A Mere 900 Files
Reynmeistr
I have yet another Q for the Clinton-Tools infesting this NG:
At least one of you is an expert in computing, no doubt. Please tell us
all approx how long it takes to scan or otherwise enter several hundred,
maybe almost 1000 files into a laptop. I assume you will come up with the
appropriate number of pages in a 'typical file'. Maybe it's 25, maybe 15,
maybe 50, maybe 100, eh?
When you are done with this calc, please also indicate how many megabytes
said info might roughly total. Please post the results to this NG and tell
us how the entity performing this task and then transporting said laptop
might innocently not know what they had been doing.
I would prefer to hear from Woof or Kei3th on this. Or Stilt. Or RH.
HEY!!! maybe Barbphyl. Naw, probly Parsons or Swopa would know best.
Scott Eckelman
Reynmeistr wrote in article
<19970910133...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>HEY!!! maybe Barbphyl. Naw, probly Parsons or Swopa would know best+
There is no public evidence that Marceca had _any_ of the
FBI files on his laptop. What he had, according to his testimony
before the House committee, was memos. (He took the 5th
instead of testifying before the Senate committee.)
Two of the memos were his reports to Livingstone on two of the
individuals who, in his opinion, had problems in their files. He
summarized the information in the memos and gave it to Livingstone.
Included in his summary was information from the file he got from
the FBI, which in itself was an FBI agent's summary of the raw
file which was kept at FBI headquarters.
The other memos were memos to himself or Livingstone regarding
the progress of the Update project.
If you know of any other evidence that he had scanned copies
or transcripts of FBI files on his computer, please post it here.
Scott E.
Reynmeistr
I reasonably asked Dementocrats infesting this NG to
>>might innocently not know what they had been doing.
>>
Scott replies:
>There is no public evidence that Marceca had _any_ of the
>FBI files on his laptop. What he had, according to his testimony
>before the House committee, was memos. (He took the 5th
>instead of testifying before the Senate committee.)
>
>Two of the memos were his reports to Livingstone on two of the
>individuals
So the volume is low, yet the scutiny of the contents is high-- Marceca
writing memos to Livingstone about individual files. These are the files
that Demagogic Partei shills are claiming were inavertently retrieved from
the FBI and never opened....
Skatko
You know I just have to say, WHAT THE HELL WERE THE FILES DOING AT THE
WHITEHOUSE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!????? Sheesh. They shouldn't have been
there, period.
sheila
Scott Eckelman
Reynmeistr wrote in article
<19970912134...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>I reasonably asked Dementocrats infesting this NG to
>>tell us how the entity performing this task and then transporting said
laptop
>>>might innocently not know what they had been doing.
>>>
>
>Scott replies:
>>There is no public evidence that Marceca had _any_ of the
>>FBI files on his laptop. What he had, according to his testimony
>>before the House committee, was memos. (He took the 5th
>>instead of testifying before the Senate committee.)
>>
>>Two of the memos were his reports to Livingstone on two of the
>>individuals
>
>So the volume is low, yet the scutiny of the contents is high-- Marceca
>writing memos to Livingstone about individual files. These are the files
>that Demagogic Partei shills are claiming were inavertently retrieved from
>the FBI and never opened....
No one has ever claimed that, and if they did, they're wrong. Part
of the Update Project was to review the files for derogatory or
disqualifying information. The main other reason was to see when
the next 5 year update was due. I'm not even sure that the two
memos on Marceca's computer were for Bush people, but I think
one of them was. I plan on reviewing the House committee panel
this weekend and should be able to say for sure next week.
Scott E.
hans...@jps.net
In article <19970912174...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
ska...@aol.com (Skatko) wrote:
>
> >I reasonably asked Dementocrats infesting this NG to
> >>tell us how the entity performing this task and then transporting said
> >laptop
> >>>might innocently not know what they had been doing.
> >>>
> >
> >Scott replies:
> >>There is no public evidence that Marceca had _any_ of the
> >>FBI files on his laptop. What he had, according to his testimony
> >>before the House committee, was memos. (He took the 5th
> >>instead of testifying before the Senate committee.)
> >>
> >>Two of the memos were his reports to Livingstone on two of the
> >>individuals
> >
> >So the volume is low, yet the scutiny of the contents is high-- Marceca
> >writing memos to Livingstone about individual files. These are the files
> >that Demagogic Partei shills are claiming were inavertently retrieved from
> >the FBI and never opened....
> >
>
> WHITEHOUSE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!????? Sheesh. They shouldn't have been
> there, period.
>
> sheila
Others, asked for proof of a crime, cited maintenance of a system of
files without publication, specifically the laptop. If scott is correct,
that files weren't on the laptop, then this stated illegality for which
there is proof has evaporated. That's the significance.
We don't really know what the files were doing there. My guess is
screw-up. Others guess fiendishly clever blackmail plot. Given no action
on the legal front, screw-up seems to be in the lead. RH
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Martin McPhillips
On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 11:12:09 -0600, hans...@jps.net wrote:
>We don't really know what the files were doing there. My guess is
>screw-up.
Of course that's your "guess," you asshole.
You want to overlook every single aspect of criminality
involving the Criminal Presidency.
But if it was a "screw-up," then why weren't the files returned,
but were instead held onto for years?
The Secret Service has already told you that there was
no such "outdated list."
A woman working in that office has testified that she told
Marceca and Livingstone that those files didn't belong
there.
Do you think that FBI Files on people who submitted to
FBI checks in order to work at the White House ought to
be rolling around in the hands of two flunkie political
operators, and White House interns, and people, like,
like, *you*, who don't know the difference between right and
wrong, up and down, in and out?
j...@globaldialog.com
hans...@jps.net wrote:
>
>
> We don't really know what the files were doing there. My guess is
> screw-up. Others guess fiendishly clever blackmail plot. Given no action
> on the legal front, screw-up seems to be in the lead. RH
Accvoding to RH, Bill Clinto is a highly ethical president,
running a highly ethical administration that is plagued only
by occasional SNAFU/FUBARS and a populace that is somehow
"scandal mad"?
RH: Did you write the "suicide note"?
Martin McPhillips
Are we on to "The New Hanson Suicide Watch"?
Or what?
Dan Griffin
In article <EGGJ3...@nonexistent.com>, cay...@nyct.net writes...>
>On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 11:12:09 -0600, hans...@jps.net wrote:
>>We don't really know what the files were doing there. My guess is
>>screw-up.
>You want to overlook every single aspect of criminality
>involving the Criminal Presidency.
This was not a screw-up. There has already been testimony that
people were told to "work on the files" when they had nothing to
do (this was common--the Klinton admin was very disorganized.
People were hired but weren't always directed and didn't always
know what their responsibilities were). Of course, these people
didn't necessarily know what "work on the files" meant, either.
Look, hanson11, I believe in party and personal loyalty too, but
I also believe in honesty and obeying the law. This stuff can't
even be defended by arguing that they weren't breaking the letter
of the law, much less the spirit of the law.
There was a president a few years ago who ordered everybody to
cooperate with ICs and testify. Klinton won't even tell Susan
McDougal to answer questions about *him*. You're pathetic.
Dan Griffin
lnuslad...@gmeds.com
hans...@jps.net
In article <EGGJ3...@nonexistent.com>,
cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips) wrote:
>
> On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 11:12:09 -0600, hans...@jps.net wrote:
>
> >We don't really know what the files were doing there. My guess is
> >screw-up.
>
> Of course that's your "guess," you asshole.
>
> You want to overlook every single aspect of criminality
> involving the Criminal Presidency.
>
Is it too much to ask for proof before you leap to the concluison Criminal
presidency?
Unless there is such proof, I'm reluctant to call any president a
criminal. To get where they are they must be plenty savvy - and breaking
laws isn't savvy.
Are you always this abusive? Or just when you're stuck, after years, with
nothing better than a two-bit maybe on a two-bit charge for two-bit minor
underlings?
> But if it was a "screw-up," then why weren't the files returned,
> but were instead held onto for years?
beats me
>
> The Secret Service has already told you that there was
> no such "outdated list."
>
Maybe Tony found an old list and used it by mistake.
> A woman working in that office has testified that she told
> Marceca and Livingstone that those files didn't belong
> there.
Another lady said she found Tony's list and discarded it, I think.
Dan Griffin
In article <5vcmli$7...@mtinsc02.worldnet.att.net>, s.eck...@worldnet.att.net
writes...
>>Scott replies:
>>>He took the 5th
>>>instead of testifying before the Senate committee.)
Clinton should command everyone testify without using the 5th (as a
previous president did).
hans...@jps.net
In article <5vfh5p$4ve$2...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>,
lnuslad...@gmeds.com (Dan Griffin) wrote:
>
> In article <EGGJ3...@nonexistent.com>, cay...@nyct.net writes...>
> >On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 11:12:09 -0600, hans...@jps.net wrote:
> >>We don't really know what the files were doing there. My guess is
> >>screw-up.
> >Of course that's your "guess," you asshole.>
> >You want to overlook every single aspect of criminality
> >involving the Criminal Presidency.
>
> people were told to "work on the files" when they had nothing to
> do (this was common--the Klinton admin was very disorganized.
> People were hired but weren't always directed and didn't always
> know what their responsibilities were). Of course, these people
> didn't necessarily know what "work on the files" meant, either.
>
> Look, hanson11, I believe in party and personal loyalty too, but
> I also believe in honesty and obeying the law. This stuff can't
> even be defended by arguing that they weren't breaking the letter
> of the law, much less the spirit of the law.
>
The issue is whether they were using these files for a sinister purpose
or not. There is no proof that they used them for a sinister purpose.
So saying that I don't know whether it was sinister or not, and that you
don't either, is certainly fair. And having worked in large
organizations, including in government, I have excellent reasons for
suspecting a screw-up rather than something nefarious. That isn't
cupidity on my part, just realism.
RH
> There was a president a few years ago who ordered everybody to
> cooperate with ICs and testify. Klinton won't even tell Susan
> McDougal to answer questions about *him*. You're pathetic.
So prove you're smart enough to have even grasped the point: prove they're
sinister. Then the next time you conclude someone is pathetic, check your
current IQ scores before posting ill-founded insults.
>
> Dan Griffin
> lnuslad...@gmeds.com
Reynmeistr
Typical Hanson/Ebenezer spew:
>The issue is whether they were using these files for a sinister purpose
>or not. There is no proof that they used them for a sinister purpose.
>
>
blinkered inquiries also? If you answer in a certain way, RH, it will
cement your reputation as a Useful Idiot.
Martin McPhillips
On Sun, 14 Sep 1997 02:12:12 -0600, hans...@jps.net wrote:
>In article <EGGJ3...@nonexistent.com>,
> cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips) wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 11:12:09 -0600, hans...@jps.net wrote:
>>
>> >We don't really know what the files were doing there. My guess is
>> >screw-up.
>>
>> Of course that's your "guess," you asshole.
>>
>> You want to overlook every single aspect of criminality
>> involving the Criminal Presidency.
>>
>
>Is it too much to ask for proof before you leap to the concluison Criminal
>presidency?
The proof is saturated into ever pore of the body politic.
Would it be too much to ask for you to open your fucking
eyes and see it?
Martin McPhillips
On Sun, 14 Sep 1997 10:11:37 -0600, hans...@jps.net wrote:
>In article <5vfh5p$4ve$2...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>,
> lnuslad...@gmeds.com (Dan Griffin) wrote:
>>
>> In article <EGGJ3...@nonexistent.com>, cay...@nyct.net writes...>
>> >On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 11:12:09 -0600, hans...@jps.net wrote:
>> >>We don't really know what the files were doing there. My guess is
>> >>screw-up.
>> >Of course that's your "guess," you asshole.>
>> >You want to overlook every single aspect of criminality
>> >involving the Criminal Presidency.
>>
>> This was not a screw-up. There has already been testimony that
>> people were told to "work on the files" when they had nothing to
>> do (this was common--the Klinton admin was very disorganized.
>> People were hired but weren't always directed and didn't always
>> know what their responsibilities were). Of course, these people
>> didn't necessarily know what "work on the files" meant, either.
>>
>> Look, hanson11, I believe in party and personal loyalty too, but
>> I also believe in honesty and obeying the law. This stuff can't
>> even be defended by arguing that they weren't breaking the letter
>> of the law, much less the spirit of the law.
>>
>
>The issue is whether they were using these files for a sinister purpose
>or not. There is no proof that they used them for a sinister purpose.
One of the reasons rape victims are so reluctant to press
charges is that they have to go in front of the world in a
courtroom and say "I've been raped."
Likewise, a person whose FBI file has been misused, has to,
at the least, come forward and say something like, "No, I did
not have sex with a prostitute, but someone put that in my
FBI file and then it was leaked to the press."
That's why access to FBI files is strictly regulated. And that's
why, when you get 900 or more files on people without the
need to have those files, and you then fail to return them,
you have already broken the law.
Asking for proof that they were used nefariously is something
for the investigators and the grand jury to consider. It's the
least likely information to be made public, because *any*
information from those files that could do damage, *would*
do damage.
Dan Griffin
In article <8742495...@dejanews.com>, hans...@jps.net writes...>
>In article <5vfh5p$4ve$2...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>,lnuslad...@gmeds.com (Dan
>> This was not a screw-up. There has already been testimony that
>> people were told to "work on the files" when they had nothing to
>> do
>or not.
No it isn't. The unauthorized possession of those files is illegal.
Period. It doesn't matter whether they used them to blackmail people
or stored them.
>So prove you're smart enough to have even grasped the point: prove they're
>sinister. Then the next time you conclude someone is pathetic, check your
>current IQ scores before posting ill-founded insults.
Democratic operatives have already admitted they were told to "work on
the files." What is it about this business that you don't understand?
I repeat...you are pathetic.
Dan Griffin
lnuslad...@gmeds.com
Toni Howard
hans...@jps.net wrote:
> The issue is whether they were using these files for a sinister purpose
> or not.
The issue *is* whether a law was broken or not. It was. Throw them all
in a deep dark pit where they will never see the light of day again.
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Palms/7039/satyre5.html
If not us, who? If not now, when?
- Slogan by
Czech University Students in Prague, Nov. 1989.
Quoted in: Observer (London, 26 Nov. 1989).
Toni Howard
hans...@jps.net wrote:
> snip<
> Is it too much to ask for proof before you leap to the concluison Criminal
> presidency?
What is too much is the amount of proof you seem to need. It was illegal
for his administration to take those files. No excuse.
The law was broken. One of many so far.
-Toni
--
Phil Marlowe
Toni Howard <Antoni...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>hans...@jps.net wrote:
>> snip<
>> Is it too much to ask for proof before you leap to the concluison Criminal
>> presidency?
>>snip<
>What is too much is the amount of proof you seem to need. It was illegal
>for his administration to take those files. No excuse.
No, the Privacy Act requires intent for disclosure violation, which
hasn't been proven.
>The law was broken. One of many so far.
zero so far
j...@globaldialog.com
In article <5via8j$a...@news2.zippo.com>, dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil Marlowe) wrote:
>Toni Howard <Antoni...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>hans...@jps.net wrote:
>>> snip<
>>> Is it too much to ask for proof before you leap to the concluison Criminal
>>> presidency?
>>>snip<
>
>>What is too much is the amount of proof you seem to need. It was illegal
>>for his administration to take those files. No excuse.
>
>No, the Privacy Act requires intent for disclosure violation, which
>hasn't been proven.
>
Correct. No one has been charged and then adjudicated guilty by a court.
>
>
>>The law was broken. One of many so far.
>
>zero so far
Wrong. The lawbreaking occurs at the time of the act, not at
the time of the adjudication. Nice try.
Union Calendar No. 469
104th Congress, 2nd Session - - - - - - - - - - House Report 104-862
INVESTIGATION INTO THE WHITE HOUSE AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ON SECURITY
OF FBI BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION FILES
INTERIM REPORT
NINETEENTH REPORT by the
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
together with ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS
September 28, 1996._Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. Clinger, from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
submitted the following
NINETEENTH REPORT
<snip>
Previous White House Counsels testified to this committee that in
each administration in which they served, the background investigation
process was limited to a very small number of high level individuals.
