Trump versus Daily Mail (and, oh yeah, also Tarpley)

On the hustlings of familiarity, the 2004 speculation on a Bush debate hump (sure) winds its way over to Hillary Clinton and an earpiece in 2016.  Throw out “false equivalency” charges against me for bringing the two together if you wish.

Chief amongst the conspiracy mongerers Right about now, Alex Jones, has been trumpeting up his associations with Donald Trump — familiar as it is to his big interview with Charlie Sheen where he insisted over and over that “we work out all the time”.  It is just enough for Hillary Clinton to mention his name in a speech.*

Webster Tarpley has, it appears, severed ties with Alex Jones fully right about here, and from my eyes his organization looks ever increasingly like the proto-Larouche org he once was a part of.  To be fair, he publishes his daily Memo (Briefing) (habitual as it may be with innuendo and fraudulent charges against on Ms. Trump).  His weekly “World Crisis Radio” is now joined by a daily show “American System Network” — with stated ties as the ideological post-script to Henry Clay.  He’s taken to campaigning for Hillary Clinton and calling Donald Trump a nazi, jumping to a role as a left-wing gate-keeper against the Green Party and coming full circle on an obvious “bi-partisan” / Bilderberg Group / two party duopoly, seemingly now jettisoning his long held opposition to President Barack Obama.
His political party — the Tax Wall Street Party, fielding a handful of candidates — has remained outside the Democratic Party… so far.  And I suppose Tarpley hasn’t jumped to the idea of becoming President just as yet, so even if some transition is made from Larouche’s 1976 Labor Party to a fielding nominees in Democratic primaries, we’re a ways off.

As for this

Melania Trump’s lawsuit describes both publishers’ conduct as “despicable, abhorrent, intentional, malicious, and oppressive.” But the legal battle will hinge on a specific descriptor her lawsuit used to describe Tarpley and the Daily Mail’s actions: “actual malice,” which basically means that the publishers knew, or should have known, that something they published was false.

It’s an annoying case, not much liking either side.  (Though, frankly, what do I care about the possible First Wife?)  And I’m focusing on the lesser party here, the party to the case that is, reportedly, thrown in just so that the Trumps can have the case in a more favorable court setting.

Steve Klepper, an appellate lawyer for the Baltimore law firm Kramon & Graham, said the inclusion of a blogger in the suit indicated legal maneuvering.
He told the Guardian: “Anytime you have a filing that adds a minor in-state defendant, it’s a flag that they were joined to prevent removal to federal court. And as we know, Donald Trump has not been having been the best luck in federal court recently.”

And item number one in Trump’s very self – interested pledging to pass stricter libel laws if elected, I understand this basic idea.

Trump’s biographer said the suit seemed to be ‘more a threat to other reporters, publishers, news organizations’ to shy away from reporting on nominee’s wife.

So …

Klepper pointed to a Maryland defamation statute that might provide a basis for Melania Trump’s suit. It reads: “A single or married woman whose character or reputation for chastity is defamed by any person may maintain an action against that person.”

The retraction in Tarpley’s “Daily Briefing” is pretty funny.

The Morning Briefing published on on August 2, 2016 referenced unfounded rumors and innuendo regarding Melania Trump, wife of Republican Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump, and her life prior to her marriage. The August 2, 2016 morning briefing asserted that it was widely known that Melania Trump previously worked as an escort and that Mrs. Trump was in fear of revelations that she used to work as an escort. The briefing also stated that multiple unnamed sources stated that Mrs. Trump was in a state of apoplectic tantrum, was suffering from a full-blown nervous breakdown, that both Melania Trump and Donald J. Trump feared the revelations coming to light, and that Mrs. Trump’s condition was negatively affecting the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump.
While the editors, writers and contributors did not generate said rumors, the briefing in question was not diligent in fact-checking or maintaining a healthy distance between innuendo and fact.
As such, Webster G. Tarpley, as editor of the content that appears on, hereby officially retracts the August 2, 2016 morning briefing in full and apologizes to Mrs. Trump for any duress and harm she may have endured as a result of the contents of the August 2, 2016 morning briefing.

He’s the author of a book on George H W Bush.  One on Barack Obama.  And one Mitt Romney (though, having never seen the Mitt Romney book, I don’t even know if it’s about Romney so much as it is about the Big Mormon Threat).

