Tag Archives: vanity

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.

Coulter’s Nativist Screed Against Irish

Last week, Ann Coulter again trashed Irish Catholics in a nativist screed.

Her column reveals her nativist soul. It is polemical & filled with “alternative facts.” This graphic displays her racial hierarchy. WASPs are perfect; Irish were the worst immigrants until advent of Mexicans.

Coulter_s Hierarchy

Coulter used her polemical diatribe against the Irish to justify attacks against Mexicans. Coulter effectively rejects her father’s Irish Catholic ancestry while tacitly lauding her WASP roots.

No Love for Irish

Related:

The Beauty of Conservatism at http://bit.ly/2a79k0j.

The Gospel According to Ann Coulter at http://bit.ly/2aHMmwv.

Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory at http://bit.ly/1M2z2O5.

Coulter’s Berkeley Bluff

Ann Coulter has been undeservedly hailed a valiant heroine for the Battle at Berkeley, yet her perceived defiance of leftist mobs and censoring administrators was not really at all courageous.

In fact, Coulter never expected or intended to give a speech at Berkeley! It was all a clever ruse and publicity stunt. Bravado, not bravery, marked Coulter’s Berkeley bluff.

After successfully portraying herself as a courageous free speech warrior – having gotten exactly what she wanted: publicity and a new image – Coulter did not give what would have been a truly “free” (no honorarium) speech in what she herself insisted was the “safest place on earth” for her.

Before getting into details, let’s recall that Berkeley has justifiably been almost universally condemned (except by some on the far left) for not allowing Coulter to speak. Nevertheless, Coulter is not the courageous heroine she would have you believe her to be.

Coulter’s Last Stand

I gave Ann an Alamo Award in 1997 for her unquestioned courage – at that time – in speaking truth to power, at the risk of losing her livelihood. At Berkeley, Coulter risked nothing whatsoever. Indeed, regardless of the outcome, Coulter expected to gain that which she sought: publicity and an image of being a heroic-martyr.

This epic battle of wills pitting liberty lovers against academic censors saturated national news coverage. Coulter’s gambit was actually just a PR stunt from the very beginning. And it worked.

Her #BerkeleyBound mission perfectly suited her purposes. Whether or not she spoke, she won. If she spoke, she was heroic; if not, she was a courageous martyr. Win-win.

The Washington Post reported: “In a classic case of ‘heads I win, tails you lose,’ conservative provocateur Ann Coulter emerged from last week’s events at the University of California at Berkeley as a free-speech martyr.”

Coulter couldn’t lose. That was the plan from the start. It was all braggadocio and bravado, a marketing ploy explicitly designed to reinvigorate her reputation and career.

Lauded as the courageous conservative facing down Berkley rioters and university censors, the truth is otherwise: Coulter never intended to speak at Berkeley.

“Pranav Jandhyala, who founded [YAF’s] UC Berkeley chapter,” “acknowledged that it was now clear that Coulter’s intention wasn’t to engage in any real dialogue, but to prove her own point.”

Of course, YAF also wanted to use the entire scenario to promote itself and highlight the rampant trampling of the First Amendment on college campuses (and elsewhere).

Coulter’s Glory

Everything Coulter says or does accrues to Coulter’s benefit. That which she seeks most of all is glory. She became addicted to fame and power in late 1997 and she has never recovered from that pathology.

Coulter generated a tremendous amount of positive media coverage with her Berkeley kerfuffle, far more than during her last book tour. She gloried in her glory on The View.

Milking the situation for all it was worth, Coulter told KTVU that she was better than Milo Yiannopoulos: “I’m not even Milo. I mean, for Pete’s sake, I’m a twelve-time New York Times’ bestselling author.” (Actually, she’s only a ten-time bestselling author, as even McInnes admitted at Berkeley.)

Coulter also likened herself to heroic figures in the past: Martin Luther King, Jr. and Winston Churchill!

She boasted to Tucker Carlson: “By the way, I am giving the speech. What are they going to do, arrest me? They can put me in the Birmingham jail.” (King would have rejected both Coulter’s racial paradigm and anti-Christian behavior.)