Those individuals included the White House Counsel to the President,
the Deputy White House Counsel and the Assistant to the Counsel for
Security. In a small number of instances, aspects of a particular
FBI background report would have been discussed with a senior-level
staff member on a need to know basis, without sharing the file.(58)
``Background files were never shown to others in the White House, including
the President, the Vice President, the chief of staff or the director of
presidential personnel,'' according to Richard A. Hauser, Deputy Counsel to
President Reagan.(59)
<snip>
Ms. Jane Dannenhauer, Assistant to the Counsel to the President in
charge of the Security Office during the Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush
administrations, reported that a new administration normally completed its
pass issuance within approximately 6 months, or at most 9 months.
<snip>
Former White House Counsels have testified that the process of reviewing
FBI files ``is a solemn, legal and ethical obligation.''(606) After the
committee discovered that the Office of Personnel Security ordered the files
of hundreds of former Reagan and Bush administration officials, the Director
of the FBI, Louis Freeh, called the actions ``egregious violations of
privacy.''(607) Director Freeh continued to state that the files were ordered
``without justification.''(608) As Director Freeh pointed out, the system
utilized relied on the ``good faith and honor'' of those involved in the
process.(609) As the Washington Post opined on June 17, 1996:
. . . damage was done from Day 1 when Craig Livingstone was
put in this job. The last people in government to have access to, let
alone be custodians of, sensitive background investigation reports and
material should be political operatives. That, unfortunately, is what
the Clinton administration seems to have done. And that's for
starters.(610)
<snip>
Despite complaints from the FBI and Secret Service about inordinate
delays and abuse of past processes, the White House continued to allow
unsuitable individuals to preside over the office. The White House ignored FBI
and Secret Service concerns, and the office was eventually found to have
inappropriately gathered FBI background files on hundreds of former
Reagan and Bush officials.
Phil Marlowe
j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>In article <5via8j$a...@news2.zippo.com>, dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil Marlowe) wrote:
>>Toni Howard <Antoni...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>hans...@jps.net wrote:
>>>> snip<
>>>> Is it too much to ask for proof before you leap to the concluison Criminal
>>>> presidency?
>>>>snip<
>>
>>>What is too much is the amount of proof you seem to need. It was illegal
>>>for his administration to take those files. No excuse.
>>
>>No, the Privacy Act requires intent for disclosure violation, which
>>hasn't been proven.
>>
>Correct. No one has been charged and then adjudicated guilty by a court.
Because there is no evidence of intent.
>>
>>
>>>The law was broken. One of many so far.
>>
>>zero so far
>Wrong. The lawbreaking occurs at the time of the act, not at
>the time of the adjudication. Nice try.
Nothing in your post even alleges a crime.
strike two
Toni Howard
As I have understood it, FBI files are collected and maintained with an
assurance to the American people that their right to privacy will only
be breached in this way when nation security is judged to be threatened
by this particular person, or when federal laws apply to the person. The
files are supposedly held in the strictest confidence.
Senators may only view them after they have gone through the appropriate
application procedures and passed them. Only then may the Senator
view the actual file with the special agent, who has brought the file to
Senator, standing there watching. The Senator may take notes but may
not make any copies.
I’m am looking for a source for these beliefs of mine.
In the course of this search I came across this case, "Rosenfeld
Decision Issued by Ninth Circuit". It makes a very interesting point;
that not only is the collected information in a file valuable
but that in the file is also revealed the source of the information.
To the Clintons who have politicized the FBI so that it is their own
personal tool, this is extremely valuable, for it reveals an entirely
new level of relevant information to them.
-Toni
Rosenfeld Decision Issued by Ninth Circuit
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/fia09
In a decision which conflicts with the law of nearly every other
circuit, a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June
12
upheld a district court decision ordering the disclosure of the
identities of hundreds of confidential FBI sources. See Rosenfeld v.
United States Dep't of Justice, 57 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 1995). This
extraordinary ruling arose from a request made to the FBI for records
concerning individuals and organizations involved in the Free Speech
Movement (FSM), which had organized demon-strations at the University of
California at Berkeley during the 1960s to protest "campus regulations
restricting political activities on campus grounds." The FBI had
investigated the FSM "out of a concern that its leaders were members of
communist or subversive organizations."
Many of the sources the FBI sought to protect in the case were
classified sources. In upholding the lower court's disclosure decision,
the Ninth Circuit relied upon its decision in Wiener v. FBI, 943 F.2d
972, 980 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 3013 (1992) (see FOIA
Update, Summer 1992, at 2), to declare that the FBI was required to
demonstrate "`whether the source was truly a confidential one and why
disclosure of the withheld information would lead to exposure of the
source.'"
Undertaking minimal appellate review, the Ninth Circuit ruled that
the
district court had "correctly concluded that the govern-ment did not
carry its burden" as to the classified sources because it had not
demonstrated with sufficient "particularity" why classification was
warranted. It flatly rejected the FBI's argument that the lower court
had failed to afford the government's classification decisions
"substantial weight," summarily declaring that "[t]his contention does
not persuade us" because, it said, the FBI had "failed to make an
initial
showing which would justify [such] deference." Thus, this case now
stands as the only pending one in which classified information has been
ordered disclosed.
The remaining information in the case, which was withheld pursuant to
Exemption 7, fared no better than the classified material. Although
acknowledging that the FBI "has a clear law enforcement mandate," the
Ninth Circuit turned Exemption 7's "law enforcement purpose" threshold
into a major obstacle thwarting the FBI's ability to protect
confidential
sources and personal privacy interests. It conceded that documents in
the FSM file--at least up to a certain date
--were in fact compiled for a law enforcement purpose, but then upheld
the lower court's determination that that purpose "`disintegrated'" into
a "pretext to pursue routine monitoring." As a result of this ruling on
Exemption 7's threshold, the Ninth Circuit essentially denied protection
outright for numerous sources and third parties mentioned in the files.
Further, even as to those documents that were found to satisfy
Exemption 7's threshold, source and privacy protections still were
denied. As to the privacy interests, the Ninth Circuit simply agreed
with the lower court that "[i]t certainly serves FOIA's purpose to
disclose publicly records that document whether the FBI abused its law
enforcement mandate by overzealously investigating a political protest
movement" and that that purpose "may not be served without disclosing
the
names of the investigation subjects."
As to the confidential sources, disclosure was ordered even for
symbol- numbered sources, despite the FBI's sworn declaration
demonstrating that such sources are routinely granted an express promise
of confidentiality and that their identities are so sensitive that even
within the FBI they are revealed on a need-to-know basis only. The
Ninth
Circuit chose to discount that declaration and instead just cited its
decision in Wiener to rule that the FBI had failed to point "to anything
in the record that indicates persuasively" that the symbol-numbered
sources were "`told [their] name[s] would be held in confidence.'" The
government has filed a petition for rehearing en banc.
-----
Brought to you by - THE 'LECTRIC LAW LIBRARY(tm)
The Net's Finest Legal Resource For Legal Pros & Laypeople Alike.
WWW: http://www.lectlaw.com -- e-mail: st...@lectlaw.com
j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>
> In article <5via8j$a...@news2.zippo.com>, dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil Marlowe) wrote:
> >Toni Howard <Antoni...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >>hans...@jps.net wrote:
> >>> snip<
> >>> Is it too much to ask for proof before you leap to the concluison Criminal
> >>> presidency?
> >>>snip<
> >
> >>What is too much is the amount of proof you seem to need. It was illegal
> >>for his administration to take those files. No excuse.
> >
> >No, the Privacy Act requires intent for disclosure violation, which
> >hasn't been proven.
> >
>
> Correct. No one has been charged and then adjudicated guilty by a court.
>
> >
> >
> >>The law was broken. One of many so far.
> >
> >zero so far
>
> Wrong. The lawbreaking occurs at the time of the act, not at
> the time of the adjudication. Nice try.
>
--
j...@globaldialog.com
In article <5vj9m0$k...@news1.zippo.com>, dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil Marlowe) wrote:
>j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>
>>In article <5via8j$a...@news2.zippo.com>, dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil Marlowe)
> wrote:
>>>Toni Howard <Antoni...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>hans...@jps.net wrote:
>>>>> snip<
>>>>> Is it too much to ask for proof before you leap to the concluison Criminal
>>>>> presidency?
>>>>>snip<
>>>
>>>>What is too much is the amount of proof you seem to need. It was illegal
>>>>for his administration to take those files. No excuse.
>>>
>>>No, the Privacy Act requires intent for disclosure violation, which
>>>hasn't been proven.
>>>
>
>>Correct. No one has been charged and then adjudicated guilty by a court.
>
Rank speculation. There is no evidence that this is the case.
Do you want to play the legalistic lawyerly game, or don't you?
>>>
>>>
>>>>The law was broken. One of many so far.
>>>
>>>zero so far
>
>
>>Wrong. The lawbreaking occurs at the time of the act, not at
>>the time of the adjudication. Nice try.
>
>Nothing in your post even alleges a crime.
Nope, can't let you get away with that, counsellor.
That's for a grand jury to determine.
>strike two
Changing the rules in the middle of a game is pretty juvenile,
wouldn't you say? Besides, it's so *Clintooniac*.
Martin McPhillips
>So sue 'em. It's so good you'll find lawyers who'll bet on the come.
>
>But for criminal pursuit: you got nothin'.
Of course he has "nothin'," because he's not privy to grand
jury testimony. Are you?
>That's my simple point.
Yes, it was very simple.
Simple enough to have come from
the the bilious gurge of Augie
Chiasma.
Gee, I hope Augie isn't using
*my* computers again.
Toni Howard
Fat chance!
The other president is personally tutoring them in what she considers
the appropriate response, "I don't remember, I can't recall".
-Toni
j...@globaldialog.com
> >>j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>Toni Howard <Antoni...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>hans...@jps.net wrote:
> >>>>>> snip<
> >>>>>> Is it too much to ask for proof before you leap to the concluison Criminal
> >>>>>> presidency?
> >>>>>>snip<
> >>>>
> >>>>>What is too much is the amount of proof you seem to need. It was illegal
> >>>>>for his administration to take those files. No excuse.
> >>>>
> >>>>No, the Privacy Act requires intent for disclosure violation, which
> >>>>hasn't been proven.
> >>>>
> >>
> >>>Correct. No one has been charged and then adjudicated guilty by a court.
> >>
> >>Because there is no evidence of intent.
>
> >Rank speculation. There is no evidence that this is the case.
> >Do you want to play the legalistic lawyerly game, or don't you?
>
> Law: willful
> Evidence?
> In this legalistic game the prosecution must move first.
>
> broken. One of many so far.
> >>>>
You're breaking up, Marlowe.
Perhaps you're alleging that the law wasn't broken if the
prosecution hasn't obtained an indictment? That would certainly
be in keeping with this "most ethical adminstration in
American history".
>
> >>Nothing in your post even alleges a crime.
>
> >Nope, can't let you get away with that, counsellor.
> >That's for a grand jury to determine.
>
> No - you post
> I roast.
> The Basic law of the Net
> >Changing the rules in the middle of a game is pretty juvenile,
> >wouldn't you say? Besides, it's so *Clintooniac*.
>
> So sue 'em. It's so good you'll find lawyers who'll bet on the come.
>
> But for criminal pursuit: you got nothin'.
^^^^^^^
>
> That's my simple point.
>
> Marlowe
>
> Fog City Ops
An aptly named organization, Marlowe.
Phil Marlowe
j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>In article <5vj9m0$k...@news1.zippo.com>, dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil Marlowe) wrote:
>>j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>>
>>>In article <5via8j$a...@news2.zippo.com>, dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil Marlowe)
>> wrote:
>>>>Toni Howard <Antoni...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>hans...@jps.net wrote:
>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>> Is it too much to ask for proof before you leap to the concluison Criminal
>>>>>> presidency?
>>>>>>snip<
>>>>
>>>>>What is too much is the amount of proof you seem to need. It was illegal
>>>>>for his administration to take those files. No excuse.
>>>>
>>>>No, the Privacy Act requires intent for disclosure violation, which
>>>>hasn't been proven.
>>>>
>>
>>>Correct. No one has been charged and then adjudicated guilty by a court.
>>
>>Because there is no evidence of intent.
>Rank speculation. There is no evidence that this is the case.
>Do you want to play the legalistic lawyerly game, or don't you?
??
Law: willful
Evidence?
In this legalistic game the prosecution must move first.
broken. One of many so far.
>>>>
>>Nothing in your post even alleges a crime.
That's my simple point.
Marlowe
Fog City Ops
JHogan2359
>From: dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil Marlowe)
<much snipped>
Those files didn't levitate themselves into the White House; someone
requested them. Who requested them?
As far as I know, none of the files were on people who were being
considered for governmental positions which would require a background
check. So why were they there?
What conceivable legitimate use could be made of the files, many of which
involved members of the opposition party?
This looks like something out of the Nixon White House.
One of the interesting things about public opinion is that about 70% of
the public think that Nixon didn't do anything worse than than other
presidents, before or after him.
That is scary. There was much more to "Watergate" than just a
"second-rate break in."
Maybe the public now expects our leaders to be crooks. And that is even
scarier.
JHogan
hans...@jps.net
In article <EGKr2...@nonexistent.com>,
cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips) wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 02:09:29 GMT, dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil Marlowe) wrote:
>
> >
> >j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
> >
> >>Changing the rules in the middle of a game is pretty juvenile,
> >>wouldn't you say? Besides, it's so *Clintooniac*.
> >
> >So sue 'em. It's so good you'll find lawyers who'll bet on the come.
> >
> >But for criminal pursuit: you got nothin'.
>
> jury testimony. Are you?
>
Actually, yes. Or much of it: the hearings had testimony by those who
worked in the office, and I recall no criminal revelations. Who else
could have evidence? Maybe there is a secret document or person with
crucial facts, but that would be the wildest of speculations. Looks like
another "crime" which flops when tested. Maybe there's a misdemeanor
somewhere.
RG
Martin McPhillips
On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 09:22:06 -0600, hans...@jps.net wrote:
>
>In article <EGKr2...@nonexistent.com>,
> cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips) wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 02:09:29 GMT, dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil Marlowe) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>> >
>> >>Changing the rules in the middle of a game is pretty juvenile,
>> >>wouldn't you say? Besides, it's so *Clintooniac*.
>> >
>> >So sue 'em. It's so good you'll find lawyers who'll bet on the come.
>> >
>> >But for criminal pursuit: you got nothin'.
>>
>> Of course he has "nothin'," because he's not privy to grand
>> jury testimony. Are you?
>>
>
>Actually, yes.
Do you lie to yourself, just in the course of things?
*Actually*, no, you are not privy to grand jury testimony.
>Or much of it:
No, not even much of it.
>the hearings had testimony by those who
>worked in the office, and I recall no criminal revelations.
*Everyone* who worked in the office? *Everyone* who
ever checked out one of the files? *Everyone* who knew
about those files, at the White House, at the FBI?
Hardly. And...
>Who else
>could have evidence?
Who else? Take a guess.
hans...@jps.net
In article <5vhsv0$i94$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>,
lnuslad...@gmeds.com (Dan Griffin) wrote:
>
> In article <8742495...@dejanews.com>, hans...@jps.net writes...>
> >In article <5vfh5p$4ve$2...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>,lnuslad...@gmeds.com (Dan
> Griffin) wrote:
> >> This was not a screw-up. There has already been testimony that
> >> people were told to "work on the files" when they had nothing to
> >> do
> >or not.
>
> Period. It doesn't matter whether they used them to blackmail people
> or stored them.
You can sue for money damages for negligent unathorized possession. For a
crime to have occurred, in this context, you must prove willful intent to
act improperly. I am sorry if you don't know this.
