The Clintons’ War on Women
Good people can’t understand how truly bad a bad person can be. Good people are good, but they’re also a little bit stupid. - Jon Roberts (nee John Riccobono)
The first thought of anyone reading Roger Stone and Robert Morrow’s blockbuster, The Clintons’ War on Women (309 customer reviews on Amazon.com currently), with anything approaching an open mind is likely to be, “How is it possible that a person of Hillary Clinton’s known sordid history could ever be seriously considered as a candidate for president?” What the authors amply and convincingly lay out and document throughout their book is what they call, “The Clintons’ lifelong history of lying and violating the law, seemingly without consequence or punishment.”
Rather than being punished for their criminal behavior, in fact, the Clintons have been rewarded with enormous wealth and political success. The authors attempt to explain what has happened with the term “elite deviance.”
Elite deviance is an anomaly in which a tiny few people who have enough material wealth, political influence, and personal connections can immunize themselves from considering the consequences of their most abhorrent, destructive, vile, and even criminal behavior. This describes the Clintons perfectly.
It might describe their current situation, but it hardly explains the charmed political life that they have led since they left Yale Law School with few resources of their own. A better way of understanding the Clintons is to look at the particular context for their success. A poem I posted on November 22, 2003, sums up that context:
Forty years and counting
Since Kennedy was killed,
And our vacuum of leadership
Still has not been filled.
Why should those shoes present
Such difficulty in filling?
The candidates are weeded out
By those who did the killing.
Those who were responsible for the coup d’état that resulted in the replacement of John F. Kennedy by Lyndon B. Johnson—and who can doubt that the CIA was in it up to their eyeballs—have been in the saddle ever since, and that explains better than anything else why we get to choose a mystery man like Barack Obama, a dimwit like George W. Bush, or racketeers like the Clintons to be our nation’s putative leaders. A true leader who would put our nation’s best interests first would, I fear, be no more tolerated than JFK was. President Obama let the cat out of the bag when he confided to a New York Times reporter that he sometimes felt like “going Bulworth,” and jumping the traces of his handlers.
We can see the outlines of the Kennedy coup connections in the book under consideration:
Terry Reed, who later wrote a book about the Clinton-Bush-CIA-Oliver North drug smuggling said, “The first day I met Barry Seal he was in the company of Dan Lasater and Roger Clinton. Roger was the driver for Dan Lasater at the time.
With Dan Lasater and Bill Clinton it was about drugs, parties, cocaine, women, and drug money laundering. Arkansas was wide open for the drug trade. It was a diseased narco state being run by a cocaine-addled Governor Bill Clinton.
Notice the “Bush” there in the criminal nexus. That is George H.W. Bush whose heavy involvement with the CIA drug smuggling through Arkansas when Clinton was governor is detailed in the Reed book referenced and in other sources that the authors site. We might expect more detail in Stone’s upcoming Jeb and the Bush Crime Family.
The elder Bush’s early CIA ties as well as his connection to the JFK assassination have long been known. I have a telling quote from Stone and Morrow on Bill Clinton’s CIA connections in my previous article, “Sidney Blumenthal, Vince Foster, and the Deep State.”
The Clintons’ War on Women will predictably be attacked as the work of Clinton-hating right-wingers, but the revelations of the Clintons’ connection to the illicit drug network of the Bushes, the CIA, and inevitably organized crime—also players in the JFK assassination—show it is really a book about the criminal Deep State.
Still Sleazy after All These Years
The Clintons’ sleazy associations continue to the present day. Stone and Morrow reveal that Bill is very close to billionaire and convicted sexual abuser of under-aged girls, Jeffrey Epstein. He has flown overseas on Epstein’s private plane on at least ten occasions and visited his private island numerous times. Quoting Virginia Roberts, a woman who said she was Epstein’s longtime teenage sex slave, Stone and Morrow write:
Bill must have known about Jeffrey’s girls. There were three desks in the living area of the villa on the island.
They were covered with pictures of Jeffrey shaking hands with famous people and photos of naked girls, including one of me that Jeffrey had at all his houses, lying in a hammock.
