Democratic Party Operatives caught in Felonious Activities
henry jakala
looks like some anonymous Democratic Congressamn handed off an illegally
obtained taped to a liberal rag which printed the story
the tape contained a conversation had between newt's advisors on
his recent troubles with his connections to a certain PAC
the conversations were picked up and taped by a Florida couple whilst
messing around with their police scanner - sure they weren;t some
Democratic Party operatives eavesdropping on cellular calls hoping to get
lucky ???
anyway this idiot of a Congressperson (maybe Bonehead himself ??) is
now facing possible Federal charges - having the tape he had in his
possession was a Federal offense, think he/she will be cahrged with same ?
howabout that so-called "Florida couple" ????? hmmmm
hope the FBI and Janet Reno don;t sweep thi one under the rug
and it seems that anonymous congressperson should face some very
serious ethical charges if not a prison term ??
oh, and let's not forget that Liberl Rag - it's editor and author should
do some serious time in a penitientiary for their felonious activities -
it's not only illegal to tape a conversation, but to print it too
these damned Liberals never found a law or ethic that they didn't need to
heed
jak...@netcom.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Clinton's an unusually good liar. Unusually good. Do you realize that ?"
Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb), Esquire, January 1996
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In all of these nearly 18 years that I have had the pleasure of my
association with Bob Dole, I have never known Bob to give even a
hint of breaking his word, because if ever there was a man in the
U.S. Senate for whom we knew his word is his bond, that is Bob Dole."
Nebraska Sen. James Exon (Congressional Record, 6/11/96)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The President has kept all of the promises he intended to keep."
George Stephanopolous on "Larry King Live" - 2/16/96
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hillary commenting on the release of subpeonaed documents
"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers.
We are the president."
James B. Stewart - Blood Sport:The President and His Adversaries
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"she could suck a tennis ball through a garden hose"
President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton expounding on
Gennifer Flowers' oral skills
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Billy Beck
mken...@iglou.com (Max Kennedy) wrote:
>jak...@netcom.com (henry jakala) wrote:
>
>>looks like some anonymous Democratic Congressamn handed off an illegally
>>obtained taped to a liberal rag which printed the story
>
>Enemies lists, private investigators, and paranoid ideas about free
>communication and a desire to control it and the internet.
(extremist mean-spirited hate speech)
Billy
ppar...@swbell.net
henry jakala wrote:
>
> anyway this idiot of a Congressperson (maybe Bonehead himself ??) is
> now facing possible Federal charges - having the tape he had in his
> possession was a Federal offense, think he/she will be cahrged with same ?
>
> howabout that so-called "Florida couple" ????? hmmmm
>
> hope the FBI and Janet Reno don;t sweep thi one under the rug
>
> and it seems that anonymous congressperson should face some very
> serious ethical charges if not a prison term ??
>
> oh, and let's not forget that Liberl Rag - it's editor and author should
> do some serious time in a penitientiary for their felonious activities -
> it's not only illegal to tape a conversation, but to print it too
>
> these damned Liberals never found a law or ethic that they didn't need to
> heed
>
a law or ethic that they didn't need to ignore?" "Heed" means to regard or in
the context you use it, to obey. Get a good dictionary and look up new words before
you use them.
And it is too bad that Newt & Co. had their collusion exposed. But perhaps you
should give some thought to the wisdom of trusting the government to people dumb
enough to discuss damaging information over celphones. In your own conscience,
BTW, ask yourself what your reaction would have been if the conversation had been
between Clinton and democratic congressmen.
Pat Parson
Max Kennedy
jak...@netcom.com (henry jakala) wrote:
>looks like some anonymous Democratic Congressamn handed off an illegally
>obtained taped to a liberal rag which printed the story
Enemies lists, private investigators, and paranoid ideas about free
communication and a desire to control it and the internet.
Max Kennedy
ding...@erinet.com
ppar...@swbell.net wrote:
> Uh, Jackal, isn't that "these damned Liberals (capitalized, no less!) never found
> a law or ethic that they didn't need to ignore?" "Heed" means to regard or in
> the context you use it, to obey. Get a good dictionary and look up new words before
> you use them.
>
> And it is too bad that Newt & Co. had their collusion exposed. But perhaps you
> should give some thought to the wisdom of trusting the government to people dumb
> enough to discuss damaging information over celphones. In your own conscience,
> BTW, ask yourself what your reaction would have been if the conversation had been
> between Clinton and democratic congressmen.
>
> Pat Parson
Uh, peepee--how can you be so sure that Mr "Kiss it" didn't participate
in this crime? Clinton's fingerprints have usually been found in most
underhanded dealings, and no reason to believe they won't be found here.
When you think about it, would those "ordinary Clinton supporters" have
access to the latest bugging equipment? Did Air Force One make a special
trip to FL to pick up the tape? Were these ordinary people paid for the
surveillance, or the tape? Don't pooh-pooh this, not quite yet. Is this
to become Tapegate?
And BTW, what would *you* say, if is learned that Mr "kiss it" is found
to be involved--would you still blindly support him?
Rosalee
Gary Cruse
And if you believe it was picked
up off the air using a police scanner,
you may already be a weiner!
--
Gary
________
D.J. Johanning
thats pretty funny coming from a two bit piece of dog shit democrat. Thos
democratic operatives should be thrown in jail for some very serious
offenses. You just like all democrats , you believe the law is for other
people. well I'm sorry your a jack ass and the real problem with our
society...... These people that broke the law including the unnamed
congresman and I'm sure Boniour should be thrown in jail.....
ppar...@swbell.net wrote in article <32D7D8...@swbell.net>...
ppar...@swbell.net
ding...@erinet.com wrote:
>
> ppar...@swbell.net wrote:
>
> > Uh, Jackal, isn't that "these damned Liberals (capitalized, no less!) never found
> > a law or ethic that they didn't need to ignore?" "Heed" means to regard or in
> > the context you use it, to obey. Get a good dictionary and look up new words before
> > you use them.
> >
> > And it is too bad that Newt & Co. had their collusion exposed. But perhaps you
> > should give some thought to the wisdom of trusting the government to people dumb
> > enough to discuss damaging information over celphones. In your own conscience,
> > BTW, ask yourself what your reaction would have been if the conversation had been
> > between Clinton and democratic congressmen.
> >
> > Pat Parson
>
> in this crime?
Why would Newt tape himself and then send it to a newspaper. Makes
no sense.
Clinton's fingerprints have usually been found in most
> underhanded dealings, and no reason to believe they won't be found here.
Can't prove he didn't. Guess that's all the evidence you need.
Gullible little lady, aren't you?
> When you think about it, would those "ordinary Clinton supporters" have
> access to the latest bugging equipment? Did Air Force One make a special
> trip to FL to pick up the tape? Were these ordinary people paid for the
> surveillance, or the tape? Don't pooh-pooh this, not quite yet. Is this
> to become Tapegate?
Did UFOs tape the conversation and then plant them on the scanner of an
unsuspecting citizen? Don't pooh-pooh this quite yet.
> And BTW, what would *you* say, if is learned that Mr "kiss it" is found
> to be involved--would you still blindly support him?
What would *I* say if I discoved Newt had done it? I never really liked
him anyway.
Pat Parson
1
Brian S. Jenkins
Alvin Nichter wrote:
>
> In talk.politics.misc ding...@erinet.com wrote:
> : ppar...@swbell.net wrote:
>
> : > Uh, Jackal, isn't that "these damned Liberals (capitalized, no less!) never found
> : > a law or ethic that they didn't need to ignore?" "Heed" means to regard or in
> : > the context you use it, to obey. Get a good dictionary and look up new words before
> : > you use them.
> : >
> : > And it is too bad that Newt & Co. had their collusion exposed. But perhaps you
> : > should give some thought to the wisdom of trusting the government to people dumb
> : > enough to discuss damaging information over celphones. In your own conscience,
> : > BTW, ask yourself what your reaction would have been if the conversation had been
> : > between Clinton and democratic congressmen.
> : >
> : > Pat Parson
>
> : Uh, peepee--how can you be so sure that Mr "Kiss it" didn't participate
> : underhanded dealings, and no reason to believe they won't be found here.
> : access to the latest bugging equipment? Did Air Force One make a special
> : trip to FL to pick up the tape? Were these ordinary people paid for the
> : surveillance, or the tape? Don't pooh-pooh this, not quite yet. Is this
> : to become Tapegate?
>
> : to be involved--would you still blindly support him?
>
[snip]
>
> They're trying to move the public's attention away from Rep. Gingrich's
> wrongdoings and toward the way in which the information was gathered.
> Even if the tape was distributed illegally, and even if Rosalee's
> unfounded allegation regarding who made the tape is true, the simple
> fact of the matter is that it reveals wrongdoing by Speaker Gingrich.
>
> I don't care how the information was obtained.
Do you really have this little respect for the rule of law, Alvin?
Do you really believe that getting Newt is worth committing felonies
over? Worth destroying the House's reason for existence?
Do you really want King William the First in Washington, able to outlaw
conservative speech?
Liberals have done far more to discredit themselves than conservatives
could ever do to discredit them...and this is just the latest example.
>
> ---Alvin H. Nichter
Brian Jenkins
Alvin Nichter
: > Uh, Jackal, isn't that "these damned Liberals (capitalized, no less!) never found
: > a law or ethic that they didn't need to ignore?" "Heed" means to regard or in
: > the context you use it, to obey. Get a good dictionary and look up new words before
: > you use them.
: >
: > And it is too bad that Newt & Co. had their collusion exposed. But perhaps you
: > should give some thought to the wisdom of trusting the government to people dumb
: > enough to discuss damaging information over celphones. In your own conscience,
: > BTW, ask yourself what your reaction would have been if the conversation had been
: > between Clinton and democratic congressmen.
: >
: > Pat Parson
: Uh, peepee--how can you be so sure that Mr "Kiss it" didn't participate
: in this crime? Clinton's fingerprints have usually been found in most
: underhanded dealings, and no reason to believe they won't be found here.
: When you think about it, would those "ordinary Clinton supporters" have
: access to the latest bugging equipment? Did Air Force One make a special
: trip to FL to pick up the tape? Were these ordinary people paid for the
: surveillance, or the tape? Don't pooh-pooh this, not quite yet. Is this
: to become Tapegate?
: And BTW, what would *you* say, if is learned that Mr "kiss it" is found
: to be involved--would you still blindly support him?
: Rosalee
Rabid Republican partisans are showing their true colors in this matter.
They're trying to move the public's attention away from Rep. Gingrich's
wrongdoings and toward the way in which the information was gathered.
Even if the tape was distributed illegally, and even if Rosalee's
unfounded allegation regarding who made the tape is true, the simple
fact of the matter is that it reveals wrongdoing by Speaker Gingrich.
I don't care how the information was obtained. This is a House
Ethics investigation, not a criminal investigation, so the method
in which the information was obtained is irrelevant. We have a
recording of Rep. Gingrich engaging in wrongdoing. Until supporters
of Rep. Gingrich address that point, their rantings about the tape
and its distribution are an irrelevant diversion.
---Alvin H. Nichter
henry jakala
Alvin Nichter (anic...@gramercy.ios.com) wrote:
: : Rosalee
bwahhahahaha - the information was obtained in a manner which makes
it a Federal Crime !!!!
but then that won;t stop a Democratic Party Hack from obeying
his marching orders and another Party Hack from defending them
: recording of Rep. Gingrich engaging in wrongdoing. Until supporters
Brett Kottmann
ppar...@swbell.net wrote:
>
...
> And it is too bad that Newt & Co. had their collusion exposed. But perhaps you
> should give some thought to the wisdom of trusting the government to people dumb
> enough to discuss damaging information over celphones. In your own conscience,
> BTW, ask yourself what your reaction would have been if the conversation had been
> between Clinton and democratic congressmen.
The only thing more laughable that Democrats tyring to pass off
their criminal behavior as impugning Newt is that paranoid rant they
released claiming that the Internet feeds stories to British newspapers
where the WSJ can see them and repeat them and then other US news
sources are forced to pick them up, all greased by evil Republican
tycoons hiding in the shadows.
No doubt the LaRouche operatives were behind it all, eh?
Brett
______________________________________________________________________
And they call the black helicopter crowd "kooks".
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
Alvin Nichter <anic...@gramercy.ios.com> wrote:
>In talk.politics.misc ding...@erinet.com wrote:
>: ppar...@swbell.net wrote:
>: > Uh, Jackal, isn't that "these damned Liberals (capitalized, no less!) never found
>: > a law or ethic that they didn't need to ignore?" "Heed" means to regard or in
>: > the context you use it, to obey. Get a good dictionary and look up new words before
>: > you use them.
>: >
>: > And it is too bad that Newt & Co. had their collusion exposed. But perhaps you
>: > should give some thought to the wisdom of trusting the government to people dumb
>: > enough to discuss damaging information over celphones. In your own conscience,
>: > BTW, ask yourself what your reaction would have been if the conversation had been
>: > between Clinton and democratic congressmen.
>: >
>: > Pat Parson
>: Uh, peepee--how can you be so sure that Mr "Kiss it" didn't participate
>: in this crime? Clinton's fingerprints have usually been found in most
>: underhanded dealings, and no reason to believe they won't be found here.
>: When you think about it, would those "ordinary Clinton supporters" have
>: access to the latest bugging equipment? Did Air Force One make a special
>: trip to FL to pick up the tape? Were these ordinary people paid for the
>: surveillance, or the tape? Don't pooh-pooh this, not quite yet. Is this
>: to become Tapegate?
>: And BTW, what would *you* say, if is learned that Mr "kiss it" is found
>: to be involved--would you still blindly support him?
>: Rosalee
>Rabid Republican partisans are showing their true colors in this matter.
>They're trying to move the public's attention away from Rep. Gingrich's
>wrongdoings and toward the way in which the information was gathered.
>Even if the tape was distributed illegally, and even if Rosalee's
>unfounded allegation regarding who made the tape is true, the simple
>fact of the matter is that it reveals wrongdoing by Speaker Gingrich.
>I don't care how the information was obtained. This is a House
>Ethics investigation, not a criminal investigation, so the method
>in which the information was obtained is irrelevant. We have a
>recording of Rep. Gingrich engaging in wrongdoing. Until supporters
>of Rep. Gingrich address that point, their rantings about the tape
>and its distribution are an irrelevant diversion.
Overall I agree with you Al except you have understated the amount of
wrong doing. Not only does it involve nuttie newtie but it involves
all of the repuks house leadership in plotting a conspiracy against
congress. That tape amplefully demostrates their contempt for congress
and the fact their word is worth squat. Coupled with the shamefull
coverup being engineered by the epukes on the ethics committee its
time for them to get their just reward-> nothing short of explusion
from congress.
>---Alvin H. Nichter
Max Kennedy
>Surely you don't mean this. Your statement is equivalent to saying
>that whatever Dems have to do to "get Gingrich" -- even criminal
>activity -- is okay with you. Do you really believe that the end
>justifies the means?
Yep. It's the plumbers all over again.
Max Kennedy
Wayne Mann
jak...@netcom.com (henry jakala) wrote:
>
>looks like some anonymous Democratic Congressamn handed off an illegally
>obtained taped to a liberal rag which printed the story
>
>the tape contained a conversation had between newt's advisors on
>his recent troubles with his connections to a certain PAC
>
>the conversations were picked up and taped by a Florida couple whilst
>messing around with their police scanner - sure they weren;t some
>Democratic Party operatives eavesdropping on cellular calls hoping to get
>lucky ???
>
>
>anyway this idiot of a Congressperson (maybe Bonehead himself ??) is
>now facing possible Federal charges - having the tape he had in his
>possession was a Federal offense, think he/she will be cahrged with same ?
>
>howabout that so-called "Florida couple" ????? hmmmm
>
>
>hope the FBI and Janet Reno don;t sweep thi one under the rug
>
>and it seems that anonymous congressperson should face some very
>serious ethical charges if not a prison term ??
>
>oh, and let's not forget that Liberl Rag - it's editor and author should
>do some serious time in a penitientiary for their felonious activities -
>it's not only illegal to tape a conversation, but to print it too
>
>these damned Liberals never found a law or ethic that they didn't need to
>heed
>
ALong these lines is a copy of one of the first of many
letters I wrote, and never got any satisfaction from anyone
at all.
08/26/94
L. A. District Attorney
South Hill Street
Los Angeles, Ca. 90015
Sir:
I am mailing this, to the best address,
I have been able to find, so if this is
mailed to the wrong address, please forward
it to the proper address, or let me know the
correct address. I mailed a similar letter
about a month ago to a Pomona address, but I
am afraid it got "lost".
I watched the O. J. Simpson Preliminary
hearing. I heard two witnesses testify, that
Mr. Shapiro, had taped telephone
conversation's, between the witnesses, and
his office, without the witnesses, being told
of the recordings. Mr. Shapiro made no denial
of this fact. It is against California Law,
to record telephone conversations, without
permission of both parties. I believe that it
is against the Federal law, as well. I have
not heard one word from any source, pointing
this out, or proceeding to prosecute him for
committing a crime.
I believe that all laws, apply to all of
us, without exception. Mr. Shapiro, has
broken this law. I would like to know when
your office, is going to prosecute him. I am
including my address, so you can let me know,
as soon as possible. I do not believe, we can
allow an attorney, to blatantly break the
law, and at a minimum, not even apologize, to
the Judge. I find it a sad commentary, on the
Judicial System, that Mr. Shapiro has not
been prosecuted before now. This is a very
poor example, for our youth, and sends a
message to the viewing public, that
attorneys, are somehow, exempt, from the
laws, that govern the rest of us. It galls
me, that attorney's are the first to scream,
about First Amendment rights, and here is one
of there own, usurping someone else's rights,
and everyone in the legal profession, turns a
blind eye.
This needs to be pursued now. I will
sign a complaint, if it is necessary, to get
prompt follow up. I do not intend to drop
this issue. He must be prosecuted, with
nothing less than a guilty verdict. No plea
bargain, for a reduced charge. Thank you.
Wayne Mann
1079 Farroll Avenue
Arroyo Grande, Ca. 93420
Copy: Los Angeles Times
K.T.L.A. Television
\\/ayne //\ann
*"The first lady will not invoke executive
privledge." Mike McCurry
*Things are worse than we thought!
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
"Brian S. Jenkins" <bsj...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
>Alvin Nichter wrote:
>>
>> In talk.politics.misc ding...@erinet.com wrote:
>> : ppar...@swbell.net wrote:
>>
>> : > Uh, Jackal, isn't that "these damned Liberals (capitalized, no less!) never found
>> : > a law or ethic that they didn't need to ignore?" "Heed" means to regard or in
>> : > the context you use it, to obey. Get a good dictionary and look up new words before
>> : > you use them.
>> : >
>> : > And it is too bad that Newt & Co. had their collusion exposed. But perhaps you
>> : > should give some thought to the wisdom of trusting the government to people dumb
>> : > enough to discuss damaging information over celphones. In your own conscience,
>> : > BTW, ask yourself what your reaction would have been if the conversation had been
>> : > between Clinton and democratic congressmen.
>> : >
>> : > Pat Parson
>>
>> : Uh, peepee--how can you be so sure that Mr "Kiss it" didn't participate
>> : in this crime? Clinton's fingerprints have usually been found in most
>> : underhanded dealings, and no reason to believe they won't be found here.
>> : When you think about it, would those "ordinary Clinton supporters" have
>> : access to the latest bugging equipment? Did Air Force One make a special
>> : trip to FL to pick up the tape? Were these ordinary people paid for the
>> : surveillance, or the tape? Don't pooh-pooh this, not quite yet. Is this
>> : to become Tapegate?
>>
>> : And BTW, what would *you* say, if is learned that Mr "kiss it" is found
>> : to be involved--would you still blindly support him?
>>
>> : Rosalee
>[snip]
>>
>> They're trying to move the public's attention away from Rep. Gingrich's
>> wrongdoings and toward the way in which the information was gathered.
