Louisiana Senate Race: Right Wing can't face reality
rtra...@uwyo.edu
Right wingers just can't seem to help being sore losers. Came across
the following flipping through a Time magazine from June 16th.
From Louisiana comes news of a typical right wing sore loser's ploy:
Contest the election, whine fraud, etc.
Woody Jenkins, who lost a senate race to Mary Landrieu, is using this
ploy. Seems Jenkins hired a criminal, Thomas Miller, to go through
parts of New Orleans to look for "witnesses" to voter fraud on Landrieu's
part.
The FBI interviewed six of these "witnesses". Three said they were given
money by Miller in exchange for lying about voting multiple times for
Landrieu. The other "witnesses" were deemed unreliable (one said she
was so high on cocaine on election day that she could barely walk).
Miller denies everything. Jenkin's lawyer says Jenkins was unaware of
Miller's criminal past - which included such things as a conviction
of manslaughter and attempted murder.
RT
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
kelso
rtra...@uwyo.edu wrote:
Pat sez:
What's your problem with democracy? The man with the most votes wins,
etc?
Matthew Lybanon
kelso wrote:
>
> rtra...@uwyo.edu wrote:
>
...
> >
> > From Louisiana comes news of a typical right wing sore loser's ploy:
> > Contest the election, whine fraud, etc.
> >
>
> Pat sez:
>
> What's your problem with democracy? The man with the most votes wins,
> etc?
Woody Jenkins is the one who has the problem with democracy. The
"man" with the most votes was a woman, Mary Landrieu, and Woody just
can't stand it. He claimed to have "proof" of voter fraud, but
instead of taking the case to court, the right place for it, he chose
to take it to the Senate, which is controlled by his own party. (Mary
Landrieu was already seated, so his argument that a court case would
take too long doesn't hold water.) The Senate has investigated and
investigated, but has not found sufficient (or any) evidence to
substantiate Woody's claims. Woody keeps coming up with "shocking
revelations" at critical moments, which is probably why the people in
the Senate with more sense didn't kill the investigation a long time
ago.
I wonder what fun stuff Woody will come up with next? Maybe Mary used
voodoo against him. She is from New Orleans.
JORDAN_ELECTRON
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------1AE375FF3FC3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Paula Jones would find a fabulous staff position with
Alexander Randall, Governor of Wisconsin in 1860.
--------------1AE375FF3FC3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="SEC1.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="SEC1.txt"
Wisconsin Secession Threat 1860.
by (C)1997, Prodigy, Emmett Michael Jordan.
March 3, 1860:"Resolved By the Assembly, the Senate
concurring, that the Governor be, and he is hereby
directed to declare war against the United States,
and that Brigadier General S W Smith is hereby
appointed Commander-in-chief of all the armies of
this State .....for the purpose of putting the
army on war footing". The Governor approved the
majority report of this item of the general
committee of resolutions, and promptly had his
secret service quiz his State militia commanders,
for their support. Captain Barry thought Governor
Randall was treasonous, so Randall ordered the
Milwaukee Union Guard disbanded, even though the
Wisconsin legislature struck this resolution 50-30,
and the assembly speaker ruled it unconstitutional.
Radical Republican Alexander Randall, Governor of
Wisconsin, directed this secession resolution against
the Democratic Administration of President James
Buchanan. Captain Garret Barry, a Westpoint military
instructor, a veteran of the Florida and Mexican wars,
and commander of the Milwaukee Union Guard, opposed
the Governor, but turned in his State weapons to the
Milwaukee Light Guard, as ordered. He then rapidly
obtained new weapons from the federal government,
via Democratic Congressman Larrabee. He was from a
Spanish military family, his father being named Don
Roberto de Barry, and a relative of the noted
Commodore John Barry. While he was in Florida, 1840,
another Spaniard, Don Philippe, introduced the first
grapefruit, as Seminoles and fugitive black slaves
were virtually exterminated, even though Spain had
ceded Florida to the USA in 1821. During the Mexican
war Barry fought against Santa Anna's Saint Patrick's
Irish battalion. He regarded Radical Republicans as
traitors, like those Irishmen. In Milwaukee, his
Guards were mainly Democratic Irish, whose Church
was quite friendly toward Mexico. Barry himself was
a Federalist. Randall suddenly, and then increasingly,
lost popularity and could not run for re-election. The
actual resolution was introduced in the Wisconsin
legislature by Assemblyman Ben Hunkins of Waukesha
County, a place noted for being on the "underground
railroad" for fugitive slaves. All the Milwaukee
militias had remained neutral in local fugitive slave
incidents involving US Marshals, including those of
fiery Abolitionist Sherman Booth, who was pardoned by
Buchanan, despite organizing a jailbreak and escape to
Canada via ship. There are some related articles
describing this and other possible motives for the
subsequent ramming of the USM Lady Elgin and the
deaths of many Milwaukee area Democrats and members of
the Milwaukee militias. Can anyone figure out why
Captain Darius Nelson Malott rammed the USM Lady Elgin
on September 8, 1860 in a suspected terrorist act? When
the Civil War broke out, most Catholic, Lutheran, Mason,
French, German, Irish, and Belgian militiamen refused
to obey any orders from Randall and disbanded, refusing
to serve or even donate weapons in a Republican cause,
some blaming Randall for the USM Lady Elgin disaster.
As time went on major riots were organized by the same
Democratic peoples: anti-Lincoln, anti-war, etc.
See <http://pages.prodigy.com/WPCC88A>. EMJ 3/16/97.
<http://www.freeyellow.com/members/jordan-electron>
--------------1AE375FF3FC3--
John Logajan
rtra...@uwyo.edu wrote:
> The Jones' didn't pay all their October rent, skipped the November
> payment entirely, then told Ferraro they were breaking the lease and
> moving.
If this is all the dirt you can find on Paula Jones, my advice to Clinton
would be to settle quick.
--
- John Logajan -- jlog...@skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 -
- 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
- WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan -
rtra...@uwyo.edu
Well, the judge has set a trial date. But there is less and less to have
a trial over as time goes by. The judge has dismissed the allegation
that Jones had been defamed by Clinton and dismissed the claim that
Jones had been denied due process.
She can still pursue claims of emotional distress and outrage and the
central charge of sexual harassment. But with only ONE alleged incident,
harassment can hardly be demonstrated. And with no harassment, or
retribution, there ain't a lot of distress or outrage left to show.
There's so little at hand the judge estimates no more than 5 or 6 days
should be necessary for the actual trial.
Now in a new development a former landlord of Jones, Carrie Ferraro,
has come forward and is working with Clinton's lawyers, as reported in
the 8/25 issue of Time.
Seems Ol Paula and her hubbie were rent skippers.
Ferraro rented to the Jones in MAY 1993, and states that the Jones'
were always complaining of being broke and were often late with $900
monthly rent. Further, Paula often asked to borrow money.
Not once did Jones mention meeting Clinton or being harassed by him.
The Jones' didn't pay all their October rent, skipped the November
payment entirely, then told Ferraro they were breaking the lease and
moving.
Guess what? Two and a half months later Jones started her claim that
she was harassed by Clinton.
Is it any wonder Jones' own family called her a gold digger?
RT
The power of the Force stopped you, you hosers. - Doug McKenzie
hans...@jps.net
In article <5tr55u$k72$1...@shadow.skypoint.net>,
John Logajan <jlog...@mirage.skypoint.com> wrote:
>
> rtra...@uwyo.edu wrote:
> > The Jones' didn't pay all their October rent, skipped the November
> > payment entirely, then told Ferraro they were breaking the lease and
> > moving.
>
> would be to settle quick.
>
> --
> - John Logajan -- jlog...@skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 -
> - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
> - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan -
It's not dirt - it just corroborates what Paula's relatives say - that
she's in it for the money. Flat broke? Sue the Pres - he'll pay to avoid
embarrassment, etc. - get it now?
David Hart
F. Prefect wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 15:28:34 GMT, do...@send.me.shit (Dwarftosser)
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 14:21:58 GMT, ga...@dialnet.nett (Ford) wrote:
> >
> >>On 25 Aug 1997 05:28:30 GMT, John Logajan
> >><jlog...@mirage.skypoint.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>rtra...@uwyo.edu wrote:
> >>>> The Jones' didn't pay all their October rent, skipped the November
> >>>> payment entirely, then told Ferraro they were breaking the lease and
> >>>> moving.
> >>>
> >>>If this is all the dirt you can find on Paula Jones, my advice to Clinton
> >>>would be to settle quick.
> >>
> >>
> >>Ford
> >
> > So what's all this guff about trailer parks and smelling money and
> >why has Carville been running around like a fucking lunatic impugning
> >Jones' character?
> >
> > If your boy is so fucking anxious to have a go at the trailer trash,
> >why has he ducked it for four years?
>
> If we allow anyone who has had contact in the past with a President in
> office to file a civil case while the President is in office we are
> setting a very dangerous precedent. A sitting President could spend
> his entire time in office either in court or giving depositions.
> Non-criminal charges leveled against a President while in office can
> wait until he is out of office.
>
> F. Prefect
Justice delayed is justice denied.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To reply by E-mail, please remove "ignore" from the above address.
We regret this inconvenience, but find it necessary to foil spambots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
John Logajan
Steve <st...@chouse.com> wrote:
> Isn't Paula Jones the
> ugliest f*cking b*tch you've ever seen? Maybe Rush would want to f*ck
> her. But I couldn't imagine Clinton wanting to f*ck her. She's too
> d*mn nasty.
Spoken like a true liberal.
RHA
In article <5tstjb$9t6$1...@blaze.accessone.com>,
Michael Rivero <riv...@accessone.com> wrote:
> In article <3404e4d8...@news.dialnet.net>,
> F. Prefect <ga...@dialnet.nett> wrote:
> >
> >If we allow anyone who has had contact in the past with a President in
> >office to file a civil case while the President is in office we are
> >setting a very dangerous precedent. A sitting President could spend
> >his entire time in office either in court or giving depositions.
> >Non-criminal charges leveled against a President while in office can
> >wait until he is out of office.
>
>gets taken to sourt for.
>
> Our President should be above suspicion, not above the law.
Like "Tricky" Dick and his financial shenanigans during the
Eisenhower administration, Ronald Reagan and the accusation
of (date) rape, republi-conmen candidate Robert Dole and his
financial ties to Dwayne Andreas.
--
rha
Steve
On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 00:11:06 -0600, rtra...@uwyo.edu wrote:
>Well, the judge has set a trial date. But there is less and less to have
>a trial over as time goes by. The judge has dismissed the allegation
>that Jones had been defamed by Clinton and dismissed the claim that
>Jones had been denied due process.
>
>She can still pursue claims of emotional distress and outrage and the
>central charge of sexual harassment. But with only ONE alleged incident,
>harassment can hardly be demonstrated. And with no harassment, or
>retribution, there ain't a lot of distress or outrage left to show.
>
>There's so little at hand the judge estimates no more than 5 or 6 days
>should be necessary for the actual trial.
>
>Now in a new development a former landlord of Jones, Carrie Ferraro,
>has come forward and is working with Clinton's lawyers, as reported in
>the 8/25 issue of Time.
>
>Seems Ol Paula and her hubbie were rent skippers.
>
>Ferraro rented to the Jones in MAY 1993, and states that the Jones'
>were always complaining of being broke and were often late with $900
>monthly rent. Further, Paula often asked to borrow money.
>
>Not once did Jones mention meeting Clinton or being harassed by him.
>
>The Jones' didn't pay all their October rent, skipped the November
>payment entirely, then told Ferraro they were breaking the lease and
>moving.
>
>Guess what? Two and a half months later Jones started her claim that
>she was harassed by Clinton.
>
>Is it any wonder Jones' own family called her a gold digger?
>
>RT
>The power of the Force stopped you, you hosers. - Doug McKenzie
>
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
I always knew this was a political witchhunt. Isn't Paula Jones the
ugliest fucking bitch you've ever seen? Maybe Rush would want to fuck
her. But I couldn't imagine Clinton wanting to fuck her. She's too
damn nasty.
Ebenezer Hobb
On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 15:28:34 GMT, do...@send.me.shit (Dwarftosser)
wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 14:21:58 GMT, ga...@dialnet.nett (Ford) wrote:
>
>>On 25 Aug 1997 05:28:30 GMT, John Logajan
>><jlog...@mirage.skypoint.com> wrote:
>>
>>>rtra...@uwyo.edu wrote:
>>>> The Jones' didn't pay all their October rent, skipped the November
>>>> payment entirely, then told Ferraro they were breaking the lease and
>>>> moving.
>>>
>>>If this is all the dirt you can find on Paula Jones, my advice to Clinton
>>>would be to settle quick.
>>
>>Who needs dirt, the plaintiff has the burden of proof.
>>
>>Ford
>
> So what's all this guff about trailer parks and smelling money and
>why has Carville been running around like a fucking lunatic impugning
>Jones' character?
>
Too bad.
The judge has dismissed the charges of defamation.
Carry on, whining.
> If your boy is so fucking anxious to have a go at the trailer trash,
>why has he ducked it for four years?
>
Seems the judge also dismissed the charge that Paula "Show Me The
Money" Jones didn't get due process.
Bad day in Conspiracy-ville, huh?
EH
================================================================================================================================================
Conservatives don't have ideas; they have "irritable mental gestures."
Michael Zarlenga
: >Now in a new development a former landlord of Jones, Carrie Ferraro,
: >has come forward and is working with Clinton's lawyers, as reported in
: >the 8/25 issue of Time.
: >
: >Seems Ol Paula and her hubbie were rent skippers.
Amazing.
For years N.O.W. has been BLASTING people who use this kind
of unethical strategy to attack women who file sexual harass-
ment complaints, but, in 1997, it's the way the left's heroes,
like Clinton and Carville, operate when it comes to women who
file complaints.
Keep in mind that the left did the same thing to Genifer
Flowers.
Strangely, N.O.W. utters nary a peep when Carville pulls
this kind of crap on Larry King Live.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
"Ya know what FORD stands for, Hank? Fix it again, Tony."
"No, Dale, that's FIAT."
"Hmmmm ... Fix ... It ... Again ... Tony ..."
Michael Rivero
In article <3404e4d8...@news.dialnet.net>,
F. Prefect <ga...@dialnet.nett> wrote:
>
>If we allow anyone who has had contact in the past with a President in
>office to file a civil case while the President is in office we are
>setting a very dangerous precedent. A sitting President could spend
>his entire time in office either in court or giving depositions.
>Non-criminal charges leveled against a President while in office can
>wait until he is out of office.
Maybe we need to have candidates who don't do the sort of things one
gets taken to sourt for.
Our President should be above suspicion, not above the law.
--
RANCHO RUNNAMUKKA | Special Effects / Documentary Films
Mike & Claire - The Rancho Runnamukka http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/
RYDER TRUCK AT ARMY BASE 4/95 http://members.aol.com/bardsquill/truck.htm
Stilt Man
> F. Prefect <ga...@dialnet.nett> wrote:
> >If we allow anyone who has had contact in the past with a President in
> >office to file a civil case while the President is in office we are
> >setting a very dangerous precedent. A sitting President could spend
> >his entire time in office either in court or giving depositions.
> >Non-criminal charges leveled against a President while in office can
> >wait until he is out of office.
> Maybe we need to have candidates who don't do the sort of things one
>gets taken to sourt for.
The trouble is, as many on the right wing are always fond of pointing
out when it's not President Clinton on the business end of it, you don't
necessarily need the defendant to actually *do* anything to take them
to court. You can sue them for anything you want. The only thing about
Paula Jones' case that she has solid witnesses to back up is that she met
then-Governor Clinton in a hotel room. Heck, most any female who's
ever met Clinton, who can get witnesses to verify that she was alone
with him, could force him into a "her word against his" matchup, just as
Jones is doing now. The people who support the guy will generally think
she's full of bull, and the people who oppose him will start donating
money hand over fist for her legal fees, all completely regardless of any
merit or lack thereof to her case.
The Republican Party tried to win the White House last fall by slamming
trial lawyers, by pointing out that they don't typically have the ethics
to wait until they've got a real problem to solve and will often prefer
to create their own problems. Do you believe that, Mr. Rivero, and if so,
why is that suddenly and conveniently placed in a drawer now that it's
a guy you don't like on the business end of it?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The Stilt Man stiltman@(remove this)teleport.com
http://www.teleport(remove this too).com/~stiltman/stiltman.html
< We are Microsoft Borg '97. Lower your expectations and surrender >
< your money. Antitrust law is irrelevant. Competition is >
< irrelevant. We will add your financial and technological >
< distinctiveness to our own. Your bank account will adapt to >
< service ours. Resistance is futile. >
F. Prefect
On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 15:50:04 -0400, David Hart
<d.h...@ignore.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> If we allow anyone who has had contact in the past with a President in
>> office to file a civil case while the President is in office we are
>> setting a very dangerous precedent. A sitting President could spend
>> his entire time in office either in court or giving depositions.
>> Non-criminal charges leveled against a President while in office can
>> wait until he is out of office.
>>
>
>Justice delayed is justice denied.
Very true, but in cases of this sort, very impractical.
F. Prefect
On 25 Aug 1997 14:31:23 -0700, riv...@accessone.com (Michael Rivero)
wrote:
> In article <3404e4d8...@news.dialnet.net>,
> F. Prefect <ga...@dialnet.nett> wrote:
> >
> >If we allow anyone who has had contact in the past with a President in
> >office to file a civil case while the President is in office we are
> >setting a very dangerous precedent. A sitting President could spend
> >his entire time in office either in court or giving depositions.
> >Non-criminal charges leveled against a President while in office can
> >wait until he is out of office.
>
> Maybe we need to have candidates who don't do the sort of things one
>gets taken to sourt for.
>
> Our President should be above suspicion, not above the law.
>
>
>
He's not above the law, but in nuisance cases, as this one very well
may be, justice can be delayed until the president is out of office
and the plaintiff has time to make megabucks writing a best seller and
hitting the talk show circuit. Allow a sitting president to be
exposed to cases such as this would simply expose future presidents to
be harnessed at will.
F. Prefect
Docky Wocky
Maybe thats the idea...if you're a sleaze-ball, don't run for public
office.
Ought to be some kind of report card clearing these "servants of the
people" before they get to fill out the election papers. Sure, for the
first year or so, nobody would bother running for elective offices, but
sooner or later somebody would qualify...