We learn from the book that Epstein’s plane was known as the “Lolita Express” for the orgies with underage girls that took place on it and that such activities were commonplace on the private island. From what is certainly common knowledge about Bill’s proclivities, we must imagine that he was in (razorback?) hog heaven. Bill’s close association with such a man as Epstein seems not to have caused offense within his nuclear family, because Epstein’s longtime girlfriend of the more seasoned variety, Ghislaine Maxwell, the daughter of the late shadowy British media mogul Robert Maxwell, was a photographed guest at Chelsea Clinton’s wedding.
The term “elite deviance,” as previously defined, fits Epstein much better than it fits the Clintons. Again, we quote Stone and Morrow:
There is currently a lawsuit by several of the child sex victims of Epstein to overturn a questionably light plea bargain that resulted in this prolific pedophile Epstein having to serve only thirteen months in jail with a sixteen-hour-a-day pass. After molesting perhaps up to one thousand girls (as Epstein confessed to his sex slave Virginia Roberts), Jeffrey Epstein was allowed to just sleep nights in the county jail while the rest of his day could be spent in the luxury of his Palm Beach mansion. Based on what thirty-three child victims who have actually settled lawsuits with him have said, Epstein should be serving a twenty-year sentence in state prison.
The Palm Beach Post, to its credit, went to court to get this wrist-slap deal unsealed. Only after two years of litigation did the public learn of the toxic terms of the secret deal. Why George W. Bush’s DOJ gave Epstein a pass after a flawed state investigation seems to be a mystery.
Well, perhaps it is not a mystery when one learns of the names and social statuses of the people who were involved with Epstein.
At this point elite deviance meets the Deep State. The prime lawyer for Epstein who got him the sweet plea bargain deal was none other than supposed Clinton nemesis Kenneth Starr. Also on the Epstein legal team was super lawyer, arch-Zionist and fellow frequent guest of Epstein, Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz, as we noted in a previous article, is now a close crony of another previous putative nemesis of the Clintons, Christopher Ruddy. Dershowitz now serves on Ruddy’s Newsmax as a legal commentator.
Further closing the Deep State circle, we might remind readers that Starr served as the Solicitor General in George H.W. Bush’s Justice Department. After Starr’s chief investigator of the Vince Foster death, Miguel Rodriguez, resigned in disgust over what he perceived as an ongoing cover-up, he was replaced by Brett Kavanaugh. President George W. Bush made Kavanaugh and another member of Starr’s legal team, John Bates, federal judges. In their chapter 15, Stone and Morrow connect Kavanaugh and Bates to the harassment and attempted discrediting of the aggrieved witness in the Foster case, Patrick Knowlton. Stone and Morrow are probably not aware of it because they never interviewed Knowlton for their book, but, for some reason, another member of the Starr team investigating team was renowned FBI profiler, Jim Clemente, an expert on sex offenders. According to Knowlton, Clemente interviewed him five times. At the time, Knowton was unaware of Clemente’s specialty.
Perhaps the Foster death was related to some high level skulduggery that up to now has not even been hinted at. Maybe there’s a clue in another quote from the book related to Clinton crony Lasater:
If one were to summarize the Clinton-Lasater relationship, one could say that Bill Clinton provided the official political protection for the cocaine and drug smuggling, while Lasater took care of the nuts and bolts of laundering the hundreds of millions of dirty drug money. And in their spare time it was drugs, parties, and corrupting teenage girls.
The “Women’s Advocates’” War on Them
Readers may gather at this point that there is a good deal more in this book than the title suggests. In fact, the book that the title best fits was written by the lawyer Candice E. Jackson, and Stone and Morrow draw heavily upon it for that part of their book. The title is Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine. Jackson interviewed seven women who allege abuses of them by Bill Clinton that range from outright rape to threats, intimidation, and various smears in an attempt to silence them. They direct a good deal of their animus toward Hillary because they see her as the principal orchestrator of the latter category of abuse.
Another powerful book that the current title well fits is Kathleen Willey’s Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton. “Hillary is included in the title,” I say in my review, “not just to make it timely during her first run for the presidency. One gets the distinct impression from reading the book that in spite of the indignity she suffered at Bill’s hands, Willey genuinely regards Hillary as much the worse of the two.” It is fitting that Willey has written the foreword for Stone and Morrow.
