Tag Archives: conspiracy

ACS: Impeachment – Did Ann Coulter Tamper with Linda Tripp’s Tapes?

Ann Coulter played a crucial role in the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

First, she betrayed Paula Jones by leaking attorney client-privileged information to scuttle the settlement that Jones’ desired in her case against President Clinton. This meant that Jones’ case could be used in the impeachment.

Second, Coulter had illegal access to Linda Tripp’s illegally-recorded tapes of conversations with Monica Lewinsky and there is the possibility that she tampered with one or more of those tapes to remove exculpatory material or make portions of those tapes more damaging then they really were.

A rather curious sequence of events enabled Coulter to gain access to those critical tapes illegally recorded by Linda Tripp before they were turned over to the OIC. Coulter recommended one of her closest friends, Jim Moody, to represent Tripp, who accepted that recommendation despite his inexperience in that field of law. Moody replaced Kirby Behre as Tripp’s attorney.

Moody soon took possession of Tripp’s tapes. Behre confirmed that while the tapes were in his possession, no unauthorized individuals had access to them and no copies of those tapes were made.[1] Within hours, Coulter had access to those very tapes from Moody, whom she herself had suggested represent Tripp.

Coulter would later engage in damage control, writing,

“Moody came in to the case, Toobin says, when New York lawyer George Conway ‘remembered an old friend in Washington’ – Jim Moody. George Conway barely knew Jim Moody; the two had met only briefly once or twice before in group settings. It certainly was not George Conway who thought of suggesting his name to Tripp.”[2]

Coulter is right. It was Coulter herself who thought of suggesting Moody as Tripp’s lawyer. And it was Coulter to whom Tripp’s tapes were brought.

Early Morning Rendezvous

One of Coulter’s “greatest moments” had national implications and international repercussions. In the early morning hours of January 16, 1998, Coulter illegally listened to illegally-recorded audiotapes of conversations between Linda Tripp and her friend, Monica Lewinsky, who was President Clinton’s lover. Those tapes would prove crucial to impeaching Clinton and would pave Coulter’s path to glory, a glory which would somehow never transcend Coulter’s deep insecurity and low self-esteem.

Coulter could not contain her joy over gaining possession – secretly and illegally – of such a critical piece of evidence. She exclaimed,

“I must say, I don’t mind reliving the greatest night of my life over and over again. I was dancing a jig. I was bouncing off the walls.”[3]

To this day, it remains unknown whether Coulter tampered with those tapes prior to them being turned over to the OIC.

Five people, all lawyers, listened to those explosive tapes during the early morning hours of January 16, 1998. Conway and Moody were physically present with Coulter in her apartment, while Marcus and Porter participated via telephone conference call. Significantly, with the exception of Moody, all of those present (either in person or via telephone) have refused to comment on those events for this book.

Given Moody’s paranoid cloak-and-dagger evasive tactics[4] after obtaining the tapes from Kirby, why would he wait till the afternoon of the 16th to turn them over to Starr’s office? He certainly wasn’t listening to them at his home on his antiquated tape recorder (the stated reason for playing them at Coulter’s apartment). Where were they and what was done with them?

The details are murky, but it is unquestioned that Coulter was in possession of those tapes – without the approval of Linda Tripp – before they were turned over to Ken Starr’s office.

The critical time frame – January 15-16, 1998 – has escaped serious scrutiny because the story is complicated, with overlapping sequences and a conflation of events. The three midnight meetings make for a good thriller, but confusion arises over which date each of those late night/early morning meetings actually occurred. Proper sequencing simplifies the complicated.

1/15/98      Moody acquires the Tripp tapes from Tripp’s previous lawyer (Behre).

1/16/98      At 2 a.m., the elves (Coulter, Moody, Conway, Marcus and Porter) listen to the tapes in Coulter’s apartment.

                  Moody gives one tape to the FBI in the morning and the remainder in the afternoon. (Where were those remaining tapes during the interval?)

                  Tripp tricks Lewinsky into a meeting at the Ritz-Carlton, where the FBI interrogates Lewinsky from 12:30 p.m. to 12:23 a.m.

                  That evening, Moody and Conway meet Jones’ attorney (Wesley Holmes) at Tripp’s home. Moody does not have the tapes which Holmes wanted to hear.

1/17/98      At a midnight meeting, the FBI gives a copy of the first tape back to Moody (with Conway hiding in the foyer). Around 12:30 a.m., that tape is played at Newsweek (Moody, Conway, Isikoff, McDaniel, Klaidman, Thomas) are present.

Disinformation from Moody

In late January, the Washington Post published this interesting piece of disinformation from the elves:

Moody is uncertain how Tripp learned about him, but he scoffs at the notion that he got the job because of ties to conservatives. His best guess is that while Tripp worked for the White House counsel’s office during the Bush administration, she was impressed with his success in badgering officials to drop decades-old regulations in the citrus industry.[6]

Everything Moody told the Washington Post was a lie. He knew who recommended him to Tripp (Coulter) and who was involved (all the anti-Clinton elves). His cover story was clearly concocted to preserve the identity of the (conservative) conspirators.

Citrus industry-deregulation as a prerequisite for pressing a sexual harassment case against the POTUS? Is it merely coincidence that Coulter would later publish a column in George magazine attacking Isikoff with these words:

“It’s not like we secretly disliked Clinton because of his administration’s position on California’s citrus cartels or something, and then set to work on some crazy scheme to destroy him using a pathological intern as our Mata Hari.”[7]

For the next six months, the elves operated in secrecy as Coulter wrote her book advocating the impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton. During that time, she appeared on scores of TV shows to discuss the Clinton scandals and no one knew about her secret involvement with those scandals.

Coulter’s First Book

In High Crimes and Misdemeanors,[8] released in August, Coulter has surprisingly little to say about the Tripp tapes. The two most significant passages follow:

“Jones’s attorneys hadn’t deposed either Lewinsky or Tripp on the eve of Clinton’s deposition. That night, however, one of Jones’s lawyers [Wesley Holmes] informally interviewed Tripp to fill in the details of the anonymous phone calls.”

[REALITY CHECK: Holmes wanted to hear the tapes, which Moody no longer possessed.]

“Tripp had agreed to an informal meeting with Jones’s attorneys in hopes of avoiding a formal deposition. She had only recently discovered that her home state of Maryland was one of the few states that prohibit people from taping their own phone conversations without telling the other people on the line; she had not told Lewinsky …”

[REALITY CHECK: The elves, including Coulter, facilitated that meeting. Coulter left out their involvement, and their conflict of interest.]

Interestingly, Coulter later bragged about “getting a best-seller out of” her involvement with the elves.