Charlie Ambrosi
In article <5tssaq$7pv$2...@gte1.gte.net>, st...@chouse.com (Steve) wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 00:11:06 -0600, rtra...@uwyo.edu wrote:
>
>>Well, the judge has set a trial date. But there is less and less to have
>>a trial over as time goes by. The judge has dismissed the allegation
>>that Jones had been defamed by Clinton and dismissed the claim that
>>Jones had been denied due process.
>>
>>She can still pursue claims of emotional distress and outrage and the
>>central charge of sexual harassment. But with only ONE alleged incident,
>>harassment can hardly be demonstrated. And with no harassment, or
>>retribution, there ain't a lot of distress or outrage left to show.
>>
>>There's so little at hand the judge estimates no more than 5 or 6 days
>>should be necessary for the actual trial.
>>
>>has come forward and is working with Clinton's lawyers, as reported in
>>the 8/25 issue of Time.
>>
>>Seems Ol Paula and her hubbie were rent skippers.
>>
>>were always complaining of being broke and were often late with $900
>>monthly rent. Further, Paula often asked to borrow money.
>>
>>Not once did Jones mention meeting Clinton or being harassed by him.
>>
>>payment entirely, then told Ferraro they were breaking the lease and
>>moving.
>>
>>she was harassed by Clinton.
>>
>>Is it any wonder Jones' own family called her a gold digger?
>>
>>RT
>>The power of the Force stopped you, you hosers. - Doug McKenzie
>>
>>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
>> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
>
>I always knew this was a political witchhunt. Isn't Paula Jones the
>ugliest fucking bitch you've ever seen? Maybe Rush would want to fuck
>her. But I couldn't imagine Clinton wanting to fuck her. She's too
>damn nasty.
>
I can see that the best part of YOU ran down your mommy's LEG!!
That's ok though. They have plenty of Kleenex at Mustang Ranch I'm told.
*PLONK*
*********
And for you automated email spammers out there,
here's the email addresses of the current board of
the Federal Communications Commission:
Chairman Reed Hundt: rhu...@fcc.gov
Commissioner James Quello: jqu...@fcc.gov
Commissioner Susan Ness: sn...@fcc.gov
Commissioner Rachelle Chong: rch...@fcc.gov
And let's help you send some spam to the US Postal Service, too:
cust...@email.usps.gov
--
AVE ATQVE VALE
CENTVRIO
(E-mail address modified to foil spambots.
Remove the extra "home" for the true address!)
Michael Rivero
In article <5tsv56$j...@praline.no.neosoft.com>,
>> In article <3404e4d8...@news.dialnet.net>,
>> F. Prefect <ga...@dialnet.nett> wrote:
>> >
>> >If we allow anyone who has had contact in the past with a President in
>> >office to file a civil case while the President is in office we are
>> >setting a very dangerous precedent. A sitting President could spend
>> >his entire time in office either in court or giving depositions.
>> >Non-criminal charges leveled against a President while in office can
>> >wait until he is out of office.
>>
>> Maybe we need to have candidates who don't do the sort of things one
>>gets taken to sourt for.
>>
>> Our President should be above suspicion, not above the law.
>
> Eisenhower administration, Ronald Reagan and the accusation
> of (date) rape, republi-conmen candidate Robert Dole and his
> financial ties to Dwayne Andreas.
>--
>rha
again!
Charlie Ambrosi
In article <3401f7ac...@news.clark.net>,
EH...@clark.net (Ebenezer Hobb) wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 15:28:34 GMT, do...@send.me.shit (Dwarftosser)
>
>>On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 14:21:58 GMT, ga...@dialnet.nett (Ford) wrote:
>>
>>>On 25 Aug 1997 05:28:30 GMT, John Logajan
>>><jlog...@mirage.skypoint.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>rtra...@uwyo.edu wrote:
>>>>> payment entirely, then told Ferraro they were breaking the lease and
>>>>> moving.
>>>>
>>>>would be to settle quick.
>>>
>>>Who needs dirt, the plaintiff has the burden of proof.
>>>
>>>Ford
>>
>> So what's all this guff about trailer parks and smelling money and
>>why has Carville been running around like a fucking lunatic impugning
>>Jones' character?
>>
>Too bad.
>
>The judge has dismissed the charges of defamation.
>
>Carry on, whining.
She DIDN'T dismiss the defamation charge against the State Trooper!
Hey MAY decide he wants to DEAL rather than pay her every cent he makes for
the rest of his life. YOU do the whining!
>
>
>> If your boy is so fucking anxious to have a go at the trailer trash,
>>why has he ducked it for four years?
>>
>
>Seems the judge also dismissed the charge that Paula "Show Me The
>Money" Jones didn't get due process.
>
>Bad day in Conspiracy-ville, huh?
>
BIG DEAL!!! Didn't look like your butt-buddy Uncle Bob Bennett,
Slick's Liar-in-Chief, was ANY too happy! Even your liberal media was
portraying it as a BLACK DAY for Slick Willy and his hyperactive sex drive!
Martin McPhillips
On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 22:08:38 GMT, ga...@dialnet.nett (F. Prefect) wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 15:50:04 -0400, David Hart
><d.h...@ignore.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> If we allow anyone who has had contact in the past with a President in
>>> office to file a civil case while the President is in office we are
>>> setting a very dangerous precedent. A sitting President could spend
>>> his entire time in office either in court or giving depositions.
>>> Non-criminal charges leveled against a President while in office can
>>> wait until he is out of office.
>>>
>>> F. Prefect
>>
>>Justice delayed is justice denied.
>
>Very true, but in cases of this sort, very impractical.
Impractical for who?
Reynmeistr
>Too bad.
>
>The judge has dismissed the charges of defamation.
>
>Carry on, whining.
>
>
>>why has he ducked it for four years?
>>
>
>Seems the judge also dismissed the charge that Paula "Show Me The
>Money" Jones didn't get due process.
>
>Bad day in Conspiracy-ville, huh?
>
Gawd Ebenezer can be ludicrous in these situations. You can't perceive
how badly outflanked you've become? No man is an island. But Ebenezer is
clearly a peninsula taking some heavy surf.
UltraZ
reynm...@aol.com (Reynmeistr) wrote:
As long as sneezer has Justice Brennans profile tatooed on his ass he
thinks its his badge of courage to say anything.
UltraZ
Tom Speer
F. Prefect <ga...@dialnet.nett> wrote in article
<340602a9...@news.dialnet.net>...
> On 25 Aug 1997 14:31:23 -0700, riv...@accessone.com (Michael Rivero)
> wrote:
>
> > In article <3404e4d8...@news.dialnet.net>,
> > F. Prefect <ga...@dialnet.nett> wrote:
> > >
> > >If we allow anyone who has had contact in the past with a President in
> > >office to file a civil case while the President is in office we are
> > >setting a very dangerous precedent. A sitting President could spend
> > >his entire time in office either in court or giving depositions.
> > >Non-criminal charges leveled against a President while in office can
> > >wait until he is out of office.
> >
> > Maybe we need to have candidates who don't do the sort of things one
> >gets taken to sourt for.
> >
> > Our President should be above suspicion, not above the law.
> >
> >
> >
> He's not above the law, but in nuisance cases, as this one very well
> may be, justice can be delayed until the president is out of office
> and the plaintiff has time to make megabucks writing a best seller and
> hitting the talk show circuit. Allow a sitting president to be
> exposed to cases such as this would simply expose future presidents to
> be harnessed at will.
>
> F. Prefect
>
I say harness em.
M Soja
On 25 Aug 1997 16:57:58 -0500, ri...@praline.no.neosoft.com (RHA)
posted:
> Like "Tricky" Dick and his financial shenanigans during the
> Eisenhower administration, Ronald Reagan and the accusation
> of (date) rape, republi-conmen candidate Robert Dole and his
> financial ties to Dwayne Andreas.
When are you going to draw the line? You going to settle for
mediocrity and criminality all your life?
//////////////////////
"Kiss it."
- Bill Clinton
hans...@jps.net
In article <340a355d...@news.javanet.com>,
If every single person is said to be rotten there are two possibilities:
1. They're all rotten or
2. People say a lot of untrue rotten things about them.
Were Jesus President there would be ngs bashing him, too. The cynics are
often fools.
RH
Dwarftosser
On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 22:14:07 GMT, ga...@dialnet.nett (F. Prefect)
wrote:
>On 25 Aug 1997 14:31:23 -0700, riv...@accessone.com (Michael Rivero)
>wrote:
>
>> In article <3404e4d8...@news.dialnet.net>,
>> F. Prefect <ga...@dialnet.nett> wrote:
>> >
>> >If we allow anyone who has had contact in the past with a President in
>> >office to file a civil case while the President is in office we are
>> >setting a very dangerous precedent. A sitting President could spend
>> >his entire time in office either in court or giving depositions.
>> >Non-criminal charges leveled against a President while in office can
>> >wait until he is out of office.
>>
>> Maybe we need to have candidates who don't do the sort of things one
>>gets taken to sourt for.
>>
>> Our President should be above suspicion, not above the law.
>>
>>
>>
>He's not above the law, but in nuisance cases, as this one very well
>may be,
Because this president is a democrat?
I thought sexual harrassment was everywhere.
So shall you reap.........
--
Dwarftosser
Michael Rivero
In article <01bcb1a6$9e583680$7e294dc6@doc>,
Docky Wocky <mrc...@1st.net> wrote:
>Maybe thats the idea...if you're a sleaze-ball, don't run for public
>office.
>
>Ought to be some kind of report card clearing these "servants of the
>people" before they get to fill out the election papers.
That was what the media was supposed to be doing, but as we saw with
Bill Clinton, the media actively sheilds the man from his own errors.
Case in point is the CBS "60 Minutes" treatment of Gennifer Flowers, which
despite her having audio tapes that proved her claims, was edited to
discredit her story and help Clinton win in New Hampshire. Executive
Producer Don Hewitt is on video tape bragging about the way they saved
Bill's candidacy.
The biggest lie of all, the biggest scandal, is not Bill's womanizing or
his proven connections to drug money, or even the murder of Vincent
Foster.
The biggest scandal is how, with the exception of a very few courageous
individuals, the mainstream media will not report the stories that
reflect poorly on the government. We get three natural disasters and
a fashion show and are then patted on the head, told we are truly
well informed, then shown the commercial for the politician to next be
voted for.
Thomas Jefferson said it is the duty of all Americans to keep themselves
well informed, so that they could make good decisions. But the media and their
info-monopoly, will spoon feed you ONLY that news which serves their
own interest, sells their own agenda, elects their own candidate. If the
population never sees the bad news, then they are not well informed, and
they cannot make good decisions. They will make the decisions they are steered
towards, all the while thinking they have a free choice.
The media is definatly part of the problem.
kei...@hotmail.com
In article <5u17p8$jkp$1...@blaze.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com says...
>
> On 25 Aug 1997 16:07:11 -0700, N...@unsolicited.email.dammit (Stilt Man)
> wrote:
> >
> >The Republican Party tried to win the White House last fall by slamming
> >trial lawyers, by pointing out that they don't typically have the ethics
> >to wait until they've got a real problem to solve and will often prefer
> >to create their own problems. Do you believe that, Mr. Rivero, and if so,
> >why is that suddenly and conveniently placed in a drawer now that it's
> >a guy you don't like on the business end of it?
>
>Second, I do agree that many lawyers manufacture problems to build business.
>However, that doesn't mean that ALL lawsuits are made up fantasies.
>
> That's WHY we have judges and juries.
>
> Let the trial proceed. If it does turn out that Paula Jones and her attorneys
>made this all up, then Clinton sues them and makes an example of them for
>other lawyers to learn from.
>
In most states, if not all, Clinton would be required to prove her case was
"frivilous." If there is merely a dispute: he said, she said, he has no way to
prove it's frivilous.
Proving a case is frivilous is almost impossible. As a result, it will be
interesting to see if people sue Clinton for publicity. Fortunately, the cost
and integrity of lawyers provides a brake.
keit3h (the 3 is silent)
Reynmeistr
Stilt Man calls us to our senses!!!!!
> Now it's (pick scandal-of-the-week), and
>it's Demos' supporters doing so, and rightly so. Where does it end? What
>happens if something really does go wrong and we ignore it as a partisan
>hackwork?
>
>*That's* what I'm talking about here. No, I don't believe Paula, but that's
>entirely beside the point. Set the damned cynicism aside for a second and
>*think* about it!
Oh me!!! OH MY!!!!! Oh whatever shall we do!!!!!!!!!!!
Look---- there's a PUBIC HAIR on Clarence Thomas's Coke
Can!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bork you, Stilt-Idiot
Reynmeistr
Stilt Man raises the Banner of Justice:
>"Electronic lynching" is not a relevant defense. Wasn't then, isn't now.
>
>Compare all of this to Clinton. He's had a different scandal levelled at
>him practically every other week. Not a one of them has ever come to
>anything,
This, Mr Stilted, is so rich coming just hours before Mike Espy is
indicted on enough counts to leave him in jail til the 22nd Century. Do
YOU think he might just squeal, Stiltoid?
But, Stilt-head, YOUR TACTIX WORKED!!!
You made me forget all about the convictions of Bubba's hand-picked
successor, the sitting Governor, Jim Guy Tuckster.
You made me forget all about Bubba's best friend, felon, fraud and
probable perjurer Web Hubbell.
You made me forget all about Bubba's lynching of Billy Dale.
You made me forget all about Bubba's tax frauds of the mid-80s
You made me forget all about Vince Foster, and "That's Lasater's Deal"
Thank you from the bottom of my addled brain, waddever your name is.
Dwarftosser
On 27 Aug 1997 13:18:04 -0700, N...@unsolicited.email.dammit (Stilt Man)
wrote:
>People are coming to *expect* the political opposition to throw these things
>at a president now. When it was October Surprise, you were screaming
>bloody murder, and rightly so. Now it's (pick scandal-of-the-week), and
>it's Demos' supporters doing so, and rightly so. Where does it end? What
>happens if something really does go wrong and we ignore it as a partisan
>hackwork?
How do you know you aren't already?
Btw:
"Mike Espy, former secretary of agriculture, was indicted
Wednesday on 39 counts...."
" White House Resists Turning Over Some Espy Documents
You gotta love this administration.
Hell....it's all just partisan bullshit, right?
--
Dwarftosser
Stilt Man
In article <34059064...@192.168.2.2>,
Dwarftosser <do...@send.me.shit> wrote:
>On 27 Aug 1997 13:18:04 -0700, N...@unsolicited.email.dammit (Stilt Man)
>wrote:
>>> Ah...so you expect Rivero to bother with explaining the apparent
>>>hypocrisy of demanding tort reform while condoning what you consider
>>>frivolous litigation yet you get all huffy when faced with the
>>>prospect of Carvilleian rants about sluts and trailer parks contrasted
>>>with the NOW gang's insistance that they ALL are telling the truth.
>>> Sorry....but you plainly set the ground rules.
>>"Ground rules" are irrelevant.
> ...when dealing with hypocrites.
Calling me a hypocrite is irrelevant.
I have set no ground rules, I simply asked why it is that expecting lawyers
to only file lawsuits when there's a real case is supposed to be a valid
defense against frivolous one.
>>*I* did none of these things, and I refuse
>>to held to defend something that I did not say.
> You're free to paint with a broad brush but don't want to be
>burdened with the hypocrisy on your own side.
Whether or not conservatives happen to support tort reform is immaterial
to me. If you want, forget I said it. My point remains the same: expecting
that ethical presidents are simply not going to get sued is not realistic
given the ethics of lawyers and the existence of a political climate where
the only reason you pat someone on the back is to find a soft spot where
you can slide in the knife later on.
You, on the other hand, are trying to hold me accountable for something I
simply did not say and do not believe. If you want to change that alias
to Strawtosser, then go ahead and hold to this argument.
>>> Forgive me if I consider it impoosible to imagine you holding this
>>>same viewpoint were it Richard Nixon in the WH. Situational ethics.
>>Richard Nixon was proven guilty of systematic abuse of his power, in the
>>form of harassing his enemies with IRS audits, having them stalked by the
>>FBI, having people break into their campaign headquarters for political
>>espionage, and similar things that are far more suited to tyrants than
>>elected leaders.
> Clinton hasn't harrassed anyone with the IRS?
Not that I know of. If you know differently, please put some names and the
evidence to support that Clinton harassed them with the IRS up here where
I can look at it.
> Clinton hasn't used the FBI to dig a little dirt?
Ditto. The simple fact that FBI files happened to find their way into the
White House is immaterial. There is no evidence that anything in those files
was actually used.
>>Bill Clinton is accused in a "he said she said" affair of having propositioned
>>a woman who happened to be a state employee, abandoning the attempt when it
>>was rejected, and of taking zero evident retaliation for the refusal. Even
>>if, for the sake of argument, we took Clinton's accuser completely at face
>>value, it is still not clear that he would be convicted of sexual harassment.
>>Pardon me while I laugh at your assertion that this is "situational ethics".
> Laugh all you want. It's YOU guys with the sexual harrassment egg
>on your face. You've been shown to be hypocrites with your hillbilly
>president's lawyer running around threatening to paint Jone's as a
>slut and dig into her sexual past.
I don't approve of that, either, and I'm happy that Clinton's crew abandoned
that when NOW called them on it.
It's still quite irrelevant to any comparison between Clinton and Nixon.
>>Compare all of this to Clinton. He's had a different scandal levelled at
>>him practically every other week. Not a one of them has ever come to
>>*That's* what I'm talking about here. No, I don't believe Paula, but that's
>>entirely beside the point. Set the damned cynicism aside for a second and
>>*think* about it!
> Ok...let's get right down to it. You speak of these countless
>charges leveled at the poor, persecuted President. You've seen the
>FBI files....
...that never got used...
>you've seen the lies concerning campaign finance (a new
>revelation yesterday concerning Gore)....
...which I don't much care about on either side, when it comes down to it.
>you've seen the countless
>witnesses professing to everything from not recalling who gave them
>their job to lying to their diary...
Irrelevant.
>you've seen reports that the IRS
>is harassing conservative groups....
Anyone can "report" stuff. Let's see the meat and potatoes that they
actually got harassed for no other reason than their political beliefs.
Given the Christian Coalition's rather flagrant abuse of its non-profit
status, I can think of a perfectly non-political reason for the IRS to
"harass" them, if that's what you're talking about.
