Billy Bottoms

Billy Bottoms

“Me thinks he doth protest too much,” a paraphrased line from Shakespeare’s play Hamlet, spoken by Queen Gertrude in response to the insincere overacting of  a character in a play she is watching.

The line exemplifies Billy Bottoms’ desperate attempts to debunk the Mena connection to the murders of Kevin and Don, as is evident from his email exchanges with Linda, Jean, and Mark.  Also, see podcasts with Russell Welch debating Billy Bottoms.

 

Bear Bottoms - Disinformation on Mena

The following is a series of correspondence between Billy Bottoms, Linda Ives and Jean Duffey. Bottoms is an admitted drug smuggler and an ex brother-in-law of Barry Seal’s. Bottoms claims to be the Alpha and the Omega of the Mena airport. What do you think?

Subject: The Mena Myth is over
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 20:38:25 -0600
From: “William Bottoms”
To: “Linda Ives”
The Mena Myth is over. I appreciate anyone’s
position and quest for their cause, but Mena is
no longer a viable source for any agenda.
In your case Mrs. Ives, apply your talents
to uncover the mystery behind your cause
without allowing the Mena Myth to obsure
your search. It is a proven smoke screen.
A copy of this was sent to Ms. Duffy.
I am sorry for your loss and I hope this
helps redirect you.
The only two investigators who looked into
Mena, Bill Duncan and Russell Welch now
know that Mena is a Myth. Sen. Leach has
admitted recently on C-Span that there is not
as much at Mena as origionally thought. He
said he might release a report soon. I would
advise everyone to put pressure on your
Congressman/woman to force a report from
him. We paid for the investigation and we
deserve a report. Sen. D’Amato has long
since abandoned Mena. Ken Starr will also
abandon Mena. Sally Denton just surrendered.
Hers and Morris’ story “The Crimes of Mena”
was a hoax. I am not sure if they knew it.
It is not important as is the fact that one must
be very careful what one believes and reports
about.
There are a lot of stories out there that fit the
same pattern. Do not be gullible and certainly
do not let such serve your agendas as in the
long run it will hurt more than help.
The Mena Myth is over.
Bear Bottoms
bbottoms@rouge.net
Private Attorney General

Subject: The Mena Myth is over
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 20:35:05 -0600
From: “William Bottoms”
To: “Jean Duffy”
The Mena Myth is over. I appreciate anyone’s
position and quest for their cause, but Mena is
no longer a viable source for any agenda.
My recommendation is to put forth your able
talents to uncover the source of the money
that may have illegally been obtained and
processed through Arkansas Banks and other
Banks and financial institutions around the
country.
In your case Ms. Duffy, apply your talents
to uncover the mystery behind your agenda
without allowing the Mena Myth to obsure
your search. It is a proven smoke screen.
The only two investigators who looked into
Mena, Bill Duncan and Russell Welch now
know that Mena is a Myth. Sen. Leach has
admitted recently on C-Span that there is not
as much at Mena as origionally thought. He
said he might release a report soon. I would
advise everyone to put pressure on your
Congressman/woman to force a report from
him. We paid for the investigation and we
deserve a report. Sen. D’Amato has long
since abandoned Mena. Ken Starr will also
abandon Mena. Sally Denton just surrendered.
Hers and Morris’ story “The Crimes of Mena”
was a hoax. I am not sure if they knew it.
It is not important as is the fact that one must
be very careful what one believes and reports
about.
There are a lot of stories out there that fit the
same pattern. Do not be gullible and certainly
do not let such serve your agendas as in the
long run it will hurt more than help.
The Mena Myth is over.
Bear Bottoms
bbottoms@rouge.net
Private Attorney General

Subject: Re: The Mena Myth is over
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 15:25:49 -0600
From: Jean <429jed@wt.net>
To: William Bottoms

Dear Mr. Bottoms,
Get real.
Most Sincerely,
Jean Duffey

Subject: Jean Duffy refuses resonable dialogue
Date: 4 Jan 1997 08:04:16 -0800
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
From: Bear Bottoms
I contacted Jean Duffy via email and called her 800 number. She did not respond to my email to her. I talked to Mark, the webmaster at her web site ( http://www.idfiles.com ) and spoke with him for almost an hour. He took my number and said he thought Ms. Duffy would be very interested in talking with me about this subject.
She didn’t call. She and I know why.
The email I sent to Duffy was to inform her that her search for the solution to the train death incident in Arkansas where two boys were found dead on the railroad tracks should be well served by information that Seal’s organization had nothing to do with the incident. She would only waste valuable efforts in pursuing answers to this mystery by looking into possible connections with Seal’s organization.. As I have said, she hasn’t responded in any manner. Why do you think so?
My converstion with Mark for the first 15 minutes was a battle over his belief that Mena had a lot to do with their problem. By the time the conversation was nearly over, he was amazed at some of the revelations I informed him about. He was no longer sure of what he had long believed as told by Ms. Duffey. He said he would relay my number and was sure that Ms. Duffy would call me. Ms.
Duffy has not responded in any way. If you had suspicions about Seal’s organization and had an opportunity to interview his chief pilot, what would you do? Ms. Duffy is supposed to be a trained investigator.. Why would she not at least interview a key player especially when he offers?

Subject: Mean Myth Conspirators?
Date: 7 Jan 1997 16:48:41 -0800
From: Bear Bottoms
Organization: Zip News
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
I have made new revelations about the GREAT MENA
HOAX. No attempt to verify my claims, it appears, has
been made. A lot of attempts to silence and discredit
me have been made. Why? Don’t get me wrong, I am
not being sensitive. I couldn’t have asked for a better
response to my revelations. To anyone with any
intelligence, it should show that there is a:”COVER UP
THE MENA HOAX AT ANY COST CARTEL” running
rampart on the internet, the mediia, and within our
government. It is very easy to prove that I am who I say
I am. It is very easy to prove that my revelations are
true. Too easy in fact. Why hasn’t that been
attempted? After over ten years of controversy, a
verifiable witness exposes hisself and the media ignores
it. The government ignores it. The internet buffs try to
discredit and silence it. Why?
This is a rare opportunity to disclose a CONSPIRACY
HOAX. and the people behind it. It is also a good
opportunity to ask why the smoke screen was there for
so long when mounds of known evidence existed to
debunk it. What is it hiding? Who hid behind it?
I can list many of the members of the “COVER UP THE
MENA HOAX AT ANY COST CARTEL” and their heros.
I will do a review of my notes to identify more of them,
as I am sure that there are so many that I will not be
comprehensive in this post. Help me do this.
If your name doesn’t belong here, let me know and I will
retract it if there is evidence of it. If your name should
be here and it is not, let me know and I will add it.
Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Lt. Col. Oliver North,
Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, Sen. D’Amato, Sen. Jim
Leach, U.S. Congress, The Republican Party, The
Democratic Party, Department of Justice, CIA, FBI,
DEA, DIA, IRS, U.S. Customs, Special Prosecutor for
Senator John Kerry Jack Blum, Arkansas Attorney
General Winston Bryant, CIA’s Inspector General’s
Office, The House Subcommittee on Crime, Louisiana
and Arkansas Federal and State Enforcement,
participants in numerous federal and state
investigations, Arkansas Attorney General’s Office, 1985
President’s Commission on Organized Crime, National
Security Council in 1988, Federal Middle District of
Louisiana, DEA director Jack Lawn, DEA Spokesman
John Hughes, CIA Director Bill Casey, US Attorney
General Edwin Meese, William J. Hughes, Lawrence
Walsh, Craig Gillen chief investigator on the staff of
Lawrence Walsh, U.S. District Judge Frank J. Polozola,
US Attorney Stan Bardwell, Al Winters, Charles Black,
Mark Swaney, Tom Brown, Steve Ganis, Democratic
whip in the U.S. Congress Bill Alexander, La State
Trooper Lt. Bob Thomasson , Henry Elmer Holmes, IRS
Agent Bill Duncan, Polk County Ark Sheriff Al Hadaway,
Mark Oxley, Congressional General Counsel Haydon
Gregorie, DEA Agent Celerino Castillo III, Ark. State
Trooper Larry Patterson, Ark. State Trooper Steve
Clements, Ark. State Police Commander Finus Duvall,
Arkansas State Attorney General Investigator Barry
Boshears, Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Jim
Johnson, ex-Arkansas State Trooper L.D. Brown, U.S.
District Judge Martin Feldman, Revenue Agent Elmer
Holmes, .IRS Spokesman Henry Holmes, State
Policeman Col. Donald Brisolera, Dick Morris, DEA
Country Attache Costa Rica Bobby Nieves, ex-DEA
Agent Jean Duffy, Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Ross Perot,
Harry Browne, Ralph Nader, Dewey Clarridge, Caspar
Weinberger, John Pointdexter, William Henry LaRoche,
Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Julius “Doc”
Delaughter, Kenneth Starr, Senator Barbara Boxer,
Maxine Waters, Senator Diane Feinstein, DEA Assistant
Administrator Frank Monastero, DEA Deputy Assistant
Administrator Dave Westrate, DEA Chief of Cocaine
Desk Ron Caffrey, Kennedy Grafinrid Assistant to
President Reagan, Greg Johnstone Office of Indian
Affairs, Gen. Paul Gorman Commander Southern
Forces Central America, Terry Capehart Polk County
Deputy Sheriff Investigator,
Indicted Terry Reed, convicted drug smuggler Michael
Tolliver, Eugene Wheaton, federally convicted Chip
Tatum, convicted drug smuggler Jorge Morales, Richard
Brenneke, Arms Dealer William Holmes,
Gregory Wierzynski, Kevin P. Craddock, Roger Morris,
Sally Denton, Penthouse Magazine, John Cummings,
Jack Anderson, Sarah McClendon, The Nation, The
Village Voice, American Spectator Magazine, London
*Sunday Telegraph, Marvin Lee of Washington
Weekley, Mosaic Press, The Association of National
Security Alumni, Rodney Bowers, Mara Leveritt,
Ambrose Evans Pritchard, Micah Morrison of WSJ,
Maria Henson, Jeffrey Stinson, Michael Arbanas, Joe
Nabbefeld, Marc Francoeur, Max Parker, John Crudele,
Lee Hancock, Hugh Davies, Mark E. Howerter, Randall
Terry, John Bennet of Citizens For Honest Government,
, Citizens For Honest Government, Bill Plante of CBS
News, CBS News Producer Mike Singer, Mark E.
Howerter, Lars-Erik Nelson, Debbie McKim-Brown,
Alexander Cockburn, Scott Wheeler, Paul DeRienzo,
Susan Schmidt Washington Post Staff Writer, Jonathan
Kwitny, Wall Street Journal, Tim Weiner Special to The
New York Times, Anthony Kimery, Michael Haddigan,
Bear Bottoms
bbottoms@rouge.net
Private Attorney General

