I freely admit that I was among the loudest accusing the reactionaries of colluding int the brutal murder of Federal employee and census worker, Bill Sparkman.
I was wrong. Sparkman committed suicide.
From WaPo:
William E. Sparkman Jr. was found with his hands, feet and mouth loosely bound with duct tape, a rope loosely tied around his neck. Passersby spotted his body Sept. 12 in a remote area of the Daniel Boone National Forest in eastern Kentucky.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/24/AR2009112403778.html
Now, I suppose the WaPo could be bamboozled, or could be colluding in the cover up. But I am disinclined to believe that. From the same report:
Witnesses told investigators that Sparkman had discussed ending his life. He had also discussed recent federal investigations of Kentucky public officials and the negative perceptions of federal agencies expressed by some residents of Clay County, Ky., where he lived, investigators said. Before his death, Sparkman also secured two life insurance policies, totaling $600,000, that would not pay out for suicide.
Again, I suppose it is possible that all that is a fiction. And I know that some people believe that all law enforcement agencies from south of the Ohio are untrustworthy, but I am not ready to build my conclusions of the case on a prejudice against Southerners.
Again, WaPo:
The Kentucky State Police partnered with the FBI and other state and federal agencies to investigate the death. Authorities decided to share some details of their investigation Tuesday because of the high level of national interest.
Granted, there are some who can believe that the FBI is prepared to collude in the cover-up of the murder of a Federal employee, but me? I find that implausible. And the report was authored by the State Police, not some redneck county sheriff. I cannot vouch for the veracity of the Kentucky State Police in particular, but those who continue to insist that this was murder bear the responsibility to provide specific, not vague reasons to doubt this specific police agency, not some woolly generalizations about Southern police agencies.
And just to establish that it is not only the WaPo that has drunk the Koolaid, the NY Times reports:
The police said they analyzed the ink on Mr. Sparkman’s chest to determine if someone else had written the word. They concluded that the letters had been written from the bottom to the top, which is not how another person would have written them while facing Mr. Sparkman.
The police also found no evidence of a struggle, and there was only Mr. Sparkman’s DNA on the rag in his mouth and near his body.
Mr. Sparkman’s hands were bound, but loosely, allowing him to move them a shoulder-width apart. The police added that they believed Mr. Sparkman had acted alone in manipulating the scene to conceal the suicide.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/us/25census.html
For those who continue to insist that this is some sort of conspiracy, I ask you to state expressly that you believe that the FBI would be ready to cover up this murder. And if you could provide a published challenge to the police report from any sort of credible source, such as The Southern Poverty Law Center. The SPLC does rather pay attention to lynchings in the South. I dare say to lynchings anywhere in the US. To the best of my knowledge, no FOIA requests have been filed. What journalist of any real credibility is pursuing this?
I bang this drum be cause I find it tiresome to see other progressives expend energy on some woo woo conspiracy theory when there is so much serious work to do. Obama’s agenda has slammed hard against the Party of No, and we have seats in the House and Senate to defend and win. BTW, it is entirely possible that we could GAIN seats in the Senate, if only my fellow progressives would pull their goddam socks up and make it happen.
I grant that I was not a witness to this tragedy. I was a witness to 9/11, although I was in downtown DC at the time. What a horrid day. Still, I did not need to be in NY to know that Bush did not destroy the WTC, nor did the Israelis. None of the subscribers to the murder theory were witnesses either. My logic follows as direct a path as I can draw:the FBI investigated, I trust the FBI to get the facts on the death of a Federal worker correct, the FBI says it was suicide, I believe with good reason that it is suicide. I challenge anyone who would care to insist that it was murder to illustrate a similar path.
Occam’s razor tells us that this was a suicide.
Talk about beating a dead Bush and Cheney victim.
Were Bush or Cheney a criminals because they let a terror attack occur on purpose or just because they were criminally negligent?
Bush and Cheney are criminals that all that’s important to me and like I said before their biggest crime was starting aggressive war on false pretenses.
Now the whole 911 was an inside job conspiracy theorists who say the CIA under Cheney planted explosives to take down the twin towers or blow up the pentagon have definitely been proven wrong by hard evidence. But I don’t see anyone really saying that’s what happened here.