The involvement of Hillary was also captured in an Amazon.com review of the Jackson book in 2012 by the co-author Morrow of The Clintons’ War on Women, which he begins this way:
Let me assure that the women in this book are not the only women that Bill and Hillary Clinton have personally violated in so many ways over the years.
I include "Hillary" because she was with Bill every step of the way, covering for him, hiring an army of private detectives to harass, intimidate and terrify any of Bill's sex victims or girlfriends who might go public.
Morrow would get his chance to go beyond Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Corbin Jones, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Sally Miller Perdue, Gennifer Flowers, and Monica Lewinsky. We can see a partial list of the cases Stone and Morrow address in this 1999 Capitol Hill Blue article. Examining Bill’s history of sexual predation, in fact, perhaps the most remarkable thing is that to my knowledge no allegations have arisen from his time as an undergraduate student at Georgetown University. One is tempted to say that living with Hillary, whom he met at law school at Yale, has not been conducive to proper sexual behavior on Bill’s part, but Stone and Morrow reveal that he was one of the few Rhodes Scholars at Oxford not to complete his course of studies because he was expelled for the hushed-up sexual assault of a nineteen-year-old student there.
By far the worst of the sexual allegations against Bill Clinton remains that of Broaddrick. When he was attorney general of Arkansas and she was a political supporter, she says he violently raped her not once but twice in a hotel room. You can hear her account on national television here. She later had an encounter with Hillary in which it was clear to her that Hillary knew about it and made it clear to her by her manner that she would expect Broaddrick to keep her mouth shut about the incident. Willey tells of a similar encounter with Hillary in the wake of Bill’s thwarted assault on her.
Elite deviance, indeed! When I was young, at least, rape was treated as a capital offense.
Now one might raise the objection that the worst of the misconduct here is Bill’s, not Hillary’s, and she’s the presidential candidate now. But recall that the Clintons presented themselves throughout his tenure as sort of a co-presidency, two for the price of one, as they put it. Taking them at their word, what they are offering us is a sort of end run around the 22nd Amendment, limiting a president to two terms. It may not violate the letter of the amended Constitution, but a third term of the Clinton co-presidency would certainly violate it in spirit.
This book hardly spares Hillary in her own right, though. Here is the skeleton of their take on Hillary, before they begin to hang the meat on the bones:
Far from her public image, Hillary Clinton is a violent, scheming, ambitious, foul-mouthed woman with an insatiable appetite for luxury, money, and power. Hillary is also a physically violent person, famous for hitting, scratching, and throwing things at her cheating husband. She is a classic abuser of anyone who gets in the way of her drive for power.
This is precisely the impression I already had of the woman from the writings of others who have been close to her and seen her in action. One summing up of Hillary is so good that the authors use it in three separate places in the book. It comes from Arkansas state trooper Larry Patterson as he was witnessing one of Hillary’s tirades at the governor’s mansion. The cook, known to him only as Miss Emma said to him, “The devil’s in that woman.”
Stone and Morrow also remind us that just as Bill has been held to much lower standards of sexual conduct than other public figures such as Bill Cosby or Gary Hart, Hillary has been held to lower standards of veracity.* I had almost forgotten about Hillary’s Brian Williams moment when I got to this passage from Stone and Morrow:
Hillary’s lies caught up to her during her failed 2008 campaign. In the heat of the primary against Obama, Hillary repeatedly said in a March 17 speech and several interviews that she was caught under sniper fire in 1996 as First Lady and “ran for cover under hostile fire shortly after her plane landed in Tuzla, Bosnia.” Eight days later, a video became public that showed “Clinton arriving on the tarmac under no visible duress, and greeting a child who offers her a copy of a poem.” Further, more than “100 news stories from the time documented no security threats to the First Lady.”
Williams was banished from his anchorman post for his fanciful, self-promoting war stories while Hillary continues to be a viable candidate for president.
We don’t even need their further reminder that she has told the good people of New Zealand that she was named for their native son Mount Everest conqueror Sir Edmund Hillary (many years before he emerged from beekeeper obscurity with his famous feat) to understand why polls show Hillary to be the least trusted of all the candidates in the race.
