PDA

View Full Version : Bill Weld's role in the CIA-Contra-cocaine coverup




RonPaulGeorge&Ringo
06-18-2016, 06:25 PM
What follows below was posted by the journalist Robert Parry on his Consortium News website in the 1990s. e also reported on the same material for The Nation magazine at the time.

There's more at the link, getting into the deatils of Weld's friendships with the criminal media at oston globe and elsewhere facilitating the media end of the coverup.

More to come!

https://consortiumnews.com/archive/crack4.html

-------------------------------------------


Republican William Weld, the chief of the Justice Department's criminal division when the contra-drug allegations were emerging as a national issue and when the Iran-contra scandal broke in the fall of 1986.

In new testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Oct. 23, one of Kerry's former investigators, Jack Blum, fingered Weld as the "absolute stonewall" who blocked the Senate's access to vital evidence linking the contras and cocaine. "Weld put a very serious block on any effort we made to get information," Blum told a crowded hearing room. "There were stalls. There were refusals to talk to us, refusals to turn over data."

Weld has denied those charges and insisted that he conscientiously pursued the allegations. In that position, the governor has been helped by the main Massachusetts papers, particularly The Boston Globe, which have largely accepted Weld's word.

[...]

When Weld assumed control of the criminal division in September 1986, requests for contra-cocaine evidence already were pending from Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Claiborne Pell, D-R.I., the chairman and ranking minority member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, respectively. In support of Kerry's probe, Lugar and Pell were requesting information on more than two dozen names of individuals connected to the contra operation and suspected of drug trafficking.

'Just Stonewalling'
One of Weld's top deputies, Mark Richard, expressed concern about the Justice Department's failure to respond to that request, as the Reagan administration sought to shield the contras from negative publicity. "In the September [1986] time frame, a new assistant attorney general [Weld] comes on board," Richard testified in a deposition. "I must confess I was concerned. I was concerned not so much that there were going to be hearings [about contra-connected drug trafficking].

"I was concerned that we were not responding to what was obviously a legitimate congressional request. We were not refusing to respond in giving explanations or justifications for it. We were seemingly just stonewalling what was a continuing barrage of requests for information. That concerned me to no end."

Richard said he raised his worries with Weld directly. "I impressed upon the new assistant attorney general that this, in my judgment, was an issue that had to be addressed. We had responsibility across section lines. ...To my knowledge, we just were not saying we're not going to give it. We're not saying we're going to give it. We're just not saying anything."

As part of the Reagan team, Weld continued to snub the Senate and its demands for action on the contra-drug issue. On Sept. 26, 1986, Kerry brought Weld an 11-page "proffer" statement from a female FBI informant who had told the senator that Colombian cocaine kingpin Jorge Ochoa had bragged about his payments to the contras. The informant, Wanda Palacio, also claimed to have witnessed the loading of cocaine onto CIA-connected planes twice in Barranquilla, Colombia.

Weld brushed aside the allegations, even though some of the woman's most important charges found powerful corroboration. Palacio had claimed, for instance, that one of the shipments was aboard a Southern Air Transport plane that landed in Barranquilla in early October 1985. When one of Oliver North's secret contra supply planes was then shot down over Nicaragua on Oct. 5, 1986, Palacio identified a photo of the co-pilot, Wallace Sawyer, as one of the cocaine smugglers in Barranquilla.

According to other internal Justice Department documents, Weld continued to just say no when it came to Senate requests for advancing the contra-cocaine inquiries. Later in November 1986, Weld personally edited a letter to Kerry denying federal protection to Wanda Palacio, the woman who claimed to have witnessed Medellin cartel cocaine shipments connected to the CIA and the contras. "The Department ... does not provide protection for an informant," the letter read. "It protects a person providing information who agrees to become a witness." But by rejecting Palacio as not credible, Weld had blocked her attempts to become a federal witness.

