16 Questions on the (Kennedy) Assassination - A Must Read For All Assassination Buffs

The Academic JFK Assassination Web Site ^ | September 6, 1964 | Bertrand Russell

[OPS4]

Reprinted from NewsMax.com and E.Howard Hunt's bag men are still in play. John Dean Is Still A Fraud & Media Shill Dan Frisa Monday, Feb. 11, 2002 * * * * * NOTE: Dan Frisa will appear today on "Catherine Crier Live" at 5:35 p.m. EST on the COURT TV Channel. * * * * * Disgraced Nixon Counsel to the President John W. Dean, jailed for conspiracy to obstruct justice and defrauding the government and who began his legal career by being forced out of his first firm in a conflict of interest dispute, is still as ethically challenged as ever. In a New York Times op-ed piece today, Dean has once again taken to seeming deceit and dissembling in yet another attempt to somehow rehabilitate his career-long reputation for purposeful ethical missteps, this time condemning the Vice President for defending the executive branch against an overreaching General Accounting Office. See VEEP Correct on Papers Refusal. This is the latest effort by Dean to try to burnish his tarnished public image by taking positions seemingly calculated to curry favor with the left-of-center media by taking shots at Republicans. He did it during the Clinton impeachment hearings and Senate trial via numerous television appearances, asserting that there was no comparison with the real impeachable offenses for which he and his cohorts were convicted and jailed. Rather an odd way to make a point, isn’t it? He surfaced again during the 2000 Florida election debacle orchestrated by Gore and Democrat operatives in their attempt to steal the presidency, slamming the Supreme Court for its decision, thereby aiding the effort to de-legitimize the ensuing Bush presidency. And today Dean is off on another flight of fancy, asserting that "as a matter of law, it is clear that the General Accounting Office has a right to the information” it has requested of the vice president regarding the energy policy group he led. Well guess what? Legal scholars believe the exact opposite is true. Douglas Kmiec, Dean of the Catholic University Law School and a former assistant attorney general, last week in a column for the Wall Street Journal, said that the GAO does not have the authority. "By statute, as Congress's auditor, the GAO has specific responsibilities: It is empowered to conduct financial audits that ensure federal dollars are not misspent. And it is empowered to evaluate the effectiveness of government programs created by statute. Nowhere is it authorized to play grand inquisitor, with the right to tell the vice president and the president who they can talk to, or how to formulate policy.” Gee, that’s a far cry from John Dean’s assertion today in the Times that "as a matter of law, it is clear ...” Not surprisingly, he neglected to demonstrate why or how that was the case. Rather, he continues his diatribe - based on this false premise - by encouraging the vice president to "try to sell Congress on changing the statute” if he doesn’t like it. Doesn’t like it? What a minute! How did Dean get from A to B here? It seems there is a legitimate legal basis upon which to believe that the GAO is, in fact, overstepping its bounds. That’s why the vice president doesn’t try to change a statute that already limits such actions by the GAO! But Dean throws himself completely over the cliff when he next asserts that the reason Cheney hasn’t lobbied Congress is "perhaps because he knows such an effort would be futile.” Now, that is a classic Clintonian argument. Dean continues to rail on and on, much like a poor soul locked in a rubber room, even going so far as imagining that perhaps Cheney believes the "five conservative justices who put him in his current job will again assist the administration.” He finally concludes the piece by shuddering "(b)efore Bush v. Gore, I would have considered such a ruling an impossibility. Now I am not so sure.” First of all, he should carefully re-read the entire opinion in Bush v. Gore, which was actually a 7-2 decision favoring the Bush equal protection violation claim vis-à-vis the differing standards used to tabulate results county to county. So rather than "five conservative justices” there were in reality seven, including the liberals Souter and Breyer. See Supreme Court Victory for Bush. John Dean knows - or should know - these facts. For whatever reason, his latest tirade ignores the apparent truth and spins a tall tale, in what could only be something other than a well-intentioned advisory from one who ostensibly knows better. * * * * * Dan Frisa represented New York in the United States Congress and served four terms in the New York State Assembly. E-mail Dan: danfrisa@newsmax.com. * * * * *