A Troubling Influence - An Islamic Fifth Column penetrates the White House

FrontPageMagazine ^ | 12/09/03 | Frank J Gaffney Jr.

[kattracks]

Why We Are Publishing This Article by David Horowitz

The article you are about to read is the most disturbing that we at frontpagemag.com have ever published. As an Internet magazine, with a wide circulation, we have been in the forefront of the effort to expose the radical Fifth Column in this country, whose agendas are at odds with the nation’s security, and whose purposes are hostile to its own. In his first address to Congress after 9/11, the President noted that we are facing the same totalitarian enemies we faced in the preceding century. It is not surprising that their domestic supporters in the American Left should have continued their efforts to weaken this nation and tarnish its image. Just as there was a prominent internal Fifth Column during the Cold War, so there has been a prominent Fifth Column during the war on terror.

By no means do all the opponents of America’s war policies (or even a majority) fit this category. Disagreement among citizens is a core feature of any democracy and respect for that disagreement is a foundational value of our political system. The self-declared enemies of the nation are distinguished by the intemperate nature of their attacks on America and its President – referring to the one as Adolf Hitler, for example, or the other as the world’s “greatest terrorist state.” They are known as well by their political choices and associations. Many leaders of the movement opposing the war in Iraq have worked for half a century with the agents of America’s communist enemies and with totalitarian states like Cuba and the former USSR.

We have had no compunction about identifying these individuals and groups. America is no longer protected by geographical barriers or by its unsurpassed military technologies. Today terrorists who can penetrate our borders with the help of Fifth Column networks will have access to weapons of mass destruction that can cause hundreds of thousands of American deaths.  One slip in our security defenses can result in a catastrophe undreamed of before.

What is particularly disturbing, about the information in this article by former Reagan Defense official, Frank Gaffney, is that it concerns an individual who loves this country and would be the last person to wish it harm, and the first one would expect to defend it. I have known Grover Norquist for almost twenty years as a political ally. Long before I myself was cognizant of the Communist threat – indeed when I was part of one of those Fifth Column networks – Grover Norquist was mobilizing his countrymen to combat it. In the early 1980s, Grover was in the forefront of conservative efforts to get the Reagan Administration to support the liberation struggles of anti-Communists in Central America, Africa and Afghanistan.

It is with a heavy heart therefore, that I am posting this article, which is the most complete documentation extant of Grover Norquist’s activities in behalf of the Islamist Fifth Column. I have confronted Grover about these issues and have talked to others who have done likewise. But it has been left to Frank Gaffney and a few others, including Daniel Pipes and Steven Emerson, to make the case and to suffer the inevitable recriminations that have followed earlier disclosures of some aspects of this story.

Up to now, the controversy over these charges has been dismissed or swept under the rug, as a clash of personalities or the product of one of those intra-bureaucratic feuds so familiar to the Washington scene. Unfortunately, this is wishful thinking. The reality is much more serious. No one reading this document to its bitter end will confuse its claims and confirming evidence with those of a political cat fight. On the basis of the evidence assembled here, it seems beyond dispute that Grover Norquist has formed alliances with prominent Islamic radicals who have ties to the Saudis and to Libya and to Palestine Islamic Jihad, and who are now under indictment by U.S. authorities. Equally troubling is that the arrests of these individuals and their exposure as agents of terrorism have not resulted in noticeable second thoughts on Grover’s part or any meaningful effort to dissociate himself from his unsavory friends.

As Frank Gaffney’s article recounts, Grover’s own Islamic Institute was initially financed by one of the most notorious of these operatives, Abdurahman Alamoudi, a supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah who told the Annual Convention of the Islamic Association of Palestine in 1996, “If we are outside this country we can say ‘Oh, Allah destroy America.’ But once we are here, our mission in this country is to change it.” Grover appointed Alamoudi’s deputy, Khaled Saffuri to head his own organization. Together they gained access to the White House for Alamoudi and Sami al-Arian and others with similar agendas who used their cachet to spread Islamist influence to the American military and the prison system and the universities and the political arena with untold consequences for the nation.

Parts of this story have been published before, but never in such detail and never with the full picture of Islamist influence in view. No doubt, that is partly because of Grover Norquist’s large (and therefore intimidating) presence in the Washington community. Many have been quite simply afraid to raise these issues and thus have allowed Grover to make them seem a matter of individual personality differences. This suits his agendas well, as it does those of his Islamist allies. If matters in dispute reflect personal animosity or “racial” prejudice, as Grover insists, then the true gravity of these charges is obscured. The fact remains that while Grover has denied the charges or sought to dismiss them with such arguments on many occasions, he has never answered them. If he wishes to do so now, the pages of frontpagemag.com are open to him.