>you've seen an AG who had no
>problem appointing IC's before...get suddenly reluctant to do so when
>CLEARLY there is a conflict of interest.
She probably had nowhere near enough of a problem appointing independent
counsels before. There have been, what, eight to a dozen of them, and
just how many of them have actually returned indictments against high
officials? Against the Clintons themselves, to be more specific?
Zero, that's how many.
> Do you _honestly_ believe this guy is totally clean, all this is
>nothing but fabrication and lies and everybody is just out to get him?
On campaign finance? No. I don't expect any politicians to be too clean
on that one. I simply find it ludicrous that a party whose most recent
presidential nominee is a "who's who" of the largest campaign finance fines
in the nation's history is trying to keep a straight face while it claims
that only the *other* side pulls shady stunts with campaign funds.
On supposed espionage for the Chinese? Don't make me laugh.
On Whitewater? Dry hole. If there were anything to find, someone in the
last five years would have found it. The fact that one of Starr's two
grand juries has closed up shop without issuing any indictments against
the Clintons, and that every government oversight agency has also folded
its investigations without seeking indictments, says volumes to me. Starr
needs to put up or shut up, and I don't think it takes a rocket scientist
to figure out that it's going to be "shut up".
Paula Jones? Half the case has been tossed, and the other half is slipping
fast. We know she's outright lying at least on the issue of retaliation.
Mena? What's that?
Travelgate? Okay, so the guys in the travel office were acquitted, but you
don't have to be able to convict a guy for embezzlement to fire him for it.
The FBI files? Well, who exactly has actually had anything in their
file used against them? I'm not impressed.
What it comes down to is, a lot more charges have been fired in Clinton's
direction than have actually had any real merit. Jones v. Clinton doesn't
help that situation for future presidents. When the next GOP president
shows up (and, whether or not Gore wins in 2000, I really don't think that
the GOP is *never* going to get into the White House again) what do you think
the Demos are going to do?
That's right. They're going to be going tit for tat, in spades. And then
you're most probably going to be in my shoes: you're going to (probably
rightly) say that it's just a political witch hunt.
Where does it end?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The Stilt Man stiltman@(remove this)teleport.com
http://www.teleport(remove this too).com/~stiltman/stiltman.html
< We are Microsoft Borg '97. Lower your expectations and >
< surrender your money. Antitrust law is irrelevant. >
< Competition is irrelevant. We will add your financial and >
< technological distinctiveness to our own. Your software >
Dwarftosser
On 28 Aug 1997 11:26:11 -0700, N...@unsolicited.email.dammit (Stilt Man)
wrote:
>In article <34059064...@192.168.2.2>,
>Whether or not conservatives happen to support tort reform is immaterial
>to me. If you want, forget I said it. My point remains the same: expecting
>that ethical presidents are simply not going to get sued is not realistic
>given the ethics of lawyers and the existence of a political climate where
>the only reason you pat someone on the back is to find a soft spot where
>you can slide in the knife later on.
So where is the abundance of lawsuits?
Do you contend that the political climate has only gotten rough
since your boy got elected?
-snip-
>> Clinton hasn't used the FBI to dig a little dirt?
>
>Ditto. The simple fact that FBI files happened to find their way into the
>White House is immaterial.
Hmmm....if we're going to maintain a level of intellectual honesty
which allows for 900 confidential FBI files to simply get up and waltz
their way into the most heavily guarded residence in the US...it might
be time for me to move on....my imagination doesn't quite stretch that
far.
> There is no evidence that anything in those files was actually used.
It doesn't have to be used to be in violation of the Privacy Act.
And remember the official line from the WH..."we only got A-G" Then
Marseca turns up with Brent (S)cowcroft's file on his laptop at
his home...2 years AFTER leaving the WH.
Do you _really_ believe this was all some innocent mistake?
I'll stop here and wait for your answer.....IMO, if you can
seriously answer yes to the previous question...I don't see
much need in continuing.
--
Dwarftosser
Billy Beck
do...@send.me.shit (Dwarftosser) wrote:
>N...@unsolicited.email.dammit (Stilt Man) wrote:
>> There is no evidence that anything in those files was actually used.
>
> It doesn't have to be used to be in violation of the Privacy Act.
>
> And remember the official line from the WH..."we only got A-G" Then
> Marseca turns up with Brent (S)cowcroft's file on his laptop at
> his home...2 years AFTER leaving the WH.
>
> Do you _really_ believe this was all some innocent mistake?
Aside from the flagrant lies surrounding this whole matter, I
can't believe these assholes are still running that "nobody actually
*used* the files" crap.
Here's a question for Stilts: if *you* were found in posession
of a *single* FBI file which had never gone further than your dresser
drawer, do you think you could mount a successful defense against the
violation of law by saying that you'd never done anything with it?
What are you....some kinda anarchist?
If you *are*, then I'd like to see a *consistent* explication
of your position, to include complete disavowals of the very existence
of both the FBI and the White House and the Boy President.
If you're *not*, then you're stuck with the *law*, and that
law applies to officials who broke it when they took those files every
bit as much as it applies to *you*.
Billy
Michael--Schneider
> On 25 Aug 1997 16:07:11 -0700, N...@unsolicited.email.dammit (Stilt Man)
> wrote:
> >
> >The Republican Party tried to win the White House last fall by slamming
> >trial lawyers, by pointing out that they don't typically have the ethics
> >to wait until they've got a real problem to solve and will often prefer
> >to create their own problems. Do you believe that, Mr. Rivero, and if so,
> >why is that suddenly and conveniently placed in a drawer now that it's
> >a guy you don't like on the business end of it?
>
> Well, first off, what the Republicans do is their business; I'm a Democrat.
Good Lord....
Haven't you chucked that hokum off the boat yet?
C'mon, Mike! Cross the line.
> Second, I do agree that many lawyers manufacture problems to build business.
> However, that doesn't mean that ALL lawsuits are made up fantasies.
>
> That's WHY we have judges and juries.
"We"?
> Let the trial proceed. If it does turn out that Paula Jones and attorneys
> made this all up, then Clinton sues them and makes an example of them for
> other lawyers to learn from.
Get one thing straight: If this President goes south, it won't be for
anything he's done. It'll be because the true powerbrokers *want* it that
way, and the things he's done...well, they just make the sell a whole lot
easier.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any Jew who sees "Schindler's List" and doesn't come away wanting every
Jew in the U.S. to own an assault rifle has something very wrong with him.
-- Guy Norman LaFrance
Alan Furman
In article <mike1-28089...@13-55.dynamic.visi.com>,
Michael--Schneider <mi...@nospam.visi.com> wrote:
>In article <5u17p8$jkp$1...@blaze.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com
>(Michael Rivero) wrote:
>
>>[...]
>> Well, first off, what the Republicans do is their business; I'm a Democrat.
>
> Good Lord....
>
> Haven't you chucked that hokum off the boat yet?
>
> C'mon, Mike! Cross the line.
Which line?
--
====al...@aimnet.com * LPC * LPUSA * ISIL * IOS * KoX * Netscab Squealer====
LEGALIZE FREEDOM >>>> http://www.lp.org * UBI LIBERTAS IBI PATRIA
"I see that the White House is like a subway--you have to put in coins to
open the gates." Johnny Chung, quoted in Washington Post, 7/27/97, p. A16
hans...@jps.net
In article <3405c904...@192.168.2.2>,
do...@send.me.shit (Dwarftosser) wrote:
>
> On 28 Aug 1997 11:26:11 -0700, N...@unsolicited.email.dammit (Stilt Man)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <34059064...@192.168.2.2>,
>
> >
> So where is the abundance of lawsuits?
>
If he gets attention, which can be turned into cash, think there will be
another? Fortunately, lawsuits are expensive.
> Do you contend that the political climate has only gotten rough
> since your boy got elected?
obviously worst recently
>
>>
> Hmmm....if we're going to maintain a level of intellectual honesty
> which allows for 900 confidential FBI files to simply get up and waltz
> their way into the most heavily guarded residence in the US...it might
>
> be time for me to move on....my imagination doesn't quite stretch that
> far.
>
> > There is no evidence that anything in those files was actually used.
>
> It doesn't have to be used to be in violation of the Privacy Act.
What's the number of files which may be innocently obtained before the
Privacy Act fries you?
> Do you _really_ believe this was all some innocent mistake?
>
Yes. Ask someone who has worked for govt - which is more likely - sinister
blakmail plot or massive mindless bureaucratic screw-up? report back you
finding.
Billy Beck
N...@unsolicited.email.dammit (Stilt Man) wrote:
>In article <3405f2a2...@news.mindspring.com>,
>Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Aside from the flagrant lies surrounding this whole matter, I
>>can't believe these assholes are still running that "nobody actually
>>*used* the files" crap.
>
>All right. If they got used, who did they get used against?
You don't *get* it, mate: the law says nothing about whether
they were "used" or not. The entire legal question centers on the
mere *possession* of the files. The "use" question completely ignores
the crime.
>> Here's a question for Stilts: if *you* were found in posession
>>of a *single* FBI file which had never gone further than your dresser
>>drawer, do you think you could mount a successful defense against the
>>violation of law by saying that you'd never done anything with it?
>
>Whether *I* could mount such a defense is irrelevant.
It most certainly is not. The question is designed to
illustrate the *principle* of law.
>*I* am not a person in the employ of the White House, charged with checking
>peoples' FBI files as part of a background check in connection with White
>House employment practices as a matter of routine. If I were, it wouldn't
>be too hard to mount such a defense unless evidence existed that I got one
>that I shouldn't have on purpose, or that I'd abused the information in it.
>Since you're stipulating as a given that the hypothetical file under
>discussion never went further than my dresser drawer, I don't think there'd
>be a grand jury in the country that would indict me, no.
...*unless* the law specifically stated that you weren't
supposed to *have* it.
Billy
Billy Beck
al...@aimnet.com (Alan Furman) wrote:
>Michael--Schneider <mi...@nospam.visi.com> wrote:
>> C'mon, Mike! Cross the line.
>
>Which line?
The one between yourself and the *state*.
Ditch the Party. You're >< *that* close, Alan. You can do
it.
"Please, baby, go all the way..." (Raspberries)
Read Lefevre.
Billy
Dwarftosser
On Thu, 28 Aug 1997 22:12:16 -0600, hans...@jps.net wrote:
>In article <3405c904...@192.168.2.2>,
> do...@send.me.shit (Dwarftosser) wrote:
>>
>> On 28 Aug 1997 11:26:11 -0700, N...@unsolicited.email.dammit (Stilt Man)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <34059064...@192.168.2.2>,
>>
>> >
>> So where is the abundance of lawsuits?
>>
>Trooper Brown's atty has said Brown will sue Bill for defamation.
>If he gets attention, which can be turned into cash, think there will be
>another? Fortunately, lawsuits are expensive.
Nah.....how many times has the President been sued?
I just don't buy it. It's just an excuse by the Clinton groupies
to avoid a little bad press. If a GOPher were trying to avoid a
sexual harrassment suit, you guys, Pat Shroeder, NOW, and every
malcontent leftist wacko in the civilized world would be screaming for
his ass.
But it's your guy so let's all try and be reasonable.
>
>> Do you contend that the political climate has only gotten rough
>> since your boy got elected?
>
>obviously worst recently
Pfffft. Ack.
>>>
>> Hmmm....if we're going to maintain a level of intellectual honesty
>> which allows for 900 confidential FBI files to simply get up and waltz
>> their way into the most heavily guarded residence in the US...it might
>>
>> be time for me to move on....my imagination doesn't quite stretch that
>> far.
>>
>> > There is no evidence that anything in those files was actually used.
>>
>> It doesn't have to be used to be in violation of the Privacy Act.
>
>What's the number of files which may be innocently obtained before the
>Privacy Act fries you?
I haven't seen any evidence of that occuring. You chose to whack
the little tidbit about the official WH line, "we only got A-G" being
blown out of the water by Marseca.
I guess it doesn't jive to well with "innocently obtained".
>
> > Do you _really_ believe this was all some innocent mistake?
>Yes. Ask someone who has worked for govt - which is more likely - sinister
>blakmail plot or massive mindless bureaucratic screw-up? report back you
>finding.
Ask someone who has worked for a govt who hired them. Most likely
they will be able to answer.
Sorry dude....it stinks. You know it. I know it. So let's cut
the kidding.
--
Dwarftosser
Dwarftosser
><>>
><>>All right. If they got used, who did they get used against?
><>
><> You don't *get* it, mate: the law says nothing about whether
><>they were "used" or not. The entire legal question centers on the
><>mere *possession* of the files. The "use" question completely ignores
><>the crime.
>
>
>Chuck Colson went to jail for the possession of one FBI that even the judge
>acknowledged was never used for any purpose.
So the self-righteous bastards come up with the Privacy Act....but
now, 20 years have passed and one of their own has been caught rifling
thru a few confidential files digging for some dirt on the opposition
and all of a sudden it's "Hey...hey..we weren't gonna actually USE
any of that stuff....eh...what?".
--
Dwarftosser
Robert W Lawrence
ain't...@tno.e-mail (Billy Beck) wrote:
<>
<>N...@unsolicited.email.dammit (Stilt Man) wrote:
<>
<>>In article <3405f2a2...@news.mindspring.com>,
<>>Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote:
<>
<>>> Aside from the flagrant lies surrounding this whole matter, I
<>>>can't believe these assholes are still running that "nobody actually
<>>>*used* the files" crap.
<>>
<>>All right. If they got used, who did they get used against?
<>
<> You don't *get* it, mate: the law says nothing about whether
<>they were "used" or not. The entire legal question centers on the
<>mere *possession* of the files. The "use" question completely ignores
<>the crime.
Chuck Colson went to jail for the possession of one FBI that even the judge
acknowledged was never used for any purpose.
Stilt Man
In article <3406137...@news.mindspring.com>,
Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>N...@unsolicited.email.dammit (Stilt Man) wrote:
>>In article <3405f2a2...@news.mindspring.com>,
>>Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> Aside from the flagrant lies surrounding this whole matter, I
>>>can't believe these assholes are still running that "nobody actually
>>>*used* the files" crap.
>>All right. If they got used, who did they get used against?
> You don't *get* it, mate: the law says nothing about whether
>they were "used" or not. The entire legal question centers on the
>mere *possession* of the files. The "use" question completely ignores
>the crime.
No, it doesn't. FBI files go into the possession of the White House as
a simple matter of routine. The White House is friggin' *AUTHORIZED* to
take possession of them in order to conduct background checks on staffers
and people who are expected to come anywhere within line-of-sight of the
President of the United States. You may have heard of it. It's called
"security".
They are not authorized to use them to harass their political enemies or
private citizens, no. If they had done that, then they would stand in
violation of privacy laws. Those same privacy laws, however, make
exceptions for the White House's security purposes. The people carrying
out those purposes screwed up and accidentally got the wrong files based
on an outdated security list from the Secret Service. If there were
evidence that it was done deliberately (e.g. some proof of nefarious use)
that would be potentially troublesome.
Whether or not the files were used for an abusive purpose is EVERYTHING.
Otherwise, the best that you can argue is that there was a case of rather
inexcusable negligence on the part of White House staffers -- an argument
that it might surprise you to hear that I'd agree with.
But negligence on the part of White House staffers isn't the same thing as
Clinton himself ordering abusive stockpiling of dirt on his enemies, so
somehow I suspect that you're not going to settle for that.
>>> Here's a question for Stilts: if *you* were found in posession
>>>of a *single* FBI file which had never gone further than your dresser
>>>drawer, do you think you could mount a successful defense against the
>>>violation of law by saying that you'd never done anything with it?
>>Whether *I* could mount such a defense is irrelevant.
> It most certainly is not. The question is designed to
>illustrate the *principle* of law.
Principle is irrelevant. It's either illegal or not. An honest mistake on
the part of someone who is legally authorized to make use of FBI files for
the purpose of background checks to safeguard the security of the White House
and the life of the President of the United States is not a felony.
A common citizen who's got no business handling any FBI files at all being
in possession of one is.
>>*I* am not a person in the employ of the White House, charged with checking
>>peoples' FBI files as part of a background check in connection with White
>>House employment practices as a matter of routine. If I were, it wouldn't
>>be too hard to mount such a defense unless evidence existed that I got one
>>that I shouldn't have on purpose, or that I'd abused the information in it.
>>Since you're stipulating as a given that the hypothetical file under
>>discussion never went further than my dresser drawer, I don't think there'd
>>be a grand jury in the country that would indict me, no.
> ...*unless* the law specifically stated that you weren't
>supposed to *have* it.
It doesn't. If I'm a security person in the White House, the law specifically
authorizes me to use the files to help make sure that we're not going to
accidentally let someone into the White House who might put a slug into the
President.
Alan Furman
On Thu, 28 Aug 1997 22:12:16 -0600, hans...@jps.net wrote:
>[...]
>
> > Do you _really_ believe this was all some innocent mistake?
>
>Yes. Ask someone who has worked for govt - which is more likely - sinister
>blakmail plot or massive mindless bureaucratic screw-up? report back you
>finding.
When Progressives agitate for more government power, intrusion, and
consumption of our earnings, they chant the mantra "Big Brother does it
better/more efficiently/more responsibly than the chaotic, unbridled,
undemocratic private sector."
When the State gets caught abusing that power, the tune changes to "It's a
big fat bloated bureaucracy! What do you expect?"
How sweet to have it both ways.
Martin McPhillips
On Fri, 29 Aug 1997 23:21:03 -0700, woof...@woofbowwow.com (Woof) wrote:
>In article <EFLBF...@nonexistent.com>, cay...@nyct.net (Martin
>McPhillips) wrote:
>
>> On 27 Aug 1997 13:18:04 -0700, N...@unsolicited.email.dammit (Stilt Man) wrote:
>>
>> [cutting through the usual bullshit to get to the bullshit]
>> >
>> >Richard Nixon was proven guilty of systematic abuse of his power, in the
>> >form of harassing his enemies with IRS audits, having them stalked by the
>> >FBI, having people break into their campaign headquarters for political
>> >espionage, and similar things that are far more suited to tyrants than
>> >elected leaders.
>>
>> Correction: Although we assume that Richard Nixon did do most of the
>> things he was accused of, he was never *proven* to have done any
>> of them.
>
>I have heard the tapes with my own ears. I suggest you do the same.
In that case, we have heard the continuous stream of lies from the
Clinton White House. I suggest *you* do the same. Now, shall we
skip Clinton's trial, declare him *proven* guilty, and get right to
the hanging?