The host on KTVU asked Coulter the most pertinent question imaginable: “Some people would say, ‘Ann Coulter is all about Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter wants to promote Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter wants to come here – and she’s gonna come here on Thursday – and she’s gonna be a rabble-rouser and she’s gonna try to incite people.’”

Usually in situations like this, Coulter reverts to using Jesus as her model of civil disobedience (upturning tables in temple, brood of vipers speech) to justify her own vitriol. On this occasion, she argued, “Winston Churchill was promoting himself with that ‘We shall fight on the beaches’ speech.”

Then she stridently claimed, “The idea that I’m trying to get publicity off of this event could not be further from the truth on the facts.”

Timeline

Here’s the actual timeline of events according to Coulter and her speech sponsors:

BridgeUSA and YAF sponsored Coulter’s speech. She knew – given riots at Milo Yiannopoulos’ event in February – that she wouldn’t be giving her speech. The university and/or rioters would surely shut it down.

Berkeley placed ever-demanding restrictions on Coulter’s speech. She insisted that YAF concede to every single demand. Coulter could not quit. She had to wait – and wait patiently she did (because she knew it was inevitable) – for Berkeley to cancel, making her a martyr. She told Tucker Carlson, “Well, they changed the rules every ten minutes. I kept agreeing to all of their conditions – they were hoping I would cancel.”

In this high-stakes game of chicken, Berkeley flinched. Berkeley caved and cancelled her speech, enabling Coulter to play the heroic victim of institutional censorship and mob rule.

Under intense media and political pressure, Berkeley offered an alternative date, which Coulter refused, keeping the pressure on Berkeley. Her sponsors filed lawsuits.

Coulter demanded her original speaking slot, insisted she would speak, and suggested she would speak in Sproul Plaza, if need be.

Berkeley announced that it could not ensure the safety of the speaker and attendees. Then YAF folded. Coulter wrote, “We were on [the] cusp of victory and YAF backed down, refused to seek a court order or allow the College Republicans to request a court order.  It’s a sad day for free speech.”

Coulter’s sponsors caved. Coulter was incensed. Why? She wanted Berkeley to cave and herself be vindicated as a heroine. Instead, she would have to speak outdoors, something she did not want to do.

In the end, Gavin McInnes, her good friend and latest knight in shining armor, gave Coulter’s extremely-short speech on her behalf in Sproul Plaza. Coulter was there, in Berkeley, but not at that peaceful event. Afterward, she joined McInnes and supporters for drinks at George and Walt’s.

Broken Vow

To KTVU, Coulter vowed: “I was invited to give a speech. I have a contract to give a speech. I’m giving a speech.” To the Hollywood Reporter, Coulter swore, “Yes, it was officially banned, but they can’t stop me. I’m an American. I have constitutional rights.”

Just the night before, Coulter told Sean Hannity: “I do think it is possible that the Berkeley campus will be the safest place on the face of the earth because so many people are flying in to defend me.”

At the airport, Coulter said, “Safest place on earth for me, but these cowards! Who has a better idea of what the campus is gonna be like than the person who’s going there as opposed to the moron sitting in Washington?”

So – both the day before and the afternoon of “the speech” – Coulter declared Berkeley “the safest place on earth for me,” yet she assigned her speech to McInnes! She gave him that assignment the day before the speech, which she emailed to him.

Coulter is there, but does not speak herself?

Gavin McInnes tweeted the day before the speech: “The @AnnCoulter event in Berkeley is NOT canceled. I will be speaking tomorrow with @Lauren_Southern @FaithGoldy @BrittPettibone #POYB.”

Two days earlier, Coulter tweeted: “Nice day for an outdoor speech at Berkeley,” implying she would give her speech in the plaza, if necessary. Coulter told AP, “I have my flights, so I thought I might stroll around the graveyard of the First Amendment.”

Five days later, Coulter told Lou Dobbs, “I would have preferred to have spoken.”