However, anyone who thinks Bush and especially Cheney and his droogs would not be capable of purposely not connecting the dots has far too much faith in these criminals than I do for sure. Especially at the beginning of Bush’s presidency it was Cheney’s presidency and he was definitely capable of letting a terror attack occur if he though it fit his ends. He probably did not think 911 would have gone as far as it did but Cheney would not give a shit about losing a few hundred people in plane crashes to further his neocon aspirations. It’s also about impossible to prove because the conspiracy could have in this case just been in one man’s mind when you think about it.
The ultimate bottom line that we all can agree on I hope is that Bush and Cheney are fucking war criminals for the body of their actions before and after 911. Debating where their crimes begin and end is purely academic and hardly worth it.
Well, I would make a few observations on that:
If BushCo had deliberately permitted an attack for whatever reason, I think that would be a crime even larger than deceiving us about the threat posed by Iraq or invading Iraq.
If you would like to say that the distinction is pretty damned small, I’d go along with that.
The other point that you don’t quite make: Was BushCo sufficiently evil to have deliberately allowed 911? That is very evil indeed. But I will give you that one, as I have to agree that they were very evil.
What you don’t address, and that’s OK, is the question of DID they do this horrid crime?
I cannot believe that they did, for good and sufficient reasons. Morally capable? Yes. Did they do it? No. But I’m tired and gonna get some sleep. I may be able to write up my argument, which really needs to be a substantial document to make any sense, tomorrow. Or not, as I need to get my books to my accountant soon.
Folks, it is a challenge and occasionally a tightrope act to protect Freedom of Expression and at the same time, the integrity of a website and its membership.
There are times where conversation hits a wall and the continuation of it not only becomes redundant and a case of diminishing returns, it can also move the primary issue aside and make the discussion itself the issue.
That’s when things can become personal or are taken personally and we’ve seen at other sites what that always leads to.
So, may I suggest for this thread that whoever wishes to, summarizes their position, agrees to disagree and moves on to another topic?
Appreciate your consideration on this.
Understood and appreciated, AdLib.
Cheers bito!
OK dad us kids will try and behave.
200 kids? What, am I Angelina Jolie?
No hopefully more like Father Flanagan or Mother Theresa with this heathen lot. 😉
I already have, but thanks for the reminder. On the other hand, beware of dragon slayers; me thinks you’re going to have something similar to the House’s 9,000 page HC bill.
I am dun finished thar Sheriff; besides I have a headache from the brick wall anyway. 🙂
Boomer, Yes I do believe we are promised a tome. 😉
Sheriff Adlib thanks ya kindly, ma’am. Now can I help ya carry them groceries to yer ranch?
But, as Hitchens would say, we barely got our trousers off!
OK, I’ll give you my best thumbnail:
I not only concede but insist that BushCo came into office with an agenda, and that they deliberately deceived the nation regarding the threat of Iraq, and further that they exploited 911 shamelessly. All conceded many times over.
I will likewise not only concede but insist that BushCo had some level of warning of a pending attack. Here we begin to diverge, as there is a need to say that they did this deliberately in order to create causus belli. This I cannot credence, and my reasons will follow shortly. But on this point, I say it was hubris and incompetence that caused them to not figure it out.
The suggestion that Willie Brown was given a waring on Sept 10 has been offered. If one accepts this as true, then one needs to assert that BushCo had hard knowledge that the attack was very much nigh, and that it would be in America.
Now on this next point I must insist: If one is to assert that BushCo deliberately did nothing to prevent 911, despite having solid warnings, then one must, as a matter of logical consequence, be accusing BushCo of the basest of treason. Treason like likes of which we have not seen since the darkest days of the Cold War, if not further back.
To deny that this crime described was treason defies the language, much less logic.
So, to put away the Willie Brown evidence: one needs to believe that BushCo was willing to see the nation attacked, yet saw the need to do the responsible thing and warn a mayor to not fly that day.
I think that nobody could make that argument with a straight face. BushCo is willing to commit a crime that would make Benedict Arnold look an amateur, but they are going to lift the curtain sufficiently to warn a mayor, who they probably did not like if they even bothered to think of him, and leave a trail of crumbs back to the bat cave?
Sorry. Nobody will ever get me to believe that W Brown was warned. Unless you get me twenty other mayors and governors to come out and insist that they were warned.
But set that aside. Let’s just accuse BushCo of deliberately ignoring threats in the hopes of an attack that would suit their political and geopolitical purposes.
