All The President's Jews
Jay Lefkowitz, Michael Horowitz, Herb London and the prima facie evidence that they violated numerous laws in their desperate bid on behalf of Karl Rove to silence the only neo-conservative in the history of the modern Christian Right to ever denounce one of its leaders for anti-Semitic remarks
Jay Lefkowitz, foot soldier in the neo-cons' alliance with the Christian Right, once told the New York Times that a "little anti-Semitism is good for the Jews."
But the more interesting question these days now that Lefkowitz a veteran of both Bush White Houses law partner of Ken Starr cousin of Hudson fellow Michael Horowitz, protoge of the late Morris Abram and Bill Kristol's lawyer, is reportedly the White House's top choice for a new ambassador level post as special envoy for human rights in North Korea is whether the one little anti-Semitic fascist purge Lefkowitz and his White House colleagues instigated is good for his career.
During his White House service as OMB general counsel and a White House domestic policy advisor Lefkowitz aided and abetted through sins of omission and commission the illegal not just improper not just unethical but illegal phone calls by Special Assistant to the President Tim Goeglein about the only Jewish conservative in Washington DC who took issue with the anti-Semitic outburst from Moral Majority founder Paul Weyrich. The same week, if not the same day that the White House started making phone calls about the journalist Evan Gahr he was abruptly dismissed.
Lefkowitz enabled these calls, which constitute tortuous interference with contract because the subject of the calls was then fired in violation of his contract. According to the New Republic, Goeglein also complained to Hudson about another Jewish employee, Marshall Wittmann, who embarrassed the Bush Administration. He too then parted ways with Hudson under mysterious circumstances. As did the Hudson official, Curt Smith, who took the phone call. He was fired right after the story below about the Goeglein bullying was published in the New Republic.
In contradistinction to most every other Washington scandal, the facts are not disputed here. Hudson has even posted on its own website incriminating comments from Goeglein in which he mentions calling Hudson, particularly Herb London, all the time and owes them a debt of gratitude.
Gee, what might Hudson have done that the White House feels so indebted?
That's the least of it. It is the phone call by Lefkowitz's cousin Michael Horowitz to the father of the Jewish journalist, after he linked his dismissal from Hudson Institute to Jay's White House colleagues, which experts say meets the legally stringent standards of intentional infliction of emotional distress and libel.
All this makes Lefkowitz, at the bare minimum, an accessory to at least four prima facie violations of civil statutes all committed by or four the highest branch of government to silence criticism of Karl Rove and the Christian Right for indulging anti-Semitism: tortuous interference with contract, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress and libel.
Nominations have been sunk for much less and major publications including the New York Times and Washington Post quite often splatter far less serious allegations of far less serious wrongdoing than what Lefkowitz has done.
--Linda "Mommy Meritocracy" Chavez, Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood all saw their nominations for top cabinet posts implode merely because they failed to pay social security taxes on their domestic help.
--John Tower's nomination for Defense Secretary under the first President Bush also went down the tubes because of mere allegations, not hard proof, that he was a drunk and womanizer.
--The nomination of ultra-shaggy conservative John Bolton for UN ambassadors almost imploded because of allegations that he mistreated subordinates, which is neither illegal nor unprecedented for Washington.
Getting Jews fired because they embarrassed the Bush Administration is both. Contrary to the common reaction to this writer's illegal dismissal under pressure from the White House "Yeah the White House got you fired but it happens all the time," it's actually unprecedented as far as can be determined for modern Washington. If it happens all the time can somebody name the last time it happened?
The opposite is true: less egregious White House conduct regarding political adversaries is regularly big news, even when this behavior is not illegal.
Disclosures that President Richard Nixon had instructed one of his aides to count the number of Jews in one division of the Labor Department he considered a hot bed of liberalism were front-page news in the Washington Post, and the "counter was forced to resign in disgrace from the George H.W. Bush election campaign. Nixon didn't get any Jews fired--not even the Labor Department employee, Harold Goldstein, who he called a Jew liberal cocksucker.
The plain reality for those who bother to examine the facts is that Lefkowitz who worked closely with colluded with Karl Rove and his underling Tim Goeglein in the illegal dismissal of the Jewish journalist who embarrassed Karl Rove by denouncing his key Christian Right ally for anti-Semitic remarks long since renounced is that Lefkowitz acted in tandem with those who instigated an unprecedented anti-Semitic fascist purge.