Hillary’s lack of truthfulness continues on brazen display with the almost every aspect of her ongoing saga concerning her private email accounts while she was Secretary of State. The reason that Stone and Morrow offer for Hillary’s circumvention of the legal requirement that she conduct all her official business with the government email account has the solid ring of truth. The Clinton Foundation, they say, while presenting itself as a charitable endeavor, has been little more than a great big bribe receptacle for these partners in crime.
For how that has worked, the best source is probably Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich. If you were giving government favors in return for contributions to your slush fund, and outrageous speaking fees for your sidekick, you wouldn’t want the record to be accessible through a FOIA request, either. So, in short, it is her venality that she is attempting to conceal with her mendacity concerning the emails. But for the “elite deviance” factor, her use of an insecure private email account to conduct highly sensitive government business amounts to out-and-out criminality.
Indeed, The Clintons’ War on Women delivers far more than what its title and Ann Coulter’s touting blurb on the cover promise, but it has very nearly crippling flaws. To gather what is wrong with the book, one hardly need go further than my review of Richard Poe’s Hillary’s Secret War: The Clinton Conspiracy to Muzzle Internet Journalists:
The tip-off as to who is expected to read this book is at the top of the dust jacket: "This book is required reading," it says in bold italics. And right under the quote in bigger, bolder, all capital letters is the name of the professional polarizer being quoted, none other than Ann Coulter. With such a recommendation, the publisher is assured that the only people likely to spend more than five minutes with the book are hard-core Fox News junkies.
Like Poe, hard-hitting as they may seem, Stone and Morrow actually pull their punches. Nowhere is the punch pulling more evident than in their treatment of the July 20, 1993, mysterious death of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr. They accept the official conclusion that a depressed Foster blew his brains out with a .38 caliber revolver, firing the gun while pressing the muzzle against the roof of his mouth. But in an explanation that manages to make the official story look good by comparison, they theorize that he was depressed because the once intimate friend Hillary had badly hurt his feelings by freezing him out and verbally mistreating him in public and that the suicide took place in his White House office after he crept back unnoticed late in the work day, likely between 4:30 and 5:00 pm, after going somewhere all afternoon after he had eaten a cheeseburger lunch at his desk.
They offer essentially no evidence for their theory. Has anyone said that they saw Foster come back to the office, or even to the White House? No. Has anyone at the White House, on the White House grounds, or in the Old Executive Office Building next door or out on the sidewalk of Pennsylvania Avenue said they heard the loud report of this high-powered weapon? No. At the same time they make a big to-do about the fact that no one in the houses that are much farther away from the eventual body discovery site in Fort Marcy Park heard the sound of a gunshot.
Their theory also shares many of the weaknesses of the official conclusion of suicide from depression. Was any prescription for anti-depressants that officially was filled by the Morgan Pharmacy in Georgetown ever presented into evidence? No. Were any telephone records of a call to Little Rock, Arkansas, to the Foster family doctor that precipitated the drug prescription presented into evidence? No. Did a post-mortem test of Foster’s blood detect any drugs? No. Were Foster’s two sons ever asked if the .38 revolver officially found in Foster’s hand at Fort Marcy Park belonged to the family? Officially, no. Was the widow Lisa ever shown the black revolver depicted in an official photograph in Foster’s hand? No. She was shown a silver gun that she said she thought was his. Did any of the 25 people at the general body site, many of whom saw the body, see any exit wound in the back of Foster’s head, much less the half-dollar-sized one such as was shown on the official autopsy sketch? No.
An astute reader will notice, as well, that this theory of self-murder in the office is in direct conflict with their generally quite good subsequent chapter 15 that is constructed around the observations of the previously cited witness Patrick Knowlton. That chapter mentions in several places a small wound in Foster’s neck that could likely have been caused by the bullet from a small caliber weapon. Several people, either in person or in a photograph, saw it. That wound is inconsistent with the .38-in-the-mouth suicide scenario.