That is still treason. And I am OK with accusing them of being morally capable of such a crime. God knows they may have been sacrificing children for all of what I know, they were so monstrous.
But here is the problem: While the American people now believe that BushCo deceived them in order to get the war going, the American people are not sufficiently moved to demand trials. Why? Because lots of the people who believe that BushCo did that are glad that BushCo did that.
Sort of like the reactionaries parroting on about the number of people opposed to the current HC bill. Half those people oppose it because they want a more socialist bill.
Likewise, many if not most of the Americans who believe that BushCo tortured assorted hapless Muslims, are happy that BushCo tortured assorted hapless Muslims.
Like it or not, many of the people involved in BushCo were acting under a freakishly bent impression that they were being patriotic. While I will grant you that Cheney and Rummy are as evil as the day is long, and would put their own mother on the rack to get one more oil contract, I have considerable difficulty believing that Colin Powell and Armatige and even the semi-bright Tenent would be willing to go past Straussian deception and torture to the point of being willing to see America attacked and do nothing about it. Bush? I don’t care to think about it.
So, how big is this conspiracy? Is it all in Cheney’s head? Is he all there is to it? Is he preventing intel moving correctly and telling people that their shoe laces are untied? For months on end?
I will concede that that is just slightly more feasible than the Sun rising in the west. But I just can’t imagine that the entire Nat Sec machinery, including the military, would just stare out the window for months on end while VP Svengalli was hypnotizing them.
And if the conspiracy is even slightly larger, then you need to imagine people who must be imagining what the consequences of discovery would be.
Because while plenty of Americans would pay for a cable channel featuring the torture of hapless Muslims, and plenty more regret that we only get to invade Iraq once, I cannot be convinced that the American people would not have dragged every member of BushCo out of their offices and hung them from the lamp posts of DC had they become convinced that the Admin had known of 911 and deliberately done nothing to prevent it.
Hell, the Joint Chiefs would have broken down the gates to allow the mob in.
That, my friends, is why I find it utterly implausible that they actually did this thing.
Is Cheney sufficiently morally bankrupt to do it? Sure. Could he get enough people to go along with it? I very much doubt it. I think that if he had tried to recruit people to this conspiracy, he would have suffered a sudden and perfectly explicable heart attack.
I simply cannot credence it. Others may believe that BushCo could be that reckless, and they were pretty goddamn reckless, but this would have been suicidal. Who knows, perhaps they are just that crazy.
AP Article Here
hey javaz,
How are you today? Ohio is having it’s January thaw. We’ll be in a mess of slush, freeze, slush, freeze for weeks.
Re: your post…
My issue the other evening had less to do with the message and a great deal more to do with the messenger. It’s why I made the decision to watch the follow-up from the sidelines the very next day.
Remember Barney Frank and the woman at the Town Hall Meeting? It’s that damn furniture conspiracy. 😉
That statement was verified? If so those cops are dumber than people who watch faux news. And the FBI bought it?
Sue,
I thought the exact same thing…taking one person’s word.
The article cited says that he passed the polygraph.
You missed the “passed the polygraph”?
VOX POPULI IS ABOUT TO BEGIN! CLICK HERE TO GO THERE:
http://planetpov.com/live-events/vox-populi/
Utterly logical, Kevin. But sometimes instinct is a better judge than logic.
Prior to the election of 2000, I would have snickered at anyone attempting to convince me that a national election could be stolen. Or that SCOTUS would willingly collude to steal it. These days, I am wiser, and far less naive.
In my very humble opinion, there are people who will do ANYTHING, commit any atrocity in order to attain what they wish to have, be it power, money, et al.
The government can easily cover up whatever it wishes. Bill Sparkman’s death might have been a suicide (and I am leaning towards that belief at this point), but your insistence that the police or the FBI would not have fabricated evidence to cover up the truth is simply disingenuous.
Edit: For the record, I lived in the South for 10 years during the 1970’s. The police forces were known to cover up many things, including lynchings. I would not be at all surprised to hear that they still do so.
They never covered up anything about the murders of the Black Panthers in Chicago either. Lied about them committing murder then lied about the cover-up!
Certainly the government never lied about the Gulf of Tonken either.
