that Strizack met her more than a few times in-person (I never did, our correspondence was via-e-mail, and a few phone calls). It's even doubtful that he talked to her personally.

He's doing what Larry Flynt, Alex Jones (whose show he spoke on), and the rest of the Internet and media are doing: milking a horrible tragedy for as much money and advertising as they can. Mr. Strizack is a liar and a blackguard. Never mind the wild leaps of logic it requires to believe there's a conspiracy in Jeane's death, and forget that the courts already did all of the real work in destroying her--"she was murdered." [Ed. 04.05.2010--Correction, it would be "She were murdered."]

I understand that thinking hurts, and that there is no "bottom" for how low human beings can sink, but there's more to this mad dash towards a conspiracy: most casual-onlookers cannot understand the story, and neither could the mainstream press. Most people cannot think about more than one concept at once. Nothing new here, move along.

Things will die down, and nobody will remember the vapid Strizack or the stupid remarks he has made--lies--about Jeane Palfrey and his very casual association with her. Now, if only we could all forget Larry Flynt, but that's impossible, since he's that untreatable form of the clap. One has to wonder if he's going to bother releasing those other names from her phone records that I trumped hydraulic-man on: John McCain, Dick Cheney, and Fred Thompson.

Conspiracism: what a cottage industry. So much for the truth, but since when did most of humanity ever care about that? You think Rob Capriccioso has jumped on the bandwagon of untruth and wild exaggeration? It's even money. Here's hoping that his blog at least got him laid.

Fred Thompson Leaves the Presidential Race

Fredland--When someone like Richard M. Nixon refers to you as 'stupid,' you have to take it seriously. Fred didn't, and now he looks more the fool. Considering that Karl Rove and his former U.S. Attorney pupil Tim Griffin were part of the effort to force Fred on the American people, we can all assume they're going to gravitate to whoever the winners are at this moment. Rove and company might have to leap-frog from one GOP hopeful to another--they had best be careful it's not someone they burglarized.

That man would the shell-shocked John McCain, current waterboy for the Bush administration and their war crimes in the Middle East. It appears that all of those break-ins of the campaign offices of Thompson's running mates in 2007 yielded as much useful data as the Watergate job. Goodbye to a very ugly, stupid, whore-mongering half-man. We don't have to hear about you anymore. Now, if Giuliani can realize it isn't 1993, he might be able to swallow his ego and also admit that the public doesn't like him, and quit too.

[Ed., 09.19.2008-It should be noted that around this time Palfrey began talking more about Larry Flynt's list--that John McCain, Fred Thompson, and Dick Cheney were found in the phone records. Palfrey also began corroborating it in comments. All three appear to have been fashioned out of mud, just like Richard Nixon.]

WATERGATE TIME AGAIN-AND-AGAIN-AND-AGAIN, STARRING FRED THOMPSON'S CAMPAIGN (WITH KARL ROVE & TIM GRIFFIN & OPERATIVES IN THE SHADOWS?)

"Once is happenstance. Twice is circumstance. The third time is enemy action." --007 author Ian Fleming (through the character Auric Goldfinger. Also sometimes attributed to the Chicago underworld during the time of Al Capone's Outfit.


"These are times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. " --Thomas Paine, 1776, from the pamphlet, "Common Sense."

Boston, Massachusetts--Surprised that Mitt Romney's campaign offices were burglarized? Authorities in Boston are being mum over when it occurred exactly, but the break-in happened during this last weekend. What was stolen? A television...and "several laptops" (eight-in-all).This is getting ridiculous, and as usual, the press is being strangely credulous over the assertion that this is nothing.

There is a political war going-on (primarily within the GOP), and being executed by-or-for the presidential campaign of Fred Thompson. It's all benefiting him.