As I said, although we assume that Richard Nixon did do most
of the things he was accused of, he was never *proven* to haved
done any of them, as in *proven* before a jury of his peers.
I didn't say he didn't do those things. In 1973, when *no* *one*
I knew believed Nixon would be impeached or forced to resign,
I held firm that the guy was a goner, and savored every minute
of it. But the guy never had a day in court, either. Lucky for him.
This current Criminal President is a far craftier criminal than
Richard Nixon ever was. Perhaps it's largely due to his learnin'
of the criminal arts at the knee of his racketeer uncle, Raymond
Clinton, or perhaps it's due to the fact that Clinton is a very
high functioning psychopath, whose entire life has been a
series of cons and tests to see just how far he can get over
on people.
Reynmeistr
Dwarftosser:
>> Clinton hasn't harrassed anyone with the IRS?
>
>No one has produced any EVIDENCE that this has happened.
>
Dwarftosser:
>> Clinton hasn't used the FBI to dig a little dirt?
>
>No one has produced any EVIDENCE that this has happened.
>
To which I reply: Woof, no one except Billy Dale. Remember him? Your
mind is thick and besodden, Woof. Wake up. Smell the urine in your
Clinton White House.
Kevin Davis
On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 23:38:24 GMT, cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips)
wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 22:08:38 GMT, ga...@dialnet.nett (F. Prefect) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 15:50:04 -0400, David Hart
>><d.h...@ignore.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If we allow anyone who has had contact in the past with a President in
>>>> office to file a civil case while the President is in office we are
>>>> setting a very dangerous precedent. A sitting President could spend
>>>> his entire time in office either in court or giving depositions.
>>>> Non-criminal charges leveled against a President while in office can
>>>> wait until he is out of office.
>>>>
>>>> F. Prefect
>>>
>>>Justice delayed is justice denied.
>>
>>Very true, but in cases of this sort, very impractical.
>
>Impractical for who?
Don't you get it? It is impractical for a President who is "too busy"
to be dragged into civil suits. He has much more important and
pressing things to do like taking 2 week golfing vacations and
hobnobbing around establishing close intimate friendships with people
who are indispensable for maintaining our country's security and
interests. Yes, people like Barbara Streisan and Harrison Ford.
Remove antispam from my email address:
~~~Golf Tip: Don't pick up a lost ball until it stops rolling~~~o
Kevin Davis "Hoser" email - kda...@antispamcastlegate.net
Home Page - http://www.castlegate.net/personals/kdavis
Standard Disclaimer (Win95 Tips, sound bites, and more!)
Wayne Mann
woof...@woofbowwow.com (Woof) wrote:
>In article <3406fd9c....@192.168.2.2>, do...@send.me.shit
>(Dwarftosser) wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 29 Aug 1997 15:22:13 GMT, lawr...@arthes.com (Robert W
>> Lawrence) wrote:
>>
>> ><>>
>> ><>>All right. If they got used, who did they get used against?
>> ><>
>> ><> You don't *get* it, mate: the law says nothing about whether
>> ><>they were "used" or not. The entire legal question centers on the
>> ><>mere *possession* of the files. The "use" question completely ignores
>> ><>the crime.
>> >
>> >
>> >Chuck Colson went to jail for the possession of one FBI that even the judge
>> >acknowledged was never used for any purpose.
>>
>> So the self-righteous bastards come up with the Privacy Act....but
>> now, 20 years have passed and one of their own has been caught rifling
>> thru a few confidential files digging for some dirt on the opposition
>> and all of a sudden it's "Hey...hey..we weren't gonna actually USE
>> any of that stuff....eh...what?".
>
>Care to offer any -EVIDENCE- that the files were used this way?
>
>--
>Woof - so I don't get any more SPAM!!!
Doesn't matter whether they were used or not, the
posession is a crime. They had them, that was a crime. How
much are you being paid to come here and post these old lies
and distortions and by whom? The White House, DNC, Carvelle
or another one of the China paid groups like the Back to
Business Committee? Go away.
Spammed headers cut down to ONE!
\\/ayne //\ann
Remove NOSPAM from address for e-mail
"There has not been a single, solitary soul accuse me or my
wife of doing anything illegal not only in the White House,
in the presidential campaign, or in the governor's election."
Bill Clinton December 20, 1995
as reported in the Los Angeles Times on December 21, 1995
Wayne Mann
ba...@rocketmail.com (Roy Baty) wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Aug 1997 14:56:19 GMT, cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips)
>wrote:
>
>
>ford:
>>>Those can be tough calls in some cases. The Paula Jones case comes to
>>>mind. Let subordinates handle the business of the most powerful
>>>country in the world while the President is in court defending himself
>>>against bogus civil suits??
>>
>>*Bogus* civil suits are thrown out of court by judges, because they
>>lack merit.
>>
>Rarely. If it's a he said- she said case the Judge has to assume the
>plaintiff might be right. Even if it's bogus. And in many other cases,
>the plaintiff COULD be right - so it can't be dismissed.
>
>
>
Another Clintonista for the KILL FILES folks. K^
hans...@jps.net
In article <342fb301....@news.callamer.com>,
NOSP...@callamer.com wrote:
>
> woof...@woofbowwow.com (Woof) wrote:
>
> >In article <3406fd9c....@192.168.2.2>, do...@send.me.shit
> >(Dwarftosser) wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 29 Aug 1997 15:22:13 GMT, lawr...@arthes.com (Robert W
> >> Lawrence) wrote:
> >>
> >> ><>>
> >> ><>>All right. If they got used, who did they get used against?
> >> ><>
> >> ><> You don't *get* it, mate: the law says nothing about whether
> >> ><>they were "used" or not. The entire legal question centers on the
> >> ><>mere *possession* of the files. The "use" question completely ignores
> >> ><>the crime.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Chuck Colson went to jail for the possession of one FBI that even the
ju
> >
> >
> >--
> >Woof - so I don't get any more SPAM!!!
>
> Doesn't matter whether they were used or not, the
> posession is a crime. They had them, that was a crime.
If it's a crime to possess them - why make them in the first place?
Show me where it says it's illegal for the WH to have FBI files.
Thanks, RH
Scott Eckelman
Woof wrote in article ...
>In article <3405f2a2...@news.mindspring.com>, wj...@mindspring.com
wrote:
>
>> Here's a question for Stilts: if *you* were found in posession
>> of a *single* FBI file which had never gone further than your dresser
>> drawer, do you think you could mount a successful defense against the
>> violation of law by saying that you'd never done anything with it?
>
>Youleft out that fact that the Secret Service had sent the files over -
>accidentally sending from the wrong year's list. Big deal.
Big deal, yes. It is impossible that Marceca was working from an old
list; at least not one from a previous year. As of Jan 20th, all papers
in the White House Security Office were turned over to the Bush
archives, so they had to get a new list as of that date. Files (lots
of them) were requested for individuals who had long departed
even by that date.
Scott E.
>
>--
no_cigar
On 27 Aug 1997 05:49:44 -0700, riv...@accessone.com (Michael Rivero)
wrote:
> On 25 Aug 1997 16:07:11 -0700, N...@unsolicited.email.dammit (Stilt Man)
> wrote:
> >
> >
>
> Let the trial proceed. If it does turn out that Paula Jones and her attorneys
>made this all up, then Clinton sues them and makes an example of them for
>other lawyers to learn from.
>
You can't sue the loser unless you can prove suit was "frivolous,"
which, without corroboration, is virtually impossible.
>
Robert W Lawrence
woof...@woofbowwow.com (Woof) wrote:
<>In article <3406fd9c....@192.168.2.2>, do...@send.me.shit
<>(Dwarftosser) wrote:
<>
<>> On Fri, 29 Aug 1997 15:22:13 GMT, lawr...@arthes.com (Robert W
<>> Lawrence) wrote:
<>>
<>> ><>>
<>> ><>>All right. If they got used, who did they get used against?
<>> ><>
<>> ><> You don't *get* it, mate: the law says nothing about whether
<>> ><>they were "used" or not. The entire legal question centers on the
<>> ><>mere *possession* of the files. The "use" question completely ignores
<>> ><>the crime.
<>> >
<>> >
<>> >Chuck Colson went to jail for the possession of one FBI that even the judge
<>> >acknowledged was never used for any purpose.
<>>
<>> So the self-righteous bastards come up with the Privacy Act....but
<>> now, 20 years have passed and one of their own has been caught rifling
<>> thru a few confidential files digging for some dirt on the opposition
<>> and all of a sudden it's "Hey...hey..we weren't gonna actually USE
<>> any of that stuff....eh...what?".
<>
<>Care to offer any -EVIDENCE- that the files were used this way?
As I said even the Judge who sentenced Chuck Colson to jail admited Mr Colson
had put the file to no use. Did you object to Mr. Colsons conviction?
Jeffrey Scott Linder
No Cigar wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Aug 1997 12:03:12 GMT, lind...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>Linder) wrote:
>>N...@unsolicited.email.dammit (Stilt Man) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <34059064...@192.168.2.2>,
>>>Dwarftosser <do...@send.me.shit> wrote:
>>>>On 27 Aug 1997 13:18:04 -0700, N...@unsolicited.email.dammit (Stilt Man)
>>>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Clinton hasn't harrassed anyone with the IRS?
>>
>>>Not that I know of. If you know differently, please put some names and the
>>>evidence to support that Clinton harassed them with the IRS up here where
>>>I can look at it.
>>
>>The name Billy Dale should ring a bell.
>>
>On TV Billy Dale admitted he took large amounts of money home and put
>it in his own bank account, and that there were not records at work
>documenting this diversion (Dale claims someone must have stolen the
>records).
Highly likely given the cjircumstances.
>Career prosecutors, some appointed by Republicans, felt the
>facts warranted his indictment for embezzlement. Given these facts,
>explain why it was inappropriate for the IRS to pursue him.
Since he was not found guilty of anything why was it appropriate for
them to pursue him? What evidence did they have that Billy Dale
profitted personally from the way he handled the money?
>Were his
>name John Gotti would you claim with those facts that the IRS was
>being abused?
Yes.
>And tell us your source for the belief that the IRS
>acted at the request of the WH.
None.
JSL
Woof
In article <5uet93$90h$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
lind...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
>
> Since he was not found guilty of anything why was it appropriate for
> them to pursue him? What evidence did they have that Billy Dale
> profitted personally from the way he handled the money?
His racehorse? His $500,000 house? His yacht?
roy_baty_(baty9@rocketmail.com
On Sat, 30 Aug 1997 05:13:54 GMT, cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips)
wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Aug 1997 03:34:01 GMT, ba...@rocketmail.com (Roy Baty) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 26 Aug 1997 14:56:19 GMT, cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>ford:
>>>>Those can be tough calls in some cases. The Paula Jones case comes to
>>>>mind. Let subordinates handle the business of the most powerful
>>>>country in the world while the President is in court defending himself
>>>>against bogus civil suits??
>>>
>>>*Bogus* civil suits are thrown out of court by judges, because they
>>>lack merit.
>>>
>>Rarely. If it's a he said- she said case the Judge has to assume the
>>plaintiff might be right. Even if it's bogus. And in many other cases,
>>the plaintiff COULD be right - so it can't be dismissed.
>
>Well, if there's a basis for the complaint, it is by definition
>not bogus. If it is bogus, there's no basis for the complaint.
>
LEGAL basis, not factual. I can lie and say: he kissed me. I have a
legal basis to sue. The Judge can't tell if you lie because she wasn't
there.
>
>That's *not* a bogus lawsuit, and the "he said, she said"
>part of it is hardly in a stand alone position, i.e., a mere
>allegation. It's supported by witnesses and contemporaneous
>reporting.
>
But some other case may be malicious - and the legal system can't
practically stop it. Except for the cost of suit deterring someone.
Will we soon see the R.M. Scaife All-purpose Legal Fund? I hope not.
>It's a very good case.
kei...@hotmail.com
On 30 Aug 97 16:46:28 GMT, "Docky Wocky" <mch...@1st.net> wrote:
>
>
>(Dwarftosser) wrote:
>>
>> "Clinton hasn't harrassed anyone with the IRS?
>
>No one has produced any EVIDENCE that this has happened.
>
>
>Care to offer any -EVIDENCE- to the contrary?"
>
>
>What do you want? This is the best of all worlds scenario: a criminal with
>a law degree...backed up by another criminal with a law degree, backed up
>by multiple other criminals with law degrees. EVIDENCE? FAT CHANCE!
>
>Shred that evidence, boys, them idiots are comin' over for a look see...
As WOOF may say:
and the lack of evidence PROVES a massive coverup?
keit3h (the 3 is silent)
Dwarftosser
On Sun, 31 Aug 1997 14:04:08 GMT, t...@callamer.comNOSPAM (Wayne Mann)
wrote:
>woof...@woofbowwow.com (Woof) wrote:
>
>>In article <3405f2a2...@news.mindspring.com>, wj...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>
>>> Here's a question for Stilts: if *you* were found in posession
>>> of a *single* FBI file which had never gone further than your dresser
>>> drawer, do you think you could mount a successful defense against the
>>> violation of law by saying that you'd never done anything with it?
>>
>>Youleft out that fact that the Secret Service had sent the files over -
>>accidentally sending from the wrong year's list. Big deal.
>>
>>--
>>Woof - so I don't get any more SPAM!!!
>
>
> Folks this is an out and out lie. That was one of the
>first lies tried by the Clintonistaes but the FBI testified
>that this story is just that, a story. It is impossible and
>the FBI testified that it is NOT true. Why someone would
>come here and repeat this old lie that was disproved a
>couple years ago is amazing. This person is just a plain
>liar.
What's funny about this is that something like 80 or 90 of the
files were of Bush officials that were never even entered into the
electronic EPASS system.....so this administration expects us to
believe it was a computer glitch that somehow magically created names
out of thin air?
All this bullshit was shot down during the hearings....the list
provided the WH security office in the summer of 93 omitted 90% of the
names they "accidentally" requested. Throw in former military mole
Marseca sifting through these files at home and you get enough
"appearance of impropriety" to hang any GOPher administration.
You'd think these hillbilly shills would have more up-to-date
material.
--
Dwarftosser
Martin McPhillips
On Mon, 01 Sep 1997 23:41:50 GMT, Roy Baty (ba...@rocketmail.com wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Aug 1997 05:13:54 GMT, cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 30 Aug 1997 03:34:01 GMT, ba...@rocketmail.com (Roy Baty) wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 26 Aug 1997 14:56:19 GMT, cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>ford:
>>>>>Those can be tough calls in some cases. The Paula Jones case comes to
>>>>>mind. Let subordinates handle the business of the most powerful
>>>>>country in the world while the President is in court defending himself
>>>>>against bogus civil suits??
>>>>
>>>>*Bogus* civil suits are thrown out of court by judges, because they
>>>>lack merit.
>>>>
>>>Rarely. If it's a he said- she said case the Judge has to assume the
>>>plaintiff might be right. Even if it's bogus. And in many other cases,
>>>the plaintiff COULD be right - so it can't be dismissed.
>>
>>Well, if there's a basis for the complaint, it is by definition
>>not bogus. If it is bogus, there's no basis for the complaint.
>>
>
>LEGAL basis, not factual. I can lie and say: he kissed me. I have a
>legal basis to sue. The Judge can't tell if you lie because she wasn't
>there.
Sure you or anyone can lie, but your big problem is that the Supreme
Court has already spoken (was it 8-1 or 9-0 on this one?) on the
suitability of this suit, if you'll pardon the expression. Justice Stevens
said it: Clinton is just another citizen who happens to be President
for the purposes of a lawsuit involving his private behavior.
The Clinton attorneys have also had their shot at having the suit
thrown out by Judge Wright. She tossed a couple of items, but
left the sexual harassment for a jury to determine.
Where are the rest of the burgeoning "bogus lawsuits"? Can you
point to one?
Dwarftosser
On 28 Aug 1997 11:26:11 -0700, N...@unsolicited.email.dammit (Stilt Man)
wrote:
>> Clinton hasn't harrassed anyone with the IRS?
>
>Not that I know of. If you know differently, please put some names and the
>evidence to support that Clinton harassed them with the IRS up here where
>I can look at it.
E D I T O R I A L - STILL STONEWALLING AT THE IRS
Investors Business Daily
August 14, 1997
Is the Internal Revenue Service doing the president's
political dirty work? That's a fair question, given the IRS'
refusal to explain why it went on an audit binge against
some of the administration's critics.
Since Clinton came to office, some 20 conservative
nonprofit groups have been targeted for IRS audits. They
want to know why, but they've gotten few answers. The IRS
cites laws barring it from commenting on private audits.
But from the experiences cited by these groups, some of
the audits look suspciously like IRS fishing expeditions.
The Heritage Foundation, for instance, says the IRS gave it
only five days to provide a stack of papers and information
that stood 75 feet high.
According to Heritage, the IRS demanded ''a list of all
studies, why the issues were chosen, who decided to cover
the issues, who wrote the issues and who decided to use
those writers.''
Others have suffered, too. Lawyer Kent Brown was audited
after he forced Hillary Clinton to open the records of her
secret Health Care Task Force.
Under tax law, issue-oriented groups like Heritage can get
tax-deductible contributions if they don't lobby on specific
legislation or endorse political candidates. Otherwise, it's
all right for them to have opinions.
So why is the IRS on their case? That's what the Landmark
Legal Foundation has been trying to find out since early this
year. After hitting a wall of silence, bureaucratic delay and
excuses, it has taken the IRS to court.
We reported on the early rounds of Landmark's battle in
May, when it was trying to get action on a request it had
filed with the IRS under the Freedom of Information Act.
Landmark, a public-interest law firm, had asked for copies
of any and all documentation by individuals or groups
external to the IRS seeking audits or investigations of
tax-exempt think tanks. Unlike data on the audits
themselves, such information is supposed to be public. The
American people ought to know if anyone in the
administration or outside the IRS helped select these
targets.
As far as we can tell, Landmark has gone through all the
legal hoops and then some. But the IRS has balked every
step of the way - as the adjoining time line notes.
Tired of playing games, Landmark filed suit June 27. But the
IRS shenanigans haven't stopped. The IRS sent a 13-page
letter July 17 that catalogs its excuses for not coming
clean. The IRS now says it doesn't believe Landmark's
requests will add to public debate or knowledge. That claim
can't be tested, of course, unless the public actually can
see the information in question.
