A Mere 900 Files

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Reynmeistr

unread,
Sep 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/10/97
to

I have yet another Q for the Clinton-Tools infesting this NG:

At least one of you is an expert in computing, no doubt. Please tell us
all approx how long it takes to scan or otherwise enter several hundred,
maybe almost 1000 files into a laptop. I assume you will come up with the
appropriate number of pages in a 'typical file'. Maybe it's 25, maybe 15,
maybe 50, maybe 100, eh?

When you are done with this calc, please also indicate how many megabytes
said info might roughly total. Please post the results to this NG and tell
us how the entity performing this task and then transporting said laptop
might innocently not know what they had been doing.

I would prefer to hear from Woof or Kei3th on this. Or Stilt. Or RH.
HEY!!! maybe Barbphyl. Naw, probly Parsons or Swopa would know best.

Scott Eckelman

unread,
Sep 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/11/97
to


Reynmeistr wrote in article
<19970910133...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...

>HEY!!! maybe Barbphyl. Naw, probly Parsons or Swopa would know best+

There is no public evidence that Marceca had _any_ of the
FBI files on his laptop. What he had, according to his testimony
before the House committee, was memos. (He took the 5th
instead of testifying before the Senate committee.)

Two of the memos were his reports to Livingstone on two of the
individuals who, in his opinion, had problems in their files. He
summarized the information in the memos and gave it to Livingstone.
Included in his summary was information from the file he got from
the FBI, which in itself was an FBI agent's summary of the raw
file which was kept at FBI headquarters.

The other memos were memos to himself or Livingstone regarding
the progress of the Update project.

If you know of any other evidence that he had scanned copies
or transcripts of FBI files on his computer, please post it here.

Scott E.

Reynmeistr

unread,
Sep 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/12/97
to

I reasonably asked Dementocrats infesting this NG to
>tell us how the entity performing this task and then transporting said laptop
>>might innocently not know what they had been doing.
>>

Scott replies:


>There is no public evidence that Marceca had _any_ of the
>FBI files on his laptop. What he had, according to his testimony
>before the House committee, was memos. (He took the 5th
>instead of testifying before the Senate committee.)
>
>Two of the memos were his reports to Livingstone on two of the
>individuals

So the volume is low, yet the scutiny of the contents is high-- Marceca
writing memos to Livingstone about individual files. These are the files
that Demagogic Partei shills are claiming were inavertently retrieved from
the FBI and never opened....

Skatko

unread,
Sep 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/12/97
to

You know I just have to say, WHAT THE HELL WERE THE FILES DOING AT THE
WHITEHOUSE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!????? Sheesh. They shouldn't have been
there, period.

sheila

Scott Eckelman

unread,
Sep 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/12/97
to


Reynmeistr wrote in article
<19970912134...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...

>I reasonably asked Dementocrats infesting this NG to
>>tell us how the entity performing this task and then transporting said
laptop
>>>might innocently not know what they had been doing.
>>>
>
>Scott replies:
>>There is no public evidence that Marceca had _any_ of the
>>FBI files on his laptop. What he had, according to his testimony
>>before the House committee, was memos. (He took the 5th
>>instead of testifying before the Senate committee.)
>>
>>Two of the memos were his reports to Livingstone on two of the
>>individuals
>
>So the volume is low, yet the scutiny of the contents is high-- Marceca
>writing memos to Livingstone about individual files. These are the files
>that Demagogic Partei shills are claiming were inavertently retrieved from
>the FBI and never opened....

No one has ever claimed that, and if they did, they're wrong. Part
of the Update Project was to review the files for derogatory or
disqualifying information. The main other reason was to see when
the next 5 year update was due. I'm not even sure that the two
memos on Marceca's computer were for Bush people, but I think
one of them was. I plan on reviewing the House committee panel
this weekend and should be able to say for sure next week.

Scott E.

hans...@jps.net

unread,
Sep 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/13/97
to

In article <19970912174...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,

ska...@aol.com (Skatko) wrote:
>
> >I reasonably asked Dementocrats infesting this NG to
> >>tell us how the entity performing this task and then transporting said
> >laptop
> >>>might innocently not know what they had been doing.
> >>>
> >
> >Scott replies:
> >>There is no public evidence that Marceca had _any_ of the
> >>FBI files on his laptop. What he had, according to his testimony
> >>before the House committee, was memos. (He took the 5th
> >>instead of testifying before the Senate committee.)
> >>
> >>Two of the memos were his reports to Livingstone on two of the
> >>individuals
> >
> >So the volume is low, yet the scutiny of the contents is high-- Marceca
> >writing memos to Livingstone about individual files. These are the files
> >that Demagogic Partei shills are claiming were inavertently retrieved from
> >the FBI and never opened....
> >
>
> You know I just have to say, WHAT THE HELL WERE THE FILES DOING AT THE
> WHITEHOUSE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!????? Sheesh. They shouldn't have been
> there, period.
>
> sheila

Others, asked for proof of a crime, cited maintenance of a system of
files without publication, specifically the laptop. If scott is correct,
that files weren't on the laptop, then this stated illegality for which
there is proof has evaporated. That's the significance.

We don't really know what the files were doing there. My guess is
screw-up. Others guess fiendishly clever blackmail plot. Given no action
on the legal front, screw-up seems to be in the lead. RH

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

Martin McPhillips

unread,
Sep 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/13/97
to

On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 11:12:09 -0600, hans...@jps.net wrote:


>We don't really know what the files were doing there. My guess is
>screw-up.

Of course that's your "guess," you asshole.

