Portrait of a smear
wayne mann
WT
http://www.WashTimes.com/opinion/ed1.html
"If I catch anyone using the State Department like that when I'm
president, I'll fire them [sic] the next day."
So said Bill Clinton on learning that the Bush State Department
had investigated his passport files. He sounded sincere, as Mr.
Clinton often does, but in retrospect his more careful students
would note the omission of any reference to other agencies. One
cannot simply assume that the president's concern for privacy
applies to them too.
Linda Tripp has found that out the hard way. In 1998, the
Department of Defense leaked her confidential personnel files to a
writer for the New Yorker who was out to do a hit piece on her.
The article, which appeared under the title "Portrait of a
Whistleblower," was part of a broad administration counterattack
on those, like Mrs. Tripp, who reported that the president had
been enjoying the services of an intern named Monica Lewinsky
that weren't in her job description.
The story alleged, among other things, that Mrs. Tripp had
neglected to report that decades before she had once been
arrested; she "lied" in filling out a personnel form in which she
denied it. The White House then used the article to discredit her
accounts of the president's dating habits. It turned out that the
arrest had resulted from a prank gone awry. But Mrs. Tripp's
reputation had been tarnished just the same.
So what was the Pentagon doing releasing her confidential files in
the first place? Defense Secretary William Cohen himself said the
files "are supposed to be protected by the privacy rules." DOD's
inspector general announced it would investigate the files' release,
but 18 months later the probe still isn't done.
Hoping to get justice in her own lifetime, Mrs. Tripp has now filed
suit against the office of the president, DOD, Pentagon spokesman
Kenneth Bacon, Pentagon employee Clifford Bernath and
unnamed others, charging both that they violated her right to
privacy and her civil rights, which prohibit intimidation and
retaliation against any witness in a federal court proceeding, as
Mrs. Tripp was.
According to the suit, the smear campaign began almost
immediately after her name surfaced as a witness in court
proceedings involving the president. In early 1998, the New
Yorker's designated hit-person, Jane Mayer, met with former
White House official Harold Ickes to discuss Mrs. Tripp and the
impending article. Not long afterward, Mr. Ickes just happened to
have dinner with Mr. Bacon and just happened to discuss Mrs.
Tripp. In March, Ms. Mayer called Mr. Bacon, a former colleague
at the Wall Street Journal, to inquire about exactly what Mrs.
Tripp's files said about her arrest records.
Mr. Bacon pondered the propriety and legality of releasing files
protected by privacy rules, then sent Mr. Bernath out to release the
files as a "priority." After the damage had been done, he
apologized for making them public, saying he should have checked
with Pentagon lawyers first.
Why apologize? Mr. Cohen obviously doesn't care because Mr.
Bacon is still at the Pentagon. Mr. Clinton certainly doesn't care. If
a federal judge hearing this suit doesn't care, Mr. Bacon will get
off unscathed. And if Mrs. Tripp's privacy was violated, one must
weigh the offsetting considerations: For a man with Mr. Bacon's
record, there has to be a place in a future Gore administration.
\\/ayne //\ann
10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Dr Kamikaz
Portrait of a smear
http://www.washtimes.com/opinion/ed1.html
God bless America
Dr Kamikaze
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism."
-- Sir William Osler
"If Darwinism is true, may we hope that liberals will someday evolve into a
higher life form?" Joe Sobran
laug...@powerfart.com
>Linda Tripp has found that out the hard way. In 1998, the
>Department of Defense leaked her confidential personnel files to a
>writer for the New Yorker who was out to do a hit piece on her.
Which was deserved.
Tripp attempted to turn a political smear into a moneymaking venture,
got her ugly ass burned. The ONLY thing wrong is that the butt ugly
Lucianne Goldberg wasn't found culpable for aiding and abetting in a
conspiracy.
Whatever happens to Tripp, is deserved, and certainly will NEVER come
close to being what she should get.
Reverend Mahatma Kane Jeeves
>From: laug...@powerfart.com
>Date: Tue, 05 October 1999 12:48 PM EDT
>Message-id: <37fa2af3...@news.idt.net>
>
>t...@callamerica.net (wayne mann) wrote:
>
>
>>Linda Tripp has found that out the hard way. In 1998, the
>>Department of Defense leaked her confidential personnel files to a
>>writer for the New Yorker who was out to do a hit piece on her.
>
>Which was deserved.
>
You've heard of the expression: Two wrongs dont make a right? Well, in this
case, doing whats right doesnt make a wrong.
>Tripp attempted to turn a political smear into a moneymaking venture,
>got her ugly ass burned. The ONLY thing wrong is that the butt ugly
>Lucianne Goldberg wasn't found culpable for aiding and abetting in a
>conspiracy.
>
>Whatever happens to Tripp, is deserved, and certainly will NEVER come
>close to being what she should get.
>
>
Heading our way towards the Rosell compound.....
----------------------------------------------------
"Is this a game of chance?"
"Not the way I play it, no."