Why do I believe this? Because he's the one who will stand to gain the most from it, that's why. This is likely the reason why Arlen Specter has come to the aid of humiliated Idaho Sen. Larry E. Craig--he understands this, he gets it. I'm beginning to agree with old Arlen: something stinks here, and the former prosecutor knows the smell of this kind of corruption.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has been advising Craig on what his next move should be, which is very big of him. Regardless of what one thinks about the GOP and Craig, there is a potential motive in the downing of the Idaho Senator: paving-the-way for the campaign of Fred Thompson. How is this connected to the upcoming elections in 2008? Think back to when the scandal broke:

On Monday, Craig quit Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, shortly after the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call revealed the plea and arrest details. "Sen. Craig has stepped down from his role with the campaign. He did not want to be a distraction and we accept his decision," Matt Rhoades, communications director for the Romney campaign, said. Craig has been one of Romney's top Senate supporters, serving as a Senate liaison for the campaign since February. (AP/Fox, 08.28.2007)

Keep-in-mind that the McCain campaign has also been hit with scandal when it was disclosed that one of his advisers--Bob Allen--a Florida state representative--was arrested soliciting sex in a men's restroom. Sound familiar? Then, in June, the Giuliani campaign was "rocked" when his campaign chairman for South Carolina--State Treasurer Thomas Ravenel--was charged trying to unload 500 grams of cocaine to an undercover police officer.

In addition, there is Louisiana Senator David Vitter, caught-up in the web of "Hookergate," who was going to help run Giuliani's Southern campaign--that's the one story this writer feels assured isn't part of the smearing and compromising of various presidential aspirants, primarily Republican (there could be others that don't fit a pattern).

Any takers on the contention that Deborah Jeane Palfrey is a GOP operative or a government agent? I didn't think so, because there's absolutely no proof of it, and she wouldn't be on trial if she were. What's going on then? Are these folks just being "railroaded," as a minority within the GOP currently asserts? Yes and no.

The common denominator in all of this is that all of these individuals have lost their protections for their aberrant-behaviors (where they existed). The privilege of the coverup has been rescinded by the Bush administration who controls the Justice Department at present, even without an Alberto Gonzales or John Ashcroft.

Some other flunky is running the show now at Justice, and another will be found for the public face side-of-things whom the Senate will also approve, just as they did the last two. Revolving-door is right. The point is, someone with enormous power and wealth wants Fred Thompson to be president, not the rest of the GOP contenders, and they're allowing the exposure of individuals within and close to the McCain, Romney, and Giuliani campaigns to damage said campaigns. [Ed., 08.28.2008--Now it could be safely assumed that Rove and Co. are throwing-in their lot with McCain.]

Today's story is just another sad and unsettling chapter in what could end-up being the dirtiest campaign in American history, namely the elections of 2008. None of this bodes well for a fair and legal election, and while nobody will do it, there should be a nationwide call for international observers during the elections next year. Again, it would also help if we had a functioing Justice Department to investigate these crimes, bot no-such-luck. But it's not just the GOP anymore--the Democrats are starting to get hit, though so far only through break-ins:

The incident is the third of its kind recently involving a presidential contender.
Last month a man was arrested and charged with breaking into a Hartford, Conn., office belonging to Sen. Chris Dodd, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. The accused lived in a city shelter and had a lengthy arrest record, and a city police official said that crime likely was prompted to support a drug habit. In July, the Davenport, Iowa, campaign headquarters for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was burglarized. Two laptop computers and campaign literature were reported stolen. (AP, 09.10.2007)

Indeed, these gentlemen are also running against Fred Thompson in the presidential race. In the Dodd, Obama, and now the Romney break-ins, computers were stolen. An interesting problem found in the story of the Dodd break-in is that the alarms were never triggered at his senatorial offices in Hartford. Thus far, the police there have offered no solid explanations as to why this was the case, just that a homeless man with a criminal record did it and that he left an incriminating piece of evidence that identified him behind. Is all this coordinated action? It could be, and there's black smoke rising from the windows in sundry places.

The groupings of these break-ins are very tight, and elicit reasonable doubt as to the veracity of the the "conventional wisdom" that there's no connection between any of them. In February of this same year, the New Hampshire offices of the Democratic Party were also burglarized. This was in Concord, part of the battleground where the American Revolution began on April 19th, 1775.