You want to overlook every single aspect of criminality
involving the Criminal Presidency.

But if it was a "screw-up," then why weren't the files returned,
but were instead held onto for years?

The Secret Service has already told you that there was
no such "outdated list."

A woman working in that office has testified that she told
Marceca and Livingstone that those files didn't belong
there.

Do you think that FBI Files on people who submitted to
FBI checks in order to work at the White House ought to
be rolling around in the hands of two flunkie political
operators, and White House interns, and people, like,
like, *you*, who don't know the difference between right and
wrong, up and down, in and out?

j...@globaldialog.com

unread,
Sep 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/13/97
to

hans...@jps.net wrote:
>

>
> We don't really know what the files were doing there. My guess is

> screw-up. Others guess fiendishly clever blackmail plot. Given no action
> on the legal front, screw-up seems to be in the lead. RH

Accvoding to RH, Bill Clinto is a highly ethical president,
running a highly ethical administration that is plagued only
by occasional SNAFU/FUBARS and a populace that is somehow
"scandal mad"?

RH: Did you write the "suicide note"?

Martin McPhillips

unread,
Sep 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/13/97
to

Are we on to "The New Hanson Suicide Watch"?

Or what?


Dan Griffin

unread,
Sep 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/14/97
to

In article <EGGJ3...@nonexistent.com>, cay...@nyct.net writes...>

>On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 11:12:09 -0600, hans...@jps.net wrote:
>>We don't really know what the files were doing there. My guess is
>>screw-up.
>Of course that's your "guess," you asshole.>
>You want to overlook every single aspect of criminality
>involving the Criminal Presidency.

This was not a screw-up. There has already been testimony that
people were told to "work on the files" when they had nothing to
do (this was common--the Klinton admin was very disorganized.
People were hired but weren't always directed and didn't always
know what their responsibilities were). Of course, these people
didn't necessarily know what "work on the files" meant, either.

Look, hanson11, I believe in party and personal loyalty too, but
I also believe in honesty and obeying the law. This stuff can't
even be defended by arguing that they weren't breaking the letter
of the law, much less the spirit of the law.

There was a president a few years ago who ordered everybody to
cooperate with ICs and testify. Klinton won't even tell Susan
McDougal to answer questions about *him*. You're pathetic.

Dan Griffin
lnuslad...@gmeds.com


hans...@jps.net

unread,
Sep 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/14/97
to

In article <EGGJ3...@nonexistent.com>,

cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips) wrote:
>
> On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 11:12:09 -0600, hans...@jps.net wrote:
>
> >We don't really know what the files were doing there. My guess is
> >screw-up.
>
> Of course that's your "guess," you asshole.
>
> You want to overlook every single aspect of criminality
> involving the Criminal Presidency.
>

Is it too much to ask for proof before you leap to the concluison Criminal
presidency?

Unless there is such proof, I'm reluctant to call any president a
criminal. To get where they are they must be plenty savvy - and breaking
laws isn't savvy.

Are you always this abusive? Or just when you're stuck, after years, with
nothing better than a two-bit maybe on a two-bit charge for two-bit minor
underlings?

> But if it was a "screw-up," then why weren't the files returned,
> but were instead held onto for years?

beats me


>
> The Secret Service has already told you that there was
> no such "outdated list."
>

Maybe Tony found an old list and used it by mistake.

> A woman working in that office has testified that she told
> Marceca and Livingstone that those files didn't belong
> there.

Another lady said she found Tony's list and discarded it, I think.

Dan Griffin

unread,
Sep 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/14/97
to

In article <5vcmli$7...@mtinsc02.worldnet.att.net>, s.eck...@worldnet.att.net
writes...
>>Scott replies:

>>>He took the 5th
>>>instead of testifying before the Senate committee.)

Clinton should command everyone testify without using the 5th (as a
previous president did).

dlg
lnuslad...@gmeds.com


hans...@jps.net

unread,
Sep 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/14/97
to

In article <5vfh5p$4ve$2...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>,
lnuslad...@gmeds.com (Dan Griffin) wrote:
>
> In article <EGGJ3...@nonexistent.com>, cay...@nyct.net writes...>

> >On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 11:12:09 -0600, hans...@jps.net wrote:
> >>We don't really know what the files were doing there. My guess is
> >>screw-up.
> >Of course that's your "guess," you asshole.>
> >You want to overlook every single aspect of criminality
> >involving the Criminal Presidency.
>
> This was not a screw-up. There has already been testimony that
> people were told to "work on the files" when they had nothing to
> do (this was common--the Klinton admin was very disorganized.
> People were hired but weren't always directed and didn't always
> know what their responsibilities were). Of course, these people
> didn't necessarily know what "work on the files" meant, either.
>
> Look, hanson11, I believe in party and personal loyalty too, but
> I also believe in honesty and obeying the law. This stuff can't
> even be defended by arguing that they weren't breaking the letter
> of the law, much less the spirit of the law.
>

The issue is whether they were using these files for a sinister purpose
or not. There is no proof that they used them for a sinister purpose.

So saying that I don't know whether it was sinister or not, and that you
don't either, is certainly fair. And having worked in large
organizations, including in government, I have excellent reasons for
suspecting a screw-up rather than something nefarious. That isn't
cupidity on my part, just realism.

RH


> There was a president a few years ago who ordered everybody to
> cooperate with ICs and testify. Klinton won't even tell Susan
> McDougal to answer questions about *him*. You're pathetic.

So prove you're smart enough to have even grasped the point: prove they're
sinister. Then the next time you conclude someone is pathetic, check your
current IQ scores before posting ill-founded insults.