Coulter Outed

Meanwhile, hidden from public view, was Coulter’s intimate knowledge of, and clandestine connection with, the now-infamous Tripp tapes. Ironically, it was the Starr Report which exposed her involvement:

“[Tripp] said she subsequently learned that Moody, before turning the tapes over to Starr’s office, had given them to Ann Coulter – a conservative lawyer and frequent talk show guest who has since written a book outlining the case for Clinton’s impeachment – for copying.”[9]

The Starr Report included Tripp’s testimony which revealed that Coulter once had access to the tapes which ultimately led to Clinton’s impeachment. For a few weeks, the question was “What did Coulter hear and when did she hear it?” In the Starr Report, Tripp testified:

Q:        And your information was that he (Jim Moody) and a woman named Ann Coulter had copied the tapes, and that Ann Coulter had a complete set of tapes?

A:        Well, I was told from a couple of different sources – asked, actually, was I aware that … he had Ann Coulter make high speed dubbings of each tape … but has since listened to all the tapes.

“Tripp later testified that they [Coulter and Moody] did so [make copies of the tapes] contrary to her instructions.”[10]

Only the five conspirators knew of the early morning rendezvous when they listened to Tripp’s tapes in Coulter’s apartment. How, then, did Tripp hear rumors of that event? After all, the elves were almost pathological in keeping their activities and identities secret. So, who told what, when, and why?

Perhaps Coulter could not contain herself over what she described as the “greatest night” of her life. She was, you will recall, the elf who gave the elves their name in her hint to Isikoff in 1997. The baby princess had to prove her worth despite the need for secrecy.

The media’s suspicions were initially aroused when, in a Crossfire debate, [11] Coulter refused to give a direct answer on this topic: “A real quick question on the tapes. Have you ever personally listened to the Linda Tripp tapes? … How’d you get them?” Caught off guard, Coulter gave a Clintonesque evasion. When she was first publicly questioned about her connection with the Tripp tapes, Coulter was speechless! Then she asked a delaying question: “Which tapes?” Then she gave a non-responsive Clintonesque admission: “Well, do you think it’s OK for a president to perjury himself under oath? So what do you think of a political pundit lying on TV?”

Why such obfuscation if there’s nothing to hide? Was Coulter concerned about the legal ramifications of her actions? Why not speak the truth? Even the Washington Post reported that event:

“On a recent edition of ‘Crossfire,’ Coulter was briefly speechless when asked if she had heard any of Tripp’s tapes before the story became public. She now admits she heard one of the tapes, saying that an unidentified friend needed her recording equipment to copy it.”[12]

Three days later, towards the end of her book tour for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Coulter gave a speech in which she tried to dismiss her own involvement with the tapes which led to the subject of her book:

“In this document dump on Friday I made my debut in Volume III in which I was accused in Linda Tripp’s testimony of making copies of all of her tapes. She had heard rumors that I made copies of all 17 tapes back in January, which I can assure you if it had been true they would have been – all over the world – air-dropped by January 22nd. And apparently that’s what Ken Starr’s prosecutors thought because I never heard from them. But, you know, suppose I were asked, “Did you make copies of these tapes?” Well, I suppose, you know, I could just say “No,” then later say, “Well, when you said tape I mean a track tape and listen, really what, what does it really mean to listen? Listening is one of the great mysteries of life.”[13]

Evasion, wrapped in humor and blanketed by rationalizations. If the President of the United States can debate the definition of the word “is,” surely Coulter can play the same semantic game. After all, she’s one of the “good guys.”

Denials and Smokescreens

On Rivera Live,[14] Coulter first denied hearing the Tripp tapes, then admitted to hearing one tape, and lied about her source for the tapes.

RIVERA:         “Did you ever listen to and/or make copies of those tapes?”

COULTER:      “No, I literally would have had them air-dropped across America and I’d probably be a millionaire by now. … they would have been on Entertainment Tonight, they would have been on your show and I’d be a multi-millionaire.”

Interestingly, just hours before I had interviewed Moody about whether Coulter had copied the tapes. His reply was almost identical – “If she had them, believe me, she would have been the first to release them wholesale. I mean, she’s doing a book on the Clinton scandals.”[15] – the very same argument used by Coulter on Rivera Live later that night.

Directly challenged by Rivera, Coulter conceded listening to one of the tapes: “I heard the same tape that was described by Newsweek.”

But Coulter adamantly denied getting the tape from Moody: “I got nothing out of him [Moody] and I must say being one of his friends that did annoy me.” Is it coincidental that Moody also spoke of Coulter’s annoyance at him over the tapes? Moody told me, “She’s kind of annoyed at me for not giving her the tapes so she could put them in her book.”[16]

Still, Coulter continued to blow smokescreens, claiming she got the tapes in her capacity as a journalist/investigative reporter (“people send me things”). In fact, she got the tapes because of her friendship with Moody.

In discussing the tapes, Rivera said, “You got a bestseller out of it.” Coulter boasted: “Yes, I did.”[17] Coulter herself noted the exquisite timing of High Crimes – “Yeah, it was good timing”[18] – and, tongue-in-cheek, admitted “I thought impeachment might be in the news this year.”[19] How and why did she think so? And did Coulter orchestrate to some degree the events which thrust her into the limelight and her book to the top of the best-seller list?

What is the truth behind the Tripp tapes and what exactly was Coulter’s role? To what extent has Coulter manipulated the media and the judicial system for her own personal gain? And to what degree has Coulter changed history for the benefit of her own career?

Coulter admitted she “had” (indicating active possession and not passive audience) “them” (i.e., more than one). Furthermore, Coulter and Moody BOTH admit that she asked him for the tapes. They BOTH said she didn’t get the tapes. They BOTH said she was “annoyed” at his refusal. They BOTH said that if she had gotten the tapes she would have published them and made a fortune. They BOTH lied. Repeatedly.

Link Between Tripp and Jones

Two days later a Washington Post profile of Coulter exposed her secret connection with both Jones and Tripp.

She referred Linda Tripp to her attorney friend Jim Moody (Coulter and Moody are both Deadheads who followed the Grateful Dead to dozens of far-flung concerts, she says). Coulter says she suggested to Moody that Tripp take her tapes of Monica Lewinsky to independent counsel Kenneth Starr; he had already thought of the idea.[20]

She advised Paula Jones’s lawyers in their suit against Clinton and helped Jones find new attorneys when the first pair quit.[21]

“I was a little concerned about the ‘right-wing cabal’ appearance of things,” Coulter says. Although Starr is examining whether Tripp lied about how the tapes were made, Coulter says she’s not worried about being questioned.[22]

Both Coulter and Moody say he was not the source of the tape she heard. “She’s kind of annoyed at me for not giving her the tapes so she could put them in her book,” Moody says. Still, he says, “I always enjoy her because she doesn’t pull her punches. We all want to appear dignified and thoughtful and contemplative, and Ann is just Ann.”[23]

From the beginning, the elves secretly and zealously conspired to topple the Clinton presidency. They also desperately sought to keep their involvement secret. When their involvement came to light, they stonewalled – refusing to cooperate with legitimate investigations into their actions.

Flip-Flop on Tapes

Once Tripp’s tapes had served their purpose – furthering the cause of impeachment – Coulter downplayed their importance. Months earlier Coulter was a one-woman ad campaign promoting their significance.