Subject: Jean Duffey responds to Bottoms
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 19:32:06 -0600
From: Mark Keesee
CC: lar-jen@interaccess.com
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
I have ignored William Bottoms for months, because my time is valuable and I don’t like to waste it. However, when he e-mailed me via Linda Ives and my web site, http://www.idfiles.com/ttd.htm he told audacious, outright lies about a conversation he had with my brother, Mark Keesee, who is also our webmaster. At first I resented being dragged into his disinformation campaign, but he apparently is not going to give it up. I was the topic of his January 4, 1997, post on this newsgroup, “Jean Duffy (sic) refuses resonable (sic) dialogue.”
I really can’t imagine why he’s so worried about me. I have very little to say about Mena and don’t claim to be an expert. But if he wants dialogue, he’s got it, at least for as long as I am amused with it.
I’ll start by responding to his January 7, 1997, post on this newsgroup.
Bottoms says: I have made new revelations about the GREAT MENA HOAX. No attempt to verify my claims, it appears, has been made. A lot of attempts to silence and discredit me have been made. Why? Don’t get me wrong, I am not being sensitive.
My response: Well, of course, no attempts have been made to verify Bottoms. Anyone who launches a disinformation campaign should supply his own verification. And if he thinks anyone is trying to silence him, he is suffering from a case of paranoia. He is his own worst enemy; when he talks, he discredits himself. I’m not sure why Bottoms is opposed to being thought of as sensitive, but he has no problem with me. I don’t consider a drug smuggler to be the sensitive type.
Bottoms: I couldn’t have asked for a better response to my revelations. To anyone with any intelligence, it should show that there is a:”COVER UP THE MENA HOAX AT ANY COST CARTEL” running rampart on the internet, the mediia (sic), and within our government.
My response: I personally don’t concern myself with anyone who buys into Bottoms’ “hoax” campaign. It is undeniable that Mena was part of Barry Seal’s drug smuggling organization, and even if one accepts Bottoms’ insistence that the drugs he and Seal smuggled were dropped before their planes landed at Mena, so what? Seal’s planes would not have been able to make their drug-runs if the Mena operation hadn’t done it’s part to modify, repair, and house the planes. Without the operations at Mena, there would have been no drug-smuggling, so where does Bottoms get off trying to minimize the culpability of Mena?
Bottoms: It is very easy to prove that I am who I say I am. It is very easy to prove that my revelations are true. Too easy in fact. Why hasn’t that been attempted?
My response: I believe Bottoms is exactly who he says he is; that’s one of the problems I have with him. He’s a confessed drug smuggler who doesn’t appear to feel much remorse for his crimes.
Bottoms: (a) After over ten years of controversy, a verifiable witness exposes hisself (sic) and the media ignores it. (b) The government ignores it. (c) The internet buffs try to discredit and silence it. Why?
My response: (a) Mainstream media, in my opinion, has fallen far short of doing their part to expose the corruption in our government, but they haven’t stooped low enough to legitimize Bottoms. (b) Here Bottoms says the government is ignoring him, but he contradicts himself in an e-mail to me where he writes, “I have a host of credible government support to assure my assertions are accurate.” Bottoms says whatever seems like the thing to say at the time, and his contradictions and lies are catching up to him. (c) It’s been my belief that “internet buffs” who are seeking the truth know it when they see it, and Bottoms is not it.
Bottoms: This is a rare opportunity to disclose a CONSPIRACY HOAX and the people behind it. It is also a good opportunity to ask why the smoke screen was there for so long when mounds of known evidence existed to debunk it. What is it hiding? Who hid behind it?
My response: Beats the heck out of me. However, when these same questions are asked about covering up of the crimes of Mena, the answers come easily, and, more importantly, they make sense.
Bottoms: I can list many of the members of the “COVER UP THE MENA HOAX AT ANY COST CARTEL” and their heros (sic) . . . . If your name doesn’t belong here, let me know and I will retract it. . . .
My response: In a long list that is actually comical, I am included and identified as “ex-DEA Agent Jean Duffy” – typical of how sloppy Bottoms is with facts. I am an ex-deputy prosecuting attorney, and I spell my name DUFFEY. I enjoyed seeing my name on that list and would like for it to stay there.
Jean Duffey jean@idfiles.com

Subject: WSJ – Linda Ives
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 22:26:14 -0600
From: lar-jen@interaccess.com (Larry-Jennie)
To: mark@idmedia.com
————————————————————–
Mark,

Here is a recent UPI story debunking Billy Bob Bottoms
claims about Russell Welch saying he had no evidence connecting
Barry Seal to Mena.


DALLAS, Nov. 10, 1996 (UPI) — The CIA denies slain alleged cocaine
smuggler Barry Seal worked for the agency, but it did acknowledge
he worked as an informant for the Drug Enforcement
Administration, a newspaper reported Sunday.
The Dallas Morning News cited a newly released CIA document in
which it admits ties to the Inter mountain Regional Airport, near
Mena, Ark., from which Seal operated.
The CIA said it only contracted out “for routine aviation
services” on its aircraft without revealing to local companies
who they were.
Suspicions about CIA involvement in cocaine smuggling in black
communities has ignited anger among civil rights activists and
sparked calls for investigations.
The papers released Friday and referred to by the CIA as “an
unclassified summary,” said Adler Berriman “Barry” Seal became an
informant for the DEA after being arrested for smuggling cocaine.
He made a deal with the government after convincing Reagan
Administration officials he could provide proof that Communist
Sandanistas were running drugs to the United States.
He had been flying out of Mena, picking up drugs, and
returning to drop points in Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas, where
ground crew collected the contraband, retired Arkansas State
Police investigator Russell Welch told The News.
Seal agreed to work with the DEA on March 24, 1984. The DEA
gave Seal immunity from prosecution for any narcotics smuggling
he was involved in while being debriefed by the DEA, said Welch.
His plane — a C-123 military transport — was festooned with
sophisticated surveillance cameras.
Seal returned to the United States from one trip with a load
of drugs and claims he had photos of a top Sandanista official
and uniformed Sandanista soldiers loading drugs onto the
airplane.
Seal was gunned down by Colombian contract killers at age 42
outside a New Orleans Salvation Army halfway house in February
1986.
After his death Seal was described in a heavily censured
document called a “Summary of Contra Participants, Confidential
Witness List,” and obtained from the FBI under the Freedom of
Information Act as having “had deep and unknown ties” with CIA
officials, The News reported.
The C-123 registered to Seal and used in the DEA-CIA
Sandanista sting was shot down seven months later over Nicaragua
while flying supplies to the anti-Communist Contras.
At the controls was Eugene Hasenfus, who was the lone
survivor.
His admissions in captivity cracked open the Iran-Contra
scandal, which rocked the Reagan Administration.

Subject: Re: Jean Duffey responds to Bottoms
From: Bear Bottoms
Date: 1997/01/10
Message-Id: <5b68bi$2il@lana.zippo.com>
Sender: usenet@drn.zippo.com
References: <32D59C16.5B60@idmedia.com>
Organization: Zip News
Newsgroups: alt.current-Events.clinton.whitewater
In article , Mark says…
Bear Bottoms Comment:
Mark, I have the conversation on tape.
Jean: I’ll betcha your taking some kind
of fee from Linda Ives. I reached out to
you. I offered you and Linda Ives some
relevant information about her loss. If
you don’t want it, so be it. The website
of yours and your brothers has errant
and misleading information. If that is the
way you serve your clients I pity them.