>
> Dan Griffin
> lnuslad...@gmeds.com

Reynmeistr

unread,
Sep 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/14/97
to

Typical Hanson/Ebenezer spew:

>The issue is whether they were using these files for a sinister purpose
>or not. There is no proof that they used them for a sinister purpose.
>
>
Tell us RH--- is the oddly-timed IRS audit of Paula Jones exempt from your
blinkered inquiries also? If you answer in a certain way, RH, it will
cement your reputation as a Useful Idiot.


Martin McPhillips

unread,
Sep 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/14/97
to

On Sun, 14 Sep 1997 02:12:12 -0600, hans...@jps.net wrote:

>In article <EGGJ3...@nonexistent.com>,


> cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips) wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 11:12:09 -0600, hans...@jps.net wrote:
>>
>> >We don't really know what the files were doing there. My guess is
>> >screw-up.
>>
>> Of course that's your "guess," you asshole.
>>
>> You want to overlook every single aspect of criminality
>> involving the Criminal Presidency.
>>
>

>Is it too much to ask for proof before you leap to the concluison Criminal
>presidency?

The proof is saturated into ever pore of the body politic.

Would it be too much to ask for you to open your fucking
eyes and see it?

Martin McPhillips

unread,
Sep 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/14/97
to

On Sun, 14 Sep 1997 10:11:37 -0600, hans...@jps.net wrote:

>In article <5vfh5p$4ve$2...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>,
> lnuslad...@gmeds.com (Dan Griffin) wrote:
>>
>> In article <EGGJ3...@nonexistent.com>, cay...@nyct.net writes...>


>> >On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 11:12:09 -0600, hans...@jps.net wrote:
>> >>We don't really know what the files were doing there. My guess is
>> >>screw-up.
>> >Of course that's your "guess," you asshole.>
>> >You want to overlook every single aspect of criminality
>> >involving the Criminal Presidency.
>>

>> This was not a screw-up. There has already been testimony that
>> people were told to "work on the files" when they had nothing to
>> do (this was common--the Klinton admin was very disorganized.
>> People were hired but weren't always directed and didn't always
>> know what their responsibilities were). Of course, these people
>> didn't necessarily know what "work on the files" meant, either.
>>
>> Look, hanson11, I believe in party and personal loyalty too, but
>> I also believe in honesty and obeying the law. This stuff can't
>> even be defended by arguing that they weren't breaking the letter
>> of the law, much less the spirit of the law.
>>
>

>The issue is whether they were using these files for a sinister purpose
>or not. There is no proof that they used them for a sinister purpose.

One of the reasons rape victims are so reluctant to press
charges is that they have to go in front of the world in a
courtroom and say "I've been raped."

Likewise, a person whose FBI file has been misused, has to,
at the least, come forward and say something like, "No, I did
not have sex with a prostitute, but someone put that in my
FBI file and then it was leaked to the press."

That's why access to FBI files is strictly regulated. And that's
why, when you get 900 or more files on people without the
need to have those files, and you then fail to return them,
you have already broken the law.

Asking for proof that they were used nefariously is something
for the investigators and the grand jury to consider. It's the
least likely information to be made public, because *any*
information from those files that could do damage, *would*
do damage.

Dan Griffin

unread,
Sep 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/14/97
to

In article <8742495...@dejanews.com>, hans...@jps.net writes...>
>In article <5vfh5p$4ve$2...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>,lnuslad...@gmeds.com (Dan
Griffin) wrote:
>> This was not a screw-up. There has already been testimony that
>> people were told to "work on the files" when they had nothing to
>> do
>The issue is whether they were using these files for a sinister purpose
>or not.

No it isn't. The unauthorized possession of those files is illegal.
Period. It doesn't matter whether they used them to blackmail people
or stored them.

>So prove you're smart enough to have even grasped the point: prove they're
>sinister. Then the next time you conclude someone is pathetic, check your
>current IQ scores before posting ill-founded insults.

Democratic operatives have already admitted they were told to "work on
the files." What is it about this business that you don't understand?
I repeat...you are pathetic.

Dan Griffin
lnuslad...@gmeds.com


Toni Howard

unread,
Sep 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/14/97
to

hans...@jps.net wrote:
> The issue is whether they were using these files for a sinister purpose
> or not.


The issue *is* whether a law was broken or not. It was. Throw them all
in a deep dark pit where they will never see the light of day again.

Antoni...@Worldnet.att.net

http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Palms/7039/satyre5.html

If not us, who? If not now, when?

- Slogan by
Czech University Students in Prague, Nov. 1989.
Quoted in: Observer (London, 26 Nov. 1989).

Toni Howard

unread,
Sep 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/14/97
to

hans...@jps.net wrote:
> snip<

> Is it too much to ask for proof before you leap to the concluison Criminal
> presidency?
>snip<

What is too much is the amount of proof you seem to need. It was illegal
for his administration to take those files. No excuse.

The law was broken. One of many so far.

-Toni
--

Phil Marlowe

unread,
Sep 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/15/97
to

Toni Howard <Antoni...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>hans...@jps.net wrote:
>> snip<
>> Is it too much to ask for proof before you leap to the concluison Criminal
>> presidency?
>>snip<

>What is too much is the amount of proof you seem to need. It was illegal
>for his administration to take those files. No excuse.

No, the Privacy Act requires intent for disclosure violation, which
hasn't been proven.