Many have been reluctant to support these charges or to make them public because they involve a prominent conservative. I am familiar with these attitudes from my years on the Left. Loyalty is an important political value, but there comes a point where loyalty to friends or to parties comes into conflict with loyalty to fundamental principles and ultimately to one’s country. Grover’s activities have reached that point. E.M. Forster, a weak-spirited liberal, once said that if he had to choose between betraying his country and his friends, he “hoped [he] would have the guts” to betray his country.

No such sentiment motivates this journal. In our war with the Islamo-fascists we are all engaged in a battle with evil on a scale that affects the lives and freedoms of hundreds of millions people outside this nation as well as within it. America is on the front line of this battle and there is no replacement waiting in the wings if it fails, or if its will to fight is sapped from within. This makes our individual battles to keep our country vigilant and strong the most important responsibilities we have. That is why we could not in good conscience do otherwise, than to bring this story to light.

 

[Shermy]

Could this have been their base of operations in nearby Ft. Myers?

"...Fremou said people would come in and out of the house last year, around September, [2001] at all times of the night. However, Fremou said they weren't loud and she didn't necessarily suspect anything suspicious happening there. She did recall a semi-truck parked at the house sometime last year. ..."

[general_re]

...and none of my facts or corrections have been refuted on the merits, disproven or even coherently argues.

See my earlier post on crackpot logic. The problem has never been the facts.

COntrary to your assrtion, I have very evidently provided information no one appeared to know or be researching themselves...

Contrary to what you're posting here, I never said that. Instead I said that you haven't posted anything that wasn't already known, or easily discoverable. Whether anyone was actually discovering it is neither here nor there - the fact is that posting stuff that's readily available to anyone who bothers looking does not support claims of special knowledge. I realize you don't like that fact, but it's a fact.

I make no "imaginary claims" (your imagining does not make it so) -- and not least I am actually in Washington and know the main players in this drama quite well. Short of outing myself, what would you like me to do to assuage your concerns in this regard: tell you Grover's license plate, detail his travel starting in the 1980's to foreign countries, tell you how many articles about him will appear in the Washington Post this week and next, tell you who will be arrested next?

Surprise me. Unless and until you can verify that what you're saying is reliable, there's absolutely no reason for anyone to rely on any of it. Too bad for you, but it's just waaayyy too easy to pretend to be something you're not, and so I want some evidence that you are what you say you are. Remember - "on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog".

The absence of evidence my friend is not evidence of absence. I may question your points or posts, but I don't question your livilhood or bona fides, were you to assert them.

Then you're a trusting, naive fool. I don't make such claims, because I am content to let my posts speak for themselves. I question your bona fides because you're the one trying to use them to get yourself a line of credit in this joint. Sorry, no credit available - if you don't like your background being questioned, quit trying to skate on it. If you don't want it being discussed, don't bring it up.

[swarthyguy]

>>>>I don't think I was ever aware of that.

Hard, virtually impossible to be aware of all the ripples percolating out from that day.

Witness the huge amounts of info on Saudi knowledge and complicity in the attacks, at least among their clerics, diplomats etc. that has trickled out over the last two years.

The piecemeal release of such info masks the critical role of the Tragic Kingdom and helped diffuse anger away from them. Very useful for those on the Saudi take.

One thing, whatever the political masters say, at least at the rank and file level among various investigators, there does not seem to be any myopic denial or wishful thinking about the nature of the enemy.

Or as Bob Baer puts it, everyone knows the end is coming and are trying to line their pockets as fast as they can before the whole can of Saudi worms blows up.

[aristeides]

I think it might be worthwhile to remind people that, when the third plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11, the Pakistani general heading ISI happened to be meeting in a congressional office building with congressional leaders of the intel committees (Rep. Goss and Sen. Graham, if memory serves.) He later had to resign from his position because India leaked to its press that the general had wired Atta $100,000 shortly before. We now know the target of Flight 93 was the Capitol. I wonder if the general was supposed to go into action if and when the Capitol was hit.