“23 hours of tapes. On C-Span, over and over and over again. … and there are 23 hours of tapes. … It’s not Clinton vs. Starr. It’s not even Clinton vs. Congress. It’s C-Span playing all of the evidence that Ken Starr has, including, at a minimum, 23 hours of tapes of Monica Lewinsky weeping and crying – on the phone.  … But moreover, the important point is – Look! The most important point of what you just said was that Monica denies it. Well, no, actually, she’s on tape admitting to it when she doesn’t know she’s being taped. She has said nothing since then … But she’s on tape. This is why tapes are such amazing evidence.”[24]

Pressure became so intense that Coulter became desperate not to talk about the Tripp tapes. Again, on Rivera Live, Coulter said:

“[Asked about her source for the tapes] I will stipulate to the fact that I’m a drug-dealing serial killer so that we can talk about something other than me [laughingly]. … [asked about testifying before OIC] Let’s assume I’m the devil incarnate [laughingly]. … I don’t want to talk about the tapes. I want to talk about Clinton.”[25]

Why the flip-flop?

The day after her Crossfire debate Newsday reported that some of those tapes had been tampered with. “Tripp also indicated that Moody may have an explanation for the mystery surrounding her tapes – which, according to FBI forensic tests, have in some cases been duplicated or tampered with.”[26] Apparently nine of 27 Tripp tapes “were copied from the originals” and “one tape may have been tampered with,”[27] sparking controversy over their credibility. One example of a corrupted critical passage is this one concerning Lewinsky’s fear for her life:

LEWINSKY:    “I know [tape skip] [inaudible] my mom will kill me if I don’t tell him – make it clear at some point that I’m not going to hurt him, because – see, my mom’s big fear is that he’s going to send somebody out to kill me.”

The previous portion of the tape shows Tripp encouraging Lewinsky to hang up on the president, not talk to him:

TRIPP:             “Well, let me put it to you this way. By hanging up and saying you’re telling your parents, and then hanging up the phone, you’re saying a whole hell of a lot more than you could ever do in a 20-minute conversation.”

Who tampered with the tapes? Was exculpatory evidence erased? Was damaging evidence fabricated? Who stood to profit?

Prior to this revelation, Coulter lied about hearing the Tripp tapes: “I was just thinking last night one thing we still have to hear are the tapes. The two most famous women in America, Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp and no one has ever heard their voices.”[28] Of course, Coulter had heard those voices.

Suspiciously, Coulter and Moody told almost the exact same story. Their cover story: absence of widespread dissemination and personal profit. Coincidental? Coulter lied about hearing the Tripp tapes, about having the Tripp tapes, and about her source for the Tripp tapes.[29]

Still, few people grasped the import of Coulter’s possession of those tapes.

For further details about the Machiavellian machinations of the secret cabal against Bill Clinton, see Case Study #2: (Linda) TRIPPed Up! in Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory at http://bit.ly/1M2z2O5.

Endnotes:


[1]       Author interview.

[2]       Ann Coulter, “Vast concoctions II,” 3/10/00.

[3]       David Daley, “Ann Coulter: lights all shining on her,” Hartford Courant, 6/25/99.

[4]       Susan Schmidt and Michael Weisskopf, Truth at Any Cost: Ken Starr and the Unmaking of Bill Clinton, HarperCollins, 2000, pg. 34.

[5]       David Daley, “Ann Coulter: lights all shining on her,” Hartford Courant, 6/25/99.

[6]       David Segal, “Dream Case Is a Burden, Lawyer Finds: No Pay, Long Hours For Tripp’s Counsel,” Washington Post, 1/26/98, pg. A09. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/moody012698.htm.

[7]       Ann Coulter, “Spikey and Me,” George, May 1999.

[8]       Ann Coulter, High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton, Regnery, 1998, pg. 31.

[9]       John Riley, “Starr Aide’s Role As Tripp Advisor,” Newsday, 10/3/98.

[10]     Joe Conason and Gene Lyons, The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton, St. Martin’s Griffin, 2000, pg. 351.

[11]     Ann Coulter, Crossfire, CNN, 10/2/98.

[12]     Howard Kurtz, “The Blonde Flinging Bombshells at Bill Clinton,” Washington Post, 10/16/98. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/coulter101698.htm.

[13]     Ann Coulter, speech at Monday Club, Washington, D.C., 10/5/98.

[14]     Rivera Live, CNBC, 10/14/98.

[15]     Author interview.

[16]     Howard Kurtz, “The Blonde Flinging Bombshells at Bill Clinton,” Washington Post, 10/16/98, pg. D4.

[17]     Rivera Live, 11/16/98.

[18]     Ann Coulter, Equal Time, 8/19/98.

[19]     Ann Coulter, Drudge Report, 8/8/98.

[20]     Howard Kurtz, “The Blonde Flinging Bombshells at Bill Clinton,” Washington Post, 10/16/98. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/coulter101698.htm.

[21]     Ibid.

[22]     Ibid.

[23]     Ibid.

[24]     Ann Coulter, Rivera Live, CNBC, 3/4/98.

[25]     Ann Coulter, Rivera Live, CNBC, 10/23/98.

[26]     John Riley, “Starr Aide’s Role As Tripp Advisor,” Newsday, 10/3/98.

[27]     Carl Limbacher, “Tripp Tape ‘Doctored’ where Monica Speaks of Death Fears,” Newsmax.com, 10/6/98.

[28]     Ann Coulter, Inside Politics, CNN, 5/6/98.

[29]     Howard Kurtz, “The Blonde Flinging Bombshells at Bill Clinton,” Washington Post, 10/16/98, pg. D4.

ACS: Impeachment – Coulter Betrays Paula Jones

Coulter’s Perfect Storm

The Perfect Storm dramatized the real-life story of a sword-fishing crew caught in “the storm of the century,”) created by the confluence of weather conditions creating the perfect storm.[1] Many Republicans desperately sought to find the Perfect Storm (scandal) to finally bring down President Clinton, otherwise known as the Comeback Kid and Slick Willy, for his ability to evade responsibility for any number of scandals and imbroglios. With the Lewinsky scandal, conservatives thought they had discovered their political Perfect Storm.

In the midst of “serious” Clinton-administration scandals, Paula Jones’ story of sexual harassment by then-Governor Bill Clinton seemed more a nuisance than anything else.

Jones claimed her reputation had been damaged and she sought an out-of-court settlement to escape the limelight. (Jones: “I wanted this case settled. I always wanted this case settled.”[2])

Enter the Elves

Right-wing hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton began long before Clinton’s first inaugural. Joe Conason and Gene Lyons documented what they regard as a ten-year campaign by the Right to bring down the Clinton administration.[3] Hillary Clinton exaggerated the extent of that campaign with her almost paranoid perception of a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

However, a small, tightly-knit cadre of conspirators, colorfully known as “the elves,” served the purpose by enthusiastically pursuing the downfall of the Clintons. Their methodology included legal maneuverings and illegal machinations, investigative and tabloid journalism, media manipulation, betrayal of at least one colleague and of at least one client, and, perhaps, even tampering with evidence and unethical conduct with the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC).