This, I’d say, could be expanded out to everything Like most Larouche texts, the Bush “biography” is a mélange of fact and distortion, written in a highly suppositional style that makes numerous leaps of logic and asserts connections where there is no real evidence to support it, at other times omitting exculpatory or contrary information that reveals a more complete picture.

Sure, I just deleted the “positive” aspect in that final quote, but you find that giant leap of logic with Melanie Trump, crudely speaking “escort” — model = escort.
I suppose the one good thing about this lawsuit (which, with reluctance and annoyance I’d slide to siding with goddamned Tarpley) is it forces him (as well the bigger newspaper tabloid) to rectify one obnoxious crude and personal “leap of logic”.

On the matter of Tarpley jettisoning his role as “historian” (philosopher of history?  journalist? political activist?) in favor of “blogger” (David versus Goliath, I suppose)… it is interesting — given in court proceedings, parties tend to try to amp up their credentials and down-play their opponents in court briefings.  Can’t call himself a “conspiracy theory” (was he there for Princess Di?)


* There are plenty of fringe ideologies, but the presidential frontrunner doesn’t usually dedicate a speech to dealing with them. In case you missed it, the John Birch Society, the Lyndon LaRouche movement or even the Westboro Baptist Church don’t drive our political discourse. They’re bizarre ideologies that most of us don’t want to be associated with, let alone support.
So why would Clinton give the Alt-Right airtime if it’s so obviously objectionable? It’s a political play, plain and simple.

A vaguely defined grouping, this “alt right”, an advisor plucked out of one website here, a paranoid 9/11 Truther turning his media empire into a Trump Fan Plaza there.  Political play, you say?  Surely you jest?

The Remnants of the Reform Party and Alabama considers ballot history.

Considerations of Larouche encounters.

only ran into them once (they’re less active in Germany, where they call themselves BüSo), they talked to me about nuclear power because I had studied one of their posters showing a nuclear power plant (as a physicist I have some interest in this topic). The LaRouchies quickly asserted that solar power was a terrible idea, nuclear was top. I tried to argue that solar has some merits and some drawbacks, just like nuclear has advantages and disadvantages, but they wouldn’t have any of it, in their opinion it was nuclear and nothing else.

When I lived in another city they used to scream wide-eyed at me outside of the subway stations and ask if I supported National Socialism in US government. And they had posters of Bush and Cheney with Hitler ‘staches. Now I live in DC and they hang around subway stations here too, but have updated the posters to Obama with a Hitler ‘stache. They need a fresh approach IMO.

I was visiting a friend in Canada a few years ago, and he told me to talk to LaRouche pamphleteers on the street if I encountered any. He promised it would be funny. So I found some (since these people are always in Montreal, especially when the weather gets nice), and the guy I spoke with started telling me all this shit about a secret oil pipeline from Russia or something. Whatever it was, be sure it was serious business! For every claim he made, I responded with phoney concern and an innocent request for proof. I kept saying, “How did you find out about this? Declassified documents?” and he kept trying to work around that and continue his screed.
They also used to put up signs that said “Hitler to Obama: ‘I just love your new healthcare plan!'” Oof.

 Oh God, when I was in college, there was some mysterious person who would leave copies of EIR (Economic Intelligence Report) and a copy of this newspaper that had a headlines like “NEW BRETTON WOODS IN WORKS, AS LAROUCHE PREDICTED.” I cherish them, it’s real hoot stuff. Frankly, a lot of it is just Roosevelt-style government works programs, like he wants to build a high speed train that goes around the world, like building a connection at the Bering Strait.
He’s got some really batshit ideas. Like he has something against modern music, he says it’s not in the right key and he’s petitioned musician organizations to get musicians to perform in a lower key. He also is paranoid about the British, he thinks they’re trying to take over the world, like he thinks the Beatles were a British psych-op operation. I remember reading in EIR about how Condelezza Rice was do a state visit to the UK and how “LaRouche was one of the topics of discussion.”
Last year, I had the misfortune of having one of these nutjobs preach to me on a Philadelphia street corner about the British monarchy and the Jews’ plot to destroy our very way of life. I kept his flyer full of crazy as a souvenir, but I lost it soon after… wish I could’ve scanned it for you guys. It almost read like timecube.
What the fuck is up with these guys, and where do they come from? Does LaRouche himself pay his personal army to do this in every major city?

Leave a Reply