[William McKinley]

The meeting was to have taken place later after the President's scheduled return. Whether that technically would have been "morning", ie., before 1200hrs is not clear, but could perhaps be clarified and is anyway not the main point at all (but a welcomed sudden expression of interest in facts, much of which could,per below, are contained in the article).

This explanation doesn't cut it for me. Bush was originally scheduled to make some remarks and take some questions afterwards, starting at 9:30 after reading to the kids, and was to leave Florida that afternoon via Marine One.

Yet according to Sami Al-Arian, the meeting with Bush was to occur in the White House at 11:00 AM. The timeline doesn't fit.

The FL school trip was NOT almost over at 9 am when the towers' news arrived. He was supposed to give some remarks and take some questions, and that wasn't even scheduled to begin until 9:30.

Even if the press accounts which stated that he was originally supposed to leave Florida in the afternoon were not correct, there simply would not have been enough time for him to start a short speech at 9:30, entertain 20 minutes or so of questions, then take a motorcade to the air force base to get on Marine One, and fly back to the White House in time for an 11:00 meeting.

And since the White House was locked down some time earlier than it was evacuated, and it was evacuated at 9:45, they would have needed to have been very early for such a meeting to be there prior to the lockdown. I suppose that is possible, but it seems to me to be unlikely.

And if Al-Arian's statement that the meeting was to take place at 11:00 is incorrect, and the news report that said Bush was originally scheduled to leave Florida that afternoon were correct, then they would have had to have been at the White House really early.

And since it was clear that there were terrorist attacks occurring, it would also have been clear that their meeting was not going to happen long before the White House was evacuated out of fear of a fourth plane heading that way. So the idea that they were sitting, waiting for an imminent meeting when they were escorted back to Norquists' conference room due to the fourth plane also strikes me as unlikely.

In other words, instead of this explanation making me more credulous, it makes me less.

Which leads me to the same place this thread has led me. I am troubled by some of the things regarding Norquist which appear to me to be undeniable, such as why he was pushing for the election (as a Republican) of someone who fits in well with Stalinist groups like the IAC. But I am also skeptical of some of the information presented as evidence of his perfidy.

[Shermy]

Lee Malvo, then Ft. Myers resident, was partial to .50 caliber "for Bush"

Here's his art:

http://www.co.fairfax.va.us/courts/cases/jpg/120303df65_115.jpg

[swarthyguy]

It's amazing that story never crossed the Atlantic.

Imagine if that had been an Iraqi general!

One wonders if between the islamists scheduled in the WH for later that day and the General in DC, were ultimatums planned to be issued to the USG? Farfetched but the whole story about that day is a long way from being told.

[Sabertooth]

This explanation doesn't cut it for me.

< -snip- >

In other words, instead of this explanation making me more credulous, it makes me less.

Fair enough; it's a good point. That's why I sent the e-mail to Gaffney.

Which leads me to the same place this thread has led me. I am troubled by some of the things regarding Norquist which appear to me to be undeniable, such as why he was pushing for the election (as a Republican) of someone who fits in well with Stalinist groups like the IAC. But I am also skeptical of some of the information presented as evidence of his perfidy.

The problem Norquist has, I think, is that even if not everything Gaffney's written were to bear out, there is too much there for that alone to exonerate Grover.

Particularly unconvincing are Norquist's lies and race-baiting in response to this story.

[William McKinley]

The problem Norquist has, I think, is that even if not everything Gaffney's written were to bear out, there is too much there for that alone to exonerate Grover.

Particularly unconvincing are Norquist's lies and race-baiting in response to this story.

I'm pretty much where you are at.

[swarthyguy]

>>race-baiting

Screaming racism is a dead giveaway, dontcha think.

The last or the only refuge....

[general_re]

I concur as well. It's clear that, for whatever reason, Grover's been hanging around with undesirables. The interesting question now is, why? Was he, as has been implied, a willing accomplice? Did he think he was co-opting them somehow? Or was he truly ignorant about them?

I'm not sure that the way Norquist has reacted is as revealing as one might think. Imagine for a moment that he was really duped by these folks, and now he's being accused of being an active abetter of terrorists, essentially being accused of treason, for want of a better word. If I were falsely accused, and had been duped myself, I myself might react very badly to charges that I was a knowing accomplice of terrorists. In any case, though, his answer has to be better than "my accusers are racists" - that won't wash.