Into 1987, Weld and his criminal division continued the pattern of failing to follow leads from other potentially valuable CIA-cocaine witnesses, such as George Morales who alleged before the U.S. Senate that the Colombian cartel had given a ton of cocaine which the contras smuggled into the United States through Costa Rica.

69360
06-18-2016, 08:15 PM
Who cares? Nobody is voting for Weld expecting him to be vpotus. His experience, credibility as a former governor and fundraising will further the LP. That's all he is needed for. What he did or didn't do in the 80's really doesn't matter.

timosman
06-18-2016, 08:17 PM
Who cares? Nobody is voting for Weld expecting him to be vpotus. His experience, credibility as a former governor and fundraising will further the LP. That's all he is needed for. What he did or didn't do in the 80's really doesn't matter.

OK! :)

Matt Collins
06-18-2016, 08:39 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb1GfP5Rwys

RJ Liberty
06-18-2016, 10:48 PM
What follows below was posted by the journalist Robert Parry on his Consortium News website in the 1990s. e also reported on the same material for The Nation magazine at the time.


RPG&R,

Thanks for digging into this story. I always appreciate more details about the candidates, especially ones that the media, in general, haven't covered to the extent that they've covered Trump and Hillary. All candidates definitely need to be vetted, whether they are major party candidates or minor, POTUS or VPOTUS.

The section you copied and pasted starts with a partial sentence: "Republican William Weld, the chief of the Justice Department's criminal division when the contra-drug allegations were emerging as a national issue and when the Iran-contra scandal broke in the fall of 1986." That's not a full sentence, and I wondered why.

Going back to the source at the link you provided, the beginning of the article states: "The sudden uproar over a decade-old story -- cocaine smuggling linked to the CIA-backed Nicaraguan contra rebels -- could reverberate with special intensity in Massachusetts, where the controversy has the potential for affecting the outcome of a close Senate race. That race pits John Kerry, the Democratic senator who led the investigation into contra drugs, against Republican William Weld, the chief of the Justice Department's criminal division when the contra-drug allegations were emerging as a national issue and when the Iran-contra scandal broke in the fall of 1986." (bolding mine). Why was the beginning of the article left out? It gives much-needed context, and properly frames this article as a dispute between Senate candidate rivals John Kerry and William Weld in 1996.

In reading the full 1996 piece, it seems as though some new things came to light during the 1996 Kerry-Weld senate race, ten years after the events in question, and more than eight years after Weld left the position (he was only in the position from September 1986 to March 1988, according to the article and the NYT).

In other words, this article is from 1996, and it was written during the 1996 senate race between John Kerry and William Weld, with Kerry's man, Jack Blum, stating (in new testimony in 1996) that he recalled Weld stonewalled the Senate (back in 1986). There are several quotes from Weld's accusers: Jack Blum, Mark Richard, Frederick Hitz, but no room in the article for a rebuttal from Weld. The article tries to portray Weld as someone with "friends in high places" (that's an exact quote), and that the result on November 5th could leave Kerry in the dust, with Weld winning due to his high-powered connections. Of course, that didn't happen, and it seems as though Kerry had friends in higher places: he did, after all, win the senate race.

If, as Kerry's people say (or said in 1996), Weld stonewalled for "months", how was that even possible? The article states that "On Oct. 14, 1986, two senators complained that they had been waiting more than two months for information that the Justice Department had promised 'in an expeditious manner'." How would that be Weld's fault when the article also states that "Weld assumed control of the criminal division in September 1986"? Weld wasn't even in the position two months earlier!

I tried looking up slightly better information, but the next few search results were from Lyndon Larouche's website (http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1996/eirv23n42-19961018/eirv23n42-19961018_068-the_weld_family_and_the_cocaine.pdf), and didn't seem to be reputable.

Anyway, thanks for digging, but this particular piece came off as a somewhat contradictory hit piece written by a journalist pushing for John Kerry, who did ultimately win the '96 race. The author, Robert Parry, didn't really establish much in this particular article, other than the memories of Kerry's team seem distorted, based on the dates given in the article.