> >So prove you're smart enough to have even grasped the point: prove they're
> >sinister. Then the next time you conclude someone is pathetic, check your
> >current IQ scores before posting ill-founded insults.
>
> Democratic operatives have already admitted they were told to "work on
> the files." What is it about this business that you don't understand?
> I repeat...you are pathetic.
Virtually everyone who works in the White House is a Democratic
Operative. Please tell me why it is improper for one who has worked in
political campaigns to work in the White House. And explain to me why
making a perfectly obvious distinction between an innocent mistake and a
purposeful improper choice is pathetic, or that pointing out that we lack
clear evidence of one or the other in this case, is pathetic. I continue
to think that your conclusion that I am pathetic in this matter simply
means that you don't understand what I am saying, that you don't
understand what the Privacy Act requires, and/or you don't understand
that your view of the facts in this matter is highly debatable even by
well-intentioned and knowledgeable people.
RH
>
> Dan Griffin
> lnuslad...@gmeds.com
hans...@jps.net
In article <19970914203...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
reynm...@aol.com (Reynmeistr) wrote:
>
> Typical Hanson/Ebenezer spew:
> >The issue is whether they were using these files for a sinister purpose
> >
> >
> blinkered inquiries also? If you answer in a certain way, RH, it will
> cement your reputation as a Useful Idiot.
Only an idiot would think the Clinton Administration ordered an audit of
Jones, which helps her and hurts him, which would put the Clinton
Administration at grave risk for no possible gain. Think twice, post
once.
RH
jim hofmann
As the Chaplain of the House of Representatives said in a prayer over
Congress:
"The spin is wearing thin"
--- Jim
hans...@jps.net
In article <EGIAJ...@nonexistent.com>,
cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips) wrote:
>
> On Sun, 14 Sep 1997 10:11:37 -0600, hans...@jps.net wrote:
>
> >In article <5vfh5p$4ve$2...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>,
> > lnuslad...@gmeds.com (Dan Griffin) wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <EGGJ3...@nonexistent.com>, cay...@nyct.net writes...>
> >> >On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 11:12:09 -0600, hans...@jps.net wrote:
> >> >>We don't really know what the files were doing there. My guess is
> >> >>screw-up.
> >> >Of course that's your "guess," you asshole.>
> >> >You want to overlook every single aspect of criminality
> >> >involving the Criminal Presidency.
> >>
> >> people were told to "work on the files" when they had nothing to
> >> People were hired but weren't always directed and didn't always
> >> know what their responsibilities were). Of course, these people
> >> didn't necessarily know what "work on the files" meant, either.
> >>
> >> Look, hanson11, I believe in party and personal loyalty too, but
> >> I also believe in honesty and obeying the law. This stuff can't
> >> even be defended by arguing that they weren't breaking the letter
> >> of the law, much less the spirit of the law.
> >>
> >
> >or not. There is no proof that they used them for a sinister purpose.
>
> charges is that they have to go in front of the world in a
> courtroom and say "I've been raped."
>
> Likewise, a person whose FBI file has been misused, has to,
> at the least, come forward and say something like, "No, I did
> not have sex with a prostitute, but someone put that in my
> FBI file and then it was leaked to the press."
>
> That's why access to FBI files is strictly regulated. And that's
> why, when you get 900 or more files on people without the
> need to have those files, and you then fail to return them,
> you have already broken the law.
This is very logical and reasonable. But you have over-simplified the
actual law. You must know that you have gotten the files without needing
them to be prosecuted for breaking a crime. Keeping files once you know
you have gotten the wrong ones? You mean after the young woman came in to
replace Tony, I presume - since she did know that many of the files were
useless and had been incorrectly obtained? I again reviewed the Privacy
Act and I don't see what law she has broken. I do see that the White
House can be sued for money damages.
But more importantly, what we really care about is again whether these
acts arise from a corrupt nature. I am sure the lady who replaced Tony
did not act from a corrupt purpose (from watching her on TV). Tony and
Craig? I don't know and neither do you. My guess is no, yours is pobably
yes.
>
> Asking for proof that they were used nefariously is something
> for the investigators and the grand jury to consider. It's the
> least likely information to be made public, because *any*
> information from those files that could do damage, *would*
> do damage.
Fine. But we don't have any such proof that I know of. And I will bet
you: no indictment (unless it is for some misdemeanor which is fairly far
from corrupt motive). We will see whose guess as to reality is borne out
by the IC, right?
hans...@jps.net
In article <341C95...@worldnet.att.net>,
Antoni...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> hans...@jps.net wrote:
> > The issue is whether they were using these files for a sinister purpose
> > or not.
>
> in a deep dark pit where they will never see the light of day again.
>
Read the Privacy Act. Note that for a person to be prosecuted for
improper disclosure he must know that what he has done is improper. Note
that the prohibition agains improper "maintenance," if you use that as
your fallback, applies to agencies, not human beings.
If you still want to simply throw them in a pit, either you view the
available evidence in a way which many reasonable people would find
unwarranted, or you obviously are made of wood and float.
RH
> Antoni...@Worldnet.att.net
>
> http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Palms/7039/satyre5.html
>
> If not us, who? If not now, when?
>
> - Slogan by
> Czech University Students in Prague, Nov. 1989.
> Quoted in: Observer (London, 26 Nov. 1989).
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
j...@globaldialog.com
j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>
> In article <8744638...@dejanews.com>, hans...@jps.net wrote:
>
> >
> >But more importantly, what we really care about is again whether these
> >acts arise from a corrupt nature.
>
j...@globaldialog.com
Phil Marlowe wrote:
>
> j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>
> >Phil Marlowe wrote:
> >>
> >> j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >Changing the rules in the middle of a game is pretty juvenile,
> >> >wouldn't you say? Besides, it's so *Clintooniac*.
> >>
> >> So sue 'em. It's so good you'll find lawyers who'll bet on the come.
> >>
> >> But for criminal pursuit: you got nothin'.
> > ^^^^^^^
> >>
> The use of litlle carrots to underline criminal: slick, snappy.
Used a fixed font, Phil. ;)
I highlighted your qualifier.
>
> You may have forgotten, however, that if they had any improper purpose
> their actions would indeed be criminal. So your carrots aren't quite
> apt..
> Union Calendar No. 469
>
> 104th Congress, 2nd Session - - - - - - - - - - House Report 104-862
>
> INVESTIGATION INTO THE WHITE HOUSE AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ON SECURITY
> OF FBI BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION FILES
>
> INTERIM REPORT
>
> NINETEENTH REPORT by the
> COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
>
> together with ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS
>
> September 28, 1996._Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
> State of the Union and ordered to be printed
>
> Mr. Clinger, from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
> submitted the following
>
> NINETEENTH REPORT
>
> <snip>
>
j...@globaldialog.com
Phil Marlowe wrote:
>
> j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>
> >Phil Marlowe wrote:
> >>
> >> j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >Phil Marlowe wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >Changing the rules in the middle of a game is pretty juvenile,
> >> >> >wouldn't you say? Besides, it's so *Clintooniac*.
> >> >>
> >> >> So sue 'em. It's so good you'll find lawyers who'll bet on the come.
> >> >>
> >> >> But for criminal pursuit: you got nothin'.
> >> > ^^^^^^^
> >> >>
> >> The use of litlle carrots to underline criminal: slick, snappy.
>
> >Used a fixed font, Phil. ;)
>
>
> >I highlighted your qualifier.
>
> >>
> >> You may have forgotten, however, that if they had any improper purpose
> >> their actions would indeed be criminal. So your carrots aren't quite
> >> apt..
>
> >> Union Calendar No. 469
> >>
> >> 104th Congress, 2nd Session - - - - - - - - - - House Report 104-862
> >>
> >> INVESTIGATION INTO THE WHITE HOUSE AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ON SECURITY
> >> OF FBI BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION FILES
> >>
>
> It says people did bad things. It says they should have hired someone
> other than Mr. Livingstone. It does not say that Mr. Livingstone or
> his employees got the wrong files on purpose, in order to blackmail
> Republicans, to make humorous poison-pen birthday cards, or anything
> like that. So why do you continue to post it? It is almost completely
> irrelevant.
No; it is not irrelevant, since you and other Clintoon crack
smokers has stated over and over that "they all do it",
and that there was no ill intent. Well, bub, there was ill intent,
and it began with the takedown of the security checks that had
been standard fare for the Executive, and the substitution of
security checks on Republicans.
Martin McPhillips
On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 21:41:30 -0600, hans...@jps.net wrote:
>In article <EGIAJ...@nonexistent.com>,
> cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips) wrote:
>>
>> One of the reasons rape victims are so reluctant to press
>> charges is that they have to go in front of the world in a
>> courtroom and say "I've been raped."
>>
>> Likewise, a person whose FBI file has been misused, has to,
>> at the least, come forward and say something like, "No, I did
>> not have sex with a prostitute, but someone put that in my
>> FBI file and then it was leaked to the press."
>>
>> That's why access to FBI files is strictly regulated. And that's
>> why, when you get 900 or more files on people without the
>> need to have those files, and you then fail to return them,
>> you have already broken the law.
>
>This is very logical and reasonable. But you have over-simplified the
>actual law. You must know that you have gotten the files without needing
>them to be prosecuted for breaking a crime. Keeping files once you know
>you have gotten the wrong ones? You mean after the young woman came in to
>replace Tony, I presume - since she did know that many of the files were
>useless and had been incorrectly obtained? I again reviewed the Privacy
>Act and I don't see what law she has broken. I do see that the White
>House can be sued for money damages.
Try going back a few steps, Lord High Mayor.
There was not "outdated Secret Service list."
Ergo, those names had to be *put* on a list, and that list
used to generate requests from the FBI.
That's intent.
The fallback story over there is that it was a mistake, but
it was a mistake that was never rectified.
That is: Names not on an "outdated" list, names had to
be *put* on a list---*intent.*
When the "mistake" is discovered, the Files are still not
returned.
Why? Because they were gotten with ill intent in the first
place.
Martin McPhillips
On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 21:22:39 -0600, hans...@jps.net wrote:
>In article <5vhsv0$i94$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>,
> lnuslad...@gmeds.com (Dan Griffin) wrote:
>>
>> In article <8742495...@dejanews.com>, hans...@jps.net writes...>
>> >In article <5vfh5p$4ve$2...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>,lnuslad...@gmeds.com (Dan
>> Griffin) wrote:
>> >> This was not a screw-up. There has already been testimony that
>> >> people were told to "work on the files" when they had nothing to
>> >> do
>> >The issue is whether they were using these files for a sinister purpose
>> >or not.
>>
>> No it isn't. The unauthorized possession of those files is illegal.
>> Period. It doesn't matter whether they used them to blackmail people
>> or stored them.
>
>You can sue for money damages for negligent unathorized possession. For a
>crime to have occurred, in this context, you must prove willful intent to
>act improperly. I am sorry if you don't know this.
And since there was no "outdated Secret Service list," according
to the Secret Service, then someone had to put those names that
didn't belong on a list and send it over to the FBI.
That's *intent.*
j...@globaldialog.com
>
>But more importantly, what we really care about is again whether these
>acts arise from a corrupt nature.
Union Calendar No. 469
104th Congress, 2nd Session - - - - - - - - - - House Report 104-862
INVESTIGATION INTO THE WHITE HOUSE AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ON SECURITY
OF FBI BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION FILES
INTERIM REPORT
NINETEENTH REPORT by the
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
together with ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS
September 28, 1996._Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. Clinger, from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
submitted the following
NINETEENTH REPORT
<snip>
Previous White House Counsels testified to this committee that in
each administration in which they served, the background investigation
process was limited to a very small number of high level individuals.
Those individuals included the White House Counsel to the President,
the Deputy White House Counsel and the Assistant to the Counsel for
Security. In a small number of instances, aspects of a particular
FBI background report would have been discussed with a senior-level
staff member on a need to know basis, without sharing the file.(58)
``Background files were never shown to others in the White House, including
the President, the Vice President, the chief of staff or the director of
presidential personnel,'' according to Richard A. Hauser, Deputy Counsel to
President Reagan.(59)
<snip>
Ms. Jane Dannenhauer, Assistant to the Counsel to the President in
charge of the Security Office during the Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush
administrations, reported that a new administration normally completed its
pass issuance within approximately 6 months, or at most 9 months.
<snip>
Former White House Counsels have testified that the process of reviewing
FBI files ``is a solemn, legal and ethical obligation.''(606) After the
committee discovered that the Office of Personnel Security ordered the files
of hundreds of former Reagan and Bush administration officials, the Director
of the FBI, Louis Freeh, called the actions ``egregious violations of
privacy.''(607) Director Freeh continued to state that the files were ordered
``without justification.''(608) As Director Freeh pointed out, the system
utilized relied on the ``good faith and honor'' of those involved in the
process.(609) As the Washington Post opined on June 17, 1996:
. . . damage was done from Day 1 when Craig Livingstone was
put in this job. The last people in government to have access to, let
alone be custodians of, sensitive background investigation reports and
material should be political operatives. That, unfortunately, is what
the Clinton administration seems to have done. And that's for
starters.(610)
<snip>
Despite complaints from the FBI and Secret Service about inordinate
delays and abuse of past processes, the White House continued to allow
Path
Phil Marlowe
j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>Phil Marlowe wrote:
>>
>> j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>>
>> >Phil Marlowe wrote:
>> >>
>> >> j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >Changing the rules in the middle of a game is pretty juvenile,
>> >> >wouldn't you say? Besides, it's so *Clintooniac*.
>> >>
>> >> So sue 'em. It's so good you'll find lawyers who'll bet on the come.
>> >>
>> >> But for criminal pursuit: you got nothin'.
>> > ^^^^^^^
>> >>
>> The use of litlle carrots to underline criminal: slick, snappy.
>Used a fixed font, Phil. ;)
Forgive me for giving you undeserved style points.
>I highlighted your qualifier.
>>
>> You may have forgotten, however, that if they had any improper purpose
>> their actions would indeed be criminal. So your carrots aren't quite
>> apt..
>> Union Calendar No. 469
>>
>> 104th Congress, 2nd Session - - - - - - - - - - House Report 104-862
>>
>> INVESTIGATION INTO THE WHITE HOUSE AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ON SECURITY
>> OF FBI BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION FILES
>>
This is the second time you have posted this piece.
It says people did bad things. It says they should have hired someone
other than Mr. Livingstone. It does not say that Mr. Livingstone or
his employees got the wrong files on purpose, in order to blackmail
Republicans, to make humorous poison-pen birthday cards, or anything
like that. So why do you continue to post it? It is almost completely
irrelevant.
REPORT
>>
>> NINETEENTH REPORT by the
>> COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
>>
>> together with ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS
>>
>> September 28, 1996._Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
>> State of the Union and ordered to be printed
>>
>> Mr. Clinger, from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
>> submitted the following
>>
>> NINETEENTH REPORT
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Former White House Counsels have testified that the process of reviewing
>> FBI files ``is a solemn, legal and ethical obligation.''(606) After the
>> committee discovered that the Office of Personnel Security ordered the files
>> of hundreds of former Reagan and Bush administration officials, the Director
>> of the FBI, Louis Freeh, called the actions ``egregious violations of
>> privacy.''(607) Director Freeh continued to state that the files were ordered
>> ``without justification.''(608) As Director Freeh pointed out, the system
>> utilized relied on the ``good faith and honor'' of those involved in the
>> process.(609) As the Washington Post opined on June 17, 1996:
>>
>> . . . damage was done from Day 1 when Craig Livingstone was
>> put in this job. The last people in government to have access to, let
>> alone be custodians of, sensitive background investigation reports and
>> material should be political operatives. That, unfortunately, is what
>> the Clinton administration seems to have done. And that's for
>> starters.(610)
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Despite complaints from the FBI and Secret Service about inordinate
>> delays and abuse of past processes, the White House continued to allow
>> unsuitable individuals to preside over the office. The White House ignored FBI
>> and Secret Service concerns, and the office was eventually found to have
>> inappropriately gathered FBI background files on hundreds of former
>> Reagan and Bush officials.
