disclose, denny

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Hastert & Al Capone

miguel again from the comments:
"I hope you will allow a little educated guessing at this point as to how the alleged bribing of Dennis Hastert and other members of Congress plays into the bigger picture of the Sibel Edmonds case. I'll share with you my working hypothesis:

-In the late 1990s, Turkey was being villified in the US press and Congress for human rights violations in its war against the Kurds.

-At the same time, Perle, Feith and Grossman were engineering a strategic Turkey/Israel alliance.

-Is it possible that part of the unspoken terms of this Israel/Turkey agreement was that people like Grossman, Perle and Feith would help Turkey get around the restrictions of US arms control laws and help pilfer US military technology and secrets to the Turks...as well as to Turkey's allies in Central Asia?

-The one obstacle to all this would be the US Congress, over which Grossman, Perle and Feith had no control The Turks were told that they were on their own in that regard, and that they would have to learn how to develop a lobbying presence to counteract the Human Rights, Greek and Armenian lobbies. They would get some support from strong supporters of Israel like Robert Wexler. But they were told they needed more than the Israeli connection, because the pressure on Turkish human rights violations was great.

-So the Turkish government worked in concert with Turkish organized crime to slowly develop a presence in the US Congress. Since Turkish-Americans are a relatively small group, they would have to use good, old fashioned bribery. Their most powerful organization was based in Chicago, so what better place to start then the town where Al Capone became famous?

-Coincidentally or not, Turkey's number one critic in Congress, John Porter, sat in Hastert's neighboring district. Were the Turks trying isolate Porter? Or did they attempt to bribe him too? Porter was co-chair of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, along with Tom Lantos. It is interesting to note that Lantos is one of Turkey's biggest supporters now.

-Hastert was caught in their net, maybe just because he happened to be in Chicago, or maybe because he was a senior Republican. Regardless, I believe the Turks got "lucky" when he suddenly rose to power.

-The money used for all this lobbying power came mostly from illicit, underground activities, some of it terror-related.

That is my working hypothesis. But its just an educated guess, and is subject to criticism. I think if we can develop a coherent narrative, it will put things in greater context and help the public understand the question "Why Hastert?""
thanks miguel.

any thoughts?

I don't know Lantos or Porter

2 Comments:

At 6:45 AM, Blogger Miguel said...

I guess we shouldn't get too worried about the fact that the unitemized contributions don't rise in 1997,1998 and 1999 the way we would expect. In fact, I'll throw in something that might, on the surface, seem to weaken our case even further. In the 1994
election cycle, before the Turks ever allegedly began payoffs to Hastert, Hastert's unitemized contributions were much higher than they were in 1997-1999.

But if you take a closer look, just about every Republican in Congress had an unusually high number of unitemized contributions in 1994. This is most likely explained by the wave of Rush Limbaugh anger that led to the Republican takeover of Congress in
1994- and probably led to a lot of lower-income evangelical Republicans writing checks.

So there are other factors besides the "Turks" at play here, and they can easily account for unexpected rises and dips in the unitemized contribution data. On the other side of the 1997-1999 period, Hastert's rise to the role as House Speaker and one of the
authors of impeachment could account for the increase in unitemized contributions after the Turks apparently moved to "cash in bag" methods of funnelling money to 'Denny boy'.

Keep this in mind; since Hastert serves as the third in line to the Presidency at the pleasure of the American people, the burden of proof should be on HIM to disprove any doubts the American public may have that he may be under foreign influence since the fact has now been established that wiretaps show that he should at least have been investigated for bribery. There should be no burden of proof on the people's part to prove beyond a reasonable doubt whether or not the Turks on the wiretaps were making "hollow boasts" or were plotting actual bribery schemes.

The fact is that Hastert, if he is as innocent as he claims, has had ample opportunity to disprove the allegations. Yet he has gone out of his way to present information that is incomplete and misleading. His actions are consistent with someone who has something to hide.

That should make all Americans very nervous.

 
At 10:21 AM, Anonymous lukery said...

thnx again, mate.

you rock

 

Post a Comment

<< Home


View My Stats