(I'm happy to read other articles you're willing to provide).

RonPaulGeorge&Ringo
06-19-2016, 09:09 PM
Yes, yes, sworn testimony and documents, and several witnesses talking about Weld's cover-ups of the Bush Crime Family's activities don't establish anything.

Horsesh!t.

Trying to impugn the motives of a journalist is lowest form of rhetoric and proves nothing. It is the first thing out of the disinformationalist's handbook. And it's pathetic. Either dispute the facts or just STFU, because you're not fooling anyone.


Were you impressed with the way Weld refused to provide protection for witnesses?

RonPaulGeorge&Ringo
06-19-2016, 09:18 PM
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB113/north06.pdf -- Subcommittee report

cajuncocoa
06-19-2016, 09:28 PM
Yes, yes, sworn testimony and documents, and several witnesses talking about Weld's cover-ups of the Bush Crime Family's activities don't establish anything.

Horsesh!t.

Trying to impugn the motives of a journalist is lowest form of rhetoric and proves nothing. It is the first thing out of the disinformationalist's handbook. And it's pathetic. Either dispute the facts or just STFU, because you're not fooling anyone.


Were you impressed with the way Weld refused to provide protection for witnesses?
Donald Trump Bans 'Washington Post' From Campaign Events (http://www.npr.org/2016/06/13/481923166/donald-trump-bans-washington-post-from-campaign-events)

RJ Liberty
06-20-2016, 03:15 AM
Trying to impugn the motives of a journalist is lowest form of rhetoric and proves nothing. It is the first thing out of the disinformationalist's handbook. And it's pathetic.

We at RPF have "impugned the motives of journalists" for many years. No one here believed Dana Bash "simply misspoke" when she said that she was worried (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keDL9_Pxh20) that Ron Paul's campaign would continue, or when she asked ridiculous questions (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDlY5UKY9CM). Nor did we believe the media presstitutes when they made a concerted effort to black out Ron Paul throughout the 2012 election. We impugned their motives extensively then, and we continue to do so today.

Mr. Robert Parry, author of the above article you linked, also wrote a glowing piece about John Kerry called "How John Kerry Exposed The Contra-Cocaine Scandal" (http://www.november.org/stayinfo/breaking2/Contra-Cocaine.html) for Salon.com. The article, published on October 25th 2004, came out just before the November 2004 elections, when Kerry was running for POTUS. Mr Parry includes statements like, "The Kerry whom I met during this period was a complex man who balanced a rebellious idealism with a determination not to burn his bridges to the political establishment", "Kerry combined a prosecutor's sense for sniffing out criminality and a politician's instinct for pushing the limits", "Kerry's reward for his strenuous and successful efforts to get to the bottom of a difficult case of high-level government corruption was to be largely ignored", and other such glowing endorsements.

As far as I can tell, Robert Parry wrote these types of articles for Kerry every four years. For example, in addition to the 1996 article you linked, which contrasted Kerry and Weld, here's Parry complaining that the 2004 election was stolen from Kerry (https://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/110505.html). Parry reports that Kerry believes the election was stolen by people tampering with electronic voting machines. The title of the document is not "Kerry believes election results were tampered with", but "2004 Election Stolen". Parry's later relationship with Kerry seems to have soured, for after about 2010, the articles are more critical, but prior to that time, Parry wrote these types of articles for Kerry.

You've been hoodwinked by Mr Parry's quadrennial support for John Kerry.



Were you impressed with the way Weld refused to provide protection for witnesses?

Were you impressed by the way Parry failed to mention that the FBI informant, Wanda Palacio, received anonymity from the Feds (she testified as "Wanda Doe"), and was moved from Nicaragua to Puerto Rico? You wouldn't know it from the story you linked: Oddly enough, Parry doesn't mention it at all. I suspect it's because it makes for a much better story for readers to imagine Weld left witnesses without any form of protection.