Sounds overwrought: but the "fascist" element is merely the most powerful and unaccountable branch of government acting to silence a Jew's denunciation of the Christian Right for anti-Semitism. Then, an adjunct of state power,
Hudson Institute fellow Michael Horowitz, whose $200,000 annual salary is subsidized by government contracts, telephone and lies to the father of the journalist, leaving him and the whole family frightened to this day, which is another element of fascism, namely, the state having complete control over your.
When Lefkowitz was OMB general counsel and also it seems domestic policy advisor he worked closely with Karl Rove and Special Assistant to the President Tim Goeglein. He was general counsel for OMB which has jurisdiction over federal contracts which gave the White House the power to intimidate the Hudson Institute into parting ways with two Jewish employees who embarrassed the Bush Administration.
The other is Marshall Wittman and the phone calls from the White House to Hudson about him occurred about two months before the calls about this writer.
Lefkowitz worked closely with Tim Goeglein Special Assistant to the President Tim Goeglein who has said he does nothing without the permission of "Mr. Rove" made the illegal phone calls which are widely believed to have precipitated the dismissal from the Hudson Institute a government contractor of the Jewish journalist who embarrassed Rove by calling his key Christian Right "a demented anti-Semite" for saying the Jews killed Christ. The remarks ignited a nationwide firestorm which, the White House quickly became desperate to quell, fearful of the political consequences.
Just three days after the story appeared in the Washington Post the White House called Hudson president Herb London who then frantically relayed the phone calls to the journalist, "Oh Evan Gahr people are calling me about you."
London quickly wrote a letter of apology to Paul Weyrich and his Jewish defender David Horowitz assuring Weyrich that he remained in high regard at the Hudson Institute.
Before this ruckus London had little contact with Weyrich. Hudson However had plenty with Goeglein. He had enjoyed cozy relations with the government-funded think tank since working as press secretary for then Indiana Senator Dan Coats in 1995.
If this reporter's reading of prior clips is correct Coats helped get Hudson some of those crucial government contracts which the think tank has relied on since being founded in 1961 by the late Herman Kahn who famously suggested it was possible for the United States to win a nuclear war and was then rewarded with lucrative Department of Defense contracts. Perhaps the same day that Goeglein called Hudson he also seems to have complained to American Enterprise Magazine editor Karl Zinsmeister about Mr. Gahr.
Zinsmeister than abruptly purged his long-time contributor from the magazine scurried to remove his name from the masthead and barred him from using the publication's facilities as he previously did at the American Enterprise Institute. At this point it's clear that the White House has singled out Mr. Gahr who the Washington Post described accurately as "a writer for a number of conservative publications." The American Enterprise Magazine was not mentioned or in anyway alluded to which means somebody took the trouble to find out.
Three days after the calls Mr. Gahr appeared on "Hannity and Colmes" to debate one of Weyrich's Jewish defenders David Horowitz. Holding a stufffed chimp the now illustrious Louis E. Chimpstein Mr . Gahr said that "David is acting like a big baby..so I brought a stuffed chimp." Co-hosts Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes seemed amused. But Horowitz was visibly stunned. He can lie and scream a mile a minute but how do you out debate a stuffed chimp? Even the otherwise part line conservative Hannity piled it on saying David bring your stuffed animals.
Two days later the Weyrich story finally made the New York Times--just barely. The paper's religion reporter did an analysis piece for the "Week in Review" that mentioned the Weyrich matter briefly in the course of discussing the Deicide charge and also controversial remarks by basketball star Charlie Ward saying Jews had blood on their hands because they killed Christ. The story did not mention Mr. Gahr or in anyway allude to him or give any indication how the Weyrich controversy started.
But it set off alarm bells in the White House, and Mr. Gahr was singled out as responsible. According to the New York Times Goeglein and Karl Rove have a daily early morning meeting. At this meeting which would have included Jay Lefkowitz Karl Rove was concerned about the political fallout from the controversy and clearly blamed Mr. Gahr for the whole matter. In an effort to quell the matter Goeglein then called Weyrich worried he later told Mr. Gahr about the political fallout from the matter and focusing on Mr. Gahr.
