William Pepper Expains Why the 9/11 Ballot Initiative Ended
http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2009/10/william-pepper-explains-why-911-ballot.html
Read the entire report, there's a lot more of great interest.
William Pepper, legal advisor to the New York City 9/11 Ballot Initiative, today explained why the initiative's board has decided not to pursue the case any further. Appearing on the "Fair and Balanced with Kevin Barrett" radio show (archived here) Pepper said the odds of winning an appeal were too slim to justify the resources such an appeal would consume. Instead, he said, the NYCcan.org legal team is hoping to file a civil suit by 9/11 family members and others in a legal venue carefully selected to maximize the chances of success.
Pepper also confirmed the rumor that a professor who is an expert on election law refused to help NYCcan.org after Pepper was unable to promise the professor that the results of a genuine 9/11 investigation would not hurt Israel.
- John_Parulis's blog
- Login to post comments
re the 'rumor', what Barrett said and what Pepper said
Barrett first reported this 'rumor' (APFN has not updated their archive of it, as of now):
disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=126830;
"Pepper also confirmed the rumor that a professor who is an expert on election law refused to help NYCcan.org after Pepper was unable to promise the professor that the results of a genuine 9/11 investigation would not hurt Israel."
Anyone heard this 'rumor', or know how it got started?
Barrett did update his blog entry, and thanks Ted Walter correcting him:
truthjihad.blogspot.com/2009/10/william-pepper-explains-why-911-ballot.html
"Pepper also confirmed the rumor that a professor who is an expert on election law, when asked to help NYCcan.org, asked Pepper to promise him that the results of a genuine 9/11 investigation would not hurt Israel. Pepper naturally said he could not promise what might come of an investigation. Contrary to my earlier erroneous report, the professor did NOT refuse to help NYCcan.org. A thank-you to Ted Walter for correcting this."
However, it's troubling that Barrett is still claiming the above on his blog; from listening to the audio, it's clear that Pepper did not say he was asked to promise anything, or said he could not- this is my transcript of that part, which starts at 9": noliesradio.org/archives/7193
Kevin Barrett- "By the way, can you- feel free to not answer this, if you don't want to, but can you confirm or deny a rumor that a leading Constitutional scholar refused to help NYCCAN.org when he asked- said 'Promise me that this will not hurt Israel', and you couldn't promise him that?
William Pepper- "He's not a Constitutional scholar- at all- he is an election law specialist. The election laws in any jurisdiction tend to require a good deal of very particular experience... and knowledge. As this was a particular election- I won't name him, but there was a particular election lawyer who is a specialist in this area, and, yes, he did raise the issue of- he did specifically raise the issue of Israel, and whether or not the Israeli activists or operatives were in any way going to be brought into the limelight because of 9/11. (chuckles) So I guess- I was amused with the query, and I said, 'Why are you asking me that- do you know something that I don't know?'"
KB- "Well, some people say that everybody knows there was an Israeli angle to 9/11, and it's the worst kept secret out there, but- a lot of people are worried about that."
WP- "Anyway, that was the nature of that conversation, yes."
This TruthAction.org thread archives of material related to questionable statements and actions by Barrett
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1887&sid=1b34b0dac169d38183...
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
However, step back and look at the forest
Whether the word "promise" was used or not, the main point still stands: an election law expert certainly had some kind of bizarre concern (Pepper was amused at the query and said "Do you know something that I don't know?") that a genuine 9/11 investigation may well reveal Israeli involvement. Good on Barrett for clarifying that the man did not refuse to support NYCCAN. However, even though the double negative was clarified ("did not refuse"), this does not necessarily affirm the positive: that the man did support the initiative. As it stands, the anonymous professor might have been non-committal.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb
points
The natural inference is that the election law expert was concerned how an investigation might affect Israel, if he's asking "whether or not the Israeli activists or operatives were in any way going to be brought into the limelight"- and just asking the question indicates he's considering that as part of the equation, and not simply considering issues of truth and justice, how to conduct a proper, impartial investigation, how to draft the petition and conduct the initiative so that it has the best chance of success. It seems likely this expert is the "most experienced election lawyer in New York City" that was referred to in an NYCCAN appeal- it certainly wasn't Dennis P. McMahon, who is not an election law expert.
I disagree with your characterization that it is "Good on Barrett for clarifying that the man did not refuse to support NYCCAN"- correcting the record is the minimum he needs to do, for his own credibility. It's bizarre that Barrett would even post the original claim he made on his blog, given that he conducted the interview himself- it took Walter to correct him on his own interview, when he asked the question heard the answer and had the audio? And I just checked again; the 'inaccurate' info I pointed out is still there. Asking the question was fine- and it turns out there was some basis for the 'rumor'. I would like to know how it got started; almost certainly it was someone who was aware of goings on at NYCCAN- what was their motivation? I wonder if the way they characterized it had anything to do with Barrett's interpretation... I'm going to email him and ask, and bring this thread to his attention.
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
No reply yet from Barrett:
from erik larson <@gmail.com>
to Kevin Barrett <@merr.com>
date Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 8:59 PM
subject Re: 'Rumor' about election law expert
Hi Kevin, just following up to make sure you got this.
Erik
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 12:24 AM, erik larson <@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Kevin,
I listened to your interview w/ William Pepper; I had not heard the 'rumor' about the election law expert that NYCCAN had conducted, and was wondering what additional info you can provide on that, such as where it originated (someone at NYCCAN seems the most likely source), how you heard it and what else was said.
To be fair, I also want to bring your attention to the thread at 911blogger, where I've posted a couple of critical comments, including a link to a thread at truthaction that is used to document certain of your own statements and actions, which have caused many, including myself, to be wary of you.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21679
I don't think we've communicated before, and I'm very interested to see how you respond to this email- if you would, an 'on the record' response would be great, and I will post it in the thread at 911blogger and truthaction.
Thanks!
Erik
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
Odds
>>Pepper said the odds of winning an appeal were too slim to justify the resources such an appeal would consume.
But the odds of getting a judge to change the NYC and NY State Charters so they would agree with the requirements of the 9/11 initiative -- i.e., that commissioners not be elected officials, that they don't have to reside in NY, that formerly public commissions now can be private, etc. -- were not too slim????
Give me a break.
See discussion and documents here.
WOW!
I hadn't heard about the Spanish court case in a long time and wondered where things were. Hearing William Pepper's update makes me hopeful that justice for these war criminals will one day prevail.
I was especially interested in hearing Pepper say that he feels these folks are hesitant to travel to Europe even now. Also, the time frame he outlined is very short: November-December. I thought he was going to say 5 years!
I can't wait to hear that the Interpol arrest warrants have been issued and they begin to be picked up. How the MSM will try to avoid that news will should be very interesting: "Bush, Cheney, and 41 Former Top Officials Attend Indefinite Cloistered Retreat at Undisclosed Monastery."