Then there's a weird discrepancy between what Parry says was Weld's reasoning for discounting Wanda Palacio's testimony and what the New York Times says. The New York Times states (http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/23/weekinreview/iran-contra-inquiries-find-more-leads-more-mysteries.html) that Palacio's testimony was under question because there were "no such flights to Barranquilla in 1983" when Palacio said she witnessed a drug flight take place there. The Times also states that there were other discrepancies: "She said in the interview that she decided last year to become an informer for the Federal Bureau of Investigation out of disgust at the drug traffic. Committee officials say that Ms. Palacio went to the F.B.I. after her husband was robbed by other drug traffickers."

Parry states something completely different than the NYT: "On Oct. 3, 1986, Weld's office told Kerry that it was rejecting Palacio as a witness on the grounds that there were some contradictions in her testimony. The discrepancies apparently related to such minor points as which month she had first talked with the FBI." Bizarrely, Parry doesn't mention the flight discrepancies or the discrepancy between what the FBI says was Palacio's motive in becoming an informer, and what Palacio stated was her motive. Parry calls the discrepancies "minor", but witnessing a flight that apparently couldn't have taken place doesn't really seem "minor". It seems as though Parry is not being truthful in his reporting, here. Unless it was Stephen Engelberg at the New York Times who was lying. Either way, a reporter's integrity will be impugned.

younglibertarian
06-20-2016, 08:30 AM
Weld just seems like a very bad pick, but I'm pretty much over it at this point.

NewRightLibertarian
06-20-2016, 08:41 AM
Who cares? Nobody is voting for Weld expecting him to be vpotus. His experience, credibility as a former governor and fundraising will further the LP. That's all he is needed for. What he did or didn't do in the 80's really doesn't matter.

So you've went from being a principled libertarian to supporting corrupt insiders for the payday?

What happened to you?

acptulsa
06-20-2016, 08:47 AM
So you've went from being a principled libertarian to supporting corrupt insiders for the payday?

What happened to you?

This is a cool story and all. But what difference does it make? I think the odds of Weld becoming VP are beyond small. If Johnson is elected president, it will almost certainly be done by the House of Representatives. If that happens, the Senate will be picking the VP independently, and could easily choose someone besides the new president's running mate. It's all right there in the Twelfth Amendment.

A vote for Johnson, under these circumstances, isn't even a vote for Weld. If you don't like him, vote for Johnson, then if no one gets 50%+1, tell your Senator that your vote for Johnson was not a vote for Weld.

NewRightLibertarian
06-20-2016, 08:53 AM
This is a cool story and all. But what difference does it make? I think the odds of Weld becoming VP are beyond small. If Johnson is elected president, it will almost certainly be done by the House of Representatives. If that happens, the Senate will be picking the VP independently, and could easily choose someone besides the new president's running mate. It's all right there in the Twelfth Amendment.

A vote for Johnson, under these circumstances, isn't even a vote for Weld. If you don't like him, vote for Johnson, then if no one gets 50%+1, tell your Senator that your vote for Johnson was not a vote for Weld.

Did you learn those arguments from Romney supporters back in 2012? I remember hearing similar apologist drivel about why I needed to support that turd of a candidate four years ago.

acptulsa
06-20-2016, 09:01 AM
Did you learn those arguments from Romney supporters back in 2012? I remember hearing similar apologist drivel about why I needed to support that turd of a candidate four years ago.

You heard people saying that if you want to support Romney but don't like Ryan you probably don't have to worry about it because if Romney wins, it'll probably happen in the House of Representatives and the Senate probably doesn't like Paul Ryan?

Really?

Wow. That must have been pretty funny at the time.

So, you think Bill Weld makes Johnson more of a turd than those two major party candidates? Really?

Boy are you going to be disgusted when you see who those two major party candidates choose...

NewRightLibertarian
06-20-2016, 09:03 AM
You heard people saying that if you want to support Romney but don't like Ryan you probably don't have to worry about it because if Romney wins, it'll probably happen in the House of Representatives and the Senate probably doesn't like Paul Ryan?