The phone calls could have even been his idea.
Lefkowitz does not deny he was one of the "great many people"
said to have taken a "great interest" in the matter of the journalist's employment.
Why would Lefkowitz care one way or the other?
Because Lefkowitz and other neo-conservative apologists for Christian anti-Semitism worried that their alliance with the Christian Right could implode because someone identifiably "neo-conservative" had unceremoniously denounced one of the Moral Majority's founders for blatantly anti-Semitic remarks.
This was unprecedented, which may help to explain why the counter-reaction was so vicious. If the speaker was not silenced or could not be dismissed as some kind of cuckoo Jew, then Jewish conservatives would be forced to answer a number of discomfiting questions about their crucial allies in their ongoing Culture war against homosexuals. Why had they kept quiet this long? Why did they treat white Christians to one standard and black leftist Christians like Jesse Jackson to another; lambasting Jackson for stuff far less serious than what they dismiss when uttered by their Christian allies. Marty Peretz got it right:
Since the onset of the Moral Majority, there had been a certain pattern. Christians made anti-Semitic remarks, Jewish conservatives either ignored the comments or suggested the criticism from Jewish liberals was really a manifestation of anti-Christian bias, and continued to defend the speaker long after he had profusely and quite genuinely it seemed apologized for the comments in question. For example, in 1980, the Rev. Bailey Smith said God doesn't hear the prayers of Jews. He was roundly denounced and quickly made clear he regretted what he said and visited Israel with tons of rabbis to make amends, he recalled recently during an interview with this journalist. Yet even after all that Irving Kristol wrote in Commentary that Jews were wrong to criticize him.
Like father, like son: Bill Kristol continued to cultivate this kind of alliance and even helped Ralph Reed, then Christian Coalition director, responded in 1994 to the ADL"s report on the Christian Right, which quoted all kinds of hate-filled remarks by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and others. Jay Lefkowitz and most every identifiable Jewish neo-con except Eric Breindel signed a New York Times advertisement that accused the ADL of anti-Christian bias merely for describing Robertson's bizzaro theory about Jewish bankers as anti-Semitic.
The next year, when Lefkowitz was asked why he and other Jewish conservatives could ally themselves with the likes of Pat Robertson given his apparent animosity towards Jews, Lefkowitz said, "a little anti-Semitism is good for the Jews. It reminds us of who we are."
It is? And who is the we?
Just which Jews benefit from anti-Semitism? Can he name one?
Esther Jungreis? The mother and father of Eric Breindel who were Holocaust survivors?
Notice how the phrasing suggests he speaks for others, even though he doesn't. Neo-cons try to score political points against their liberal Jewish opponents by claiming--in a manner similar to the purveyors of black authenticity--that they represent the masses, but the liberals are out of touch and are liberals first Jewish second. In fact, there is not a single reputable Jewish organization that has ever made the kind of assertion Lefkowitz does. Yes, Lefkowitz wears a yarmulke. But so do the members of major Orthodox Jewish organizations, such as the Orthodox Union and Agudath Israel, none of whom have ever nor would they ever countancne anti-Semitism, even though they generally take similar positions on social issues as do the Christian Right occasional anti-Semites.
The comment by Lefkowitz is pernicious nonsense designed to provide cover for the anti-Semitism of his key allies, stuff which is far worse than what Jesse Jackson said about "Hymietown."
Nobody had even heard of the "Hymietown" slur before Jackson said it off-the-records during his "black talk" with reporters of the same hue.
Black anti-Semitism was responsible for one death in the 20th century, Yankel Rosenbaum.
The Christian anti-Semitism of Pat Robertson et al. is rooted in the stuff which most historians agree was the catalyst for the Holocaust.
If anti-Semitism is good for the Jews, then how can it be anti-Semitism?
Like other neo-cons, Lefkowitz is determined to denude the whole term of anti-Semitism of any significance. This is an abnegation of history, from folks who complain that feminists and Afrocentrists politicize history. Anti-Semitism is irrelevant and something good or to be welcomed only if you extricate it from the historical context.
That's what happened after Paul Weryich wrote on his Free Congress website over Easter Weekend 2001 that "Christ was crucified by the Jews."