>The law was broken. One of many so far.

zero so far

j...@globaldialog.com

unread,
Sep 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/15/97
to

In article <5via8j$a...@news2.zippo.com>, dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil Marlowe) wrote:
>Toni Howard <Antoni...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>hans...@jps.net wrote:
>>> snip<
>>> Is it too much to ask for proof before you leap to the concluison Criminal
>>> presidency?
>>>snip<
>
>>What is too much is the amount of proof you seem to need. It was illegal
>>for his administration to take those files. No excuse.
>
>No, the Privacy Act requires intent for disclosure violation, which
>hasn't been proven.
>

Correct. No one has been charged and then adjudicated guilty by a court.

>
>
>>The law was broken. One of many so far.
>
>zero so far


Wrong. The lawbreaking occurs at the time of the act, not at
the time of the adjudication. Nice try.

Union Calendar No. 469

104th Congress, 2nd Session - - - - - - - - - - House Report 104-862

INVESTIGATION INTO THE WHITE HOUSE AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ON SECURITY
OF FBI BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION FILES

INTERIM REPORT

NINETEENTH REPORT by the
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT

together with ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS

September 28, 1996._Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. Clinger, from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
submitted the following

NINETEENTH REPORT

<snip>

Previous White House Counsels testified to this committee that in
each administration in which they served, the background investigation
process was limited to a very small number of high level individuals.
Those individuals included the White House Counsel to the President,
the Deputy White House Counsel and the Assistant to the Counsel for
Security. In a small number of instances, aspects of a particular
FBI background report would have been discussed with a senior-level
staff member on a need to know basis, without sharing the file.(58)
``Background files were never shown to others in the White House, including
the President, the Vice President, the chief of staff or the director of
presidential personnel,'' according to Richard A. Hauser, Deputy Counsel to
President Reagan.(59)

<snip>

Ms. Jane Dannenhauer, Assistant to the Counsel to the President in
charge of the Security Office during the Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush
administrations, reported that a new administration normally completed its
pass issuance within approximately 6 months, or at most 9 months.

<snip>

Former White House Counsels have testified that the process of reviewing
FBI files ``is a solemn, legal and ethical obligation.''(606) After the
committee discovered that the Office of Personnel Security ordered the files
of hundreds of former Reagan and Bush administration officials, the Director
of the FBI, Louis Freeh, called the actions ``egregious violations of
privacy.''(607) Director Freeh continued to state that the files were ordered
``without justification.''(608) As Director Freeh pointed out, the system
utilized relied on the ``good faith and honor'' of those involved in the
process.(609) As the Washington Post opined on June 17, 1996:

. . . damage was done from Day 1 when Craig Livingstone was
put in this job. The last people in government to have access to, let
alone be custodians of, sensitive background investigation reports and
material should be political operatives. That, unfortunately, is what
the Clinton administration seems to have done. And that's for
starters.(610)

<snip>

Despite complaints from the FBI and Secret Service about inordinate
delays and abuse of past processes, the White House continued to allow
unsuitable individuals to preside over the office. The White House ignored FBI

and Secret Service concerns, and the office was eventually found to have
inappropriately gathered FBI background files on hundreds of former
Reagan and Bush officials.

Phil Marlowe

unread,
Sep 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/15/97
to

j...@globaldialog.com wrote:

>In article <5via8j$a...@news2.zippo.com>, dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil Marlowe) wrote:
>>Toni Howard <Antoni...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>hans...@jps.net wrote:
>>>> snip<
>>>> Is it too much to ask for proof before you leap to the concluison Criminal
>>>> presidency?
>>>>snip<
>>
>>>What is too much is the amount of proof you seem to need. It was illegal
>>>for his administration to take those files. No excuse.
>>
>>No, the Privacy Act requires intent for disclosure violation, which
>>hasn't been proven.
>>

>Correct. No one has been charged and then adjudicated guilty by a court.

Because there is no evidence of intent.


>>
>>
>>>The law was broken. One of many so far.
>>
>>zero so far


>Wrong. The lawbreaking occurs at the time of the act, not at
>the time of the adjudication. Nice try.

Nothing in your post even alleges a crime.
strike two

Toni Howard

unread,
Sep 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/15/97
to

As I have understood it, FBI files are collected and maintained with an
assurance to the American people that their right to privacy will only
be breached in this way when nation security is judged to be threatened
by this particular person, or when federal laws apply to the person. The
files are supposedly held in the strictest confidence.

Senators may only view them after they have gone through the appropriate
application procedures and passed them. Only then may the Senator
view the actual file with the special agent, who has brought the file to
Senator, standing there watching. The Senator may take notes but may
not make any copies.

I’m am looking for a source for these beliefs of mine.
In the course of this search I came across this case, "Rosenfeld
Decision Issued by Ninth Circuit". It makes a very interesting point;
that not only is the collected information in a file valuable
but that in the file is also revealed the source of the information.
To the Clintons who have politicized the FBI so that it is their own
personal tool, this is extremely valuable, for it reveals an entirely
new level of relevant information to them.