Fog City Ops
Phil Marlowe
cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips) wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 02:09:29 GMT, dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil Marlowe) wrote:
>>
>>j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>>
>>>Changing the rules in the middle of a game is pretty juvenile,
>>>wouldn't you say? Besides, it's so *Clintooniac*.
>>
>>So sue 'em. It's so good you'll find lawyers who'll bet on the come.
>>
>>But for criminal pursuit: you got nothin'.
>Of course he has "nothin'," because he's not privy to grand
>jury testimony. Are you?
>>That's my simple point.
>Yes, it was very simple.
>Simple enough to have come from
>the the bilious gurge of Augie
>Chiasma.
>Gee, I hope Augie isn't using
>*my* computers again.
Petty, pointless.
Don't waste *our* government-subsidized electrons with fluff.,
Marlowe
Fog City Ops
Brad Kepley
>Only an idiot would think the Clinton Administration ordered an audit of
>Jones, which helps her and hurts him, which would put the Clinton
>Administration at grave risk for no possible gain. Think twice, post
>once.
I doubt that the Clinton administration "ordered" the IRS to audit Jones.
I don't doubt at all that a Democratic sympathiser would have decided to
audit Jones. It's more than likely though that someone informed on Jones
and it's very likely that the someone who informed is a Democratic
operative or partisan. What can start up an IRS audit is a scandal in
itself.
--
| "The natural progress of things is for government |
| to gain ground and for liberty to yield" |
| Thomas Jefferson |
| Brad Kepley kep...@photon.phys.unca.edu 704-252-8330/Voice-Days |
Martin McPhillips
On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 20:51:45 -0600, hans...@jps.net wrote:
>In article <19970914203...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> reynm...@aol.com (Reynmeistr) wrote:
>>
>> Typical Hanson/Ebenezer spew:
>> >The issue is whether they were using these files for a sinister purpose
>> >or not. There is no proof that they used them for a sinister purpose.
>> >
>> >
>> Tell us RH--- is the oddly-timed IRS audit of Paula Jones exempt from your
>> blinkered inquiries also? If you answer in a certain way, RH, it will
>> cement your reputation as a Useful Idiot.
>
>Only an idiot would think the Clinton Administration ordered an audit of
>Jones,
Why? From your rose-colored bell jar do you think that
Clinton is more principled than Richard Nixon?
Clinton makes Nixon look like Abraham Lincoln.
>which helps her and hurts him,
I guess you haven't quite caught onto the fact that Clinton, like
a true out of control career criminal, simply believes he can
get away with anything. Have you seen the list of "right wing"
publications and foundations that the IRS has suddenly taken
an interest in?
Has it helped him and hurt them?
What IRS audit? You mean the one that was missing for two
years and turned up in the White House residence in Hillary's
book room? You mean the FBI Files on 900 people? You mean
the stuff taken from Foster's office? You mean the files at the
Rose Law firm that Hilly had destroyed (on Castle Grande) just
two years after the deal was done and while it was in litigation?
What IRS audit? What, me worry?
>which would put the Clinton
>Administration at grave risk for no possible gain. Think twice, post
>once.
Think a month, post once a year. Really, there's no need to hear
your crap more often than that.
hans...@jps.net
In article <EGMuC...@nonexistent.com>,
cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips) wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 21:22:39 -0600, hans...@jps.net wrote:
>
> >In article <5vhsv0$i94$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>,
> > lnuslad...@gmeds.com (Dan Griffin) wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <8742495...@dejanews.com>, hans...@jps.net writes...>
> >> >In article <5vfh5p$4ve$2...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>,lnuslad...@gmeds.com (Dan
> >> Griffin) wrote:
> >> >> This was not a screw-up. There has already been testimony that
> >> >> people were told to "work on the files" when they had nothing to
> >> >> do
> >> >or not.
> >>
> >> Period. It doesn't matter whether they used them to blackmail people
> >> or stored them.
> >
> >You can sue for money damages for negligent unathorized possession. For a
> >crime to have occurred, in this context, you must prove willful intent to
> >act improperly. I am sorry if you don't know this.
>
> And since there was no "outdated Secret Service list," according
> to the Secret Service, then someone had to put those names that
> didn't belong on a list and send it over to the FBI.
>
> That's *intent.*
>
> I am sorry if you don't know this.
I know about the claim. I know others say that this claim is disputed,
even by those in the Secret Service. I also know that given the nature of
the names it seems highly likely that there was such a list. i know from
Lisa Wetzl (See topic: Filegate: Wetzl's Statement:"
I do not know the details of how Tony was doing the Update Project. I
could see, however, that he was using a Secret Service list because of
the distinctive green and white computer paper on which these lists are
printed. In addition, while I knew these lists were not entirely
accurate, they were the only source of information that Office of
Personnel Security could work from in trying to determine the names of
all of the holdover employees.
...
When I first picked up the project, I looked at the materials both Nancy
and Tony had gathered in their work on the Update Project. Nancy's
materials were in the vault and they consisted of a Secret Service list
and hundreds of completed one page FBI request forms with Bernard
Nussbaum's name on it. These forms were stacked in alphabetical order.
When I looked at the Secret Service list she had left I knew immediately
that it was out of date. It was extremely long and appeared to contain
hundreds of names from past administrations. These names were listed in
alphabetical order. I do not recall if it had any indication of whether
an employee was active or inactive. Although I could not be certain, it
looked to me as if Nancy had attempted to complete an FBI request form
for each name on the Secret Service list. I determined that these forms
and the list had so many out of date names that they would be more work
to sort through than to start over from scratch. Therefore, I threw away
this list and the forms.
end
Wetzl appeared highly credible.
I note that there has been no legal action taken on this matter.
RH
Phil Marlowe
j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>Phil Marlowe wrote:
>>
>> j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Changing the rules in the middle of a game is pretty juvenile,
>> >wouldn't you say? Besides, it's so *Clintooniac*.
>>
>> So sue 'em. It's so good you'll find lawyers who'll bet on the come.
>>
>> But for criminal pursuit: you got nothin'.
> ^^^^^^^
>>
The use of litlle carrots to underline criminal: slick, snappy.
You may have forgotten, however, that if they had any improper purpose
their actions would indeed be criminal. So your carrots aren't quite
apt..
Good try, though.
Marlowe
Fog City Ops
(Formerly Enewetak City Ops)
Fog City Ops
Martin McPhillips
You mean the sworn testimony by the Secret Service officials
befor Congress?
>I know others say that this claim is disputed,
>even by those in the Secret Service.
Really? I saw the guys who were in charge of the list generation
tell the Congressmen that there was no chance in hell that
they would provide an outdated list. That's a pretty unusual
position for the Secret Service, to dispute the White House
line.
>I also know that given the nature of
>the names it seems highly likely that there was such a list.
There was a list all right, but it didn't come from the Secret
Service, according to sworn testimony by the people who
generate the lists. Not only did they say they didn't provide
the list, but that their system prevented such an occurrence.
>i know from
>Lisa Wetzl (See topic: Filegate: Wetzl's Statement:"
Is she with the Secret Service, or did she work for
Craig Livingstone in that office? Can you discern the
difference?
>I do not know the details of how Tony was doing the Update Project. I
>could see, however, that he was using a Secret Service list because of
>the distinctive green and white computer paper on which these lists are
>printed.
So the list was printed on green and white paper, distinctive.
What a surprise. So, all that indicates to me is that once it is
demonstrated that there was no such list generated by the
Secret Service, the fact that *Tony* printed the list out on
Secret Service "green and white" *computer paper* is more
evidence of intent, intent to conceal, including the forging of
what is, in fact, a Secret Service document, i.e., a real list
of people who need security clearance checks.
>In addition, while I knew these lists were not entirely
>accurate, they were the only source of information that Office of
>Personnel Security could work from in trying to determine the names of
>all of the holdover employees.
Stop. The Secret Service people responsible for the lists
testified that they provided no such "out-of-date" lists, and that
such lists cannot be produced under their system.
Those "out-of-date" lists were created, by someone, with intent,
for the purposes of getting FBI Files on members of former
administrations.
Martin McPhillips
On Wed, 17 Sep 1997 19:47:35 GMT, dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil Marlowe) wrote:
>But to argue that this was done to get incorrect files for a bad
>purpose, required for a criminal prosecution, which, remember is the
>point from long ago, is a mile or two from demonstrated.
There was no "outdated Secret Service" list.
In other words, the list with the people from former administrations
on it (i.e., Republicans) had to be put together by someone.
And it wasn't the Secret Service.
That's *intent* in the process of getting files that had no justification
to get.
In addition, one of the other Clintooniacs, as a *defense,* cited
Lisa Wetzl testimony that the names were on the distinctive
Secret Service green and white "computer paper."
So, add forging of official documents to the charges against
the people who made up the list.
It wasn't done by the Secret Service.
>You appear to have a critical link or two missing from your argument.
Well, you are missing an argument altogether.
Martin McPhillips
On 17 Sep 1997 10:40:25 GMT, kep...@zeno.phys.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) wrote:
>In article <8744607...@dejanews.com> hans...@jps.net writes:
>
>>Only an idiot would think the Clinton Administration ordered an audit of
>>Jones, which helps her and hurts him, which would put the Clinton
>>Administration at grave risk for no possible gain. Think twice, post
>>once.
>
>I doubt that the Clinton administration "ordered" the IRS to audit Jones.
I would have to disagree with that. I would bet that Clinton gave the high
sign to whoever he has in place to handle this stuff at the IRS.
Only a stunning series of admissions by those involved would ever
make it known, but this is Clinton's pattern all the way.
The IRS, remember, is auditing all those conservative publications
and foundations that are supposed to be behind Jones.
The Jones audit fits right into the theory espoused in the White
House generated report on "Conspiracy Commerce."
This is Nixon to the power of 10.
Phil Marlowe
j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>Phil Marlowe wrote:
>>
>> j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>>
>> >Phil Marlowe wrote:
>> >>
>> >> j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Phil Marlowe wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Changing the rules in the middle of a game is pretty juvenile,
>> >> >> >wouldn't you say? Besides, it's so *Clintooniac*.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So sue 'em. It's so good you'll find lawyers who'll bet on the come.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But for criminal pursuit: you got nothin'.
>> >> > ^^^^^^^
>> >> >>
>> >> The use of litlle carrots to underline criminal: slick, snappy.
>>
>> >Used a fixed font, Phil. ;)
>>
>> Forgive me for giving you undeserved style points.
>>
>> >I highlighted your qualifier.
>>
>> >>
>> >> You may have forgotten, however, that if they had any improper purpose
>> >> their actions would indeed be criminal. So your carrots aren't quite
>> >> apt..
>>
>> >> Union Calendar No. 469
>> >>
>> >> 104th Congress, 2nd Session - - - - - - - - - - House Report 104-862
>> >>
>> >> INVESTIGATION INTO THE WHITE HOUSE AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ON SECURITY
>> >> OF FBI BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION FILES
>> >>
>>
>> This is the second time you have posted this piece.
>> It says people did bad things. It says they should have hired someone
>> other than Mr. Livingstone. It does not say that Mr. Livingstone or
>> his employees got the wrong files on purpose, in order to blackmail
>> Republicans, to make humorous poison-pen birthday cards, or anything
>> like that. So why do you continue to post it? It is almost completely
>> irrelevant.
>No; it is not irrelevant, since you and other Clintoon crack
>smokers has stated over and over that "they all do it",
>and that there was no ill intent. Well, bub, there was ill intent,
>and it began with the takedown of the security checks that had
>been standard fare for the Executive, and the substitution of
>security checks on Republicans.
I said "almost" completely irrelevant" because I know you can
theoretically spin the de-emphasis of this function into something
bad. But to argue that this was done to get incorrect files for a bad
purpose, required for a criminal prosecution, which, remember is the
point from long ago, is a mile or two from demonstrated.
You appear to have a critical link or two missing from your argument.
Marlowe.
Fog City Ops
Toni Howard
hans...@jps.net wrote:
>
> In article <341C95...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Antoni...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >
> > hans...@jps.net wrote:
> > > or not.
> >
> > in a deep dark pit where they will never see the light of day again.
> >
> Perhaps you could throw them in a pool and simply see if they float.
>
> Read the Privacy Act. Note that for a person to be prosecuted for
> improper disclosure he must know that what he has done is improper. Note
> that the prohibition agains improper "maintenance," if you use that as
> your fallback, applies to agencies, not human beings.
>
> If you still want to simply throw them in a pit, either you view the
> available evidence in a way which many reasonable people would find
> unwarranted, or you obviously are made of wood and float.
The Secret Service has already stated that the list of names the White
House had files on is nothing like any list their computers are set up
to generate. And also shot down the idea that it was an old list, by
pointing out quite simply that the list used for White House personnel
is updated several times a week, which means there is no way that in
1993 the list would contain Bush or Reagan political appointees, aids or
associates. There is no way they just happened to have a 'old' list. The
FBI have also stated that they have no idea how the White House acquired
these files.
This act is a crime. If there has ever been a poster child for federal
abuse of power it is without question this administration. The
ridiculousness of any American citizen defending such a contemptible act
is unfathomable.
Evidently the files were obtained for the purpose of political
espionage, because the files were retrieved when President Clinton was
under attack by Republicans. It appears that the White House was looking
for something to dig up on the opposing party. Reports that White
House political consultant Dick Morris had blamed the first lady for the
White House's acquisition of the files further bolster the evil intent
and in no way demonstrates any innocence intention.
This is about criminal behavior, abuse of power and corruption. The
fact the democrats still fail to condemn this act shows that they are
completely out of touch with reality.
Laws are always open to interpretation according to the particular
circumstance to which they might be applied.
I, as many others do, understand the Privacy Act to mean that the
possession of these files is in direct violation of the 1974 Federal
Privacy Act and of the National Security Act. Which in simple terms
means that at least 408 Felonies have been committed by the White House.
The head of the FBI, Director Louis Freeh said “the
procedures were flawed and resulted in an egregious invasion of
privacy.” How can the court conclude he was wrong?
--
Skatko
>
>This act is a crime. If there has ever been a poster child for federal
>abuse of power it is without question this administration. The
>ridiculousness of any American citizen defending such a contemptible act
>is unfathomable.
>
And these Bozo's get away with having 900 (probably much more than that)
files sitting around for *whatever* they were using them for. What a disgrace.
sheila
Reynmeistr
> the list had so many out of date names that they would be more work
>to sort through than to start over from scratch. Therefore, I threw away
>this list and the forms.
>
>end
>
>Wetzl appeared highly credible.
>
>I note that there has been no legal action taken on this matter.
>
>RH
Hey, LiaRH. There is a $90 MILLION LAWSUIT underway against the Dowager
General, Craig Livingston, Anthony Marceca and others, on this very matter.
Hitlery tried to scuttle away. The judge kept her in. You knew this, and
therefore expose yourself once again as a pathetic liar. Sweet dreams.....
hope you can ignore those nasty ghost trains.
Phil Marlowe
ska...@aol.com (Skatko) wrote:
>sheila
There was probably substantial evidence that Colson did something
improper.
With these 900 files, many are suspicious but there does not appear to
be substantial evidence that these people acted in the willful
improper way required for violation of the law.
Here is how others have replied to that statement. Some, such as
Cayenne, have said that the list was "impossible" so there must have
been an improper motive to have gotten files not reproducible by SS
computers. But other evidence contradicts that. We know they were
working from large, out-of-date lists from testimony of those working
in the office, for instance.I have seen posted, uncontested, the claim
that others have testified that terribly out-of-date SS lists were
possible despite protestations to the contrary. I don't know if that
is true, but I have read credible testimony of workers in the office
that large, out-of-date lists were mistakenly used. So we can't be
sure one way or the other.
Some say that once the files were seen to be out of date, they should
have been returned. I'm not sure what law that violates, if any, and I
suspect that the mere retention of these files would probably be
viewed differently from having them for, say, black mail purposes.