Subject: Jean Duffey/Bottoms
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 00:34:09 -0600
From: Mark Keesee
CC: jean@idmedia.com
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Bear Bottoms wrote: > > In article , Mark says… > > Bear Bottoms Comment: > Mark, I have the conversation on tape. > > Jean: I’ll betcha your taking some kind > of fee from Linda Ives. I reached out to > you. I offered you and Linda Ives some > relevant information about her loss. If > you don’t want it, so be it. The website > of yours and your brothers has errant > and misleading information. If that is the > way you serve your clients I pity them.
I’m one up on you, Billy. That conversation has been transcribed and will be up on our web site in a few days. http://www.idfiles.com/ttd.htm
Mark Keesee mark@idfiles.com
Linda Ives responds to Bottoms:
Your wild rantings that Mena, Arkansas did not serve as a hub for the large scale drug smuggling operation set up by Barry Seal in the early 80’s are as ludicrous as your offers of help and information about my “loss.” In the conversation you had with Mark, you acknowledged that you’re not even convinced Kevin and Don were murdered. Here’s the excerpt from that conversation:
Bottoms: And, uh, to be on that track, the only thing that does is allow, if anything. . . you, know, if it wasn’t an accident, uh, I have no idea. . . . Mark: Wasn’t an accident? Bottoms: Well, I don’t know.
So, Mr. Bottoms, what kind of information do you have about murders that you don’t even know happened? Indeed, you are a prime example of why I believe that people shouldn’t talk about things they know nothing about, and I want to assure anyone and everyone who has taken an interest in my son’s murder that you know n-o-t-h-i-n-g about it. I find it less than coincidental that Billy Bottoms is suddenly interested in Linda Ives and her “loss”, and the fact that the White House has included me on their “enemies list” as was reported in The Wall Street Journal on Monday, January 6, 1997. (http://www.idfiles.com/whheat.htm) It is obvious to even the casual observer that you, a criminal by your own admission, are simply a government paid thug disseminating DIS-information about me and my murdered child.
As far as Jean taking some kind of fee from me? You may be a bought-and-paid-for whore, but I can assure you and everyone else, Jean is not being paid.
Linda Ives linda@idfiles.com
Home

The Wall Street Journal
January 6, 1997
White House Heat On Whitewater Beat
By MICAH MORRISON
Bill Clinton’s Whitewater problems are due to a “media food chain” through which conservative philanthropist Richard Scaife engineers a “media frenzy”–at least according to a White House report running 331 pages. The notion: Mr. Scaife’s funding of the Western Journalism Center and publication of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review introduces “conspiracy theories and innuendo,” which are then picked up by the likes of the American Spectator magazine and London’s Sunday Telegraph. From there they enter the “right-of-center mainstream media,” such as the Washington Times and this editorial page. Then Congress looks into the matter and “the story now has the legitimacy to be covered by the remainder of the American mainstream press as a ‘real’ story.”
Chortling over his newly disclosed power, Mr. Scaife asks, “Now that George Stephanopoulos is going to ABC, does that mean he’ll be working for me?” Yet the report from the White House counsel’s office–entitled “Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce” and coupling a series of brief analyses with a large package of press clips and Internet gleanings–demonstrates the extremes of White House press management. Lanny Davis, the new White House special counsel for scandals, says the report was created “in response to press inquiries and provided to journalists who asked.” Mr. Davis complied with this newspaper’s request for a copy, but declined to respond to questions.
A version of the report was posted on the Internet by an ostensibly independent group of Clinton defenders, the Back to Business Committee. The committee, chaired by former Democratic National Committee vice-chairwoman Lynn Cutler, lists a board of advisers that includes former Reps. Tony Coelho and Robert Drinan, S.J.; Dukakis campaign manager Susan Estrich; Carter administration officials Jody Powell, Anne Wexler and Andrew Young; as well as Arthur Coia, president of the court-supervised Laborer’s International Union.
White House attempts to manage press coverage of “Whitewater” are especially interesting now, because a new round of press skepticism about the administration is clearly under way, propelled by the controversy over Indonesian campaign contributions and the abrupt departures of a slew of administration officials responsible for damage control. There has also been increased attention to the relative lack of press coverage of the scandals, most prominently in a November article on the Paula Jones case by Stuart Taylor Jr. of American Lawyer magazine and in a Dec. 16 New Republic cover story, “Scandal-shy,” by William Powers. But these articles only scratched the surface of the Clinton administration’s extraordinary efforts to block, blunt and beat down reporters on the scandal beat.
One of the striking things about press coverage of Whitewater is the number of star reporters who, for one reason or another, are no longer on the beat. Investigative reporter Douglas Frantz quit the Los Angeles Times over its handling of a December 1993 Troopergate story that he co-authored with Bill Rempel. ABC’s Jim Wooten took himself off the scandal beat after the network killed a Troopergate-related story, Mr. Powers reported. Washington Post reporter Michael Isikoff left the paper after a bitter internal dispute over the Paula Jones story; he continues to report scandal stories for Newsweek, a sister publication.
At Time magazine, investigative journalist Richard Behar was involved in a dispute with Arkansas powerhouse Tyson Foods over a report linking the company to cash payments allegedly destined for then-Gov. Clinton. Mr. Behar eventually left for sister publication Fortune, though he reports that Time stood behind him even when Tyson yanked a large advertising contract. Even the tabloid New York Post let reporter Christopher Ruddy go; he now details discrepancies in the investigation of Vincent Foster’s death for Mr. Scaife’s Tribune-Review.
Survivors on the Whitewater beat report, both on and off the record, that life is uncomfortable. Surrogates for the president–including White House spokesman Mike McCurry, ABC-bound presidential aide George Stephanopoulos, and private attorney David Kendall–complain to news executives and lobby to kill stories. And in what Mr. Powers called a chilling “divide-and-conquer approach,” whispering campaigns about allegedly shoddy work are launched in an effort to convince reporters to ignore the work of their colleagues. The New Republic story added that a particular target has been Susan Schmidt, a widely admired reporter for the Washington Post.
Jeff Gerth of the New York Times, who broke the original Whitewater story in 1992 and who, along with other Times reporters, revealed Hillary Clinton’s now famous commodities trades, has been an abiding White House target. “For a long time, the White House thought if they could just neutralize Gerth, the whole scandal thing would go away,” says a White House reporter from a rival newspaper. “In private, they would just savage the guy.” By contrast, Jerry Seper of the Washington Times, who also provided early ground-breaking coverage of the scandals, says he escapes pressure because the White House strategy is to ignore him.
Recently, Mr. Gerth and fellow Timesman Stephen Labaton reported on White House visits by Lippo Group scion James Riady. They wrote that presidential aide Bruce Lindsey “was the central figure behind the White House’s decision to call the meetings social calls, ignoring the counsel of two White House lawyers.” The White House explanation was false; after the election, it emerged that Mr. Riady had discussed trade policy toward Indonesia and China with Mr. Clinton at these meetings, and on one occasion had successfully lobbied for the transfer of now-suspect fund-raiser John Huang from a post at the Commerce Department to the Democratic National Committee.
The Times story directly quoted former White House lawyer Jane Sherburne as warning against the false description of the meetings. According to reporters and others, White House aides immediately launched personal assaults on the two Times reporters in off-record remarks. Then pro-Clinton TV talking head and Time magazine columnist Margaret Carlson attacked Messrs. Gerth and Labaton by name in the Dec. 16 Time, linked reporting on the Indonesia controversy to liberal bete noir Rush Limbaugh, and cited anonymous sources “close to Sherburne” saying that the White House lawyer “felt she had never been overruled or lied to by Lindsey and that the Times had torqued up a conflict.”
Actually, the meticulous Gerth-Labaton report had not used the words “lied” or “overruled.” (The latter was used in a Times editorial, and certainly seems a legitimate opinion to draw from the facts of the case.) Time then ran a letter from New York Times Washington bureau chief Andrew Rosenthal and an editor’s note setting the record straight. While such sniping may seem minor, reporters view attacks like Ms. Carlson’s as a kind of drip-drip water torture to try to undermine the credibility of journalists working the story.
The Columbia Journalism Review conceded in another editor’s note that an attack it had made on Mr. Gerth had also been in error, inaccurately describing how he obtained one of the first interviews with Whitewater witness David Hale. That mistake occurred in a May-June 1994 article by Trudy Lieberman. (Just recently, the magazine has named a high-powered new editor, Marshall Loeb, formerly of Fortune.) Ms. Lieberman’s article, “Churning Whitewater,” closely parallels parts of the White House “conspiracy report.”
In particular, Ms. Lieberman breathlessly flayed “the frenzied media” for listening to information from partisan sources such as Citizens United, and its one-time Whitewater investigator, David Bossie. Of course reporters listen to such sources, and then seek independent confirmation before passing stories up the “food chain.” Mr. Bossie’s information, much of it in documents, checked out so often he moved on to become a congressional investigator, though still frequently under attack. In the same recent issue that defended Mr. Powers against a White House attack on his article, the New Republic also demanded that Mr. Bossie, in a new position with a House oversight committee, be fired for news leaks–perhaps the only known example of a publication demanding that someone be fired for telling the truth to journalists.
Writers with a pro-White House history have recently been asking questions about The Wall Street Journal’s coverage of Arkansas housewife Linda Ives, whose crusade for answers to the unsolved deaths of her son Kevin and his friend Don Henry was detailed here April 18. Indeed, this editorial page first learned of the “conspiracy report” from Philip Weiss, a writer on assignment for the New York Times Magazine, who cheerfully acknowledged that he had discussed the Ives case with White House officials and had been given a report on “the conspiracy feeding frenzy.”
Mrs. Ives alerted this page that Mr. Weiss had called, asking “what journalists I was talking to. Mark Fabiani, the White House spokesman, had sicced him on me, he said. I found that curious. What would the White House want with me?” Mrs. Ives had gone through essentially the same experience several months earlier with a producer from CBS’s “60 Minutes.” When her teenage son and his friend were run over by a train in August 1987, the state medical examiner ruled the death “accidental,” saying the boys had fallen asleep on the tracks after smoking marijuana. A second autopsy called it murder; one local prosecutor who developed information suggesting air-drops of drugs might be involved was run out of the state, while a second prosecutor is now himself the subject of a federal drug-corruption probe. Mrs. Ives says that “60 Minutes” had been interested in the story as an example of “Clinton bashing,” but killed the report after listening to her account.
New Yorker writer David Remnick, on assignment for a forthcoming PBS documentary segment on this page and The Wall Street Journal Editor Robert L. Bartley, also asked about the Ives case. His question concerned the relevance of the story to Bill Clinton–the answer to which is that Gov. Clinton’s support of state medical examiner Fahmy Malak was highly controversial, and that President Clinton’s hand-picked U.S. attorney in Little Rock, Paula Casey, now has authority over the drug-corruption probe involving public officials entangled in the case. Although the Little Rock FBI forwarded Ms. Casey the train deaths file 18 months ago, she has taken no action on it.
ABC News also has had a series of battles with the White House over the Clinton scandals. In 1994, when the network was set to run a story about Gov. Clinton’s use of state troopers to procure women, Mr. Clinton’s private attorney David Kendall flew to New York to lobby against the piece. White House officials suggested that ABC correspondents look into reports that the main source for the story, Arkansas State Trooper L.D. Brown, had murdered his mother. The ugly allegation was false, but the ABC story never ran.
In June, the White House launched a furious blitz at ABC executives to block former FBI agent Gary Aldrich from appearing on “This Week With David Brinkley” to discuss his book on White House mores. ABC didn’t back down, but NBC’s “Dateline” and CNN’s “Larry King Live” caved to White House pressure, canceling plans to interview Mr. Aldrich. “We killed it,” Mr. Stephanopoulos later boasted.
Last January, ABC correspondent Jackie Judd and investigative producer Chris Vlasto were working on a story about the political nature of Sen. Alfonse D’Amato’s Whitewater Committee. The White House, Ms. Judd recalled, “instantaneously produced a D’Amato packet.” The D’Amato “Ethics Sampler” recounted allegations of the senator’s influence peddling and supposed mob ties. “The packet was given to us without any conditions,” Ms. Judd said, “so it became part of the story.” White House spokesman Mike McCurry was furious that the derogatory information was attributed to the White House. According to several people familiar with the incident, Mr. McCurry complained to network executives, and in an angry call to Mr. Vlasto, he screamed: “You’re never going to work in this town again!”
Mr. Vlasto, still employed by ABC and still working on Whitewater stories, confirmed the incident in a brief phone call, but declined to be interviewed. Mr. McCurry denied that he threatened Mr. Vlasto, but said he sometimes criticizes stories.
Apparently not everyone is as fortunate as Mr. Vlasto. New York Daily News reporter David Eisenstadt was fired Nov. 11 after filing a story linking top Clinton fund-raiser Terry McAuliffe to Asian fund-raising and Mr. Huang. Mr. Eisenstadt’s attorney sent the Daily News a letter saying he would file a lawsuit because the paper had “improperly thwarted the truth and succumbed to political pressure” in terminating the reporter. James Ledbetter of the Village Voice reported that Mr. Eisenstadt was fired “after the Clinton campaign reportedly complained to News co-publisher Mort Zuckerman,” a frequent White House guest. Another Daily News reporter, Ying Chan, has been charged with criminal libel in Taiwan after co-authoring with a Taiwanese magazine writer an article reporting that a top official of the island nation’s ruling party had offered an Arkansas operative $15 million for the Clinton campaign. While several media organizations and New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis have protested Ms. Chan’s treatment, the Daily News has remained silent.
In an interview, Mr. Zuckerman indicated he was not aware of Ms. Chan’s plight, but rejected suggestions Mr. Eisenstadt had been fired due to political pressure. “We will publish and have published critical reports on the Clinton administration,” Mr. Zuckerman said.
With revelations continuing to unfold in the myriad Clinton scandals, it seems unlikely the White House effort to intimidate the press will end anytime soon. “The White House views this as a war,” says ABC’s Jackie Judd, “and they’re going to use whatever they can to win it.”
Mr. Morrison is a Journal editorial page writer.
Reprinted with Permission
Copyright © 1997 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Home