[William McKinley]

I'm not sure that the way Norquist has reacted is as revealing as one might think. Imagine for a moment that he was really duped by these folks, and now he's being accused of being an active abetter of terrorists, essentially being accused of treason, for want of a better word. If I were falsely accused, and had been duped myself, I myself might react very badly to charges that I was a knowing accomplice of terrorists. In any case, though, his answer has to be better than "my accusers are racists" - that won't wash.

I agree on all points.

[general_re]

The irony is, if it's the case that he's been duped, most people would be inclined to believe him if he comes clean about it. He dug himself further in with the racism charge, and now he's got a deeper hole to get out of - I freely admit it, when you react like that, it looks really bad. I just want to know that it is that bad before I call out the townspeople with the pitchforks and the torches and the dogs.

And no matter what it turns out to be, that doesn't fix the apparently endemic problem of people getting access who shouldn't have access. Hanging Grover does nothing to prevent this same sort of thing happening next week with someone else. I'm really beginning to dread the idea that we're weeks or months away from finding the modern version of this photo:

[Sabertooth]

I'm not sure that the way Norquist has reacted is as revealing as one might think. Imagine for a moment that he was really duped by these folks, and now he's being accused of being an active abetter of terrorists, essentially being accused of treason, for want of a better word. If I were falsely accused, and had been duped myself, I myself might react very badly to charges that I was a knowing accomplice of terrorists. In any case, though, his answer has to be better than "my accusers are racists" - that won't wash.

The problem is, Grover's done that not just in the heat of the moment back in February, but only last week on the Hugh Hewitt Show.

Additionally, Norquist's comments in February were transmitted via an open letter to Gaffney that went to all of the attendees of his Wednesday meetings. Reports I've seen place that number at more than 100 recipients.

On top of that, when Norquist isn't tossing out charges of bigotry, he's flat out lying. He lied last Tuesday to Hugh Hewitt about Sami Al Arian's visit to the White House in 2001. There are other lies (much of this was posted earlier, but you both came late to this thread, so I'm reposting)...

Grover G. Norquist
810 Constitution Avenue, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002

February 5, 2003

Mr. Frank Gaffney
President
Center for Security Policy
1920 L Street NW
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Frank:

I have learned that you took the opportunity during your Thursday remarks at the 30th annual Conservative Political Action Conference to impugn the loyalty of Ali Tulbah, an associate director of cabinet affairs in the Bush White House.

There is no place in the conservative movement for racial prejudice, religious bigotry or ethnic hatred. This is the second time that a Muslim working for President George W. Bush has been subjected to an attack by you because of his faith. You made similarly dishonest allegations against Suhail Khan while he worked inside the White House.

The conservative movement cannot be associated with racism or bigotry. We have come too far in the last 30 years in our efforts to broaden our coalition to allow anyone to smear an entire group of people, sending a signal that there is no place for them at our table.

Therefore, until you have made a public apology to Ali Tulbah, Suhail Khan, and the president - and these apologies have been accepted - I am afraid that your attendance at the Wednesday center-right coalition meeting at the offices of the Americans for Tax Reform can no longer be allowed.

It is important that we, as conservatives, stand up against bigotry, racism, and religious hatred whenever it raises its ugly head. You have dishonored yourself and the founding principles of the movement and the nation.

Sincerely,

(signed)

Grover G. Norquist

cc:    Ali Tulbah
         Suhail Khan
         Wednesday Meeting attendees
Norquist letter to Gaffney (pdf)
February 5th, 2003

Now, see the National Review excerpt on the Gaffney/Norquist situation...

Gaffney's remarks enraged Norquist, who responded in an open letter to conservative activists. "There is no place in the conservative movement for racial prejudice, religious bigotry or ethnic hatred," Norquist wrote. "We have come too far in the last 30 years in our efforts to broaden our coalition to allow anyone to smear an entire group of people. . . . The conservative movement cannot be associated with racism or bigotry."
(Note: this is the letter I transcribed and posted above, at #416.)

The reaction was explosive. Even if Gaffney had been wrong to mention Tulbah by name, some conservatives felt, Norquist's reaction was over the top. To make matters worse, Norquist used a standard rhetorical device of the Left: If you can't win an argument with a conservative, call him a racist. "I, for one, don't see it," says David Keene, head of the American Conservative Union and an organizer of the CPAC conference. "If you read the transcript [of the panel], you can see if Frank was right or wrong, but there was nothing racist or bigoted about it."