The elves were a “secret clique of lawyers in their thirties … [who] were deeply involved for five years in the Paula Jones lawsuit … Ms. Jones never knew they worked on her behalf.”[4] The elves began their work in the early 90s. George Conway, Richard Porter and Jerome Marcus formed the core of the conspiratorial group, searching out Clinton scandals to exploit and using their legal expertise and political connections to good advantage.

It is almost certain that Coulter was privy to their activities while on the periphery of the circle of elves during the mid-90s. At a critical juncture in the summer of 1997, Ann Coulter entered the fray, providing clandestine behind-the-scenes legal services for Jones. The secrecy, apparently, was for Coulter’s sake because she reportedly feared the disapproval of her law firm, the Center for Individual Rights.

By then, she had become a key conspirator and major player since she alone, of all the elves, spoke at length with Jones and then, in early 1998, enabled her close friend, Jim Moody, to become Linda Tripp’s attorney. Coulter later joked about the conspiracy, “I’m ticked off the Federalist Society is getting all the credit for this conspiracy – it should be the Dead.”[5]

Coulter’s involvement with both the Paula Jones sexual harassment case against Bill Clinton and Linda Tripp’s taped conversations with Monica Lewinsky would prove crucial to not only undermining the Clinton agenda and tarnishing the Clinton legacy, but would also provide the impetus for impeachment of the President and, not coincidentally, provide Coulter with her first best-seller.

Getting the President

Coulter’s unbridled hatred for feminism reached fever pitch with her 1991 unpublished essay for National Review. Her enmity eventually expanded to include all liberals, especially Bill and Hillary Clinton. Like many conservatives during the mid-90s, Coulter viewed the Clinton presidency as illegitimate, and, like many conservatives, Coulter wanted that presidency to end. Coulter’s soon-to-become close friend, Rush Limbaugh, often spoke of “America Held Hostage” and his show featured a daily countdown to freedom. To them, the two-term Clinton presidency was a fluke (at best) or the product of a liberal media conspiracy (at worst).

At the very time Coulter was writing her Human Life Review essay attacking Supreme Court Justice Brennan for his misogyny, she was secretly “helping” Paula Jones in her sexual harassment lawsuit against President Clinton. Coulter’s help proved disastrous for Jones and her family. In the end, Coulter would harm Jones more than Clinton had allegedly done – all because her end (“get the president”) justified the means (destroying Jones’ life).

Coulter’s Betrayal

As it turned out, Coulter’s goal was not to represent her client but to “get the president.” Consequently, after Coulter gained possession of incendiary information – namely, the specific nature of Clinton’s “distinguishing characteristics” which Jones claimed to be able to identify – Coulter vigorously leaked those details to the press for the express purpose of sabotaging Jones’ delicate settlement negotiations.[6] As Coulter herself admits: “We were terrified that Jones would settle. It was contrary to our purpose of bringing down the president.”[7]

There was only one thing to do: scuttle the negotiations by planting a rumor – by disclosing secret attorney-client privileged information. Just as Coulter’s legal assistance to Jones was secret, as was her planted story, again to protect Coulter, not Jones.

To preclude settlement, Coulter approached numerous media outlets to leak a rumor that Clinton was afflicted with Peyronie’s Disease. Coulter was furious with those media outlets which declined to publish her rumor, and she was elated at its exposure on the Drudge Report. From that point on, Coulter and Drudge would become close friends.

Coulter aggressively promoted her rumor, eventually finding fertile soil in the print media (Newsday), on talk radio (Don Imus) and on national TV (Rivera Live). Even the Washington Times[8] reported the rumor. Coulter’s anonymously-released rumor hit the front pages of the nation’s newspapers: “The New York Post ran a one-page story of the ‘distinguishing characteristics.’ So did the Washington Times, complete with Paula Jones’ diagnosis as to what caused the distinction.”[9]

That rumor definitively scuttled any chance of an out-of-court settlement between President Clinton and his alleged victim. Coulter took pride in anonymously exposing the rumor (and later using this published rumor she planted as source material) in order to thwart the legal efforts of Paula Jones’ attorneys.[10] As Coulter explained, “I thought if I leaked the distinguishing characteristic it would show bad faith in negotiations. Bob Bennett would think Jones had leaked it. Cammaratta would know he himself hadn’t leaked it and would get mad at Bennett. It might stall negotiations.”[11]

Even Jones’ own actual attorney, Joseph Cammaratta, was unaware of Coulter’s involvement: “It was amazing to me to hear of her involvement with the case. I can’t remember hearing her name.”[12] Coulter worked “behind the scenes as an advisor to [Paula] Jones’s strategists,”[13] leaked the bombshell privileged information to the media, and then blamed the Jones’ genuine legal team for its release.

“Most women I know want further details on this DPC [Distinguishing Personal Characteristics]. We don’t actually know that it was Peyronie’s Disease, this was just a little tangent that Paula Jones’ earlier lawyers went on to. All she said was that it was slightly bent. So there’s my last parting comment because that’s what women really want to know most about from what I can tell.”[14]

“Ken Starr with 30 million dollars and the top prosecutors in the country hasn’t been able to lay a finger on Clinton, and poor little picked on Paula Jones has completely destroyed him and humiliated him.”[15]

Author Joe Conason later clarified matters for Geraldo Rivera, saying,

“The official Paula Jones lawyers – Gil Davis and Joe Cammaratta, whom you’ve had on this program – did want to settle. It was the secret Paula Jones lawyers – George Conway, and others, including Ann Coulter, who’s been on here many times – who did their best to sabotage the settlement.”[16]

Consequences of Conspiracy

In a speech earlier that year, “Coulter further made her case that Jones was wronged, not only by the President, but also by ‘the media, lawyers, and feminists.’”[17] Pardon me, but Coulter – as a member of the media, while a lawyer, and being a post-feminist – certainly wronged Jones.

During the scandal, Coulter expressed not one word of empathy for Paula Jones. Indeed, Coulter gloried in Paula’s misery because Paula became a weapon to use against the President.

As a result of the sabotaged negotiations, Jones reluctantly went to court, the Lewinsky scandal erupted, and Jones’ life was radically altered. Rather than receiving the settlement she so desperately desired, Jones entered media hell and gained a fractured family. Coulter, however, benefited, later boasting that she “got a bestseller out of it.”[18] Meanwhile, Jones remained in media hell.

But why would Coulter care? She never cared about Jones! This came sharply into focus when Coulter exclaimed, “I love the facts about this case.”[19] And then gleefully recounted the specifics of the Jones’ lawsuit – even having memorized the paragraph numbers of the lawsuit. Others would have been horrified at the facts of her case – not “loved” them.

One might expect outrage over a sexual assault, or righteous indignation over abuse of power. Instead, Coulter’s face, voice and body language exulted in pure joy. (Empathy for Jones was absent; present, instead, was exultation and anticipated victory over the Clintons.)

Hypocritically, the elves’ secret machinations ultimately led to the public humiliation of both Jones (their client) and Tripp (their other client, whose tapes they unscrupulously obtained). In the name of preserving the “rule of law” (their refrain throughout the Clinton presidency), they willfully violated attorney-client confidentiality.

