WHoDB Disappears from Scope

2 views
Skip to first unread message

ppar...@swbell.net

unread,
May 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/15/97
to

Frank R. Hipp wrote:
>
> iron...@aol.com (Ironword) wrote:
>
> >For many weeks, I have neither seen nor heard either jot or tittle in the
> >various news media or in a.c-e.c.w about the White House Data Base
> >(WHoDB). Will this major abuse by the Clinton Administration also fall by
> >the wayside?
> >
>
> It was just another in the long line of Scandal of the Week
> revelations that briefly saw the light of truth - before the light
> dimmed and the truth became hidden behind the cloak of darkness.
>
> The boy president and the first liar count on this happening. They
> only have to weather the many storms for a brief period of time before
> they pass while constantly saying to themselves "onward through the
> fog", comrades, "onward through the fog".

"Onward through the fog"? That was the rallying cry in Austin, not College
Station. Anyway, it's really difficult to keep the outrage going over so many
of these "scandals". I really wonder if the Clintons don't engineer some of
these just to overload the scandal circuits. It's kinda hard not to imagine
that at least one of them is real, but it's taken on the aspect of an
n-dimensional shell game.

So far, he's made a virtue out of "staying the course". Real evidence of real
wrongdoing would put an end to that. Maybe McDougal can do that for us all
soon. But it doesn't look like it.

Pat

Kevlahan

unread,
May 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/15/97
to

ppar...@swbell.net <ppar...@swbell.net> wrote:

> Frank R. Hipp wrote:
> So far, he's made a virtue out of "staying the course". Real evidence of real
> wrongdoing would put an end to that. Maybe McDougal can do that for us all
> soon. But it doesn't look like it.

> Pat

I think Dennis Miller put it aptly:

[paraphrase]

"Sure he's scandalous, coniving, deceitful, adulterouse ... But Hey! My
portfolio is skyrocketing through the fucking roof".

Chris K.

Martin McPhillips

unread,
May 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/15/97
to

On Thu, 15 May 1997 13:59:39 -0700, "ppar...@swbell.net" <ppar...@swbell.net>
wrote:

>
>"Onward through the fog"? That was the rallying cry in Austin, not College

[Parsoonatic pandering put on slow prop flight to New South Wales]

this is Pat lying...

<<Let's see, Ronald Reagan knocked up his bimbo, *then*
abandoned his family to marry her.>> Pat Parson 3/16/97

and *this* is Pat lying...

<<No, Burton got an illegal contribution from the Bhutto
governement for pursuing Pakistan's foreign policy
in Congress.>> Pat Parson 3/20/97

and *then* there is Pat lying...

<<No. There is such a thing as truthful slander.... The
law does permit one to sue for slander if a true accusation can
is made with intent to harm.>>

and, of course, there's Pat *lying*...

<<Know why poor people are fat? Turns out that in this
country, high-fat, low nutrient foods are CHEAP. Nutritious
food is more expensive. So, poor people buy lots of junk
calories to get enough vitamins, etc.>>

and, what else, *Pat* lying...

<<[Bill] Bennett, as you might know, was aa vigourous defender
of the criminals in the Nixon, Reagan and Bush administrations,
and sought to keep them from justice.>>

and, there's some lying, *by* Pat...

<<Well, since the independent counsel the ethics committee
hired called for a Justice Department investigation of the
Newter, your confidence may be just a bit premature.>>

and this is Pat's mind *on* lies...

<<... but it's clear that the [Christian Coalition] ideology
permits a rather flexible morality when it comes to sex with
children.-- Pat>>

Pat Parson: Bigot, Liar, Clinton Shill, and she hopes
to "teach."


M. Soja

unread,
May 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/15/97
to

On 15 May 1997 19:11:40 GMT, Kevlahan <akev...@IDT.NET> posted:

>I think Dennis Miller put it aptly:

>[paraphrase]

>"Sure he's scandalous, coniving, deceitful, adulterouse ... But Hey! My
>portfolio is skyrocketing through the fucking roof".


And when the bottom falls, who's gonna feel your pain, bubba?

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

"I believe we must respect this profound gift and
resist the temptation to replicate ourselves."
- Bill Clinton (March 4, 1997)


Wilson

unread,
May 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/16/97
to

In article <19970515042...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
iron...@aol.com says...


>
>For many weeks, I have neither seen nor heard either jot or tittle in the
>various news media or in a.c-e.c.w about the White House Data Base
>(WHoDB). Will this major abuse by the Clinton Administration also fall
by
>the wayside?
>

WASHINGTON (AP) A White House memo turned over to Republican investigators
in Congress suggests combining a presidential database with a donor list
of Democrats to target contributors who have not attended White House
functions.