There may be a violation of a misdemeanor somewhere - but I couldn't
find the law.
One person indicated a law about maintining files in a lap-top
computer without proper notice, but that law actually applies to
agencies, subjecting them to lawsuits, which seems the proper remedy
here, not to humans, and the factual premise has been questioned
anyway.
That lack of clear evidence that a crime has been committed probably
explains why no one has been punished as Colson was. Mere suspicions
that people have acted badly, such as you seem to have, aren't enough.
And if you think about it, it's probably not a disgrace to withhold
punishment until you have clear evidence of a crime. You may feel that
such evidence exits, but many others do not.
And since Mr. Starr is a very conservative Republican, not likely to
have fond views of the Administration, his failure to proceed on this
matter may reflect that independent parties view it more as I do than
as you do.
If that summary is wrong, let me know why,.
Marlowe
Fog City Ops
pelmark
In article <600pc4$2...@news1.zippo.com>, dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil
Marlowe) wrote:
>ska...@aol.com (Skatko) wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>This act is a crime. If there has ever been a poster child for federal
>>>abuse of power it is without question this administration. The
>>>ridiculousness of any American citizen defending such a contemptible act
>>>is unfathomable.
>>>
>>Didn't Chuck Colson do *time* for looking, LOOKING, at someones FBI file?
>>And these Bozo's get away with having 900 (probably much more than that)
>>files sitting around for *whatever* they were using them for. What a
disgrace.
>
>>sheila
>
>There was probably substantial evidence that Colson did something
>improper.
Charles Colson went to the Special Prosecutor, and *admitted* that he given
an FBI file to a reporter.
There was not "probably substantial evidence"; it was not proven, nor was he
charged with it, until he admitted to it. IOW, had he not confessed, he
would NOT have gone to jail for THAT charge.
Mr. COLSON: I had been charged in the Watergate conspiracy and the
prosecutors later told me I shouldn't have been. I wasn't guilty of it. When
I decided to plead guilty, I went to them and said, 'Here's something I did.
I gave an FBI file to reporters for the Copley Press regarding Daniel
Ellsberg at a time Ellsberg was awaiting trial for his theft of the Pentagon
Papers.' For that,
Leon Jaworski, who was then the special prosecutor, said, 'We've been
looking for a way to stop that abuse, and your pleading to this will be a
very, very important national precedent. Stealing FBI files or looking at
FBI files and using that information will never happen again if you plead
guilty.' So I did, and received a one-to-three year sentence to prison. It
was clearly to establish a
precedent so that the kind of thing we're watching on Filegate right now
would never happen.
--June 28, 1996
Now, you may or may not agree with Colson's rendition here, but he *was* the
one who approached the Special Prosecutor. One of the very reasons it has
been difficult to get to the bottom of charges made against the Clinton
Administration is the lack of, in my opinion, candor and honesty amongst
those who have testified. The numbers of "I don't recalls", or the infamous
"I lied to my diary" are legion here; David Staruss, Gore's aide in
testimony to the Senate Campaign Finance Committee, said he didn't recall a
memo with his name on it. When he was provided a copy, with his *own*
handwriting on it, he still denied any memory.
Perhaps he doesn't. Or perhaps he is lying, or in this case, since he is
testifying under oath, and the law doesn't recognize "lying", if he does
actiually recall it, he committed perjury. A crime. Can it be proven? A
different story. Fowler couldn't remember either, even when provided with
"CIA-Bob" on his own records.
You choose to believe *them*; fine.
>With these 900 files, many are suspicious but there does not appear to
>be substantial evidence that these people acted in the willful
>improper way required for violation of the law.
Well, how do you *know* that? There is an on going Special Prosecutor's
investigation into Filegate, and it is illegal for the Special Prosecutor to
reveal grand jury testimony. Until a final report is issued, or that phase
of the investigation is wound down, neither you, nor I, nor anyone, knows
what is being investigated, or what has been found.
>Here is how others have replied to that statement. Some, such as
>Cayenne, have said that the list was "impossible" so there must have
>been an improper motive to have gotten files not reproducible by SS
>computers. But other evidence contradicts that. We know they were
>working from large, out-of-date lists from testimony of those working
>in the office, for instance.
"Those working in the office..." are the ones being investigated, and their
testimony is suspect because of that simple fact. The White House reaction
to the initial release of the papers which showed that these files were in
possession of the WH, changed *four* times as they tried to explain why they
had these files. You may not find that suspicious. Fine.
>I have seen posted, uncontested, the claim
>that others have testified that terribly out-of-date SS lists were
>possible despite protestations to the contrary.
I didn't. I would have "contested". Is it possible? Not according to Secret
Service testimony, but I think I know who you find more credible.
>I don't know if that
>is true, but I have read credible testimony of workers in the office
>that large, out-of-date lists were mistakenly used. So we can't be
>sure one way or the other.
Well, Phil, I'm not so sure about that conclusion. If Livingstone/Marcea
claim the lists are "possible" and "mistakenly used", you are accepting that
those under investigation are telling the truth. The Secret Service
testimony directly contradicts them.
So that leaves me trying to figure out who has more credibility, or reason
to lie.
>Some say that once the files were seen to be out of date, they should
>have been returned.
The files should have *never* been gotten in the first place, and the FBI's
own conclusions, stated this publicly in testimony.
>I'm not sure what law that violates, if any, and I
>suspect that the mere retention of these files would probably be
>viewed differently from having them for, say, black mail purposes.
I'm not sure I understand you here, Phil. If the files were out-o-date, you
say, some say they should have been returned; this may not break any law, as
compared to having them for "blackmail purposes".
A fair summary?
Are you then saying that since no one in the Clinton White House has
admitted having the files for "blackmail purposes", or some other obviously
political dirty tricks operation, that it in your view, you have no problem
with the possession of all these files? I am just asking so I can
understand.
One of the explanations for the files was background checks on White House
staffers. Or, I guess frequent White House visitors, such as James Baker,
Bush Secretary of State. One of the files was Billy Dale, the fired Travel
Office head; not only was he working in the White House, and had been, for
thirty two years, and he was up-to-date; they had his FBI file.
Seems, at least to me, a little odd.
>There may be a violation of a misdemeanor somewhere - but I couldn't
>find the law.
I guess it depends on your point of view. If you believe having 900 FBI
files is needed for the reasons the White House has said, I guess you would
not have a problem with this.
If your view is different, such as why would the White House need Linda
Chavez's file, and you can find no reasonable, legitimate reason why the
Clinton Administration should have this file, than you will probably doubt
the WH version of these events.
>One person indicated a law about maintining files in a lap-top
>computer without proper notice, but that law actually applies to
>agencies, subjecting them to lawsuits, which seems the proper remedy
>here, not to humans, and the factual premise has been questioned
>anyway.
There is the fact that Marcea put confidential FBI files onto disks and his
computer, and took them out of the White House. That is a fact.
>That lack of clear evidence that a crime has been committed probably
>explains why no one has been punished as Colson was. Mere suspicions
>that people have acted badly, such as you seem to have, aren't enough.
Except the Special Counsel hasn't made a case yet. So you, I, nor anyone
knows what may or may not happen in the future.
>And if you think about it, it's probably not a disgrace to withhold
>punishment until you have clear evidence of a crime. You may feel that
>such evidence exits, but many others do not.
>And since Mr. Starr is a very conservative Republican, not likely to
>have fond views of the Administration, his failure to proceed on this
>matter may reflect that independent parties view it more as I do than
>as you do.
This flap started out in June of 1996. It hasn't been that long. Not in our
system of justice.
It started when Jack Quinn, WH Counsel, refused to release documents to a
Congressional committee investigating Travelgate, under the pretext of
"Executive priviledge". During this time, the Committee was accused of being
on a "partisan witchhunt".
When Congress voted for a Contempt of Congress citation against the White
House Counsel's Office, and Mr. Quinn, the files were turned over.
"Filegate" started when these turned over documents showed that Billy Dale's
file, a 32 year WH employee, was requested *seven* months AFTER he was fired
from the Travel Office.
The first 1000 documents had over 300 FBI files; and then as more of the
subpeonaed documents came in, over 900 FBI files showed up, protected
formerly under the guise of "executive priviledge".
Phil Marlowe
"pelmark" <skip...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>In article <600pc4$2...@news1.zippo.com>, dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil
>Marlowe) wrote:
>>ska...@aol.com (Skatko) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>This act is a crime. If there has ever been a poster child for federal
>>>>abuse of power it is without question this administration. The
>>>>ridiculousness of any American citizen defending such a contemptible act
>>>>is unfathomable.
>>>>
>>>Didn't Chuck Colson do *time* for looking, LOOKING, at someones FBI file?
>>>And these Bozo's get away with having 900 (probably much more than that)
>>>files sitting around for *whatever* they were using them for. What a
>disgrace.
>>
>>>sheila
>>
>>There was probably substantial evidence that Colson did something
>>improper.
>Charles Colson went to the Special Prosecutor, and *admitted* that he given
>an FBI file to a reporter.
Thanks. Others here have argued he did not intentionally illegally
disclose. Now we know he did.
>
I snip reasonable comments with which I pretty much agree.
>>With these 900 files, many are suspicious but there does not appear to
>>be substantial evidence that these people acted in the willful
>>improper way required for violation of the law.
>Well, how do you *know* that? There is an on going Special Prosecutor's
>investigation into Filegate, and it is illegal for the Special Prosecutor to
>reveal grand jury testimony. Until a final report is issued, or that phase
>of the investigation is wound down, neither you, nor I, nor anyone, knows
>what is being investigated, or what has been found.
It's been a while - and it seems everything leaks.
But I don't know.
>>Here is how others have replied to that statement. Some, such as
>>Cayenne, have said that the list was "impossible" so there must have
>>been an improper motive to have gotten files not reproducible by SS
>>computers. But other evidence contradicts that. We know they were
>>working from large, out-of-date lists from testimony of those working
>>in the office, for instance.
>"Those working in the office..." are the ones being investigated, and their
>testimony is suspect because of that simple fact.
Nancy seemed credible, with loyalties more to the Republicans she had
worked for. Others aren't targets and seem credible to me.
>>I have seen posted, uncontested, the claim
>>that others have testified that terribly out-of-date SS lists were
>>possible despite protestations to the contrary.
>I didn't. I would have "contested". Is it possible? Not according to Secret
>Service testimony, but I think I know who you find more credible.
The post, by a Mr./Mrs./Ms. Woof (last name BowWow) said SS people
also said contrary. I don't know - before my time on the usenet.
But a person named scott eckel... I think has been posting testimony -
and non-targets seem to credibly indicate that they had long,
out-of-date lists, that "Nancy's" list was "impossible" i.e. "custom."
I see confusion on the impossibility front. Do you?
>So that leaves me trying to figure out who has more credibility, or reason
>to lie.
I don't see why anyone had to lie. The "normal' lists may make nancy's
"impossible," yet maybe she got a "custom' list, or made her own (even
for legit reasons).
>>Some say that once the files were seen to be out of date, they should
>>have been returned.
>The files should have *never* been gotten in the first place, and the FBI's
>own conclusions, stated this publicly in testimony.
We all agree. So?
>>I'm not sure what law that violates, if any, and I
>>suspect that the mere retention of these files would probably be
>>viewed differently from having them for, say, black mail purposes.
>I'm not sure I understand you here, Phil. If the files were out-o-date, you
>say, some say they should have been returned; this may not break any law, as
>compared to having them for "blackmail purposes".
>A fair summary?
In the Privacy Act, I can't find a law for keeping a file once you
find out you don't need it, except for rules on following rules by
agencies, not people. Can you?
>Are you then saying that since no one in the Clinton White House has
>admitted having the files for "blackmail purposes", or some other obviously
>political dirty tricks operation, that it in your view, you have no problem
>with the possession of all these files? I am just asking so I can
>understand.
No. But I don't see clear evidence a crime was broken. Do you?
>One of the explanations for the files was background checks on White House
>staffers. Or, I guess frequent White House visitors, such as James Baker,
>Bush Secretary of State. One of the files was Billy Dale, the fired Travel
>Office head; not only was he working in the White House, and had been, for
>thirty two years, and he was up-to-date; they had his FBI file.
>Seems, at least to me, a little odd.
>>There may be a violation of a misdemeanor somewhere - but I couldn't
>>find the law.
>I guess it depends on your point of view. If you believe having 900 FBI
>files is needed for the reasons the White House has said, I guess you would
>not have a problem with this.
You would worry that they were idiots, that they lacked necessary
skills, that privacy was improperly violated (leading to civil
damages). I assume you agree.
>>One person indicated a law about maintining files in a lap-top
>>computer without proper notice, but that law actually applies to
>>agencies, subjecting them to lawsuits, which seems the proper remedy
>>here, not to humans, and the factual premise has been questioned
>>anyway.
>There is the fact that Marcea put confidential FBI files onto disks and his
>computer, and took them out of the White House. That is a fact.
Personnel files? or merely memo files? Please provide evidence -
because that scott eckel... person says he's not so sure about that.
>
>>That lack of clear evidence that a crime has been committed probably
>>explains why no one has been punished as Colson was. Mere suspicions
>>that people have acted badly, such as you seem to have, aren't enough.
>Except the Special Counsel hasn't made a case yet. So you, I, nor anyone
>knows what may or may not happen in the future.
No. But it seems just about everything leaks.
>>And if you think about it, it's probably not a disgrace to withhold
>>punishment until you have clear evidence of a crime. You may feel that
>>such evidence exits, but many others do not.
>>And since Mr. Starr is a very conservative Republican, not likely to
>>have fond views of the Administration, his failure to proceed on this
>>matter may reflect that independent parties view it more as I do than
>>as you do.
>This flap started out in June of 1996. It hasn't been that long. Not in our
>system of justice.
>It started when Jack Quinn, WH Counsel, refused to release documents to a
>Congressional committee investigating Travelgate, under the pretext of
>"Executive priviledge". During this time, the Committee was accused of being
>on a "partisan witchhunt".
You don't think they were? you don't think the purpose was to tag
Clinton a witch?
>When Congress voted for a Contempt of Congress citation against the White
>House Counsel's Office, and Mr. Quinn, the files were turned over.
>"Filegate" started when these turned over documents showed that Billy Dale's
>file, a 32 year WH employee, was requested *seven* months AFTER he was fired
>from the Travel Office.
>The first 1000 documents had over 300 FBI files; and then as more of the
>subpeonaed documents came in, over 900 FBI files showed up, protected
>formerly under the guise of "executive priviledge".
I would like to see the claim that the list of whose file was obtained
was withheld because of 'executive privilege." I can't quite see the
logic of that.
Marlowe
Fog City Ops
pelmark
In article <606gjb$m...@news2.zippo.com>, dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil
Marlowe) wrote:
>"pelmark" <skip...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>In article <600pc4$2...@news1.zippo.com>, dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil
>>Marlowe) wrote:
<SNIP ARTICLE>
>>Charles Colson went to the Special Prosecutor, and *admitted* that he
given
>>an FBI file to a reporter.
>Thanks. Others here have argued he did not intentionally illegally
>disclose. Now we know he did.
>>Well, how do you *know* that? There is an on going Special Prosecutor's
>>investigation into Filegate, and it is illegal for the Special Prosecutor
to
>>reveal grand jury testimony. Until a final report is issued, or that phase
>>of the investigation is wound down, neither you, nor I, nor anyone, knows
>>what is being investigated, or what has been found.
>It's been a while - and it seems everything leaks.
>But I don't know.
For Starr's Whitewater investigation, there have been MANY "stories" in the
press, and that's what just about all of them turned out to be: stories,
i.e., works of fiction.
I haven't read a peep on Travelgate, or Filegate.
And I don't hear anything, because I don't know anyone. Maybe you could ask
Hanson; I don't think he cares much for me, and he *knows* everyone in DC.
Or Swopa, OK? (;
>>"Those working in the office..." are the ones being investigated, and
their
>>testimony is suspect because of that simple fact.