Or Watergate, or Iraq. There is case law that indicted FBI for fraud and taking bribes. LAPD and NYPD have more than their share of corruption, Rodney King, J Edgar Hoover and his wiretaps, Nixon, Iran Contra the list goes on and on
Yet none of it proves anything.
I stand by my conviction on this: I find it very hard to credence the idea that the FBI is involved in a cover up in this case, and considering the evidence that this guy was suicidal, I am sticking with my opinion that it was suicide.
It proves they lie when convenient or to cover up inappropriate, sometimes criminal, activity
So true. Hell, they have lied about many, many things throughout the history of this country,
There is nothing disingenuous about my assumption that the FBI is not covering up. I am as out front in stating that as I can be. I find it very implausible to believe that they are.
And considering the fact that this guy was talking about suicide, I really have difficulty with the postulate.
OK Kevin
My grandson is now playing with his Wii so here are the facts you asked for in your comment to me.
Coincidences? No, I don’t think so…………….
All of this evidence is reported by reputable sources and leaves me to believe that BushCo had all intention from the beginning of his administration to attack Iraq and get rid of Saddam Hussein once and for all. 9/11 provided the “pearl harbor catastrophic event” that galvanized the nation against Iraq and Afghanistan. The lies that were told to this nation provides the premise that Bush wanted war with Iraq just as did all the signers of the PNAC letters. In fact these signers were well known in the Bush administration, William Bennet, Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Donald Rumsfeld, Elliott Abrams, Jeffrey Bergner, Zalmay Khalilzad(Ambassador to Iraq) , Paul Wolfowitz served as deputy sec of def, all members of his staff and signers of the letter from PNAC. So, all of the signers of the letter were taken care of in key positions in the Bush administration, except for William(Bill) Kristol.(see below)
Richard Pearlman worked on the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee from 1987 to 2004. He was Chairman of the Board from 2001 to 2003 under the Bush Administration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._James_Woolsey,_Jr.
James Woolsey Within hours of the 9/11 attacks appeared on television suggesting Iraq complicity. In 2002 he told The Wall Street Journal that Iraq (he believed) was also connected to the Alfred P Murrah Fed Building in OK City
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Zoellick
Zoellick was the United States Trade Representative, he later became Dep SOS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Schneider,_Jr.
He served on the nuclear weapons panel for the Institute for Public Policy, later appointed to the Defense Science Board by Donald Rumsfeld
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Rodman
Assistant Sec of Def for International Security Affairs for Bush
Vin Weber only has a cushy lobbying job in DC now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Dobriansky
Paula Dobriansky served as Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs from 2001-2009, making her the longest-serving undersecretary in the State Department
Wow, Sue!
Extraordinary amount of work you’ve put into this and I thank you for finding so many sources!
Excellent job!
Javaz
It was just a walk in the park or time spent in “Midnight in the Garden of “not so Good” and Evil”. These people were evil to the core. When the shrub mentioned the axis of evil, I believe it was projection on his part.
Sue, if I remember, there were also reports of strategies to attack Iraq being raised as soon as weeks after Bush was inaugurated. I’ll try to find those sources to add to your list.
I think it is pretty much irrefutable that Bush planned to attack Iraq. Whether 911 was allowed to happen or just provided a convenient disaster is the only question I have. We certainly had enough warning to prevent it.
Nellie
Actually O’Neill did an interview with 60 minutes (I believe) which he was told “not to do” and he said it was Priority A within days of the shrub inauguration. They also had referral from Clinton to arrange a pick up from the Taliban of OBL but refused repeatedly to meet with the representative from Feb 2001 on. I could not find my documents on that one, otherwise I could give his name.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml
Paul O
That’s what bothers me about BushCo.
How they chose to ignore all the “chatter” coming in from different intelligence agencies.
“”U.S. intelligence community had extensive forewarning of the 11th September attacks on New York and Washington. Further evidence suggests that the attacks may, in fact, have been in the interest of certain elements of the Bush administration (see Chapter VII).””
“”
Javaz, I would assume that the “Clark” referred to in the last paragraph of your comment is Richard Clark. He was GWB’s counter-terrorism guy in the White House until 2003. I have seen several interviews with him where he stated that he made repeated efforts to bring the threat of impending attack to the attention of the President and Vice President, but he was told that they “didn’t want to hear about it anymore”. Bush, Cheney, and their little cabal just brushed him off.
I would probably give anything I have to see these men on trial for war crimes! They and their oil buddies have literally made billions off this illegal, immoral war!