The British continued the 6 miles to Concord and the Americans retreated to the North Bridge just outside the town. While the main body of soldiers accomplished their mission of seizing the gunpowder, a small contingent of British troops skirmished again with the colonists, now numbering several hundred. 3 British soldiers and 2 Americans were killed in this battle. As they returned to Boston, the British were under constant assault from Massachusetts militiamen, who inflicted 273 casualties. (www.americanrevolution.com)

Have we all come full-circle? Are there individuals in the shadows sending us a message? Who's behind all of this? This writer's bets are all on the whoever is backing the bulk of the Thompson campaign. This is a time of scoundrels. It's high-time to get to the bottom of all of this criminality and nonsense, and rescue our rights from the jaws of what could be an encroaching tyranny, a kind of crypto-fascism. The Redcoats are coming.

AP: "Romney's campaign offices burglarized," September 10th, 2007: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070910/ap_on_el_pr/romney_burglary;_ylt=AgHgkL686vYSitnTDDyqbTaMwfIE

AP/Fox on the beginnings of the Craig Scandal, August 8th, 2007: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294852,00.html

"Scandal Taints Another Giuliani Ally," July 10th, 2007: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/scandal-taints-another-giuliani-ally/

On the Dodd Break-in, August 27th, 2007: http://www.1010wins.com/pages/866344.php?contentType=4&contentId=847053

Boston.com on the Romney office break-in, Today: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2007/09/breakin_at_romn.html

THERE IS NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER BETWEEN THE OUTING OF GOP SENATOR LARRY E. CRAIG AND FRED THOMPSON'S DECISION TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008

Washington D.C.--As the saying goes: "Washington D.C. is Hollywood for ugly people." Words were never truer when applied to Fred Thompson, former GOP mole on the Watergate committee, and lousy actor, as well as philanderer. No, there's no-connection at all, none.

It appears Tim Griffin is busy-at-work with his boss/mentor, Karl Rove, working to get the long-shot candidate elected.

Question: will they be able to steal the elections again by barring Black Americans from the polls? If not, they're not going to be winning. Journalists and other researchers had better start looking-into what SAIC's contributions to the Thompson campaign might be--one could expect very questionable donations, but since the FEC is controlled by the Bush administration, they have a good-shot. A shame that the oath of office means nothing anymore (if it ever did). Why would the GOP do this? They've never done this before, have they?

Two-words: John McCain (who's part of the game this time!). Perverse doesn't even cover it.

COURT UPDATE ON PALFREY CASE: "DC MADAM'S" CRIMINAL LAW ATTORNEY REQUESTS A DROPPING OF CHARGES

Washington D.C.--Again, credit goes to the Washington Post for continuing their coverage of the legal predicament of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, eschewing the credulous reaction most of the media (and prominent "liberal/progressive" blogs) to the killing of ABC's 20/20 segment (redacted to seven minutes).

Today's news brought us a little closer to what a settlement and resolution of the case might look like if the investigators considered the current political climate:

Deborah Jeane Palfrey was the victim of selective prosecution and was indicted only after she publicly criticized federal prosecutors and threatened to seek an independent investigation of them from the attorney general, her attorney wrote in court filings. "As can be verified by picking up the Yellow Pages, a Washingtonian magazine or The Washington Post, Ms. Palfrey owns and operates merely one of hundreds of escort services operating [in] the District of Columbia," lawyer Preston Burton wrote. "There is evidence . . . that demonstrate[s] the realistic possibility that Ms. Palfrey was singled out for prosecution on the basis of her petition to the government requesting the appointment of Special Counsel." (Washington Post, "District Briefing, Saturday, June 16 2007; B02. ESCORT SERVICE CASE. 'Attorney Asks Judge to Dismiss Charges. ")

This appears very likely, especially upon examination of the time-line, but it's also a well-known fact that Washington D.C. is literally teeming with sundry escort services--why aren't they in court too? Why is it just Deborah Jeane Palfrey? Where are her former employees, particularly the ones who constitute the "five confidential informants?" Surely, all of them feel "intimidated" as "witnesses," forget former clients (like Fred Thompson? [Ed., 08.28.2008-This name was confirmed to myself by Palfrey in a missive. Larry Flynt has the name, but it no-longer matters.]).