>> Even if the tape was distributed illegally, and even if Rosalee's
>> unfounded allegation regarding who made the tape is true, the simple
>> fact of the matter is that it reveals wrongdoing by Speaker Gingrich.
>>
>> I don't care how the information was obtained.
>Do you really have this little respect for the rule of law, Alvin?
>Do you really believe that getting Newt is worth committing felonies
>over? Worth destroying the House's reason for existence?
>Do you really want King William the First in Washington, able to outlaw
>conservative speech?
>Liberals have done far more to discredit themselves than conservatives
>could ever do to discredit them...and this is just the latest example.
So plotting a conspiracy against congress is less offensive than jay
walking when done by a conservative.
Eleanor Rotthoff
Alvin Nichter <anic...@gramercy.ios.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Even if the tape was distributed illegally, and even if Rosalee's
>unfounded allegation regarding who made the tape is true, the simple
>fact of the matter is that it reveals wrongdoing by Speaker Gingrich.
In what way does it reveal "wrongdoing by Speaker Gingrich"? Based on
the excerpts from the tape published by the Times (the only info we
have on the subject), the agreement was that (1) Gingrich would not
make any public statements on the ethics matter until its conclusion
and (2) he would not "orchestrate any attempt to spin this in such a
way that it belies what he is admitting today in the statement of
alleged violations".
The fact is that (1) Gingrich has made no public statements and (2) no
GOP statement has appeared suggesting that Gingrich did not in fact
commit the offenses to which he has admitted. If there was any
*possible* violation of the agreement, it was only in the fact that
the conversation occurred a couple of hours early. Like Gingrich's
lawyer, I do not think that this "would be troubling to anyone".
>I don't care how the information was obtained.
Surely you don't mean this. Your statement is equivalent to saying
that whatever Dems have to do to "get Gingrich" -- even criminal
activity -- is okay with you. Do you really believe that the end
justifies the means?
>This is a House
>Ethics investigation, not a criminal investigation, so the method
>in which the information was obtained is irrelevant.
I'm afraid I don't quite follow you here. Are you suggesting that the
law applies only in the case of a criminal investigation?
>We have a
>recording of Rep. Gingrich engaging in wrongdoing. Until supporters
>of Rep. Gingrich address that point, their rantings about the tape
>and its distribution are an irrelevant diversion.
Please tell us in what way you believe, based on the information in
the tape, that Gingrich was "engaging in wrongdoing".
Eleanor Rotthoff
Terry C. Shannon
Now, now, now... the Democratic Party would **NEVER, NEVER** engage in
felonious activities.
Only meanspirited, extremist Republicans would do such a thing.
If you believe that, I have a bridge (to the 21st century) I'd like to
sell you...
UltraZ
mken...@iglou.com (Max Kennedy) wrote:
>erot...@io.com (Eleanor Rotthoff) wrote:
>>
>>>I don't care how the information was obtained.
You have to care. The tape is not admissable anywhere in any court,
hearing or radio program since it has illegal attachment. This is
similar to not reading the Miranda rights to a cat burglar. It's dead.
In four years it will all be forgotten and the deeds of both Democrats
or misdeeds will be examined within 1 yerar of election time
>>Surely you don't mean this. Your statement is equivalent to saying
>>that whatever Dems have to do to "get Gingrich" -- even criminal
>>activity -- is okay with you. Do you really believe that the end
>>justifies the means?
>Yep. It's the plumbers all over again.
>Max Kennedy
Paul H. Henry
Note followups. Who was the idiot who spammed this thread to 21 groups?
In article <jakalaE3...@netcom.com>, jak...@netcom.com (henry jakala)
wrote:
> looks like some anonymous Democratic Congressamn handed off an illegally
> obtained taped to a liberal rag which printed the story
>
> the tape contained a conversation had between newt's advisors on
> his recent troubles with his connections to a certain PAC
>
> the conversations were picked up and taped by a Florida couple whilst
> messing around with their police scanner - sure they weren;t some
> Democratic Party operatives eavesdropping on cellular calls hoping to get
> lucky ???
>
>
> anyway this idiot of a Congressperson (maybe Bonehead himself ??) is
> now facing possible Federal charges - having the tape he had in his
> possession was a Federal offense, think he/she will be cahrged with same ?
>
> howabout that so-called "Florida couple" ????? hmmmm
>
>
> hope the FBI and Janet Reno don;t sweep thi one under the rug
>
> and it seems that anonymous congressperson should face some very
> serious ethical charges if not a prison term ??
>
> oh, and let's not forget that Liberl Rag - it's editor and author should
> do some serious time in a penitientiary for their felonious activities -
> it's not only illegal to tape a conversation, but to print it too
>
> these damned Liberals never found a law or ethic that they didn't need to
> heed
You can tell the Gingrichites have given up when they don't even try to
explain Newt's illegal activities, and instead just gripe lamely about the
fact that someone heard him talking about them.
--
=============================================================================
_ (phe...@halcyon.com) || Okay, folks. Show's over. Nothing
|_) || to see here. Move along.
| aul H. Henry - Seattle, Wash.||"I'm a hoochie-coochie man!" --Muddy Waters
====================== http://www.halcyon.com/phenry/ =====================
Paul H. Henry
Note followups. Who was the idiot who spammed this thread to 21 groups?
In talk.politics.misc ding...@erinet.com wrote:
[...]
> Uh, peepee--how can you be so sure that Mr "Kiss it" didn't participate
> in this crime? Clinton's fingerprints have usually been found in most
> underhanded dealings, and no reason to believe they won't be found here.
There is no possible way you could define "Clinton's fingerprints," "have
been found," or "most underhanded dealings" that would make this statement
true.
> When you think about it, would those "ordinary Clinton supporters" have
> access to the latest bugging equipment?
The "latest bugging equipment" was an ordinary police scanner, of the kind
that can be purchased at Radio Shack for a couple hundred bucks.
Besides, the Times didn't say the tapers were "Clinton supporters," just
that they were unsympathetic to Newt. I know plenty of people who can't
stand either one.
> Did Air Force One make a special
> trip to FL to pick up the tape? Were these ordinary people paid for the
> surveillance, or the tape?
How do you muster the strength to get out of bed in the morning, what with
this global conspiracy against you?
> Don't pooh-pooh this, not quite yet. Is this
> to become Tapegate?
You can tell the Gingrichites have given up when they don't even try to
explain Newt's illegal activities, and instead just gripe lamely about the
fact that someone heard him doing them.
How does it feel to know Newt's a lying crook, Rosalee?
radr...@geocities.com
On Sat, 11 Jan 1997 12:19:48 GMT, mken...@iglou.com (Max Kennedy)
wrote:
>jak...@netcom.com (henry jakala) wrote:
>
>>looks like some anonymous Democratic Congressamn handed off an illegally
>>obtained taped to a liberal rag which printed the story
>
>Enemies lists, private investigators, and paranoid ideas about free
>communication and a desire to control it and the internet.
>
>
>Max Kennedy
>
>
Excuse me, but the Federal Communications Act of 1934 and the
Electronics Communications Protection Act (ECPA) of 1986 make it
illegal to reveal ANY communications to a third party without
permission.
Furthermore, the ECPA also makes it illegal to listen in to CELLULAR
communications, and prohibits the manufacture of "scanners" capable
of receiving CELLULAR frequencies.
A Radical Republican
radr...@geocities.com
On Sat, 11 Jan 1997 10:13:22 -0800, "ppar...@swbell.net"
<ppar...@swbell.net> wrote:
>henry jakala wrote:
>>
>> anyway this idiot of a Congressperson (maybe Bonehead himself ??) is
>> now facing possible Federal charges - having the tape he had in his
>> possession was a Federal offense, think he/she will be cahrged with same ?
>>
>> howabout that so-called "Florida couple" ????? hmmmm
>>
>> hope the FBI and Janet Reno don;t sweep thi one under the rug
>>
>> and it seems that anonymous congressperson should face some very
>> serious ethical charges if not a prison term ??
>>
>> oh, and let's not forget that Liberl Rag - it's editor and author should
>> do some serious time in a penitientiary for their felonious activities -
>> it's not only illegal to tape a conversation, but to print it too
>>
>> these damned Liberals never found a law or ethic that they didn't need to
>> heed
>>
>> jak...@netcom.com Uh, Jackal, isn't that "these damned Liberals (capitalized, no less!) never found
>a law or ethic that they didn't need to ignore?" "Heed" means to regard or in
>the context you use it, to obey. Get a good dictionary and look up new words before
>you use them.
>
>And it is too bad that Newt & Co. had their collusion exposed.
There was NO "collusion" in the released excerpt.
> But perhaps you
>should give some thought to the wisdom of trusting the government to people dumb
>enough to discuss damaging information over celphones.
First off, it wasn't "damaging information" and secondly, it's a
FEDERAL LAW that prohibits a third party from releasing the
contents of ANY radio communication without permission.
> In your own conscience,
>BTW, ask yourself what your reaction would have been if the conversation had been
>between Clinton and democratic congressmen.
>
YES !!!!!
>Pat Parson
Alvin Nichter
In talk.politics.misc Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
: Alvin Nichter <anic...@gramercy.ios.com> wrote:
: <snip>
: >Even if the tape was distributed illegally, and even if Rosalee's
: >unfounded allegation regarding who made the tape is true, the simple
: >fact of the matter is that it reveals wrongdoing by Speaker Gingrich.
: In what way does it reveal "wrongdoing by Speaker Gingrich"? Based on
: the excerpts from the tape published by the Times (the only info we
: have on the subject), the agreement was that (1) Gingrich would not
: make any public statements on the ethics matter until its conclusion
: and (2) he would not "orchestrate any attempt to spin this in such a
: way that it belies what he is admitting today in the statement of
: alleged violations".
: The fact is that (1) Gingrich has made no public statements and (2) no
: GOP statement has appeared suggesting that Gingrich did not in fact
: commit the offenses to which he has admitted. If there was any
: *possible* violation of the agreement, it was only in the fact that
: the conversation occurred a couple of hours early. Like Gingrich's
: lawyer, I do not think that this "would be troubling to anyone".
Admittedly, there is considerable disagreement on this point.
Some Republicans have stated that Rep. Gingrich committed
no wrong, but simply pushed the rules to the limit.
Democrats maintain that he crossed the line. It's not clear-cut,
but people are not lining up entirely along party lines on this one.
This entire incident has been given undue attention, given the fact
that Rep. Gingrich is, without a doubt, guilty of violating
House rules.
:
: >I don't care how the information was obtained.
: Surely you don't mean this. Your statement is equivalent to saying
: that whatever Dems have to do to "get Gingrich" -- even criminal
: activity -- is okay with you. Do you really believe that the end
: justifies the means?
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that once such information
becomes available, it cannot be ignored simply because of the manner
in which it was obtained. Rep. Gingrich is facing discipline by
a body whose rules he voluntarily agreed to; he is not protected by
Constitution safeguards that cover those accused of criminal acts.
I merely was drawing attention to a point that appears to be lost
on many people on the Usenet, judging by some posts I've seen.
: >This is a House
: >Ethics investigation, not a criminal investigation, so the method
: >in which the information was obtained is irrelevant.
: I'm afraid I don't quite follow you here. Are you suggesting that the
: law applies only in the case of a criminal investigation?
No. The law applies to the dissemination of the information obtained,
and that was illegal. However, once that information was disseminated,
the USE of that information by the House against Rep. Gingrich is
perfectly acceptable. A House Ethics investigation is not a
criminal trial, and the House can use any information it obtains
without regard to how it was obtained. Our reaction should be,
"The way this information was obtained is an outrage. However,
now that we have it, we're obligated to look at it."
: >We have a
: >recording of Rep. Gingrich engaging in wrongdoing. Until supporters
: >of Rep. Gingrich address that point, their rantings about the tape
: >and its distribution are an irrelevant diversion.
: Please tell us in what way you believe, based on the information in
: the tape, that Gingrich was "engaging in wrongdoing".
I addressed this above. It's a question of whether you believe
that Rep. Gingrich stepped over the line or not, and that may be
debatable. The entire point of my post was to try to get readers
to focus on the substance of the information, not the way in which
it was obtained.
Of course, all this pales in comparison to Rep. Gingrich's
worst violations, which include a probable tax code violation that
should have been obvious to him, and interference with the
ethics investigation process. These are the important issues.
: Eleanor Rotthoff
---Alvin H. Nichter
henry jakala
: >
: >looks like some anonymous Democratic Congressamn handed off an illegally
: >obtained taped to a liberal rag which printed the story
: >
: >the tape contained a conversation had between newt's advisors on
: >his recent troubles with his connections to a certain PAC
: >
: >the conversations were picked up and taped by a Florida couple whilst
: >messing around with their police scanner - sure they weren;t some
: >Democratic Party operatives eavesdropping on cellular calls hoping to get
: >lucky ???
: >
: >
: >anyway this idiot of a Congressperson (maybe Bonehead himself ??) is
: >now facing possible Federal charges - having the tape he had in his
: >possession was a Federal offense, think he/she will be cahrged with same ?
: >
: >howabout that so-called "Florida couple" ????? hmmmm
: >
: >
: >hope the FBI and Janet Reno don;t sweep thi one under the rug
: >
: >and it seems that anonymous congressperson should face some very
: >serious ethical charges if not a prison term ??
: >
: >oh, and let's not forget that Liberl Rag - it's editor and author should
: >do some serious time in a penitientiary for their felonious activities -
: >it's not only illegal to tape a conversation, but to print it too
: >
: >these damned Liberals never found a law or ethic that they didn't need to
: >heed
: >
: ALong these lines is a copy of one of the first of many
: letters I wrote, and never got any satisfaction from anyone
: at all.
wayne, did you ever follow up on this again ?? as in resending
it ??
personally, id like to see OJ walk away again with a not guilty,
it'll show the judicial/trial system for the joke it has become
: 08/26/94
John Logajan
Sam Hall wrote:
> Obtaining the tape is against the law. Period. Using the information
> on the tape is against the law. Period.
> You might also want to consider the fact that it is damn hard to tap a
> cell call. It cannot be done with the kinds of equipment that the
> average person can obtain.
Allow me to predict that the obviously bogus cover story about how this
tape came to be will have an unexpected twist.
I suspect that due to the improbabilities of actually intercepting this
conversation (even by stealthful intent) that the tape of their
conversation was actually made and handed over by one of the parties
to the conversation, and that the cover story was concocted to maintain
his or her "cover." In other words, a mole, in spy parlance.
Whether this scenario will be revealed to be the case depends upon
whether the decoys take the heat for the phoney illegal activities.
You read it here first. :-)
--
- John Logajan -- jlog...@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 -
- 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
- WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan -
eric_kelso
In article <5b978e$p...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, gcr...@ix.netcom.com(Gary
Cruse) writes:
>In <E3uFG...@iglou.com> mken...@iglou.com (Max Kennedy) writes:
>>
>>jak...@netcom.com (henry jakala) wrote:
>>
>>>looks like some anonymous Democratic Congressamn handed off an
>illegally
>>>obtained taped to a liberal rag which printed the story
>>
>>Enemies lists, private investigators, and paranoid ideas about free
>>communication and a desire to control it and the internet.
>>
>>
>>Max Kennedy
>>
>>
>
>
> And if you believe it was picked
> up off the air using a police scanner,
> you may already be a weiner!
>
>
Well, it is still against the law to listen/record conversations from a cell
phone. Of course, another question that no one has raised is: how could anyone
be STUPID enough to discuss sensitive business over a cell phone. One of the
first things that I do when I call someone using mine is to TELL them that I am
on a cell phone. A cell phone is NOT a secure line and should NEVER be treated
as such.
Max Kennedy
Eric Kelso wrote:
>Well, it is still against the law to listen/record conversations from a cell
>phone. Of course, another question that no one has raised is: how could anyone
>be STUPID enough to discuss sensitive business over a cell phone. One of the
>first things that I do when I call someone using mine is to TELL them that I am
>on a cell phone. A cell phone is NOT a secure line and should NEVER be treated
>as such.
But nothing sensative was discussed. Haven't you read the transcripts
of the call?
Max Kennedy
Max Kennedy
Eric Kelso wrote:
>Agreed. It was illegal to record the conversation. However, only a fool would
>conduct business, especially sensitive business, on a cell phone. Any equipment
>that broadcasts an RF signal is NOT secure.
Well, for one, nothing sensative was being discussed.
Number two, and correct me if I am wrong, but conventional encryption
for conference style calls doesn't widely exist in products you can
buy over the counter.
Number three, only one person in a conference call has to break
security. People in general are not security minded, and the more
people involved, the less airtight the security will be.
Max Kennedy
Ford
On Mon, 13 Jan 1997 03:34:45 GMT, wyl...@ix.netcom.com ( UltraZ)
wrote:
>mken...@iglou.com (Max Kennedy) wrote:
>
>>erot...@io.com (Eleanor Rotthoff) wrote:
>>>
>>>>I don't care how the information was obtained.
>You have to care. The tape is not admissable anywhere in any court,
>hearing or radio program since it has illegal attachment. This is
>similar to not reading the Miranda rights to a cat burglar. It's dead.
>
>In four years it will all be forgotten and the deeds of both Democrats
>or misdeeds will be examined within 1 yerar of election time
>>>Surely you don't mean this. Your statement is equivalent to saying
>>>that whatever Dems have to do to "get Gingrich" -- even criminal
>>>activity -- is okay with you. Do you really believe that the end
>>>justifies the means?
>
>>Yep. It's the plumbers all over again.
>
>>Max Kennedy
>
>
I believe we had a President in the not too distant past who thought
his private tapes weren't admissible either. (in fact that was my
view) But alas.
gp
>
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has
made a lot of people very angry and been widely
regarded as a bad move....Douglas Adams
ppar...@swbell.net
Max Kennedy wrote:
>
> Eric Kelso wrote:
>
> >Agreed. It was illegal to record the conversation. However, only a fool would
> >conduct business, especially sensitive business, on a cell phone. Any equipment
> >that broadcasts an RF signal is NOT secure.
>
> Well, for one, nothing sensative was being discussed.
Highly embarassing, at least for normal people. These clowns
were doing exactly what they pledged they would not do. If it
wasn't so sensitive, why do you suppose they wigged out when
they got caught?
> Number two, and correct me if I am wrong, but conventional encryption
> for conference style calls doesn't widely exist in products you can
> buy over the counter.
>
> Number three, only one person in a conference call has to break
> security. People in general are not security minded, and the more
> people involved, the less airtight the security will be.
> If one is going to engage in that sort of collusion, little details
like security are necessary.
Pat Parson
Gary Lantz
Again, so many of you people want to avoid the real issue of another
episode of the "Liar Gingirch." I don't believe that it is against any
law to tape a police scanner. Charles Rangel said it all when he made
the comment about whoever was dumb enough to have a cellular phone in the
first place. That Stupid person was John Boehner, who is one of the
dumbest Congressmen I have bever heard speak.
Michael Rivero
In article <5bef36$o...@ovation.rsn.hp.com>,
Paul Barnett <bar...@pobox.com> wrote:
>In <5beefg$1...@News2.Lakes.com> gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) writes:
>
>>>You might also want to consider the fact that it is damn hard to tap a
>>>cell call. It cannot be done with the kinds of equipment that the
>>>average person can obtain.
>
>>ones have blocked cell frequencies.
>
>It depends on the cellular system, and the phone that was being used.
>
>Most US cellular phones are "analog", which can be monitored with a
>scanner. Even the ones that block the cell frequencies can usually be
>easily modified to restore the denied frequencies.
But even a modified scanner only receives one frequency at a time and
celllar phones use two frequencies. One carries the cellphone signal to the
tower while the other carries the tower signal back to the cellular phone
(sidetone is handled internal to the handset).
So, even though a scanner can pick up the cellular bands, it can only
receive one side of the conversation, either base-to-mobile or mobile-to-base.
Not both.
To receive and record both sides of a cellular telephone conversation
requires TWO cellular-capable scanners, plus the tape recorder (plus a mixer).