The two-page, handwritten memo dated Nov. 15, 1994, summarizes a meeting
of presidential aide Marsha Scott and two database assistants. It was
written by Brian Bailey, an aide to President Clinton's deputy chief of
staff, said White House spokesman Barry Toiv.

Bailey wrote that "legal issues" could stand in the way of crossing the
two lists and eventually went on to recommend that "for now, I said keep
with status quo."

The White House has maintained that the taxpayer-funded database was used
only for official purposes and not to aid Clinton's re-election campaign,
as Republicans charge.

It is illegal to use taxpayer resources to directly assist a political
campaign or fund-raising event.

Toiv said the memo was part of the process the administration went through
in compiling a list of people to invite to the White House for official
events.

"Financial supporters are among those who are invited to this White House,
as in every previous White House," Toiv said. "The financial information
was not put in the database and people doing this work always checked with
the counsel's office, and they followed ... clear instructions to do
nothing improper."

The memo was turned over by the White House to Rep. David McIntosh,
R-Ind., chairman of a House panel investigating the White House database.

McIntosh said the memo provides the strongest indication that the White
House planned to misuse government property for illegal fundraising
activities.

"They were planning meetings that contemplated, as options, activities
that amount to a crime, and the White House should have been much more
forthcoming," he said.

(15 May 1997 22:23 EDT)

WNO


U-Z

unread,
May 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/18/97
to

iron...@aol.com (Ironword) wrote:

>For many weeks, I have neither seen nor heard either jot or tittle in the
>various news media or in a.c-e.c.w about the White House Data Base
>(WHoDB). Will this major abuse by the Clinton Administration also fall by
>the wayside?

Face it the Data base purpose was to raise funds for the POTUS. It
served in the same capacity as an LL Bean catlaog to extract money
from know and targeted contributors. Any reason less that that is
pure fantasy.
UZ


Wayne McGuire

unread,
May 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/19/97
to

iron...@aol.com (Ironword) wrote:

>For many weeks, I have neither seen nor heard either jot or tittle in the
>various news media or in a.c-e.c.w about the White House Data Base
>(WHoDB). Will this major abuse by the Clinton Administration also fall by
>the wayside?

OF COURSE it is going to fall by the
wayside, just like Fostergate, Filegate
and all the other major Clinton
administration scandals.

Can you possibly have failed to notice
by now that is not simply the media and
Democrats who are ignoring these
scandals, but the Republican leadership
as well?

The Republican leadership overall has
displayed no interest in pursuing these
scandals. Ask yourself why. The only
reasonable explanation is that all these
scandals are as much Republican as
Democratic scandals.

--
Wayne McGuire
http://www.cybercom.net/~wmcguire

j...@globaldialog.com

unread,
May 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/19/97
to

Wayne McGuire wrote:
>
> wyl...@ix.netcom.com ( U-Z) wrote:
> >Pure puppy poo Wayne. There are more investigators and grand juries
> >convened for the Clintons than the headcount at Fort Bragg.
> >UZ
>
> Are you unable to distinguish between
> show and substance? Are you a
> professional wrestling fan who is taken
> in by the grunts and groans and growls?
>
> What did Al D'Amato's Congressional
> investigation into Whitewater
> accomplish? Nothing. D'Amato is now
> kicking Starr under the table, warning
> him to back off the Clintons.
>
> Why has Starr refused to conduct a full
> and honest investigation into
> Fostergate?
>
> When are the Democrats and Republicans
> in this newsgroup going to wake up and
> realize that you've BOTH been taken to
> the cleaners? Possibly never. The real
> powers who run the country are quite
> adept at keeping fools barking at one
> another.
>
> Here is an intriguing little story that
> appeared in today's NEWSpot. Note that
> political contributions by foreign
> subsidiaries to the Republicans exceeded
> those to the Democrats by a margin of
> more than 2 to 1.

And note where they came from:

With investigators probing campaign donations from Asians,
the report noted most of the reported donations from
foreign-owned companies came from European and Canadian
interests.
British-owned subsidiaries accounted for one third of the
total. Canadian-owned subsidiaries were second, followed by
Swiss, Australian and Japanese companies.
The top individual donor was Joseph E Seagram & Sons, a
subsidiary of the Canadian Seagram Co, which gave $1.6 million,
divided almost equally between Democrats and Republicans.
Second was Brown and Williamson Tobacco, a subsidiary of
Britain's BAT Industries, which gave just more than $1 million,
of which $939,500 went to Republicans.
Rupert Murdoch's News Corp was third, giving $835,000 to
Republicans and only $94,000 to Democrats.
^REUTER@

U-Z

unread,
May 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/20/97
to

Wayne McGuire

unread,
May 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/20/97
to

wyl...@ix.netcom.com ( U-Z) wrote:

Are you unable to distinguish between

Do you really think the Republicans can
pursue any serious investigations into
the deeper levels of the Clinton
administration scandals that won't blow
up in their own faces? Are they going to
shit on their own carpet? Not damned
likely.

