Is the Fix in for Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee?

If we lived in the sort of republic that we are given to believe that we do, and if the left-right, red-blue battle lines were drawn the way that we think that they are, there is no chance whatsoever that D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh would ever be seriously considered as someone that President Donald Trump might nominate for the Supreme Court. As Los Angeles attorney Allan J. Favish well explains in a June 28, 2018, article in American Thinker, Kavanaugh was the lead player on the team assembled by Kenneth Starr in the drawn out cover-up of what was almost certainly the murder of Vincent W. Foster, Jr., the deputy White House counsel at the time and a long-time associate (and some say more) of First Lady Hillary Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock. During the 2016 campaign, as Favish points out, Trump declared that there was “something fishy” about the Foster death, in so doing, even with that rather timid charge, he went a good deal further than almost anyone either in the press or on either side of the aisle on the national political scene has gone in raising doubts about this obvious official cover-up. One would think, as Favish suggests, that Trump, of all people, should hardly be entertaining the notion of appointing to the highest court in the land a person instrumental in the corrupt protection of the Clintons in such a high profile case as this.

But I would remind Mr. Favish that the precedent has already been set by Trump. See my November 16, 2017, article, “HHS Nominee Deep State Made Man.” The title character is Alex Azar, who is now not just the nominee, but is the current Secretary of Health and Human Services. He did not play nearly as big a role as Kavanaugh, but he was also on that team of cover-up artists assembled by Starr. Service there, rather than being a disqualifier for higher office, appears to have been something of a rite of passage for rising in our gangster government. After all, it was the Republican president George W. Bush who made Kavanaugh and another Starr team member, John Bates, federal judges. To dismiss the significance of that fact by dismissing Bush as just another member of the Washington establishment swamp that Trump is pledged to drain is to overlook the Azar appointment and a host of other Trump appointments that look little different from the ones that Bush the Lesser or even Crooked Hillary might have made.

Here are some more straws in the wind. On Wednesday night a Fox News reporter was going down the list of possible Trump nominees for the vacant seat on the bench for program host, Tucker Carlson. Only at Kavanugh’s name did Carlson show a nod of approval and a short utterance that sounded like “good” to me. What is it, one must wonder, that Carlson thinks he knows about Kavanaugh that is good, compared to what he likely knows, or, by all rights ought to know, about Kavanaugh, which is something that is about as bad as it gets? At this point in our nation’s history, Carlson is one of the big three influential conservative voices in the national media, along with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and seems like the most learned, intelligent, and fair-minded of the three, and yet I got the distinct impression, as I am sure millions of viewers did, that he is plumping for Brett Kavanaugh, of all people, to become one of the country’s nine most powerful people. (It should be noted that another Fox personality trying to turn the Big 3 into a Big 4, Laura Ingraham, features as a regular guest on her program another graduate of the corrupt Starr team, Sol Wisenberg. According to the establishment leftist Mother Jones, she was also a crony of Kavanaugh and Azar when they were on the Starr team.)

Journalist Byron York is a frequent Carlson guest, and he always comes across looking very good and reasonable, particularly when he is taking on what has become of the rest of our mainstream media and the Democratic Party these days. But here is an observation that I made about York’s reporting in Part 5 of “America’s Dreyfus Affair: the Case of the Death of Vincent Foster”:

… another patently phony Clinton-opposition group accounts for no more than a flickering zephyr in [Dan] Moldea's "political firestorm" account, but he appears to take them seriously, nonetheless. That is the bizarre outfit that fashions itself the Clinton Investigative Commission. In his penultimate endnote, Moldea credits "investigative reporter" Byron York of The American Spectator with having written a "hilarious exposé" of the group (speaking of outfits lacking evident economic viability, the neo-conservative Weekly Standard, Moldea tells us in his text, had a review by York of [Christopher] Ruddy's book in which he concluded "the conspiracy theorists simply have too much invested in their scenarios to conclude that the evidence proves them wrong."). One can't help wonder what awesome investigative and literary skills York had to bring to bear to make this crew appear ridiculous. It could hardly be more obvious that their entire reason for being is to make all suspicions of the Foster death appear almost humorously absurd. That our clandestine community has gone to such lengths as to manufacture such ruses is just about the best evidence we have that we are dealing with something far more important here than a simple suicide.