That both sides of the conversation were intercepted is the proof that
the "accidental intercept" story is a lie. And, having committed to this
ill considered cover story, the WH schills wll now flood the net with
anecdotal tales of how, at least in their part of the woods, cellphones
talk to their scanners, no matter WHAT the tech book says.
--
RANCHO RUNNAMUKKA | Special Effects / Documentary Films
Mike & Claire - The Rancho Runnamukka http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/
NEW STUFF IN THE TWA PAGE.
eric_kelso
In article <E3x8n...@world.std.com>, "Terry C. Shannon"
<sha...@world.std.com> writes:
Agreed. It was illegal to record the conversation. However, only a fool would
conduct business, especially sensitive business, on a cell phone. Any equipment
that broadcasts an RF signal is NOT secure. Whenever I use mine (well, my SO's)
I always let the other party know that I am using a cell phone. It is just a
curtesy, it is good sense. I can sympathize with Newt and Co. for the released
recording, that is inexcusable, but I also have to question how bright they are
conducting business on such an insecure line. Pretty dumb thing to do in my
book, so maybe in a preverse sense they deserve it.
Erik Marksberry
On Mon, 13 Jan 1997, ppar...@swbell.net wrote:
>
> Highly embarassing, at least for normal people. These clowns
> were doing exactly what they pledged they would not do.
Hvae you even read the transcript?? In brief, one person says, "Newt
can't do X, but he can do Y and stay within the bounds of his agreement,"
to which Newt replies, "very clever."
> If it wasn't so sensitive, why do you suppose they wigged out when
> they got caught?
>
Um, because at the very least, they violated the ECPA of 1986 by
transferring the tape to a third party, and that is a federal offense.
And as for the mom n pop routine, the couple said a) we didn't modify
it, and b) he got the scanner for his last birthday. On at least one
of the counts, they are flat-out lying because it has been illegal to
manufacture or sell scanners that pick up cell-phone calls since April of
1994.
--
Erik Marksberry
mark...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Hard work never killed anyone, but why take the chance?
Michael B. Moore
In Article <5b9ek5$n...@nnrp4.farm.idt.net>, Alvin Nichter
>
>I don't care how the information was obtained. This is a House
>Ethics investigation, not a criminal investigation, so the method
>recording of Rep. Gingrich engaging in wrongdoing. Until supporters
>of Rep. Gingrich address that point, their rantings about the tape
>and its distribution are an irrelevant diversion.
>
Ummm, so you're saying that a *possible*, and note I emphasize possible,
House ethics violation is more serious than a felony? Not!!!!!!!!! I haven't
seen anything that tells me that Gingrich did anything so terrible in the
first place, but if you insist that it is, it still isn't as serious as
committing a felony, pal.
I'm coming to the conclusion that most people in this country don't care
about right and wrong anymore; they just want to see those with whom they
disagree destroyed by *any* means possible, legal or not.
Personally, I would like to see the President brought to justice for *all*
the alleged, and note I say *alleged*, crimes he's committed, not because I
vehemently oppose his political persuasion (I do.), but because I want to
see *justice* done. Yes, I hear the snickers through the phone lines; but,
that just proves my point--justice isn't served in America because
individual Americans don't believe in it anymore.
If it is found that Newt Gingrich has blatantly and purposefully broken a
house ethics rule, I'll join the chorus that says he should step down; and
if it's found that he's broken a tax law, I'll demand that he be censured
(i.e., kicked out of his seat), but until then, folks, back off. You're
acting like a pack of wolves, and you'll have to answer for it someday when
our Maker makes the final call. I happen to think that, overall, Newt
Gingrich is a decent, not perfect, but decent, man, and I feel a great sense
of injustice when I see him impugned this way.
What we are seeing is a panic-driven offensive to regain political power on
the part of the Democrats; they can't stand it that someone else is in
control. This is all that this is about, nothing more, nothing less. We are
in the midst of a massive sea-change, and liberal politicians are doing
everything they can to keep things the way they are. We'll see who wins.
Mike Moore
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
sam...@dkdavis.com (Sam Hall) wrote:
>On 12 Jan 1997 01:26:29 GMT, Alvin Nichter <anic...@gramercy.ios.com>
>wrote:
>>I don't care how the information was obtained. This is a House
>>Ethics investigation, not a criminal investigation, so the method
>>in which the information was obtained is irrelevant. We have a
>>recording of Rep. Gingrich engaging in wrongdoing. Until supporters
>>of Rep. Gingrich address that point, their rantings about the tape
>>and its distribution are an irrelevant diversion.
>>
>>---Alvin H. Nichter
>Obtaining the tape is against the law. Period. Using the information
>on the tape is against the law. Period.
>You might also want to consider the fact that it is damn hard to tap a
>cell call. It cannot be done with the kinds of equipment that the
>average person can obtain.
bunk old with an old scanner all you need to do is turn it on. Newer
ones have blocked cell frequencies.
>--
>Samuel L. Hall
>Systems Engineer
>(communications systems)
UltraZ
ga...@dialnet.net (Ford) wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Jan 1997 03:34:45 GMT, wyl...@ix.netcom.com ( UltraZ)
>wrote:
>>mken...@iglou.com (Max Kennedy) wrote:
>>
>>>erot...@io.com (Eleanor Rotthoff) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I don't care how the information was obtained.
>>You have to care. The tape is not admissable anywhere in any court,
>>hearing or radio program since it has illegal attachment. This is
>>similar to not reading the Miranda rights to a cat burglar. It's dead.
>>
>>In four years it will all be forgotten and the deeds of both Democrats
>>or misdeeds will be examined within 1 yerar of election time
>>>>Surely you don't mean this. Your statement is equivalent to saying
>>>>that whatever Dems have to do to "get Gingrich" -- even criminal
>>>>activity -- is okay with you. Do you really believe that the end
>>>>justifies the means?
>>
>>>Yep. It's the plumbers all over again.
>>
>>>Max Kennedy
>>
>>
>I believe we had a President in the not too distant past who thought
>his private tapes weren't admissible either. (in fact that was my
>view) But alas.
>gp
>>The Nixon tapes were not wire tapped illegally. They were property of the US government.
Thats the difference.
UltraZ
Michael Beck
mken...@iglou.com (Max Kennedy) wrote:
>erot...@io.com (Eleanor Rotthoff) wrote:
>>
>>>I don't care how the information was obtained.
>>Surely you don't mean this. Your statement is equivalent to saying
>>that whatever Dems have to do to "get Gingrich" -- even criminal
>>activity -- is okay with you. Do you really believe that the end
>>justifies the means?
>Yep. It's the plumbers all over again.
>Max Kennedy
The plumbers were the group that that Nixon adminstration formed to
find the "leaks" to the press.
The democratic felons that wiretapped Gingrich were more analogous to
the ODESSA group headed by G. Gorden Liddy and staffed by Howard Hunt
and several Cuban exiles.
The "end justifies the means" is a primary belief of the left. It is
intentions, rather than actions that count for them.
Charles R. Smith
wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>mken...@iglou.com (Max Kennedy) wrote:
>>jak...@netcom.com (henry jakala) wrote:
>>
>>>looks like some anonymous Democratic Congressamn handed off an illegally
>>>obtained taped to a liberal rag which printed the story
>>
>>Enemies lists, private investigators, and paranoid ideas about free
>>communication and a desire to control it and the internet.
> (extremist mean-spirited hate speech)
>Billy
>Anthology
>http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html
Possible transnational terrorism threatening the security of all women
and children that ever lived which must be taken care of with large
armored vehicles and CS gas.
1 if by land, 2 if by sea. Paul Revere - encryption 1775
Charles R. Smith
SOFTWAR
http://www.us.net/softwar
radr...@geocities.com
On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 21:21:07 GMT, gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
(gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
>
>So plotting a conspiracy against congress is less offensive than jay
>walking when done by a conservative.
Can you please explain what "conspiracy" was plotted ?
(Plotting to adhere to an agreement made doesn't count)
radr...@geocities.com
On Mon, 13 Jan 1997 20:01:12 -0800, "ppar...@swbell.net"
<ppar...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>Highly embarassing, at least for normal people. These clowns
>were doing exactly what they pledged they would not do. If it
>wasn't so sensitive, why do you suppose they wigged out when
>they got caught?
>
Huh ?? Are you in California with a doctor's prescription ?
henry jakala
Gary Lantz (gar...@bright.net) wrote:
: Again, so many of you people want to avoid the real issue of another
: law to tape a police scanner. Charles Rangel said it all when he made
irregardless of what you believe (must be a upper echelon DNC hack)
taping a cellular call is illegal, whether it's off of a police scanner or
not
you Liberal loons really like to push the envelope, don;t you
: the comment about whoever was dumb enough to have a cellular phone in the
Eleanor Rotthoff
Alvin Nichter <anic...@gramercy.ios.com> wrote:
<snip>
>This entire incident has been given undue attention,
Agreed wholeheartedly. Adam Clymer of the NY Times wrote a story
which apparently reached a very erroneous conclusion. (Compare the
much better -- journalistically -- story on the same subject by the
Washington Post.) But if McDermott told Clymer that the agreement had
been violated when he delivered the tape, Clymer might not have
analyzed the matter too closely.
>given the fact
>that Rep. Gingrich is, without a doubt, guilty of violating
>House rules.
To which he has admitted and for which he has apologized.
<snip>
> A House Ethics investigation is not a
>criminal trial, and the House can use any information it obtains
>without regard to how it was obtained. Our reaction should be,
>"The way this information was obtained is an outrage. However,
>now that we have it, we're obligated to look at it."
Oh, now I follow you. Sorry I was dense. I quite agree that there
are no 4th Amen implications here. And the tape should be examined
and evaluated on its merits -- and has been *to death*.
>The entire point of my post was to try to get readers
>to focus on the substance of the information, not the way in which
>it was obtained.
Again, I agree, but with one caveat. The substance of the tape needs
to be evaluated and has been. OTOH the way in which it was obtained
cannot be overlooked here, especially in light of recent news reports
indicating that the Dem congressman who gave the tape to the NY Times
was Jim McDermott (D-WA), ranking member of the Ethics Committee. We
just have two separate issues.
John and Alice Martin have now been identified as the "couple from
northern Fla" mentioned by the Times as the people who illegal taped
the call. The Martins, both former Dem party officials, have admitted
that they are the people who taped it, and they are, reportedly, in
the process of hiring a lawyer. The Martins were seen meeting with
Jim McDermott in the lobby outside the Ethics Committee room last week
at which time they handed him a package -- a package which they had
adamantly insisted to Capitol personnel that they must deliver to
McDermott personally. If McDermott wants to deny that he is the "Dem
congressman" mentioned in Clymer's story, he had better have a darn
good explanation of what that package *did* contain. <g>
In McDermott's defense, however, it should be pointed out that when
the Gingrich investigation first came up, he wrote a letter to Dick
Gephardt resigning from the Ethics Committee, saying that he felt his
own personal feelings about Gingrich would prevent his being fair in
the investigation. Gephardt met with him and persuaded him not to
resign. It looks as though fairness was not particularly important to
the Minority Leader.
*If* in fact it turns out that the highest-ranking Dem congressman
charged with investigating Newt Gingrich in the famous "bipartisan
ethics process" accepted a recording of an illegally intercepted phone
call allegedly bearing on that investigation and then (rather than
turning it over to the Ethics Committee) gave it to 2 media outlets
hostile to Gingrich, thereby committing a felony himself, what do you
think the punishment should be?
*If* in fact, as has been reported this morning, special counsel James
Cole was advised by McDermott of the existence of the tape prior to
its publication and took no steps to inform the rest of the committee,
what is your opinion of his action?
>Of course, all this pales in comparison to Rep. Gingrich's
>worst violations,
Your reference was to the tape flap, and I quite agree. I do *not*
consider that McDermott's actions (or indeed Cole's) "pale in
comparison" to anything.
> which include a probable tax code violation that
>should have been obvious to him,
Well, I disagree with you that there is any tax code violation, and
I've been practicing tax law for close to 20 years. And I think *any*
tax lawyer will tell you that nothing about Subchapter F of the Code
(dealing with tax-exempt orgs) is "obvious" to any of us.
>and interference with the
>ethics investigation process.
It was certainly incredibly foolish of him not to "vet" his lawyer's
letters carefully. When someone is gunning for you, you protect
yourself!
>These are the important issues.
Wouldn't you agree that McDermott's conduct is also an important
issue?
Eleanor
Charles R. Smith
"ppar...@swbell.net" <ppar...@swbell.net> wrote:
>BTW, ask yourself what your reaction would have been if the conversation had been
>between Clinton and democratic congressmen.
>Pat Parson
Ah, but Pat, a Republican politicianhas already been caught bugging
Democratic politicians... His name was Richard Nixon and the incident
was called WATERGATE. The the last time a President was forced to
resign in disgrace.
deja vu all over again, eh?
1 if by land, 2 if by sea. Paul Revere - encryption 1775
Charles R. Smith
SOFTWAR
http://www.us.net/softwar
Pcyphered signature:
DF6C13E35AAD3FD85188AFBE2F749260A92757C0C65961FD37CA027BE788A5AC
3ED26A4D951BE03F0158EFFB4C307872FB28B973ECBA166639A7193D38E0F7C3
6EE5DCC619E8C34B7C1DD0A0AE838CA5A1E80DF50C536575A0A0B1356F8BF09B
D8BDF522055E4B11DD014F2FD1CB076CEEF7E207DE8E1058781749E389B8BE07
A06A666AC2F40A63A9010CEFD3EA40B2B2AF965B8FB6A694BFD3868E4A09A340
5BA5A011C9F22F40ECBB8283AF0C03EEE7384417E31F397845B0A41510ADD15E
02B08556236C31F49E356BCBCFC19EE69F3000F60D4AC4B00D09917094573423
F3189163666BDFE2E52D160D43BFA0E9760A574233BFB005BDE335E9008B3156
Jeffrey Scott Linder
riv...@accessone.com (Michael Rivero) wrote:
> In article <5bef36$o...@ovation.rsn.hp.com>,
> Paul Barnett <bar...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >In <5beefg$1...@News2.Lakes.com> gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) writes:
> >
> >>>You might also want to consider the fact that it is damn hard to tap a
> >>>cell call. It cannot be done with the kinds of equipment that the
> >>>average person can obtain.
> >
> >>bunk old with an old scanner all you need to do is turn it on. Newer
> >>ones have blocked cell frequencies.
> >
> >It depends on the cellular system, and the phone that was being used.
> >
> >Most US cellular phones are "analog", which can be monitored with a
> >scanner. Even the ones that block the cell frequencies can usually be
> >easily modified to restore the denied frequencies.
>
>
>
> But even a modified scanner only receives one frequency at a time and
> celllar phones use two frequencies. One carries the cellphone signal to the
> tower while the other carries the tower signal back to the cellular phone
> (sidetone is handled internal to the handset).
>
> So, even though a scanner can pick up the cellular bands, it can only
> receive one side of the conversation, either base-to-mobile or mobile-to-base.
> Not both.
>
> To receive and record both sides of a cellular telephone conversation
> requires TWO cellular-capable scanners, plus the tape recorder (plus a mixer).
All in your car as well. Just so you can show this tape to your
grandchildren. Yes folks, they were doing it for the children.
> That both sides of the conversation were intercepted is the proof that
>the "accidental intercept" story is a lie. And, having committed to this
>ill considered cover story, the WH schills wll now flood the net with
>anecdotal tales of how, at least in their part of the woods, cellphones
>talk to their scanners, no matter WHAT the tech book says.
JSL
Max Kennedy
Erik Marksberry <mark...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
> And as for the mom n pop routine, the couple said a) we didn't modify
>it, and b) he got the scanner for his last birthday. On at least one
>of the counts, they are flat-out lying because it has been illegal to
>manufacture or sell scanners that pick up cell-phone calls since April of
>1994.
Which also doesn't explain how they could use it to tape the
conversation, or to hear both sides of the conversation.
I'm not convinced that the couple had anything to do with it. I
think it may be a red hering away from a more standard tap.
It should be fairly obvious that the likelyhood of a non-cellular
long-running tap is pretty high.
Max Kennedy
Max Kennedy
"ppar...@swbell.net" <ppar...@swbell.net> wrote:
>Max Kennedy wrote:
>>
>> Eric Kelso wrote:
>>
>> >Agreed. It was illegal to record the conversation. However, only a fool would
>> >conduct business, especially sensitive business, on a cell phone. Any equipment
>> >that broadcasts an RF signal is NOT secure.
>>
>> Well, for one, nothing sensative was being discussed.
>Highly embarassing, at least for normal people. These clowns
>were doing exactly what they pledged they would not do.
I've read the transcript. Perhaps you could post or quote the part
you are talking about?
> If it wasn't so sensitive, why do you suppose they wigged out when
>they got caught?
I see. No knowledge, just vagueness.
The head of the ethics committee illegally wiretaps a phone of a
fellow congressman. Who in America ISNT upset?
Max Kennedy
Michael S Payer Jr
Rob Kapischke wrote:
>
> In message <5bdmff$4...@cletus.bright.net> - Gary Lantz <gar...@bright.net>
> writes:
> :>
> :>Again, so many of you people want to avoid the real issue of another
> :>episode of the "Liar Gingirch." I don't believe that it is against any
> :>law to tape a police scanner. Charles Rangel said it all when he made
> :>first place. That Stupid person was John Boehner, who is one of the
> :>dumbest Congressmen I have bever heard speak.
>
Look, sorry to break your bubble. but lisening to or recording a cellular
phone is a violation of FEDERAL law. Its also an invasion of privacy.
Suppose the IRS were to monitor your phone and find out you were cheating on
your taxes, you would be screaming to high heaven about the invasion of privacy.
The last thing you would be saying is forget about the invasion of privacy its
just a change of subject.
I personally hope those two clowns go to jail for the full ten years. The
congressman that passed that tape to the news paper should also be put in jail.
I don’t care how you see the Newt problem , the point is, even if Newt is
lying it still is not against the law. He may have broken some house rules
that’s not against the law either. So far this whole has just been stupid politics
on both sides. There are more important things for those folks to be doing.
And you act like Newt is the first congress critter than has ever told a fib. Why
don’t you just name one that has never lied or stretched the truth. You know,
maybe you should put this in perspective for all this nonsense about whether Newt
mislead the committee, remember there are no DEAD BODIES around.
By the way if your so concern about Newt lying or misleading the ethic committee
has come your not concern the Bonier has told the committee over 74 lies. Isn’t
that what you call it when the committee dismisses the changes as baseless.
I haven’t heard anyone complain about his lying.
Just one more thing I have a scanner and when you pick up a cell phone you only get
one side of the conversation there more to this than “Oh we just happened to pick
the conversation up by accident. If you believe that I got this bridge for sale.
MSP
SOMETIMES THE DRAGON WINS
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
radr...@geocities.com wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 21:21:07 GMT, gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
>(gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
>>
>>So plotting a conspiracy against congress is less offensive than jay
>>walking when done by a conservative.
>Can you please explain what "conspiracy" was plotted ?
>(Plotting to adhere to an agreement made doesn't count)
ohh gahd another spin doc. Apparently he's brain dead, every one
including the village idiot that has listened to that tape knows that
nuttie newtie was plotting a conspiracy to circumvent the agreement
with the ethics committee.
D.J. Johanning
Gary ,
Are you in denial? It is a felony to record and then use the information
obtained by intercepting a cell phone call.
Gary Lantz <gar...@bright.net> wrote in article
<5bdmff$4...@cletus.bright.net>...
stokes19
Gary Lantz wrote:
>
> Again, so many of you people want to avoid the real issue of another
> episode of the "Liar Gingirch." I don't believe that it is against any
> law to tape a police scanner. Charles Rangel said it all when he made
> the comment about whoever was dumb enough to have a cellular phone in the
> first place. That Stupid person was John Boehner, who is one of the
> dumbest Congressmen I have bever heard speak.
I see, you are the smart one. Tell us what else CharLIE Rangel says.