-Toni

Rosenfeld Decision Issued by Ninth Circuit
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/fia09
In a decision which conflicts with the law of nearly every other
circuit, a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June
12
upheld a district court decision ordering the disclosure of the
identities of hundreds of confidential FBI sources. See Rosenfeld v.
United States Dep't of Justice, 57 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 1995). This
extraordinary ruling arose from a request made to the FBI for records
concerning individuals and organizations involved in the Free Speech
Movement (FSM), which had organized demon-strations at the University of
California at Berkeley during the 1960s to protest "campus regulations
restricting political activities on campus grounds." The FBI had
investigated the FSM "out of a concern that its leaders were members of
communist or subversive organizations."
Many of the sources the FBI sought to protect in the case were
classified sources. In upholding the lower court's disclosure decision,
the Ninth Circuit relied upon its decision in Wiener v. FBI, 943 F.2d
972, 980 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 3013 (1992) (see FOIA
Update, Summer 1992, at 2), to declare that the FBI was required to
demonstrate "`whether the source was truly a confidential one and why
disclosure of the withheld information would lead to exposure of the
source.'"
Undertaking minimal appellate review, the Ninth Circuit ruled that
the
district court had "correctly concluded that the govern-ment did not
carry its burden" as to the classified sources because it had not
demonstrated with sufficient "particularity" why classification was
warranted. It flatly rejected the FBI's argument that the lower court
had failed to afford the government's classification decisions
"substantial weight," summarily declaring that "[t]his contention does
not persuade us" because, it said, the FBI had "failed to make an
initial
showing which would justify [such] deference." Thus, this case now
stands as the only pending one in which classified information has been
ordered disclosed.
The remaining information in the case, which was withheld pursuant to
Exemption 7, fared no better than the classified material. Although
acknowledging that the FBI "has a clear law enforcement mandate," the
Ninth Circuit turned Exemption 7's "law enforcement purpose" threshold
into a major obstacle thwarting the FBI's ability to protect
confidential
sources and personal privacy interests. It conceded that documents in
the FSM file--at least up to a certain date
--were in fact compiled for a law enforcement purpose, but then upheld
the lower court's determination that that purpose "`disintegrated'" into
a "pretext to pursue routine monitoring." As a result of this ruling on
Exemption 7's threshold, the Ninth Circuit essentially denied protection
outright for numerous sources and third parties mentioned in the files.
Further, even as to those documents that were found to satisfy
Exemption 7's threshold, source and privacy protections still were
denied. As to the privacy interests, the Ninth Circuit simply agreed
with the lower court that "[i]t certainly serves FOIA's purpose to
disclose publicly records that document whether the FBI abused its law
enforcement mandate by overzealously investigating a political protest
movement" and that that purpose "may not be served without disclosing
the
names of the investigation subjects."
As to the confidential sources, disclosure was ordered even for
symbol- numbered sources, despite the FBI's sworn declaration
demonstrating that such sources are routinely granted an express promise
of confidentiality and that their identities are so sensitive that even
within the FBI they are revealed on a need-to-know basis only. The
Ninth
Circuit chose to discount that declaration and instead just cited its
decision in Wiener to rule that the FBI had failed to point "to anything
in the record that indicates persuasively" that the symbol-numbered
sources were "`told [their] name[s] would be held in confidence.'" The
government has filed a petition for rehearing en banc.

-----
Brought to you by - THE 'LECTRIC LAW LIBRARY(tm)
The Net's Finest Legal Resource For Legal Pros & Laypeople Alike.
WWW: http://www.lectlaw.com -- e-mail: st...@lectlaw.com


j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>
> In article <5via8j$a...@news2.zippo.com>, dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil Marlowe) wrote:
> >Toni Howard <Antoni...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >>hans...@jps.net wrote:
> >>> snip<
> >>> Is it too much to ask for proof before you leap to the concluison Criminal
> >>> presidency?
> >>>snip<
> >
> >>What is too much is the amount of proof you seem to need. It was illegal
> >>for his administration to take those files. No excuse.
> >
> >No, the Privacy Act requires intent for disclosure violation, which
> >hasn't been proven.
> >
>
> Correct. No one has been charged and then adjudicated guilty by a court.
>
> >
> >

> >>The law was broken. One of many so far.
> >
> >zero so far
>
> Wrong. The lawbreaking occurs at the time of the act, not at
> the time of the adjudication. Nice try.
>

--

j...@globaldialog.com

unread,
Sep 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/15/97
to

In article <5vj9m0$k...@news1.zippo.com>, dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil Marlowe) wrote:
>j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>
>>In article <5via8j$a...@news2.zippo.com>, dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil Marlowe)
> wrote:
>>>Toni Howard <Antoni...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>hans...@jps.net wrote:
>>>>> snip<
>>>>> Is it too much to ask for proof before you leap to the concluison Criminal
>>>>> presidency?
>>>>>snip<
>>>
>>>>What is too much is the amount of proof you seem to need. It was illegal
>>>>for his administration to take those files. No excuse.
>>>
>>>No, the Privacy Act requires intent for disclosure violation, which
>>>hasn't been proven.
>>>
>
>>Correct. No one has been charged and then adjudicated guilty by a court.
>
>Because there is no evidence of intent.

Rank speculation. There is no evidence that this is the case.
Do you want to play the legalistic lawyerly game, or don't you?

>>>
>>>
>>>>The law was broken. One of many so far.
>>>
>>>zero so far
>
>
>>Wrong. The lawbreaking occurs at the time of the act, not at
>>the time of the adjudication. Nice try.
>

>Nothing in your post even alleges a crime.

Nope, can't let you get away with that, counsellor.
That's for a grand jury to determine.


>strike two


Changing the rules in the middle of a game is pretty juvenile,
wouldn't you say? Besides, it's so *Clintooniac*.


Martin McPhillips

unread,
Sep 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/15/97
to

>So sue 'em. It's so good you'll find lawyers who'll bet on the come.
>
>But for criminal pursuit: you got nothin'.

Of course he has "nothin'," because he's not privy to grand
jury testimony. Are you?

>That's my simple point.

Yes, it was very simple.

Simple enough to have come from
the the bilious gurge of Augie
Chiasma.