After seven months, the IRS now claims the information
Landmark seeks is private and is trying to bully Landmark
into retreat. It went back into Landmark's own tax filing and
now questions whether the foundation meets the test to get
a fee waiver for the FOIA request.
This stonewalling says a lot. It tells us that Landmark is on
to something and that the IRS doesn't want the public to find
out. But it will be hard for the IRS to keep this story out of
view for long. The entire fight is on Landmark's very public
Web site (http://www.landmarklegal.org).
If the IRS has gone on a hunt for political game, it won't be
the first time the Clinton administration has used a federal
agency to nail enemies and cover up White House scandals.
Under Clinton, we've seen FBI agents sent to private homes
of officials who have contradicted the White House line.
We've seen the Justice Department send out agents to dig
up dirt on the congressman (Dan Burton) heading a probe
into Clinton's campaign fund raising. We've seen the IRS
audit innocent travel office officials.
We've seen White House operatives and dirty tricksters
collect 900 files on Republicans. And we've seen the
taxpayer-funded White House lawyers turned into a private
legal phalanx to protect Bill and Hillary Clinton.
These aren't just occasional missteps or odd coincidences.
They are a pattern of conduct, a consistent abuse of power.
We know it. Landmark Legal Foundation knows it. And so
does the IRS. That's why it's trying so hard to hide behind
official secrecy.
--
Dwarftosser
Don Porges
In article <34071D...@austin.ibm.com>,
Temporary Account <mike...@austin.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>Chuck Colson did go to federal prison for showing one file
>to a reporter. I assume that it had some bad shit in it.
>
Partly true, but not the whole story. Colson went for jail,
technically, for obstruction of justice, in that he showed a
reporter an FBI file on Daniel Ellsberg's lawyer *in an attempt
to affect the outcome of Ellsberg's trial* by smearing the lawyer
in the court of public opinion. At the time of the plea, it appears
that simply showing the file off was not, itself, a crime.
What the legal situation is on that now, is a different question.
In underlying fact, the judge accepted an obstruction plea
because what he really thought Colson guilty of was planning
the break-in into the office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist, which
Colson denied then and in his autobiography. You may believe
who you want on this question.
I checked this all out because I keep seeing the claim above,
and it didn't square with my memory of the events.
Tom M.
Martin McPhillips wrote:
>
> On Mon, 01 Sep 1997 23:41:50 GMT, Roy Baty
> (ba...@rocketmail.comwrote:
>
> Sure you or anyone can lie, but your big problem is that the
> Supreme Court has already spoken (was it 8-1 or 9-0 on this one?)
> on the suitability of this suit, if you'll pardon the expression.
> Justice Stevens said it: Clinton is just another citizen who
> happens to be President for the purposes of a lawsuit involving his
> private behavior.
>
> The Clinton attorneys have also had their shot at having the suit
> thrown out by Judge Wright. She tossed a couple of items, but
> left the sexual harassment for a jury to determine.
>
> Where are the rest of the burgeoning "bogus lawsuits"? Can you
> point to one?
I wish that most powerful individuals were referred to the same way that
Justice Stevens referred to Clinton - basically that no one is above
reproach. That is so far from true it is almost sickening!
I agree with you that Clinton should be tried, though MANY women have
been harassed and forced out of their jobs by very abusive and downright
dangerous actions. Why are their perpetrators above the law, but not
Clinton.
The laws make it so difficult to prove, especially when you're up
against someone with much power (in government). Then try to find an
attorney. Try to find someone at EEOC who will tell you the truth. Try
to find an investigator who won't jump ship and work for the other
side. Try...
The "trivil" lawsuits do exist but are usually blown way out of
proportion by the media and limbaugh propaganda.
Look at the sexual harassment complaints in the military. Other than a
few minority officers taking the fall, it was mostly swept under the
carpet, as usual.
Wayne Mann
woof...@woofbowwow.com (Woof) wrote:
>
>
>In article <5uet93$90h$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>lind...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
>
>>
>> Since he was not found guilty of anything why was it appropriate for
>> them to pursue him? What evidence did they have that Billy Dale
>> profitted personally from the way he handled the money?
>
>
>His racehorse? His $500,000 house? His yacht?
>
>--
>Woof - so I don't get any more SPAM!!!
I am forwarding your post to Dale's lawyers and
suggesting they sue you for libel. In case you are not
aware, you can be sued for libel on the internet just the
same as in a newspaper. I hope they collect big from you
for lying about him.
Additional;ly folks, these are just out and out lies.,
however even if they aren't they do not prove anything.
However how someone can write something like this and he has
to know they are lies because these are old recycled lies
told by several previous Clintonistaes like Lulu and several
others and after they were proved lies then. Now we have a
new Clintonista sent in by Carvelle and just repeating the
same old used lies.
I hope Dale's attorney gets him real good!
KILL FILE K^
All the spam headers cut down to ONE, why doesn't
EVERYONE?
Jeffrey Scott Linder
woof...@woofbowwow.com (Woof) wrote:
>In article <5uet93$90h$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>lind...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
>>
>> Since he was not found guilty of anything why was it appropriate for
>> them to pursue him? What evidence did they have that Billy Dale
>> profitted personally from the way he handled the money?
>His racehorse? His $500,000 house? His yacht?
Please elaborate. Do you have any evidence that Mr. Dale had a
$500.000 house, a yacht, and a racehorse?
JSL
Bart Scrivener
On Tue, 02 Sep 1997 18:28:51 GMT, do...@send.me.shit (Dwarftosser)
wrote:
>On 28 Aug 1997 11:26:11 -0700, N...@unsolicited.email.dammit (Stilt Man)
>wrote:
>
>
>>> Clinton hasn't harrassed anyone with the IRS?
>>
>>Not that I know of. If you know differently, please put some names and the
>>evidence to support that Clinton harassed them with the IRS up here where
>>I can look at it.
>
>
>
>E D I T O R I A L - STILL STONEWALLING AT THE IRS
>Investors Business Daily
>August 14, 1997
>
>Is the Internal Revenue Service doing the president's
>political dirty work? That's a fair question, given the IRS'
>refusal to explain why it went on an audit binge against
>some of the administration's critics.
>
It's against the law for them to explain. Or make any comments about
specific tax matters. So their refusal to give their side of the story
is hardly sinister.
IF ... IF ...If ifs and buts were beer and nuts, we could all have a
party (James Carville)
IRS not allowed by law to tell its side of this story, you know.
>Under Clinton, we've seen FBI agents sent to private homes
>of officials who have contradicted the White House line.
>We've seen the Justice Department send out agents to dig
>up dirt on the congressman (Dan Burton) heading a probe
>into Clinton's campaign fund raising.
They got an affidavit with back up documentation; are they supposed to
ignore it?
We've seen the IRS
>audit innocent travel office officials.
When you take tens of thousands of dollars home from work and put it
in your own bank account, with no documentation to indicate you didn't
just steal it, as Mr. Dale himself has said, and you have a rather
grand life style given your income - what are they supposed to do?
Look the other way? Career prosecutors appointed by Republicans said:
indict the sucker. Facts warranted a peek by IRS.
>
>We've seen White House operatives and dirty tricksters
name one trick committed to justify "trickster" label
>collect 900 files on Republicans. And we've seen the
>taxpayer-funded White House lawyers turned into a private
>legal phalanx to protect Bill and Hillary Clinton.
>
>These aren't just occasional missteps or odd coincidences.
>They are a pattern of conduct, a consistent abuse of power.
>We know it. Landmark Legal Foundation knows it. And so
>does the IRS. That's why it's trying so hard to hide behind
>official secrecy.
Protections from Nixon era REQUIRE them to keep their mouth shut. I'm
sure they would love to tell their side of the story.
Bart Scrivener
On Tue, 02 Sep 1997 14:30:32 GMT, lind...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
>
>woof...@woofbowwow.com (Woof) wrote:
>
>
>>In article <5uet93$90h$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>>lind...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Since he was not found guilty of anything why was it appropriate for
>>> them to pursue him? What evidence did they have that Billy Dale
>>> profitted personally from the way he handled the money?
>
He admitted in hearings he took substantial amounts of money from work
and put it in his bank account ($50,000 or so?). He said there were
no records indicating that he had only "borrowed" the money to have
cash available for work purposes because that nasty Clinton lady "must
have" stolen them from his desk. No one else at work, if I remember
correctly, could confirm this story. Commingling like this is
sometimes considered a crime, and it is certainly prima facia evidence
of embezzlement. Combined with a rather rich lifestyle (I heard he was
having an additional home built at the shore, though I can't confirm
this), some problems the ranking Democrat mentioned which could not be
pursued because of statute of limitations, it is not surprising that
the fed prosecutors, appointed by Republicans as I recall, decided to
indict. Which isn't to say he was guilty - but that there is no
particular reason to think the prosecution was politically motivated.
And such cavalier accounting for large cash transactions certainly
justified dismissal (I can just imagine how apoplectic some of my
previous bosses would have been if I had taken 5o grand home and put
it in my account, especially with no records nor confirmation of
innocence from others).
Jeffrey Scott Linder
bscri...@rocketmail.com (Bart Scrivener) wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Sep 1997 14:30:32 GMT, lind...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>Linder) wrote:
>>
>>woof...@woofbowwow.com (Woof) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <5uet93$90h$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>>>lind...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Since he was not found guilty of anything why was it appropriate for
>>>> them to pursue him? What evidence did they have that Billy Dale
>>>> profitted personally from the way he handled the money?
>>
>He admitted in hearings he took substantial amounts of money from work
>and put it in his bank account ($50,000 or so?). He said there were
>no records indicating that he had only "borrowed" the money to have
>cash available for work purposes because that nasty Clinton lady "must
>have" stolen them from his desk. No one else at work, if I remember
>correctly, could confirm this story. Commingling like this is
>sometimes considered a crime, and it is certainly prima facia evidence
>of embezzlement.
It is prima facia evidence of co-mingling of funds. Nothing more,
nothing less. In fact, Mr. Dale was willing to plead guilty to
co-mingling of funds.
>Combined with a rather rich lifestyle (I heard he was
>having an additional home built at the shore, though I can't confirm
>this),
Convenient little fact isn't it?
>some problems the ranking Democrat mentioned which could not be
>pursued because of statute of limitations,
Statute of limitations? Please.
>it is not surprising that
>the fed prosecutors, appointed by Republicans as I recall, decided to
>indict. Which isn't to say he was guilty - but that there is no
>particular reason to think the prosecution was politically motivated.
>And such cavalier accounting for large cash transactions certainly
>justified dismissal
Very well. Why did they fire the entire office when only 2 had any
control over the money? Why did the decide to make a federal case of
it?
Dwarftosser
woof...@woofbowwow.com (Woof) wrote:
>> So the self-righteous bastards come up with the Privacy Act....but
>> now, 20 years have passed and one of their own has been caught rifling
>> thru a few confidential files digging for some dirt on the opposition
>> and all of a sudden it's "Hey...hey..we weren't gonna actually USE
>> any of that stuff....eh...what?".
>Care to offer any -EVIDENCE- that the files were used this way?
How many times do I have to say it?
The Privacy Act doesn't give a shit.
Your side made the rules...now its *your* guy who fucked up and all
of a sudden you don't want to play anymore.
--
Dwarftosser
Stilt Man
In article <340d7163...@192.168.2.2>,
Dwarftosser <do...@send.me.shit> wrote:
>woof...@woofbowwow.com (Woof) wrote:
>>> So the self-righteous bastards come up with the Privacy Act....but
>>> now, 20 years have passed and one of their own has been caught rifling
>>> thru a few confidential files digging for some dirt on the opposition
>>> and all of a sudden it's "Hey...hey..we weren't gonna actually USE
>>> any of that stuff....eh...what?".
> >Care to offer any -EVIDENCE- that the files were used this way?
> How many times do I have to say it?
> The Privacy Act doesn't give a shit.
The Privacy Act also authorizes the White House to use FBI files for
legitimate background check purposes.
Unless you can quote me a clause of the Act under discussion that states
that an honest, unknowing procurement of the wrong files in the process of
conducting a lawfully authorized background check is a violation of the
act, I suggest you retreat from this particular position.
If you can provide evidence that the files were used in a manner which
indicates that the procurement was intentional, that's one thing. The
only response you have provided is "The Privacy Act doesn't give a #*!!",
which is not an answer.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The Stilt Man stiltman@(remove this)teleport.com
http://www.teleport(remove this too).com/~stiltman/stiltman.html
< We are Microsoft Borg '97. Lower your expectations and >
< surrender your money. Antitrust law is irrelevant. >
< Competition is irrelevant. We will add your financial and >
< technological distinctiveness to our own. Your software >
< will adapt to service ours. Resistance is futile. >
Stilt Man
In article <340da754...@192.168.2.2>,
Dwarftosser <do...@send.me.shit> wrote:
>On 3 Sep 1997 10:59:50 -0700, N...@unsolicited.email.dammit (Stilt Man)
>wrote:
>>>>> So the self-righteous bastards come up with the Privacy Act....but
>>>>> now, 20 years have passed and one of their own has been caught rifling
>>>>> thru a few confidential files digging for some dirt on the opposition
>>>>> and all of a sudden it's "Hey...hey..we weren't gonna actually USE
>>>>> any of that stuff....eh...what?".
>>> >Care to offer any -EVIDENCE- that the files were used this way?
>>> The Privacy Act doesn't give a shit.
>>The Privacy Act also authorizes the White House to use FBI files for
>>legitimate background check purposes.
> Which isn't what was done here.
Unless you can prove otherwise, that was the intent under which the FBI
files were mistakenly procured. Accidentally screwing up is not criminal.
>>Unless you can quote me a clause of the Act under discussion that states
>>that an honest, unknowing procurement of the wrong files in the process of
>>conducting a lawfully authorized background check is a violation of the
>>act, I suggest you retreat from this particular position.
> The records were obtained fraudulently in violation of the Privacy
>Act.
Repeating the charge is not an answer.
>There is no way that ANY list provided the WH security office
>could have contained the names requested especially the holdovers from
>the Bush administration who were never even entered into the EPASS
>system.
Okay, so how does Brent Scowcroft's file being in the hands of the White
House prove that there was an abuse? Does anyone who isn't into trivial
pursuit on the Bush administration staff even know who the bloody hell
Brent Scowcroft is? The guy is a complete nobody who came from nowhere
and went back to nowhere. He is a political zero who poses no threat to
the Clinton administration whatsoever. Why in the world would the Clinton
administration want to deliberately procure this complete nobody's file
in order to abuse it?
Pick out some more names from the Bush administration. Dick Cheney, James
Baker . . . uh, I don't even remember very many of them any more, and I
read the newspaper on a largely daily basis. The Bush administration staff
is not even a microblip on the political radar screen. What motive would
the Clinton administration have in potentially committing a potentially
impeachable offense just to go after a few hundred unheard of flunkies
from the Bush administration?
>How could a computer foulup magically pluck names out of the
>thin air? All of the lists that were provided to the WH security
>office were presented at the hearings. Not one of them contained the
>names requested. The oldest list provided omitted almost 100 of the
>names requested. The WH security office could not provide ONE list
>supporting their SNAFU bullshit.
Now, hold on there. You were saying all of five or so sentences earlier
that there was no way that ANY of the lists could have contained the
names requested. Now you're saying that the oldest list provided to
the White House security offices "omitted almost 100 of the names requested",
which, if you phrase it a little less carefully, means that it INCLUDED
all of the names requested EXCEPT "almost 100" of them. This, in itself,
disproves a great deal of your case: there is *evidence* of a screwed-up
list for a great many of the files that mistakenly got into the White
House security office. At last count, there were around 2,000 questionable
files or so, and if the White House provided a documented and screwed-up
list for 1900 of them, I wouldn't tend to say that the evidence supports
a conclusion of deliberate abuse.
> Of course you believe every lie vomited forth from this sleazy
>administration and all that will fall on deaf ears.
Considering that you just now went and backed up most of what they've said,
I'm not impressed with the "lie vomited forth" explanation.
>I will leave you
>with another clause in the Privacy Act dealing with how the records
>should be kept and stored. Take it from me....sitting on an
>ex-employees laptop in his basement two years after leaving his post
>ain't one of 'em.
All of which proves nothing other than negligence. If your only case is
that they procured a large number of files by accident and then they left
them sitting in a wrong place, you're going to have to start over.
If some members of the Clinton administration mishandled the files once
they'd accidentally gotten them, that's one thing. It's certainly not
a proof that the Clinton administration had some "enemies list", consisting
almost entirely of political nobodies from the Bush administration, and that
they went to deliberately dig up dirt on them with their FBI files.
Dwarftosser
On 3 Sep 1997 12:09:49 -0700, N...@unsolicited.email.dammit (Stilt Man)
wrote:
>In article <340da754...@192.168.2.2>,
>Dwarftosser <do...@send.me.shit> wrote:
>>On 3 Sep 1997 10:59:50 -0700, N...@unsolicited.email.dammit (Stilt Man)
>>wrote:
>>>>>> So the self-righteous bastards come up with the Privacy Act....but
>>>>>> now, 20 years have passed and one of their own has been caught rifling
>>>>>> thru a few confidential files digging for some dirt on the opposition
>>>>>> and all of a sudden it's "Hey...hey..we weren't gonna actually USE
>>>>>> any of that stuff....eh...what?".
>
>>>> >Care to offer any -EVIDENCE- that the files were used this way?
>
>>>> The Privacy Act doesn't give a shit.
>
>>>The Privacy Act also authorizes the White House to use FBI files for
>>>legitimate background check purposes.
>
>> Which isn't what was done here.
>
>Unless you can prove otherwise, that was the intent under which the FBI
>files were mistakenly procured. Accidentally screwing up is not criminal.
Violation of the Privacy Act is.
>
>>>Unless you can quote me a clause of the Act under discussion that states
>>>that an honest, unknowing procurement of the wrong files in the process of
>>>conducting a lawfully authorized background check is a violation of the
>>>act, I suggest you retreat from this particular position.
>
>> The records were obtained fraudulently in violation of the Privacy
>>Act.
>
>Repeating the charge is not an answer.
>
>>There is no way that ANY list provided the WH security office
>>could have contained the names requested especially the holdovers from
>>the Bush administration who were never even entered into the EPASS
>>system.
>
>Okay, so how does Brent Scowcroft's file being in the hands of the White
>House prove that there was an abuse?