Coulter regularly advertises upcoming speeches on her website as soon as she has them booked. She never advertised her Berkeley speech on her own website – even though YAF did on theirs – complete with date, time, and location. Why?

She never intended to speak. It was all a charade. She wanted credit for courage without being courageous. She knew Berkeley would give in.

Nothing changed between Milo and Ann and the results were wholly predictable – and expected.

Coulter’s Speech

If Coulter really planned on speaking, then she must have prepared an astonishing speech. Indeed, Coulter boasted to Carlson that it would be “a searingly brilliant speech on immigration.”

McInnes said, “Ann sent me her speech,” and then he read it, breaking in with his own running commentary. Coulter’s actual speech was less than four minutes and contained nothing new, except for her comparison of immigrants to rat feces (contained in the lead paragraph). It contained zero references to Berkeley.

Hardly “searingly brilliant.”

Coulter told Carlson that her speech was about enforcement of existing immigration laws. Her speech – given by McInnes – never addressed that issue.

Earlier that week, Coulter said she would be updating her speech. Pretty good gig, $20,000 for a four-minute speech.

McInnes introduced her speech, saying, “Ann was betrayed. She was censored. They put all the legal onus upon her so that if someone gets hurt tonight, it would have been on her head. Now it’s on my head.”

If it was so dangerous that Coulter couldn’t give her speech, why did she have McInnes risk his life – and the lives of those in the audience – to do so on her behalf?

But what did she say shortly before McInnes gave her speech? “Safest place on earth for me, but these cowards!”

Yet, Coulter wasn’t about to nail her 95 Theses on Berkeley’s wall. She let her friend do it for her, while she took all the credit.

Speech Sponsors

The non-partisan BridgeUSA and conservative Young America’s Foundation co-sponsored Coulter’s speech. [Both YAF and BridgeUSA were non-responsive to my interview requests.]

The founder of BridgeUSA explained why his organization co-sponsored Coulter’s speech – “to facilitate dialogue between political opposites.” Ironically, he wrote: “Free speech isn’t about provocation, violence, publicity stunts, selling books or testing limits” – precisely what Coulter does on a regular basis.

Further, BridgeUSA “refuse[s] to invoke the right to free speech to inflame, attack and generate publicity” – exactly the modus operandi Coulter has embraced for the past two decades.

He added, “instigating controversy for publicity does not fix a broken system,” yet BridgeUSA sponsored a self-proclaimed provocateur and polemicist to do just that. How well would David Duke be received by the Black Panthers?

At CPAC 2002, Coulter posited the notion that she should keep going further and further right to draw the culture and the left toward her. Shortly thereafter, Coulter coined a series of “rules” for talking to a liberal: being as outrageous as you can be to inflame them. No reconciliation there.

Alheli Picazo writes, “People like Coulter and Yiannopoulos aren’t brought to campus to contribute substance – hearing either speak for a few minutes quickly puts lie to claims of their brilliance. They are skilled antagonists who can reliably incite backlash from a perceived enemy.”

It is unclear why Coulter is the best spokesman for YAF on anything, even immigration (the purported topic of the series of speeches spearheaded by BridgeUSA).

YAF has 100 speakers on its roster. Only five speakers are listed for immigration; Coulter is not among them. Were none of the actual “experts” on immigration available?

Moreover, only eight YAF speakers require an honorarium of $20K or more. Surely YAF could have selected a better representative of conservatism for less money.

YAF previously sponsored Milo Yiannopoulos, who isn’t even listed on its roster. Coulter claimed she is not like Yiannopoulos, yet they are both leaders of the Alt-Right and share an Alt-Right worldview. Is YAF in agreement with those views?

Unanswered Questions

One YAF tweet was particularly confusing: “At no time was there ever a space or lecture time confirmed for Ann Coulter to speak.” Yet YAF’s event page listed the location, date, and time as 110 Sprout Hall from 7:00 to 8:30 pm on 4/27/17. What really happened?