The authors’ theory is essentially the one that journalist Marinka Peschmann presents in her 2012 book Following Orders: The Death of Vince Foster, Clinton White House Lawyer. The title of my review of her book sums it up, “Latest Foster Cover-Up Book Not Completely Worthless.” Like Stone and Morrow, she manages to throw a lot of sand in people’s eyes by trotting out various misdirections from the misdirection expert, Christopher Ruddy, from the FBI, and from, among others, the very curious supposed first discoverer of the body, “CW.” Stone and Morrow call him by the name by which he was known, Dale Kyle. His full name was Kermit Dale Kyle, and he has passed away.
Peschmann, Ruddy, and Stone and Morrow put a lot of stock in Kyle’s observations. Ms. Peschmann actually made an attempt to defend her work and to attack my review of her book in an online forum. My guess is that she has never set foot in Fort Marcy Park, and it’s very likely that neither Stone nor Morrow has either. She had no rejoinder to this observation of mine:
Now let’s say a thing or two about that “confidential witness” who, she and the authorities like Kenneth Starr agree, “found Foster’s body” and whom she and Starr both label only with the initials “CW.” As a somewhat aging country boy and veteran of hundreds of alfresco urinations of the type that KK (initials of his real first and last names) says nature forced upon him, I can say with solemn assurance that there is not one chance in ten million that he would have stumbled upon Foster’s body where it was had he just been looking for a secluded place to pee. The whole damn park, for goodness sakes, is a secluded place. The body was way up on the other side of the park behind a berm, and you first have to walk through a large space cleared of trees to get there. It’s a long ways, it’s mainly uphill, and it was a hot day. The parking lot itself is completely ringed with trees. The notion that KDK went where he says he did in search of a place to relieve himself, to anyone with the slightest familiarity with Fort Marcy Park, might be the most outrageous lie in the whole Vince Foster death case. No serious person could possibly believe it.
Oh, nothing much else about KDK’s story, shall we say, holds water, either, but I think I’ve written enough for now.
At the beginning of the Stone and Morrow book we have this:
Dedicated to the women and men violated by Bill and Hillary Clinton in their scramble for power.
And also to Sean Hannity, Nick Bryant, Matt Drudge, Peter Schweitzer [sic], Daniel Halper, Michael Goodwin, Christopher Hitchens, David Sirota, Paul Sperry, Ed Klein, Brent Scher, Victor Thorn, Marinka Peschmann, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Jim Nelson, Roger Morris, Sally Denton, and Chris Ruddy. These journalists have done more than anyone else to expose the Clintons’ epic transgressions.
No informed person who is interested in the truth could possibly make that last statement. I am not familiar with all the people named, but I know enough of them. One can search his name on my web site and see that I would put Evans-Pritchard pretty close to the top of the list. Morris’s book Partners in Power, the Clintons and their America also strikes me as very honest and informative. I have not read it but Schweizer’s book, referenced above, appears helpful. Klein, on the other hand, is an obvious master of deceit while Ruddy and the upstart Peschmann appear to be cut out of the same mold as Klein. And putting Hannity right up front rivals putting Coulter on the cover as a way to drive away the politically moderate-to-liberal reader.
A man whose writings were popular with college students in the 1960s, Paul Goodman, supposedly once made the observation, “In America you can say anything you want as long as it has no effect.” Roger Stone and Robert Morrow have said a great big mouthful about the quintessentially corrupt political couple, Bill and Hillary Clinton. If everyone were to read it and were to take even a small part of it to heart Hillary Clinton would never be elected to any position, no matter how lowly it might be (What with our dodgy electronic vote counting system, there is a legitimate question as to whether this very unlikable woman ever has been elected.). By having their book plugged by Ann Coulter, by paying tribute to and repeatedly citing mainstream journalistic hacks as worthy authorities, and by pulling their punches and employing in places some rather sloppy scholarship they have made certain, unfortunately, that their efforts are likely to have a minimal effect. Whether or not that is by design I’ll leave for readers to decide.
* The authors also address the question of Hillary’s sexual conduct, citing evidence of intimacy with Webb Hubbell and Vince Foster as well as evidence that she swings both ways. In the latter category, among lots of other things they quote from this writer’s “Is Hillary Clinton a Lesbian?” although they fail to give the Web address.
December 3, 2015