Really?

Wow. That must have been pretty funny at the time.

I was just talking about your toeing the company line, and making sad equivocations about your lousy candidate. Very similar to what I saw out of the Romney 2012 folks. Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you've become everything you once hated.

acptulsa
06-20-2016, 09:16 AM
I was just talking about your toeing the company line, and making sad equivocations about your lousy candidate. Very similar to what I saw out of the Romney 2012 folks. Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you've become everything you once hated.

I have always been a realist, and have never been a libertarian purist. I have always factored in who a candidate picks as a running mate, if it makes one bit of difference, but don't recall that ever being the deciding factor in my vote even when I thought the two of them did stand a chance of being installed together (this cycle is realistically unique in that respect). And I have called for strategic votes in the past, but only when I thought there was a real and credible goal to be gained for liberty by doing it.

All you are proving is that you don't know me from Adam, and don't know what I hate. And that your zeal to make Johnson look as bad as the two major party criminal clowns knows no bounds.

But perhaps you deserve the benefit of the doubt. Did you, by chance, confuse this thread with another...?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?201168-The-Post-Baseless-Lies-About-The-Person-Above-You-Thread

Johnson is running as a libertarian centrist who isn't on the take. He has executive experience and wanted a running mate who would emphasize that, because he's not running an educational campaign. And he knew all about the Twelfth Amendment from the very start, and knew full well that if he actually won, he could get installed with any one of three vice presidents. These things are obvious.

Does it mean he won't stand up and do the things that need to be done, even if it puts him at risk of martyrdom? I don't know. But either way, smashing the two party system (or at least smashing one of the two existing major parties) won't do this nation one bit of harm.

RonPaulGeorge&Ringo
06-20-2016, 05:09 PM
{Pathetic ad hominem horsesh1t}


You've been hoodwinked

Horsesh!t. A lie.

You've been hoodwinked by Bushite CIA criminals (unless of course, they've paid you).




Wanda Palacio, received anonymity from the Feds (she testified as "Wanda Doe"),

Under Kerry, the documents produced by Congress when Palacio testified to Congress, refered to her as "Doe." That was not Weld.

When Kerry asked Weld to protect her so she could testify in a real trial, that would put real Bush-CIA criminals in real jail cells...

Weld told Wanda that she could just fukk off. No protection.


was moved from Nicaragua to Puerto Rico?

Was moved by who? Please cite or retract.


what the New York Times says. The New York Times states (http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/23/weekinreview/iran-contra-inquiries-find-more-leads-more-mysteries.html) that Palacio's testimony was under question because there were "no such flights to Barranquilla in 1983"

What a fukking joke. Your quote is from the lawyer for Southern Air Transport, which is the CIA front company running the cocaine. It is CIA propaganda. Why are you posting CIA propaganda? It's easy to see why the crooked globalist Weld would take CIA propaganda seriously, or rather pretend to.

Why would you? You should apologize and be ashamed.

RonPaulGeorge&Ringo
06-20-2016, 05:21 PM
The Nation 21 October 1996
http://contrariansview.org/onashisite/WebVAX/Nation/Parry21Oct96.html




Contras, Crack, the C.I.A.

Allegations that contra rebels, under the benevolent gaze of the C.I.A., smuggled cocaine into U.S. cities to finance their war in Nicaragua have brought new promises of a thorough federal investigation. Yet according to government documents recently obtained by The Nation, evidence that the U.S. government turned a blind eye to contra drug trafficking has long resided in Washington files. Those records show that Ronald Reagan's Justice Department brushed aside many eyewitness accounts of C.I.A. links to contra smuggling.

Typical was the case of 31-year-old Wanda Palacio, who broke with Colombia's Medellin cartel in 1986 and became an F.B.I. informant. Palacio also approached Massachusetts Senator John Kerry and told his office that she had witnessed cocaine being loaded onto planes bearing the markings of Southern Air Transport, a onetime C.I.A.-owned airline then under Pentagon contract.