One thing for sure, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Lazamataz
Heres the second post in the email exchange:
--------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > I don't care how the information was obtained.
> > ----------------------------------------------
> >
> > Right there, thats the line. Un-fuggin-believable, thats what you
> > libbies are, Un-friggin-believable. THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF --
> > oh, I dunno, lets say -- WATERGATE!?!! Watergate, if you recall, is
> > when liberals brought down Nixon ... ONLY on the issue of how
> > information was obtained.
>
> Try thinking a little more clearly. In each felony case, it is
> the felons who must face prosecution. In the Gingrich tape case,
> the felons are the people who recorded and disseminated the
> conversation. In the Watergate case, President Nixon and the
> people he hired were the felons. The felons in the Gingrich
> tape case should face the music, just as the wrongdoers in the
> Watergate case did.
I am very happy and greatly gratified that this is your view: That
any felons in the Gingrich Tape Case must 'face the music'. I agree
utterly.
Rep. James McDermott (D-Washington) has been strongly implicated, by
multiple sources (including the couple who recorded the tape). If
(is as probable) the good Mr. McDermott has done this, than he has
committed a felony that is explicitly detailed in the 1986 Omnibus
Communication Act.
That makes the /RANKING MEMBER OF THE GINGRICH ETHICS PANEL/ guilty
of a /FELONY/ -- let me repeat the term for the proper effect --
F E L O N Y -- as opposed to a transgression of a House Rule, which
does not even carry with it any tort-law or penal-law weight.
That means you are going to jump up and down with glee, inasmuch
as -- and I quote -- 'felons in the Gingrich tape case should face
the music, just as the wrongdoers in the Watergate case did.'
Excellent. I applaud your consistency, in advance of it. :)
> > The way the information is obtained is USUALLY the BIGGEST offense in
> > these situations.
>
> You are grossly uninformed. First of all, that's untrue.
No it's not. Cover-ups of problems have been the routine charge taken
(more successfully) than the charge itself. They pried Rostenkowsi
apart on the 'cover-up' issue. Ollie North was nailed mostly on his
cover-ups. Watergate was mostly about the cover-up afterwards. I could
continue the citations, but as you see, the most significant political
events are centered on 'cover-up' detection.
> Secondly, Rep. Gingrich has admitted wrongdoing to the Ethics
> Committee, in response to charges that were made based on
> LEGALLY-obtained information.
Oooo. You betchya, he's oh-so-guilty of teaching a college course.
Ooooo. Thar's a crime, by crimany. :)
Sorry. That was unnecessarily sarcastic. :) I recognize that Newt has
some problems, There is one thing I *AM* troubled about Newt about --
he did have a intent to shave wayyy to close to the 501c Tax laws.
He really came as close to skirting the laws as possible. Too much
so. It is genuinely correct to point out that the /intent/ of Newt
was bad, and I concede this. However, Newt has not committed any
'high crime or misdemeanor' as held out in the rule of law. Even
the 501c tax law in question would be rendered as a civil 'tort'
action, not a criminal penal action. I hold forth, and can
demonstrate, that these are procedural problems at best.
Yupper.
> > But the more I listen to liberals, the more I see they ignore laws
> > --ALL> laws -- hypocritically expecting everyone to obey the
> > VOLUMES of laws they routinely break.
>
> I don't know which "liberals" you're listening to. I'm not a
> "liberal". Second, I never excused the guilty parties in the
> Gingrich tape matter. I doubtthat you can name anyone,
> "liberal" or otherwise, who excuses the lawbreaking.
Good! I am cheered by your response! I am happy to hear you will be
urging your Congressional and Senatorial representative to prosecute
fully this illegal wiretapping and subsequent distribution of illegally
obtained datum.
> > You guys are pathetic. I'm going to send 100.00 to the Republican
> > National Committee each and every time liberals behave like BLATENTLY
> > hypocritical lawbreaking thugs.
>
> I suggest that you spend the money on your own education.
No... two degrees in Computer Science and Physics, Summa Cum laude
in Brockport College, New York, are enough. No more school unless I
get some of that Sophomore Coed skirt. :) I'll do it then.
> First, improve your reading comprehension and learn how to
> reason more clearly. Second, learn how to make your point
> without resorting to ad hominems and epithets.
Oh, is this a conference (newsgroup, whatever) whereinwhich there is a
certain decorum? I am most happy to play by a certain set of rules,
I am experienced in netiquitte Fidonet style.
(However, it was fun to release a very-well-earned volley at you.) >:^D
> Finally,learn how to spell, or at least have the sense not to
> capitalize your spelling mistakes.
Ah yes.. I almost forgot how people go right to the spelling
criticism as soon as their position gets shaky.... :) :) hehehehheee
Okay already, I'll fire up my stupid speelcheck progrum -- my SPEELCHIK
PRUEGROM -- my SPILCHEEK PROGGRIM -- my WHUDDEVUHYOUSESAYALREADY.....
Sattisphyed???
Lee Griffin
It is, in fact, illegal to tape cellular phone conversations, and it
is illegal to print or distribute the contents of such calls. See
articles in 1/14 USA Today. Given the current explanation, it appears
that illegal activity did take place in this episode.
Lee
My opinions, not those of my employer.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
riv...@accessone.com (Michael Rivero) wrote:
> In article <5bef36$o...@ovation.rsn.hp.com>,
> Paul Barnett <bar...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >In <5beefg$1...@News2.Lakes.com> gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) writes:
> >
> >>>You might also want to consider the fact that it is damn hard to tap a
> >>>cell call. It cannot be done with the kinds of equipment that the
> >>>average person can obtain.
> >
> >>bunk old with an old scanner all you need to do is turn it on. Newer
> >>ones have blocked cell frequencies.
> >
> >It depends on the cellular system, and the phone that was being used.
> >
> >Most US cellular phones are "analog", which can be monitored with a
> >scanner. Even the ones that block the cell frequencies can usually be
> >easily modified to restore the denied frequencies.
>
>
>
> But even a modified scanner only receives one frequency at a time and
> celllar phones use two frequencies. One carries the cellphone signal to the
> tower while the other carries the tower signal back to the cellular phone
> (sidetone is handled internal to the handset).
>
> So, even though a scanner can pick up the cellular bands, it can only
> receive one side of the conversation, either base-to-mobile or mobile-to-base.
> Not both.
I have talked to my good friend in the business and he says that that
is a rare exception. The incoming and outgoing signal are usually
carried on one frequency.
I want to know these things:
How did they tape the call in their car? Did the have a hand-held
tape recorder with them? Happen to have a blank tape or was the tape
overwritten? At what stage was the conversation picked up?
>
> To receive and record both sides of a cellular telephone conversation
> requires TWO cellular-capable scanners, plus the tape recorder (plus a mixer).
Not most of the time.
Rob Kapischke
:>law to tape a police scanner. Charles Rangel said it all when he made
:>the comment about whoever was dumb enough to have a cellular phone in the
:>first place. That Stupid person was John Boehner, who is one of the
:>dumbest Congressmen I have bever heard speak.
:>
I believe you are incorrect. It is against the law to
even listen to cell phone conversations much less record them.
robxr4ti
Proud Member of Team OS/2
D.J. Johanning
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote in article <5beefg$1...@News2.Lakes.com>...
>
gdy,
Maybe you would like to explain to us how in the world both sides of the
converstaion were recorded from a single channel. everyone knows that a
cell phone has different freq's for RX/TX. so how did they capture both
sides of the conversation without using a standard run of the mill scanner?
I have a VHF/HF/UHF transceiver which is the latest technology has to offer
and I cannot pick up both sides of a cell phone conversation. so , mr
expert, tell us how this was done.
radr...@geocities.com
On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 16:06:18 GMT, gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
(gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
>Overall I agree with you Al except you have understated the amount of
>wrong doing. Not only does it involve nuttie newtie but it involves
>all of the repuks house leadership in plotting a conspiracy against
>congress. That tape amplefully demostrates their contempt for congress
>and the fact their word is worth squat. Coupled with the shamefull
>coverup being engineered by the epukes on the ethics committee its
>time for them to get their just reward-> nothing short of explusion
>from congress.
>
>
Again, where's the "conspiracy" ???
Roger C. Shouse
In article <5bh1j4$7...@News2.Lakes.com> gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) writes:
>From: gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com)
>Subject: Re: Democratic Party Operatives caught in Felonious Activities
>Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 21:35:22 GMT
>radr...@geocities.com wrote:
>>On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 21:21:07 GMT, gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
>>(gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
>>>
>>>So plotting a conspiracy against congress is less offensive than jay
>>>walking when done by a conservative.
>>Can you please explain what "conspiracy" was plotted ?
>>(Plotting to adhere to an agreement made doesn't count)
>ohh gahd another spin doc. Apparently he's brain dead, every one
>including the village idiot that has listened to that tape knows that
>nuttie newtie was plotting a conspiracy to circumvent the agreement
>with the ethics committee.
You certainly don't let facts interfere with your beliefs, do you? There was
no conspiracy. There was a conversation concerning how to respond to the
sure-to-folow pack of Bonior distortions about committee findings while
remaining within the bounds of what Newt had promised the committee.
Now, go back to your village.
Roger Shouse
radr...@geocities.com
>
>bunk old with an old scanner all you need to do is turn it on. Newer
>ones have blocked cell frequencies.
And why are the frequencies blocked on the newer ones ?
Your "average" "police" scanner did not recieve cellular. Most
really old scanners did not scan 800 megahertz.
The person who would be "just sitting around listening" to cellular
conversations for leisure is at best someone who needs to get a
life, and a federal criminal. If you are a communications systems
engineer, you know that the ECPA makes it a federal crime.
Max Kennedy
sof...@us.net (Charles R. Smith) wrote:
>wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>>mken...@iglou.com (Max Kennedy) wrote:
>>>jak...@netcom.com (henry jakala) wrote:
>>>
>>>>looks like some anonymous Democratic Congressamn handed off an illegally
>>>>obtained taped to a liberal rag which printed the story
>>>
>>>Enemies lists, private investigators, and paranoid ideas about free
>>>communication and a desire to control it and the internet.
>> (extremist mean-spirited hate speech)
>>Billy
>>Anthology
>>http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html
>Possible transnational terrorism threatening the security of all women
>and children that ever lived which must be taken care of with large
>armored vehicles and CS gas.
And to think, it's all possible from the comfort of your home!
Or compound, as the case and prevailing stench of the White House
makes it.
Max Kennedy
Lazamataz
THIS WAS FROM AN EMAIL EXCHANGE -- it is not directed
at the person I'm responding to -- but it is interesting...
------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, JEEEZ-uz, yer a real corker... Here, let me point out one of your
statements....
>
> Rabid Republican partisans are showing their true colors in this matter.
>
> They're trying to move the public's attention away from Rep. Gingrich's
> wrongdoings and toward the way in which the information was gathered.
> Even if the tape was distributed illegally, and even if Rosalee's
> unfounded allegation regarding who made the tape is true, the simple
> fact of the matter is that it reveals wrongdoing by Speaker Gingrich.
>
> I don't care how the information was obtained.
----------------------------------------------
Right there, thats the line. Un-fuggin-believable, thats what you
libbies are, Un-friggin-believable. THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF -- oh,
I dunno, lets say -- WATERGATE!?!! Watergate, if you recall, is when
liberals brought down Nixon ... ONLY on the issue of how information
was obtained.
The way the information is obtained is USUALLY the BIGGEST offense in
these situations.
But the more I listen to liberals, the more I see they ignore laws --
ALL laws -- hypocritically expecting everyone to obey the VOLUMES of
laws they routinely break.
You guys are pathetic. I'm going to send 100.00 to the Republican
mike...@austin.ibm.com
In article <mbmoore.1...@news.hiwaay.net>, mbm...@hiwaay.net (Michael B. Moore) writes:
> In Article <5b9ek5$n...@nnrp4.farm.idt.net>, Alvin Nichter
> >
> >I don't care how the information was obtained. This is a House
> >Ethics investigation, not a criminal investigation, so the method
> >in which the information was obtained is irrelevant. We have a
> >recording of Rep. Gingrich engaging in wrongdoing. Until supporters
> >of Rep. Gingrich address that point, their rantings about the tape
> >and its distribution are an irrelevant diversion.
> >
> >---Alvin H. Nichter
>
From the parts of the transcript I have heard the consel for the ethics committe
knew that the conversation was taking place. And from what I have heard of the
conversations Newt was talking to his Lawyer, and some of the Republican house
leadership was in the conversation to see what was legal to do before the ethics
committe gave its final assessment. This was a privledged conversation between
Newt and his lawyer. I don't think this conversation was illegal or in violation
of the Ethics investigation.
This ability to rationalize breaking the law, and to shout a lie until everybody
believes it belongs somewhere else. You don't have to be liberal or conservative
to lack character or to be evil.
Alvin, you man and his methods are dead and he has goosestepped into the pages of
history. Hopefully, never to rise again.
--
Michael (Mike) C. Dean
IBM - RISC/6000 Division
Austin, Texas.
Disclaimer - The opinions expressed in this append are mine alone.
Peregrin
In article <32DB05...@swbell.net>, ppar...@swbell.net says...
>
>Max Kennedy wrote:
>>
>Highly embarassing, at least for normal people. These clowns
>were doing exactly what they pledged they would not do. If it
>wasn't so sensitive, why do you suppose they wigged out when
>they got caught?
I just had to respond to this loonecy..Ahhh, how would you react
if you found out someone was illegally recording YOUR private
conversations? Wouldn't bother you just a little bit?
And just for the hell of it...Why the hell can't the man talk to
his lawyer, and his fellow leaders? The damned denocrats have been harp'n
on the man for yrs. now...Now he's not allowed to address his re-election
campaign?
He didn't break any agreement, his lawyer who was on the phone, was there
spesifically to help them navigate around the agreement...Now before you
get excited with the phrase, "around the agreement"... Ofcourse that's
what the lawyer was for..What the hell else do you need a lawyer for, if
it's not to advise you of your rights in this situation? You wouldn't have
a lawyer present? You'd know exactly the range of your agreement?
But ofcourse you wouldn't feel a need to defend yourself, what
with Bonior and his "Winged monkeys" hounding you over every sheet of
xerox paper in your office. Why wouldn't you just sit back and let them
have at you? After all, who could ever question they're ethics?
That's a joke son....
>> Number two, and correct me if I am wrong, but conventional encryption
>> for conference style calls doesn't widely exist in products you can
>> buy over the counter.
>>
>> Number three, only one person in a conference call has to break
>> security. People in general are not security minded, and the more
>> people involved, the less airtight the security will be.
>> If one is going to engage in that sort of collusion, little details
>like security are necessary.
>
>Pat Parson
Erik Marksberry
On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
>
> ohh gahd another spin doc. Apparently he's brain dead, every one
> including the village idiot that has listened to that tape knows that
> nuttie newtie was plotting a conspiracy to circumvent the agreement
> with the ethics committee.
Moron. In the tape, they SPECIFICALLY say "OK, Newt can't do X, but he
can do Y and still be in the bounds of his agreement." to which Newt
replies "very clever". Now, which part of that didn't you understand??
And while we're at it, let's examine ole mom n pop who taped the call.
In their interview, they said a) they had never modified the scanner,
b) he had gotten it for his last birthday (50th), and c) they bought it
new from Radio Shack. Only problem with that story is that it has been
illegal to manufacture or sell cell-phone-capable scanners since April of
1994. So on at least one of those points, the innocent couple who just
happened across this call are lying. Fact.
--
Erik Marksberry
mark...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Hard work never killed anyone, but why take the chance?
Al Donaldson
In article <5bh1j4$7...@News2.Lakes.com>,
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com <gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com> wrote:
>ohh gahd another spin doc. Apparently he's brain dead, every one
>including the village idiot that has listened to that tape knows that
>nuttie newtie was plotting a conspiracy to circumvent the agreement
>with the ethics committee.
So, just how many people have listened to that tape?
Including you? Oh, yeah, and including the village idiot, too..
Al
Wayne Mann
THE POLITICAL DIGEST LITE ©
"THE Internet Clipping Service"
1079 Farroll
Arroyo Grande, Ca. 93420
t...@tcsn.net
Vol 3-L011497
=============================================
[01]
Foes in Jones case deliver arguments
KATHY KIELY AND TERRY LEMONS
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
=============================================
[02]
Above the Law?
WSJ
=============================================
[03]
Leader of Proposition 209 Brings Cause to Other States
By G. PASCAL ZACHARY
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
=============================================
[04]
[Editors Note: Let's see if I understand this. Now I should
because I have
watched all of the networks and read a lot of papers for
several days now.
SO.....Gingrich is bad. He broke promise to committee.
according to Democrats
which the media repeats over and over. However they never
mention that this
could ONLY be true if several assumptions the Democrats make
are all true.
Democrats good. Ooops, not time to talk about illegal taping
and handling after it
was taped. Republicans bad, Democrats good. Now how is that,
you thought I
didn't understand this didn't you? ;<) ]
Ethics Panel's McDermott Faces Scrutiny on Recording's
Release
By DAVID ROGERS
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
=============================================
[05]
Colorado Governor Is Tapped As New Democratic Chairman
By a WALL STREET JOURNAL Staff Reporter
=============================================
[06]
Too Many Web Publishers Vie for Too Few Customers
By DON CLARK
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
=============================================
[07]
*****Democrat urged to quit over tape of call
Ethics panelist took Gingrich recording
By GREG McDONALD
Copyright 1997 Houston Chronicle
Washington Bureau
=============================================
[08]
1st lady's Brother Eyed in Offer
ASSOCIATED PRESS
=============================================
[09]
*****Kantor: Huang Got China Briefing
ASSOCIATED PRESS
=============================================
[10]
FBI Releases JFK Documents
ASSOCIATED PRESS
=============================================
[11]
Academia Mounts Fight to Save a CIA Program
By NORMAN KEMPSTER, Times Staff Writer
=============================================
[12]
Clinton again urges Senate to ratify languishing chemical
arms treaty
Copyright © 1997 Nando.net
Copyright © 1997 Reuter Information Service
=============================================
[13]
[Editors Note: Is there NO bottom to the cesspool Clinton
has created in Washington?]
Indonesian paid think-tank dinner cost
Copyright © 1997 Nando.net
Copyright © 1997 The Boston Globe
=============================================
[14]
Gore's fund-raising role may come back to haunt him
Copyright © 1997 Nando.net
Copyright © 1997 The Boston Globe
=============================================
[15]
Potentially illegal tape of Gingrich sent to criminal
investigators
Copyright © 1997 Nando.net
Copyright © 1997 The Associated Press
=============================================
[16]
Jones team concedes Clinton can stall
By Frank J. Murray
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
=============================================
[17]
McDermott tape sent to Justice Dept.
By George Archibald
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
=============================================
[18]
Justice Stevens asks Jones' lawyer about other victims
By Frank J. Murray and Ruth Larson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
=============================================
[19]
'Get Newt' offensive backfires o Democrats
By Laurie Kellman and Brian Blomquist
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
=============================================
[20]
Inside Politics
News and political dispatches from around the nation
Compiled by: Greg Pierce
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
=============================================
[21]
Inside the Beltway
Political tidbits and other shenanigans from the nation's
capital
By John McCaslin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
=============================================
[22]
*****Resigning lawyer seeks records on Lippo affair
Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
=============================================
[23]
[Editors Note: Couple thought they would go down in history
as couple
that "got" Gingrich, I suspect would be more closer to the
truth.]
Couple Thought Tape Was 'Part of History'
Floridians Tell of Recording Call, Giving Copy to House
Democrat
By Guy Gugliotta and Nick Madigan
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, January 14 1997; Page A01
The Washington Post
=============================================
[24]
Disclosures Add to Turmoil Surrounding Gingrich Case
By John E. Yang
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 14 1997; Page A01
The Washington Post
=============================================
[25]
In Jones-Clinton Case, Silence of the Sisterhood Stirs
Charges of Hypocrisy
By Kevin Merida
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 14 1997; Page A04
The Washington Post
=============================================
[26]
[Editors Note: Childish!]
