Tag Archives: High Crimes and Misdemeanors

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.

Coulter to Impeach Trump

Hell hate no fury like an Alt-Righter scorned!

coulter-to-impeach-trump

(And Trump isn’t even in office yet!)

On the Sean Hannity Show (11/15/16), Coulter summarized her (that is, Trump’s) policy agenda and what would befall President Trump should he fail to implement his (that is, her) agenda:

“The wall and deporting illegals … renegotiating trade deals and not starting pointless wars – those are the big ones. If he betrays us on those, they’ll impeach him and there’ll be nobody to defend him.”

In other words, if Trump doesn’t pursue and achieve her policy goals, he should and will be impeached.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors

But, in her 1998 bestseller, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Coulter declared that impeachment is designed to target “moral misbehavior” and criminal activity, but not policy disputes.

Again, Coulter contradicts herself.

In 1998, Coulter was regarded as an expert on impeachment. In her book, Coulter wrote (emphasis added):

“Personal misconduct took a larger role in impeachments, for example, and policy disputes became irrelevant to impeachable conduct.” (pg. 10).

“One additional distinction the Constitution requires is this: policy disputes are not to be resolved by resort to impeachment.” (pp. 11-12).

“That policy disagreements cannot form the basis for an impeachable offense in this country is more than a logical deduction from the structure and purposes of the Constitution.” (pg. 12)

“Other comments from the framers further demonstrate that the purposes of impeachment did not include policy disputes – but did include personal misconduct.” (pg. 12)

Apparently, the Alt-Right will do whatever it takes – including threaten its standard-bearer – to achieve its goals.

[A new book, #NeverTrump: Coulter’s Alt-Right Utopia, sheds some light on the #OnlyTrump movement and its Alt-Right constituency. It is now available on Amazon at http://amzn.to/2fzA9Mr.]

Coulter Lies About Supreme Court Case

Ann Coulter leads the charge of those seeking to crush a Cruz candidacy with a lie!

When she thought she could foist Romney on us again in 2016,[1] Coulter began to attack Cruz on his citizenship. With Cruz posing a serious threat to Trump, her new-found soul-mate,[2] Coulter has shifted into high gear, stridently claiming Cruz is ineligible to be president.[3]

Supreme Court Case

This isn’t Coulter’s first attempt at subverting the Constitution for political purposes.[4]

Backdrop: Elián González

The Elián González case became international political theater during the 2000 presidential race. It rekindled the Cold War in miniature. Coulter fed into that political hysteria by telling lies of her own, lies which fit into her own ideological sensibilities. Those lies included turning a Supreme Court decision on its head, claiming it said the exact opposite of what the Court decided.[5]

The heart and core of Coulter’s case for denying Juan Miguel González custody of his own son rested on Coulter’s decades-long belief that fathers have absolutely no rights or responsibilities to their own children except through marriage.

On talk TV – contrary to what the law actually says – Coulter continually insisted that putative fathers have no rights to their children: “The law used to account for these things by saying the father doesn’t have rights to a child unless he’s married to the mother. That’s how a man can claim his heritage and his claims on a child. … That’s how a father gets the right to children, by being married to the mother.”[6]

Coulter reaffirmed – again and again – that only marriage confers custodial rights: “First of all, the idea that a father has rights to a child by donating sperm; No! A father gains rights to a child by being married to the mother. … He has absolutely no rights to the child! Fathers gain rights to children by marrying the mothers.”[7]

The only problem with Coulter’s claims is that they are false. The law has always upheld the biological rights of fathers, irrespective of whether the child is born out-of-wedlock.

Lying About Supreme Court Cases

Coulter’s view of parental rights was her principal argument to separate a son from his father, but that core point of her position, that central concept, was an outright lie! To buttress that lie – which she has consistently expressed for almost twenty years – Coulter lied about a Supreme Court ruling which any layman can read and see that reaches the exact opposite conclusion. Coulter wrote:

“Let’s just consider the initial presumption that a father gets custody of his son. The law is indeed clear, at least to this extent: That ‘law’ refers only to legitimate children. … The Supreme Court last weighed in on the legal rights of unwed fathers in 1989 when it cut off all of the father’s rights to his child, including visitation.”[8]

In her essay, Coulter literally reversed the decision of the Court, falsely claiming it denied those custodial rights. Contrary to Coulter’s fiery opinion, the law says otherwise. The Supreme Court, in five cases, upheld the principle of paternity rights for putative fathers. Those cases were all cited in the Supreme Court case cited by Coulter.

In a rather remarkable display of truth twisting, Coulter took this Supreme Court case which affirms the custody rights of natural fathers and declared it the definitive denial of those rights![9]

The father in Coulter’s cited case was not denied parental rights due to illegitimacy but because his claim of fatherhood was filed after the filing deadline. That father had failed to assert his rights within two years of his daughter’s birth. Illegitimacy was never the issue. The Supreme Court has consistently confirmed custodial rights of natural fathers, both in principle and in practice. So, the case Coulter cited says the exact opposite of what Coulter claimed.

“Bald assertions about the very question under dispute,” Coulter once wrote, “is an odd method of argument,”[10] yet that is precisely what Coulter did (and continues to do). According to Coulter, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion; everyone is not entitled to his own facts.”[11] Apparently Coulter is not above making up her own “facts.”

Strangely (or not, for Ann), Coulter recently asserted, “Apparently that’s the way constitutional analysis goes these days. You determine, we’re all Ruth Bader Ginsburg now: Whatever you want the Constitution to say, that’s what it says, miraculously. Well, that has never been me!”[12]

Sorry, Ann, but you are the allegedly “conservative”[13] Ruth Bader Ginsburg!

Endnotes:

[1]               See “Adios, Ann: Only Mitt for Me” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-70.

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

[3]               See “Coulter Claims Cruz Ineligible” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-9j.

[4]               See a series of case studies in Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, 2012, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[5]               For greater details on the González case and Coulter’s perversion of constitutional law, see “Case Study # 4: In the Name of Elián (González),” Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, 2012, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[6]               Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 1/22/97.

[7]               Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 1/25/97.

[8]               Ann Coulter, “The bastardization of justice,” 4/26/00.

[9]               Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 410 (1989).

[10]             Ann Coulter, “Miranda Not a ‘Constitutional Straightjacket,’” 12/15/99.

[11]             Ann Coulter, High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton, Regnery, 1998, pg. 3.

[12]             Ann Coulter, John Gibson Show, Fox News, 1/8/16.

[13]             See Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age, 2013, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.