Gee, I hope Augie isn't using
*my* computers again.

Toni Howard

unread,
Sep 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/15/97
to

Fat chance!

The other president is personally tutoring them in what she considers
the appropriate response, "I don't remember, I can't recall".

-Toni

j...@globaldialog.com

unread,
Sep 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/15/97
to

Phil Marlowe wrote:
>
> j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>
> >In article <5vj9m0$k...@news1.zippo.com>, dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil Marlowe) wrote:
> >>j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <5via8j$a...@news2.zippo.com>, dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil Marlowe)

> >> wrote:
> >>>>Toni Howard <Antoni...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>hans...@jps.net wrote:
> >>>>>> snip<
> >>>>>> Is it too much to ask for proof before you leap to the concluison Criminal
> >>>>>> presidency?
> >>>>>>snip<
> >>>>
> >>>>>What is too much is the amount of proof you seem to need. It was illegal
> >>>>>for his administration to take those files. No excuse.
> >>>>
> >>>>No, the Privacy Act requires intent for disclosure violation, which
> >>>>hasn't been proven.
> >>>>
> >>
> >>>Correct. No one has been charged and then adjudicated guilty by a court.
> >>
> >>Because there is no evidence of intent.
>
> >Rank speculation. There is no evidence that this is the case.
> >Do you want to play the legalistic lawyerly game, or don't you?
>
> ??
> Law: willful
> Evidence?
> In this legalistic game the prosecution must move first.

>
> broken. One of many so far.
> >>>>

You're breaking up, Marlowe.

Perhaps you're alleging that the law wasn't broken if the
prosecution hasn't obtained an indictment? That would certainly
be in keeping with this "most ethical adminstration in
American history".

>
> >>Nothing in your post even alleges a crime.
>
> >Nope, can't let you get away with that, counsellor.
> >That's for a grand jury to determine.
>

> No - you post
> I roast.
> The Basic law of the Net

> >Changing the rules in the middle of a game is pretty juvenile,
> >wouldn't you say? Besides, it's so *Clintooniac*.
>
> So sue 'em. It's so good you'll find lawyers who'll bet on the come.
>
> But for criminal pursuit: you got nothin'.

^^^^^^^


>
> That's my simple point.
>

> Marlowe
>
> Fog City Ops


An aptly named organization, Marlowe.

Phil Marlowe

unread,
Sep 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/16/97
to

j...@globaldialog.com wrote:

>In article <5vj9m0$k...@news1.zippo.com>, dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil Marlowe) wrote:
>>j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>>
>>>In article <5via8j$a...@news2.zippo.com>, dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil Marlowe)
>> wrote:
>>>>Toni Howard <Antoni...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>hans...@jps.net wrote:
>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>> Is it too much to ask for proof before you leap to the concluison Criminal
>>>>>> presidency?
>>>>>>snip<
>>>>
>>>>>What is too much is the amount of proof you seem to need. It was illegal
>>>>>for his administration to take those files. No excuse.
>>>>
>>>>No, the Privacy Act requires intent for disclosure violation, which
>>>>hasn't been proven.
>>>>
>>
>>>Correct. No one has been charged and then adjudicated guilty by a court.
>>
>>Because there is no evidence of intent.

>Rank speculation. There is no evidence that this is the case.
>Do you want to play the legalistic lawyerly game, or don't you?

??
Law: willful
Evidence?
In this legalistic game the prosecution must move first.

broken. One of many so far.
>>>>

>>Nothing in your post even alleges a crime.

That's my simple point.


Marlowe

Fog City Ops


JHogan2359

unread,
Sep 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/16/97
to

>From: dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil Marlowe)

<much snipped>

Those files didn't levitate themselves into the White House; someone
requested them. Who requested them?

As far as I know, none of the files were on people who were being
considered for governmental positions which would require a background
check. So why were they there?

What conceivable legitimate use could be made of the files, many of which
involved members of the opposition party?

This looks like something out of the Nixon White House.

One of the interesting things about public opinion is that about 70% of
the public think that Nixon didn't do anything worse than than other
presidents, before or after him.

That is scary. There was much more to "Watergate" than just a
"second-rate break in."

Maybe the public now expects our leaders to be crooks. And that is even
scarier.

JHogan


hans...@jps.net

unread,
Sep 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/16/97
to

In article <EGKr2...@nonexistent.com>,
cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips) wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 02:09:29 GMT, dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil Marlowe) wrote:

>
> >
> >j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
> >
> >>Changing the rules in the middle of a game is pretty juvenile,
> >>wouldn't you say? Besides, it's so *Clintooniac*.
> >
> >So sue 'em. It's so good you'll find lawyers who'll bet on the come.
> >
> >But for criminal pursuit: you got nothin'.
>
> Of course he has "nothin'," because he's not privy to grand
> jury testimony. Are you?
>

Actually, yes. Or much of it: the hearings had testimony by those who
worked in the office, and I recall no criminal revelations. Who else
could have evidence? Maybe there is a secret document or person with
crucial facts, but that would be the wildest of speculations. Looks like
another "crime" which flops when tested. Maybe there's a misdemeanor
somewhere.

RG

Martin McPhillips

unread,
Sep 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/16/97
to

On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 09:22:06 -0600, hans...@jps.net wrote:

>
>In article <EGKr2...@nonexistent.com>,
> cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips) wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 02:09:29 GMT, dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil Marlowe) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>> >
>> >>Changing the rules in the middle of a game is pretty juvenile,
>> >>wouldn't you say? Besides, it's so *Clintooniac*.
>> >
>> >So sue 'em. It's so good you'll find lawyers who'll bet on the come.
>> >
>> >But for criminal pursuit: you got nothin'.
>>
>> Of course he has "nothin'," because he's not privy to grand
>> jury testimony. Are you?
>>
>
>Actually, yes.