It doesn't say there has to be any abuse. It says fraudulently
obtained...which they were.
>>How could a computer foulup magically pluck names out of the
>>thin air? All of the lists that were provided to the WH security
>>office were presented at the hearings. Not one of them contained the
>>names requested. The oldest list provided omitted almost 100 of the
>>names requested. The WH security office could not provide ONE list
>>supporting their SNAFU bullshit.
>
>Now, hold on there. You were saying all of five or so sentences earlier
>that there was no way that ANY of the lists could have contained the
>names requested. Now you're saying that the oldest list provided to
>the White House security offices "omitted almost 100 of the names requested",
>which, if you phrase it a little less carefully, means that it INCLUDED
>all of the names requested EXCEPT "almost 100" of them.
Of course it does...that's exactly what it means.
You really should do a little research before you go spouting off
abou this. Five minutes at the hearings would have gotten you to this
point.
>disproves a great deal of your case: there is *evidence* of a screwed-up
>list for a great many of the files that mistakenly got into the White
>House security office.
None of the lists are entirely 100% accurate owing to the fact
that there are two tracking systems and lag between them. The bottom
line remains almost 100 were NEVER on the system that produced these
lists because they quite BEFORE the EPASS system was even created.
So how did they get requested?
Please answer this question.
> At last count, there were around 2,000 questionable
>files or so, and if the White House provided a documented and screwed-up
>list for 1900 of them, I wouldn't tend to say that the evidence supports
>a conclusion of deliberate abuse.
The WH Security office says they had an out-of-date list but have
NEVER been able to produce the list they used. NEVER.
What do you think that probably means?
>
>> Of course you believe every lie vomited forth from this sleazy
>>administration and all that will fall on deaf ears.
>
>Considering that you just now went and backed up most of what they've said,
>I'm not impressed with the "lie vomited forth" explanation.
Bullshit.
Where did they get the almost 100 names that were never a part of
the E-PASS? Where is the list that the WH Security office said they
used?
>>I will leave you
>>with another clause in the Privacy Act dealing with how the records
>>should be kept and stored. Take it from me....sitting on an
>>ex-employees laptop in his basement two years after leaving his post
>>ain't one of 'em.
>
>All of which proves nothing other than negligence. If your only case is
>that they procured a large number of files by accident and then they left
>them sitting in a wrong place, you're going to have to start over.
They were obtained fraudulently.
They were removed from the WH Security office and kept to the home
of an employee who had left the WH two years earlier.
Both of these are violations of the law and you'll have to try and
get used to it.
>If some members of the Clinton administration mishandled the files once
>they'd accidentally gotten them, that's one thing. It's certainly not
>a proof that the Clinton administration had some "enemies list", consisting
>almost entirely of political nobodies from the Bush administration, and that
>they went to deliberately dig up dirt on them with their FBI files.
If Marseca had decided not take the fifth and instead testified that
Bill Clinton ordered him to get the files by whatever means necessary
and try and dig a little dirt on the opposition...you would somehow
justify it.
I've seen the type...a true believer.
--
Dwarftosser
Michael Rivero
In article <5uk8im$bdn$1...@kelly.teleport.com>,
Stilt Man <N...@unsolicited.email.dammit> wrote:
>In article <340d7163...@192.168.2.2>,
>Dwarftosser <do...@send.me.shit> wrote:
>>>> So the self-righteous bastards come up with the Privacy Act....but
>>>> now, 20 years have passed and one of their own has been caught rifling
>>>> thru a few confidential files digging for some dirt on the opposition
>>>> and all of a sudden it's "Hey...hey..we weren't gonna actually USE
>>>> any of that stuff....eh...what?".
>
>> >Care to offer any -EVIDENCE- that the files were used this way?
>
>
>
>The Privacy Act also authorizes the White House to use FBI files for
>legitimate background check purposes.
>
FBI files were requested for Republican administration officials who
had NOT applied for access to the White House.
--
RANCHO RUNNAMUKKA | Special Effects / Documentary Films
Mike & Claire - The Rancho Runnamukka http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/
RYDER TRUCK AT ARMY BASE 4/95 http://members.aol.com/bardsquill/truck.htm
Martin McPhillips
On 3 Sep 1997 12:09:49 -0700, N...@unsolicited.email.dammit (Stilt Man) wrote:
>In article <340da754...@192.168.2.2>,
>Dwarftosser <do...@send.me.shit> wrote:
>>On 3 Sep 1997 10:59:50 -0700, N...@unsolicited.email.dammit (Stilt Man)
>>wrote:
>>>>>> So the self-righteous bastards come up with the Privacy Act....but
>>>>>> now, 20 years have passed and one of their own has been caught rifling
>>>>>> thru a few confidential files digging for some dirt on the opposition
>>>>>> and all of a sudden it's "Hey...hey..we weren't gonna actually USE
>>>>>> any of that stuff....eh...what?".
>
>>>> >Care to offer any -EVIDENCE- that the files were used this way?
>
>>>> The Privacy Act doesn't give a shit.
>
>>>The Privacy Act also authorizes the White House to use FBI files for
>>>legitimate background check purposes.
>
>> Which isn't what was done here.
>
>Unless you can prove otherwise, that was the intent under which the FBI
>files were mistakenly procured. Accidentally screwing up is not criminal.
If they had obtained the files on a screw-up, that doesn't explain
why the would hang onto them for so long, holding them in
their vault. Obtaining them by accident might excuse their
getting them, but there's no excuse for *having* them.
People in that office knew that those files were on people
who were no longer at the White House and that they
were not needed for any of the regular work of that office.
Michael Rivero
In article <5uk8im$bdn$1...@kelly.teleport.com>,
Stilt Man <N...@unsolicited.email.dammit> wrote:
>In article <340d7163...@192.168.2.2>,
>Dwarftosser <do...@send.me.shit> wrote:
>>>> So the self-righteous bastards come up with the Privacy Act....but
>>>> now, 20 years have passed and one of their own has been caught rifling
>>>> thru a few confidential files digging for some dirt on the opposition
>>>> and all of a sudden it's "Hey...hey..we weren't gonna actually USE
>>>> any of that stuff....eh...what?".
>
>> >Care to offer any -EVIDENCE- that the files were used this way?
>
>
>
>The Privacy Act also authorizes the White House to use FBI files for
>legitimate background check purposes.
>
FBI files were being requested for people who had not applied to visit the
Stilt Man
In article <5ukcrp$63c$1...@blaze.accessone.com>,
Michael Rivero <riv...@accessone.com> wrote:
> In article <5uk8im$bdn$1...@kelly.teleport.com>,
> Stilt Man <N...@unsolicited.email.dammit> wrote:
> >The Privacy Act also authorizes the White House to use FBI files for
> >legitimate background check purposes.
> FBI files were being requested for people who had not applied to visit the
>White House.
Yes, that's been established, thank you. Did you have some comment on
some form of evidence that this was a deliberate misuse of this authorization,
or are you just commenting that something out of the ordinary happened?
Stilt Man
In article <EFy6n...@nonexistent.com>,
Martin McPhillips <cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
>On 3 Sep 1997 12:09:49 -0700, N...@unsolicited.email.dammit (Stilt Man) wrote:
>>Unless you can prove otherwise, that was the intent under which the FBI
>>files were mistakenly procured. Accidentally screwing up is not criminal.
>If they had obtained the files on a screw-up, that doesn't explain
>why the would hang onto them for so long, holding them in
>their vault. Obtaining them by accident might excuse their
>getting them, but there's no excuse for *having* them.
And if it turns out that someone was expected to return the things when
they realized that they had the wrong ones, that they accidentally failed
to do so, and everyone around them forgot that they'd had them in the first
place because they figured they'd been sent back?
At this point, there is exactly zero evidence that they got misused, and
zero evidence that anyone outside of the security office was even aware that
they had them. It's possible that someone in the security office didn't act
as promptly as they should have when it was found that they had the wrong
files. That is not evidence that Clinton gave an order to use peoples'
FBI files for partisan warfare, as has been alleged (and taken for granted
even, in some quarters).
>People in that office knew that those files were on people
>who were no longer at the White House and that they
>were not needed for any of the regular work of that office.
Did anyone *outside of* that office know that? We're debating not just
the simple fact that the White House had the files, we're debating whether
they were part of any alleged pattern of misuse of power. If the only
people who were even aware that the files were there were a few low level
jerks in the security office, that is not evidence of such misuse at the
presidential level.
Michael Rivero
In article <5ukrdu$e21$1...@kelly.teleport.com>,
Stilt Man <N...@unsolicited.email.dammit> wrote:
>In article <5ukcrp$63c$1...@blaze.accessone.com>,
>Michael Rivero <riv...@accessone.com> wrote:
>> In article <5uk8im$bdn$1...@kelly.teleport.com>,
>> Stilt Man <N...@unsolicited.email.dammit> wrote:
>> >The Privacy Act also authorizes the White House to use FBI files for
>> >legitimate background check purposes.
>
>> FBI files were being requested for people who had not applied to visit the
>>White House.
>
>Yes, that's been established, thank you. Did you have some comment on
>some form of evidence that this was a deliberate misuse of this authorization,
>or are you just commenting that something out of the ordinary happened?
>
It's real simple. If those people did not apply for White House access,
then their files wre NOT acquired "for legitimate background check purposes".
They were acquired for something else.
j...@globaldialog.com
Stilt Man, full of optimism, penned the
theme for the Clinton Administration:
"Misfeasance, not malfeasance."
pardi
gar...@ix.netcom.com (Ford) wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 23:38:24 GMT, cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips)
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 22:08:38 GMT, ga...@dialnet.nett (F. Prefect) wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 15:50:04 -0400, David Hart
>>><d.h...@ignore.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> If we allow anyone who has had contact in the past with a President in
>>>>> office to file a civil case while the President is in office we are
>>>>> setting a very dangerous precedent. A sitting President could spend
>>>>> his entire time in office either in court or giving depositions.
>>>>> Non-criminal charges leveled against a President while in office can
>>>>> wait until he is out of office.
>>>>>
>>>>> F. Prefect
>>>----->>>> Your argurment would have some merit if we had a >>>----->>>>"President" in office but all we have is a "Coward and a >=
>>----->>>>Draft Dodger". I am proud to have served and I am also >>>----->>>>grateful that Potus wasn't there because he would hav=
e run >>>----->>>>the other way and we would have lost a lot more good men.
>>>_____>>>>By the way, where were you.
Rocco
>>>>Justice delayed is justice denied.
>>>
>>>Very true, but in cases of this sort, very impractical.
>>
>>Impractical for who?
>One never knows, it may turn out to be very impractical for Ms. Jones.
>
>Ford
M Soja
On Wed, 03 Sep 1997 02:47:04 GMT, bscri...@rocketmail.com (Bart
Scrivener) posted:
>[Billy Dale] admitted in hearings he took substantial amounts of money from work
>and put it in his bank account ($50,000 or so?). He said there were
>no records indicating that he had only "borrowed" the money to have
>cash available for work purposes because that nasty Clinton lady "must
>have" stolen them from his desk. No one else at work, if I remember
>correctly, could confirm this story.
"Cousin" Cornelius admitted to removing documents from the Travel
Office.
<snipped feigned smugness>
> Combined with a rather rich lifestyle (I heard he was
>having an additional home built at the shore, though I can't confirm
>this),
The false rumors still persist, I see. This one was begun by
Catherine Cornelius, who was interested in having Dale's job for
herself, shortly after she was installed in the Travel Office by David
Watkins to dig up dirt to be used against the staff.
From the June '94 American Spectator by David Brock:
"Once on the scene, she began eavesdropping on conversations. She put
out the word that some travel office workes were living beyond their
means, implying that funds were being embezzled or kicked back from
the charter companies. According to sources familiar with the
situation, her concerns focused on one employee who owned a cabin on
some $10-an-acre property near Virginia's Lake Anna and a $6,000
pontoon boat -- hardly high living."
And of course no evidence of embezzeling or kickbacks were found. But
Cornelius did get her job in the Travel Office. At least until it
turned out to be too much for her.
> some problems the ranking Democrat mentioned which could not be
>pursued because of statute of limitations,
"some problems", eh. You're a whiz.
> it is not surprising that
>the fed prosecutors, appointed by Republicans as I recall, decided to
>indict.
Bill Clinton fired all the Republican appointed federal prosecutors as
one of his first official acts of office.
> Which isn't to say he was guilty - but that there is no
>particular reason to think the prosecution was politically motivated.
The FBI was called into the case by Vince Foster and David Watkins,
bypassing the normal channel through the Dept of Justice. THAT makes
it political.
>And such cavalier accounting for large cash transactions certainly
>justified dismissal (I can just imagine how apoplectic some of my
>previous bosses would have been if I had taken 5o grand home and put
>it in my account, especially with no records nor confirmation of
>innocence from others).
You obviously don't know much about how the Travel Office worked. The
50 Grand, if that's what it was, wasn't even government money.
M Soja
Statement on the White House Travel Office
William F. Clinger, Jr. Chairman, House Government Reform and
Oversight Committee January 4, 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In July 1993, Vince Foster said to his brother-in-law when talking
about the Travel Office matter," You would be shocked - our own
people would lie to us." This occurred just weeks before his death.
This is an Administration of disappearing files, traveling files and
scores of very bright people claiming "no recollection" of countless
events in any number of congressional investigations. Maybe some
people have lost the ability to be shocked anymore. Because it seems
to occur of often, perhaps we have become numb to the fact that high
ranking government officials creatively obscure the truth and in some
instances actually lie about their activities. But I for one was
dismayed and deeply saddened to learn that lies may have been
propounded by Mr. Foster's "people" in the White House Travel Officer
matter from day one. "What did high ranking officials at the White
House and their friends know and when and why did they forget it" is
becoming the question of the day.
It is frankly astonishing that a two-and-a-half year old memo central
to my committee's investigation of the Travel Office firing is just
released yesterday by the White House more than two years after it was
written and over six months after we requested all relevant documents.
And in that memo, a former high-ranking White House official, David
Watkins, provides a refreshingly clear view of actions he took
regarding the White House Travel Office and admits he deliberately
misled and probably lied to numerous government investigators about
the White House Travel Office firings and the role of the First Lady
and Harry Thomason in those firings. There may well be others in this
sorry affair who have done so as well. The credibility gap in this
investigation has become a deepening chasm.
The May 1993 firing of the entire White House Travel Office staff and
the subsequent 30 month criminal investigation of former Travel Office
Director Billy Dale is seeming to have nothing to do with any real or
imagined financial wrong doing every day and more and more to do with
politically connected friends who had the ear of the First Family and
the clout to get White House staff to act on the flimsiest of
allegations. As you know, Bill Dale, the designated scapegoat was
acquitted of all charges of wrongdoing after less than two hours of
jury deliberations. During the trial, yet the presiding judge, a
Clinton appointee, refused to allow into evidence any testimony about
the political motivations behind the firings or the issue of missing
documents. The conduct of that investigation and the amount of any
collaboration with the White House is yet to be determined. But the
cost to an innocent man for being in the way of politically connected
First Family Friends is a half million dollars in legal fees.
The Wakins memo apparently directed to Mr. McLarty clearly indicates
that the White House engaged in a cover-up of the true story of the
Travel Office firings right from the start. Both the firings and the
cover-up were orchestrated at the "highest levels" of the White House.
The firings had been contemplated as early as February 1993 and
planned long before any evidence was found, before any FBI agents
crossed the White House threshold and before any auditors were called
in. The White House's so-called internal review of the firings was
overseen by Mr. McLarty, who Mr. Watkins now reports pressured him to
fire the Travel Office at the repeated insistence of the First Lady.
In a particularly disingenuous move, Mr. McLarty issued four
reprimands to employees who were only following his and the First
Lady's expressed wishes to have the employees fired. In other words
those responding to the orders of the First Lady and Mr. McLarty were
reprimanded by those who issued the orders. Mr. Watkins reports in
this memo that the firings and the subsequent plans for the Travel
Office were known to and approved by Mr. McLarty with the First
Lady's direct knowledge and input. Mr. Watkins' memo states that the
First Lady cited Harry Thomason's "plan as support for the need for
immediate action." Mr. Thomason indicated to the First Lady "that he
could put a more efficient structure in place in an hour's time to
handle all the tasks of the Travel Office" Mr. Watkins reported.
I frankly find it incredible, that after all this time and over a half
a dozen investigations into the Travel Office matter, the White House
has only now released a memo which virtually obliterates their prior
explanations and claims about the Travel Office. My Committee has
recently come into the possession of other documents which further
undermine and contradict the official White House story to date. The
White House told us certain documents we now have didn't even exist.
We have asked the White House about references such as "HT (Harry
Thomason) memo" and "HT(Harry Thomason) tapes in Vince Foster's
Travel Office notebook and are told no one knows anything about this.
Again, what did people at the White House know and when did they
forget it?
White House Counsel Jan Sherurne states they only found this document
last Friday, a claim that is difficult to believe in light of the
numerous investigations and subpoenas which were issued in the matter.
The fact that the information in this memo is incredibly damaging and
demonstrates that the First Lady as well as Harry Thomason, Mack
McLarty and other White House officials made statements in direct
conflict with Mr. Watkins account may have more to do with why this
document wasn't "discovered" any sooner. Unfortunately we have
learned there are other "missing" documents that the White House
can't seem to locate. To this day, the White House continues to drag
out the production of calendars, phone logs and e-mail - requests
that were made months ago --including those of Mr. McLarty, the First
Lady and such central players as George Stephanoupoulos and Mark
Gearan.
I have been assured on several occasions that the White House had
delivered all substantive documents relating to the Travel Office
matter, yet now we belatedly have these documents. This is not the
first time the White House has delayed and withheld documents in the
Travel Office matter: •We have learned in the course of this
investigation that Mr. Shaheen at the Justice Department's Office of
Professional Responsibility was shocked at the withholding of the
Vince Foster Travel Office file from his investigators and appalled
at the lack of candor and cooperation from the White House. Mr.
Shaheen stated that he was preparing to go to the Attorney General to
request that White House witnesses be subpoenaed and forced to
testify under oath.•We have learned in the course of this
investigation that this same Vince Foster Travel Office file had been
withheld from Independent Counsel Fiske despite a subpoena for such
documents;•It also became apparent with the recent release of new
documents related to Harry Thomason's seeking government contracts,
that the White House systematically withheld documents from the
Congressionally mandated GAO investigation of the Travel Office;•
Finally, we have learned that the White House also withheld documents
relating to Harry Thomason for months and months from Public Integrity
Justice Department officials and the FBI who were conducting the
criminal investigation of Billy Dale.