Would it be fair to say that YAF chose both Yiannopoulos and Coulter to generate controversy, anticipating a backlash which would then highlight the thuggish behavior on the Left and their threats to the First Amendment?

Coulter’s Courage

Conservative heroine Ann Coulter has proven herself a cowardly fraud. The free speech battle at Berkeley was merely a publicity stunt for this polemicist and provocateur.

As noted above, Coulter exhibited genuine courage in 1996-97. Hence her Alamo Award.

Since then, Coulter has gotten edgier and edgier while simultaneously abandoning her principles and ideals. In doing so, Coulter has actually embraced her fears. Now she is desperately grasping for the glory she once had and which increasingly eludes her.

What she fears most is facing the truth about the person she has become. Moreover, Coulter fears that she is beyond redemption, so why not continue on her downward path. (Ann, My Redeemer Lives, and so does yours!)

Ann Coulter isn’t a voice for freedom or free speech. Ann Coulter is a voice for Ann Coulter.

[#NeverTrump: Coulter’s Alt-Right Utopia examines the origins, worldview, and impact of the Alt-Right movement. It is now available on Amazon at http://amzn.to/2fzA9Mr.]

RIP Nell Husbands Martin Coulter

The death of Mother devastated Ann Coulter.

Following Mother’s death, Ann published a very personal, poignant, and often political eulogy.

In her eulogy, Ann mourned the loss her of “true No. 1 fan” who “was the biggest fan of” her entire family. Mother “was a little love machine, spreading warmth and joy wherever she went.” Mother loved hugging her daughter and telling her “what a wonderful, precious daughter” Ann was.

Ann felt safe and secure in her mother’s love: “My whole life, as soon as I’d see my mother’s face I’d know I was safe, whether I was a little girl lost in a department store or a big girl with a problem, who needed her mother.”

This Mother-Daughter love was very real.

A devoted daughter, Ann took excellent care of Mother during her declining years as she battled ovarian cancer. Ann even postponed publication of her seventh book, Guilty, to tend to her mother’s needs.

Ann understandably misses Mother’s “constant, unconditional love.”

In many ways, Ann emulates Mother (often to an extreme). In other ways, Ann repudiates Mother (often in extremist ways). Today, Mother would be both proud of, and perturbed by, her daughter.

Like Mother, Like Daughter

Ann and Mother both cherished their New England and Southern roots. Coulter’s prized genealogical roots all trace through Mother: New England Puritans and Daughters of the American Revolution, coupled with a solid Southern heritage.

Mother wanted to be specifically remembered for her “contributions to the Republican Party, the New Canaan Republican Town Committee and the Daughters of the American Revolution.”

“Mother may have thought her most notable characteristic was her Republican activism,” Coulter wrote, emphasizing her “deep-seated political activism” and being “always delighted to be with people talking about politics.”

Sounds a lot like Ann.

Mother was very proud to be “a direct descendant of at least a dozen patriots who served the cause of the American Revolution.” In fact, she “traced her lineage on both sides of her family to Puritan nonconformists who came to America in 1633 seeking religious freedom on a ship led by Pastor Thomas Hooker.”

Coulter, as she typically does, takes everything to extremes. Ann is so proud of her heritage as a Daughter of the American Revolution that she regards herself as a “settler” – and a “Native American.”

Ann also regards herself – a WASP – as a true American. (Hence her nativist and xenophobic impulses.) She treasures her Puritan roots, making her a self-identified authority on all things American.

Moreover, Ann is proud of Mother’s Southern roots, praising Mother’s “fighting Kentucky spirit” and “charming Southern accent.”

Coulter lauds the Confederacy whenever she can and tweeted (8/3/16): “Southerners accounted for 38 percent of those killed in Iraq and 47 percent in Afghanistan.” She then asked Gov. Haley: “How about Nikki put their flag back up?”

In other words, Coulter contends that Southerners who died in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan were fighting for the Confederacy!

Coulter continued: “The Confederate flag won’t lead to thousands of dead and maimed Americans, as Muslim immigration does. The only danger posed by the Confederate flag is that media elites will hold the South in even greater contempt than they already do, assuming that’s possible.”