Addendum: Sorry that I did not read all the comments below before I posted this. Obviously, you are aware of Richard Clark’s attempts to warn the Bushies. I see the problem of trying to prove the Bushies’ agenda, but the old adage of “Follow the money” would give me reason to believe that the privatization of the military was for that reason. Halliburton/KBR did have some pretty good connections in the White House and managed to get themselves some very, very lucrative no-bid contracts. Sometimes, where there is smoke, there is fire!
One and the same. He was also with Cheney during the entire day on 9/11.
He who? Clarke?
I have long thought that the privatization was in response to Vietnam and the casualty counts. Most of the time that we have been in Iraq, we have had more mercenaries than sworn troops.
So the news keeps saying what our troop level is in theater, when in fact it is twice that.
Rummy and Cheney got this ball rolling back in the Ford admin.
Javes, I remember that summer, and I remember there being reports of intel traffic. It was all thought to be about a foreign attack, as I remember it. We had recent history of embassy bombings and the Cole. The news at the time was of chatter of an overseas attack.
Not that that proves anything one way or another.
Funny, I knew I had just seen that guy’s name.
“a certain Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, of the Institute for Policy Research & Development, whose book The War on Freedom had been brought to us by what Vidal called
Sorry, gotta get to the job. I’ll try to review all this tonight. I would really have appreciated your attempting to create a narrative and then offering citations to back it up. At a glance I see you requiring me to draw the whole narrative myself.
As I say, this is your accusation against BushCo, and I feel it is incumbent on you to build the accusation, not me. I cannot prove a negative for you.
But I will be glad to review what you offered.
And again, I need no convincing of the evil of BushCo. I just find it implausible that they could commit the sort of treason that this implies. That would be on par with the Germans sending their own troops into Poland to turn around and attack their border guards to justify the invasion of Poland. Are you willing to expressly accuse them of that sort of treason?
I gave you a synopsis of each article and the attachments are not that hard to get through, they are not all that long. And to answer your question, they got away with torture and that is a more accepted/confirmed crime by the public at large. So could they have done this, yes, unlike Woodward and Bernstein, we don’t have real investigative reporting these days. I bet Nixon wished they or Daniel Ellsberg were never born.
Yes, yes you did do all that, and I said I needed to leave for the day, and would review them this evening, which I will do, thank you.
I would ask you to make a positive statement: “I believe BushCo had knowledge of an attack and deliberately failed to prevent it in order to provide casus belli to invade Iraq.”
I agree that it is not out of the realm of possibility that they could do that, I just find it implausible that they did. As in very hard to believe.
And I will state for the umpteenth time, for those who missed it the first six times I wrote it: I believe BushCo was evil. So I will concede that point to you. But I am not convinced that they were evil enough to deliberately allow the nation to be attacked.
I am not convinced. See? I am not saying that it did not happen. Are you saying that it did?
K7 what convinces you that he didn’t?
I am not convinced that he did not. As I have said so many times. My position is that it is just inconceivable that they could commit such a base treason.
But I cannot prove a negative, as I keep telling you.
Do you have any proof of this statement K7, or is this conjecture on your part?
I cannot prove a negative for you.
I’m sorry. What do you want for me to prove?
That I find it implausible? I would need to ask you to take my word for it. And seeing as I have said so many times, I think you can trust me on this one.
And I still cannot prove a negative to you, I don’t know why you insist on asking the same question over and over.
I am asking you give some support to your argument of “I find it implausible? What leads you to this thought?
If Sue and others think it is plausible and you don’t, there is no debate.
Is “I think it implausible” both your argument and your conclusion?
Edit: is your argument a statement like a parents “because I said so”?
Ah, now you are at the nub of the whole question. I was wondering when someone would ask it.
I think the answer will be a few hundred words long perhaps five hundred, and I am crashing deadlines on slightly more pressing stuff.
Keep an eye out at the top of the page, I’ll try to write it tonight.
And please do trust me: I have REASONS for my skepticism. I will not be able to give you eye witnesses, because this is happening in my head, most of it.
I will lay out a narrative and provide facts that we all agree to, and show you the path that I followed to get to my conclusion. As I said, it will take time.
Getting to the nub?
Is that not the function of a debate? Both sides are presented? Sorry, I thought that was what I have been asking.