Kerry, who was already investigating the contras, hand-delivered Palacio's eleven-page "proffer" statement on September 26, 1986, to William Weld, then the Justice Department's Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Affairs. According to Palacio's statement, she had stood with cocaine kingpin Jorge Ochoa at the airport in Barranquilla, Colombia, in 1983 as a cocaine shipment was loaded onto a Southern Air Transport plane. Palacio said that Ochoa told her it was "a C.I.A. plane and that he was exchanging drugs for guns." Ochoa added that he was giving money to both the Nicaraguan contras and the ruling Sandinistas to hedge his bets against any outcome of their civil war. (This point was corroborated in F.B.I. interviews with a drug cartel lawyer, Patricia Velez, who also claimed that "Ochoa finances both Sandinista and anti-Sandinista in Nicaragua.")

Two years later, Palacio said, in early October 1985, she was back in Barranquilla with some of Ochoa's aides as another Southern Air Transport plane was loaded with cocaine. "I concluded that the guns-for-drug connection still continued," she said.

According to notes taken by a member of Kerry's staff, Weld chuckled as he read the sections about C.I.A. personnel. "This isn't the first time today I've seen allegations about C.I.A. agent involvement in drugs," Weld reportedly remarked. "There are bum agents, former and current C.I.A. agents."

Over the next week, Weld's 1986 calendars show, he had frequent phone conversations about the Palacio allegations. But at a follow-up meeting with Kerry's staff on October 3, Justice officials challenged Palacio's credibility. She had claimed, for instance, that she contacted the F.B.I. in June, but the F.B.I. said the first meeting was in mid-July.

Palacio's testimony conflicted with President Reagan's insistence that the U.S. government was not arming the contras and that contra leaders were not drug traffickers. On October 5, however, a Sandinista soldier shot down one of Oliver North's gunrunning planes inside Nicaragua. The co-pilot, Wallace "Buzz" Sawyer, and two others died. A cargo handler named Eugene Hasenfus was the only survivor.

Later that week, as Palacio was again meeting with Kerry's investigators, she gasped when she saw Sawyer's photo flash on the TV. Palacio exclaimed that Sawyer had been one of the Southern Air pilots she saw loading cocaine in Barranquilla in early October 1985 -- an assertion met with incredulity by Kerry's staff. But after the plane crash, the Associated Press sent me on assignment to Managua, where Sandinista military intelligence chief Ricardo Wheelock showed me documents recovered from the plane. I scribbled down all the entries from Sawyer's flight logs, in which the pilot had used airport codes to designate the cities visited. I deciphered them only after returning to Washington. Three entries -- for October 2, 4 and 6, 1985 -- listed Sawyer flying a Southern Air L382 from Miami to Barranquilla.

Palacio's passport established that she was in Colombia during that period. In addition, she passed an F.B.I. polygraph exam about her Colombia account. But the Justice Department noted that Palacio's responses to several other questions came up "inconclusive," and Weld refused to pursue her allegations.

On November 25, 1986, the Iran/contra scandal broke wide open with disclosure of Oliver North's diversion of Iranian arms profits to the contras. As the scandal spread, Palacio's story hit the Miami news media. Southern Air officials admitted that Sawyer flew their planes but angrily denied involvement in cocaine smuggling. The company filed a libel suit against one TV station that carried the Palacio story -- a suit that immediately chilled media coverage (years later it was dismissed).

Wearied by the Justice Department, in a Senate deposition on August 7, 1987, Palacio complained that "the FBI stopped working with me all of a sudden because of this Southern Air Transport deal.... Justice doesn't want to hear me." After her encounter with Washington politics, Palacio returned home to Puerto Rico. Other contra-cocaine witnesses suffered similar rebuffs.