The Picture of Conciliation
By Guy Gugliotta
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 14 1997; Page A13
The Washington Post
=============================================
[27]
Gingrich Investigator James Cole, Turning Silently
By David Segal
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 14 1997; Page C01
The Washington Post
=============================================
[28]
Presidential Immunity and a Duck Out of Water
By Lloyd Grove
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 14 1997; Page C01
The Washington Post
=============================================
HOW TO SUBSCRIBE BELOW AT END
=============================================
[07]
*****Democrat urged to quit over tape of call
Ethics panelist took Gingrich recording
By GREG McDONALD
Copyright 1997 Houston Chronicle
Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- Party colleagues urged the
ranking Democrat on the House ethics committee
to resign Monday following revelations that he
had been given a recording of a Newt Gingrich
teleconference call that was later leaked to a
newspaper.
A Florida couple who eavesdropped on a
telephone conversation the House speaker had
with other Republican leaders on Dec. 21 stepped
forward Monday and said they had given Rep.
Jim McDermott, D-Wash., a tape of the call on
Jan. 7.
In the call, GOP leaders discussed the potential
fallout from Gingrich's admission that same day
to the House ethics committee that he had given it
false information in violation of House rules. The
New York Times later printed a transcript of the
call.
McDermott said Monday that he would have no
comment other than to acknowledge that he had
talked to the chairman of the committee about the
matter. "It is therefore an issue before the
committee."
When asked last week about the tape,
McDermott denied knowing anything about it.
But that denial came back to haunt him Monday
when the Gainesville couple said they had
personally handed the tape to him during a visit to
Washington.
"We told him we had something to turn over to
the ethics committee. He took the envelope
(containing the tape) in his hand ... and said he
would listen to it," said Alice Martin, who
acknowledged that she and her husband, John,
had taped the conversation after picking it up on a
police scanner in their car.
The Martins said they did not realize at the time
that taping the call was a violation of federal law.
They claimed that they recorded the conversation
involving Gingrich and other GOP leaders
because they wanted to save "a part of history"
for their future grandson.
Larry Turner, the Martins' attorney, said they
later decided the tape should be offered to the
ethics committee.
Turner said he hoped people would understand
that the Martins are just "Mr. and Mrs. John Q.
Citizen and they thought they were doing what
was right."
Democratic sources said McDermott was being
urged to resign from the committee by
Democratic colleagues in the hope that it might
help refocus public attention on Gingrich. The
committee is considering public hearings and
possible punishment for the Georgia Republican
in light of his admission that he supplied false
information about tax-exempt foundation money
used to help finance a college course he once
taught.
One Democratic source said that if McDermott
had in fact leaked the tape it was not "the
smartest thing that's ever been done, but it still
shouldn't take the emphasis off Gingrich and what
he's done."
The Democrats also note that the tape proves that
Gingrich violated an agreement he made with the
ethics committee not to orchestrate his own public
defense in the case. Republicans say the tape
proves only that Gingrich was discussing with his
lieutenants what he could and could not do under
the agreement.
Republicans were delighted that the Martins, as
one put it, chose to "finger McDermott" as the
recipient of the tape. "They just hung him out to
dry," said one aide.
Republican Conference Chairman John Boehner
of Ohio, who participated in the teleconference
call, called the taping and leaking of it an "open
and shut case" of criminal wrongdoing. He urged
Attorney General Janet Reno to investigate the
Martins' and McDermott's handling of the tape
recording. He also called on Democratic leaders
to strip McDermott of his ethics post.
Boehner's use of a cellular phone, which works
like a radio transmitter, apparently allowed the
Martins' police scanner to pick up the
conversation.
The 10-member ethics committee is struggling to
come up with an acceptable timetable for hearings
on Gingrich's ethics violations. The Republicans
say they want hearings to begin on Friday and run
through the weekend and perhaps though the
presidential inauguration on Monday. The
Democrats say that schedule is not acceptable and
is a GOP attempt to hide the hearings in the
shadow of President Clinton's inauguration
festivities.
=============================================
[09]
*****Kantor: Huang Got China Briefing
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A key figure in the controversy
over foreign-linked donations to the Democrats, whose
former Indonesian employer has close business ties to the
Chinese government, received at least one classified
intelligence briefing on China as a federal official,
Commerce
Secretary Mickey Kantor disclosed Monday.
As previously reported by The Associated Press, the former
Commerce Department official, John Huang, telephoned his
former employer, Indonesia's Lippo Group, several times
during a period in which he was receiving classified
briefings.
When he became a deputy assistant secretary of commerce
in July 1994, the Chinese-born Huang promised not to have
any involvement with Lippo. Revelations last fall that
Huang
made dozens of phone calls to Lippo's California bank while
he was in government have prompted Republicans to
investigate whether he used his position to benefit the
Indonesian banking and real estate conglomerate.
Investigators' interest is further heightened by the fact
that
Huang got a top-secret security clearance six months before
starting his government job -- and without the usual full
background security investigation.
Huang has broadly denied wrongdoing but has yet to explain
the nature of his contacts with his former employer while
he
held the senior position in the trade and economic policy
area. He left Commerce a year ago to become a major
Democratic Party fund-raiser.
Huang's calendars list 37 meetings with the intelligence
liaison officer for the Commerce Department during the 18
months he worked there. When asked previously about
those meetings, a department spokeswoman said it was not
unusual for Huang to have been in them and that a likely
area of intelligence information for him was Taiwan.
But in a letter Monday to the chairman of the House Rules
Committee, Commerce Secretary Kantor said one of the
meetings -- on Jan. 25, 1995 -- "was a weekly intelligence
briefing centered on the People's Republic of China."
"Any materials related to the briefing were under the
control
of the Central Intelligence Agency," Kantor wrote Rep.
Gerald B. Solomon, R-N.Y., who had requested information
last November about Huang's meetings with the intelligence
officer.
The officer serves as a link between the Commerce
Department and the CIA and other intelligence agencies and
can provide sensitive information such as political and
economic assessments to officials with the proper security
clearances.
Commerce spokesmen couldn't be reached for comment on
Kantor's letter Monday evening. Huang's attorneys also
could not be reached.
Lippo, whose U.S.-based executives have been major
contributors to Clinton and the Democrats, has close
business ties to the Chinese government. Lippo and a U.S.
energy company, Entergy, are involved in a $1 billion joint
venture to build a power plant in China.
According to House aides, by 1993 Lippo had sold 50
percent of its holdings in Hong Kong Chinese Bank -- where
Huang was vice president in 1985-86 -- to China Resources
Holding Co., a corporation run by the Beijing government.
In federal court meanwhile, the attorney for a conservative
group that has sued the Commerce Department sought on
Monday to question a White House attorney about the
group's request for documents on several U.S. trade
missions abroad.
Larry Klayman, chairman and general counsel of Judicial
Watch, asked a federal judge for permission to question
Stephen Neuwirth, associate counsel to President Clinton,
about the documents.
Judicial Watch, which is seeking evidence that the
administration used the trade missions to get contributions
for the Democratic Party, successfully sued the Commerce
Department in January 1995 to force it to release some of
the trade mission documents.
Klayman told U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth that the
White House, Commerce Department and Democratic
National Committee had worked together to "sell
government services for campaign contributions."
Assistant U.S. Attorney Bruce Hegyi countered that
Klayman had made "a lot of reckless allegations" and had
produced no hard evidence to support his claim that the
government was obstructing justice.
Lamberth did not rule immediately on the Judicial Watch
request. White House spokesman Lanny Davis had no
immediate comment.
=============================================
[13]
[Editors Note: Is there NO bottom to the cesspool Clinton
has created in Washington?]
Indonesian paid think-tank dinner cost
Copyright © 1997 Nando.net
Copyright © 1997 The Boston Globe
WASHINGTON (Jan 14, 1997 00:36 a.m. EST) -- James Riady, the
Indonesian
businessman whose political contributions and close ties to
President Clinton have
raised questions of foreign influence peddling, contributed
$30,000 to a White
House-associated think tank at the request of a Clinton
friend who has done
business with Riady.
According to documents made available to the Boston Globe,
in return for his gift,
Riady was named "dinner host" of the 1993 banquet for the
Center for the Study
of the Presidency. The donation was arranged by Mark
Grobmyer, a Little Rock
lawyer who is a golfing partner of Clinton and who has
worked for the Lippo
Group, the Indonesian conglomerate controlled by the Riady
family.
Grobmyer, one of several Arkansas friends of Clinton whose
foreign business
dealings drew attention from Republicans during the
presidential campaign, was
named "liaison to the White House" by the think tank, a
designation he
subsequently included on business cards.
The nonpartisan center, with offices in New York, provides
"analysis" reviewed by
Clinton and holds briefings at the White House, according to
Center documents.
Last year, Grobmyer helped the center host a seminar on
Asian trade issues for
American businessmen.
The Center's founder, Gordon Hoxie, said the Riady donation
has not influenced
the center's work. But one of the center's trustees, C.
Boyden Gray, who was
White House counsel for President Bush, said he was troubled
by Riady's donation
and by Grobmyer's use of the White House "liaison" title.
Gray said he plans to
discuss the issue with other trustees.
"This is very mysterious," Gray said, asserting that he did
not know Riady had
helped fund the center. "I had no idea. I think I have an
obligation to raise this
now."
Gray also said the issue only increases concerns that the
Lippo donations might
give the conglomerate inappropriate influence on US
government decision making.
A cochairman for the same dinner was Democratic fund-raiser
John Huang, whose
practices are at the center of the widening investigation.
In the last two years,
Huang raised about $3.4 million for the party. But $1.2
million of that has been
returned amid allegations that much of it was foreign money
laundered through
American donors.
The Riady funding of the nonpartisan Center for the Study of
the Presidency,
separate from previously reported Riady-linked Democratic
donations totaling
$475,000, marks yet another instance of Riady intersecting
with the Clinton White
House.
The Justice Department and congressional investigators are
examining foreign
involvement in Democratic fund-raising and Republican
charges that influential
foreign businessmen, like the Riadys, may have had input
into Clinton foreign
policy decisions. The center, unlike political campaigns,
has no restrictions on the
source of its funds.
The Grobmyer role in the Riady donation underscores the
access friends of Clinton
have to the president. Both Grobmyer and Riady have made a
number visits to the
White House. And, shortly before Grobmyer asked Riady to
make the contribution
to the center, Grobmyer and Riady met with Clinton in the
Oval Office on April
19, 1993.
In an interview, Grobmyer acknowledged that he had sought
the donation from
Riady, although he said he did not know the size of the
contribution until informed
by The Globe. Grobmyer also said policy issues were not
discussed when he and
Riady met with Clinton.
"All I remember is that he said he would cover the cost of
the dinner. ... He
indicated he would make a contribution," Grobmyer said.
Officials at the center said they could not find a record of
Huang making a
contribution to the center, although such donations
typically were required for an
individual to be named a cochairman of the dinner, as Huang
is listed on the
program. In any case, Grobmyer last May wrote in a letter to
Huang that he
planned to arrange a meeting between U.S. business leaders
and "heads of state" of
Asian-Pacific countries while Clinton was attending a summit
in the Philippines.
Grobmyer said he never followed through.
Riady could not be reached for comment. But Grobmyer, who
has made dozens of
visits to the White House since Clinton became president,
said he has been unfairly
drawn into the controversy. While Grobmyer acknowledged that
he is a friend of
the president, and has worked for Lippo and traveled with
Riady, he said he has
never gained any work for Lippo as a result of his Clinton
ties.
"I have not seen any benefit," Grobmyer said. As for his
ties to the center, he said:
"I'm just a citizen trying to help an educational
institution"
Grobmyer said that his company, Commerce International,
which tries to help U.S.
firms export their products, has never done business in
Indonesia. But he said he
once served as an informal emissary between Indonesian
President Suharto and
Clinton.
Shortly after Clinton became president, Grobmyer said, he
met with Suharto, and
their talk included discussion of US-Indonesia relations.
Suharto, according to
Grobmyer, "said they had been in the past somewhat
confrontational to industrial
countries and wanted to become more mainstream." Grobmyer
said Suharto
indicated that he wanted to "communicate that somehow" to
countries such as the
United States. Grobmyer said he passed information about the
exchange to
Clinton.
At the time, Indonesia had been condemned by Clinton for
human rights violations
in East Timor, a former Portuguese colony that had been
annexed by Indonesia.
While Clinton has continued to be critical of the East Timor
situation, Republicans
have accused Clinton of being too soft on Indonesia when it
came to trade policy.
In addition, Republicans have raised questions about whether
Riady was
instrumental in getting Clinton to meet with Suharto.
Clinton met the Riadys in the 1980s, when Indonesian
billionaire Mochtar Riady,
the head of Lippo Group and father of James Riady, began
doing business in
Arkansas. James Riady and Huang worked at Worthen Bank in
Little Rock, in
which Lippo had acquired a stake. Grobmyer said he did legal
work for Lippo
involving the bank.
After Clinton became president, Mochtar Riady wrote Clinton
on March 9, 1993,
urging him to lift a trade embargo against Vietnam, a step
taken by Clinton the
following year. James Riady then visited the White House
four times during April
1993, including the April 19 meeting that Grobmyer attended.
Grobmyer by this time had been named by the Center for the
Study of the
Presidency to be its "liaison to the White House." Hoxie,
the center's founder, said
the position did not exist until it was given to Grobmyer,
although Grobmyer
worked with the center for two years before Clinton became
president.
"To be very frank, he helped us enormously with several
programs and he has
encouraged the participation of the president and vice
president," Hoxie said of
Grobmyer.
The center is financed by tax-deductible donations from
individuals, foundations
and corporations. The center declined to release a list of
contributors, but Hoxie
confirmed that a June 7, 1993 donation of $30,000 is listed
as coming from
"vice-chairman, Lippo Group." Riady is the Lippo
vice-chairman.
Two weeks later, on June 23, Riady was "dinner host" for the
awards dinner.
Clinton, while listed as honorary chairman at the dinner,
did not attend. The
honorees at the dinner included then-Commerce Secretary
Ronald H. Brown and
then-Sen. Bob Dole.
Gray stressed that he did not believe the Center itself had
been affected by Riady's
contribution. But he said the Riady role raised a larger
question of whether Clinton
met with Riady as a result of Riady's numerous contributions
to a variety of
Clinton causes and whether U.S. policy was affected.
In addition, Gray said he has questions about the way
Grobmyer presented himself
as the Center's "liaison to the White House." As Grobmyer
has traveled around the
world on business, he has given out business cards
identifying himself as the
"liaison to the White House" and written letters with the
same title. This has led
some critics to question whether Grobmyer was improperly
presenting himself as a
White House official. But Grobmyer said he always made clear
he was an official
of the center, not the White House.
But Gray said: "It raises of the question of whether
somebody is using the center to
try to get White House cover without going through the White
House clearance
process."
=============================================
[21]
Inside the Beltway
Political tidbits and other shenanigans from the nation's
capital
By John McCaslin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Skinnier Newt
His image in need of enhancement, former New York
Gov. Mario Cuomo recently approached Giorgenti Image
Consultants for help. After consultation, Mr. Cuomo was
recast in soft pastel shirts and dark suits to soften his
skin
on camera.
Now designer Janine Giorgenti tells us that she can
make House Speaker Newt Gingrich "look 20 pounds
slimmer and 100 times friendlier, warmer ... genuine and
believable -- just by changing his clothes."
"Newt looks like a head on a suit," she says, "and with
his hair color and skin tone, he seems to be shouting out
at
you. He needs softer blues and browns for his suits and
softer whites against his face to reduce the harshness in
his
appearance.
"He should also be very careful, since he's gained
weight, to wear jackets that are a bit longer than he does
now, elongating his torso to avoid appearing so 'vertically
challenged.'"
Democrats for dinner
We're not sure what this says about our readers, but a
good number called hungry for more items like last week's
report on Alferd E. Packer, America's only convicted
cannibal.
We'd written that only in Washington, where people
are eaten alive every day, could there be an organization
dedicated to preserving the memory of a cannibal --in this
case Packer, charged with cannibalism after the mysterious
disappearance of his camping pals in 1874.
Housed in Washington, D.C.'s Northeast quadrant, the
Alferd E. Packer Society has 20 members, including a
chaplain, according to the Encyclopedia of Associations.
One reader who contacted us was Don Maclean, a
reporter for the old Washington Daily News, who while
walking his beat "accidentally" found himself researching
the saga of Packer.
"It happened that about 30 to 35 years ago, the U.S.
Agriculture Department renovated its employee cafeteria
here in Washington," Mr. Maclean says.
"To commemorate the event, a suggestion contest was
held to name the new cafeteria after some great American
who was connected with agriculture, food or nutrition.
"The name getting the most votes was that of Packer,
who was cited as a 'Famous Gourmet and a Pioneer in the
Fields of Diet and New Food Groups.' A suitable plaque
honoring Mr. Packer was duly placed at the entrance to
the cafeteria, where it stayed until somebody informed the
secretary of Mr. Packer's claim to fame," Mr. Maclean
tells us.
The former scribe adds: "At his conviction in 1874 for
cannibalism, the judge said: 'Packer, there were only 10
Democrats in the entire state, and you, you son of a bitch,
ate three of them!'"
Snowing on the parade
Arguments will be heard today in the federal lawsuit of
Mahoney vs. Babbitt.
The Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney filed suit against Interior
Secretary Bruce Babbitt after being denied a permit by the
National Park Service to carry pro-life signs on a
Pennsylvania Avenue sidewalk during President Clinton's
inaugural parade.
In a letter from Interior, Mr. Mahoney and members
of the Christian Defense Coalition were warned they might
be arrested if they showed up for Mr. Clinton's parade
with pro-life signs.
"The Clinton administration has betrayed the principles
of the First Amendment by threatening to arrest peaceful
demonstrators for simply holding signs on a public
sidewalk," Mr. Mahoney says.
"We filed the lawsuit to protect the rights of every
American, regardless of their political views, to speak
openly without fear."
Preserving the Hill
Alan M. Hantman received high honors for $300
million in improvements to New York's Rockefeller
Center. Now the Teaneck, N.J., architect is coming to
town as President Clinton's choice to become architect of
the Capitol.
If Mr. Hantman thought Rockefeller Center was a
plateful, he'll now be responsible for upkeep, preservation
and changes to the U.S. Capitol, Senate and House office
buildings, Library of Congress, Supreme Court, federal
judiciary building, Capitol power plant, U.S. Capitol
Police
headquarters, and Taft Memorial.
For his efforts, he'll be paid an annual salary of
$123,100. The position has been vacant since George
White, who'd held the job since 1971, retired in
November.
No cheese for Erskine
Newly appointed White House Chief of Staff Erskine
Bowles has gotten off to a rocky start.
The former North Carolina businessman bet Health
and Human Services Secretary Donna E. Shalala, former
chancellor of the University of Wisconsin, that his team,
the Carolina Panthers, would defeat her team, the Green
Bay Packers, Sunday.
Miss Shalala, described as a "big Packers fan," won
the wager and will now be treated to heaps of genuine
North Carolina barbecue (not very healthy, Donna!).
=============================================
[22]
*****Resigning lawyer seeks records on Lippo affair
Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Outgoing White House counsel Jack Quinn has asked
President Clinton's executive staff in a strongly
worded memo to turn over all records it has on 40 persons
and companies tied to the growing Lippo Group scandal,
setting a deadline of noon Thursday to respond.
The request is contained in a two-page memo sent last
week by Mr. Quinn, who announced his resignation last
month, to Mr. Clinton's executive office. It seeks all
memos, correspondence, notes, telephone logs,
photographs, appointment calendars and computer disks
involving several key Lippo players and others.
Included in the request are all documents on John
Huang, the former deputy assistant secretary of
commerce, ex-Democratic National Committee fund raiser
and former Lippo Group executive. He is at the center of
campaign-finance investigations by the Justice Department
and various House and Senate committees.