In the name of vindicating Jones’ reputation, they propelled her to public ridicule, then, once their purposes had been served, Coulter condemned Jones as “trailer park trash” – the very charge the elves were purportedly repudiating at the outset. 

In the end, the elves surreptitiously shaped history and irreparably transformed America’s political and cultural landscape. As Coulter would put it:

“I do think [Tripp is] a great American hero. We never would have found out about the corruption and illegality at the very top of the government but for Linda Tripp. If you imagine what the world would be like if Linda Tripp hadn’t kept those tapes – a very different world.”[20]

Despite the murkiness of their secretive shenanigans, sufficient details exist within the public sphere to gain a good grasp of their activities. Certainly, these affairs offer a glimpse into their character – so much so that Coulter would later gloat over her own involvement.

Ann Coulter, “attorney and self-admitted anti-Clinton elf,”[21] styles herself as the consummate champion of the weak and voiceless, citing her clandestine aid to Paula Jones as evidence. As it turns out, Coulter’s service was self-serving, not selfless, and the beneficiary of her help became impoverished, not enriched.

For details about the Machiavellian machinations of the secret cabal against Bill Clinton, see Case Study #1: Oh, Paula (Jones)! in Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory at http://bit.ly/1M2z2O5.

Endnotes:


[1]       http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1800352372/details, accessed 9/27/07.

[2]       Paula Jones, Rivera Live, CNBC, 10/25/00.

[3]       Joe Conason and Gene Lyons, The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton, St. Martin’s Griffin, 2000.

[4]       New York Times, 1/24/99.

[5]       Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas, “The Secret War,” Newsweek, 2/9/98, pg. 43.

[6]       David Daley, “Ann Coulter: lights all shining on her,” Hartford Courant, 6/25/99.

[7]       Michael Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton: A Reporter’s Story, Crown, 1998, pg. 183.

[8]       F.J. Murray, “Is This The President’s ‘Distinguishing Characteristic?’” Washington Times, 10/15/97.

[9]       Mary McGrory, “’Distinguishing’ Journalism,” 11/6/97.

[10]     Ann Coulter, Hartford Courant, 6/25/99.

[11]     Ibid.

[12]     Author interview.

[13]     Mary Jacoby, “The Pundettes,” Capital Style, December 1997.

[14]     Ann Coulter, Vantage Points: Issues for Women, Amazon City Radio, 12/5/97.

[15]     Ibid.

[16]     Joe Conason, Rivera Live, CNBC, 3/15/00.

[17]     Jillian Ruddiman, Quad News, http://quad.wcupa.edu/78/09/news/president.shtml.

[18]     Rivera Live, CNBC, 11/16/98.

[19]     Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 6/7/97.

[20]     Ann Coulter, Rivera Live, CNBC, 5/24/00.

[21]     Geraldo Rivera, Rivera Live, CNBC, 6/7/00.

ACS: Impeachment, Coulter’s Crusade Against Clinton

Ann Coulter was at the epicenter of a secret cabal whose sole purpose was to bring down the Clinton presidency.[1]

Why? Coulter passionately hated the Clintons.

Ann Coulter – Hater!

Coulter adored John McCain before she despised him.

Coulter loved George W. Bush before she hated him.

Coulter worshiped Donald Trump before she detested him.

Before them, Coulter hated Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Coulter has always been a hater.[2]

Coulter on Bill Clinton

On MSNBC, 9/22/96:

“Bill Clinton is smarmy and slick and he really comes of well with people who are looking for government to be their mother or father.”

On MSNBC, 9/28/96:

“Bill Clinton is an incredibly unpopular president for a lot of reasons. He is up to his ears in financial problems, in murders all over the White House and in his background. This whole CIA and the drug deal brings up Mena, Arkansas and the drugs coming back on CIA flights into Mena.”

“It is peculiar how many people have died around President Clinton, from the wife of his security guard to his roommate at Oxford, Vince Foster.”

[For credibility, Coulter called allegations that Vince Foster was murdered an unfounded conspiracy theory in her first book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors.]

“Well, the odd thing about this – no, what I’m suggesting is with these people anything is possible. Nobody can just say ‘Oh, well, that’s preposterous!’ Anything is possible with him.”

On MSNBC, 10/6/96:

“smarmy Bill Clinton … Oprah-style of feeling everybody’s pain.”

On Politically Incorrect, 10/17/96:

“I think it’s clear [Bill and Hillary] loathe and detest one another, and this is political expediency.”

On Equal Time, 7/24/97:

“Bill Clinton has a 64 percent approval rating, something he’s never been able to get in the only public opinion poll that really counts, an election. He can’t even get 50 percent of the vote, but suddenly, 14 percent, after all these fund-raising scandals, love Bill Clinton. They’ve changed their mind. They didn’t vote for him two times in a row. I’m sorry, I don’t believe the media’s polls any more than I believe their impression of Newt Gingrich.”

“Well, except that, and Clinton would be lucky to have the American people believe that he’s only doing what the Republicans have been accused of, and that’s doing something legal that they’re claiming sort of looks bad. We have actual illegal activity under the current laws. The most you can say about Haley Barbour is money came in to a non-profit organization.”

On MSNBC, 2/9/97:

“It is more preposterous to say that when an 18-year-old girl is unconscious on a bed and her employer pulls a Bill Clinton move – raping an unconscious woman – and the judge has to say ‘Well, oh, this is the dream of a lot of males, honestly, to have an unconscious woman on a bed,’ I mean, you can’t say this is people not understanding domestic violence.”

After the commercial break:

“OK, [Bill Clinton] wasn’t accused of raping Paula Jones.”

On Hardball, 6/4/97:

“[Bill Clinton] routed S&L’s to fund his campaigns and political activities. That’s one sentence. That explains [the Whitewater scandal]. … He, through a series of deals took, took money illegally, defrauded the government.”

Coulter on Hillary Clinton

On MSNBC, 11/30/96:

“I couldn’t be happier if [Hillary Clinton] were put in charge of welfare reform. A highly-placed Democratic official was quoted in the New York Times yesterday that would be the kiss of death for any liberal welfare reform, so I must say I think it’s an excellent idea.”

“I think the President does sort of owe her. I mean, I think she has the goods on him. She’s kept her mouth quiet, she’s stood by him, and, ‘Oh, well, we’ve had our problems but I’m standing by my man.’ I, I, I think he, he, he cannot keep denying her like this.”

“And, so far her expertise in policy … She was elected to nothing, she was appointed to nothing, she was not nominated, she didn’t go through the Senate hearing, and she was put in charge of completely redesigning 1/6th of the American economy in, I think, a somewhat arrogant way for the entire administration and not just Hillary, but her personality didn’t help.”

“I think it’s just appalling the way she keeps hiding behind the fact that she is a woman. It has absolutely nothing to do with her being a woman.”

“She is constantly raising the fact that the reason she is being attacked is because she is a woman. No, it’s because her ideas are stupid. They were rejected. She assumed too much power.”