--- BEGIN ---

*** Foreign subsidiaries active in U.S.
politics

U.S. subsidiaries of foreign
corporations gave at least $12.5 million
in political donations to U.S.
candidates and parties in 1995 and 1996,
according to an independent study
released Monday. The study by the Center
for Responsive Politics found that 128
U.S. subsidiaries of 93 foreign-owned
companies from 16 countries gave money
to U.S. campaigns. More than two-thirds
of their contributions went to
Republicans, with Democrats taking
nearly one-third. For the full text
story, see
http://www.merc.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=3017657-b47


--- END ---

Wayne McGuire

unread,
May 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/20/97
to

j...@globaldialog.com wrote:

>Wayne McGuire wrote:

>> Here is an intriguing little story that
>> appeared in today's NEWSpot. Note that
>> political contributions by foreign
>> subsidiaries to the Republicans exceeded
>> those to the Democrats by a margin of
>> more than 2 to 1.
>

>And note where they came from:
>
> With investigators probing campaign donations from Asians,
>the report noted most of the reported donations from
>foreign-owned companies came from European and Canadian
>interests.
> British-owned subsidiaries accounted for one third of the
>total. Canadian-owned subsidiaries were second, followed by
>Swiss, Australian and Japanese companies.
> The top individual donor was Joseph E Seagram & Sons, a
>subsidiary of the Canadian Seagram Co, which gave $1.6 million,
>divided almost equally between Democrats and Republicans.
> Second was Brown and Williamson Tobacco, a subsidiary of
>Britain's BAT Industries, which gave just more than $1 million,
>of which $939,500 went to Republicans.
> Rupert Murdoch's News Corp was third, giving $835,000 to
>Republicans and only $94,000 to Democrats.
> ^REUTER@

Correct me if I'm wrong, JQP, but hasn't
Seagram, which is described here as a
Canadian operation, been controlled by
Edgar Bronfman, who is the head of the
World Jewish Congress, and who has been
deeply preoccupied with Israeli and
Jewish affairs over the years? In fact,
it would be more accurate to describe
Seagram as an arm of the Jewish and
Israeli lobby than of the Canadian
lobby.

Here is a small glimpse of Bronfman's
latest political activities. Notice the
mention of both Bill Clinton and Al
D'Amato at the end of the article as
political allies of Bronfman:

--- BEGIN ---

The Jerusalem Post
April 7, 1997

WJC fund-raising appeal renews hostility
toward Swiss

by MARILYN HENRY

NEW YORK (April 10) - The new era of
cooperation between the Swiss and the
World Jewish Congress was apparently
short-lived. The latest fund-raising
campaign by the WJC harks back to the
days of confrontation over Switzerland's
financial ties with the Nazis.

Never mind that there are Jewish-Swiss
partnerships to investigate dormant
accounts and to distribute separate
"humanitarian" funds to Holocaust
survivors. In a four-page "Dear Friend"
letter of innuendo and omission, WJC
President Edgar Bronfman assails the
Swiss for stonewalling. As recently as
February 14, though, the WJC and the
Swiss vowed in New York to cooperate.
"The mood has brightened," Bronfman said
at the February news conference. "It was
getting a little out of hand and
emotional," he said of the public
battles between Switzerland and the WJC.

The World Jewish Restitution
Organization, which Bronfman also heads,
was to meet in New York today to
nominate the three Jewish candidates for
the seven-member board of the
humanitarian fund. The fund will
distribute almost 300 million Swiss
francs to needy Jewish and non-Jewish
survivors.

In the meantime, the Swiss Foreign
Ministry said it was prepared to
nominate the board as soon as the WJRO
officially named its candidates.

Swiss officials declined to comment on
the letter.

The letter "is part of our membership
drive and fund-raising," the WJC
executive director, Elan Steinberg, said
in a telephone interview.

It apparently is based on a strategy
that says it is easier to raise money by
focusing on "failures" than by tooting
your own horn and boasting of your
successes. And so, despite a year's
worth of publicity about its efforts to
gain compensation for survivors, the WJC
does not mention its significant
partnerships with the Swiss.

The humanitarian fund was omitted from
the undated letter, which was received
by thousands of people on American
Jewish mailing lists in the last two
weeks. Also missing was any reference to
the Volcker Committee, a joint project
of the WJRO and the Swiss Bankers
Association to oversee an investigative
audit of the Holocaust-era unclaimed and
dormant accounts in Swiss banks.

Steinberg acknowledged the omissions,
but he said, "The one thing that is
important here is that the facts are
correct."

"We just found Hitler's secret Swiss
bank account," says the opening salvo in
Bronfman's letter.

That statement was based on a US
intelligence document, Steinberg said.