Mr. Quinn also asked the president's staff to turn over
all records it has on, among others, Lippo's founder,
Mochtar Riady, and his son, James; Pauline Kanchanalak,
a Thai real estate broker whose $253,500 DNC donation
was returned; Arief and Soraya Wiriadinata, Northern
Virginia gardeners whose $425,000 gift also was returned
by the DNC; and Charles Yah Lin Trie, an Arkansas
businessman whose delivery of $600,000 to the president's
legal defense fund eventually was rejected.
He also asked for records the executive staff has on
the Lippo Group, a $6.9 billion conglomerate based in
Indonesia; Lippobank, a subsidiary with banks in
California; Cheong Am America, a South Korean company
that made an illegal $250,000 campaign donation; and
eight other firms. He told the president's staff to include
records on the firms' affiliates, officers, directors,
owners,
employees, shareholders and agents.
"Every employee is responsible for searching his or
her files and records to ensure a comprehensive search,"
Mr. Quinn wrote. "In the White House office, the Office
of Policy Development and the executive residence, each
office head or assistant to the president must certify that
his or her staff has done a complete search.
"For all other executive Office of the President
agencies or entities, the general counsel must certify that
all agency records have been provided," he wrote.
Meanwhile, Judicial Watch, which is suing the
Commerce Department for documents on the use of
administration trade missions for political fund-raising,
yesterday asked a federal judge for authority to take
depositions from Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Connecticut
Democrat, and Donald Fowler, co-chairmen of the
Democratic National Committee, and 26 current and
former administration officials linked to the probe.
The legal watchdog ethics group accused the
department of violating court orders by withholding
documents showing a political fund-raising connection with
the trade missions.
Mr. Quinn's request is similar to document searches
for Whitewater and the president's firing of White House
travel office workers. Administration officials have said,
however, that Mr. Quinn is looking to collect everything
the White House might have on Lippo and others and
make it available in a single package instead of having
records leaked piecemeal as they are discovered.
Several House and Senate panels have sought
documents on the Lippo matter from the White House and
have complained of stonewalling. They are probing
campaign-finance irregularities involving Lippo and others.
The Justice Department rejected a request by a
senator and the chairmen of four House committees for an
independent counsel to probe suspected illegal donations to
the Clinton campaign and the DNC, but its criminal
division is conducting an extensive inquiry into the
matter.
It also has sought White House records.
The Quinn memo, dated Jan. 9, is described as a
follow-up to an earlier request dated Dec. 16 for a search
of documents in response to requests from various
congressional committees and the Justice Department.
Mr. Quinn said on Dec. 12 he was quitting for "family
reasons." He is the third lawyer to leave the White House
since Mr. Clinton won re-election and joins a parade of top
aides departing the administration. He is expected to leave
shortly after his named successor, Washington lawyer
Charles F.C. Ruff, takes over.
A former aide to Vice President Al Gore, Mr. Quinn
joined the White House after his predecessor, Abner
Mikva, resigned. Mr. Mikva replaced ousted White House
counsel Bernard Nussbaum, who became ensnared in the
Whitewater case.
=============================================
[23]
[Editors Note: Couple thought they would go down in history
as couple
that "got" Gingrich, I suspect would be more closer to the
truth.]
Couple Thought Tape Was 'Part of History'
Floridians Tell of Recording Call, Giving Copy to House
Democrat
By Guy Gugliotta and Nick Madigan
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, January 14 1997; Page A01
The Washington Post
The tape was "part of history," John Martin said, and
he and his wife Alice wanted to share it with someone.
Their congresswoman told them to take it to the ethics
committee and give it Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.).
On the tape was a phone conversation Dec. 21
involving Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) and other
members of the House Republican leadership that the
Martins had overheard on their police scanner. The
group was discussing how to limit the political damage
Gingrich would face for admitting to having broken
House rules.
Last Wednesday, after waiting outside the ethics
committee hearing room, the Martins gave the tape to
McDermott. Two days later, after copies of the tapes
were given to two newspapers, the whole country knew
about Gingrich's conversation. One of the papers, the
New York Times, said the tape came from a
Democratic House member.
For McDermott, 60, a practicing psychiatrist first
elected to Congress in 1988, the Martins' disclosures
yesterday afternoon at a news conference in
Gainesville, Fla., could have serious consequences.
It is a federal crime to intentionally disclose the
contents
of an intercepted telephone call. House GOP leaders
have asked Attorney General Janet Reno to investigate
the case, and she has referred it to the Justice
Department's Public Integrity Section, which could
issue a decision in the next few days.
McDermott issued a brief statement from his district
office in Seattle after he was identified by the Martins,
saying only that he had "communicated with the chair
of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
about this matter."
"It is therefore an issue before the committee," the
statement continued. "I have not made comments about
the substance before the committee in the past. I will
make no comment now."
McDermott, an outspoken liberal and Gingrich's main
antagonist on the committee for the last two years, has
frequently been the target of GOP enmity. Over the
weekend House Republicans suggested they thought
McDermott leaked the tape. "If he did it," said House
Republican Conference Chairman John A. Boehner
(Ohio), "he should resign the Congress immediately."
Yesterday, Boehner, whose cellular phone was the
source for the Martin tape, said: "This case is so
open-and-shut that even Barney Fife could solve it."
House rules are fuzzy on how to treat a member
convicted of a crime, saying only that if the crime
requires a two-year prison sentence, the convicted
member "should refrain" from performing his duties in
committee and "should refrain" from voting, but neither
sanction is a requirement.
The law under which McDermott could be investigated
carries a sentence of up to six years and a fine of up to
$250,000. Expulsion from the House, for any reason,
has nothing to do with the Justice Department and
requires a two-thirds vote of the members.
The Martins too are bound by the same federal law and
could be prosecuted. Asked at their news conference if
he was aware of this, John Martin simply replied "yes."
Alice Martin, visibly discomfited, swallowed, grinned
nervously and answered: "Yeah, if we have to be."
For all their nerves, however, John Martin, 50, a
maintenance man at Lake City Middle School near
Gainesville, and Alice, 48, a teacher's aide, clearly
seemed to enjoy the experience of accidentally
eavesdropping on the GOP brain trust and putting the
tape recording in the place where it was guaranteed to
have the most effect.
The story began Dec. 21, when the Martins were
driving to Jacksonville to do some Christmas shopping,
and passing the time by listening to John Martin's police
scanner, a 200-channel, hand-held model purchased at
Radio Shack in September with money he received for
his birthday.
Martin, a former treasurer of the Columbia County
Democratic Party and member of the Florida Board of
Directors of the National Education Association, said he
regarded himself as something of a "political buff" and
carried a portable tape recorder to indulge a habit of
recording "stupid jingles and stuff off the TV and off
the radio."
The scanner, he said, was "a hobby," and he hoped to
use it "to go to the stock car races at Daytona and listen
to the races and that kind of thing."
They "recognized some voices" on the scanner, said
their lawyer, Larry Turner, and, realizing that the
conversation had to do with the Gingrich ethics probe,
they began taping it.
They contacted Rep. Karen L. Thurman (D-Fla.), their
congresswoman, and gave her the tape at her
Gainesville office. She took it and sealed it in an
envelope. Last week, the Martins drove to Washington
to attend the swearing-in of Rep. Allen Boyd Jr.
(D-Fla.) and saw Thurman again.
The following day, at Thurman's behest, the Martins
visited the congresswoman. She returned the tape to
them, evidently without having listened to it. She told
them to give it to McDermott and directed them to the
ethics committee offices.
Thurman helped the Martins draft a cover letter to
McDermott: "Enclosed in the envelope you will find a
tape of a conversation heard December 21, 1996. . . .
The call was a conference call heard over a scanner,"
the letter said. "We felt the information included were
of importance to the committee."
The letter said that "we also understand that we will be
granted immunity" and that "we pray that committee
will consider our sincerity."
Thurman has said little about her role, noting only that
"the Martins are hard-working people who
unintentionally stumbled upon something they felt had
national significance."
After asking for directions to the ethics committee
offices, Alice Martin was told that "we just had to make
a couple of turns." Outside the ethics committee, the
focal point of the Gingrich investigation, television
lights
glared harshly as reporters gathered.
The Martins stayed back, not wanting to trespass. Alice
said they asked a police officer if he could point out
McDermott "because we have to give him something."
The policeman replied, "Sure."
When McDermott arrived, the Martins followed him
into the office: "He took the envelope in his hand, and
he felt where the tape was," Alice Martin said. "And he
said he would listen to it, and then he asked us if there
was any way to get in touch with us."
"We thought what we did was what you were supposed
to do," she added, "that you would take something that
was important to the government, about your country,
and give it to somebody who was responsible."
She said her initial impulse was to keep the recording
for her grandson Matthew, who is due to be born later
this month: "We were thinking how neat it would be to
play this tape for him," Alice Martin said, "and him hear
the voices of people we thought were important."
"I was so excited to think I'd heard a real politician's
voice," she said.
"We just thought it was part of history," her husband
said.
Madigan reported from Gainesville, Gugliotta from
Washington.
=============================================
[25]
In Jones-Clinton Case, Silence of the Sisterhood Stirs
Charges of Hypocrisy
By Kevin Merida
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 14 1997; Page A04
The Washington Post
In early 1994, Arkansas attorney Daniel Traylor was
trying to develop a legal case for Paula Corbin Jones,
who had publicly accused President Clinton of sexual
misconduct. He contacted women's groups for help.
"I got little or no encouragement from any of them,"
said Traylor, who no longer represents Jones, the
former Arkansas clerical worker who filed her sexual
harassment suit on May 6, 1994.
Now, the relative silence of national women's
organizations in the Jones-Clinton episode has reopened
a debate about whether partisan politics has clouded the
judgments of women's organizations. The new round of
sparring between conservative supporters of Jones and
feminist leaders comes as the Supreme Court heard oral
arguments yesterday on whether a president should
have the right to postpone a civil trial until after he
leaves office.
Jones's attorneys have accused women's rights
advocates of hypocrisy for not joining their client's case,
though they quickly jumped to the rescue of Anita F.
Hill after she publicly accused then-Supreme Court
nominee Clarence Thomas, a conservative, of sexual
harassment.
"Where are the women's groups?" asked Jones's
attorney Joseph Cammarata. When told that some
women have said that they had not been given access to
Jones or asked to do anything specifically, Cammarata
replied: "They don't need our permission to speak out
on an issue. To say they need an invitation is absurd.
Well, they've got an invitation. Come on in."
Women's groups often file "friend of the court" briefs in
cases involving sexual harassment, discrimination and
abortion. But no groups have signed on to Jones's case,
either because the cases are different, they say, or
because conservatives have tainted Jones's case by
making a political issue out of it.
"This is a tough call for women's groups," said Nancy
Long, president of the Women's Bar Association of
Washington, D.C., "because there's always going to be
the question of credibility. She's up against the president
of the United States." Long, however, said the Jones
case will be raised at the organization's board meeting
this month.
In 1991, women's organizations rallied behind law
professor Hill, saying she had a right to be heard before
the Senate passed judgment on Thomas's fitness to
serve on the Supreme Court. In Jones's case, they say,
she is already guaranteed a hearing because her case is
in the legal system. The question is not whether she will
be heard, but when.
One of Hill's cheerleaders was Judith L. Lichtman,
president of the Women's Legal Defense Fund. Until
now, she has been relatively quiet on the Jones matter.
But in a statement yesterday, she argued that allowing
the case to proceed while Clinton is still in office "would
be damaging to the office of the presidency and to the
country."
"Serious issues have been raised," Lichtman said, "and
the legal process has been working in this case. Paula
Jones will have her day in court with all the due process
protections that Anita Hill never had."
Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority, was
more combative. "What I can't get over is her attorneys,
the weekend before they're going to the Supreme Court,
taking the time to attack the feminist movement," she
said. Smeal said it seemed like Jones's conservative
supporters were using her case to score political points
-- starting with the forum in which Jones unveiled her
allegations on Feb. 11, 1994: a conference in
Washington of the Conservative Political Action
Committee.
Some of Jones's supporters, however, think feminist
leaders would be all over this case if it involved a
Republican president. Asked if that were true, Smeal
said: "I don't know. I will tell you we did come out
against Packwood. And that was hard for us."
Then-Sen. Bob Packwood, accused by several women
of making unwelcome sexual advances, had been a
friend of the women's movement for more than 20
years, introducing the first abortion rights legislation in
1970. But within days of the accusations being reported
in The Washington Post, several national women's
organizations called for a Senate inquiry. Three weeks
later, the National Organization for Women called for
his resignation. The Oregon Republican resigned from
the Senate on Oct. 1, 1995.
Ironically, NOW was one of the first groups Jones's
attorney contacted after efforts to publicize her
allegations at a conference of conservatives became a
public relations disaster. According to Traylor, he sent
NOW a packet of information that included affidavits
from friends supporting Jones's claim that she had told
them about her alleged encounter with Clinton on May
8, 1991, when she says she was summoned to
then-Gov. Clinton's Little Rock hotel room and asked to
perform a sexual act. The president has denied the
charges.
The packet of information to NOW was accompanied
"with a request that they try to find me some help," said
Traylor. Patricia Ireland, president of NOW, said she
eventually was put in touch with Traylor just two days
before the deadline for filing suit was to expire.
Ireland sat in on a call with Traylor and said she was led
to believe that Jones would participate in it as well. But
once on the phone, Ireland was told that Jones had gone
shopping for a dress. "It just didn't compute," said
Ireland, who added that Traylor never asked for help.
Ireland said she offered to fly to Long Beach, Calif.,
where Jones now lives, to hear her story first hand -- an
offer that stands. "NOW will not rally public support for
her until NOW leaders have the kind of information
they have had in similar cases," Ireland said.
Traylor said that he never promised that Jones would be
in on the conference call. "What we wanted was
self-evident," said Traylor, citing financial aid and legal
research.
=============================================
The POLITICAL DIGEST is essentially an Internet "Clipping
Service."
We gather many "Political News Articles" and "Political
Columns and
Editorials" that are on the Internet and combine them into
one e=mail
message, just as a "Clipping Service" does for people with
"Hard
Copies" of newspapers. THE POLITICAL DIGEST LITE is FREE.
To receive THE POLITICAL DIGEST LITE, just send an e=mail
message
with the word subscribe TPDL in the subject line to
t...@tcsn.net.
To stop receiving the TPDL just send an e=mail message with
Unsubscribe
in the subject line to t...@tcsn.net. Thank you. No Charge,
it's FREE.
=============================================
\\/ayne //\ann
*"The first lady will not invoke executive
privledge." Mike McCurry
*Things are worse than we thought!
Alvin Nichter
In talk.politics.misc Sam Hall <sam...@dkdavis.com> wrote:
: On 12 Jan 1997 01:26:29 GMT, Alvin Nichter <anic...@gramercy.ios.com>
: wrote:
: >I don't care how the information was obtained. This is a House
: >Ethics investigation, not a criminal investigation, so the method
: >in which the information was obtained is irrelevant. We have a
: >recording of Rep. Gingrich engaging in wrongdoing. Until supporters
: >of Rep. Gingrich address that point, their rantings about the tape
: >and its distribution are an irrelevant diversion.
: >
: >---Alvin H. Nichter
: Obtaining the tape is against the law. Period. Using the information
: on the tape is against the law. Period.
However, once the cat is out of the bag, the Ethics Committee
is obligated to look into the matter, regardless of the source
of the information.
: You might also want to consider the fact that it is damn hard to tap a
: cell call. It cannot be done with the kinds of equipment that the
: average person can obtain.
Not true. A few years ago, Iobtained a Radio Shack scanner
for a short time, turned it on here in New York City,
and very quickly intercepted (inadvertently) several cellular
phone calls. (This was not illegal at the time.)
If Mr. Hall meant to say that it's impractical to intercept
cellular phone calls to or from a PARTICULAR phone number,
I agree. However, that's not what the people who recorded
the tape claimed. They said that they stumbled upon the
phone call by chance.
: Samuel L. Hall
: Systems Engineer
: (communications systems)
---Alvin H. Nichter
Alvin Nichter
In talk.politics.misc Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
: Alvin Nichter <anic...@gramercy.ios.com> wrote:
: >The entire point of my post was to try to get readers
: >to focus on the substance of the information, not the way in which
: >it was obtained.
: Again, I agree, but with one caveat. The substance of the tape needs
: to be evaluated and has been. OTOH the way in which it was obtained
: cannot be overlooked here, especially in light of recent news reports
: indicating that the Dem congressman who gave the tape to the NY Times
: was Jim McDermott (D-WA), ranking member of the Ethics Committee. We
: just have two separate issues.
I agree. I never meant to imply that any violations of law or ethics
in connection with the tape recording should be ignored. It's just
a separate issue.
: *If* in fact it turns out that the highest-ranking Dem congressman
: charged with investigating Newt Gingrich in the famous "bipartisan
: ethics process" accepted a recording of an illegally intercepted phone
: call allegedly bearing on that investigation and then (rather than
: turning it over to the Ethics Committee) gave it to 2 media outlets
: hostile to Gingrich, thereby committing a felony himself, what do you
: think the punishment should be?
That's for the House to determine.
Passions in the Gingrich case are running high on both sides,
and members of both parties have crossed the line of acceptable
behavior. It appears that Rep. Gingrich and/or other Republican
leaders have brought undue pressure on the Ethics Committee, and
the whole business about scheduling public hearings during the
Inauguration, not allowing time to finish a full investigation, and
voting on sanctions before the final Ethics Committee report
is released make a mockery of the House ethics process.
The matter of the tape, while technically a felony, is all part of
this sordid mess. I'm tempted to say "a pox on both your houses",
but I wouldn't deny a Congressional district the services of the
Representative it selected, if indeed a Representative violated
the law in connection with the tape. Finally, it would be prudent
for Rep. Gingrich to publicly state (after the sanctions vote)
that we should just forget about the matter of the tape and move on.
This would give the Administration an excuse to cease any investigation
that might be in progress, and it would encourage bipartisanship.
Maybe this doesn't sound like justice, but I think that
pragmatism should rule the day in this matter.
: *If* in fact, as has been reported this morning, special counsel James
: Cole was advised by McDermott of the existence of the tape prior to
: its publication and took no steps to inform the rest of the committee,
: what is your opinion of his action?
This is a sticky matter. If the Ethics Committee thinks that Mr. Cole
should have turned over the tape, then the Committee is admitting that
the contents of the tape are material to the case against Rep. Gingrich.
Mr. Cole could claim that he didn't inform the Committee because he
felt that the tape was irrelevant. If the Committee disagrees, it puts
its Republican members in a peculiar position vis-a-vis their Speaker.
If, however, you're asking whether Mr. Cole should have informed
the Committee that Rep. McDermott had received a tape illegally
(assuming that that's true), I believe that he should have,
because it raises questions about Rep. McDermott's impartiality.
I'm not sure why he didn't; it's plausible that Mr. Cole told
Rep. McDermott that the tape adds nothing to the investigation,
and that Mr. Cole wasn't aware that receipt of the tape is a crime.
It's also possible that he was being partisan. I just don't know.
: >Of course, all this pales in comparison to Rep. Gingrich's
: >worst violations,
: Your reference was to the tape flap, and I quite agree. I do *not*
: consider that McDermott's actions (or indeed Cole's) "pale in
: comparison" to anything.
: > which include a probable tax code violation that
: >should have been obvious to him,
: Well, I disagree with you that there is any tax code violation, and
: I've been practicing tax law for close to 20 years. And I think *any*
: tax lawyer will tell you that nothing about Subchapter F of the Code
: (dealing with tax-exempt orgs) is "obvious" to any of us.
I think that it was arrogant, not to mention foolish, for Rep. Gingrich
to test the limits of this section of the tax code. Even the
minister of a small-town church can tell you that he can't
engage in certain political actions (such as endorsing a candidate)
without risking his church's tax-exempt status. The impression
I got from news reports is that there is reason to believe
a probable violation took place, but it's by no means certain.