[This is the second in a multi-part series providing background and undisclosed details related to the impeachment of Bill Clinton.]

For details about the Machiavellian machinations of the secret cabal against Bill Clinton, see Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory at http://bit.ly/1M2z2O5.

  • Case Study #1: Oh, Paula (Jones)
  • Case Study # 2: (Linda) TRIPPed Up

Endnotes:


[1]              See Ann Coulter is at the Center of ACS: Impeachment at https://bit.ly/3BNYKpY.

[2]              See Chapter 7: The Spawn of Satan Convention in the Beauty of Conservatism at http://bit.ly/2a79k0j.

Ann Coulter is at the Center of ACS: Impeachment

Ann Coulter was part of a secret cabal which she adroitly called “a small, tightly-knit conspiracy.” The conspirators, whom Coulter impishly called “elves,” sought to bring down the Clinton presidency.


That was their sole goal: The demise of Bill Clinton’s presidency.

The conspirators, with Coulter as the crucial connection, were involved in both the Paula Jones lawsuit against Bill Clinton and the disposition of tapes of Monica Lewinsky secretly recorded by Linda Tripp. They sought to destroy Clinton’s presidency, but they also sought to keep their involvement totally secret, for reasons which will become apparent in the course of this series of columns.

Newsweek offers some background:

But it gets one thing wrong: “After Paula Jones filed her lawsuit, Coulter became an unpaid legal advisor on the case, working for Jones’ head lawyer Joseph Cammarata writing legal briefs.”

In reality, Cammarata knew nothing about the involvement of Coulter and the other elves in the Jones case. In fact, the elves actively sought to undermine an out-of-court settlement that Jones desperately desired. And they sought to do so under a cloak of darkness.

Newsweek also reports that George Conway (one of the elves) enlisted his friend, Coulter, into the cabal.

And it was Coulter who personally sabotaged the Jones case by leaking attorney-client privileged information to the press. Why? She said:

“I thought if I leaked the distinguishing characteristic it would show bad faith in negotiations. [Clinton lawyer] Bob Bennett would think Jones had leaked it. Cammarata would know he himself hadn’t leaked it and would get mad at Bennett. It might stall negotiations enough for me to get through to [Jones adviser] Susan Carpenter-McMillan to tell her that I thought settling would hurt Paula, that this would ruin her reputation, and that there were other lawyers working for her.”

As reported by Michael Isikofff, the elves "were terrified that Jones would settle. It was contrary to our purpose of bringing down the President."

Coulter recommended her close friend, Jim Moody, to act as attorney for Linda Tripp. Despite the conflict of interest, Moody gave Tripp’s tape to Coulter. Tripp, who never authorized Coulter to hear those tapes, testified that she heard rumors that Coulter had copied those tapes. According to the IOC, one or more of those tapes may have been tampered with. By whom?

Remember: Coulter boasted that she “got a bestseller out of it.” Indeed, impeachment skyrocketed Coulter to stardom.

Later, Coulter claimed that it was all for Paula Jones’ benefit and not to “get the President!”

[This is the first in a multi-part series providing background and undisclosed details related to the impeachment of Bill Clinton.]

See Case Study #1: Oh, Paula (Jones) in Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory at http://bit.ly/1M2z2O5.

Coulter and Kerry Agree on ISIS

In a Twilight Zone development, the far left and far right agree on ISIS. Fiery foes, John Kerry and Ann Coulter are in strange fellowship on ISIS.

Coulter & Kerry Agree on ISIS

In addition to sharing a warped perspective of ISIS and being northeastern moderate elites (one actually claims to be conservative[1]), Coulter and Kerry share many other character and ideological traits. (We’ll leave that for another time, though narcissism[2] would be high on the list.)

But, back to ISIS.

Both Kerry[3] and Coulter[4] claim that ISIS poses no threat to America and they absurdly assert that something else is the real existential threat (Kerry – global warming;[5] Coulter – immigration[6]).

One denies the nature of ISIS, the other its goals. Kerry denies that ISIS is Islamic;[7] Coulter denies that ISIS is in America.

Furthermore, Coulter[8] and Kerry are both appalled at the extent of media coverage of ISIS and each would like to silence the media.

Kerry recently said (emphasis added), “If you decide one day you’re going to be a terrorist and you’re willing to kill yourself, you can go out and kill some people. You can make some noise … perhaps the media would do us all a service if they didn’t cover it quite as much. People wouldn’t know what’s going on.”

Coulter ranted, “every time I turn on TV it’s ISIS, ISIS, ISIS,”[9] and said, “Fox was spending a bit too much time on ISIS.”[10] Coulter even regards ISIS coverage as a media conspiracy: “There are always going to be Muslim atrocities! Whenever the media starts obsessing with ISIS, I think you’re hiding something.”[11]

Propagandists[12] everywhere hate the truth coming out.

Endnotes:

[1]               I have long argued that Coulter is not far-right. She is extreme, but not a conservative by any reasonable measure. But, since she is regarded as a Conservative Icon, I will accede to that nomenclature for this column. See The Beauty of Conservatism, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/beauty.pdf.

[2]               See Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[3]               See “Willful Blindness to Reality” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-c9.

[4]               See “Coulter Still Doesn’t Get Terrorist Threat!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bg. See also “Coulter’s ISIS Denial” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-gj.

[5]               See “Obama’s War … on Global Warming!” at http://t.co/WmjRvUyVlw. Kerry recently said, “As we were working together on the challenge of [ISIS] and terrorism, it’s hard for some people to grasp it, but what we – you [at this climate change conference] – are doing here right now is of equal importance because it has the ability to literally save life on the planet itself.”

[6]               See “Immigration More Dangerous Than ISIS” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-5e. See also “Ann Coulter … Dangerously Wrong!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-7x, “Stop Immigrants, Not Terrorists!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-b2, “Coulter, Orlando, & Nonsense!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-eL.”

[7]               See “In Allah’s Name” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-fw.

[8]               See “Coulter Aghast at ISIS Coverage” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-aK.

[9]               Ann Coulter, Hannity, FNC, 3/5/15.

[10]             Ann Coulter, Red Eye, FNC, 6/6/15.

[11]             Ann Coulter, Hannity, FNC, 2/18/15.

[12]             See Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/propaganda.pdf.

Ann Coulter’s Flights of Fantasy

Given her frequent flights of fantasy, one wonders why anyone listens to Ann Coulter.

Recently, Coulter insisted that she could arrange a détente which would yield her Dream Ticket: Trump-Romney.[1] Simply delusional. Since then, Coulter has been spiraling downward.[2]

Fantasy

Coulter has redefined terms, such as “real American,” traitor,” and “patriot,” spoken of vast conspiracies, and displayed paranoia.

Employing a variety of Orwellian techniques, Coulter has become a propagandist who is no longer able to discern fact from fantasy.

Real Americans!

 Yesterday, Stephen Nemo made some absurd claims. His introductory paragraph asserted: “Ann Coulter is hated by Democrats, but she’s also a pariah among Republicans. Why? She still believes in conservatism and the rule of law.”