So, this Committee is not the first to be between a stonewall and the
White House, but I do intend to be the last.
The White House and Harry Thomason-deliberately misled the press and
the American people about the true facts regarding this matter. High
ranking officials facilitated in covering up the true story of the
firings. Drafts of the Travel Office report were altered to omit
embarrassing information about Mr. Thomason and statements from the
First Lady strikingly claim "no recollection" on conversations she
had with Mr. Thomason.
On of the authors of other White House Management Review wrote of his
concerns about how the White House was approaching this matter in a
less than forthcoming manner: •"Problem is that if we do any kind of
report and fail to address these questions, press jumps on you
wanting to know answers; while if you give answers that aren't fully
honest (e.g. no re: HRC) you risk hugely compounding the problem by
getting caught in half-truths. You run risk of turning this into a
cover-up."
That is exactly what has happened here - half-truths and a cover-up.
David Watkins memo demonstrates his lack of candor and we know he in
turn encouraged his subordinates to corroborate his deceptions. Many
key people involved in the Travel Office firings were the first
individuals rummaging through Vince Foster's files after hid death.
Harry Thomason was the second person the First Lady called July 20,
1993 upon hearing of Mr. Foster's death. The true story about this
matter was never revealed by the White House and remains to be
told.As a result of these disturbing disclosures as well as recent
developments in our investigation, I am taking the following actions:
•Particularly in light of the role of Harry Thomason highlighted in
this memo, today, we intend to serve the subpoena previously
authorized relating to Harry Thomason documents;•We will subpoena
David Watkins and subpoena all relevant documents that he may
have;•We will be sending a serious of questions to the First Lady
regarding this matter;•We will be asking the White House for a full
accounting on the conduct of their document searches and
production;•In our next business meeting, I intend to call for the
authorization to issue subpoenas for all documents from the White
House relating to the Travel Office, Harry Thomason, Darnell Martens
and TRM and authorization to issue subpoenas for the appearance of
any other necessary witnesses as soon as possible.
Today I also am announcing our next round of hearings which will
include a day in which we hear from the seven fired Travel Office
employees followed up by a hearing where those who instigated these
firings will be called upon to testify.
M Soja
On Wed, 03 Sep 1997 02:47:04 GMT, bscri...@rocketmail.com (Bart
Scrivener) posted:
>And such cavalier accounting for large cash transactions certainly
>justified dismissal (I can just imagine how apoplectic some of my
>previous bosses would have been if I had taken 5o grand home and put
>it in my account, especially with no records nor confirmation of
>innocence from others).
The matter of "deposits into his personal checking account" was not
know until long AFTER the investigation was running. It could not
have been used as an excuse to investigate because it wasn't known.
Actually, the first "excuse" out of the White House after the firings
was that it was part of Al Gore's reinventing govt performance review.
Ha.
It is illegal for govt employees to lobby on behalf of organizations
through which they may benefit. It is also illegal to trade political
contributions in return for govt business.
There are several memos that show that both Catherine Cornelius and
Harry Thomason were pressuring the White House for slices of the
travel business months before the firings. When news of this pending
cronyism began to leak out some bright wit thought of trumping up
charges of wrong doing. The FBI was secretly called in but Vince
Foster realized that was a mistake, too, so the idea of a financial
audit was conceived to cover up THAT misstep. But even the audit
didn't uncover any financial wrong doing, only that the travel office
books were a mess.
Not only was the FBI misused, but so apparently was the IRS. The
following comes from the Congressional Record:
(Senate - June 09, 1993)
The White House may act as an informant, like any other
citizen. Tips from the White House are to be treated like
tips from any other citizen; the IRS would conduct its own
independent evaluation before acting on any tip. Travelgate
raises the question of whether the Clinton administration is
abiding by these rules.
A recapitulation of Travelgate is warranted. On May 19, the
White House fired its seven-person travel staff, alleging
shoddy accounting procedures. The real reason for the fir-
ings, newspapers later reported, was to put President
Clinton's cousin (a travel agent) and a Hollywood producer
friend (an investor in an air charter operation) in charge
of travel for the White House press corps, which follows
Clinton around in chartered airplanes. Frantically seeking
to justify the firings on some other ground, the White
House--without going through the attorney general--called
the FBI to investigate the travel office staff, whom the
White House publicly accused of criminality on May 21 (and
five of whom were miraculously rehired four days later).
This article asks whether the White House damage-control
crew called the IRS as well.
The IRS only cares about bribery if it shows up as a deduc-
tion or a failure to report income on a federal income tax
return.
Coincidentally, at 3:00 p.m. on the afternoon of May 21,
three IRS agents showed up unannounced at the Smyrna, Tenn.
offices of Ultrair, the charter operation that handled the
bulk of White House press travel. The agents told the
Ultrair officers that they had been sent from the Nashville
IRS District Office to investigate allegations of bribery
and kickbacks involving the White House travel office.
When Ultrair officers stated that they would rather continue
the conversation through their lawyers, the agents presented
them with a broadly worded administrative summons for all of
Ultrair's financial records. Ultrair is complying with the
summons. The Washington Post seems to have been the only
publication that reported the IRS agents' visit. Under
section 6103, the IRS could not discuss Ultrair's case
without consent from the taxpayer. There is a possibility
that the IRS will internally investigate the tactics used in
the Ultrair audit.
The usual starting point for an IRS examination is a return;
without a return, there is nothing for agents to talk about.
Though Tennessee may still be a hazardous place to be a
`revenooer,' the IRS does not kick down doors as a part of
the normal examination process. Several former IRS execu-
tives called the visit highly unusual. In a normal audit,
the IRS calls first, makes an appointment for an agent to
visit, and requests documents that it needs to examine.
Tactics such as unannounced visits and administrative sum-
monses are usually reserved for cases when the taxpayer
resists polite requests to provide information, as will be
discussed blow. Well, is not bribery of an executive agency
a serious crime? Yes, but the IRS only cares about bribery
if it shows up as a deduction or a failure to report income
on a federal income tax return; killing someone is a serious
crime, but is not a tax crime.
According to its president, Richard Millinor, Ultrair had no
corporate existence before June 1992, when it was formed by
a group of former Pan Am employees who had handled the White
House travel business at Pan Am. Ultrair has not had an
income tax audit before, though it had an excise tax audit
last year. Ultrair has yet to file an income tax return for
calendar year 1992; it has an extension, and its eventual
return is expected to show a large net operating loss.
Bart Scrivener
On Thu, 04 Sep 1997 02:27:52 GMT, ms...@javanet.com (M Soja) wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Sep 1997 02:47:04 GMT, bscri...@rocketmail.com (Bart
>Scrivener) posted:
>
>>[Billy Dale] admitted in hearings he took substantial amounts of money from work
>>and put it in his bank account ($50,000 or so?). He said there were
>>no records indicating that he had only "borrowed" the money to have
>>cash available for work purposes because that nasty Clinton lady "must
>>have" stolen them from his desk. No one else at work, if I remember
>>correctly, could confirm this story.
>
>"Cousin" Cornelius admitted to removing documents from the Travel
>Office.
>
Was one of them a list of withdrawals "borrowed?"
><snipped feigned smugness>
can't see the snip - but probably fair! I think feigned smugness hits
my tone here quite well. Good catch. It made me laugh.
>
>> Combined with a rather rich lifestyle (I heard he was
>>having an additional home built at the shore, though I can't confirm
>>this),
>
>The false rumors still persist, I see. This one was begun by
>Catherine Cornelius, who was interested in having Dale's job for
>herself, shortly after she was installed in the Travel Office by David
>Watkins to dig up dirt to be used against the staff.
>
>From the June '94 American Spectator by David Brock:
>"Once on the scene, she began eavesdropping on conversations. She put
>out the word that some travel office workes were living beyond their
>means, implying that funds were being embezzled or kicked back from
>the charter companies. According to sources familiar with the
>situation, her concerns focused on one employee who owned a cabin on
>some $10-an-acre property near Virginia's Lake Anna and a $6,000
>pontoon boat -- hardly high living."
I don't see anything about Dale's house being built at the shore. And
I confess: I forget where I heard it. Maybe it's a phony story. I've
searched a bit for Dale but his problems seem to predate web files.
>
>And of course no evidence of embezzeling or kickbacks were found.
Then why would career prosecutors proceed? If you tell me because
Clinton wanted them to, I'll roll my eyes and assume you've never
worked for such an agency and have a goofy view of how the real world
of such govt agencies work..
But
>Cornelius did get her job in the Travel Office. At least until it
>turned out to be too much for her.
>
>> some problems the ranking Democrat mentioned which could not be
>>pursued because of statute of limitations,
>
>"some problems", eh. You're a whiz.
Yeah - I don't have access to the file. Sorry. I do know that
Congressman Kjnorski (spelling not even close) said there were matters
which could not be pursued because of the staturt which bear on
whether we should believe there was good reason for the prosecution to
proceed. I know that's hardly persuasive, given my lack of facts, but
i do think it's worth mentioning. I watched the guy say it on TV -
and I believe him. He seemed sincere as hell.
>
>> it is not surprising that
>>the fed prosecutors, appointed by Republicans as I recall, decided to
>>indict.
>
>Bill Clinton fired all the Republican appointed federal prosecutors as
>one of his first official acts of office.
>
No - he fired eihty-something U. S. Attorneys. The govt has way more
than that. And I THINK the internal matters of governmental ethics are
handled by career prosecutors within the Department of Justice. Like
those looking into fund raising scandals now.
>> Which isn't to say he was guilty - but that there is no
>>particular reason to think the prosecution was politically motivated.
>
>The FBI was called into the case by Vince Foster and David Watkins,
>bypassing the normal channel through the Dept of Justice. THAT makes
>it political.
Fair - but again I have faith that career prosecutors, especially if
appointed by Reagan, would not take a dive. That the decision to
prosecute had a substantial basis. That could be wrong - but I'd sure
be happy to give you 10 to 1 odds.
>
>>And such cavalier accounting for large cash transactions certainly
>>justified dismissal (I can just imagine how apoplectic some of my
>>previous bosses would have been if I had taken 5o grand home and put
>>it in my account, especially with no records nor confirmation of
>>innocence from others).
>
>You obviously don't know much about how the Travel Office worked. The
>50 Grand, if that's what it was, wasn't even government money.
I know that it's not govt money - so what? It's ok to take the
clients' funds home?
Feigned Smugness,
Y.O.S.
Bartleby T. Scrivener
Bart Scrivener
On 3 Sep 1997 16:44:44 -0700, riv...@accessone.com (Michael Rivero)
wrote:
>
> In article <5ukrdu$e21$1...@kelly.teleport.com>,
> Stilt Man <N...@unsolicited.email.dammit> wrote:
> >In article <5ukcrp$63c$1...@blaze.accessone.com>,
> >Michael Rivero <riv...@accessone.com> wrote:
> >> In article <5uk8im$bdn$1...@kelly.teleport.com>,
> >> Stilt Man <N...@unsolicited.email.dammit> wrote:
> >> >The Privacy Act also authorizes the White House to use FBI files for
> >> >legitimate background check purposes.
> >
> >> FBI files were being requested for people who had not applied to visit the
> >>White House.
> >
> >Yes, that's been established, thank you. Did you have some comment on
> >some form of evidence that this was a deliberate misuse of this authorization,
> >or are you just commenting that something out of the ordinary happened?
> >
>
>
> It's real simple. If those people did not apply for White House access,
>then their files wre NOT acquired "for legitimate background check purposes".
>
> They were acquired for something else.
Oh - you mean like "To complete the incorrect list mistakenly used?"
I think we agree.
Dwarftosser
There is no such list.
There never has been.
There couldn't possibly be such a list because many of the names
were NEVER entered into EPASS or WAVE.
Where did they come from?
--
Dwarftosser
Stilt Man
In article <5ukspc$qt5$1...@blaze.accessone.com>,
Michael Rivero <riv...@accessone.com> wrote:
> In article <5ukrdu$e21$1...@kelly.teleport.com>,
> Stilt Man <N...@unsolicited.email.dammit> wrote:
> >In article <5ukcrp$63c$1...@blaze.accessone.com>,
> >Michael Rivero <riv...@accessone.com> wrote:
> >> In article <5uk8im$bdn$1...@kelly.teleport.com>,
> >> Stilt Man <N...@unsolicited.email.dammit> wrote:
> >> >The Privacy Act also authorizes the White House to use FBI files for
> >> >legitimate background check purposes.
> >> FBI files were being requested for people who had not applied to visit the
> >>White House.
> >Yes, that's been established, thank you. Did you have some comment on
> >some form of evidence that this was a deliberate misuse of this authorization,
> >or are you just commenting that something out of the ordinary happened?
> It's real simple. If those people did not apply for White House access,
>then their files wre NOT acquired "for legitimate background check purposes".
I'm sorry, but your conclusion about the intent that they were acquired for
does not follow strictly from the premise you have stipulated. Do you have
evidence that some other intent was in play here? Yes or no?
James C. Harrison
I suspect that we don't hear about "Filegate" because there turned out to
be nothing much to say about it. Starr's people leak whatever they can
that is politically damaging to the administration, but they have leaked
nothing at all about the file business. Starr may have a problem here. He
can't just report that the files were never used--that would subject him
to violent criticism from right wingers. On the other hand, there may
simply be no evidence of any use or misuse of the files whatsoever by
anybody in the Clinton admininstration. Obviously I don't know that the
administration didn't use the files, but I sure haven't heard any
evidence that they did.
The Republican thought process seems to run: if we got a hold of a bunch
of our enemies' files, we'd surely use them. Therefore..
hexis
Martin McPhillips
On Thu, 04 Sep 1997 15:07:21 -0700, woof...@woofbowwow.com (Woof) wrote:
>In article <340db7b...@192.168.2.2>, do...@send.me.shit (Dwarftosser) wrote:
>
>> >Okay, so how does Brent Scowcroft's file being in the hands of the White
>> >House prove that there was an abuse?
>>
>> It doesn't say there has to be any abuse. It says fraudulently
>> obtained...which they were.
>
>
>Can you offer any -EVIDENCE- that the files were obtained fraudulently?
Well, it is prima facie *fraud* to ask for and receive something that
you are by law barred from having without actually meeting the
specific purpose outlined in the request.
However, if "mistakes were made" and the files were obtained
"accidentally," i.e., no "guilty mind" was involved in their getting, that
still does *not* explain why, once it was known that these files ought
not to have been gotten, they were held onto. Once you realize that
you have something by prima facie *fraud*---even if accidentally
obtained---and you do not *correct* your mistake and return the
files, you've acquired for yourself the necessary "guilty mind" to
get you charged.
Rick Deckard
On Thu, 04 Sep 1997 07:36:23 -0500, j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>Bart Scrivener wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 03 Sep 1997 14:22:31 -0500, j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>>
>> >Stilt Man wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Unless you can prove otherwise,
>> >
>> >Ah. The high standard of the most ethical adminbistration
>> >in U.S. history.
>>
>> What else can you say about false charges about unproven intent?
>
>
>"False charges"?
>
>Please try to mask your "strategy" a little better.
>
>Go take a look at the WH "Coffee" lists, clown.
In America, drinking coffee is not a crime. Even with those whose
support you seek. Your response to the statement: you hurl mud, some
sticks, and now you want me to explain why he's muddy? is
more mud.
Impressive technique.
Rick Deckard
Rick Deckard
On Thu, 04 Sep 1997 02:27:58 GMT, ms...@javanet.com (M Soja) wrote:
>
> Statement on the White House Travel Office
>
>William F. Clinger, Jr. Chairman, House Government Reform and
>Oversight Committee January 4, 1996
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>In July 1993, Vince Foster said to his brother-in-law when talking
>about the Travel Office matter," You would be shocked - our own
>people would lie to us." This occurred just weeks before his death.
>This is an Administration of disappearing files, traveling files and
>scores of very bright people claiming "no recollection" of countless
>events in any number of congressional investigations. Maybe some
>people have lost the ability to be shocked anymore. Because it seems
>to occur of often, perhaps we have become numb to the fact that high
>ranking government officials creatively obscure the truth and in some
>instances actually lie about their activities. But I for one was
>dismayed and deeply saddened to learn that lies may have been
>propounded by Mr. Foster's "people" in the White House Travel Officer
>matter from day one.
And the moon "may" be made of green cheese. In other words, another:
dry hole.
"What did high ranking officials at the White
>House and their friends know and when and why did they forget it" is
>becoming the question of the day.
>
snip
>And in that memo, a former high-ranking White House official, David
>Watkins, provides a refreshingly clear view of actions he took
>regarding the White House Travel Office and admits he deliberately
>misled and probably lied to numerous government investigators about
>the White House Travel Office firings and the role of the First Lady
>and Harry Thomason in those firings. There may well be others in this
>sorry affair who have done so as well.
"May be others:" yet another dry hole.
The credibility gap in this
>investigation has become a deepening chasm.
>
>The May 1993 firing of the entire White House Travel Office staff and
>the subsequent 30 month criminal investigation of former Travel Office
>Director Billy Dale is seeming to have nothing to do with any real or
>imagined financial wrong doing every day and more and more to do with
>politically connected friends who had the ear of the First Family and
>the clout to get White House staff to act on the flimsiest of
>allegations.
'...is seeming to..."
still dry
As you know, Bill Dale, the designated scapegoat was
>acquitted of all charges of wrongdoing after less than two hours of
>jury deliberations. During the trial, yet the presiding judge, a
>Clinton appointee, refused to allow into evidence any testimony about
>the political motivations behind the firings or the issue of missing
>documents. The conduct of that investigation and the amount of any
>collaboration with the White House is yet to be determined.
"...yet to be determined..."
dry
But the
>cost to an innocent man for being in the way of politically connected
>First Family Friends is a half million dollars in legal fees.
>
>The Wakins memo apparently directed to Mr. McLarty clearly indicates
>that the White House engaged in a cover-up of the true story of the
>Travel Office firings right from the start. Both the firings and the
>cover-up were orchestrated at the "highest levels" of the White House.
They had every right to fire them all - so what's to cover up? And
even if they were less than candid about why they fired them: so what?
We elect a President and he gets 3,000 jobs to fill. Including the
seven in the WH travel office. He has every right to fire them for
almost any reason.