Heightening the tension was Norquist's angry assertion that the White House, and in particular chief political adviser Karl Rove, supported his racism-and-bigotry argument. One witness quotes Norquist as saying, "This is terrible. Karl's upset because we're insulting the people who helped Bush win the election." Another witness recalls that Norquist "said the president and Rove were angry at the conference." In addition, Norquist sent an e-mail to American Conservative Union board members saying that "[t]he White House and the press are increasingly angry with [the American Conservative Union] for some indefensible statements and actions at CPAC this year."

The letter caused a complete break inside the conservative camp. Keene has not spoken to Norquist since it was written, and Gaffney, whose organization shares an office suite with Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, was kicked out of Norquist's famous Wednesday meeting of conservative strategists.

That is where things stand now. In a recent interview, Norquist denied using the White House to support his accusations: "I never invoke the president or Karl Rove on this position - in anything." But he refused to back away from his incendiary charges about Gaffney, on one occasion calling him a "sick little bigot." "I'm sorry," Norquist said. "His whole life screams of bigotry, and what he said is just part of a pattern." Gaffney could have held higher-up administration staffers responsible for choosing who attends White House briefings, Norquist argued, but instead "decided to single out the Muslim." He continued: "Frank Gaffney and Osama bin Laden share the same view on the relationship between the United States and Islam. I agree with the president in rejecting Osama bin Laden's and Frank Gaffney's worldview."
Fight on the Right: 'Muslim outreach' and a feud between activists.
National Review, April 7, 2003, by Byron York
FR link

Note Norquist's lie:

"I never invoke the president or Karl Rove on this position - in anything."

This despite several accounts that he's done just that, as well as the words of his own letter to Gaffney of February 5th of this year"

"Therefore, until you have made a public apology to Ali Tulbah, Suhail Khan, and the president - and these apologies have been accepted..."

The gauntlet thrown down by Norquist was that Gaffney had to apologize to the President for his remarks, and that the President had to apologize.

Norquist lied when he said he didn't invoke the name of the President, just as he lied last Tuesday, when he told Hugh Hewitt that Sami Al Arian didn't attend a meeting at the White House in June, 2001.

From the Wall Street Journal, June 11th, 2003...
(I'm not a WSJ subscriber, btw, so I don't have access to their archive. I've linked to a reposting at FR, and a .pdf of Gaffney's.)

In 2002, Mr. Arian visited the Islamic Institute in Washington. Institute officials say his purpose was simply to drop off literature. Mr. Norquist adds that he himself has never worked with Mr. Arian and has met him only briefly at various events before Mr. Arian was indicted. Calling attention to Mr. Arian is unfair, he says. "Since I started working with Muslims, a handful of bigots have been trying to smear the president, Rove and me for working with them," he adds.
Reaching Out: In Difficult Times, Muslims Count On Unlikely Advocate --- Mr. Norquist, Famed Tax Foe, Offers Washington Access, Draws Conservative Flak --- Meeting an Alleged Terrorist
The Wall Street Journal - Tom Hamburger and Glenn R. Simpson | June 11, 2003 (FR link)
Gaffney link (cached HTML of .pdf, scroll down to page 2)

So, Norquist, in addition to his characteristic race-baiting, has been invoking both the President and Karl rove in this, both before and after he said he wasn't doing exactly that.

Norquist is repeatedly lying and race-baiting. If the truth were sufficient, why would he need to do that?

[aristeides]

Sorry, I couldn't make out the writing in those pictures.

But I wonder if that's the reason the snipers got their Bushmaster.

[Trollstomper]

see brackets:

[[The meeting was to have taken place later after the President's scheduled return. Whether that technically would have been "morning", ie., before 1200hrs is not clear, but could perhaps be clarified and is anyway not the main point at all (but a welcomed sudden expression of interest in facts, much of which could,per below, are contained in the article). ]]

"This explanation doesn't cut it for me. Bush was originally scheduled to make some remarks and take some questions afterwards, starting at 9:30 after reading to the kids, and was to leave Florida that afternoon via Marine One. Yet according to Sami Al-Arian, the meeting with Bush was to occur in the White House at 11:00 AM. The timeline doesn't fit. ""

[[Read the whole thing first.]]

[[ Point is the meeting was scheduled and the Muslim groups new about it and it was moved to Grover's by the the White House contact, who was present. I don' think anyone is espcially making a stand on hwat specific time of the morning or day; that's not this issue. Also, As I said, people are often told the President will drop by and then he may or may ot. it's a prestige and motivating thing. We did it all the time in the 80s and it happens in politics all the time ("the President could't be here with us today as orignally planned but he sent this letter, tape, offcial, etc....." )]]

"The FL school trip was NOT almost over at 9 am when the towers' news arrived. He was supposed to give some remarks and take some questions, and that wasn't even scheduled to begin until 9:30."