Yes, Coulter equates Southerners with Confederates and believes that our brave military members from the South are currently fighting for the Confederacy and not for America!

Thus, Coulter has become the face of the Alt-Right movement, seeking restoration of a distinctly white WASP America while, simultaneously, promoting a neo-Confederate worldview.

Unlike Mother …

Mother was generous. Mother “probably contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to various conservative outfits over the years.” Ann, not so much.

Ann’s generosity extends to helping those who can help her.

If she can get something out of it – self-promotion, praise, paycheck, book sale, networking connection – Ann will do it. Otherwise – if it does not personally benefit her – forget it.

Mother was compassionate. Since she “was a little girl,” Ann saw that “friends, relatives and neighbors would bring their problems to Mother.” Why? Because Mother “had a rare combination of being completely moral and completely nonjudgmental at the same time” and would give “good counsel” without making others feel worse about themselves.

As for Ann, well, her entire career is based upon wounding other people. Given a choice between fact and polemic, Ann usually chooses the latter.

Mother valued human life. She was a “gentle lady” who “never had an unkind word for anyone.” In fact, “Father would always smile and say, ‘Your mother defends everyone.’”

Mother was proud of Ann for her pro-life speech presented before a Roman Catholic women’s group in New Canaan, CT, and later published in Human Life Review and various essay collections nationwide.

Now, though claiming, “I am totally pro-life,” Ann passionately attacks conservatives and Christians for pursuing a pro-life agenda.

As far back as the late 1990s, Coulter began attacking pro-lifers for purely political purposes. In reality, Coulter would have pro-lifers do nothing and let the unborn fend for themselves!

Mother was a devout Christian. Faith figured prominently in Mother’s life. She was very active in her local church and her faith was important enough to her that she faithfully turned her daughter to Presbyterianism.

In her moving eulogy, Ann emphasized Mother’s Republican activism and DAR lineage. Surprisingly, Ann missed Mother’s Christian beliefs. She utterly ignored her Mother’s faith.

Though claiming, “I’m an extraordinarily good Christian,” Ann has attacked Christians for most of the past two decades. She even attacks Christians for being godly!

Ann lovingly gave honor to Mother with her words, but in her life Coulter dishonors Mother.

Gone Astray

As I wrote last year:

I suspect that Ann never really believed in the Christian ideals and conservative principles she espoused. Indeed, she was not the “true believer” everyone believed her to be. Rather, she adopted those ideals and principles from her parents, whom she loved. Her father died in 2008; her mother in 2009. Since then, Ann’s moral and spiritual compass no longer exists. Ann is being tossed to and fro by the pragmatism of the moment and the passing whims of her heart.”

“Coulter hates conservatives, Christians, and pro-lifers for being what they are because she once believed she belonged in those categories. Now, whenever these people of principle act on their principles, she is put to shame as a charlatan. They expose Coulter for who she really is – a fraud.”

“Will Ann always be a fraud? Only God knows and only He can bring meaning and direction to her life. Unless and until Ann courageously faces the reality of who she has become and fights the good fight of faith to become the person God has called her to be, she will always be filled with hate and fear.”

“May God grant Ann repentance and transform her heart.”

Yes, Ann Hart Coulter has, indeed, lost the moorings of her parents’ presence, principles, and piety. Her heart is now turned in the wrong direction, away from God and opposed to His will. Whether or not she knows it, Ann has rejected God and His will for her life.

Instead, the “Emperor-God Trump” is her Savior. Coulter has rejected God and arrogantly placed her will above His.

Coulter recently said that with Mother’s passing, she can now say anything she wants to. She claimed, “I really am the freest person in America right now. I can say anything.”

The Easter season reminds us that we are all equal before the cross and that we must humble ourselves before the One who saves.

Obviously, humility eludes Ann. Her hubris abhors humility because 1) she rejects its efficacy and 2) she regards it as a sign of weakness.