However, the document he cited is not
nearly as emphatic. Instead, it says,
"It is quite possible that Hitler's
foreign exchange revenues from his book
[Mein Kampf] and foreign exchange
revenues from the Nazi Party abroad are
held at this Swiss bank." Other
intelligence documents dispute the claim
entirely.

The WJC also commended its British
fellows, "who got their government to
release a scathing report that listed
the Swiss misrepresentations about the
money they received and still retain
from the Nazis."

The British Foreign Office report on
Nazi gold was scathing and it set off a
storm of publicity last September. It
also had a stunning blooper that
compelled the British in January to
issue an embarrassing correction to its
most sensational point. A member of the
Swiss National Bank had admitted in 1946
that the SNB had received $500 million
in looted gold from Germany, the
September report said. However, the
Foreign Office later said, the report
confused dollars and francs, and should
have said 500 million Swiss francs.

The currency error inflated the amount
of Nazi gold by a factor of 4, and the
correction doused the report's sizzle.

The Nazi-plundered gold, according to
the WJC, was used to reimburse European
states that were overrun by Hitler
"while not one penny went to Holocaust
survivors or their families." That was
only partly true.

The so-called "non-monetary gold" -
stolen rings, jewelry - that was
uncovered by the Allies was sent to the
International Refugee Organization,
which turned most of it over to the
Jewish Agency and the Joint Distribution
Committee for refugee relief and
resettlement.

Bronfman's letter asks for a generous
(and tax deductible) contribution to
support the WJC's leadership "in this
sad affair." He also asks donors to sign
petitions to President Bill Clinton and
Senator Al D'Amato, thanking them for
their assistance in pressuring the Swiss
banks.

But he did not suggest that US officials
deal with a specifically American issue:
that Washington, like the Swiss,
apparently failed to turn over millions
of dollars of heirless Jewish assets
that had been seized in the US during
the war.

j...@globaldialog.com

unread,
May 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/20/97
to

Wayne McGuire wrote:
>

> Jewish affairs over the years? In fact,
> it would be more accurate to describe
> Seagram as an arm of the Jewish and
> Israeli lobby than of the Canadian
> lobby.
>
> Here is a small glimpse of Bronfman's
> latest political activities. Notice the
> mention of both Bill Clinton and Al
> D'Amato at the end of the article as
> political allies of Bronfman:
>


I knew you'd take the bait.

Seagram's, of course, isn't in the business of
making money. Nosiree; it really is just a cash cow
for Jews. And nobody knows Jews like Wayne knows Jews.

Get your obsession to an appropriate newsgroup.

not to be used for commercial purposes

Chicago Sun Times
May 18, 1997

Grants to Shorebank under fire

BY LYNN SWEET Sun-Times Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON--Chicago's Shorebank Corp. is at the center of an
inquiry by a House banking panel chairman who is accusing the
Treasury Department of ``political cronyism'' and giving grants to
institutions with ties to first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), chairman of the House Banking
Committee's investigation subcommittee, alleges that nearly $11
million of the $37 million in grants made in 1996 from the
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund went to
Shorebank or entities it controls, exceeding a $5 million cap.

``A lot of good work is getting lost in the politics here,'' said Robert
Weissbourd, vice president of Shorebank Corp., which owns South
Shore Bank along with other development subsidiaries.

Bachus is asking Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin to provide an answer
by Wednesday to his allegations that grants were not handed out fairly.

The Alabama lawmaker said a preliminary investigation by his staff
showed ``significant deficiencies'' in how the community development
program was administered.

He raised the cronyism charge in a press release in which he said a
third
of the grants went to interlocked institutions with ``well-documented
links'' to the first lady.

The dispute centers over whether Shorebank ``substantially controls''
other community development institutions. Shorebank itself received a
$4.5 million grant. Bachus contends that other entities with ties to
Shorebank received $6.2 million, thus pushing it well over the legal
limit.

Weissbourd said Shorebank does not control these companies.

Some of the institutions in question do hold consulting contracts with
Shorebank. And in one case in question, a Shorebank board member sits
on the board of a Louisville, Ky., counterpart.

Created in 1973, Shorebank innovated using a variety of financial and
other development tools to revive blighted communities, starting with
the South Shore neighborhood where it is located at 71st and Jeffrey.

The success of Shorebank, one of the original community development
institutions, was considered important because it made loans in
neighborhoods traditional banks wouldn't touch and pioneered
public-private partnerships.

Then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton and his wife became familiar with
Shorebank when the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation wanted to start
a similar enterprise in Arkansas and turned to Chicago's South Side for
advice. In the mid-1980s, Mrs. Clinton served on the board of an
Arkansas company that owned a development bank.

During his 1992 presidential campaign, Clinton often cited Shorebank
and said he wanted to create a network of community development
banks if elected. In 1994, Congress created the Community
Development Financial Institutions Fund.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages