"JOHN KERRY, CRIMINAL" AND THE SILENCE OF THE MEDIA

''John Kerry, Criminal'' and the Silence of the Media Written by Doc Farmer Wednesday, September 22, 2004

I start this article with a confession. I'm jealous. I wanted to write the article I’m about to speak to you about, but two authors beat me to the draw. Quite frankly, I'd feel much worse about this if I had been able to write a better article than they, but that is not the case. Their article is excellent, factual, well researched, and a devastating indictment of a presidential candidate. Therefore, my jealousy is mollified, but I'm still honked off (only slightly, though).

Henry Mark Holzer and Erika Holzer, who in 2002 wrote the book titled ''Aid and Comfort: Jane Fonda In North Vietnam,'' have written a report for FrontPage Magazine entitled ''John Kerry, Criminal.'' I had spoken to my editor about doing a piece on the laws that John Forbes Kerry had broken in regard to U.S. Criminal Code and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) as regards his actions following his return from Vietnam, while he was still a member of the United States Navy. However, Holzer and Holzer did theirs first. Quite honestly, they also did theirs best. Two thousand, four hundred and fifty-nine carefully crafted words of pure accusation.

To summarize, the Holzers found that Kerry had violated two key federal laws. The first is 10 USC 904, part of the UCMJ, which states:

Any person who . . . without proper authority, knowingly . . . communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly, shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

The Holzers go into great detail on the whys and wherefores and hows of the case against John Kerry, and why he should be prosecuted under these statutes. They make a compelling case. Not being a (insert favorite swear word here) lawyer, you’d think that it would be difficult to follow their indictment, but they walk the judicial neophyte through the issues step by step. They show legal cases and precedents that demonstrate how the pieces of the evidentiary puzzle fit. They show his ability to be charged under the statutes, his military status during the times where the crimes are purported to have been committed (which is imperative for UCMJ jurisdiction) and even the definitions of specific key words in the laws. I guess they didn’t want anybody misunderstanding the meaning of ''is'' in this case....

I could now try to spend the rest of this article trying to explain their simplified legalese into American, but that’s not necessary for two reasons. First, Henry Mark Holzer and Erika Holzer did a pretty good job of that already. Second, and more importantly, it’s not the reason for this week's epistle.

''John Kerry, Criminal'' was published on September 17, 2004. The 217th anniversary of the Constitution. At this writing, it is September 22. The article has been around now for five days. I’ll make a wager: I’ll bet this is the first you’ve ever heard of the Holzers' indictment of John Kerry.

Granted, it's been a busy five days. John Kerry appeared on the Late Show with David Letterman and did a rather lame Top Ten List (only numbers 9 and 2 were actually funny). Dan Rather denied that the forged documents actually were forged, until he was forced to apologize (but still didn’t admit they were forged, I hope you noticed!) The Kerry campaign and the Democratic National Committee denied any knowledge of the forged documents, the people involved, or who the guilty party was who wrote that Top Ten List.

Still, you would think that two prominent (bleeping) lawyers making a serious criminal charge against a presidential candidate would merit at least some mention on the news, or in the blogs, or on the talk radio circuit.

I did a search on ''John Kerry, Criminal'' over at news.google.com, and only came up with a single hit. The article itself. Nothing else. No other coverage or mention by ANY members of the press. Why? These are not conspiracy theory wacko nerds in their mom’s basement, playing ''X-Files''--these are sincere researchers. One is an author, and the other os a professor emeritus at Brooklyn Law School who specializes in federal appeals. I doubt Mulder and Scully will be knocking on their door any time soon. However, NBC, ABC, Fox News, and other members of the media should.

Why aren’t the media investigating this? What are they afraid of? The news media seem to have absolutely NO fear of making baseless accusations against a sitting president. Why the reticence on examining well-researched indictments against his opponent? Are the media moguls worried that they might insult Kerry? The lib/dem/soc/commie media seem not to be averse to this when the target is Dubya. Is it concerned that it might have John Edwards sicced on its ivory tower? When he’s not busy chasing a passing ambulance, that is?