Then, Bill Kristol lied to the Washington Post about Weryich's remarks to provide cover for his Christian Right allies, part of a realpolitik
alliance since Kristol seems to harbor contempt for them. For example, he privately told Marshall Wittmann and Ken Weinstein that Weyrich's remarks were a disgusting and shocking outburst of anti-Semitism. But when the Washington Post called for comment he suggested the controversy was much ado about nothing. How could it be nothing if he was shocked by Weyrich's remarks?
If the Deicide charge is nothing to get excited about then what anti-Semitism could possibly be? Kristol lied about history and his own conversation with Marshall Wittmann and Ken Weinstein.
It's well to note (that's another Eric Breindeilism) that while Jewish defenders of the Christian Right always cite their pro-Israel stances to deflect criticism of anti-Semitism, the Christian Right's support forIsrael has not been a major factor in domestic polices.
So in April 2001, Lefkowitz was at the nexus of two institutions, the White House and Hudson which both had different reasons to stifle the Jew. Hudson was long the bastion of neo-conservatives such as Ellliott Abrams and Norman Podhoretz who are apologists for Christian anti-Semitism. Abrams even wrote a whole book trying to do this when he worked for Hudson.
The White House, meanwhile, feared political damage because Weyrich was considered close to Karl Rove.
They had two ways to quash the controversy: Silence Weyrich or silence Mr. Gahr
Goeglein called Weyrich, but he told him to buzz off.
That left the other option, and it seemed Mr. Gahr's job was of great interest to the White House.On Tuesday night, May 1, London swore to the Forward that he would not fire Mr. Gahr. As far as can be determined, he was telling the truth.
On Thursday, London, otherwise cautious and shrewd, fired Mr. Gahr, two months before his contract would have expired anyway.
Who might have the power to frighten London like that?
Louis E. Chimpstein or Karl Rove?
Hudson initially claimed that Mr. Gahr was dismissed not for criticizing Weyrich but rather because his use of a stuffed chimp the now illustrious Louis E. Chimpstein which allegedly reflected poorly on the "Institute."
One month later Mr. Gahr then called Michael Horowitz the Lefkowitz cousin and asked him about the dismissal. Just how did Chimpstein reflect poorly on Hudson? Did he scratch under his arms? Was he not properly groomed?
"I don't want to answer that " said Horowitz rather sheepishly. There were only two months left on my contract what was the big rush.
"Only two months left?." "Horowitz said. "Only two months left?"
"Yeah you didn't know that?"
"Oh, Evan. What the fuck is wrong with you. Grow the hell up."
Cursing is almost always macho preening. At this point Horowitz clearly was shocked and knew exactly what happened and why.
Hudson Institute fellow Michael Horowitz then telephoned and badgered the journalist's father who he had never met or talked with or had any previous communication in a desperate effort to convince him that his wayward son was fired for improper use of a stuffed chimp in a television debate not for embarassing Karl Rove.
Sounds funny but upon closer analysis Horowitz is guilty of libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
"Dr. Gahr, if I thought Evan was fired for his ideas I would have resigned."
Horowitz, a graduate of Yale Law School, proceeded like a lawyer to build a "case" that would convince Dr. Gahr his son was actually fired for taking a long leap off the deep end, hand in paw, with Louis E. Chimpstein and if he didn't intercede quickly more trouble would ensue.
"What Weyrich said was very bad."
Horowitz remained silent.
Horowitz: If I thought Evan was fired for his ideas I would have resigned.
Horowitz "Do you know what Evan did?
"Do you know what Evan did?"
Dr. Gahr : What did he do?
Horowitz: "He used a stuffed chimp in a television debate."
Dr. Gahr: "I know. I saw it."
Horowitz: "What did you think."
Dr. Gahr: "I thought it was funny."
Michael Horowitz: "Did you see the whole thing?"
What a lawyerly response. Notice that Horowitz is not simply relying facts objectively his rhetorical devices are all designed to leave his quarry to conclude or at least wonder whether his son really did go cuckoo with the chimp. In other words this could not reasonably be construed as any kind of reasonable or real concern. Instead, he does his best to eviscerate the hostile witness argument.
Dr. Gahr: What Weyrich said was terrible.
Dr. Gahr: MAYBE THE WHITE HOUSE HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH THIS.