Regardless of whether it was illegal, I believe that it was
unethical. A famous definition of ethical behavior is
doing more than is necessary and less than is allowed;
I don't think that Rep. Gingrich's behavior fits this definition.
: >and interference with the
: >ethics investigation process.
: It was certainly incredibly foolish of him not to "vet" his lawyer's
: letters carefully. When someone is gunning for you, you protect
: yourself!
If you're referring to Rep. Gingrich's claim that he signed
documents that he didn't read, I find it difficult to believe.
Rep. Gingrich is too astute to do something like that.
On the other hand, if it's true, he should be voted out of the
House on the charge of gross stupidity. :-)
: >These are the important issues.
: Wouldn't you agree that McDermott's conduct is also an important
: issue?
Yes (assuming he's the one). When it comes to sanctions, however,
it's a difficult call.
: Eleanor
---Alvin H. Nichter
Eleanor Rotthoff
"ppar...@swbell.net" <ppar...@swbell.net> wrote:
>These clowns
>were doing exactly what they pledged they would not do.
If that is so, why didn't McDermott just walk into the room where the
Ethics Committee was meeting and say, "Listen to this, folks; they
violated the agreement"? Why did he feel a need to conceal the tape
from the rest of the committee and give it to the NY Times?
>If it
>wasn't so sensitive, why do you suppose they wigged out when
>they got caught?
I don't know about you, but I would "wig out" if I found someone
taping my telephone conversations! Actually, I think the GOP
response, at least to this point, has been remarkably low-key.
Eleanor Rotthoff
radr...@geocities.com
>ohh gahd another spin doc. Apparently he's brain dead, every one
>including the village idiot that has listened to that tape knows that
>nuttie newtie was plotting a conspiracy to circumvent the agreement
>with the ethics committee.
>
Oh,you mean the conspiracy to tell the truth and live up to the
agreement with the special prosecuter. Too bad the ethics committee
ranking democrat had to be "circumvented" in this manner.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
>radr...@geocities.com wrote:
>>On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 21:21:07 GMT, gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
>>(gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
>>>
>>>So plotting a conspiracy against congress is less offensive than jay
>>>walking when done by a conservative.
>>Can you please explain what "conspiracy" was plotted ?
>>(Plotting to adhere to an agreement made doesn't count)
>ohh gahd another spin doc. Apparently he's brain dead, every one
>including the village idiot that has listened to that tape knows that
>nuttie newtie was plotting a conspiracy to circumvent the agreement
>with the ethics committee.
You seemed so convinced! Please, post the parts of the conversation
that support your assertion.
JSL
Max Kennedy
It only took 3 minutes to paste this together. Every message from the
Left was this way today.
Print it out, paste it on the wall, and remember daily who and what
you are fighting.
Max Kennedy
----------------------------------------
From: Da...@nuthouse.com (Dave Johnson)
>
> If Mr. McDermott did something unethical or illegal, I'm sure he'll
> suffer for it.
I think it's obvious that one of the participants in the conference
call taped the call and leaked it. They are all after Gingrich's job.
---------
From: gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com)
>FLASH! ABC Radio News reports at 1:00 PM EST, that McDermott has
>stepped aside from the Ethics Committee.
Well that just shows you that the dems have much more character than
any repuke ever thought of. By stepping aside when there is only a
remote possibility of a law being violated iy demostrates the high
moral character that he has.
--------
From: xona <xo...@primenet.com>
Whores do not think for themselves; they have pimps. In Paula's case
her pimps are members of the religious right wing of the Republican
party. The assholes who make up this collection of scum-scucking
morons control what Paula does much the same way they control their
wives: like a pet dog.
-------
From: Jade...@erols.com
Aren't Supreme Court Justices supposed to recuse themselves from cases
in which they have, or give the appearance of having, an interest in
the outcome?
If this is the case, why hasn't Clarence "Uncle" Thomas recused
himself?
---------
Mike Reed
> "ppar...@swbell.net" <ppar...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> >These clowns
> >were doing exactly what they pledged they would not do.
>
> If that is so, why didn't McDermott just walk into the room where the
> Ethics Committee was meeting and say, "Listen to this, folks; they
> violated the agreement"? Why did he feel a need to conceal the tape
> from the rest of the committee and give it to the NY Times?
Uh, because he knew the recording was a felony?
> >If it
> >wasn't so sensitive, why do you suppose they wigged out when
> >they got caught?
Uh, because someone was bugging their phone?
> I don't know about you, but I would "wig out" if I found someone
> taping my telephone conversations! Actually, I think the GOP
> response, at least to this point, has been remarkably low-key.
>
> Eleanor Rotthoff
Fair enough, Eleanor. Other than the usual chest-pounding and calling for
McDermott to step down, Limbaugh's spin ("all you guys were doing was
conspiring to obey the law, right?"), and the usual suspects on Usenet,
the response has been subdued.
An interesting aside: The mainstream press is concentrating on McDermott
and the Fla. couple‹not on the contents of the tape. The prevailing theme
being the Dems screwed the pooch on this one and Gingrich may get off
because of it. To quote media-basher Bob Dole "Where is the outrage?"
Now McD has withdrawn from the vote on Gingrich leaving the Ethics
committee with a 5-4 Republican majority. One could almost believe that
was the Republican plan from th beginning. It wouldn't bother me if a
comet struck the Congress today and wiped out the lot.
--
MR
Liberal. Open-minded. Willing to jail McDermott, the fla. couple,
Gingrich, and Clinton
eric_kelso
In article <5bil82$p...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, lind...@osu.edu
(Jeffrey Scott Linder) writes:
From the NYT transcript:
BETHUNE: "Let me explain a technicality here which will help you all
understand the time frame. .....
......And it would also be a time when we are authorized to have the
conversation that we are having now, a little prematurely. But I don't
think it would be troubling to anyone that we are a little ahead of the gun. We
are also asked to embargo our response so that we don't get ahead of the
committee."
This section of the transcript alone says that there is a 'technicality' that
they are NOT to get ahead of the committee and then he goes on to say that it
wouldn't "be troubling to anyone that we are a little ahead of the gun."
Actually, if they've agreed to NOT be a little ahead of the gun, to conspire to
do jus that IS a violation of their agreement with the committee.
It would certainly appear to me that Bethune has hung himself with his own
words.
Michael Zarlenga
D.J. Johanning (damn...@msn.com) wrote:
: Maybe you would like to explain to us how in the world both sides of the
: converstaion were recorded from a single channel. everyone knows that a
: cell phone has different freq's for RX/TX. so how did they capture both
: sides of the conversation without using a standard run of the mill scanner?
: and I cannot pick up both sides of a cell phone conversation. so , mr
: expert, tell us how this was done.
If I set my scanner to scan 868MHz thru 892MHz, when I come across
a cell phone conversatiuon, I will get both sides. Either the two
channels fall within the bandwidth of my receiver or at least one
of the channels is "full-duplex."
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
"Aks not what your country be for you, aks what you be for
your country." JFK Ebonicized
Steve Brinich
Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:
> If that is so, why didn't McDermott just walk into the room where the
> Ethics Committee was meeting and say, "Listen to this, folks; they
> violated the agreement"? Why did he feel a need to conceal the tape
> from the rest of the committee and give it to the NY Times?
Ooh! Ooh! Mr. Kotter!
Because he knew that possession of the tape made him a felon,
who ought to be making license plates, not laws.
--
Steve Brinich ste...@access.digex.net If the government wants us
PGP:89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E to respect the law
http://www.access.digex.net/~steve-b it should set a better example
Myra Shinkman
Alvin Nichter <anic...@gramercy.ios.com> wrote:
: However, once the cat is out of the bag, the Ethics Committee
: is obligated to look into the matter, regardless of the source
: of the information.
Evidence obtained illegally cannot be used. Period.
Here's two cents. Buy a clue.
Myra
_________
Please direct e-mail to "my...@primenet.com"
David Horn
> > > I don't care how the information was obtained...We have a
> > >recording of Rep. Gingrich engaging in wrongdoing. Until supporters
> > >of Rep. Gingrich address that point, their rantings about the tape
> > >and its distribution are an irrelevant diversion.
>...
>This ability to rationalize breaking the law, and to shout a lie until everybody
> believes it belongs somewhere else. You don't have to be liberal or conservative
> to lack character or to be evil.
Excuse me, but this is a case of two wrongs making, well, two wrongs.
There are
no winners here. Both sides have just shown that endless witch hunting
is stupidly
self defeating...of course they are all Congressbodies, so it isn't
surprising.
--
David...@ena-east.ericsson.se
Opinions expressed are mine alone.
Stephen Thompson
cl...@ix.netcom.com (C.L. Williams) wrote:
>This helps confirm what I've been saying for the last 15 days. The liberals
>are getting dumber this year. As the Democrats get stuck with more
>embarrassments like the Martins, McDermott, Algore's Templegate, Boniorism,
>they will get even loonier.
I'm sure glad we have folks like Mr. Williams and Xona around to bring us all
witty barbs like "liberals are dumb" and "conservatives suck". I mean, if we
didn't have insightful political commentary like this, well, Usenet might be
cluttered up with partisan hacks slinging pointless, moronic insults or
something.
=============================================================================
"If you don't disagree with me, how will I know I'm right?" -- Samuel Goldwyn
My opinions are my own, and not those of my employer.
The weird part is... I'm self-employed.
David Horn
D.J. Johanning wrote:
> gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
> > ...
> gdy,
>
> Maybe you would like to explain to us how in the world both sides of the
> converstaion were recorded from a single channel. everyone knows that a
> cell phone has different freq's for RX/TX. so how did they capture both
> sides of the conversation without using a standard run of the mill scanner?
> and I cannot pick up both sides of a cell phone conversation. so , mr
> expert, tell us how this was done.
Excuse me for butting in, but since you asked...
If you are recording the outbound link of a conference call (that's the
part
leaving the cell site that is heard by the cell phone user), you will
hear, at
full volume, all the participants in the conference except the person
whose
service you are monitoring. That person's conversation may be heard at
a lower
volume if the conference bridge is less than perfect, which is common,
or if
the call was setup using a daisy chain of individual links, where one
person
brings in another who brings in another and so on. If the recording
was made
using automatic level control, that reduced volume return (called a
sidetone)
would be raised to a level similar to the rest of the conversation.
Of couse, you could just use two receivers and do it that way, but you
would
have to be close to the person using the phone you wish to monitor.
Then its
just a matter of combining the two conversations. You could even
echo-cancel
the sidetone and make the whole conversation sound like it was recorded
at the
bridge...but that wasn't what you asked.
David Horn
Rob Kapischke wrote:
>
> In message <5bdmff$4...@cletus.bright.net> - Gary Lantz <gar...@bright.net>
> writes:
> :>
> :>Again, so many of you people want to avoid the real issue of another
> :>episode of the "Liar Gingirch." I don't believe that it is against any
> :>law to tape a police scanner. Charles Rangel said it all when he made
> :>the comment about whoever was dumb enough to have a cellular phone in the
> :>first place. That Stupid person was John Boehner, who is one of the
> :>dumbest Congressmen I have bever heard speak.
> :>
> I believe you are incorrect. It is against the law to
> even listen to cell phone conversations much less record them.
I agree, but the seriousness of the "crime" is based on intent. If
there was
no intent to use the information for personal gain, the act merits a
hand slap.
It's a lot less serious than accessing satellite broadcasts you are not
intitled
to receive or watching HBO on an illegal converter box. It is still
illegal,
though.
Jim Keohane
The transcripts do not show Gingrich or anyone refuting the two charges:
1. He failed to consult proper legal/tax professionals before etc.
2. He submitted incomplete, innacurate, etc.
Not only did no one refute that in transcript but no one refuted it
in any statements by republicans. What they have refuted is the
Bonioristic exaggerations plus other charges not even mentioned in the
22 page ethics committee report.
Cole had every right to expect Gingrich to lay off any refuting of
charges since Cole could not respond in public. Gingrich has kept to the
bargain. They conspired to respond to Bonior's expected lies and Bonior
didn't dissappoint them. {smile} - Jim Keohane
David Horn
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
> gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
> >radr...@geocities.com wrote:
> >> gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
> >>>So plotting a conspiracy against congress is less offensive than jay
> >>>walking when done by a conservative.
>
> >>Can you please explain what "conspiracy" was plotted ?
> >>(Plotting to adhere to an agreement made doesn't count)
> >ohh gahd another spin doc...nuttie newtie was plotting a conspiracy to
> >circumvent the agreement with the ethics committee.
> You seemed so convinced! Please, post the parts of the conversation
> that support your assertion.
Not a good idea. It might be a felony. ;-)
Gary Frazier
In <32dda00f...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> cl...@ix.netcom.com (C.L. Williams) writes:
>On Wed, 15 Jan 1997 13:29:26 GMT, mken...@iglou.com (Max Kennedy)
>wrote:
>This helps confirm what I've been saying for the last 15 days. The
>liberals are getting dumber this year. As the Democrats get stuck
>with more embarrassments like the Martins, McDermott, Algore's
>Templegate, Boniorism, they will get even loonier.
>C.L. Williams
Keep imagining, C.L., that you're living in the real world.
We're enjoying the spectacle of the masters of doublethink and spin
falling all overthemselves to divert attention from their own crimes, and
their net-lackies such as yourself spouting their line.
--
Gary
ea...@neosoft.com
In <5bi1b8$7...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>, Alvin Nichter <anic...@gramercy.ios.com> writes:
>In talk.politics.misc Sam Hall <sam...@dkdavis.com> wrote:
>: On 12 Jan 1997 01:26:29 GMT, Alvin Nichter <anic...@gramercy.ios.com>
>: wrote:
>
>
>
>: You might also want to consider the fact that it is damn hard to tap a
>: cell call. It cannot be done with the kinds of equipment that the
>: average person can obtain.
>
>Not true. A few years ago, Iobtained a Radio Shack scanner
>for a short time, turned it on here in New York City,
>and very quickly intercepted (inadvertently) several cellular
>phone calls. (This was not illegal at the time.)
>
It should be noted that Radio Shack has publicly announced that
the model scanner that allegedly allowed "accidental" reception
is INCAPABLE of receiving cell phone calls. So much for the "Christmas
Gift" testing.
Mr Martin (a NEA and Democrat official) is a ham radio operator
and should know how to modify the legal scanner to perform
an illegal search of radio waves.
We have therefore evidence of intent to perform an illegal act prior to
the interception!!
radr...@geocities.com
On 13 Jan 1997 16:05:03 GMT, Gary Lantz <gar...@bright.net> wrote:
>Again, so many of you people want to avoid the real issue of another
>episode of the "Liar Gingirch."
> I don't believe that it is against any
>law to tape a police scanner.
Then you despirately need to read the ECPA and come up to speed
when that "police scanner" is tuned to cellular frequencies...
> Charles Rangel said it all when he made
>the comment about whoever was dumb enough to have a cellular phone in the
>first place. That Stupid person was John Boehner, who is one of the
>dumbest Congressmen I have bever heard speak.
>
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Eric Kelso wrote:
>In article <5bil82$p...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, lind...@osu.edu
>(Jeffrey Scott Linder) writes:
>>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
>>
>>>radr...@geocities.com wrote:
>>
>>>>On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 21:21:07 GMT, gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
>>>>(gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>So plotting a conspiracy against congress is less offensive than jay
>>>>>walking when done by a conservative.
>>
>>>>Can you please explain what "conspiracy" was plotted ?
>>>>(Plotting to adhere to an agreement made doesn't count)
>>
>>>ohh gahd another spin doc. Apparently he's brain dead, every one
>>>including the village idiot that has listened to that tape knows that
>>>nuttie newtie was plotting a conspiracy to circumvent the agreement
>>>with the ethics committee.
>>
>>You seemed so convinced! Please, post the parts of the conversation
>>that support your assertion.
>>
>>JSL
>>
>From the NYT transcript:
>BETHUNE: "Let me explain a technicality here which will help you all
>understand the time frame. .....
>......And it would also be a time when we are authorized to have the
>conversation that we are having now, a little prematurely. But I don't
>think it would be troubling to anyone that we are a little ahead of the gun. We
>are also asked to embargo our response so that we don't get ahead of the
>committee."
>This section of the transcript alone says that there is a 'technicality' that
>they are NOT to get ahead of the committee and then he goes on to say that it
>wouldn't "be troubling to anyone that we are a little ahead of the gun."
>Actually, if they've agreed to NOT be a little ahead of the gun, to conspire to
>do jus that IS a violation of their agreement with the committee.
That would be up to the committee wherther it was a violation of the
letter of the agreement or the spirit of the agreement.
JSL
pla...@erols.com
erot...@io.com (Eleanor Rotthoff) wrote:
>"ppar...@swbell.net" <ppar...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>These clowns
>>were doing exactly what they pledged they would not do.
>If that is so, why didn't McDermott just walk into the room where the
>Ethics Committee was meeting and say, "Listen to this, folks; they
>violated the agreement"? Why did he feel a need to conceal the tape
>from the rest of the committee and give it to the NY Times?
>>If it
>>wasn't so sensitive, why do you suppose they wigged out when
>>they got caught?
>I don't know about you, but I would "wig out" if I found someone
>taping my telephone conversations! Actually, I think the GOP
>response, at least to this point, has been remarkably low-key.
If you are dumb enough to use a Cell Phone ( which is nothing more
then a radio spectrum frequentcy) that anyone who has a scanner can
listen in to your Broadcasts, then you ought not to be upset. On the
other hand if someone tapped your telephone ( which is private as it
goes along wires or optical cables ) then you would have a right to be
upset. This Radio Broadcast by the Republicans was just asking for
trouble, and now that they have been caught with there collective
Pants Down, they are crying foul. I suggest that they do not have a
leg to stand on, as this was Broadcast over Radio Waves!
plato1
>Eleanor Rotthoff
eric_kelso
Actually, you are both right and wrong. Unmodified most scanners will not pick
up cell phones (some will, depending upon the model) but also when you are
discussing ANY radio transmission device, local conditions (i.e. atmospherics,
reflections, etc) can create sideband frequencies which can be picked
up...sometimes by devies no more sophisticated than a T.V. So the reception
could well be accidental. But let's wait and see what the FBI investigation
turns up, shall we?
eric_kelso
In article <5blci4$e...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, lind...@osu.edu
(Jeffrey Scott Linder) writes:
I take it from that rather weak response that you too are somewhat troubled by
the comment. I was more on the side of "it's trivial" myself until I actually
read the transcripts. Eleanor Rotthoff game me the http address so I could
finally read them unfiltered by both the left and right in this group. After
reading them, I do have to say that I would have SERIOUS questions about the
conversation if I were on the ethics committee.
But on another issue, which I am curious about your opinion on. Doesn't it
bother you, as it does me, that the third most powerful man in the free world
and his associates conduct business discussions over such an insecure medium??
This just scares the hell out of me. I guess we are lucky that Ma and Pa Kettle
from Florida are so much smarter than any foreign intelligence agents. After
all what if Newt and the 'boys' were discussing foreign policy, or defense
spending, or trade policy?? This is what baffles me so. For all of Newt's
supposedly 'savvy' about technology and the future and they get intercepted (or
intentionally intercepted, it ain't clear as yet) using a cell phone??? The
idea is absolutely TERRIFYING. Just think of the implications. And these are
some of the same jokers that were complaining about lack of security in the
White House?!?!?! And they are having conferance calls using Cell Phones?? Dear
Gawd! While I am the first to admit that I am not wild about Newt, I did have
at least considerable respect for his intelligence. After this episode, that
opinion has declined drastically. Only a complete technologically illiterate
moron would conduct business over a cell phone. Scary, very scary. It looks to
me like Clinton isn't the only 'bubba' to stumble his way to the top of the
political heap.
Conrad
In article <5blb0i$1...@boursy.news.erols.com>, pla...@erols.com
wrote:
I would suggest that you are a fucking moron. I tell you what,
tape the super bowl and then sell copies of it. After all it was
broadcast over the air waves what could the NFL possibly do to
you?