>Nancy seemed credible, with loyalties more to the Republicans she had
>worked for. Others aren't targets and seem credible to me.
Not to argue, because in all the investigations, they ask some of the low
level staffers, the clerks, typists, data processors, go-fers, etc., and
these people often provide the best info, and I hate to see them in front of
the glare of all the lights, simply because they were doing what *they* were
supposed to be doing, they thought.
As an example, two women in the FBI records office worked tirelssly in
getting all the files the WH requested. As the FBI concluded, these two
didn't fail the FBI, the FBI failed them. So, I'm not after some poor man or
woman who is trying to do what he/she is told to do, and believing that it
is right and proper.
But what happens Phil, if her list is *provided* to her by someone, who even
took the trouble to make it look like a Treasury List by printing on the old
style paper? (Thanks for that one, Phil! I hadn't even thought about the
paper!)
I watched the Treasury and Secret Service people testify. Maybe I'm the
fool, but I couldn't help but be struck by how adamant and sure they were.
There was no question in their minds that it was impossible for the list
scenario to happen as explained by the White House on their *fourth*,
*FOURTH* explanation about the files.. And when I see Livingstone and
Marceca *in charge*, well, call me silly, niave, and foolish, but I just
automatically get a little suspicious.
>>>I have seen posted, uncontested, the claim
>>>that others have testified that terribly out-of-date SS lists were
>>>possible despite protestations to the contrary.
>>I didn't. I would have "contested". Is it possible? Not according to
Secret
>>Service testimony, but I think I know who you find more credible.
>The post, by a Mr./Mrs./Ms. Woof (last name BowWow) said SS people
>also said contrary. I don't know - before my time on the usenet.
>But a person named scott eckel... I think has been posting testimony -
>and non-targets seem to credibly indicate that they had long,
>out-of-date lists, that "Nancy's" list was "impossible" i.e. "custom."
>I see confusion on the impossibility front. Do you?
Not to be belligerent, but..."extremely unlikely, to the point of
impossibility"?
>>So that leaves me trying to figure out who has more credibility, or reason
>>to lie.
>I don't see why anyone had to lie. The "normal' lists may make nancy's
>"impossible," yet maybe she got a "custom' list, or made her own (even
>for legit reasons).
Yeah, maybe Stoney gave her a "custom" list, huh? Could it just be a
*possibility*, you think?
>>>Some say that once the files were seen to be out of date, they should
>>>have been returned.
>>The files should have *never* been gotten in the first place, and the
FBI's
>>own conclusions, stated this publicly in testimony.
>We all agree. So?
We do? WE DO? You AGREE with that?
WHY did the WH get all these files then? What for? Why did your honest WH
ask for 900 FBI files if you agree they shouldn't have?
If you are saying they shouldn't have got them, WHY did they?
Kinda deflates your argument, Phil, if you don't think they have a
legitimate reason for obtaining them, doncha think?
>>>I'm not sure what law that violates, if any, and I
>>>suspect that the mere retention of these files would probably be
>>>viewed differently from having them for, say, black mail purposes.
>>I'm not sure I understand you here, Phil. If the files were out-o-date,
you
>>say, some say they should have been returned; this may not break any law,
as
>>compared to having them for "blackmail purposes".
>>A fair summary?
>In the Privacy Act, I can't find a law for keeping a file once you
>find out you don't need it, except for rules on following rules by
>agencies, not people. Can you?
>>Are you then saying that since no one in the Clinton White House has
>>admitted having the files for "blackmail purposes", or some other
obviously
>>political dirty tricks operation, that it in your view, you have no
problem
>>with the possession of all these files? I am just asking so I can
>>understand.
>No. But I don't see clear evidence a crime was broken. Do you?
Well, I don't think I'm well enough versed to make an opinion on a "crime".
'Cuz, I don't know what the laws are. I'll agree it will be tough to prove.
Maybe they can blame it all on that woman clerk, the one who was blamed for
the six month gap in the record book dealing with *who* had the files,
right?
But I think there is more than the Privacy Act involved, but that is nothing
more than purely simple opinion and speculation.
>>One of the explanations for the files was background checks on White House
>>staffers. Or, I guess frequent White House visitors, such as James Baker,
>>Bush Secretary of State. One of the files was Billy Dale, the fired Travel
>>Office head; not only was he working in the White House, and had been, for
>>thirty two years, and he was up-to-date; they had his FBI file.
>>Seems, at least to me, a little odd.
>>>There may be a violation of a misdemeanor somewhere - but I couldn't
>>>find the law.
>>I guess it depends on your point of view. If you believe having 900 FBI
>>files is needed for the reasons the White House has said, I guess you
would
>>not have a problem with this.
>You would worry that they were idiots, that they lacked necessary
>skills, that privacy was improperly violated (leading to civil
>damages). I assume you agree.
No, I would argue with two with the backgrounds of Livingstone and Marceca,
those files were obtained for the sole purpose of gaining political
ammunition. Because there is NO reason they needed all those files on the
likes of James Baker, Linda Chavez, Gingrich's PR aide, etc.
>>There is the fact that Marcea put confidential FBI files onto disks and
his
>>computer, and took them out of the White House. That is a fact.
>Personnel files? or merely memo files? Please provide evidence -
>because that scott eckel... person says he's not so sure about that.
FBI and state department files. You DO know of the 160 State Department
files taken, correct?
It's storming here as I write, and my ZIP drive is down; I'll post the
Marceca stuff, here.
>>Except the Special Counsel hasn't made a case yet. So you, I, nor anyone
>>knows what may or may not happen in the future.
>No. But it seems just about everything leaks.
SEE above.
>>>And if you think about it, it's probably not a disgrace to withhold
>>>punishment until you have clear evidence of a crime. You may feel that
>>>such evidence exits, but many others do not.
>>>And since Mr. Starr is a very conservative Republican, not likely to
>>>have fond views of the Administration, his failure to proceed on this
>>>matter may reflect that independent parties view it more as I do than
>>>as you do.
>>This flap started out in June of 1996. It hasn't been that long. Not in
our
>>system of justice.
>>It started when Jack Quinn, WH Counsel, refused to release documents to a
>>Congressional committee investigating Travelgate, under the pretext of
>>"Executive priviledge". During this time, the Committee was accused of
being
>>on a "partisan witchhunt".
>You don't think they were? you don't think the purpose was to tag
>Clinton a witch?
Stop, Phil; it is too *lame*. Wit is great, dull is dull.
>>When Congress voted for a Contempt of Congress citation against the White
>>House Counsel's Office, and Mr. Quinn, the files were turned over.
>>"Filegate" started when these turned over documents showed that Billy
Dale's
>>file, a 32 year WH employee, was requested *seven* months AFTER he was
fired
>>from the Travel Office.
>>The first 1000 documents had over 300 FBI files; and then as more of the
>>subpeonaed documents came in, over 900 FBI files showed up, protected
>>formerly under the guise of "executive privilege".
>I would like to see the claim that the list of whose file was obtained
>was withheld because of 'executive privilege." I can't quite see the
>logic of that.
Whoops! Oh-oh...
Well, let me explain farther. Quinn refused to surrender the last 2000
documents the Committee requested. The battle went on, with Quinn, a
*government, taxpayer* paid White House Counsel claiming they would not
surrender these 2000 documents because of executive privilege. And, for the
record, _government_ lawyers are held to standards requiring them to bring
illegal behaviors to the proper authorities. The Federal Government even
tells new employees that if you tell a government lawyer of criminal
activity, it his responsibility to make it known to the appropriate
authorities. Which is why Clinton is on about the 20th White House Counsel.
It lasted for some WEEKS, as I recall.
He shot his mouth off to every reporter who would listen about a "witchhunt"
and it was all for nothing, because the evil Republicans had NOTHING. Just
after the poor, beleagured, hard working Clinton Administration. When the
FULL House voted on the Contempt charge, he gave up the 2000 "Executive
Privilege" documents the next day.
In those 2000 documents, were the 900 FBI files, Phil.
Do you understand why people believe these files were used for political
purposes, when the White House used "Executive Privilege" to HIDE their
existence? No one WOULD have known, had the Committee just given up.
Gosh...it's like...Nixon. Brrrr.....
Protected by the WH under the guise of "Executive Privilege". I'm sure this
wouldn't change your mind, but...
BTW: explain WHY Billy Dale's FBI file was requested by the WH *7* months
AFTER he was fired?
Billy gonna visit the WH?
Maybe they were going to hire him for the Cabinet?
Maybe he was on one of them funky old lists, that existed BEFORE he was
fired, but NOT after?
Does the White House *do* investigations, now?
Yawnnnn. Snorrrrrrre. Who caresssss?
It's all about....PR. And the most HONEST and ETHICAL Administration in
HISTORY.
"Executive Privilege"=900 FBI files. And that is a FACT.
>Marlowe
>Fog City Ops
pelmark
In article <606tv6$1...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>, "pelmark"
<skip...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>In those 2000 documents, were the 900 FBI files, Phil.
This NOT correct; and I am in error. Those last 2000 files did NOT have the
original FBI files in them so I am WRONG.
I have the FBI files at 700 at the point those 2000 documents were released,
and I can't seem to find where they get to 900.
>"Executive Privilege"=900 FBI files. And that is a FACT.
This MAY be true; there is confusion, at least on MY part. Ann Lewis has
stated that Clinger "implied" all the files were covered by "Executive
Privilege", but that that implication is not correct, according to her
statement.
Regardless, my claim that those last 2000 documents cantained the 900 files
is NOT correct. I was wrong. And I should not have said that. My apologies
for the error.
>>Marlowe
>>Fog City Ops
j...@globaldialog.com
pelmark wrote:
>
> In article <606tv6$1...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>, "pelmark"
> <skip...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
> original FBI files in them so I am WRONG.
>
> I have the FBI files at 700 at the point those 2000 documents were released,
> and I can't seem to find where they get to 900.
>
>
> stated that Clinger "implied" all the files were covered by "Executive
> Privilege", but that that implication is not correct, according to her
> statement.
>
> Regardless, my claim that those last 2000 documents cantained the 900 files
> is NOT correct. I was wrong. And I should not have said that. My apologies
> for the error.
>
> >>Marlowe
> >>Fog City Ops
Paul Rodriguez of INSIGHT has put the numner of files at around
2,000. Questioning Paul Rodriguez statements has never been
very productive.
Phil Marlowe
"pelmark" <skip...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>In article <606gjb$m...@news2.zippo.com>, dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil
>Marlowe) wrote:
>
>
>>>The files should have *never* been gotten in the first place, and the
>FBI's
>>>own conclusions, stated this publicly in testimony.
>>We all agree. So?
>We do? WE DO? You AGREE with that?
That many of the obtained files no longer sought or needed access to
the WH.
>WHY did the WH get all these files then? What for? Why did your honest WH
>ask for 900 FBI files if you agree they shouldn't have?
My personal opinion? They had an incorrect list(s) and got them by
mistake.
>If you are saying they shouldn't have got them, WHY did they?
My personal opinion? Error.
>Kinda deflates your argument, Phil, if you don't think they have a
>legitimate reason for obtaining them, doncha think?
No. My argument is that there is insuffiicent evidence to prove a
crime occurred. Nothing you have said negates that.
>>>>I'm not sure what law that violates, if any, and I
>>>>suspect that the mere retention of these files would probably be
>>>>viewed differently from having them for, say, black mail purposes.
>>>I'm not sure I understand you here, Phil. If the files were out-o-date,
>you
>>>say, some say they should have been returned; this may not break any law,
>as
>>>compared to having them for "blackmail purposes".
>>>A fair summary?
I haven;t looked for whether innocent acquisition followed by
retention for possible blackmail is a crime. I assume it is.
You don't?
>>In the Privacy Act, I can't find a law for keeping a file once you
>>find out you don't need it, except for rules on following rules by
>>agencies, not people. Can you?
>>>Are you then saying that since no one in the Clinton White House has
>>>admitted having the files for "blackmail purposes", or some other
>obviously
>>>political dirty tricks operation, that it in your view, you have no
>problem
>>>with the possession of all these files? I am just asking so I can
>>>understand.
If they acquired these files innocently, and kept them for no evil
puropse, I bet they have violated at most a minor misdemeanor, but the
next time I need to read the law I'll check for you. Or you might want
to just read it yourself - it's on the net.
>>No. But I don't see clear evidence a crime was broken. Do you?
>Well, I don't think I'm well enough versed to make an opinion on a "crime".
>'Cuz, I don't know what the laws are. I'll agree it will be tough to prove.
>Maybe they can blame it all on that woman clerk, the one who was blamed for
>the six month gap in the record book dealing with *who* had the files,
>right?
My argument is that there does not appear to be evidence proving a
crime occurred. those who propose a crime occurred have the burden of
proof. So prove it.
>But I think there is more than the Privacy Act involved, but that is nothing
>more than purely simple opinion and speculation.
Probably.
>>>One of the explanations for the files was background checks on White House
>>>staffers. Or, I guess frequent White House visitors, such as James Baker,
>>>Bush Secretary of State. One of the files was Billy Dale, the fired Travel
>>>Office head; not only was he working in the White House, and had been, for
>>>thirty two years, and he was up-to-date; they had his FBI file.
>>>Seems, at least to me, a little odd.
>>>>There may be a violation of a misdemeanor somewhere - but I couldn't
>>>>find the law.
>>>I guess it depends on your point of view. If you believe having 900 FBI
>>>files is needed for the reasons the White House has said, I guess you
>would
>>>not have a problem with this.
>>You would worry that they were idiots, that they lacked necessary
>>skills, that privacy was improperly violated (leading to civil
>>damages). I assume you agree.
>No, I would argue with two with the backgrounds of Livingstone and Marceca,
>those files were obtained for the sole purpose of gaining political
>ammunition. Because there is NO reason they needed all those files on the
>likes of James Baker, Linda Chavez, Gingrich's PR aide, etc.
Quite a leap.
>>>There is the fact that Marcea put confidential FBI files onto disks and
>his
>>>computer, and took them out of the White House. That is a fact.
>>Personnel files? or merely memo files? Please provide evidence -
>>because that scott eckel... person says he's not so sure about that.
>FBI and state department files. You DO know of the 160 State Department
>files taken, correct?
No. Tell me.
>It's storming here as I write, and my ZIP drive is down; I'll post the
>Marceca stuff, here.
Why do you maintain files about these matters?
>>>Except the Special Counsel hasn't made a case yet. So you, I, nor anyone
>>>knows what may or may not happen in the future.
>>No. But it seems just about everything leaks.
>SEE above.
>>>>And if you think about it, it's probably not a disgrace to withhold
>>>>punishment until you have clear evidence of a crime. You may feel that
>>>>such evidence exits, but many others do not.
>>>>And since Mr. Starr is a very conservative Republican, not likely to
>>>>have fond views of the Administration, his failure to proceed on this
>>>>matter may reflect that independent parties view it more as I do than
>>>>as you do.
>>>This flap started out in June of 1996. It hasn't been that long. Not in
>our
>>>system of justice.
>>>It started when Jack Quinn, WH Counsel, refused to release documents to a
>>>Congressional committee investigating Travelgate, under the pretext of
>>>"Executive priviledge". During this time, the Committee was accused of
>being
>>>on a "partisan witchhunt".
>>You don't think they were? you don't think the purpose was to tag
>>Clinton a witch?
>Stop, Phil; it is too *lame*. Wit is great, dull is dull.
Non-denial denial.
>Whoops! Oh-oh...
I'll double-check you, because I still don't see the logic. But i also
fail to see why Congress had to get these files? They don't have to
grant access to the WH. Wouldn't a mere list of the names work? Do you
think they plan to use the materials in them for blackmail? Do you
think their obtaining them violated the Privacy Act?
>Do you understand why people believe these files were used for political
>purposes, when the White House used "Executive Privilege" to HIDE their
>existence?
No - that's an obvious leap.