Do you lie to yourself, just in the course of things?

*Actually*, no, you are not privy to grand jury testimony.

>Or much of it:

No, not even much of it.

>the hearings had testimony by those who
>worked in the office, and I recall no criminal revelations.

*Everyone* who worked in the office? *Everyone* who
ever checked out one of the files? *Everyone* who knew
about those files, at the White House, at the FBI?

Hardly. And...

>Who else
>could have evidence?

Who else? Take a guess.

hans...@jps.net

unread,
Sep 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/16/97
to

In article <5vhsv0$i94$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>,

lnuslad...@gmeds.com (Dan Griffin) wrote:
>
> In article <8742495...@dejanews.com>, hans...@jps.net writes...>
> >In article <5vfh5p$4ve$2...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>,lnuslad...@gmeds.com (Dan
> Griffin) wrote:
> >> This was not a screw-up. There has already been testimony that
> >> people were told to "work on the files" when they had nothing to
> >> do
> >The issue is whether they were using these files for a sinister purpose
> >or not.
>
> No it isn't. The unauthorized possession of those files is illegal.
> Period. It doesn't matter whether they used them to blackmail people
> or stored them.

You can sue for money damages for negligent unathorized possession. For a
crime to have occurred, in this context, you must prove willful intent to
act improperly. I am sorry if you don't know this.

> >So prove you're smart enough to have even grasped the point: prove they're
> >sinister. Then the next time you conclude someone is pathetic, check your
> >current IQ scores before posting ill-founded insults.
>
> Democratic operatives have already admitted they were told to "work on
> the files." What is it about this business that you don't understand?
> I repeat...you are pathetic.

Virtually everyone who works in the White House is a Democratic
Operative. Please tell me why it is improper for one who has worked in
political campaigns to work in the White House. And explain to me why
making a perfectly obvious distinction between an innocent mistake and a
purposeful improper choice is pathetic, or that pointing out that we lack
clear evidence of one or the other in this case, is pathetic. I continue
to think that your conclusion that I am pathetic in this matter simply
means that you don't understand what I am saying, that you don't
understand what the Privacy Act requires, and/or you don't understand
that your view of the facts in this matter is highly debatable even by
well-intentioned and knowledgeable people.

RH

>
> Dan Griffin
> lnuslad...@gmeds.com

hans...@jps.net

unread,
Sep 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/16/97
to

In article <19970914203...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
reynm...@aol.com (Reynmeistr) wrote:
>
> Typical Hanson/Ebenezer spew:

> >The issue is whether they were using these files for a sinister purpose
> >or not. There is no proof that they used them for a sinister purpose.
> >
> >
> Tell us RH--- is the oddly-timed IRS audit of Paula Jones exempt from your
> blinkered inquiries also? If you answer in a certain way, RH, it will
> cement your reputation as a Useful Idiot.

Only an idiot would think the Clinton Administration ordered an audit of
Jones, which helps her and hurts him, which would put the Clinton
Administration at grave risk for no possible gain. Think twice, post
once.

RH

jim hofmann

unread,
Sep 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/16/97
to

As the Chaplain of the House of Representatives said in a prayer over
Congress:

"The spin is wearing thin"

--- Jim

hans...@jps.net

unread,
Sep 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/16/97
to

In article <EGIAJ...@nonexistent.com>,
cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips) wrote:
>
> On Sun, 14 Sep 1997 10:11:37 -0600, hans...@jps.net wrote:
>
> >In article <5vfh5p$4ve$2...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>,

> > lnuslad...@gmeds.com (Dan Griffin) wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <EGGJ3...@nonexistent.com>, cay...@nyct.net writes...>
> >> >On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 11:12:09 -0600, hans...@jps.net wrote:
> >> >>We don't really know what the files were doing there. My guess is
> >> >>screw-up.
> >> >Of course that's your "guess," you asshole.>
> >> >You want to overlook every single aspect of criminality
> >> >involving the Criminal Presidency.
> >>
> >> This was not a screw-up. There has already been testimony that
> >> people were told to "work on the files" when they had nothing to
> >> do (this was common--the Klinton admin was very disorganized.
> >> People were hired but weren't always directed and didn't always
> >> know what their responsibilities were). Of course, these people
> >> didn't necessarily know what "work on the files" meant, either.
> >>
> >> Look, hanson11, I believe in party and personal loyalty too, but
> >> I also believe in honesty and obeying the law. This stuff can't
> >> even be defended by arguing that they weren't breaking the letter
> >> of the law, much less the spirit of the law.
> >>
> >
> >The issue is whether they were using these files for a sinister purpose
> >or not. There is no proof that they used them for a sinister purpose.
>
> One of the reasons rape victims are so reluctant to press
> charges is that they have to go in front of the world in a
> courtroom and say "I've been raped."
>
> Likewise, a person whose FBI file has been misused, has to,
> at the least, come forward and say something like, "No, I did
> not have sex with a prostitute, but someone put that in my
> FBI file and then it was leaked to the press."
>

> That's why access to FBI files is strictly regulated. And that's
> why, when you get 900 or more files on people without the
> need to have those files, and you then fail to return them,
> you have already broken the law.