Dr. Gahr: But they did call to complain about Marshall Wittmann [Hudson employee who embarrassed Bush Administration; phone call reported in TNR. Wittmann and Hudson later parted ways under mysterious circumstances; the Hudson VP who took the call was fired not long after it was reported by The New Republic]
Horowitz: My wife read one of the letters Evan wrote. She said it [suggests Evan might go off the deep end]. You know, she's a doctor
Dr. Gahr: Is she a psychiatrist?
Dr. Gar: Then tell her to stick to her specialty.
Then Mr. Horowitz really went bananas. He hectored the good doctor, a Bronx native just like himself, bout a passage in the same letter in which Mr. Gar mocked his refusal to accompany him to a meeting that Paul Weyrich had requested.
The offending passage.
"If you're embarrassed to be seen in public with me you can wear a KKK hood to the meeting. After all [as you contended]saying the Jews killed Christ is not anti-Semitic. So [it follows logically] that a KKK hood is not racist.''
But Mr. Horowitz, not known for his sense of humor, took the jibe literally.
Horowitz: Do you know what Evan did? Do you know what Evan did?
Dr. Gahr: What?
Horowitz: He told me to go around in downtown Washington with a KKK hood
Dr. Gahr: [I think he was joking]
Funny stuff. Endearing.
Just like John Wayne Gacy's clown mask until you look what's underneath.
"Dr. Gahr if I thought Evan was fired for his ideas I would have resigned."
Horowitz was lying, as he later conceded.
It was not a small lie that most people tell at one moment or another. It was not Clintonesque lies that depend on distinctions without a difference. Or telling only the partial truth, which amounts to perjury. It was a big lie. It was libel.
Legally, libel obtains when the accused says something he did not really believe and the person who has been libeled suffers particular consequent due to the lie.
The Horowitz phone call meets those standards, and also the legally stringent requirements for intentional infliction of emotional distress, experts agree. That's two prima facie violation of civil statutes in just 18 or so minutes by someone who enjoys a stellar reputation in the media and conservative universe.
Horowitz, lawyers sagree , had acted with malice and forethought.
"Dr. Gahr, if I thought Evan was fired for his ideas I would resigned."
Actually, he thought just that; the same day the dismissal became public knowledge Horowitz told a mutual acquaintance that he disagreed with Mr. Gahr's criticism of Weyrich but Hudson was wrong to fire him.
Horowitz yelped about the letter that contained the sardonic reference to the KKK, but he didn't read another passage of the letter. It said outright that I know you're lying. You told a mutual acquaintance that Hudson was wrong but you go around saying they were right.
In other words, this was libel. Horowitz told a falsehood that he could not possibly believed was true.
What specific damage accrued? The phone call was frightening tempered perhaps by the buffonish antics of someone desperate to blame an illegal dismissal on a stuffed chimp.
But the letter that Horowitz had delivered by FedEx the next day was far more frightening, and poisoned the minds of Mr. Gahr's father and mother.
Hammering home the point that their precious son was a mental case headed for big trouble, Horowitz included some letters that Mr. Gahr had written to a number of his Washington allies in the culture wars, such as Robert Bork at AEI and two National Review writers.
It was determined by subsequent investigation that both Bork and National Review knew full well what Horowitz planned to do with the material they were kind enough to provide him.
This further militates in favor of intentional infliction of emotional distress and quite possibly renders AEI and National Review legally culpable for the material they gave Horowitz to advance his goofy yet ultimately lethal lie that Dr. Gahr's journalist son had been fired not for his ideas but for taking a long leap off the deep end, hand in paw with Louis E. Chimpstein.
But the FedEx pack, as far as can be determined did not include one key letter. It was the one which contained the sarcastic suggestion about wearing a KKK mask, the humor going over his head, which also provided evidence that Horowtiz really thought the dismissal was wrong but was saying the opposite publicly. In other words the letter would have made abundantly clear to Dr. Gahr that Horowitz was lying.
Because Horowitz deliberately omitted this letter and only read selective parts to Dr. Gahr he loses any possibility of "plausible deniability"--that he was as he initially tried to pretend just one concerned father talking to another.