>No one WOULD have known, had the Committee just given up.
I'll look into it.
>Gosh...it's like...Nixon. Brrrr.....
>Protected by the WH under the guise of "Executive Privilege". I'm sure this
>wouldn't change your mind, but...
>BTW: explain WHY Billy Dale's FBI file was requested by the WH *7* months
>AFTER he was fired?
My personal opinion? It was on an out-of-date list, probably one which
nancy had been using. Why did they ask for bush's gardener? And marlin
Fitzwater? Cover for Dale? Not likely.
>It's all about....PR. And the most HONEST and ETHICAL Administration in
>HISTORY.
You have some proof they aren't the most ethical? Or just speculation,
like with these files? Quick - name one person convicted for an
unethical Administrative act. I'm sure there must be - it's a big
place. But Mr. Yazoo, why are your zip files on mere specuation about
a possible crime? You have had many, many chances to prove your case,
and so far you haven't.
>"Executive Privilege"=900 FBI files. And that is a FACT.
Where can I find this fact?
Marlowe
Fog City Ops
Phil Marlowe
j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>pelmark wrote:
>>
>> In article <606tv6$1...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>, "pelmark"
>> <skip...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >In those 2000 documents, were the 900 FBI files, Phil.
>>
>> This NOT correct; and I am in error. Those last 2000 files did NOT have the
>> original FBI files in them so I am WRONG.
>>
>> I have the FBI files at 700 at the point those 2000 documents were released,
>> and I can't seem to find where they get to 900.
>>
>> >"Executive Privilege"=900 FBI files. And that is a FACT.
>>
>> This MAY be true; there is confusion, at least on MY part. Ann Lewis has
>> stated that Clinger "implied" all the files were covered by "Executive
>> Privilege", but that that implication is not correct, according to her
>> statement.
>>
>> Regardless, my claim that those last 2000 documents cantained the 900 files
>> is NOT correct. I was wrong. And I should not have said that. My apologies
>> for the error.
>>
It seemed odd. No apology needed. We all err, obviously, and you seem
civil enough.
Marlowe
>> >>Fog City Ops
>Paul Rodriguez of INSIGHT has put the numner of files at around
>2,000. Questioning Paul Rodriguez statements has never been
>very productive.
I think you're on a different topic, JQP - but I do appreciate all the
data you provide. Thanks.
Fog City Ops
j...@globaldialog.com
> >> >>Fog City Ops
>
> >Paul Rodriguez of INSIGHT has put the number of files at around
> >2,000. Questioning Paul Rodriguez statements has never been
> >very productive.
>
> I think you're on a different topic, JQP
Acknowledged. Just trying to correct the probable
inaccuracy regarding the number of FBI files involved.
Martin McPhillips
On Tue, 23 Sep 1997 16:15:07 GMT, dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil Marlowe) wrote:
>"pelmark" <skip...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>WHY did the WH get all these files then? What for? Why did your honest WH
>>ask for 900 FBI files if you agree they shouldn't have?
>
>My personal opinion? They had an incorrect list(s) and got them by
>mistake.
Bzzzzzzt. The Secret Service officials responsible for generating
the lists testified to Congress that they generated no such
"out-of-date" lists, and that the system that cuts those lists could
*not* do so. For their trouble, i.e., telling the truth, the two guys
who testified were placed under criminal investigation by the
Treasury Department.
Further, with the lists that were used appearing on Secret Service
green and white computer paper, the people who put that list
together have also forged a government document.
Your personal opinion? Counterfeit.
Alan Furman
On Tue, 23 Sep 1997 16:15:07 GMT, dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil Marlowe) wrote:
>My personal opinion? They had an incorrect list(s) and got them by
>mistake.
Sorry, Foghorn. POSSESSION of the dossiers is ILLEGAL, and (whatever
your "personal opinion" may happen to be) "ours is a government of laws
and not men." Remember?
--
====al...@aimnet.com * LPC * LPUSA * ISIL * IOS * KoX * Netscab Squealer====
LEGALIZE FREEDOM >>>> http://www.lp.org * UBI LIBERTAS IBI PATRIA
An electorate terrified of hemp plants growing in closets
will crap its collective pants, on cue, over firearms.
pelmark
In article <608q2h$q...@news2.zippo.com>, dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil
Marlowe) wrote:
>"pelmark" <skip...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>It's storming here as I write, and my ZIP drive is down; I'll post the
>>Marceca stuff, here.
>Why do you maintain files about these matters?
Just as a start, so I don't post WRONG information as I DID. (:
I save my posts. I save others posts that have articles I cannot get on
matters I find interesting. I save newspaper and magazine articles,
pertaining to threads on this newsgroup I get into.
It doesn't seem odd to me, at least; if I just read the threads, or the
various articles, it would be real hard to post the actual article if I
haven't saved it. So I save them. I have long argued on the Jones case, and
as usual as rain, some newbie gets on the newsgroup with info that is three
years old, and articles have a way of "clarifying" matters.
I save posts that I find to be original works. I wasn't here when many of
the "old timers" in this newsgroup first started; in those days, people like
Hugh Sprunt were writing the CIR, and that, of course, has gone to become a
national issue and a quite important document. Enough for the _New York
Times_ to feature him on the cover of their Sunday magazine section. There
are others here who do original work on Foster, Patrick Knowlton, Mena, CIA,
etc.
I wasn't joking on a different thread: the campaign finance mess was HERE
months BEFORE it was "news" in the _New York Times_. I guess some silly
fools on the usenet "scooped" the national press; you have to laugh when you
read it in a.c-e.c.w., and then the press "breaks" a major story. I don't
think it is as "original" here as it was a few years ago; for some time, no
one in the mainstream media was addressing some of these issues, and
old-timers here were asking questions no one answered, or even seemed to
care about.
They still don't today.
There are some pretty bright people here, and they spend a lot of their time
and their energy here. You may find a.c-e.c.w. to be just "you and I"
arguing, and that certainly is part of it, but there always very serious
posts, on very serious subjects here. Billy just posted the Russell
Welch/Bear Bottoms posts; there was Barry Seal's pilot, and his opposite,
the lead investigator, both _at_ Mena, and two very real principles in a
event that some say leads to three Presidents. Maybe no big deal to you, but
I am impressed.
If you think I save files for some nefarious purpose, I don't. I am just a
political junkie, and I like this group. But I can't "prove" much by just
claiming it, and as I plainly showed in that last post, I can make some huge
errors when I don't look back over topics that I was looking at a year ago.
I just looked at Julie McClain's article on Tamarez, and she has put in a
huge amount of time and effort on it; she has about 30-40 sources listed for
her article, and it is a first rate piece of work. Better than what the
mainstream does, or has done. Just someone who has an obvious interest in
what is going on, and a desire to do something about it.
You wanted to end the Colson flap the other day. I had a saved quote. Does
this explain it?
pelmark
In article <608q2h$q...@news2.zippo.com>, dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil
Marlowe) wrote:
>My personal opinion? They had an incorrect list(s) and got them by
>mistake.
A former White House security official on June 19 disputed Clinton
administration claims that she left behind an official list for FBI
background checks containing names of more than 400 Republican officials who
worked for Presidents Reagan and Bush.
Nancy Gemmell, who worked for six presidents before being replaced by D.
Craig Livingstone as White House director of personnel security in August
1993, told a House panel that a Secret Service list she left her successors
had only names of "current pass-holders."
"I did not know that another list existed," Mrs. Gemmell told the House
Government Reform and Oversight Committee, which is investigating the
matter. "The list was supposed to be active [White House employees] only."
Mrs. Gemmell testified that the list was "in the vault" of her office when
she left the White House Aug. 13, before Anthony Marceca, an Army civilian
employee and Democratic operative, joined the office to help Mr.
Livingstone.
"We don't know how the list was generated, and that's what they [the FBI]
are investigating," Mark Fabiani, special White House counsel, said after
hearing of Mrs. Gemmell's testimony.
Meanwhile, the White House announced June 19 that Mr. Livingstone would be
permanently replaced as White House security director by Charles C. Easley,
a career security officer who has worked for the executive office of the
president since October 1986.
Mr. Livingstone was put on paid administrative leave June 17 amid probes of
his yearlong effort to gather derogatory information from FBI files of
former Republican White House aides.
FBI Director Louis J. Freeh, in his own initial report, accused the White
House of committing "egregious violations of privacy" in searching the
files.
Mrs. Gemmell and Jane Dannenhauer, her boss who retired in March 1993, said
the names of former Bush administration White House officials not retained
on the executive mansion's permanent staff were dropped from Secret Service
pass-holder access lists when President Clinton took office Jan. 20, 1993.
Rep. Thomas M. Davis III, Virginia Republican, asked Mrs. Gemmell whether
former Reagan counsel A.B. Culvahouse, who also testified June 19, should
have been named on the list used to search old FBI background files.
"No sir, it should not have been," she said.
"I did not consent for my file to be reviewed. It was inappropriate," Mr.
Culvahouse said, without completion of a current Standard Form 86,
"Questionnaire for National Security Positions."
Several Democrats on the panel accused Republicans of partisan politics in
pursuing an issue that Mr. Clinton has termed "an innocent bureaucratic
snafu."
"It is clearly an attempt at political smear of the White House," said Rep.
Tom Lantos, California Democrat. "This was an inexcusable, stupid mistake
that we all condemn. . . . We are trying to resuscitate a gasping, dying
Dole campaign."
"The Dole presidential campaign didn't put FBI files into the White House,"
responded Rep. Steven H. Schiff, New Mexico Republican.
Rep. Cardiss Collins of Illinois, the panel's ranking Democrat, said Mrs.
Gemmell was "perhaps the only person with first-hand knowledge" of the
transition in the White House security office.
The former White House security director said Mr. Livingstone brought in
several "extremely young" students and volunteers without FBI clearances to
help obtain and sort FBI documents they were collecting.
Mrs. Dannenhauer, who had directed the office since the Johnson
administration, said the office previously used only personnel who had been
cleared by the FBI.
C. Boyden Gray, White House counsel for Mr. Bush, said there was no valid
purpose for the Clinton aides to review old FBI background files of
Republican ex-officials because "they weren't being appointed to anything."
Mr. Gray stressed the sensitivity of personal information and unverified
gossip in FBI files. "Oftentimes, the information in a background report,
such as reports of an extramarital affair . . . if revealed would prove
terribly embarrassing to the individual involved." he said.
In previous administrations, even the president was not given access to FBI
background files that only the security director, White House counsel, and
possibly two deputy counsels reviewed for clearances, Mr. Gray said.
A file could "ruin a person's life if it is made public," said Rep. Ileana
Ros-Lehtinen, Florida Republican. "Anyone [in Mr. Livingstone's office]
could have made copies, and no one would have been the wiser."
Richard Hauser, former deputy White House counsel for Mr. Reagan, said the
illicit project, cut short by the congressional "Travelgate" inquiry, would
have involved more than 1,000 former Reagan-Bush aides.
Rep. William F. Clinger Jr., Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the
panel, said he would hold further hearings to determine who was at the
bottom of the scandal.
Copyright © 1996 News World Communications, Inc.
George Archibald, Ex-aide says she didn't leave FBI list, 2 Ed., The
Washington Times, 30 Jun 1996, pp. 01.
pelmark
The Senate Judiciary Committee's June 28 hearing on the Clinton
administration's rifling of 700 FBI background files of Reagan and Bush
employees probably caused a lot of weekend anxiety in the White House.
First of all, Anthony Marceca, the Army detailee to the White House
personnel security office who requested the files, refused to testify -
claiming his Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination. Wyoming
Sen. Alan K. Simpson expressed the feelings of many when he said "[Mr.
Marceca] is the chief patsy in this game. He's the dumpee. And he's going
to take the Fifth, and he should. He's been given good advice."
Craig Livingstone, who admits to hiring Mr. Marceca though he still refuses
to say who hired him, may yet find himself wishing he'd been given equally
good advice. Quite apart from the unfriendly questioning he underwent at
the hands of committee Republicans, his testimony came in for some direct
contradiction, once his stint at the witness table had ended.
Arnold Cole, for example, chief of the Secret Service's security operation
at the Executive Mansion, recalled that, contrary to White House claims that
faulty Secret Service access lists were at the heart of Filegate, Mr.
Livingstone told him just after the story broke that "we just wanted you
guys to know we weren't blaming the Secret Service ... We had the current
list you guys gave us. I don't know what happened."
More distressing to Mr. Livingstone and his White House superiors must have
been the entirely convincing testimony from Secret Service Supervising Agent
John Libonati and a Secret Service computer expert that there is no way
their computers could possibly have generated the list Mr. Marceca used to
access those 700 files.
And then there was the shocking testimony that two years ago, Democratic
Sen. Dennis DeConcini had sent his own security expert in to analyze Mr.
Livingstone's office and had recommended numerous changes - mainly naming a
new director of security who was "non-partisan" and a "security
professional" - that the White House utterly ignored.
If it comes to a credibility contest between veteran Secret Service officers
who take their duty of protecting the president very seriously and a
political hack like Craig Livingstone, the Secret Service obviously wins
hands down. But there will be far more than any one person's version of the
facts to rely on here. Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr has
been given jurisdiction over the FBI file matter. He has already ordered
the vault where the files were kept sealed; Judiciary Committee Chairman
Orrin Hatch has asked him to conduct a fingerprint exam of all the files;
and though the Senate will have to forgo Anthony Marceca's testimony, Mr.
Starr, of course, will be able to ask him why and at whose suggestion he
requested those files, and what use they were put to.
Copyright © 1996 News World Communications, Inc.
John Kyl, Craig Livingstone vs. the Secret Service, 2 Ed., The Washington
Times, 14 Jul 1996, pp. 36.
pelmark
pelmark
Published in Washington, D.C.. . . . . . . . Vol. 12, No. 38 -- July 29,
1996 . . . . . . . . www.insightmag.com
Clinton File Collections Rattle National Security
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Paul M. Rodriguez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The flap over Filegate is beginning to reverberate outside of politics
in the most obvious but as yet unreported arena - specifically, the
field interviews from which FBI background reports are drawn. People who
are promised confidentiality are more nervous than ever to tell agents
what they know.
he effects of the burgeoning Filegate scandal reach far beyond poll
numbers, electoral strategy and White House staffing. Outside the
Washington Beltway, this latest chapter in the still expanding story
already may be hampering legitimate government investigations.
. . . . Federal law-enforcement personnel are beginning to feel a chill
from people they contact for information on individuals under scrutiny
for sensitive government jobs. These concern the FBI "background"
reports on individuals being considered for government positions, a
wide-ranging category that includes everything from political patronage
to federal judges and intelligence operatives.
. . . . "This is always a difficult assignment," says one senior FBI
agent who is nearing retirement. "You go out and try to get people to
tell you whatever they know or think they know about their neighbors.
And you promise them that nobody will ever find out. You know, 'Trust
us, we'll protect you,'" the agent says, reviewing for Insight the
process of collecting sensitive information on thousands of people every
year.
. . . . The assignment gets more difficult every day, thanks to the
antics of former White House personnel security chief Craig Livingstone
and Army Criminal Intelligence Division, or CID, investigator Anthony
Marceca. The news that both men - veteran Democratic political
operatives -allowed access to FBI security files and classified
documents to individuals without security clearances, including teenaged
interns, sent shock waves through official Washington. The Filegate
scandal has threatened public faith in the belief that when citizens
talk to government agents they are submitting information that will be
analyzed with discretion and sensitivity.
. . . . Douglas Kmiec, who served as head of the Justice Department's
Office of Legal Counsel during the waning days of the Reagan
administration, tells Insight that expectations of confidentiality
protect the integrity of FBI background investigations in much the same
way that executive privilege, properly asserted, protects the internal
deliberations of the executive branch. People need to be able to speak
freely. Any compromise of confidentiality, says Kmiec, leads to
responses that are "more hedged, more circumspect."