Subject: Mena/Bottoms
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 02:06:25 -0600
From: Mark Keesee
CC: lar-jen@interaccess.com
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Posted for: Jean Duffey
Gee whiz, Billy. As my high school students would say, “take a chill pill.” You don’t seem to understand that dealing with you and your disinformation campaign is very low on our priorities list. You are, in fact, nonexistent on Linda Ives’ list of concerns, and you are on my “ways to amuse myself list,” and I simply don’t have a lot of time for amusements. Frankly, I don’t understand why we are so important to you. We must be hitting really close to the mark to keep you all riled up. You, of course, know what the truth is. Therefore, you know that we know it, too. What other explanation could there be for you to stay so hysterical over us, when we are basically ignoring you and going about our business. It simply doesn’t matter to us what you say. We are more concerned with what we know to be true, and one of the things we know to be true is that you are a liar. Lies can’t hurt us, Billy, but the truth is apparently hurting you.
I have decided to take the time this weekend to post on our website my take on your pathetic attempt to divert people from the truth. I spent this past Saturday afternoon with Russell Welch, and he in no way, shape, form, or fashion believes that “Mena is a hoax,” or “a smoke screen,” or “a myth.” He says the only – THE ONLY – thing he agrees with you about is that Terry Reed is not who he says he is. However, Russell knows much of the information Reed reports is true, because Russell is the one who developed that information.
I also had a lengthy telephone conversation with Bill Duncan last week. He said he has never talked to you directly, indirectly, or in any other form. Bill was very offended to hear that you are saying he agrees with you. Bill suggested that we challenge you to come to Arkansas and take a lie detector test. You have been caught in too many lies, Billy, and the lies you told about Russell and Bill is just the beginning.
My personal opinion is that anyone who chooses to continue to listen to you is not a threat to those of us who are disseminating the truth. It is very transparent that you have been commissioned to spread disinformation, but whoever is paying you is wasting their money (or is it our tax money that is being wasted?) You’re simply not very good at conducting a disinformation crusade, Billy. You’re too obvious. First give-away; who could put the kind of time into spreading propaganda that you put in if it wasn’t how you are earning your living. Even if I were amused with you enough to run in from work everyday and respond to you, I couldn’t keep up. You’re much too prolific. Second give-away; you’re too interested in me, and Linda Ives, and our webmaster, Mark Keesee. If we’re so wrong about what we are saying, why not ignore us the way we try to ignore you. We’re not overly concerned about you. Why are you so frenzied about us? Third give-away; you lie. If the truth were truly important to you, you would protect your credibility at any cost the way Linda Ives and I do. It is my very strong belief that if you tell a lie, that makes you a liar, which makes it impossible for anyone to know when you’re not lying. Linda and I are meticulous about sticking to facts and being truthful. You, Billy, are not only careless with the truth, you are an outright liar.
I’ll deal with you this weekend on our website (www, idfiles.com/ttd.htm) which will have the transcription of the conversation you and Mark had. I can’t believe you’re anxious to see it put up. You contradict yourself in it and have lied about its contents.
If you wish to continue sparring with me, Billy, you’ll just have to be more patient. I will get around to responding to your ridiculous ranting, as I said before, “when it amuses me to do so.”
Jean Duffey

Subject: Jean Duffey is a manipulative liar
Date: 26 Jan 1997 17:08:04 -0800
From: Bear Bottoms
Organization: Zip News
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Bear Bottoms Comment:
Read my previous posts. I have never said that
Bill Duncan ever agreed with me. Jean Duffey
told this to Bill Duncan on the telephone by her
own admission and post. She deliberately lied to
Duncan. The reason is obvious. She is on a
propaganda mission to discredit me because I
am debunking the Mena Myth which is obviously
dear to her. My question is why is she so upset
that Mena as a Hoax is being exposed?
>Excerpt from Duffey’s tirade:
> I also had a lengthy telephone conversation with Bill
> Duncan last week. He said he has never talked to you
> directly, indirectly, or in any other form. Bill was
> very offended to hear that you are saying he agrees
> with you. Bill suggested that we challenge you to come
> to Arkansas and take a lie detector test. You have been
> caught in too many lies, Billy, and the lies you told
> about Russell and Bill is just the beginning.
Bear Bottoms Comment:
Why did you tell him I said I talked with him. I never
said this. Why did you tell him I said he agreed with
me? I never said this. These are outright lies to Bill
Duncan by Jean Duffey. Her purpose is clear. I
accepted the challenge for a lie detector test. I also
countered with an offer to settle this onee and for all.
A public debate with all involved with Media coverage
and lie detector exams for all. No reply was made to
this offer. Regardless, I will still take a lie detector test.
Forward this to Duncan. Duffey you are a slanderous
liar and intentionally trying to obsure the truth. Can’t
you be disbarred for such activity. I will try to find out.
Does anyone know? Any attorneys out there have any
ideas on this?
> I have decided to take the time this weekend to post on
> our website my take on your pathetic attempt to divert
> people from the truth. I spent this past Saturday
> afternoon with Russell Welch, and he in no way, shape,
> form, or fashion believes that “Mena is a hoax,” or
> “a smoke screen,” or “a myth.” He says the
> only – THE ONLY – thing he agrees with you about is
> that Terry Reed is not who he says he is. However,
> Russell knows much of the information Reed reports is
> true, because Russell is the one who developed that
> information.
Bear Bottoms Comment:
This statement troubles me greatly. I know Eugene
Wheaton started the Mena Myth. I also know that
Reed got his fabrication as it related to Seal from
Wheaton. I do not know that Welch worked with
Reed on his book as Duffey indicates. If Russell
knows that Reed is not who he says he is why would
he do this, if in fact he did. I do not know. Why would
Duffey say such a thing? She knows nothing about
Mena. Did Russell tell her this?