Nemo has drunk the Coulter-aid.

In truth, Coulter abandoned Conservatism[3] and Christianity[4] many years ago. As for the rule of law, why is she constantly lying about it? Coulter continues to lie about Supreme Court[5] cases[6] in order to influence national politics.

The person Coulter said she blindly worships as her Savior,[7] The Donald, is not a conservative![8] Moreover, Trump cares about what is best for Trump,[9] not for America.

As evidence for his claim of Coulter’s fidelity to conservatism and the rule of law, Nemo quoted a recent Coulter column: “Conservative pundits keep assuring clueless [television] viewers that Trump is not a ‘real Republican.’”

Nemo omitted these words from her essay: “I certainly hope he’s not a ‘real Republican.’” Nemo did, however, continue with her next words: “I know he’s a real American. Those used to be the same thing.”

In other words, “real Republicans” are no longer “real Americans.”

For decades, Coulter has defined who “real Americans” are per her own malleable standards. As I noted last September,[10] Coulter was wrong then and she is wrong now!

Coulter defines not only who Americans are but she also pinpoints where the traitors can be found.

Treason Without Reason

Displaying both hyperbole and paranoia on steroids, Coulter tweeted (emphasis added): “Fox News & Cruz are American traitors, in league with the liberal establishment. Silent majority must face fire from a unified oligarchy.”[11]

American Thinker provided the Cruz quote which prompted “Coulter foaming at the mouth.” After condemning the violence at Trump’s rally in Chicago, Cruz said, “when you have a campaign that disrespects the voters, when you have a campaign that affirmatively encourages violence, when you have a campaign that is facing allegations of physical violence against members of the press, you create an environment that only encourages this sort of nasty discourse.”

American Thinker correctly observed: “Never mind that the ‘unified oligarchy’ Coulter decries is a unified oligarchy elected by the American people; the main point is that every word, every syllable, every letter of the above quote is absolutely and verifiably true.” (He then provided a surfeit of details.)

Upon hearing of Rubio’s epic defeat in his home state of Florida, Coulter again furthered her treason motif, tweeting (emphasis added), “Media’s favorite line tonight: Rubio lost because he was too optimistic. Yeah, the whole treason thing had nothing to do with it.”[12]

In 2003, Coulter declared as traitors everyone who disagreed with even just one item of the GOP platform. To her, all Democrats and liberals were guilty of treason. Now, Coulter calls Republicans, conservatives, and Christians[13] “traitors” for disagreeing with her on one single issue: immigration.

Back then, the entirety of the Left were treasonous in Coulter’s eyes. Now, a huge swath on the Right have joined their ranks. Oh, and, by the way, Coulter’s definition of “treason” is not a legal one, but an elastic one dependent upon her own personal whim. Moreover, Coulter misuses the term for its effect as emotional vernacular to bypass reason and facts.

Propaganda With Paranoia

A gifted linguist, Coulter is, indeed, adept at propaganda. She knows how to manipulate language to manipulate people. Orwell’s Newspeak and doublethink could have been designed just for her.[14]

Since the release of her latest book, Coulter’s commentary has been replete with errors[15] and outright fabrications. Who knew that the Great Depression “was the most prosperous period in American history?”[16]

One particular tweet required a great deal of chutzpah to publish (as well as a certain disdain for her readership). Gloating over Trump’s Florida victory, Coulter tweeted (emphasis added), “To beat Rubio, Trump had to beat: Fox, entire MSM, National Review, Salem Radio, every major GOP donor…MAYBE VOTERS WANT LESS IMMIGRATION!”[17]

The entire tweet in all of its particulars is incorrect. Coulter consistently claims a conspiracy among political and media elites to foil Trump’s candidacy. According to Coulter, Fox News is part of that grand conspiracy.

Fox News? Matt Walsh recently exposed her lies on this, writing, “All the other dull, blathering Trump sycophants on Fox News, like Andrea Tantaros and Eric Bolling and Kimberly Guilfoyle and other various Trump shills who’ve now taken to declaring that ‘principles don’t matter.’ The Fox morning show team hands airtime to Trump whenever he demands it, and they sit in admiration listening to him blabber on like infatuated school boys pretending to be interested in what the pretty girl in class is saying. But they’re of course not as bad as Joe Scarborough over on MSNBC, who was recently caught on camera taking instructions from Trump about what questions he can ask.”

Walsh continued: “Trump and his groupies complain that Fox is ‘unfair’ to him, but those of us who haven’t had our brains cooked by Trump fever recognize that, with the exceptions of Megyn Kelly, Bret Baier, Greg Gutfeld and a few others, the entire network slobbers over him like a cheerleader fainting when the varsity quarterback asks her to the prom.”

As of January 26, 2016, Donald Trump had already appeared on Fox News and Fox Business News 132 times[18] – far more than any other candidate. That number has undoubtedly skyrocketed since then.

Entire MSM? The mainstream media is hardly a monolith and it has provided more coverage of Trump than any other candidate in any other election in history. It covers Trump rallies and speeches, often without commentary, while overlooking other candidates. Trump gets air time whenever he wants it. Also, Trump has bullied many media outlets into acquiescence.

The Media Research Center frequently notes the disparate coverage afforded Trump at the expense of his opponents, even in GOP debates. Most recently, Breitbart, known as Trump’s personal Pravda, has come under fire for covering up Trump scandals and betraying its reporters and readers.

The Sun Times reported that the media “gave Trump $400 million worth of free coverage in just one month’s time.” In total, Trump has received about $2 billion in free air time.

Back in 1999, Coulter was incensed at any publicity that Sen. John McCain received during his 2000 election campaign. Coulter asked of McCain, “Courageous, independent, or bought?” and accused him of “shilling [for] the newspaper industry in return for favors worth millions of dollars in campaign donations.”[19]

Is Trump shilling now?

National Review? National Review is one of the few media outlets actually opposed to Trump, not out of treasonous hatred for America but, rather, with fervor for journalistic integrity, the Constitution, liberty, conservatism, and the rule of law. (Yes, conservatism and the rule of law, Mr. Nemo.)

While the “entire MSM” has failed to focus on Trump’s moral and business failings, National Review put together “a comprehensive roundup of the man’s disastrous [business] record.”

Salem Radio? Salem Radio is hardly part of a Vast Left and Right Wing Conspiracy. Sadly, many Christian leaders have actually jumped aboard the Trump bandwagon, seemingly willing to abandon both biblical and conservative principles for the elevation of someone they regard as a protector of their rights and freedoms. However, Trump is merely a bloviating bully[20] with disdain for the Constitution and he would govern with his own version of Obama’s pen and a phone.[21]

Every Major GOP Donor? GOP donors were hardly united against Trump. Many funded attacks against Cruz, Trump’s biggest rival.

Immigration? Immigration – Trump’s (and Coulter’s) signature issue – regularly places around fourth in exit polling, demonstrating that Coulter is wrong about the reason for Trump’s success thus far. Voters are outraged, want change, and are looking for a strongman to forcefully reverse the course our government is presently on.