The news media keep telling us how brave they are. Newscasters will go into heavy fire zones, cameras rolling through a night-vision scope, to bring America the war-torn images, the truth as they decide to slant it. For weal or for woe, we've accepted that bravery (or at least bravado) and accepted their actions as almost as gutsy as the soldiers they cover.

Sadly, when it comes to a certain presidential candidate, the collective members of our vaunted fourth estate are little more than pusillanimous capitulators. They're not brave. They're not gutsy. I'm beginning to think they're not even truly Americans.

They’re French. I urge everyone to read the original article, ''John Kerry, Criminal'' at FrontPage Magazine. You can find it here at http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15127. Be sure to send it to your family, your friends, and your local newspapers and television stations. Let the reporters in your hometown know what they're missing, and demand that they at least look at the issue. If they don't? Well, you’ll at least know where they stand in the relentless pursuit of the truth.

About the Writer: Doc Farmer is a writer and humorist who is also a moderator on ChronWatch's Forum. He formerly lived in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but now resides in Indiana. Doc receives e-mail at docfarmer9999@yahoo.co.uk.

It is bias and cowardice. They do not want to shoot their own candidate. The media is more than willing to rush to a story based on forged documents but, will not touch anything about Kerry. It is the same thing they did with Clinton. Underreport, bury, ignore and discredit.

Kerry is a liar.

Yesterday, Kerry said that we now know there were no connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

He must not have read the Senate Intelligence Committee Report or the 9/11 Commission Report, both of which cited the many connections between Iraq and AQ.

A high ranking Iraqi fedayeen soldier attended at least one pre planning 9/11 meeting with AQ.

Saddam knew 9/11 was coming and where we were going to be hit.

Even the Clinton Justice Department was able to obtain an indictment against OBL which cited the terrorist's ties to Iraq.

A federal judge has granted two 9/11 families a multi-million dollar judgement - against Iraq.

During the 90's, the mainstream press wrote about the world's alarm at the growing relationship between Saddam and Osama bin Laden. Old Media thinks we can't look these things up.

Hundreds of articles and links in this thread.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1224050/posts

People are tuning out Dan Rather in droves because he's shown himself as a hard core whackjob partsian. It was OK when he merely leaned in Kerry's direction, but once he put out his bogus memo BS, he's radioactive.

My point is that these kinds of stories are the same in reverse. The swing voter type people will roll their eyes and stop believing anything broadcast in the forum (like FR) that put it out.

Kerry was a traitor, a liar, and worse. But saying he's a criminal is a bridge too far. Kerry might have technically committed felonies. But he hasn't been convicted or charged with anything, and no one will pay attention to someone calling him a criminal.

Well, there you go again! It depends, my friend, on what the meaning of "criminal" is.

The ultra-left wing, anti-American, neocommunist, old timey, Eurinal loving media does not define a traitor who deserts his unit in the face of the emeny, consorts with that same enemy in person, publically bad mouths his former comrades and prolongs the conflict by giving public support to the same enemy so as to cause the deaths of other Americans and prolong the imprisonment of others, and tries to destroy the nation as a "criminal."

And folks wonder why Traotor John was court martialed and thrown out of the Navy only to be pardoned by Crazy Jimmah Carter!

I guess the questions to be answered are:

1. What crimes were covered by Kerry's 1978 pardon?

2. What is in the Navy forms he won't release?

1) What 1978 pardon? Without evidence that's much better quality than (C)BS's forged documents, I'm not going to buy into any theory that he was pardoned for anything. I certianly WISH it were true, but I seriously doubt it is.

2) He won't release his forms because he's a weenie. Certianly we need to remind everyone on the planet that he hasn't released his records, but I don't think there's going to be anything really serious in there. Maybe he smoked a joint or something and got an article 15, but it's not going to be some smoking gun thing like he's been convicted of anything serious.

If that were true, then someone, somewhere out there knows it for a fact. And we'd have heard more about it than some vague rumors. Something would have got leaked by now.

There are plenty of other valid things to attack the guy on. Like talking with the VietCong in Paris. We should stick with the provable facts. They're damning enough. If we make ourselves look like Burkett, then no one will believe us even if we're telling the honest truth.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.