This leads into how informant programs and deals frequently work: the affiants are given legal immunity in-exchange for their testimony. This doesn't prevent someone from having engaged in prostitution--or any other crime--without Palfrey's knowledge to save themselves by accusing her in what would constitute perjured statements. That's a possible reason for this statement from the Justice Department's lead-prosecutor:

"Here's the pickle we're in, your honor," said federal prosecutor William Cowden [Ed.-assistant US Attorney]. "The information in government files in some cases relate to other individuals' possible criminal activity [Ed.--probably those of the informants, but could also include the criminal activities of former clients] . . . . My suspicion is the defense wants to make some of that information public." Palfrey and the government have been in a protracted dispute over whether she has used some of her phone records from her business, Pamela Martin and Associates, to try to publicly identify former customers and intimidate potential prosecution witnesses. (Washington Post, 05.22.2007)

Even a cursory examination of the government's past use of informants illustrates its usage is highly suspect--suspicion is right. Most informants have already broken a law (frequently, a heinous one with victims) before they reach a federal prosecutor, and their motives should always be questioned (as well as the truthfulness of their claims).

The "pickle" could be the mess that federal prosecutors have allowed themselves to be baited-into by certain former clients--prominent ones. Some of them could still be holding-office within the Justice Department as I write this, or even the White House. They wouldn't lie, would they?

What sets-off alarm bells is that Assistant U.S. Attorney Cowden is trying to quash any attention to these legitimate concerns, and they are real concerns in any criminal case brought by the federal government against any lone-individual (especially one they've impoverished through forfeiture laws). Cowden's probably being told to take this approach by his boss, Jeffrey A. Taylor. Is Taylor being told by Attorney General Gonzales on how to proceed in this case? Congress (the Judiciary Committees) and her own investigators might be interested to know. They should ask Ms. Monica Goodling, and under oath.

The use of confidential informants has been abused countless times by the FBI in the harassment of political, religious, and cultural minorities in the United States.

But consider this: should you trust the testimony of someone who has broken laws that are worse than what the defendant is being accused of? This is just another valid criticism of the use of confidential informants. This aside, Palfrey and her new criminal attorney Preston Burton are attacking the legal foundation of all five federal counts against her. Readers should also know that until Ms. Palfrey's case (not an issue of her guilt or innocence), prostitution wasn't a federal offense.

Somehow, it became so without the passage of any legislation...or did it? There's another side to Palfrey's former employees--the ones who didn't get caught-up in the Justice Department's net:

The escort says she never told Palfrey—"a great boss"—that she slept with clients several times a week. She says she misses the work—and the business and investing advice clients offered. [my emphasis]"It was all about role-playing and packaging yourself," she says. "It's exactly what they teach you in sales and marketing." ("D.C. Sex Scandal: An Escort's Perspective," Newsweek, 06.04.2007.)

Question: are the "confidential informants" lying? And what was that "business and investing advice" that former clients "offered"? It all seems to hinge on the affidavits, and these are being suppressed as evidence.

The whole case seems flimsy, yet, this is how the Justice Department is handling the case, and with no obvious jurisdiction. Maybe that's why the postal investigators were brought in. The only "evidence" they appear to have is the word of some very frightened former employees--who may have solicited prostitution without Palfrey's knowledge--of Pamela Martin & Associates.

Do Taylor and company have much of a case at all? Even looking from the outside, it doesn't appear so. Again, it's a pertinent question to ask about how Assistant U.S. Attorney Cowden, Assistant U.S. Attorney Catherine M. Connelly (Mass. Bar #649430), U.S. Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel P. Butler, (D.C. Bar #417718) came into their jobs. If it was under the Bush administration, the Senate Judiciary Committee needs to subpoena them as well for all the reasons one might suspect.

The Washington Post on "Hookergate" and trial proceedings (various): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/21/AR2007052100660.html

And: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/21/AR2007052100660.html

A directory of articles on Ms. Palfrey's predicament: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/related-topics.html/Deborah+Jeane+Palfrey?tid=informline

Newsweek, 06.04.2007: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18881818/site/newsweek/

MSNBC Today on the new court developments: http://www.nbc4.com/news/13515636/detail.html