. . . . While it is too soon to measure the lasting effects of Filegate,
initial reports from federal agents indicate that for now there is big
trouble. "People are telling us they don't want to talk," says the
soon-to-be retired agent, who asked not to be further identified. "You
can tell from how they talk, they're nervous.This has had the effect of
confirming that what they tell us isn't secret."
. . . . "It will definitely make it more difficult," says Leon J.
Podles, an agent with the Office of Federal Investigation, which
investigates lower-level offices. Agents tell subjects of interviews
that they are protected by the Freedom of Information Act and the
Privacy Act, which guarantee confidentiality. "If people think the
Privacy Act means nothing to the White House - that the government can
violate the Privacy Act and use these files for purposes which [they]
were not intended - people will be much more reluctant to supply
information or allow themselves to be investigated."
. . . . Veteran observers of the justice system aren't surprised. Mark
Levin, a former chief of staff to Reagan-era Attorney General Edwin
Meese and a strong critic of the Clinton administration, says Filegate
"does have a profound chilling effect on the investigative process." FBI
agents rely upon the promise of confidentiality to conduct interviews
with sources, and the White House environment exposed in Filegate shows
that "when you have this kind of access to FBI files, whether they be
summaries or otherwise, the agent who's conducting the interview cannot
credibly guarantee that the White House or senior FBI officials won't,
in fact, release information."
. . . . The implications for national security could be troubling.
Suppose, says a former FBI official who now works for Congress, "that
you're asking questions about the fitness of an individual. Before, we'd
find out that they had a drinking problem. Now, with all this news about
White House political operatives reading who's saying what about whom,
well, you figure it out - who in their right mind is going to tell us
everything they know about somebody? Somebody like a nominee who has a
drinking problem? We may not find out now until that person gets stopped
for drunk driving after being confirmed to a high government post. This
is really a problem."
. . . . In November 1994, Marceca filed a lawsuit in federal court
against two Texas women claiming that he was fired by the White House
because of allegations by Lilly Stephenson, a justice of the peace, and
Joyce Montag, a dress-shop owner, that he had ties to an organized-crime
group. A high-ranking Justice Department official puts it this way: "Go
ask those two women in Texas if they would have talked to the [FBI]
agents if they knew their names would be revealed." The damage done "is
severe," the department official says, adding: "In the scheme of things,
we'll get over it. But the bottom line is yes, this poses a threat to
national security. It really was stupid."
. . . . At issue is the White House handling - or mishandling, as most
bipartisan observers agree - of hundreds of confidential and raw
background reports prepared by FBI agents on former Bush and Reagan
officials, including such notables as Tony Blankley, press secretary to
House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and James Baker, a former secretary of
State and Treasury as well as a White House chief of staff. As though
news of the caper to get FBI background reports wasn't bad enough on its
own, sworn testimony of Marceca added more gasoline to the controversy.
The CID man admitted before a congressional panel that he took home
copies of about 200 FBI reports on National Security Council employees
and kept them long after his assignment at the White House ended.
. . . . It is no wonder, then, that current and former FBI and
military-intelligence agents say they are concerned about national
security. "I guess one could look at it from the perspective that it's
not such a big deal in the larger scheme of things," says a Justice
Department lawyer familiar with such matters. At the same time, the DOJ
lawyer tells Insight, "something like this will have a long-term effect.
People are people and all they will remember is that what they tell the
agent isn't so secret. The result? People will clam up, sure."
. . . . Even a lawyer in the Executive Office of the President, who
asked not to be identified, remains furious about Filegate and news
first reported in Insight (see "More Personal Secrets on File the White
House," July 15) revealing the existence of a secret computer system
called the White House Office Data Base, or WHODB. The system keeps
track of virtually everyone who comes in contact with the White House,
including whether they are a "contributor" to Clinton.
. . . . "I would not have been surprised if this had happened in any
other administration," the lawyer says. "But here, in this place [the
Clinton White House]? People should be fired and put in jail! It is
absolutely outrageous," the lawyer fumed during an interview over a
speaker phone. "It's bad enough that the White House is involved, but
for the FBI to screw up like this just blows my mind."
. . . . This sentiment is shared by many, including Democrats in
Congress who themselves are outraged not only about the handling of the
FBI files but at the failure by senior Clinton aides -and the president
himself - to come clean on the mess after it exploded in the news. "They
lied to us," says one rankled House Democrat. "They lied about what they
knew, what they had and even after getting caught, they're lying to this
day about what they know."
. . . . Not everyone is certain that the field performance of government
agents will be affected by Filegate. "At this point, it's all
speculation," says Terry Eastland, a former official in the Reagan
Justice Department. One DOJ career attorney suggested that background
investigations are not a big-enough deal - at least in Washington - for
Filegate to make a difference. "It's basically just a few questions
about whether the person is a threat to national security - then it's so
long and thanks for your 20 minutes." This attorney also remarked that
investigations often are conducted by retired agents who are employed
part time as "special agents," working as many or as few hours as they
like.
. . . . Larry Heim, a spokesman for the Society of Former Special Agents
and a veteran of the J. Edgar Hoover-era FBI, says that he doubts the
performance of agents in the field will be affected by the scandal. "The
thing that would cause people to be more reluctant [to give information]
would be if the agents were to do something wrong." And that hasn't
happened with Filegate, he tells Insight. In short: It's the White
House's embarrassment, not the agency's.
. . . . Not everyone thinks so. The FBI has, in effect, "admitted
they've been slack about this," says Eastland. "I obviously also fault
the White House. There's no legitimate reason for the requests that they
made; you can't come up with one that really passes muster." But at the
same time, the FBI, "in effect, admitted i they simply acceded to the
request without really thinking twice about it," he says.
. . . . It remains to be seen whether the FBI will suffer public censure
in the same manner as the White House staff. "I can see where someone
might think, 'Well, if you get political operatives in the White House
asking for that kind of stuff and if, for heaven's sake, the FBI is not
going to be thinking much about the propriety of this stuff, maybe I
should not give them any information,'" Eastland says carefully. "It's a
natural, logical chain. But it is speculative. Who knows what the
effects will be?"
. . . . In fact, this is one of a growing list of queries from
congressional investigators, principally with the House Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight. Chaired by Rep. William Clinger, a
retiring Republican from Pennsylvania, the committee is probing the
Filegate caper as part of an expanding investigation into the firing of
seven White House Travel Office workers. It was in a long and quite
drawn-out haggling process with the White House that Clinger's committee
discovered that FBI background reports were pulled by Livingstone and
Marceca.
. . . . As Clinger's panel continues to probe reasons for the data
retrieval which, by the latest count, involves more than 700 FBI files
and possibly more than 1,000 (plus other background reports from
military-intelligence agencies), a parallel investigation has been
opened by the subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural
Resources and Regulatory Affairs. Chaired by Rep. David McIntosh, an
Indiana Republican, the subcommittee is pursuing information on the
WHODB, also called Big Brother by some.
. . . . Questions being raised by McIntosh dovetail with Clinger's probe
as they relate to suspicions that information contained in the
confidential FBI background reports may have leached into the WHODB.
Also, McIntosh wants to know why the White House created a system that
includes personal information such as ethnicity, political affiliation,
education and contribution status.
. . . . Conservative estimates place the cost to create the WHODB system
at $500,000 and, while the White House says it was and is used solely
for social functions, congressional investigators want to know why
outside groups such as the Democratic National Committee could upload
information -that is, input but not retrieve data. "What possible
government purpose could there be for such information to be stored at
the White House?" asks a subcommittee investigator. Also, though the
White House says the system contains about 200,000 names, sources tell
Insight that it really holds more than 300,000 and that, contrary to
what administration officials have told Congress, WHODB is capable of
accessing other systems within the White House and elsewhere.
. . . . This is important because the White House has told McIntosh that
Big Brother is a "stand-alone" system, which means it doesn't connect to
any other White House computer system. "That's just not true," says one
of several sources who has spoken to Insight and who is quite familiar
with the design and operations of WHODB. "The system is capable of doing
anything you want it to do," says a second source equally familiar with
the computer operations of the White House. "Suppose you are sitting in
your office and you're on the computer and you want some information
from another system. You can access it with a stroke of a key. You're
working in one system and you need information from WHODB or the
security-tracking system for personnel - what, you get up? No! You
simply type in your access codes and off you go, just like that.That's
what a computer is supposed to do, and that's what you can do with this
system."
. . . . As with the Filegate investigation, the full story on WHODB has
yet to be told and, given what congressional investigators have learned,
it may be some time before anyone really knows the consequences of such
disclosures. "You can be sure of only one thing," says a Republican
congressman. "We won't get to the bottom of this [Filegate/White House
Office Data Base] unless the press keeps up the pressure and Democrats
begin demanding more information."
Michael Rust and David Wagner contributed to this special report.
pelmark
White House admits using files from FBI
By Hugh Davies in Washington
Whitewater fails to sink Clinton's re-election
hopes
THE White House has confirmed that officials keep
the names of 200,000 people on a computer database, most of them members of
Congress, campaign contributors and journalists.
The announcement which continued the row over FBI
background files provoked allegations concerning invasion of privacy. The
project was begun in 1993, when Hillary Clinton was worried about what she
regarded as betrayals of incidents in her private life to the media. This
was also when the White House began storing in a vault sensitive FBI
documents on Republicans.
The database lists political loyalties as well as
whether the subjects are friends of the Clintons. Barry Toiv, a White House
aide, said the computer information was purely to help in deciding whom to
invite to the White House, as well as to keep track of Mr Clinton's
supporters. The database, apparently nicknamed "Big Brother" internally, is
being likened to Lyndon Johnson's "favours file", but Republicans are
seizing on it as further evidence of privacy violation.
Congressman John Boehner challenged the White House
yesterday, saying that if the information were so innocuous there was no
harm in releasing it. "Many of us are concerned that this looks like an
enemies' list that's being created at the White House." Susan Molinari,
another Republican, said: "Every day there are new revelations coming from
this White House in terms of the way they used their power."
People whose files turned up in the White House
vault are now surfacing on TV chat shows.
It has also emerged that the number of FBI files at
the White House was 700, not 408 as the administration first stated. In
addition, Anthony Marceca, a Pentagon aide who worked on them, routinely
took home information from the FBI papers, storing it on computer discs.
Craig Livingstone, the Democratic political
operative in charge of the documents, who has been forced to quit his White
House job, has had details of his FBI check disclosed in Congress. It turns
out that he lied about his academic record and admitted using various drugs
"up until about 1985".
People whose files turned up in the White House
vault are now surfacing on TV chat shows, all livid and most doubting the
official explanation that it was an honest mistake by low-level aides. Mary
Carroll said that among questions asked of her by the FBI was if she had
"cheated" on her husband.
Linda Chavez, director of the US Commission on Civil
Rights in the Reagan administration, said her file, obtained under the
Freedom of Information law, included a lie that she had been fired, together
with information that her father had been arrested for a violent crime. Her
initial shock turned to rage when she realised that the date of the arrest
was after he had died. The FBI had mixed him up with a man of the same name.
Docky Wocky
pelmark brings up the following:
. . . . "At issue is the White House handling - or mishandling, as most
bipartisan observers agree - of hundreds of confidential and raw
background reports prepared by FBI agents on former Bush and Reagan
officials, including such notables as Tony Blankley, press secretary to
House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and James Baker, a former secretary of
State and Treasury as well as a White House chief of staff"...
Anybody notice the possible connection of these reviews with muzzling of
Newtie, and lack of output from Blankley and Baker?
Scott Eckelman
pelmark wrote in article <60a4se$b...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>In article <608q2h$q...@news2.zippo.com>, dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil
>Marlowe) wrote:
>
>>My personal opinion? They had an incorrect list(s) and got them by
>>mistake.
>
>A former White House security official on June 19 disputed Clinton
>administration claims that she left behind an official list for FBI
>background checks containing names of more than 400 Republican officials
who
>worked for Presidents Reagan and Bush.
>
>Nancy Gemmell, who worked for six presidents before being replaced by D.
>Craig Livingstone as White House director of personnel security in August
>1993, told a House panel that a Secret Service list she left her successors
>had only names of "current pass-holders."
>
>"I did not know that another list existed," Mrs. Gemmell told the House
>Government Reform and Oversight Committee, which is investigating the
>matter. "The list was supposed to be active [White House employees] only."
>
>Mrs. Gemmell testified that the list was "in the vault" of her office when
>she left the White House Aug. 13, before Anthony Marceca, an Army civilian
>employee and Democratic operative, joined the office to help Mr.
>Livingstone.
>
>"We don't know how the list was generated, and that's what they [the FBI]
>are investigating," Mark Fabiani, special White House counsel, said after
>hearing of Mrs. Gemmell's testimony.
This is the absolute crux of Filegate - the List. Everything else
about this mess is completely believable to me as a monumental
bureaucratic screw-up. The Secret Service says it absolutely,
positively, could not generate the list of names that Marceca
requested from the FBI.
They normally produced two standard lists - one, the list of all
passholders for the past eight years, both active and inactive.
That list contained about 24,000 names and could not, by
itself, have been the list Marceca was working from - thousands
of names were skipped, and Marceca's testimony was that
he just went down the list and made a folder and filled out
a request for each name on his list.
The other list was the list of currently active passholders.
While it had many names of supposedly active passholders
who in fact were not, there were at least many who had been
removed from active status well before Jan 20, 1993 when
Clinton took office and others (supposedly) who were never
in the Secret Service's EPASS system from which the list
was generated and theoretically could not possibly have been
on the currently active list. (I wish someone could post a verifiable
reference for that EPASS claim, by the way).
Part of the problem I have with the theory that the Secret
Service could not have produced such a list, though, is
Nancy Gemmel. She had worked in the office since the
Nixon administration, and had been through the change
of administration for Carter, Reagan, Bush, and now
Clinton. According to Lisa Wetzl's testimony, Nancy Gemmel
started the Update Project by obtaining the list from the Secret
Service, and according to Nancy's testimony, she had to go
down to the SS office to pick it up - they didn't deliver it.
Wetzl also testified that when she took over the project
after Marceca left, in the vault were two piles of files - one
that Nancy had started on, and the other that Marceca had
continued with. She said that _both_ piles had outdated
names in them, and she ended up throwing away the
files that Nancy Gemmel had created because they were
so messed up. Here is what she testified:
"Nancy's materials were in the vault and they consisted of a Secret Service
list and hundreds of completed one page FBI request forms with Bernard
Nussbaum's name on it. These forms were stacked in alphabetical order. When
I looked at the Secret Service list she had left I knew immediately that it
was out of date. It was extremely long and appeared to contain hundreds of
names from past administrations. These names were listed in alphabetical
order. I do not recall if it had any indication of whether an employee was
active or inactive. Although I could not be certain, it looked to me as if
Nancy had attempted to complete an FBI request form for each name on the
Secret Service list. I determined that these forms and the list had so many
out of date names that they would be more work to sort through than to start
over from scratch. Therefore, I threw away this list and the forms."
So how did Nancy Gemmel, a veteran of at least 3 administration
turn-overs and the primary keeper of the files for 20 years screw up
so badly that her entire work had to be thrown away? She was the
most credible witness, IMO - didn't she recognize any of the names
on the list were wrong?
Either the SS provided a bad list and Nancy Gemmel didn't know
it - after all, she was probably familiar with the names on it after
20 years and might not know without calling their department
that they no longer worked at the White House, or the pile that Lisa
Wetzl assumed had been created by Nancy Gemmel had really
been created by Tony Marceca from his own forged list, or Lisa
Wetzl is lying (or has a very bad memory). I don't see any other
possibilities.
It's interesting to note also that the 6 month gap in the sign-out log
was from March to September - the period in which Lisa Wetzl
was working on the Update Project. Is she the evil genius
behind it all, or was it really just a huge clusterfuck?
At this point, I'd like to see some computer professionals audit
the Secret Service's databases and procedures to see if there
is any possibility of a bad list, rather than just taking their word for
it. Everything else about Filegate fits together as a screw-up,
Scott E.
<other stuff deleted>