John McAdams and Marquette go to Court

[Robert Prudhomme]

Qualifications?? We don' need no steenkin' qualifications! ANYBODY can be Attorney General!

Even the old guy off of Duck Dynasty.

I do not believe there has ever been an AG who was not a lawyer. The very name implies that one is an attorney.

I'll go one better, has there ever been a president with absolutely no experience in politics or government? If that orange faced clown wins, we will witness the dawn of a whole new age, and you might be very surprised at who gets appointed to what.

How about Donald's two sons as national security advisors?

[Pat Speer]

A couple of points.

1. While researching McAdams' background for my review of his book, I stumbled upon some old blog posts in which his secret CT became readily apparent. You see, while he'd long claimed CTs on the JFK assassination were wacky or loony for questioning the honesty and integrity of the government's experts--particularly its medical experts--he repeated with regularity on his blog that we just couldn't trust the vast majority of climate scientists, because most of them were under contract to the government. (That makes him a Hypocrite with a capital H, IMO).

2. In the wake of Tink Thompson's complaints about the NOVA special, I asked McAdams about his own involvement in the NOVA special. And he admitted that, far beyond being just another talking head on the program, he'd been shown the program's script and had advised them on its content. He'd said he was disappointed, however, in that the program's creators opted to go with Dr. Peter Cumming's claims supporting the lower head entry, which thereby called into question the competence and integrity of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel. Well, I followed up on this by asking Tink if he'd ever been shown the script or asked for input on its content. And he said he had not, and that, furthermore, he was never told that McAdams was being used as a consultant on the program.

So, this raises a question, that is still unresolved, IMO. WHY was McAdams consulted on the program's content, when Tink, and presumably the other talking heads in the program, were not? Was this at the request of those funding the program, in particular the Koch Foundation, which was undoubtedly well aware of McAdams' stance on climate change?

Edited September 26, 2016 by Pat Speer

[James DiEugenio]

I suspect you are correct in that deduction Pat.

Take a look at the law firm filing the lawsuit for him.

[James DiEugenio]

This is what I mean specifically:

McAdams is being represented by a law firm called the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty. General counsel Rick Eisenberg stated that McAdams is being suspended for blogging and standing up for an undergraduate student. And that, like in a Moscow show trial he must repent to return to his position. (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, May 2, 2016)

No surprise, this firm is backed by a million dollar grant from the Bradley Foundation. And it is part of the State Policy Network. An attempt by the New Right to create a large, serpentine network of state and local mini- Heritage Foundations. As of 2011, there was 83 million dollars behind the effort. It has close ties to the Koch brothers. (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/State_Policy_Network)

This, of course fits in with McAdams wider profile which the authors of the report, quite naturally, did not go into. But others, like myself have in the past. (http://www.ctka.net/2013/mcadams_2.html) Hopefully, if there is a trial, this odd and peculiar background will emerge to place McAdams in a much more complete context which will more fully explain why he did what he did in this case. And also why he favored Fox News, and why he has this Bradley Foundation/Koch Brothers law firm at his disposal.

Think you or me could have been defended gratis by this agency? Nope.