Moreover, by extracting a promise of confidentiality from Dr. Gahr and reiterating it in the FedEx letter Horowitz seems to have been determined to pre-empt Dr. Gahr discussing the matter with his son, who could quickly show him the letter to demonstrate that Horowitz had lied.
The plain reality is that had manipulated facts and withheld crucial ones to mislead a loving, intact family into everyday worry that, to paraphrase him, their cherished son was "headed for trouble," which would leave pained and hesitant to loudly and aggressively investigate and expose Hudson and its fellow travelers.
Horowitz is a malignant liar. If he had just told Mr. Gahr's parents that their son was doing drugs that could be easily disproved through urine tests.
But Horowitz instead said in so many words that Mr. Gahr was headed for trouble.
How do you refute that? You can't. As Eric Breindel used to say you can't prove a negative.
What did Lefkowitz know and when did he know it about this comical yet illegal effort by his cousin with whom he talks regularly to get Louis E. Chimpstein to take the fall for Karl Rove?
Lefkowitz: I hardly ever talk to Michael Horowitz
Journalist: Stop lying. You talk with him all the time. I used to be in his office and listen to him talk with you and when you re-wrote some kind of regulation you sent him a fax about it even though you were not supposed to take credit for that kind of thing.
Horowitz was probably responsible for getting Lefkowitz his OMB job and looks like he played a role in the appointment of Lefkowitz for the North Korea post. Lefkowitz has no foreign policy experience but Horowitz has been outspoken on the issue. So much for the meritocracy.
Horowitz probably helped Lefkowitz get his job as general counsel of OMB in 2001 because its first head Mitch Daniels came from the Lilly Company whose charitable foundation is one of Hudson's most generous benefactors.
This is the reverse of six degrees of separation; it's six degrees of connection. As OMB general counsel Lefkowitz had jurisdiction over the federal contracts which his White House colleagues were using to bludgeon a government contractor where his cousin worked to the tune of $200 000 annually into firing the Jew who left Karl Rove desperate to quell the political firestorm he ignited by denouncing Paul Weyrich for anti-Semitic remarks he has long since renounced. He should have known something because at the time Lefkowitz was OMB general cousel which meant the Hudson Institute a government contractor was under his aegis because the OMB later said it has jurisdiction over federal contracts. This means that Lefkowitz was responsible for the very government contracts which gave he and Goeglein and Rove the leverage to bully Hudson about two Jewish employee.
Despite repeated inquiries Lefkowitz has never explained his role in the What did Lefkowitz know and when did he know it about the complaint from Tim Goeglein to Hudson about the other Jewish employee Marshall Wittmann who embarassed the Bush Administration. The Hudson official who took the phone call was fired right after it was reported in the New Republic.
Informed of the complaint about Marshall Wittmann, Lefkowitz, had an affirmative duty to stop other calls by Goeglein, but did nothing to prevent other ones.
Is that why Wittmann left Hudson the following year under mysterious circumstances? Only this time around Michael Horowitz and fellow Hudsonite Ken Weinstein knew better than to blame Chimpstein.
Journalist: Why did Marshall Wittmann leave his post at Hudson for the hustle and bustle of Capitol
Hill where it's doubtful he made more or even significantly more money. Why would he do that?
Ken Weinstein: [click]
That doesn't even qualify as a non-denial denial.
It's more like am admission-admission.
This is the rare Washington scandal where nobody bothers with impassioned denails. Not only does the White House and Hudson not deny making and receiving the phone calls Hudson has--duh--posted on its own website the White House bragging about its regular contact with Hudson and owing the think tank a great deal of gratitude.
Evan Gahr: What role if any did the White House play in my dismissal
Michael Horowitz: I have no comment until the end of time
Three Jews. At least five phone calls one illegal dismissal one libeling someone to his own father another prima facie case of intentional infliction of emotional distress plus tortuous interference with contract. That's one might big cover-up which should give pause to anyone inclined to support Lefkowitz's expected appointment to the North Korea post.
Given how Lefkowitz abused his power here how could anybody possibly take him seriously if he's charged with monitoring North Korea for political abuses?
How about a compromise to win more sympathy from Lefkowitz? Maybe wave Chimpstein at the North Korean dictator? Tell him there is more freedom in the spacious ape house at the National Zoo than there is all over his country?