The role that the “conservative” press played, and continues to play, in the Foster murder cover-up can hardly be underestimated. What is it about this case? I put the question in verse form some time ago in “Murder Mystery”

How crude, audacious, and reckless,

Right under the President’s seal!

What was a living Vincent Foster

Such a threat to reveal?

In light of the people they’ve had to suborn

And investigations to rig,

It must have been something truly ugly,

And something terribly big.

Perhaps the most telling thing of all about the Foster case has been the universal blackout of the addition to Starr’s report on Foster that the 3-judge panel ordered Starr to include, over Starr’s strenuous written objections. That is the 20-page letter by John Clarke, the attorney of the dissenting and harassed witness, Patrick Knowlton, which completely demolishes Starr’s suicide conclusion. The total news blackout is telling because it shows how important the case must be and how thoroughly America’s press is controlled. One can read those twenty pages and about all the drama surrounding it at fbicover-up.com. Hugh Turley’s article, “Documents Reveal Judges’ Deliberations on a Death,” provides a good short summary of that drama.

In Part 3 of “America’s Dreyfus Affair,” I call this media blackout “The Great Suppression of ’97.” I would commend the complete section, nay, the whole article and the entire series to your attention, but here is a salient quote:

Now there has developed a popular notion, encouraged in no small part by the opinion molders in the mainstream press, that those who treat various official pronouncements with skepticism are simply "anti- government." Such people may be contrasted with the media people themselves who show us how "responsible" they are by only giving us "the facts," as long as those facts bear an officially-approved label. But here we have a case of one official government body, the three-judge federal panel, administering a slap in the face to another official government body, the Office of the Independent Counsel. Certainly citizen critics who applaud the action of the judges can hardly be called "anti-government," nor can the nation's press, who unanimously covered up the fact of the judges' inclusion of the Knowlton/Clarke Addendum, be called anything that resembles "responsible." The adjective that comes to my mind is "corrupt."

The very fact that the press would go to such an extreme as to ignore completely the existence of the Knowlton/Clarke Addendum in itself tells us more than anything that is in either the main body of the report or the addendum. Most telling is that even those press figures who found the Starr Report lacking neglected to tell us about the addendum in their initial reaction. These included Christopher Ruddy in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Sam Smith in his Progressive Review, and Phillip Weiss in the New York Observer. Curiously, the "liberal" Smith based all of his objections to the findings of the Starr Report upon the argument put forward by the "conservative" Ruddy, thereby building him up and making him look better. The suppression also reached far beyond the Washington-New York-Los Angeles nodes of power. As luck would have it, the tireless Foster researcher, Hugh Turley, was in his native St. Paul, Minnesota on the day the Starr Report was released. He went down to the offices of the "conservative" St. Paul Pioneer Press and obtained an audience with national editor, Martha Malan. At that time he laid in her lap the scoop of the inclusion of the Knowton/Clarke Addendum and even gave her a copy of the addendum, which he had helped prepare, and a copy of the entire Knowlton suit against the FBI. There in her building's lobby, Turley explained to Malan the significance of everything he was giving her. The next day the Pioneer Press carried only the Knight-Ridder wire service article that extolled the virtues of Starr's exhaustive investigation that had left no stone unturned in its fair-minded quest to solve the mystery of the death of Vincent Foster.

All this brings us back to the question of why on earth Donald Trump, of all people, would even consider the idea of putting on the Supreme Court a man who was instrumental in the Foster cover-up. The short, simple answer to that question is that we don’t know for a fact that he is. What we do know for certain is that the same powerful media crowd, across the political spectrum, who played, and are continuing to play, at least as big a role in the Foster cover-up as Brett Kavanaugh did, are pumping him up “bigly,” as the Donald might say. Why on earth would they do that, what with the attendant risk of bringing the rotten Foster case back to the attention of the public? Put another way, what diabolical plans must they have afoot that would require that one of the nine high justices be a person who has proven to be as malleable and corrupt as the Yalie Kavanaugh? Has the Supreme Court job description reached the one that Trump, himself, seems to fit so well for the presidency?

Presidential Qualifications

The top man’s résumé

Should be unassailable,

But that’ll be the day.

He wouldn’t be blackmailable.

David Martin

June 29, 2018

Home Page Column Column 5 Archive Contact