SwiftVets.com

[Boundless]

> The Naval Inspector General's website has a HOTLINE
> COMPLAINTS section.

Complaints of fraud aside, does the IG even answer simple
requests to verify if a purported Navy document is genuine?

No SF-180 or discussion of unreleased info is necessary to
address that simple question.

If what kerry has already released includes any forgeries,
pressing the matter toward further disclosures might not
even be necessary.

[Beldar]

Folks, I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but I strongly caution against overreacting to this, or overstating what's happened so far.

This story was written to give the impression that the Navy Department has convened an "official investigation" into Kerry's medals. Judicial Watch's press release understandably makes the Sep. 1 letter from the DoD-IG look that way. But all he was doing was saying (my paraphrase of the bureaucratese, not direct quotes), "Yes, we have the duty to look into allegations of the sort you've made" and "I'm forwarding this to the Navy Department for further handling." It would be a mistake, I think, to trumpet that as if the Navy Department had made some preliminary determination that there's a serious impropriety or that Kerry's at fault. That all may yet happen, but I don't think it's happened yet. The Navy Dep't hasn't appointed an investigator yet. They haven't made a finding of "probable cause" or anything remotely related to that. Lehman's no longer Sec'y of the Navy; him saying he thinks it should be looked into is great, but he's a private citizen. A British reporter quoting an unnamed "official" about unnamed parties' "feelings" isn't exactly like a grand jury indictment; I'm not saying the reporter made it up, but it's just not something I'd hang my hat on yet.

I've posted about this on my blog, "Navy Department review of Kerry's medals and alleged misconduct," and as always I welcome comments and feedback there.

I agree that this bears watching. Letters and emails to the Navy Dep't couldn't hurt, and I hope the mainstream media will pick up the story as well. But be careful not to over-represent what's actually happened yet, please.

[CandiM]

As far as the media picking up on the story, there are a few reasons to be at least optimistic about that, anyway--If it does come to anything even approaching an official investigation by the Department of the Navy, it'll be all over the Internet and Rush will run with it and one can assume that once Hannity gets wind of it, he'll start talking about it, not only on the radio, but on H&C on Fox, and then it'll be out and the MSM will have to at least report on it or give even more credence to what we all know; that they're totally left-biased--I think the whole SBVT situation has demonstrated that--And anymore, it doesn't even really matter that they slant their reporting because even hard-core Libs know it, even if they won't admit it--

It becomes increasingly clear that the Independents know it, too, and that matters a lot--I think the overwhelmingly tellinig ratings that Fox got during the RNC proves that out and it's getting to the point where the MSM isn't going to be able to run away from it anymore if they want to survive--

And another thing to consider is that there is one irrefutable thing that we know about the press: Ratings/readership is King to them and they won't sit on a story when they know it'll help to sell papers or boost ratings--So if the story's getting attention elsewhere, they'll report it--Admittedly with a spin, but they will report it--

So everyone here just really needs to stay on top of this situation IMO and keep the volume up in whatever way we can--We have outlets to use to do that now and the Swiftees have demonstrated that they know how to use them--That much I have no fear about--C
_________________
“I haven’t seen anyone milk this much out of a bad boat ride since Gilligan” -- Dennis Miller

[sevry]

[Badgerfan]

No, as I see it, there IS an investigation underway, quote, "A navy spokesman confirmed on Friday that the inspector-general's office at the Pentagon had authorized the inquiry. " Kind of hard to find any nuance there. The Teleraph is a credible source.

[Beldar]

Badger, I hope you're right, but I think the Telegraph's reporter was reading more into what the DoD-IG did than was warranted. Read the DoD-IG's letter. It's standard bureaucratese, but translated into English, reads, "We got your complaint. I'm sending it to the Navy Department." And I'm pretty sure that must have been what the Telegraph was referring to.

That's pretty much exactly what the DoD-IG told Lipscomb, as he reported in his Sep. 3 Sun-Times article (boldface mine):

[swiftsocks]

While reading about all of the lawyers and investigations, it reminded me of an old Texas story about the famous T. Cullen Davis murder case and his lawyer Richard "Race Horse" Haynes....( by the way...in Texas, a legal defense consists of " But your Honor...he deserved to be killed" )

Race Horse Haynes tells of one of his first meetings with his client, T. Cullen Davis.

Haynes : Well, Cullen...did ya do it ?

Davis : Heck yeah I did it...so how are you going to defend me ?

Haynes: Cullen this is how it works. Let's say some knot head decides
to sue me because he says my dog bit him. The first thing I say is....
"My dog never bites anyone"

And then Cullen, the second thing I say is " My dog is always on a leash in my yard"

And the last thing I tell 'em...."And, "I don't even have a dog"

[Beldar]

Heh, swiftsocks, that's a good one. They actually have a case they teach in the law school casebooks that first authorized the concept of "pleading in the alternative," in which the plaintiff sued the defendant for breaking the plaintiff's teapot. The defenses were:

I didn't borrow your teapot.

It was already broken when I got it.

I never broke it.

It was broken by an act of God in an earthquake.

It was fine when I gave it back to you.

You never owned a teapot.

It wasn't a very valuable teapot anyway.

So Racehorse was actually just honoring an old common-law trend dating back to the judges and lawyers with white wigs (which, by the way, they still use in the UK and Canada). He'd just rather talk about something more familiar to Texans than teapots -- a good ole dawg.

