american free press -nutty rag see for yourself

American Free Press January 27, 2003


Louisiana Populist ‘Dukes It Out' with Justice Department

The behind-the-scenes clique that runs the Justice department is joyously claiming the scalp of yet another outspoken political figure who dared to challenge the power elite in America today.


By Michael collins Piper

Just as in the case of former Rep. Jim Traficant (D-Ohio) - sent to prison by the Justice department on trumped-up charges - another maverick politician, former state Rep. David Duke of Louisiana, has been "bagged" by federal prosecutors.

However one feels about duke and his views or his background, there is no question that the Justice department assault on duke was concocted by agenda driven prosecutors with one thing in mind: to silence outspoken public figures, as a warning to others that: "This could happen to you."

Leading the charge against Duke - as against Traficant - was the number two man in the Justice Department, and head of its criminal division, Michael Chertoff.

And despite what even many duke supporters might think, duke's stand on matters such as affirmative action and racial quotas was not an issue with his Justice department tormentors, many of who actually share duke's views on that issue.

In fact, may veterans of the American "racialist" movement recall that when the Justice Department was running its COINTELPRO infiltrations of the 1960s - deploying FBI informants inside the Ku Klux Klan - the FBI told the informants that it was "ok" to attack blacks and discuss race in order to keep up their cover.

Although the initial inquiry into Duke began during the Clinton era, the inquiry was lagging. It was only after pro-Israel Attorney General John Ashcroft and Chertoff came into office that the campaign began picking up steam.

Chertoff played the primary role in helping cover up the fact that a host of Israeli operatives was tuned in to the activities of the reputed Islamic terrorists allegedly responsible for the 9–11 tragedy.

It is no coincidence that, in the year following the 9-11 affair when duke was among the most internationally-recognized and publicized proponents of the charge that "Israel knew," Chertoff began moving against Duke.

It was after Duke went on a speaking tour in the Middle east - appearing on the al Jazeera broadcast network, discussing Israel's role in 9-11 - that Chertoff intensified the Justice department campaign.

Duke recently returned from Europe - where he has spent the last several years, largely in Russia, writing, lecturing and teaching - to face a Justice department campaign that was escalating.

There was never any question that Duke would be indicted on some charge, no matter how trivial. It was just a matter of "when." Not because Duke was guilty of anything. It was simply because - it was clear - that the Justice department and the FBI were gunning for Duke.

Following Duke's election to the Louisiana legislature in 1989, and then, after his popular bids for the U.S. Senate and the governorship of Louisiana - in both of which Duke won a majority of the white vote - there were at least seven different legal maneuvers, involving different state and federal agencies, to prosecute or otherwise harass Duke. None of those went anywhere.

However, after Duke successfully helped Louisiana Gov. Mike Foster win election in 1999 - thereby proving Duke's continued influence in statewide politics - there was a reenergized effort to "get" Duke.

Using the pretext of investigating Duke's legal sale of a list of potential campaign supporters to Foster, federal authorities expanded their effort to follow every possible lead to find duke in violation of some law somewhere.

Duke and his attorneys - and even all independent observers, including Duke's critics - knew full well the old saying that: "A U.S. attorney can indict a ham sandwich if he wants to."Duke came back to the United States prepared to reach a plea bargain with the Justice Department.

He agreed to plead guilty to two specified counts - tax evasion and mail fraud - in order to avoid going to trial on a raft of charges stemming from related allegations.

Had Duke gone to trial on the multiple charges and been convicted, he could have faced as much as 30 years in jail. However, as a result of his plea bargain, Duke is, now likely to spend perhaps 16 months in jail.

Anyone given that choice - particularly under Duke's circumstances – would have been likely to make the same decision, especially since Duke - widely touted by the media as an "ex-KKK leader" - would not have fared well before what would almost certainly have been a largely black jury in New Orleans, a black majority city.

While in the Traficant case, the Justice Department and the FBI went to elaborate lengths to actually "frame" Traficant, using falsified testimony by an assortment of witnesses who were facing prosecution and trying to save their own necks, the technique used in the Duke case was far more subtle.

The Justice Department took a simple and relatively well-know fact - that Duke liked to gamble - and literally "made a federal case out of it."

The Justice department contrived a fantastic criminal case stemming from the fact that Duke's personal life and income are virtually indistinguishable from his involvement in public affairs. Such a scenario could be made against virtually any outspoken dissident in America today whose primary source of income stems from his political activity.

Ironically, considering Louisiana's history of producing figures known for womanizing, hard drinking etc, ranging from Huey P. Long and his brother Earl to recently imprisoned former Gov. Edwin Edwards, it appears the Justice department has established a new standard of conduct for politicians in the state: gambling is now a "no-no."

Edwards once said that - despite his many flaws - he could get re=elected in Louisiana as long as he wasn't cought "in bed with a dead girl or a live boy."

David duke is guilty of neather act, but he still faces a term in federal prison.