Here’s the rub: Without humility, salvation is impossible. We must humbly come to the cross to accept God’s love and salvation. Until we do, we are not saved and we will never have peace.

Our Father’s Love

Ann praised Mother for her “unconditional love.” Mother was loving – and loved.

Mother’s love actually points to our heavenly Father’s perfect unconditional love. But only God perfectly expresses and exhibits unconditional love. Mothers can come close, but imperfectly.

Our Father has a perfect love, presence, and power. Trust Him!

In her eulogy, Ann expressed reassurance that Mother and Father were reunited in heaven and that she would see them both in time.

Revelation 21:4 reveals: “And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”

I pray that God wipes away all of Ann’s tears, from whatever source.

[A new book, #NeverTrump: Coulter’s Alt-Right Utopia, examines the origins, worldview, and impact of the Alt-Right movement. It is now available on Amazon at http://amzn.to/2fzA9Mr.]

RIP John V. Coulter

Ann Coulter’s world fell apart when her parents died: Father in 2008, Mother in 2009. Though their passing was long anticipated, one can never fully prepare for the death of loved ones. Their absence remains a deep void in Ann’s life.

rip-john-vincent-coulter

As Ann put it, “Your parents are your whole world when you are a child. You only recognize what is unique about them when you get older and see how the rest of the world diverges from your standard of normality.”

Her parents were Ann’s moral compass. From them, she derived her set of personal values, moral standards, political views, and religious beliefs. Since their passing, Ann has haphazardly abandoned those values, standards, views, and beliefs.

In 2008, the family patriarch – John V. Coulter – passed away. With his passing, Ann lost a sense of safety, security, and stability. Daddy passed away after years of declining health from dementia, a tragic and traumatic time for the whole family.

In her eulogy, Ann provided poignant personal anecdotes but also exploited her father’s memory to attack liberals and defend herself.

Ann wrote:

“John Vincent Coulter was of the old school, a man of few words, the un-Oprah, no crying or wearing your heart on your sleeve, and reacting to moments of great sentiment with a joke. Or as we used to call them: men. …

“He hated unions because of their corrupt leadership, ripping off the members for their own aggrandizement. But he had more respect for genuine working men than anyone I’ve ever known. He was, in short, the molecular opposite of John Edwards. …

“Of course, toward the end, he probably didn’t even remember he was a Catholic. But on the bright side, he didn’t remember that Teddy Kennedy was a Catholic, either. …

Within her moving eulogy, Ann repeatedly attacked liberals and concluded with a wish that liberals be smited: “Now Daddy is with Joe McCarthy and Ronald Reagan. I hope they stop laughing about the Reds long enough to talk to God about smiting some liberals for me.”

One blogger was inspired to pen this poem:

Now I lay me down to sleep,

I pray the Lord my Dad to keep;

I also ask liberals He kill,

What I can’t do, I pray God will.

Ann’s words – and the blogger’s interpretation of those words – suggest that Ann is unfamiliar with basic Christianity: our Father in heaven is a God of love who gave His only Son to save and redeem the lost and the broken (John 3:16).

May God grant healing in the deepest recesses of Ann’s heart. May He bring Ann’s internal compass into alignment with the North Star of Jesus Christ. And may His grace and peace be upon her.

[A new book, #NeverTrump: Coulter’s Alt-Right Utopia, examines the origins, worldview, and impact of the Alt-Right movement. It is now available on Amazon at http://amzn.to/2fzA9Mr.]

Coulter Turns 55 – or Zero?

Ann Coulter was born 55 years ago, today, on 12/8/1961. Coulter’s spiritual birth date is as yet undetermined.

ann-coulter-turns-55-or-zero

Chronologically, Ann is 55-years-old; spiritually, she may not even be a newborn.

Coulter received a strict Catholic education (K-8) at St. Aloysius Catholic School until she entered public school. She eventually rejected her father’s Catholicism in favor of her mother’s Presbyterian faith, yet, upon reaching adulthood, she apparently disengaged herself from religion altogether. The absence of an internal moral compass would forever plague her.

