Michael Isikoff claims that he was in the center of the plot to destroy Clinton. With contacts like Ken Starr, Lucianne Goldberg, Linda Tripp and enemies like Julie Hiatt Steele, Isikoff was not at the center, he was a part of the plot to destroy Clinton. We understand the effort to restore credibility by admitting the glaringly obvious, but we are not fools. If Michael Isikoff was an objective, investigative journalist, he would have written a book titled "Uncovering the plot to destroy Clinton." Instead, he has just released "Uncovering Clinton". The problem is, it is simply not possible to uncover Bill Clinton without uncovering Michael Isikoff. There is nothing wrong with a private appeal of the failed impeachment hearings, but there is nothing right about a deceptive appeal. We appreciate the nature of Isikoff's dilemma. The common characteristic of the players in the plot to destroy Clinton is their mutual agreement to expose nothing unless it is too obvious to deny. It is simply not possible for Isikoff to be an honest journalist without incriminating himself, and that makes him a two time loser. [posted April 10, 1999]
Footnote;
Just heard that Lucianne Goldberg agrees with us. Referring to Isikoff, the old gal says: "It must be difficult to type and cover one's butt at the same time." But Goldberg neglects the fact that her commentary applies to herself as well, and that betrays a mutual obsession to cover up the truth. Goldberg and Isikoff are two of a kind. If she thinks that a manufactured controversy will sell more of Isikoff's books, deny them the scam. Isikoff is Goldberg's favorite "investigative journalist", and the only "butt" that Isikoff covered is the one that Goldberg kissed. If they think that a phony controversy will peak public interest, it will not. Propagandists are understood, not by what they say, but by what they intend, and we all know that Goldberg and Isikoff are recycling old news, to revive the unfulfilled fantasy to force the resignation of President Bill Clinton.
F
ollowing her acquittal from obstruction of justice charges that resided in Starr’s head,
Susan Mcdougal uncovered the double dealing of Michael Isikoff, a phony journalist who
operated on the level of Ken Starr’s chief propagandist. According to Michael Isikoff,
Susan McDougal refused to cooperate with Ken Starr because she wanted to avoid
answering questions about an alleged sexual affair with Clinton. But Susan McDougal
blew that deliberately fabricated allegation out of the water when she said:
"I had a long conversation with Mr. Isikoff where he said that he believed me [regarding
her denial of an affair with Clinton] and he felt that the Independent Counsel wanted that
information before the election to harm Clinton. And I had that conversation with him not
on one occasion but two, and I find it very interesting that Mr. Isikoff, who is supposed to
be a journalist and have some sort of distance from all of this, is now writing some
laudatory book about Kenneth Starr."
Susan McDougal is extremely infuriated with
Isikoff because he evidently used a lie about an imagined sexual relationship between McDougal and Clinton to promote the claim that Clinton negotiated a loan with fraud artist David Hale as
a favor to his so-called lover, Susan. It was a nice effort to manufacture motivation, but a
mountain of evidence stands in the way of that fraud. First and foremost, Susan McDougal
refused to lie and she refused to fall victime to the perjury traps that corrupt prosecutors rely upon, to pervert justice. In her own words, Susan McDougal betrayed the preposterous wotchhunt that Isikoff and Starr embraced, when she said:
"That just shows you that it is not only a lie, it is a lie upon a lie. I mean, not only did I not have a sexual affair with him, there is absolutely no evidence, any, that Clinton ever interceded about any loan. In fact, there is no evidence anywhere that Clinton benefited anything from that loan, interceded, ever talked to David Hale about it. And you see, that is the sort of thing I have had to fight all along. How do you fight a lie upon a lie, upon a lie, upon a lie? It's very hard because you know what they say, she's a convicted felon, why do we believe her?
And that is why I fought so hard in this trial to clear my name because the truth is the truth. They have nothing but these allegations and it makes me so angry to have to even answer them. And that is why I went to jail. Because I was so angry at having to answer what was just absolutely false allegation. There was no truth to any of them and it's very hard to fight that."
In other words, what Susan McDougal and every other witness who refused to deliver scripted testimony have described is an out of control Special Prosecutor who is the symbol of a manevolent Inquisition. Every Inquisition is the same, it's all about turning out the lights and reciting platitudes of law and order in the dark. The first light that was turned out was Vincent Foster, and the platitudes in the dark were the Senate Whitewater Hearings that tried to figure out what crimes were committed after the so called suicide of Foster. If they called it murder, the demand for a real investigation would have interfered with the witchhunt [unless they could blame it on the Clintons] and while the motivation for that murder escaped widespread 'mainstream' media attention, Susan McDougal is very clear about the fact that her former husband, Jim McDougal, was essentially tortured to death. And just in case you're wondering why you didn't know, what do you expect with law enforcement officials like Ken Starr and journalists like Michael Isikoff? Listen, do you want to know a secret? Susan McDougal spent 20 months in 5 different jails because she refused to lie about Bill and Hillary Clinton and Starr in now upset because she is out. Ken Starr thinks that she deserves to burn at the stake. Isn't the simple truth the hardest to believe? We used to feel uncomfortable claiming that Vincent Foster was deliberately murdered because he shielded the President from absurd Whitewater allegations, but the evidence has tipped the balance. Show us an Inquisition where the victims failed to show up, and we'll withdraw the claim. Vincent Foster was clearly murdered, and there is not a single shred of reliable evidence, to suggest otherwise.
To be brief, it was not possible to script the testimony of Vincent Foster, and he was such a giant in terms of his unimpeachable integrity that he would have singlehandedly made absolute fools out of indisputable morons like Ken Starr, Lucianne Goldberg, Michael Isikoff, Linda Tripp... Get the picture? It takes a great deal of background work, to make the world safe for morons.