>The firings had been contemplated as early as February 1993 and
>planned long before any evidence was found, before any FBI agents
>crossed the White House threshold and before any auditors were called
>in. The White House's so-called internal review of the firings was
>overseen by Mr. McLarty, who Mr. Watkins now reports pressured him to
>fire the Travel Office at the repeated insistence of the First Lady.
>In a particularly disingenuous move, Mr. McLarty issued four
>reprimands to employees who were only following his and the First
>Lady's expressed wishes to have the employees fired. In other words
>those responding to the orders of the First Lady and Mr. McLarty were
>reprimanded by those who issued the orders. Mr. Watkins reports in
>this memo that the firings and the subsequent plans for the Travel
>Office were known to and approved by Mr. McLarty with the First
>Lady's direct knowledge and input. Mr. Watkins' memo states that the
>First Lady cited Harry Thomason's "plan as support for the need for
>immediate action." Mr. Thomason indicated to the First Lady "that he
>could put a more efficient structure in place in an hour's time to
>handle all the tasks of the Travel Office" Mr. Watkins reported.
Gee - the allegation is that they planned to fire them then fired
them. So? They had every legal right to fire them! On Mr. CLinger's
committee the Republicans, when they took over, fired scores of
democratic staffers. Who knew about the firings and when did they know
it? Was Chairman Clinger in on it from the start?
>
>I frankly find it incredible, that after all this time and over a half
>a dozen investigations into the Travel Office matter, the White House
>has only now released a memo which virtually obliterates their prior
>explanations and claims about the Travel Office. My Committee has
>recently come into the possession of other documents which further
>undermine and contradict the official White House story to date. The
>White House told us certain documents we now have didn't even exist.
>We have asked the White House about references such as "HT (Harry
>Thomason) memo" and "HT(Harry Thomason) tapes in Vince Foster's
>Travel Office notebook and are told no one knows anything about this.
>Again, what did people at the White House know and when did they
>forget it?
Who cares? Anymore than: Chairman Clinger - when did you learn of the
firings of the democratic staffers?
>
>White House Counsel Jan Sherurne states they only found this document
>last Friday, a claim that is difficult to believe in light of the
>numerous investigations and subpoenas which were issued in the matter.
>The fact that the information in this memo is incredibly damaging and
>demonstrates that the First Lady as well as Harry Thomason, Mack
>McLarty and other White House officials made statements in direct
>conflict with Mr. Watkins account
Direct conflict? Hardly. Hillary says: I think we should fire them.
Watkins takes this as an order. Hillary said: I didn't order - that's
their call. I just gave my opinion. Where's the conflict?
may have more to do with why this
>document wasn't "discovered" any sooner. Unfortunately we have
>learned there are other "missing" documents that the White House
>can't seem to locate. To this day, the White House continues to drag
>out the production of calendars, phone logs and e-mail - requests
>that were made months ago
the WH has produced probably more than 100,000 documents, far and away
the most documents in the history of the world, at the highest rate of
production in the history of the world. When Republicans fish and have
incredibly broad requests: every document, electronic and otherwise,
pertaining in any way to the Resolution Trust Corporation was one
request, for instance. Hard to get them all there when you are
besieged with these loopy fishing expedition requests. You bet. But
still: most, fastest in history of world. By far.
--including those of Mr. McLarty, the First
>Lady and such central players as George Stephanoupoulos and Mark
>Gearan.
>
>I have been assured on several occasions that the White House had
>delivered all substantive documents relating to the Travel Office
>matter, yet now we belatedly have these documents.
which pertain to nothing important: Watkins jumping at Hillary's
thoughts. Firing them legal - remember?
This is not the
>first time the White House has delayed and withheld documents in the
>Travel Office matter: •We have learned in the course of this
>investigation that Mr. Shaheen at the Justice Department's Office of
>Professional Responsibility was shocked at the withholding of the
>Vince Foster Travel Office file from his investigators and appalled
>at the lack of candor and cooperation from the White House. Mr.
>Shaheen stated that he was preparing to go to the Attorney General to
>request that White House witnesses be subpoenaed and forced to
>testify under oath.•We have learned in the course of this
>investigation that this same Vince Foster Travel Office file had been
>withheld from Independent Counsel Fiske despite a subpoena for such
>documents;•It also became apparent with the recent release of new
>documents related to Harry Thomason's seeking government contracts,
>that the White House systematically withheld documents from the
>Congressionally mandated GAO investigation of the Travel Office;•
>Finally, we have learned that the White House also withheld documents
>relating to Harry Thomason for months and months from Public Integrity
>Justice Department officials and the FBI who were conducting the
>criminal investigation of Billy Dale.
>
If you think the blizzard produced is too little - about this
perfectly legal matter - sue them. Of course - guess what - all these
files turned over too. So what do you want? That they give the whole
mountain to you in one day? How many workers do you think there are
available to process all these requests Mr. CLinger? A thousand?
>
>So, this Committee is not the first to be between a stonewall and the
>White House, but I do intend to be the last.
most files delivered, fastest, history of world.
>The White House and Harry Thomason-deliberately misled the press and
>the American people about the true facts regarding this matter. High
>ranking officials facilitated in covering up the true story of the
>firings. Drafts of the Travel Office report were altered to omit
>embarrassing information about Mr. Thomason and statements from the
>First Lady strikingly claim "no recollection" on conversations she
>had with Mr. Thomason.
>
embarrassing? that means Clinger has another dry hole, doesn't it?.
>On of the authors of other White House Management Review wrote of his
>concerns about how the White House was approaching this matter in a
>less than forthcoming manner: •"Problem is that if we do any kind of
>report and fail to address these questions, press jumps on you
>wanting to know answers; while if you give answers that aren't fully
>honest (e.g. no re: HRC) you risk hugely compounding the problem by
>getting caught in half-truths. You run risk of turning this into a
>cover-up."
>
>
>That is exactly what has happened here - half-truths and a cover-up.
>David Watkins memo demonstrates his lack of candor
and how much candor does Clinger's one-sided representation of this
mean?
and we know he in
>turn encouraged his subordinates to corroborate his deceptions. Many
>key people involved in the Travel Office firings were the first
>individuals rummaging through Vince Foster's files after hid death.
>Harry Thomason was the second person the First Lady called July 20,
>1993 upon hearing of Mr. Foster's death. The true story about this
>matter was never revealed by the White House and remains to be
>told.
It remains to be told: I got nothing so I'll imply something really
sinister is being hidden!
As a result of these disturbing disclosures as well as recent
>developments in our investigation, I am taking the following actions:
Yes, the lack of facts showing any wrongdoing is so horrible: I'll ask
yet more questions and ask for yet more files and the fishing
expedition blizzard will continue forever, even though the whole thing
is over a trivial matter, the firing of people they had every right to
fire!
All bozos on this bus.
>Today I also am announcing our next round of hearings
surprise
Rick Deckard
Michael Rivero
In article <woofwoof-040...@findlinks.com>,
Woof <woof...@woofbowwow.com> wrote:
>In article <340d7163...@192.168.2.2>, do...@send.me.shit
>(Dwarftosser) wrote:
>
>> woof...@woofbowwow.com (Woof) wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> So the self-righteous bastards come up with the Privacy Act....but
>> >> now, 20 years have passed and one of their own has been caught rifling
>> >> thru a few confidential files digging for some dirt on the opposition
>> >> and all of a sudden it's "Hey...hey..we weren't gonna actually USE
>> >> any of that stuff....eh...what?".
>>
>> >Care to offer any -EVIDENCE- that the files were used this way?
>>
>> How many times do I have to say it?
>>
>> The Privacy Act doesn't give a shit.
>>
>>
>> of a sudden you don't want to play anymore.
>>
>
>
>
No evidence is needed that the files were misused. The mere posession of the
files of persons who never applied to visit the White HOuse is a felony in and
of itself.
--
RANCHO RUNNAMUKKA | Special Effects / Documentary Films
Mike & Claire - The Rancho Runnamukka http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/
The views expressed here ARE the views of the management!
Michael Rivero
In article <5unb6j$r79$1...@kelly.teleport.com>,
Stilt Man <N...@spam.email.dammit> wrote:
>In article <5umlg4$nb7$2...@paperboy.ids.net>,
>Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>>Stilt Man (N...@unsolicited.email.dammit) wrote:
>>: Unless you can prove otherwise, that was the intent under which the FBI
>>: files were mistakenly procured. Accidentally screwing up is not criminal.
>
>>a crime, eh?
>
>Okay, just for the sake of aiding and abetting your catching of a clue, let
>me flesh out that sentence for the sake of those who may not have seen
>all that context that you conveniently snipped.
>
>"Accidentally and harmlessly screwing up in the process of doing something
>that you are legally authorized to do is not criminal."
>
Nobody at the White House is legally authorized to request the FBI files of
people who have not asked to visit the White House.
And let's face it, it's not like security checks were being done.
Jorge Cabrera, with a felony record stretching back to the early 80s,
was allowed in to pose with Hillary in front of the White House Christmas
Tree.
Stilt Man
In article <340f192f...@192.168.2.2>,
Dwarftosser <do...@send.me.shit> wrote:
>On 4 Sep 1997 13:03:08 -0700, N...@spam.dammit (Stilt Man) wrote:
>>In article <340db7b...@192.168.2.2>,
>>Dwarftosser <do...@send.me.shit> wrote:
>>>On 3 Sep 1997 12:09:49 -0700, N...@unsolicited.email.dammit (Stilt Man)
>>>wrote:
>>>>> Which isn't what was done here.
>>>>Unless you can prove otherwise, that was the intent under which the FBI
>>>>files were mistakenly procured. Accidentally screwing up is not criminal.
>>> Violation of the Privacy Act is.
>>*sigh*
>>We're going in circles here, so I'm not going to bother quoting the whole
>>post. I'm not arguing that the files were obtained properly, I'm not
>>arguing that this sort of thing should happen every day. I'm simply arguing
>>that no evidence exists that this is some sort of official abuse of power on
>>the part of the Clinton White House. To that end, going in circles about
>>whether some low-level staffer got the files legally or not is irrelevant
>>and pointless.
> That's your spin. This "smartest president of the 20th century"
>has some low-level staffer that suddenly nobody can even remember
>hiring pawing through records in violation of The Privacy Act.
Which, in turn, is your spin. I don't really care who hired the guy. And
it's not clear whatsoever that this was a violation of the Privacy Act --
your repeating the charge is not support of the charge.
> At each turn....the WH's official "story" backfires...just a few
>files...70 or so....coupla hundred...ok 900.
> Do you really believe they are this fucking stupid?
Depends. If they're trying to answer ugly questions, they might answer them
before they've really gotten a real assessment of what the full extent of the
problem is.
If the instinct for PR damage control is kicking in faster than the lower-
level folks are finding how many files are still in the White House, they
might not know.
I don't argue that the White House staff may well have been borderline
criminally sloppy in their handling of the files. But sloppiness at the
low level is not an indictment for abuse of power at the high level.
>> It all comes down to a simple question on my part, which you
>>have evaded at every turn.
> Lemme know when you've discovered where the names that were never
> entered into EPASS came from.
> Square the WH story "we stopped at G" with (S)cowcroft's file on
> Marseca's laptop.
> You'e evaded these questions at every turn.
Because (a) I don't know the answer, and (b) I don't really care what the
answer is, because you don't seem to have one that's good enough to convince
me that the actual reasons were wrong. I can think of a lot of possibilities
that are less than devastating. Scowcroft's file could have been obtained
since he was the previous National Security Advisor, and the White House
may have called him in at some time to get briefed on what happened at xxxx
time during the Bush administration, and the file never got sent back. Perhaps
some of the other folks whose files were sitting around were also called back
to the White House after Bush left for similar reasons, and their files were
also left sitting around.
The point is, the simple lack of an immediate answer to a couple of ugly-
looking questions is not evidence of abuse of power. If you think the
questions by themselves are so horrible, answer them yourself, and document
your answers. The simple existence of the questions is irrelevant.
Stilt Man
In article <343cfeb7....@news.zippo.com>,
Wayne McGuire <wmcg...@cybercom.net> wrote:
>N...@unsolicited.email.dammit (Stilt Man)
>wrote:
>>Okay, so how does Brent Scowcroft's file being in the hands of the White
>>House prove that there was an abuse? Does anyone who isn't into trivial
>>pursuit on the Bush administration staff even know who the bloody hell
>>Brent Scowcroft is? The guy is a complete nobody who came from nowhere
>>and went back to nowhere. He is a political zero who poses no threat to
>>the Clinton administration whatsoever. Why in the world would the Clinton
>>administration want to deliberately procure this complete nobody's file
>>in order to abuse it?
>Brent Scowcroft was head of the National
>Security Council, bozo. Do you know how
>important the NSC is in the grand scheme
>of things?
Well, there's a problem with tense here.
Brent Scowcroft WAS head of the National Security Council. Emphasis on WAS,
as in *past tense*.
The NSC *is* important in the grand scheme of things. Whoever was on it
yesterday, though, doesn't mean a whole lot. They don't have any influence
any more, there's no residual power that remains with them. The guy could
die of a heart attack and it probably wouldn't even make the back page.
Unless you're going to tell me that there's a grassroots "Scowcroft in 2000"
campaign going on, I'm not impressed.
[Suggesting that Israel would really love to get Scowcroft's file]
>I offer this is a theory. We still don't
>have the slightest idea of what happened
>in Filegate. The cover-up of the affair
>has been as crushing as the cover-up of
>the Foster affair. The two affairs may
>be closely linked. Clearly the American
>big media want both affairs to sink
>without a trace.
Okay . . . that paragraph says a lot.
In short, you're basically suggesting that Israel would like to get hold of
an FBI file as some sort of unmentionable (and unexplained) scheme of
vengeance against Brent Scowcroft and other national security bozos who are
out of office and otherwise pretty much forgotten, just for . . . what, the
sheer joy of it? And of course, all the (wink wink nod nod) proof for this
is as out in the oppen as the proof (wink wink nod nod) that Vince Foster
was offed to keep him quiet about Whitewater.
I'm sorry, Wayne, but you're REALLY going to have to do better than that.
Offering conspiratorial winks and hints of a "cover-up" and a conspiracy
of espionage are not relevant arguments. I'm not interested in conspiracy
theories. I'm interested in evidence that this was some form of abuse of
power. And sorry, but the complete and total lack of such evidence is not
in itself evidence, so don't cop out with that little bit of lunacy.
Scott Eckelman
James C. Harrison wrote in article ...
>I suspect that we don't hear about "Filegate" because there turned out to
>be nothing much to say about it. Starr's people leak whatever they can
>that is politically damaging to the administration, but they have leaked
>nothing at all about the file business. Starr may have a problem here. He
>can't just report that the files were never used--that would subject him
>to violent criticism from right wingers. On the other hand, there may
>simply be no evidence of any use or misuse of the files whatsoever by
>anybody in the Clinton admininstration.
As I recall, when the first few hundred files were collected for
return to the FBI - and these were all files which had been
requested in error - several of the folders didn't contain the
actual file, but rather a 'checked out' indication that someone
outside the security office had the actual file.
For what possible purpose could anyone have checked
out a file on one of the Bush people? Craig Livingstone
testified that the only time other people besides himself or
Marceca saw the files were when he referred the file
up to his bos (William Kennedy) when he thought there
was a 'problem' with the person. Kennedy might then
refer the file up to his bos, Bernie Nussbaum.
So here is clear indication that at least some of these
files were used in a grossly illegal manner by lawyers
who clearly knew better. Don't see how that could in
any way, shape, or form be considered an innocent
mistake.
Scott E.
Scott Eckelman
Martin McPhillips wrote in article ...
>On Thu, 04 Sep 1997 15:07:21 -0700, woof...@woofbowwow.com (Woof) wrote:
>
>>In article <340db7b...@192.168.2.2>, do...@send.me.shit (Dwarftosser)
wrote:
>>
>>> >Okay, so how does Brent Scowcroft's file being in the hands of the
White
>>> >House prove that there was an abuse?
>>>
>>> It doesn't say there has to be any abuse. It says fraudulently
>>> obtained...which they were.
>>
>>
>>Can you offer any -EVIDENCE- that the files were obtained fraudulently?
>
>Well, it is prima facie *fraud* to ask for and receive something that
>you are by law barred from having without actually meeting the
>specific purpose outlined in the request.
>
>However, if "mistakes were made" and the files were obtained
>"accidentally," i.e., no "guilty mind" was involved in their getting, that
>still does *not* explain why, once it was known that these files ought
>not to have been gotten, they were held onto. Once you realize that
>you have something by prima facie *fraud*---even if accidentally
>obtained---and you do not *correct* your mistake and return the
>files, you've acquired for yourself the necessary "guilty mind" to
>get you charged.
The explanation given by the security office was that it was their
understanding that even though the files were inappropriately
requested, once they had them they became part of the
historical record of the Bush presidency and hence had to be
turned over to the Bush archives when he left office, and not
returned or destroyed.
Scott E.
Scott Eckelman
Stilt Man wrote in article <5uno38$iom$1...@kelly.teleport.com>...
<deleted>
>Because (a) I don't know the answer, and (b) I don't really care what the
>answer is, because you don't seem to have one that's good enough to
convince
>me that the actual reasons were wrong. I can think of a lot of
possibilities
>that are less than devastating. Scowcroft's file could have been obtained
>since he was the previous National Security Advisor, and the White House
>may have called him in at some time to get briefed on what happened at xxxx
>time during the Bush administration, and the file never got sent back.
Nope. All, repeat _all_ of the files from the Bush administration were
turned over to the Bush archives as required by law on Jan 19 (or 20)
1993. Nancy Gemmel, the previous office manager, testified that
"every scrap of paper was turned over to the archives."
By the way, that means any outdated lists which anyone in the
new administration could have possibly used were turned over too.
Perhaps
>some of the other folks whose files were sitting around were also called
back
>to the White House after Bush left for similar reasons, and their files
were
>also left sitting around.
See above - didn't happen. You have to come up with an explanation
which starts from a clean office as of Jan 20, 1993 and which somehow
allows Livingstone/Marceca to work from a list which could not
possibly have been generated by the Secret Service computers.
<deleted>
Scott E.
j...@globaldialog.com
Bart Scrivener wrote:
>
> On Wed, 03 Sep 1997 14:22:31 -0500, j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>
> >Stilt Man wrote:
> >>
> >
> >>
> >