With the publication of Godless (2006), Coulter zealously expressed a newfound faith in God, one which was conveniently finely calibrated to her ideology, agenda, and career.

Her father passed away in 2008, after years of declining health from dementia. Her mother died the following year. Since then, Coulter’s religious and political views have become quite bizarre, suggesting that her religious beliefs – whatever they were as a child and young adult – were actually those of her parents but not something she herself truly believed.

Coulter has never been restrained by an internal moral compass. Rather, when she toed the line it was to please her parents, not God. With their passing, Coulter has liberated herself from all moral and religious constraints.

As Coulter puts it, “My mother passed away. I can say anything now.

Non-Christian Behavior

Coulter claims to be “an extraordinarily good Christian” and “a big Christian.”[1] (I’m surprised she hasn’t claimed to be a Yuge Christian, like her savior, Donald Trump.)

For a “Christian,” Coulter spends an ungodly amount of time attacking Christians for behaving like Christians.[2] Moreover, Coulter’s own version of the gospel[3] is decidedly different from that of traditional and historic Christianity.

Coulter defends Trump on virtually everything, irrespective of the truth, belying her claim, “I want to speak the truth.”[4] But then, truth has never been a high priority for Coulter.[5]

Coulter’s latest iteration of the gospel message of Jesus Christ casts into question her very definition of “evangelical” – a term she has actually applied to herself: “I don’t think the Republicans understand evangelicals. We don’t need to be coddled to constantly.”

Coulter denigrates evangelicals, claiming, “Evangelicals won’t come out in droves for him because he’s not having ecstasies on stage.”[6] She repeated, “You don’t have to have ecstasies on stage to impress a Christian.” Yet again: “You don’t have to have religious ecstasies on stage to get the Christian vote.”

Is that how Coulter views evangelicals?

But Coulter also shockingly implied that Christians don’t have to behave like Christians. She said, “Like the military, you don’t have to observe, you have to respect the military, respect what they do.”

Her words are somewhat confusing, but the implications of her words mirror her defense of Trump’s unchristian behavior: “Some Christians want proof that a candidate has memorized Bible verses. I want a candidate who lives by this verse: ‘So do not be afraid of them.’”[7]

Coulter, again, eschews character and godliness to further her political and ideological agenda. She relegates integrity to the margins and places expediency front-and-center. In doing so, Coulter demonstrates her own faithlessness to not only the principles and doctrines of her faith but to her professed faith itself.

Fruit of the Spirit

Coulter boasts of being a Christian, yet doesn’t act like one. Are we to believe her claims or our eyes?

In Galatians 5:22-23, the apostle Paul describes the character traits of a Christian: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.”

Coulter appears bereft of the fruit of the Spirit. (Perhaps this is more hyperbole than reality, but then, so is much of Ann’s work.)

Love. If Coulter loves anything, she loves to hate. A master of polemics, vitriol is her passion. Sarcasm – cutting – is her favorite form of humor.

Joy. Coulter appears most joyful when she is in the spotlight (narcissist seeking glory[8]) and when she is emasculating her foes (and they are legion).

Peace. Peace seems to elude Ann. She is well known for her diatribes on matters great and small. (Even soccer filled her heart with rage.)

Longsuffering. The very moment someone steps out of line, Coulter instantly launches into a Twitter tirade. Those tirades are frequent and they are often ugly.

Kindness. Coulter is not particularly well known for her kindness. Indeed, Coulter lacks simple charity.

Goodness. If anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism, and nativism count as “goodness,” then Coulter is filled to the brim.

Faithfulness. Coulter is renowned for betraying[9] her friends, her clients, her readers, and voters in both local and national elections. Similarly, Coulter betrays the very people of God, attacking their godliness, calling them traitors, and facilitating their martyrdom.

Gentleness. Another spiritual trait lacking in Coulter’s repertoire, gentleness was not to be found for Gold Star Families who are “immigrants.”