Subject: Mena/Bottoms
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 18:19:17 -0600
From: Mark Keesee
Organization: ID Media
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Posted for Jean Duffey:
> Subject: Jean Duffey is a manipulative liar > Date: 26 Jan 1997 17:08:04 -0800 > From: Bear Bottoms > Organization: Zip News > Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater > > Bear Bottoms Comment: > Read my previous posts. I have never said that > Bill Duncan ever agreed with me. Jean Duffey > told this to Bill Duncan on the telephone by her > own admission and post.
Yes, Billy, I did tell Bill Duncan you said he agrees with you about Mena being a hoax. But I wasn’t referring to anything you posted – I rarely read your posts. I was referring to what you told my webmaster in the telephone conversation you two had on January 2, 1997. He recorded that conversation and you say you did also. So, listen to it, Billy. For the benefit of others, here’s what you and Mark Keesee said, word for word:
BB: . . . the whole Mena affair is a hoax. MK: It is? BB: And a smoke screen. MK: Uh, huh. BB: And, uh, Russell Welch and Bill Duncan both know this now. And Terry Reed is a liar. And L.D. Brown is a liar. And, uh, Sally Denton and Roger Morris now know this. They wrote the story of the crimes of Mena. MK: Uh, huh. Have you talked to them? BB: Uh, I’ve been having e-mail correspondence with them.
Then later in the conversation, Billy, you say: “And I’ve talked with Russell Welch, uh, Russell’s talked to Bill Duncan, and I’ve got, uh, information from them, correspondence from them, that, uh, Terry Reed is a liar, and that, uh, they, uh, basically have completely agreed that the whole Mena story is a hoax.”
Additionally, here is an except from an e-mail you wrote to Linda Ives on January 2, 1997: “The Mena Myth is over. . . .The only two investigators who looked into Mena, Bill Duncan and Russell Welch, now know that Mena is a Myth.”
One more time, Billy, what did you write up there at the top? You wrote, “I have never said that Bill Duncan ever agreed with me.”
Here’s a previous statement I made: “I also had a lengthy telephone conversation with Bill Duncan last week. He said he has never talked to you directly, indirectly, or in any other form. Bill was very offended to hear that you are saying he agrees with you.”
Here’s Billy’s response: “Why did you tell him I said I talked with him. I never said this. Why did you tell him I said he agreed with me? I never said this.”
Billy, Billy Billy. Let’s take another look at your statement to Mark over the telephone. You claimed you’ve talked to Russell Welch directly and to Bill Duncan indirectly (through Russell), and you say you’ve got “information/correspondence from them”. . . and they “basically have agreed that the whole Mena story is a hoax.”
Enough said. I think I’ve made my point. You’ve crossed the line of being a liar, Billy, you’re pathological. I’ve caught you in numerous whoppers over this one post alone. You’ve never caught me in the simplest fib – none – zero – zilch – zippo, and you won’t either, Billy, because the truth is the best weapon Linda Ives and I have. And I might add that it is you’re accusations that are getting perilously close to malicious slander – remember, I’m the one telling the truth here – you’re the one who lies. Your attempts at intimidation are laughable.
If anybody would like to confirm the contents of that telephone conversation, I will be happy to provide a copy of the entire tape for a couple of bucks and postage. It has been transcribed in its entirety and will be posted at www.idfiles.com/ttd.htm by tomorrow.
If anyone wants verification of the excerpt of the e-mail Billy sent to Linda, our web-master will forward the entire e-mail upon request.
If anyone is interested in what else I have to say about Barry Seal, Billy Bottoms, and Mena, I wrote an expose for our website that Mark should have up by tomorrow. There, I have addressed the issues that matter to Linda Ives and me, Billy’s other rantings will have to go unanswered. I’m just not interested enough to dignify them.
Take a hint, Billy, you’re a lying bore.

Subject: Jean Duffey et al Challenged Date: 27 Jan 1997 09:26:54 -0800 From: Bear Bottoms Organization: None Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater Bear Bottoms Comment: I posted this to the ciadrugs list this morning. I also sent a copy to the Arkansas Chronicle to a reporter I have established contact with. Let us see if the challenge is accepted. It is time for this to be exposed. > Excerpt from Jean Duffey Tirade against Bottoms: > I also had a lengthy telephone conversation with Bill > Duncan last week. He said he has never talked to you > directly, indirectly, or in any other form. Bill was > very offended to hear that you are saying he agrees > with you. Bill suggested that we challenge you to come > to Arkansas and take a lie detector test. You have been > caught in too many lies, Billy, and the lies you told > about Russell and Bill is just the beginning. Billy Bob Bottoms Comment: Jean Duffey, I have accepted your challenge. I also made a counter challenge You challenge, I accept. Why do you remain silent? Why do you ignore my acceptance of the challenge you put forth? You created the challenge with your lies to Duncan. Hello, I accept your challenge. Will you accept my counter challenge? My counter challenge is simple. Jean Duffey, Bill Duncan, Russell Welch, Eugene Wheaton, Terry Reed, L.D. Brown, Chip Tatum, William Bottoms, and any other “authority” on the subject meet in Arkansas, with media coverage, for a debate and polygraph exams. This would settle the Mena issue once and for all. There is only one reason I can think of why you would remain silent or not accept this counter. You lied to Duncan when you told him that I have proclaimed that he agrees with me. I have not, nor have I ever said that I have spoken with Duncan. There is a clear reason behind that tactical lie. I have never asserted that I have talked to Duncan. You lied to him about this. Anyone can check my posts and verify this. It is you who are caught in lies Jean Duffey. What are you hiding? I told no lies about Russell Welch. In fact I posted his emails to me which justifies my comments about him.. It is you who are lying Jean Duffey. My assertions about Russell Welch are twofold. He only developed enough evidence to produce a conspiracy to smuggle cocaine against three people. He admitted to me that Terry Reed is a lying “asshole.” I posted the email in which he said this. Where are the lies Jean Duffey. It is you who are on a slanderous misinformation campaign. What are you trying to hide? Why did you feel the need to go on a hysterical slander campaign of lies against me? Why would you lie so blatantly when my posts are there for everyone to see? Why did you feel the need to lie to Duncan? It is very easy for anyone to verify who is lying here. It is you Jean Duffey. Mena as it relates to Seal is a Myth. Duncan found $300,000 paid to and laundered by Fred Hampton. Welch had no hard evidence. He developed a conspiracy to smuggle cocaine case against Seal, Hampton, and Evans. Both of these investigations were belated. Seal’s organization had already been caught and Federal agreements made which precluded Duncan’s or Welch’s cases to go forward. The only way they could have produced a prosecutable case was to have found something unrelated to these agreements. They did not. No other evidence has been found to justify the Mena Hoax. The few people who have alleged any Contra or CIA complicity only said so and have no supportive evidence. That is why I want them to take polygraph exams. Even without polygraph exams, they can be proven liars. Reed already has been. That basically leaves Wheaton, Tatum, and Brown.

     Subject: Mena/Barry Seal
        Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 17:06:25 -0600
        From: Mark Keesee <mark@idmedia.com>
Organization: ID Media
  Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
</mark@idmedia.com>

Posted for Jean Duffey:

John Q. Public, responded to some of the exchanges Billy Bottoms and I have been posting to each other on this newsgroup. JQP says, “Yes, I side with the dope smuggler (Bottoms) when he states that Barry Seal and whatever operations he ran did not have anything to do with the deaths of Ives and Henry. Seal was dead when they were murdered. Seal had been working with the DEA for 3 years when they were murdered. The rest of this battle between Duffey and Bottoms has been escalated out of control.”

JQP may be expressing the opinions of many, and I can understand why. Posting on a newsgroup reminds me of a game called “gossip” I played at pajama parties in elementary school. A story was whispered around our circle of little girls and when it reached full circle, the story’s originator barely recognized it.

Well, it’s time to bring the story Linda Ives and I tell back to its origin. There are many, many people who have expressed concern and support for Linda and me, and it is only fair to clear up any confusion that has been created through the game of “internet gossip.”

The very first paragraph of our website (www.idfiles.com) reads: “August 23, 1987, in a rural community just south of Little Rock, police officers murdered two teenage boys because they witnessed a police-protected drug drop. The drop was part of a drug smuggling operation based at a small airport in Mena, Arkansas. The Mena operation was set up in the early 1980’s by the notorious drug smuggler, Barry Seal, and was later used by CIA operatives to help finance the Nicaraguan Contras. The CIA connection to the Mena operation was undeniable when a cargo plane given to Seal by the CIA was shot down over Nicaragua with a load of weapons.”

The statement, “(t)he drop was part of a drug smuggling operation . . . in Mena,” is based on significant information that those particular drugs were a small portion of a shipment flown across the border and dropped somewhere in Texas. The plane that dropped the shipment then flew to the Mena airport, its base for maintenance and storage, until its next run. The shipment dropped by the plane was picked up and taken to another location where it was divided into smaller portions for distribution from an airstrip in Waco. The smaller portions were flown to various regular drop sights, one being the railroad tracks in Saline County were Kevin and Don were run over by the train. A pilot who claims to have been a CIA operative and who flew the Saline County drop from Waco, says emphatically that the operation was originally Seal’s.

We are well aware of when Barry Seal was murdered, but it would be unreasonable for anyone to claim that a business as lucrative as Seal’s would be shut down because the CEO died. The business was obviously not operated by Seal from his grave. Seal was replaced and the business he established continued to operate. Linda Ives and I absolutely refuse to allow Barry Seal to escape culpability for the murders of Kevin and Don. The boys were murdered after stumbling upon a leg of the drug operation that was set up by Barry Seal and that continued after his death. Purely and simply, Seal established the drug operation that later resulted in the brutal murders of two teenage boys.

The next two sentences on our website are explicit of our belief. “The Mena operation was set up in the early 1980’s by the notorious drug smuggler, Barry Seal, and was later used by CIA operatives to help finance the Nicaraguan Contras. The CIA connection to the Mena operation was undeniable when a cargo plane given to Seal by the CIA was shot down over Nicaragua with a load of weapons.”

We do not argue one way or the other about Seal’s involvement with the DEA. Billy Bottoms says Seal was a DEA informant. Bottoms also says Seal claimed to work for the CIA when it was beneficial for him to make that claim, yet at other times, Seal tried to distance himself from any connection with the CIA. So, who knows? The point to realize here is; drug smugglers are criminals, and criminals are not known for truth-telling. We, therefore, have to draw from many sources to piece together the truth.

Another point we do not argue is the amount of drugs that actually landed at Mena. What difference does it make? The operation smuggled massive amounts of drugs into the U.S., and the operation parked and serviced its planes at Mena. Where else would you call the base? The base of a trucking company is where the trucks are parked and serviced, not at any of the pick-up or delivery points.

The information that is posted on our website reflects carefully drawn conclusions based on information obtained in spite of resistance from government officials who did not want us to have it. We have also had to sort out deliberate diversions and disinformation, so we are very familiar with the likes of Billy Bottoms. I have tried to chronologically present on our website, the Mena connection to Kevin and Don’s murders and invite anyone who is interested to visit us.

Subject: Jean Duffey et al Challenged
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 19:12:09 -0600
From: Mark Keesee
Organization: ID Media
CC: lar-jen@interaccess.com
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Posted for Jean Duffey
> Bear Bottoms Comment: > I posted this to the ciadrugs list this morning. I also > sent a copy to the Arkansas Chronicle to a reporter > I have established contact with. Let us see if the > challenge is accepted. It is time for this to be > exposed. > > >.Excerpt from Jean Duffey Tirade against Bottoms: > > I also had a lengthy telephone conversation with Bill > > Duncan last week. He said he has never talked to you > > directly, indirectly, or in any other form. Bill was > > very offended to hear that you are saying he agrees > > with you. Bill suggested that we challenge you to come > > to Arkansas and take a lie detector test. You have been > > caught in too many lies, Billy, and the lies you told > > about Russell and Bill is just the beginning. > > Billy Bob Bottoms Comment: > Jean Duffey, I have accepted your challenge. I also made a > counter challenge You challenge, I accept. Why do you remain > silent? Why do you ignore my acceptance of the challenge you > put forth? You created the challenge with your lies to Duncan. > Hello, I accept your challenge. Will you accept my counter > challenge? > > My counter challenge is simple. Jean Duffey, Bill Duncan, > Russell Welch, Eugene Wheaton, Terry Reed, L.D. Brown, > Chip Tatum, William Bottoms, and any other “authority” on the > subject meet in Arkansas, with media coverage, for a debate > and polygraph exams. This would settle the Mena issue once > and for all. There is only one reason I can think of why you > would remain silent or not accept this counter.
Your “counter challenge” is absurd. I can just imagine the questions that I would be asked about the drug smuggling operations and other crimes of Mena: Question: Mrs. Duffey, what did you see? Answer: Nothing. Question: What did you hear? Answer: Nothing. Question: What did you do? Answer: Nothing. Test Results: Mrs. Duffey is telling the truth.
Polygraph tests are for suspects, criminals, and witnesses; not investigators. I’m an investigator. I have no personal knowledge of anything. I have to rely on information given to me by the suspects, criminals, and witnesses. You, Billy, are a criminal. You have knowledge of your crimes. A polygraph is suppose to help determine if you are telling the truth about what you saw, heard, and did. Then the investigators can make a better judgment call on the credibility of your information.
I’ll keep your “counter challenge” in mind though, the next time I represent a client who is asked to take a polygraph. I’ll just have him or her say to the cop, “I will if you will.” Good one, Billy. Attorneys are always looking for new ideas to help their clients, but the idea has to at least pass “the laugh test,” and yours doesn’t.
As far as having some kind of public debate with you – only in your dreams, Billy, would I dignify you with my presence. Linda Ives and I have worked very hard to bring recognition to our story and merit to our message. A public appearance with either of us would bring you attention and credibility, and I am just not going to be a part of that. Nice try, though.
Jean Duffey
Home

On January 2, 1997, Billy Bottoms initiated a telephone call with the “train deaths'” webmaster. That conversation was recorded and is transcribed below. Much of the first few seconds are unintelligible, but are nothing more than hellos and introductions. If Bottoms wishes to share an audible copy of these exchanges, they will be added to the transcript. Every effort has been made to transcribe the conversation verbatim and accurately. If there are any mistakes in the transcript, corrections will gladly be made. This site’s most important product is truth and accuracy, and we are more than happy to correct any information that is shown to us to be wrong.
Mark Keesee
webmaster
BB: . . . the whole Mena affair is a hoax.
MK: It is?
BB: And a smoke screen.
MK: Uh, huh.
BB: And, uh, Russell Welch and Bill Duncan both know this now. And Terry Reed is a liar. And L.D. Brown is a liar. And, uh, Sally Denton and Roger Morris now know this. They wrote the story of the crimes of Mena.
MK: Uh, huh. Have you talked to them?
BB: Uh, I’ve been having e-mail correspondence with them. And they now know that . . . .
MK: I don’t think the argument has ever been that there were a lot of drugs running in and out of Mena, was there?
BB: Well, uh, I can show you over 2,500 documents that I’ve got on Mena, Arkansas, and none of it is accurate. None of it.
MK: Yeah, uh, I don’t think, uh, Jean and Linda has ever said there were a lot of drugs coming in and out of Mena.
BB: Well, the facts that I saw that related to them, they basically, uh, concerned with, uh, Linda’s lose of those two boys, and uh. . . . it, uh. . . . they got side-tracked with a smoke screen, and, uh, I tell you what, uh, I’m not sure what is behind their problem there, but my suspicion is that it’s a local problem, and, uh it had nothing at all to do with Barry Seal or Mena, Arkansas.
MK: Hum.
BB: And, uh, to be on that track, the only the thing that does is allow, if anything. . . you know, if, if it wasn’t an accident. . . uh, I have no idea.
MK: Wasn’t an accident!?
BB: Well, I don’t know.
MK: Have you ever read the autopsy report?
BB: No.
MK: You really ought to, to, study up on this before you, uh, talk about the, the murders.
BB: Well, I don’t know anything about it. All I do know is that, uh, uh, Mena, Arkansas and Barry Seal had nothing to do with it. I know that for a fact.
MK: Hey, you didn’t even know that they were positively murdered.
BB: Well, I’ve heard that. I don’t, I, I haven’t investigated that. I had no. . . .
MK: (Unintelligible). I’ll let, uh, Mrs. Duffey talk to you.
BB: Uh, huh, I mean, they could very well be, and I wouldn’t doubt that they were. It sounds
kind of suspicious to me.
MK: Yeah, yeah.
BB: And I read reports that. . . .
MK: You ought to get on the web site and read autopsy report. . . . page 24.
BB: All right. But, uh, the only thing I can offer to help right there is that, uh, if, if, if you guys are investigating, trying to find the source of the murders, it’s not anywhere around Mena, Arkansas or any relation to Barry Seal or the CIA or anything like that.
MK: Uh, huh, and how do you know that?
BB: Well, I was Barry Seal’s pilot, and, uh, all of his flights that everybody thought he took, I took, and we didn’t bring any drugs at all to Arkansas.
MK: Was there no other pilots?
BB: No.
MK: Uh, huh.
BB: Well, there was Emile Camp, but he was my co-pilot.
MK: Now, uh, see, see, that’s where you don’t understand. They’re not saying any of the drug drops came from Mena. They never have. . . . never have. In fact, most of the drops came, came out of Texas.
BB: It could very well be, but I do know that, uh, through British 20-20 and through a lot of documents that I’ve seen. . . . and not a whole lot on the, the Ives issue. . . uh, that’s just something that kind of during my investigation to get behind, to, to find out. . . . I just completed a three-month-long investigation myself into the Mena hoax and as it relates to Barry Seal and smuggling, dope, guns, and the CIA, and Bill Clinton, and all of that hog wash. . . .
MK: Uh, now you say that the CIA had nothing to do with Barry Seal?
BB: Uh, yes, that’s exactly true.
MK: His testimony of. . . . uh, I’ve, I’ve got copies of his testimony before the, the court in, uh, Louisiana. . . .
BB: Uh, huh.
MK: And he says he. . . . when he bought the Fat Lady for this other guy, he bought it from Air America.
BB: Well, he bought it from Harry Doan. I went and picked it up.
MK: The prosecutor, uh, the prosecutor said, “Air America? The same Air America we’re talking about was CIA’s airline as it is called?”
BB: Well, that’s just not true, because I went and picked the airplane up.
MK: Then they’re lying?
BB: Well, I, I don’t know how accurate the source of your document is, but I do know that I went and picked the airplane up. We traded a Merlin and a, a, helicopter for the airplane. We got it from Harry Doan. I picked the plane up from Daytona(?) Beach. And, uh, when we were done with it, we sold it back to Harry Doan for $250,000 and I delivered it to him at Daytona(?) Beach, and drove it in his hanger. Or, uh, wouldn’t fit in his hanger, but, uh, uh, he’s got a hanger there at Daytona(?) Beach with all kinds of antique airplanes in it, and I landed it, left it on the apron, and came home.
MK: Um, hum.
BB: Barry followed me other there in another airplane, and we came back in a smaller air plane.
MK: And, uh. . . .
BB: The only thing, the only connections Barry Seal ever had with the CIA was when they put, uh, cameras in the air plane. . . . they found about the, the DEA sting in Nicaragua, and, uh. . . .
MK: Yeah, I’ve heard all that.
BB: Yeah, and they put the camera in the air plane. But it didn’t have nothing to do with Mena, that was done at Homestead Air Force Base, and what the CIA did, actually, was screw that operation up.
MK: Um, hum.
BB: They leaked information and blew the cover on it and shut it down. We (unintelligible) an operative with them. They used and abused us and screwed up everything Barry Seal tried to do.
MK: Um, hum, I don’t doubt that, but why would Barry lie?
BB: Well, I wouldn’t think that, that he did lie. In fact, I know that he didn’t lie.
MK: Well, that, that was his. . . .
BB: I would think that your document’s wrong.
MK: You got to be kidding!
BB: Or out of context, or whatever. I don’t know.
MK: You got to be kidding, he uh, he, he said he bought it from Air America.
BB: Well, maybe he thought Harry Doan is Air America, and maybe Air, Harry Doan is Air America. All I can say is, I don’t know.
MK: I don’t remember the guys name, but he did say he bought it for someone else with someone else’s money, but he specifically said he bought it from Air America and the title never changed. It stayed in Air America’s name is what his testimony was, and that is the CIA.
BB: Well, that’s not correct testimony, because, uh, I, I know the facts that, that are involved. Whether, whether he actually said that, I don’t know.
MK: Um, huh.
BB: If he did, he may have had a purpose for saying that, but I doubt very seriously, that, that’s in context. If you have it in writing, it’s out of context. Uh, it could not be. I’m not saying that, that, uh, he did say that. I do know that, uh, several times Barry used. . . . uh, he lied to people, trying to get them to believe that he was a CIA operative several times. And, uh, the reason for that is obvious.
MK: Well, in his testimony, he tried to distance himself from the CIA and the prosecutor tried to nail him down that that is the CIA. . . . is known as the CIA’s airline. He, he kept saying, “I, I don’t know nothing about that.”
BB: And he doesn’t. And he didn’t. And we didn’t. And, uh. . . .
MK: Well, I’m really not qualified to discuss this with you. I’m sure Mrs. Duffey could discuss it with it thoroughly.
BB: She may want to. She may not. I don’t know, uh, I sent her an e-mail letting her know that the, uh Mena myth has been well, uh, debunked, now. Uh, there’s no question and there’s been (unintelligible) to show that none that’s true. And Russell Welsh and Bill Duncan. . . .
MK: Uh, huh. Well, if you’re going to say that there wasn’t a lot of drugs going into Mena, yeah, I don’t think there’s any argument there. There, there probably wasn’t. Now, there may have been bags, uh, a duffel bag here and there coming in. Yeah, right. But, that’s. . . . uh, I don’t believe anyone is, is saying that. . . . no that, that I’m associated with, anyway.
BB: See, arms wasn’t there either. There was no guns taken out of there. Well, you know, uh, nothing happened (unintelligible), and, uh. . . .
MK: So, the CIA lied when they said they were involved in it last, uh, two, uh, last month?
BB: Well, they didn’t. . . . no, what they said. . . . and I found out about that story. What they said was, the only thing they were involved with at Mena, Arkansas was a training operation. . . .
MK: And you expect the CIA to tell us everything they were involved in? Come on, come on, Mr. Bottoms. You know they’re not, they’re not going to give one tenth of the information that they, they know that they were actually doing there. . . . not one tenth. This is the CIA
BB: Well, I don’t know what kind of covert operation they could perform at Mena, Arkansas with one single run-way, lined with commercial businesses.
MK: (Unintelligible) they stored planes there. They stored them there for, uh, uh, significant period of time, and had lots of maintenance done there.
BB: Yeah, that’s what that place was. Any civilian. . . . there was a lot of people that used it for that. There’s nothing covert about that, though.
MK: Um huh.
BB: Anybody that owns an airplane and wanted work. . . . we did it, the CIA did it, the DEA did it, a lot of people did it. . . . drug smugglers did it.
MK: Yeah.
BB: And all that anybody that flies an airplane in there. . . . and you can do it in a day. Take an airplane, and they don’t know who you are or what you are. You go in there, walk in with an airplane and say, “I want this done to my airplane.” They do it, get their money.
MK: I see.
BB: That doesn’t make it a covert operation.
MK: Yeah.
BB: You know. . . . and the covert operations or training exercises wasn’t even a covert operation. What they admitted to was the training exercises (unintelligible) public relations.
MK: Well, well, that’s what they admitted to. I mean you’re talking about, you’re talking about the CIA here. I mean, they’re not going to tell you, tell you what they were up to. They’re going to give you as little as they possibly can.
BB: Yeah, I know, but what we know, I mean, you can guess all you want to, and, and, and if all that’ s true, there’s still no evidence that anything happened in there. There’s not much covertness to go on in Mena that anybody with any logical sense about it, because of the nature of the deal.
MK: Uh, huh.
BB: But, what they did do, was they supported. . . .
MK: What, what was it that, uh, L. D. Brown lied about?
BB: Everything he said.
MK: So, he, uh. . . .
BB: He never flew with Barry Seal. He never even met Barry Seal.
MK: He, he, wasn’t a, an applicant for the CIA?
BB: No.
MK: Now see. (chuckle) You, you. . . .
BB: Well, wait. . . .
MK: You screwed up when. . . .
BB: No, I know. . .
MK: Cause the CIA admitted in their preliminary report that he was. . . .
BB: Wait a minute. . . .
MK: O.K.
BB: He was not an operative for the CIA.
MK: He was a appli. . . .
BB: What he did was, he put an application in, and they shot it down.
MK: You’ll have to retract.
BB: He wasn’t hired.
MK: And the CIA says he wasn’t.
BB: And, and you’re going tell me that a person that’s an applicant, that all he’s done is send an application in, and he’s not been hired yet. . . . in fact, he was turned down.
MK: Yeah, that’s correct.
BB: That during that period of time that’s he waiting for them to hire him, they’re going to put him, they’re going to put him on a top secret, covert mission? Give me a break.
MK: Uh, huh. I, I doubt it was a, a covert.
BB: Well, if he’s. . . . what he’s saying to do, if he went down on a guns mission to Central America, that’s as covert as you can get.
MK: Um, huh.
BB: I mean, the man’s lying. There’s no question that the man is lying. No support to his word. None. There’s nobody that can support him.
MK: Because there’s no documentation.
BB: Well, it didn’t happen. There’s no proof of it, that, that I know, it didn’t happen. And I know Barry Seal, and Barry Seal. . . .
MK: Well, see, that’s the problem, uh, and it’s well known that the CIA makes, makes a point, and all the, the big government agencies that deal with, uh, black bag operations, that they make sure that there’s no paper trail.
BB: Well, all I can tell you is that Barry Seal just didn’t do any of them. (Unintelligible) did it with somebody else, I don’t know.
MK: O.K.
BB: But I know he didn’t do it with them.
MK: Well, I don’t think. . . I don’t think anybody’s ever thought that, not that I’m associated with, has ever said Barry Seal brought a lot of drugs into Mena.
BB: Well, he didn’t bring any.
MK: And, and, I, I don’t doubt that. There never has been an argument, but it was a base. . . . it was, it was a base. He, he, he moved his operation from Louisiana, because the heat was on. Is that not correct?
BB: Well, no. We operated. . . . we never did move the operation. We operated out of Louisiana. We just stored the airplanes up there.
MK: O.K.
BB: You know, it’s not very smart to store your equipment, especially when it’s set up the way we had it set up, in front of the very people that’s where you’re operating.
MK: O.K.
BB: And what we were doing, we. . . . in fact, we didn’t just use Mena, Arkansas, we used a couple of other places out of different states to store equipment. And when we got ready for a trip, we’d go collect our equipment, bring it to Louisiana and leave, come back, and I’d make a drop into Louisiana. I did the flights. I did all of them.
MK: Um, huh. O.K.
BB: Uh, we’d come back into Louisiana, do an air drop, and he would be there to me with a helicopter, and they’d pick it, and put it in the trunk of the car, and send the car to Los Angeles or Miami. And that’s all we did.
MK: O.K.
BB: We didn’t do anything else, other than that.
MK: I don’t think you’ll get an argument when you’re talking about lots of drugs going into Mena, but there’s some other stuff that just, that just doesn’t add up and you say there was nothing there.
BB: Well, people are going to believe what they’re going to believe, but all I’m doing, is I’m telling everybody. . . . see it’s been ten years before, uh, that I’ve been started. I went on to work as an undercover officer for the government.
MK: Well, see that’s, that’s what I was fixing to say. You have something at stake to, uh, try and debunk Mena.
BB: No, I don’t have anything at stake.
MK: You, you’re not still a, a paid. . . . you’re not still paid by the government?
BB: No, uh, uh, I, finished with them in 1990.
MK: O.K.
BB: And they never investigated me. I was never under indictment. I went to them voluntarily. They didn’t know anything about me when I went to them.
MK: O.K.
BB: I worked for my own reasons, well beyond what ever. . . anybody would have expected from me, because of my own reasons. And, uh, the only reason that I came out to debunk the Mena conspiracy or the Mena myth is, uh, right before the elections, Senator Leach sent an investigator to my home to, uh, interrogate me, and try to get me to jump on the get-Clinton band wagon.
MK: Uh, huh.
BB: And, uh, Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with me, or Barry Seal, or our operation.
MK: Mm, hum.
BB: And, and, uh, I took that as a threat that here they were doing this investigation, and all these people were out there were lying against on this huge hoax about Mena, and I’m going to be sitting across the table from some oversight committee that’s real.
MK: They’ve already, uh, they sent out two investigators out to see Ms. Duffey, and she never has been. . . . that never has been their agenda to get Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton’s not even in their agenda.
BB: Well, I (unintelligible), one of the, uh, top attorney’s in Louisiana, sitting in the room with me. We did it at (unintelligible)’s office, and the very. . . . I asked him before we even started, “what is the total scope of what you want to know?” And I’d already briefed, uh. . . .I, I had some inside information already on what they wanted, but Steve (unintelligible) sat there and said, “well, we know what happened in the government documents, and, and (unintelligible). What we want to know is what went on under the table. You know, money laundering, CIA,
dope, guns and drugs, uh, and any involvement with Bill Clinton.”
MK: Uh, hum.
BB: If not an invitation to jump on the band wagon, I don’t know what is.
MK: Well, we, we wouldn’t (unintelligible). Linda Ives and Jean Duffey had, they had nothing to do with, uh, the uh. . . Bill Clinton is not on their agenda. They’re not Clinton bashers, and they never have been.
BB: Did you see, uh, Senator Leach on CSPAN the other day, about two weeks ago?
MK: Uh, no. I read the transcript.
BB: What he basically said was, since the first caller popped the Mena question, and he blinked. And his answer was, “Uh, well, uh, we’ve concluded our investigation into Mena, Arkansas, and what we found out is not as much really happened at Mena as we thought, and, uh, we might put a report out in a month or two.” And that’s all he said.
MK: Mm, hmm. Right.
BB: And, uh, Sally Denton just posted on the internet through a, another poster, that, uh, their crimes of Mena story is basically a, a hoax.
MK: Hmm.
BB: She didn’t say it quite in those words.
MK: No. I’d have to see it, see that to believe it. I’d have to see that to believe it.
BB: Well, it’s posted on the internet in the Clinton Forum. I also, uh, current event.clinton. whitewater.
MK: O.K. I’ll get up there and get it.
BB: (Unintelligible). She didn’t put it in quite those words, but once you read it, you’ll see that, uh, she admitted that she had no evidence, absolutely no. . . in all those 2,500 documents that she got, she got, she had, had no evidence at all about any of this.
MK: Well, most. . . it’s all just circumstantial. Well, there is no, uh, uh documentation. That’s what, uh. . .
BB: I, I, I’ve been working on the internet for three months getting out the facts as I know them, and what’s happened in the last three days is the hoax about Mena has finally crumbled.
MK: Um, hmm. What’s happened in the last three days.
BB: Well, basically, that Sally Denton is coming out with, uh. . . she first tried to discredit me. Uh, I sent them an (unintelligible) e-mail and invited them into a, a friendly debate on, on the internet .
MK: Um, Hmm.
BB: And she sent me an e-mail back, and she said, “(Unintelligible) you, Billy Bob. Uh, we know your relationship with Barry’s family and his organization, and, uh, we’re busy right now, but we’d like to come into the newsgroup and weigh in at a later time, and, and, have, have a debate.” Well, what she did a couple of weeks ago, when she came in on the internet and dropped a, a real brief little comment that, uh, she doesn’t have any idea who I am, and my story is dubious at best and more than likely, it’s a fabrication and jumped right off. And that’s all she said.
MK: Hmm.
BB: So I immediately posted her e-mail to me on top of that where she sent me an e-mail saying she knew who I was and was aware of my relationship with Barry’s family. . . Barry was my brother-in-law.
MK: Mm, hmm.
BB: He married my sister. I know his brothers, uh, Ernest Jacobson and Bob (unintelligible). Bob (unintelligible) and Ernest Jacobson was Barry’s DEA handlers(?). Bob (unintelligible) right now, and he’s head of the DEA in New Orleans. I’m in contact with him almost, uh, weekly. Uh, Earnest Jacobson, the other DEA handler, he’s retired, and he’s in, uh, partnership with me right now. And we’re writing a, a book about all of this. And I’ve talked with Russell Welch, uh, Russell’s talked to Bill Duncan, and I’ve got, uh, information from them, correspondence from them, that, uh, Terry Reed is a liar, and that, uh, they, uh, basically have completely agreed that the whole Mena story is a hoax.
MK: O.K. I’m going to have to ask Russell that.
BB: So, uh, basically, the Mena story is over, and the only reason I contacted you folks is, I got asked during the time that I was posting on the internet, trying to get people to understand that this is a smokescreen of a lot of other illegal activity. I’m sure, uh, what that is, I don’t know, but, uh, I do know that Mena is a smokescreen. But during the, uh, this period of time that I was posting, I had people asking me questions about, “Well, what about the Ives’, uh, murders?”
MK: Mm, hum.
BB: And, uh, my only reply when, when that came up. . . I didn’t really know much about it until, uh, that came up, and so I looked in to it, and I found out a little bit about it, but I don’t know nothing about it at all. But my reply to that was, basically, uh, I, I don’t know of anything about that and the only way that I could help in that matter is to assure anybody that’s investigating it, not to look into the Mena smokescreen for any answers to it. Better look around locally there to find your answers.
MK: Well, there’s a lot of. . . it, it, it’s mostly local.
BB: Well, that’s I, that’s what it’s. . . I’m. . . I, I got a good gut feeling for investigations, and, and, uh, I, I have a talent for getting to the bottom of things.
MK: It’s, it’s mostly local, but there is, uh, there is a Mena connection, and the, the evidence is substantial, and, and it is. . . .
BB: Well, that could very well be, but it doesn’t have anything to do with Barry Seal or me.
MK: Uh, oh, no. It never has. It never has. It was what went on after that. . . .after Barry was murdered.
BB: Are you denying that, that, that, uh, that those, those murders have been. . . . it’s been alleged that we had something to do with it?
MK: That the murders, well, that, uh, no, no. . . .
BB: Well, I can show you. That has been documented.
MK: Well, is, is that. . . .
BB: All I’m saying, all I’m saying is. . . . I don’t care what people think. You know, I do care, and, and I’m sorry for, uh, Linda Ives’s loss.
MK: Uh, hum.
BB: And, uh, the only way I can help her is to assure her that Barry Seal, nor I, nor our operation had anything to do with it, and don’t let anybody steer you in that direction while the people that did it get away.
MK: Uh, hum. I don’t think that’s going to happen. Uh, they, they, they really. . . they’ve gathered so much, uh, testimony, documentation, and, uh, depositions that it. . . the evidence is, is substantial. When it (unintelligible). It, it, it’s, uh, substantial.
BB: It sounds to me like you had some corruption there in the local legal system.
MK: It’s full of corruption.
BB: And, uh. . . .
MK: Well, I want to say, there is a Mena connection, and, and the evidence they have on that is substantial. It’s not that would, would. . . like the Mena connection that would, uh, that Clinton haters want to hear. But there is a Mena connection.
BB: What is that connection?
MK: Well, I can’t talk about that. That’s just something I can’t talk about. It, it is, it will come out in court, and that’s the only time it’s going to be talked about.
BB: Yeah, it could very well be, and, and you know, as far as. . . .it could very well have something to with drugs, cause there’s a lot of people smuggling drugs.
MK: Uh, hum.
BB: Uh, I just, I don’t have any information that I could help you guys with on that, but the only thing, and the only reason I reach out to you folks now, is I don’t know where you’re at. I do know what I’ve read, and I do know some of the allegations where that we might have had something to do with it. . . .
MK: You ought to get on the website. They’ve got a website.
BB: Do you have the (unintelligible) for it?
MK: It’s, uh, www. . . .
BB: Uh, huh.
MK: . . . .dot idmedia dot com.
BB: Idmedia?
MK: Uh, huh. It’s a huge, massive website. I ought to know, I’m the webmaster.
BB: O.K. Uh, yeah, I’ve, I’ve got a little time now. Uh, for the last three months, what I’ve been doing, is I’ve collected six or seven thousand pages of documents concerning, uh, Mena (unintelligible), Clinton.
MK: Well, if you’ll go through that website, and I’ll tell you, it does. . . . it’s getting up to close to 12 megs on there now. And I don’t, I don’t even think Bill Clinton’s name is mentioned one time on the site. Maybe once or twice, but, uh, he, he just doesn’t play a part in this other than the Fahmy Malak. . . . his cover-up and, uh, and his protection of Fahmy Malak.
BB: Well, I’m certainly not a Clintonite, but I’m not a Republican either. I, I have kind of strange politics. My politics is whichever I think will do the most for the people.
MK: Mm, hum.
BB: And I don’t have the (unintelligible) to vote for any of them, to tell you the truth. I think they need somebody like Sonny Bono in there.
MK: Giggle. Yeah, well, (unintelligible) and Mrs. Duffey could have (unintelligible).
BB: Well, uh, she may. . . . if she’s interested, I’d be glad to talk her about it. If, uh, if she’s well settled in, in her, uh, search then, then that’d be a waste of time.
MK: Well, she never stops getting information, it just never stops, and, uh, a lot of it gets thrown out, because. . . .
BB: I know that during my three months on the internet that, uh, her name came up (unintelligible) trying to discredit my story. Why they wanted to do that, I don’t know. I’m probably the only person on the internet that had any inside information at all, and I’ve got too many people that’ll stand behind me, unlike L.D. Brown.
MK: Uh, hum.
BB: (Unintelligible). I was an undercover operative, and I can tell you the names of hundreds of hundreds of people that I work with.
MK: Mm, hum.
BB: And, uh, they’ll, they’ll, you know. . . .I did work on
THE LAST FIVE MINUTES ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Close Menu