Ironically, Coulter’s zealous devotion to Trump is itself predicated on a lie. Coulter insists that Trump is the best candidate on her core issue – immigration – yet, Trump has proven himself a fraud on immigration.[22] Trump admits he is flexible on immigration and he actually promotes amnesty (“touchback deportation”). To ensure a Trump victory, Coulter has repeatedly[23] lied[24] about Ted Cruz,[25] the one candidate who has a proven record of defending the border and preserving our national sovereignty.

Endnotes:

[1]               See “Coulter’s Dream Ticket: Trump-Romney” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cB.

[2]               See “Ann Coulter’s Upside Down World” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cP.

[3]               See “Coulter Hates All GOP Candidates But Trump” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bj.

[4]               See “Coulter Attacks Christians for Being Godly” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-az.

[5]               See “Coulter Lies About Supreme Court Case” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bE.

[6]               See “Birther Coulter Births More Lies” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bI.

[7]               See “Meet Ann Coulter’s Savior” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bM.

[8]               See “Coulter Admits Trump is a Fraud” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cf.

[9]               See “Coulter’s Latest RINO Would Give Democrats Victory” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8t.

[10]             See “Ann Coulter’s ‘Real’ Americans Fallacy” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-9Y.

[11]             Ann Coulter, 3/12/16, 12:16 a.m.

[12]             Ann Coulter, 3/15/16, 7:55 p.m.

[13]             See “Ann Coulter’s Xenophobic Anti-Gospel of Hate” at http://t.co/aQGhLuWwtD.

[14]             See “Propaganda: George Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-4j.

[15]             See “Are Coulter’s ‘Facts’ Right?” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-9E.

[16]             See “Ignorant Ideologue” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-br.

[17]             Ann Coulter, 3/15/16, 5:50 p.m.

[18]             Sean Hannity, Hannity, FNC, 1/26/16.

[19]             Ann Coulter, “When ‘reform’ means tilting the balance of influence,” 10/20/99.

[20]             See “How to Talk to a Bully (if you must)” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bY.

[21]             See “Bully Boy Trump” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cv.

[22]             See “Trump’s Phony Wall” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cn.

[23]             See “Birther Coulter Births More Lies” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bI.

[24]             See “Coulter’s Desperate Lies About Cruz” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-c8.

[25]             See “BrotherWatch Endorses Ted Cruz” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-dw.

Coulter’s Scoop That Never Was

This may be Ann Coulter’s worst summer ever. First, she wrote a series of inane diatribes attacking soccer. Then she defamed principled conservatives and supported corrupt establishment Republicans. Coulter falsely accused another journalist of plagiarism, a charge utterly without merit. She later vilified liberal Christians as “moral show-offs” for exhibiting compassion toward illegals on the border.

Coulter claimed to have discovered a hitherto unknown concept which she called “anti-logic.”

Scoop

Now Coulter claims to have uncovered the truth about the border crisis – a truth conspiratorially hidden by both political parties and a complicit press.

In her most recent column, Coulter accused the entire media – from the New York Times to Fox News – of lying about the loophole which allows Central American children to receive special treatment at the border.

According to Coulter, “But there is no such loophole.”

Having made that startling claim, she frets, “The fact that people on both sides of the aisle are telling the same lie about this law is worrisome. Are Republicans being tricked into thinking we need an emergency bill …”?

She claims to have read the law (implying others have not), citing the relevant portion:

“Any unaccompanied alien child sought to be removed by the Department of Homeland Security, except for an unaccompanied alien child from a contiguous country shall be – placed in removal proceedings … eligible for relief … at no cost to the child and provided access to counsel.”

The Loophole’s Definition

Coulter denied this “non-existent loophole” and argued for its non-existence due to the definition of “unaccompanied alien child,” which, according to the 2008 law she cites, is defined thus:

“(g) Definitions

(2) the term ‘unaccompanied alien child’ means a child who –

(A) has no lawful immigration status in the United States;

(B) has not attained 18 years of age; and

(C) with respect to whom –

(i) there is no parent or legal guardian in the United States; or (ii) no parent or legal guardian in the United States is available to provide care and physical custody.”

Coulter’s Wrong Analysis

Coulter concludes that the bulk of this massive group of children crossing our border can be immediately returned because they don’t fit the definition of “unaccompanied alien child.”

Coulter asserts, “But the law’s definition of ‘unaccompanied alien child’ limits the hearings to kids who have no relatives in the United States.”

She continues, “No law needs to be fixed. The only thing that needs to be fixed is the president.”

She adds, lest we fail to get the point, “Any Republicans pushing for an immigration bill to seal an imaginary loophole aren’t fighting Obama; they’re helping him.”

Where Coulter Went Wrong

At first blush, her reasoning seems sound. Sounds reasonable. And legal.

But it isn’t.

Her statement about limiting “the hearings to kids who have no relatives in the United States” is flat out wrong – on two counts.

(In full disclosure, I am not a lawyer, and I do not play one on TV.)

First, there are matters of the law’s interpretation and implementation.

The Bipartisan Policy Center put out a paper, “Unaccompanied Alien Children: A Primer,” which addresses the salient issues. It notes,

Although many of the children may already have family inside of the United States, current practice by DHS classifies children as unaccompanied ‘if neither a parent or legal guardian (with a court-order to that effect) is with the juvenile at the time of apprehension, or within a geographical proximity’ to care for the juvenile. According to interviews conducted with DHS officials in 2006, ‘if a parent or legal guardian is not present to provide care (or cannot be present within a short period of time) that child is technically considered unaccompanied and processed accordingly.’”

Remember the definition: “no parent or legal guardian in the United States is available to provide care and physical custody.” That qualification addresses the humanitarian concerns involved and resulted in the implementation noted above.

Coulter’s non-existent loophole exists.

Second, the definition is specific to “no parent or legal guardian.” That specificity created unintended complications. What about non-parent family members? Coulter expanded the law to read: “no relatives in the United States.” But the law expressly addresses “parents.”

As noted by BPC, the “Asylum Reform and Border Protection Act of 2014 would change the “definition of UAC. Children will not be considered unaccompanied if they have a sibling, aunt, uncle, grandparent, or cousin over 18 years of age available to provide care. Currently only children without a parent or legal guardian are considered unaccompanied.”

Yes, Coulter’s non-existent loophole exists.

UPDATE: Upon further reflection, Coulter’s loophole column is rather loopy. Being a lawyer for more than a quarter-century and a journalist for almost two decades, Coulter should now know how to do basic fact-checking.

Coulter should have asked herself whether she might be wrong or there might be more to the story. Instead, Coulter chose to believe that she and she alone – of all the people in the world – both knew there was no loophole and had the courage to speak the truth about it.

Coulter chose to believe that everyone else – from CNN to Fox News, from Harry Reid to Ted Cruz, from Nancy Pelosi to Michele Bachmann – was lying about a phony loophole. Furthermore, this grand conspiracy – among establishment Republicans and Tea Party alike – was designed to open the U.S. borders to all people.

Checking facts, Ann, is easier than you think. You might try it sometime.

Resources:

Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.