"Even if the press accounts which stated that he was originally supposed to leave Florida in the afternoon were not correct, there simply would not have been enough time for him to start a short speech at 9:30, entertain 20 minutes or so of questions, then take a motorcade to the air force base to get on Marine One, and fly back to the White House in time for an 11:00 meeting."

"And since the White House was locked down some time earlier than it was evacuated, and it was evacuated at 9:45, they would have needed to have been very early for such a meeting to be there prior to the lockdown.

[[ obviously no one knew about the lockdown until it happened! everything scheduled, normal business went on as usual until it was disrupted. time logic fault here! that's when they walked 5 blocks to Grover's and held the meeting. ]]

"I suppose that is possible, but it seems to me to be unlikely."

"And if Al-Arian's statement that the meeting was to take place at 11:00 is incorrect, and the news report that said Bush was originally scheduled to leave Florida that afternoon were correct, then they would have had to have been at the White House really early.

[[ again he said "morning" and "day" in the implied context of recalling "that terrible morning when...." I don't think time coordinates are meant therein to be specfic v poetic.]]

"And since it was clear that there were terrorist attacks occurring, it would also have been clear that their meeting was not going to happen long before the White House was evacuated out of fear of a fourth plane heading that way. So the idea that they were sitting, waiting for an imminent meeting when they were escorted back to Norquists' conference room due to the fourth plane also strikes me as unlikely."

[[I don't know the details of their preparing or waiting, except to say that if you are waiting in the OEOB for a mtg, you have no TV and will not know until you are told you have to evacuate, again, time logis here!. What I do know is that they regrouped, with WH staffer Suhail Kahn at helm, and held the meeting in Gover and Gaffney's conference room. End of story.

The point about the whole anecdote, which they all admit happened, is that the meeting was to dicuss, President or no-show, the elimination of "secret evidence' -- an agenda item blown apart by 9/11 but absent 9/11 was still on track to be given to them per the Presdient's Grover-arranged pledge! Had this polic change gone forward we would have been even further contrained from finding terrorist planning such attacks or arresting Sami Al Arian. THAT is the point, not what time who left where to get on with it!]]

"In other words, instead of this explanation making me more credulous, it makes me less. Which leads me to the same place this thread has led me. I am troubled by some of the things regarding Norquist which appear to me to be undeniable, such as why he was pushing for the election (as a Republican) of someone who fits in well with Stalinist groups like the IAC. But I am also skeptical of some of the information presented as evidence of his perfidy.

[[ Well half-troubled is a good start! Ohter's defens NAwash above and excuse Grover's involvement. Next?]]

[Trollstomper]

I'm really beginning to dread the idea that we're weeks or months away from finding the modern version of this photo"

We already have it,. Bush photographed with CAIR's Nihad Awad; Sami Al Arian; A. Alamoudi,M. Siddiqi, Mahdi Bray, etc. All courtesy of Norquist/ Saffuri. That's the point and it is what Gaffney warned Grover of in the fall of 2001. And Rove, who said he saw "no there there" (WSJ- Simpson, Hamburger). We can worry about improving the system later; and some are already doing so. But as Grover is still doing this, and is the primary mover of the above, he needs to be stopped, not coddled to until the last appeal by the movement!

Stopping him will also make it verbotten for everyone else, and be a general shot across the bow re all WH meetings and outside advisors thereto.

[Nick Danger]

In the professional world one doesn't do, or need to do that.

Yeah, but here, sadly, we do. Since you're new here, you don't know this, but the reason you are being poked as hard as you are is that fraudsters have come in here in the past who were every bit as full of "insider knowledge" and correctly-formed jargon as you are, and who were very convincing... but who turned out to be total frauds. One of them even turned out to have 17 convictions for fraud and embezzlement.

As the cartoon says, "On the Internet, no one can tell you're a dog." And no one can tell you're not. So -- you're gonna get poked. This is how we make sure we're not getting BS'd. We have been burned by people who weren't what they said they were.

[general_re]

Stopping him will also make it verbotten for everyone else...

It'll do no such thing as long as the professional vetters continue to rely on guests to vet themselves.