[Kathy Kay]

Question -- if there is an investigation into his medals and citations, if the investigation isn't complete before the election, if somehow he wins, and if the investigation shows there was intentional misleading or frabrications or perhaps even forgeries leading to his medals and citations, what would that do to his Presidency? Would we be facing another impeachment proceeding? I'm assuming he would be guilty of some kind of federal crime if that be the case.

Somebody somewhere needs to cry for this investigation to go quickly and smoothly and results to be delivered BEFORE the election to save this country from what would happen if the investigation validates claims of fabrication. That is positively the last thing we need right now.

[Beldar]

As O'Neill and others have pointed out from the start, if he didn't deserve even one of those Purple Hearts, then he needs to head back to the Mekong for another nine months.

Seriously, though, I think the chance of the Judicial Watch complaint actually leading to any sort of criminal prosecution is still extremely remote. If (shudder) Kerry should win the election and the Navy Dep't ended up afterwards deciding to revoke some of his medals or even revoke his honorable discharge, it would obviously destroy his credibility and cripple his effectiveness as President, but I don't see that, by itself, leading to an impeachment. And he'd never resign if he got into the White House -- those long guitar-plucking fingernails would leave claw marks in the woodwork of the Oval Office as they dragged him out.

The reason I don't put the probability of an impeachable offense at zero is because we still don't know the details of his trip(s) to Paris to meet with representatives of the North Vietnamese government and Viet Cong. Depending on whether any more of those details come to light and, if so, what they are, there's a tiny chance that he could still be held accountable for violating 18 U.S.C. § 953, or perhaps the parallel provisions of Article 104 of the UCMJ (if, as seems likely, he was still subject to the UCMJ as an officer in the Naval Reserve and if, as may be less likely, he's still subject to criminal prosecution under the UCMJ even now for 1971ish conduct).

Doing some research on those provisions is high on my "to do" list for future blogging, but my hunch is that they're a lot harder to prove in court than would seem to be the case just from reading the statute. In other words, I suspect that just meeting with the enemy wouldn't be enough, by itself, to establish "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 to defeat the measures of the United States." My further guess is that Article 104 of the UCMJ on "aiding the enemy" probably has a lower threshold standard, but may be harder to assert this much after the fact for purposes of criminal liability (as opposed, perhaps, to administrative action). I emphasize that I'm NOT and never have been a JAG lawyer, so my hunches on this stuff may well be entirely off base; that's why I need to do the research.

Ironically, in one way Kerry would be better off if he faces some potential criminal liability: It would mean he could plead the Fifth.

[spectrout]

From: http://www.mediapool.bg/phorum/lofiversion/index.php/t244.html

Kerry, by his own account, violated the UCMJ, the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Code while serving as a Navy officer, and he further stands in violation of Article three, Section three of the U.S. Constitution.

Upon entering the Navy in 1966, John Kerry signed a six-year contract (plus a six-month extension during wartime) and an Officer Candidate contract for five years of active duty and active Naval Reserve. This indicates that Kerry was clearly a commissioned officer at the time of his 1970 meeting with NVA Communists in Paris -- in direct violation of the UCMJ's Article 104 part 904, and U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. 953. That meeting, and Kerry's subsequent coddling of Communists while leading mass protests against our military in the year that followed, also place him in direct violation of our Constitution's Article three, Section three, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare. (As General Vo Nguyen Giap is his witness....)

Thus, we refer our readers to the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, which states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President ... having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

[wally626]

[Beldar]

Spectrout, no offense, but I'm almost sure it's not that simple.

Kerry will say, for example, that he was on a "fact-finding mission" and didn't negotiate, aid or comfort, etc.

There were quite a few American citizens who met with the bad guys in Paris -- the NV and VC were encouraging a wide range of useful fools, from Noam Chomski to Jane Fonda to John Kerry to Eugene McCarthy. I'm reasonably sure that if the Nixon administration thought they could have gotten convictions against those folks, they would have -- at least one of them, to set an example. Kerry's own testimony before the Fulbright Committee in 1971 demonstrates that he was aware of the risk -- he refers, in a sort of mumbling way, to the "precedent" set by Sen. McCarthy, then quickly changes the subject -- so the issue was on the table back then, and nothing happened.

As I say, I haven't done the research to see how these statutes have actually been applied. But saying "Kerry, by his own account ..." doesn't get you there, I very strongly suspect.

[Tilly]

Why does it take a BRITISH newspaper to report on this?!?!!?

You know, I saw this wonderful newsclip about a unit of Florida reservists who went to assist after hurricane Charley ... they'd served in Baghdad the month before. It was a brilliant and moving piece ... and I realized that it took CANADIANS to pick it up.

Also ... just after the war ... I was watching a newsclip from frickin' Al Jazeera. While the thrust of the piece was anti American ... they DID mention in the background that US servicemen were building a school, etc.
This was more than was reported at the time by our own media.

Why do we have to learn about these things from organizations that are ANTI-AMERICAN??? Why can't the US media think to pick up on the above stories?

[Stevie]

Gee, I wonder what's upsetting Teresa's tummy? what's making her dizzy? I rather doubt she's pregnant.... maybe it's her husband's lies exploding all around her.... listening to kerry and people spin the Navy investigation would make anyone dizzy....