But the C.I.A.-contra-drug connection rose to national prominence recently when reporter Gary Webb wrote a series for the San Jose Mercury News describing the street-level impact of the contra cocaine in Southern California. Drawing from court records and documents at the National Archives, Webb detailed how -- with near impunity -- contra leaders smuggled the cocaine that fueled the crack epidemic. Webb's series touched off an uproar in black communities.

The question of C.I.A. knowledge of contra drug smuggling, borne out by other documents obtained by The Nation, could resonate in Massachusetts as well this election year. Weld, now the Republican Governor of that state, is the G.O.P. candidate challenging John Kerry for his Senate seat. When I asked Weld about Wanda Palacio, he responded with uncharacteristic harshness, declaring that his Justice aides had "felt her credibility was roughly that of a wagonload of diseased blankets."

But Charles Saphos, who was Weld's narcotics chief at Justice, was much less strident. "I would not put her up as a government witness without more corroboration," he told me. The larger truth about Wanda Palacio may be that she was a witness who brought forward unwelcome news about the contras, the C.I.A. and cocaine.


ROBERT PARRY
Robert Parry, director of The Nation Institute's investigative unit, co-wrote the first news story about contra drug trafficking for the Associated Press in December 1985. He is publisher of The Consortium, an investigative zine on the World Wide Web.


Copyright (c) 1996, The Nation Company, L.P. All rights reserved. Electronic redistribution for nonprofit purposes is permitted, provided this notice is attached in its entirety. Unauthorized, for-profit redistribution is prohibited. For further information regarding reprinting and syndication, please call The Nation at (212) 242-8400, ext. 226 or send e-mail to Max Block.

Working Poor
06-20-2016, 05:21 PM
I am still gonna vote for Johnson because I have no doubt that he is better(not lesser of 3 evils) than Clinton or Trump.

RJ Liberty
06-20-2016, 06:22 PM
I have always been a realist, and have never been a libertarian purist. I have always factored in who a candidate picks as a running mate, if it makes one bit of difference, but don't recall that ever being the deciding factor in my vote even when I thought the two of them did stand a chance of being installed together (this cycle is realistically unique in that respect). And I have called for strategic votes in the past, but only when I thought there was a real and credible goal to be gained for liberty by doing it.

All you are proving is that you don't know me from Adam, and don't know what I hate. And that your zeal to make Johnson look as bad as the two major party criminal clowns knows no bounds.

"Zeal" does look like the correct word.



But perhaps you deserve the benefit of the doubt. Did you, by chance, confuse this thread with another...?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?201168-The-Post-Baseless-Lies-About-The-Person-Above-You-Thread

Johnson is running as a libertarian centrist who isn't on the take. He has executive experience and wanted a running mate who would emphasize that, because he's not running an educational campaign. And he knew all about the Twelfth Amendment from the very start, and knew full well that if he actually won, he could get installed with any one of three vice presidents. These things are obvious.

Does it mean he won't stand up and do the things that need to be done, even if it puts him at risk of martyrdom? I don't know. But either way, smashing the two party system (or at least smashing one of the two existing major parties) won't do this nation one bit of harm.

Agreed. But I'd add: this appears to be an attempt at disinformation from Trumpkins. The OP copied and pasted some stuff from an old article, but suspiciously left out the top part, which included the fact that this "information" came from John Kerry's office during John Kerry's senate race against William Weld in 1996, a full ten years after the events in question.

In other words: it's a smear from 20 years ago.

Bryan
06-20-2016, 06:24 PM
Let's keep things civil and on topic. Thanks.

Danke
06-20-2016, 07:36 PM
...

oyarde
06-20-2016, 08:58 PM
I never meet Weld and I doubt he does much at all for the ticket , but I probably do not care about him not giving info to Kerry , Pell & Luger in '86 . I imagine I was doing worse shit than Weld in '86.

RandallFan
06-21-2016, 12:58 AM
Trump needs to bring this up, for pure entertainment.

Debating Hillary is debating a child. He needs to pick a fight with Johnson and Weld.