No, this was the first time anyone has asked me why I find it implausible.
I was wondering when someone would ask.
Great references Sue I will have to read them.
I simply don’t understand why people don’t focus on the fact that aggressive war is a war crime. No matter what their intents were ever pretense for going to war, save for removing a a leader of a sovereign government from his position was found out to be a lie. We prosecuted people in Nuremberg for waging aggressive war which the Iraq War was. Wars should always be reactionary, not instigated. and a hell of allot more innocent people were destroyed by the Iraq war than torture.
Yes, aggressive war is a war crime.
Now let me ask you: do you believe that BushCo deliberately ignored warnings in order to have justification to invade Iraq?
Sue.
I have repeatedly over the years accused BushCo of having an agenda to invade Iraq from long before they stole the election. So I will concede to you that they came into office with every intention of finding a reason to invade.
That is indicative of many things, but it is not PROOF that they deliberately ignored the warnings coming in in order to create causus belli.
I also have on many occasions accused BushCo of exploiting 911 for the same purpose. So for the various citations that you provide, I concede that BushCo were evil and devious. I do not concede that these elements PROVE that they deliberately allowed the country to be attacked. Is it POSSIBLE? Well, almost anything is possible. It is possible that the various credit cards that I owe my blood to are going to forgive my debts. Say a prayer. Otherwise, I lose my home.
Now, I am going to look at the few that you have there that indicate some pre-knowledge of the attack. I’ll get back to you.
The only ones who had the chance for proof was the 9/11 Commission and that was a sham in the true sense of the word. Of course Bushco or Cheney or any of the players could come out and tell the truth, who knows maybe on their deathbeds?
There is no proof, either way, they did or they didn’t. There is no proof on either side of the equation.
But there is rational argument.
I can deliver it.
Sample: Explain how it is that BushCo would conspire in a horrific and treasonous crime such as deliberately permitting the nation to be attacked, and yet was prepared to call various US Mayors and give them warning?
How does that make a lick of sense?
There: an example of rational argument: the idea that BushCo would warn Willie Brown just makes no sense what ever.
Regarding Willie Brown, you know he denies this, yes?
http://www.911myths.com/html/willie_brown.html
This is like so many others. I cannot come to the view that BushCo committed the sort of treason that this implies based on one web site.
I need to ask so many questions: does Brown get “warnings” on a regular basis? He says, yes, his security people review the advisablity of travel. Why, I don’t know.
I can read this as Brown had a call regarding his travel plans from his security people, and the next day was 911. Being the slightly idiosyncratic guy that he is, and I am sure you would concede that point, he flips it over in his head and claims to have been warned.
Which certainly would make his eagerness to deny it in the future make sense.
Then I really need to ask: why would BushCo warn Willie Brown? Perhaps you could suggest a motivation to do so. God only knows if I was conspiring to commit treason at this level, I would make damned sure just as few people as possible would know anything of it. Especially a liberal Democrat in CA. Can you address that concern on my part? An attorney friend of mine likes to say, if you want to go to prison and quick, the way to do it is to enter into a criminal conspiracy.
Why would Willie Brown say it, then retract it months later? In fact he denied he said it originally until confronted with the story in the Examiner(hardcopy of the original edition). I don’t really care if he was warned or not, but if he was I sure would like to know why. SF is a major metropolitan area in the US so maybe they thought his city might be included in the attacks? I don’t know but he did say it. SF Examiner has removed the article from their archives………….
Sue, I cannot make a claim to know Brown’s mind, but I can tell you for a fact that he is repeatedly denying it now.
I ask you to please look at what you are proposing:
1) BushCo committed the basest treason (which is the only way to describe your accusation), that if exposed, would certainly have had them all hanging from the lamp posts in front of the White House, yet:
2) They think it a good idea to give hints of their horrific criminal conspiracy to various mayors, (why mayors, why not senators?) that will leave a trail of bread crumbs?
I simply cannot be convinced that they did both of these things. It is just utterly inconceivable that they would commit such a horrific treason, the sort of treason that would make Benidict Arnold look good, and then go blabbing about it to somebody for whom they patently have no regard or connection to: Democratic Liberal mayor Willie Brown.
What possible reason could they have to do something so crushingly stupid?
Tell me that they did both of these things.
LOL, Willie Brown has lied continuosly throughout his career, when it suits his purpose.