Self-control. Coulter’s temper tantrums (on-air, in commentary, and on social media) are inescapable. If Coulter doesn’t get her way – look out! Self-control? No. Control freak?[10] Yes. (The odd thing is, Coulter wants to control everything except herself!)

What has Ann actually accomplished with all of her nonsense? How many lives has she damaged or destroyed? How much damage has Ann done to herself and to those she loves?

The apostle Paul exhorts each of us to focus on what is most important in life: faith, hope, and love. Paul wrote (1 Cor. 13:1-3, emphasis added):

“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.”

Coulter sees herself – and more importantly, wants to be regarded – as “an extraordinarily good Christian.” But worldly people are incapable of living a godly life. The fruit of the Spirit is the fruit of the Spirit. The worldly cannot behave in a godly manner.

We expect Coulter to act her age – and she does: 55 (chronologically) and zero (spiritually).

May Jesus touch Ann’s heart this Christmas season and fill her with His love, joy, and peace.

[A new book, #NeverTrump: Coulter’s Alt-Right Utopia, examines the origins, worldview, and impact of the Alt-Right movement. It is now available on Amazon at http://amzn.to/2fzA9Mr.]

Endnotes:

[1]               Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity Show, Premiere Radio Networks, 1/19/16.

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

[3]               See The Gospel According to Ann Coulter, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/gospel.pdf.

[4]               Ann Coulter, Alan Colmes Show, Fox News, 1/15/16.

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

[6]               Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity Show, Premiere Radio Networks, 1/19/16.

[7]               Ann Coulter, “The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth, but They Shouldn’t be President,” 10/28/15.

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

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

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

Free book: Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory

Free book: Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory explores the narcissism and hubris which besets Coulter and her savior, Donald Trump. Both profess a desire to save America but each seeks their own glory.

book-cover-3

Hubris demands the fulfillment of personal ambition regardless of the consequences to America.

What is the impetus for this self-serving pride and how does it become so potent, yet, ultimately, impotent?

Highlights from Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory can be found here. The entire book is available as a free download here.

Trump’s Not So Smart Consigliere

Coulter says she doesn’t think of herself as smarter than Trump (or anyone else), yet she relishes being regarded as Trump’s brain. Go figure.

trumps-not-so-smart-consigliere

When asked, “did you feel like you were smarter than Trump?” Coulter coyly demurred, charging that it was “such a liberal question.” She added, “I don’t think of myself that way.” (When has she not thought of herself that way?)

Coulter continued her riff, contending, “’Oh, we just like to think we’re smarter than other people,’ I would never think that.” (Pick almost any Coulter book or column for a refutation of her claim.)

Coulter then absurdly averred, “I don’t evaluate people that way.” But she does that all the time.

Coulter even repeatedly attacks  prominent conservative leaders (e.g., “Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, all the alleged conservatives” for disagreeing with or opposing her views. She actually claimed that those people don’t read and don’t know what they are talking about, in contradistinction to Coulter, who boasted: “My thought is that everyone should just listen to me.” (Yes, she’s the smart one.)

Even at the “Ann Coulter Roast with Rob Lowe,” Coulter claimed to have the very best jokes.

Coulter seems to see herself as the smartest person in the world. Everyone else fits on a scale from dumb to imbecilic. Calling someone “stupid” is one of her most used attacks.

Furthermore, Coulter loves the word “retard” and sees no problem with mocking “spastic retards.”

But Coulter has always felt superior to most people, even to her peers and her colleagues (see Chapter 4, “Brains”, in The Beauty of Conservatism).

As for Trump, Coulter argues, “Getting details wrong doesn’t interest me. He can follow my Twitter feed to get those things right.”

Wait? If Coulter is not smarter than Trump, then why should he take her advice? If Trump is so smart, why does he keep getting details wrong? And why does Coulter go crazy whenever her candidate goes “mental?”

A recent Coulter profile explained “How Ann Coulter Created Donald Trump.” If Coulter’s “The woman who tells Donald Trump what to think,” how could she not be smarter?

She just won’t admit it publicly. Perhaps she fears angering Trump again.