According to the law passed in 1996 it is a FELONY to tape a
cellular call or disclose the contents of an intercepted call.
McDermott by the way wrote much of this law. So stupid, what were
you saying about a leg to stand on?
>
>plato1
>
>
>
>
>>Eleanor Rotthoff
>
>
Eleanor Rotthoff
Alvin Nichter <anic...@gramercy.ios.com> wrote:
>In talk.politics.misc Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>: Alvin Nichter <anic...@gramercy.ios.com> wrote:
Thank you for a very thoughtful, incisive post. Forgive me if I snip
a little of it. My ISP has instituted rules about the amount of
included text which is allowed. Otherwise, I would leave it intact
because it is so much superior to what is usually posted in usenet.
<snip>
>: *If* in fact it turns out that the highest-ranking Dem congressman
>: charged with investigating Newt Gingrich in the famous "bipartisan
>: ethics process" accepted a recording of an illegally intercepted phone
>: call allegedly bearing on that investigation and then (rather than
>: turning it over to the Ethics Committee) gave it to 2 media outlets
>: hostile to Gingrich, thereby committing a felony himself, what do you
>: think the punishment should be?
>
>That's for the House to determine.
Agreed, and I confess that I do not know what actions have, in the
past, been considered grounds for expulsion.
>Passions in the Gingrich case are running high on both sides,
>and members of both parties have crossed the line of acceptable
>behavior. It appears that Rep. Gingrich and/or other Republican
>leaders have brought undue pressure on the Ethics Committee, and
>the whole business about scheduling public hearings during the
>Inauguration, not allowing time to finish a full investigation, and
>voting on sanctions before the final Ethics Committee report
>is released make a mockery of the House ethics process.
Republicans had wanted to have the entire Ethics Committee procedure
completed before the end of the year so that the 105th Congress could
move forward on important public policy concerns without the burden of
this highly partisan issue. Committee Democrats, supported by special
counsel Cole, said that was impossible because (1) McDermott was in
Europe vacationing with his family and was unwilling to return before
the end of the year and (2) Cole did not feel he had sufficient time
to complete his final report by the end of the year.
During the Christmas holidays, Majority Leader Dick Armey received a
fax announcing the agreement of the entire committee that the report
would be completed in time for the House to vote on the Ethics
Committee's recommended punishment by Jan. 14. In reply, he
suggested that the vote be delayed until Jan. 21 when all members
would be in town for the inauguration, thereby giving Mr. Cole an
additional week beyond the time he had requested. This was agreed to
by all concerned.
On Jan. 6 (the day before the session opened) Democrats learned that
the agreed-upon Jan. 21 date would be included in a rules package to
be adopted by the House the following day. (It has been necessary to
create a special interim ethics committee to complete this matter
because Rep. Jim Bunning (R-KY) whose term is expiring refused to
continue to serve on the committee with McDermott for even 2 more
weeks, and that special committee had to be created by a special
rule.) Thus McDermott and his fellow Dems would be legally locked
into the agreement they had made. Late that evening Dick Armey
received word from the Democrats on the Committee that Jan. 21 was no
longer acceptable to them and that Cole would require more time to
complete his report -- until Feb. 4. (It should be noted that while
McDermott was talking on the floor about Feb. 4, the amendment which
he submitted left the process entirely open-ended.) When asked on the
floor for an explanation of this change, McDermott shrugged, grinned
and said simply, "Things change".
In an attempt to avoid an unprecedented floor debate over normally-
confidential ethics committee proceedings, Chairman Nancy Johnson
offered to meet immediately with the Dems on the committee to attempt
to work out a new, mutually-agreed upon schedule. As has been widely
reported, this resulted in a 14-hour session of the entire committee
the next day, entirely devoted to scheduling. At the end of this
marathon, the entire committee announced that it had reached a
bipartisan agreement -- the hearings would begin on Monday, the vote
would be taken on Jan. 21, and Cole would be allowed until Feb. 4 to
complete his report (which had apparently already been largely
written.)
Within 12 hours of reaching this agreement, McDermott called a press
conference to complain about the agreement, arguing that the members
should not be compelled to vote before they had received the entire
committee report. This of course is a red herring since all of the
charges made against Gingrich, and all of the facts supporting those
charges, are contained in the subcommittee report which has been
public for weeks. Any additional facts would be made available during
the week-long "hearings". Apparently, McDermott simply hoped to use
media pressure to delay the vote until Feb. 4 -- a concession which he
had not been able to extract in 14 hours of wrangling with his fellow
committee members.
If McDermott had frequently failed to honor his agreements with the
rest of the committee, this was apparently the last straw for Chairman
Johnson and the GOP members. Johnson promptly announced that if
indeed Mr. Cole needed 6 additional days to complete his report, she
would give him those 6 days on the front end. He could dedicate
himself to writing his report rather than to the week-long televised
"dump on Newt" process which Dems had wanted. In that way, his report
would be completed before the vote, McDermott's complaint would be
addressed, and the Jan. 21 vote would proceed.
I'm afraid I have to agree with a Dem political consultant quoted in
the paper today, "We just overplayed our hand through this whole mess
and ended up committing a felony to try to nail Gingrich on some minor
technicalities."
>The matter of the tape, while technically a felony, is all part of
>this sordid mess. I'm tempted to say "a pox on both your houses",
>but I wouldn't deny a Congressional district the services of the
>Representative it selected, if indeed a Representative violated
>the law in connection with the tape.
I just don't know what the appropriate punishment is. It is in the
hands of the House and the Justice Dept.
>Finally, it would be prudent
>for Rep. Gingrich to publicly state (after the sanctions vote)
>that we should just forget about the matter of the tape and move on.
>This would give the Administration an excuse to cease any investigation
>that might be in progress, and it would encourage bipartisanship.
>Maybe this doesn't sound like justice, but I think that
>pragmatism should rule the day in this matter.
I certainly think that Gingrich should announce that Reps will not try
to make this a political football. (Indeed their response, to this
point at least, seems remarkably low-key.) I can't agree, however,
that he should seek to end the Justice Dept investigation. To
overlook the commission of a felony by a congressman in pursuit of
partisan ends is IMHO unacceptable. OTOH McDermott is likely to
receive rough treatment at the hands of an Ethics Committee whose
trust he has betrayed. Apparently, Armey and Gephardt have agreed to
appoint a committee to look at reform of the entire ethics process,
and subcommittee chairman Porter Goss will introduce legislation with
the same objective, so we can hope that things will improve. They
couldn't get much worse.
>: *If* in fact, as has been reported this morning, special counsel James
>: Cole was advised by McDermott of the existence of the tape prior to
>: its publication and took no steps to inform the rest of the committee,
>: what is your opinion of his action?
>
>This is a sticky matter. If the Ethics Committee thinks that Mr. Cole
>should have turned over the tape, then the Committee is admitting that
>the contents of the tape are material to the case against Rep. Gingrich.
>Mr. Cole could claim that he didn't inform the Committee because he
>felt that the tape was irrelevant. If the Committee disagrees, it puts
>its Republican members in a peculiar position vis-a-vis their Speaker.
It seems to me that McDermott's failure to turn the tape over to the
Committee is itself an admission that it is not material to the case.
If it *had* in fact revealed a violation of the agreement, one would
think he would have been eager to reveal that violation to the
Committee.
>If, however, you're asking whether Mr. Cole should have informed
>the Committee that Rep. McDermott had received a tape illegally
>(assuming that that's true), I believe that he should have,
>because it raises questions about Rep. McDermott's impartiality.
>I'm not sure why he didn't; it's plausible that Mr. Cole told
>Rep. McDermott that the tape adds nothing to the investigation,
>and that Mr. Cole wasn't aware that receipt of the tape is a crime.
>It's also possible that he was being partisan. I just don't know.
And of course neither do I. But I'm a bit uncomfortable with his
actions. Perhaps Cong. Chris Shays (R- Conn) had the best comment on
this whole matter of special counsels and independent prosecutors:
"When you hire a lawyer and pay him for 2 years, there's a lot of
pressure to find something." I know that lawyers in private practice
find it very difficult to go back to a client and say, "I've spent a
lot of your money and didn't come up with a thing."
<snip>
>: Well, I disagree with you that there is any tax code violation, and
>: I've been practicing tax law for close to 20 years. And I think *any*
>: tax lawyer will tell you that nothing about Subchapter F of the Code
>: (dealing with tax-exempt orgs) is "obvious" to any of us.
>
>I think that it was arrogant, not to mention foolish, for Rep. Gingrich
>to test the limits of this section of the tax code.
The truth is that political and public policy tax-exempt orgs on both
the right and the left have been pushing the envelope in this area for
quite some time. Personally, I'd like them to be reined in a bit,
but, as a tax lawyer with some knowledge of Subchapter F, I can't for
the life of me come up with a new rule that doesn't give IRS more
power over our tax-exempt orgs than I am willing to accept.
>Even the
>minister of a small-town church can tell you that he can't
>engage in certain political actions (such as endorsing a candidate)
>without risking his church's tax-exempt status.
The precise prohibition from section 501(c)(3) is that an organization
must "not participate in, or intervene in, any political campaign on
behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office".
None of the organizations associated with Gingrich has been accused of
endorsing or opposing specific candidates. GOPAC which is *not* a
501(c)(3) -- and which in fact is taxed on all of its income at the
highest corporate rate -- does endorse and support candidates.
>The impression
>I got from news reports is that there is reason to believe
>a probable violation took place, but it's by no means certain.
I think that any tax lawyer with knowledge of Subchapter F will tell
you that nothing involving it is by any means certain. <g> It makes
individual income tax, corporate tax, and partnership tax look like
child's play.
What Bonior apparently wants to do is to lump the activities of the
tax-exempt orgs together with the activities of GOPAC into one overall
"plan to regain control of the House", thereby attributing the
election activities of GOPAC to the tax-exempts. This novel concept
would change tax law in a way which I find unacceptable.
To oversimplify, the distinction has always been between ideas and
activities. A tax-exempt can espouse any ideas it wants (even starkly
political ones) as much as it wants as long as three rules are
satisfied:
1. You can't have your hand in the till.
2. You are limited in the amount of lobbying you can do.
3. You can't participate in elections in support of (or in opposition
to) specific candidates.
If Americans think it is inappropriate to provide the tax subsidy
inherent in tax-exempt status to orgs promoting political ideas, then
we need to change the law. My problem is that then we have to define
"political" ideas as distinct from other ones. If I teach a college
course about the welfare system and seem to support recent reform
efforts, is that political? What if I seem to defend the original
system? Under any definition that I can come up with, IRS would have
the power to decide whether the *ideas* which an org advances are or
are not acceptable. That won't work for me. Perhaps you can come up
with a rule we can all buy into.
>Regardless of whether it was illegal, I believe that it was
>unethical. A famous definition of ethical behavior is
>doing more than is necessary and less than is allowed;
>I don't think that Rep. Gingrich's behavior fits this definition.
I agree that GOPAC pushed the envelope. OTOH partisans should realize
that the Democratic Leadership Council, closely patterned after GOPAC,
has engaged in exactly the same activities on the same tax-exempt
basis. That doesn't seem to be widely recognized.
>: It was certainly incredibly foolish of him not to "vet" his lawyer's
>: letters carefully. When someone is gunning for you, you protect
>: yourself!
>
>If you're referring to Rep. Gingrich's claim that he signed
>documents that he didn't read, I find it difficult to believe.
>Rep. Gingrich is too astute to do something like that.
One would think so, wouldn't one? But apparently not. According to
one GOP congressman appearing on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, Gingrich
was handed the first of these letters just before he walked into the
meeting of the GOP leadership which was to decide committee
assignments for the 104th Congress. Engrossed in the business at
hand, he simply signed the letter.
>On the other hand, if it's true, he should be voted out of the
>House on the charge of gross stupidity. :-)
You have a point, and I think this was the basis of a lot of GOP
annoyance with him. :-) In the second instance, I can sympathize
with him a bit more. The document in question was a 52-page letter
prepared by his attorneys with 31 attachments. In all my years of
practice I have had only one client who would have gone through that
monster word for word to verify its accuracy. Clients sign documents
prepared by their lawyers all the time without reading them. But
you're absolutely right. It's incredibly foolish, especially when you
know that you are the target of a group of people ready to pounce on
your every mistake.
<snip>
Eleanor Rotthoff
jerry grisham
stokes19 wrote:
>
> Gary Lantz wrote:
> >
> > Again, so many of you people want to avoid the real issue of another
> > episode of the "Liar Gingirch." I don't believe that it is against any
> > the comment about whoever was dumb enough to have a cellular phone in the
> > first place. That Stupid person was John Boehner, who is one of the
> > dumbest Congressmen I have bever heard speak.
>
> One thing for sure, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Based on Charlie Rangel's logic, anyone dumb enough to carry a wallet
with cash and credit cards in it should be robbed -- most likely by a
poor inner-city youth just to make sure the money is fairly distributed.
Al Donaldson
In article <32DBF1...@pacbell.net>,
Michael S Payer Jr <msp...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Look, sorry to break your bubble. but lisening to or recording a cellular
>phone is a violation of FEDERAL law. Its also an invasion of privacy.
>Suppose the IRS were to monitor your phone and find out you were cheating on
>your taxes, you would be screaming to high heaven about the invasion of privacy.
Well, I personally am taking great deee-light in these Democrats
committing a FELONY in order to prove (beyond the shadow of a doubt)
that Newt MISLED them (not a lie, not even a misdemeanor) and, thus,
brought SHAME upon the Congress of the US. This being the same Congress
that piled up plenty of shame in the House Bank and Post Office scandals.
In case you still don't follow me, let's play word association: "Rosty."
I hope the Martins' unborn grandson's first memories of Grandpa and
Grandma are about those funny striped suits they were wearing.
I hope McDermott ends up like a previous Washington state senator,
stuffing airplane food and silverware into his pockets when he flies
around the country to give talks about liberal Democratic themes.
(But I get ahead of myself--that would be AFTER he gets out of
the slammer, OK?)
But lets face it, the laws regarding recording of cell phone
transmissions are a travesty. I don't want anyone wiretapping my
phone, either, but I am not so stupid as to use a cell phone to
discuss my checking account or any other sensitive information.
Boehner truly has to be one of the dumbest people on Earth if he
carried on a sensitive conversation without telling the other members
of the conference call, and the other members of the conference call
have to be terminally dumb if they went ahead, knowing that Boehner
was on a cell phone.
I would fire an accountant or banker or stock broker or doctor
who called me from a cell phone and discussed my account or
tax return or the results of my medical tests.
Whoever thinks that declaring a radio transmission from a cellular
phone a "protected telephone communication" has to be an idiot.
It's like declaring India's bovine population "sacred", when cows
were put on earth to provide milk and meat. It's like assuming
you can pay welfare mothers money for each kid they have, without
causing them to have more kids. It's like assuming that I could work
in the same room with a naked Cindy Crawford and I wouldn't stare.
It's like assuming that if a Brinks truck rolls over and spills
lots of money, then no one is gonna steal it, because, you see,
that would be against the law.
Pay attention: It's AGAINST HUMAN NATURE for people not to listen
to radio transmissions.
Declaring radio transmissions some sort of protected telephone
conversation doesn't change that fact. People will still listen
to radio. You could reclassify cellular communications as some sort
of long departed Hindu cattle god, and that still wouldn't change
things.
Now, I'm not trying to sidle up to the Marxists on this newsgroup
that have been loudly declaring the legal (if not Constitutional)
right to intercept cellular communications. It just isn't so.
Intercepting that part of the radio spectrum that is used for
cellular "telephone calls" is a federal crime. A felony.
That's the law as it currently exists.
That's why I take the apparently contradictory positions that
(a) the Martins/McDermotts/et al should wear funny striped suits
for a while to make up for having committed a felony, but
(b) as soon as possible, we should change the law such that anyone
with a receiver can intercept any communications in the radio spectrum.
If you want to protect your radio communications, use cryptography.
(That is, AFTER we get Clinton and his Big Brother tendencies
out of the White House and get laws on the books that permit
American technology companies to develop and sell crypto products
on the world market.)
Crypto is a LOT cheaper than self deception.
So there...
Al
Just for the record, I don't have (and never have had) a radio scanner
that picks up cellular communications.
C.L. Williams
Bill
<heavy snipping of portions of lib-drivel>
> >From: xona <xo...@primenet.com>
> >
> >Whores do not think for themselves; they have pimps. In Paula's case
> >her pimps are members of the religious right wing of the Republican
> >party. The assholes who make up this collection of scum-scucking
> >morons control what Paula does much the same way they control their
> >wives: like a pet dog.
> >
> >-------
> >From: Jade...@erols.com
> >
> >Aren't Supreme Court Justices supposed to recuse themselves from cases
> >in which they have, or give the appearance of having, an interest in
> >the outcome?
> >
> >If this is the case, why hasn't Clarence "Uncle" Thomas recused
> >himself?
> >
>
>
> liberals are getting dumber this year. As the Democrats get stuck
> with more embarrassments like the Martins, McDermott, Algore's
> Templegate, Boniorism, they will get even loonier.
>
> C.L. Williams
I agree entirely.... I thought that they had bottomed out with Bonior -
until I saw Alice Martin... A look-alike for Roseanne with the IQ of a
tomato plant.... Even the liberal media anchors had a hard time keeping
a straight face during her appearances... It just keeps getting more
pathetic.
Bill
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Eric Kelso wrote:
That's fine. That is your interpretation. I was responding to the
small part that you quoted. Please post the rest that you are
troubled with and why.
>But on another issue, which I am curious about your opinion on. Doesn't it
>bother you, as it does me, that the third most powerful man in the free world
>and his associates conduct business discussions over such an insecure medium??
It was a political discussion only. What's the big deal!
>This just scares the hell out of me. I guess we are lucky that Ma and Pa Kettle
>from Florida are so much smarter than any foreign intelligence agents.
Yep, those spies sure would be intersted in that stuff. If that IS
what they are interested in then we have little to fear from them
IMHO.
>After
>all what if Newt and the 'boys' were discussing foreign policy, or defense
>spending, or trade policy??
They weren't were they. I smell straw.
>This is what baffles me so. For all of Newt's
>supposedly 'savvy' about technology and the future and they get intercepted (or
>intentionally intercepted, it ain't clear as yet) using a cell phone??? The
>idea is absolutely TERRIFYING. Just think of the implications. And these are
>some of the same jokers that were complaining about lack of security in the
>White House?!?!?! And they are having conferance calls using Cell Phones?? Dear
>Gawd! While I am the first to admit that I am not wild about Newt, I did have
>at least considerable respect for his intelligence. After this episode, that
>opinion has declined drastically. Only a complete technologically illiterate
>moron would conduct business over a cell phone. Scary, very scary. It looks to
>me like Clinton isn't the only 'bubba' to stumble his way to the top of the
>political heap.
The smell of straw has become quite strong.
JSL
Mike Jones
Mike Reed wrote:
>
> --
> MR
> Liberal. Open-minded. Willing to jail McDermott, the fla. couple,
> Gingrich, and Clinton
>
> M. Reed
> jut...@edge.ercnet.com
> http://edge.edge.net/~jutopia
I'll go with that with the exception of Gingrich. He's the only one on
your list that hasn't violated any laws.
MIke.
Mike Jones
Gary Frazier wrote:
> Keep imagining, C.L., that you're living in the real world.
>
> We're enjoying the spectacle of the masters of doublethink and spin
> falling all overthemselves to divert attention from their own crimes, and
> their net-lackies such as yourself spouting their line.
>
> --
> Gary
>
> gfra...@efn.org
> http://www.efn.org/~gfrazier
Such as? What 'crimes' have been committed by the Republicans, Gary?
You talk the talk, but can your hummingbird ass back up your alligator
mouth? I'm really not aware of any 'crimes' any Republicans have
allegedly committed. Now I can for sure quote you some crimes that your
precious democrats have committed and I mean CRIMES as in violation of
laws.
MIke.