This is very logical and reasonable. But you have over-simplified the
actual law. You must know that you have gotten the files without needing
them to be prosecuted for breaking a crime. Keeping files once you know
you have gotten the wrong ones? You mean after the young woman came in to
replace Tony, I presume - since she did know that many of the files were
useless and had been incorrectly obtained? I again reviewed the Privacy
Act and I don't see what law she has broken. I do see that the White
House can be sued for money damages.

But more importantly, what we really care about is again whether these
acts arise from a corrupt nature. I am sure the lady who replaced Tony
did not act from a corrupt purpose (from watching her on TV). Tony and
Craig? I don't know and neither do you. My guess is no, yours is pobably
yes.

>
> Asking for proof that they were used nefariously is something
> for the investigators and the grand jury to consider. It's the
> least likely information to be made public, because *any*
> information from those files that could do damage, *would*
> do damage.

Fine. But we don't have any such proof that I know of. And I will bet
you: no indictment (unless it is for some misdemeanor which is fairly far
from corrupt motive). We will see whose guess as to reality is borne out
by the IC, right?

hans...@jps.net

unread,
Sep 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/16/97
to

In article <341C95...@worldnet.att.net>,
Antoni...@worldnet.att.net wrote:

>
> hans...@jps.net wrote:
> > The issue is whether they were using these files for a sinister purpose
> > or not.
>
> The issue *is* whether a law was broken or not. It was. Throw them all
> in a deep dark pit where they will never see the light of day again.
>
Perhaps you could throw them in a pool and simply see if they float.

Read the Privacy Act. Note that for a person to be prosecuted for
improper disclosure he must know that what he has done is improper. Note
that the prohibition agains improper "maintenance," if you use that as
your fallback, applies to agencies, not human beings.

If you still want to simply throw them in a pit, either you view the
available evidence in a way which many reasonable people would find
unwarranted, or you obviously are made of wood and float.

RH


> Antoni...@Worldnet.att.net
>
> http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Palms/7039/satyre5.html
>
> If not us, who? If not now, when?
>
> - Slogan by
> Czech University Students in Prague, Nov. 1989.
> Quoted in: Observer (London, 26 Nov. 1989).

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------

j...@globaldialog.com

unread,
Sep 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/16/97
to

j...@globaldialog.com wrote:

>
> In article <8744638...@dejanews.com>, hans...@jps.net wrote:
>
> >
> >But more importantly, what we really care about is again whether these
> >acts arise from a corrupt nature.
>

j...@globaldialog.com

unread,
Sep 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/16/97
to

Phil Marlowe wrote:
>
> j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>

> >Phil Marlowe wrote:
> >>
> >> j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >Changing the rules in the middle of a game is pretty juvenile,
> >> >wouldn't you say? Besides, it's so *Clintooniac*.
> >>
> >> So sue 'em. It's so good you'll find lawyers who'll bet on the come.
> >>
> >> But for criminal pursuit: you got nothin'.

> > ^^^^^^^
> >>
> The use of litlle carrots to underline criminal: slick, snappy.

Used a fixed font, Phil. ;)

I highlighted your qualifier.

>
> You may have forgotten, however, that if they had any improper purpose
> their actions would indeed be criminal. So your carrots aren't quite
> apt..

> Union Calendar No. 469
>
> 104th Congress, 2nd Session - - - - - - - - - - House Report 104-862
>
> INVESTIGATION INTO THE WHITE HOUSE AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ON SECURITY
> OF FBI BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION FILES
>
> INTERIM REPORT
>
> NINETEENTH REPORT by the
> COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
>
> together with ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS
>
> September 28, 1996._Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
> State of the Union and ordered to be printed
>
> Mr. Clinger, from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
> submitted the following
>
> NINETEENTH REPORT
>
> <snip>

>

j...@globaldialog.com

unread,
Sep 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/16/97
to

Phil Marlowe wrote:
>
> j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>
> >Phil Marlowe wrote:
> >>
> >> j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >Phil Marlowe wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >Changing the rules in the middle of a game is pretty juvenile,
> >> >> >wouldn't you say? Besides, it's so *Clintooniac*.
> >> >>
> >> >> So sue 'em. It's so good you'll find lawyers who'll bet on the come.
> >> >>
> >> >> But for criminal pursuit: you got nothin'.
> >> > ^^^^^^^
> >> >>
> >> The use of litlle carrots to underline criminal: slick, snappy.
>
> >Used a fixed font, Phil. ;)
>
> Forgive me for giving you undeserved style points.

>
> >I highlighted your qualifier.
>
> >>
> >> You may have forgotten, however, that if they had any improper purpose
> >> their actions would indeed be criminal. So your carrots aren't quite
> >> apt..
>
> >> Union Calendar No. 469
> >>
> >> 104th Congress, 2nd Session - - - - - - - - - - House Report 104-862
> >>
> >> INVESTIGATION INTO THE WHITE HOUSE AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ON SECURITY
> >> OF FBI BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION FILES
> >>
>
> This is the second time you have posted this piece.
> It says people did bad things. It says they should have hired someone
> other than Mr. Livingstone. It does not say that Mr. Livingstone or
> his employees got the wrong files on purpose, in order to blackmail
> Republicans, to make humorous poison-pen birthday cards, or anything
> like that. So why do you continue to post it? It is almost completely
> irrelevant.

No; it is not irrelevant, since you and other Clintoon crack
smokers has stated over and over that "they all do it",
and that there was no ill intent. Well, bub, there was ill intent,
and it began with the takedown of the security checks that had
been standard fare for the Executive, and the substitution of
security checks on Republicans.

Martin McPhillips

unread,
Sep 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/17/97
to

On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 21:41:30 -0600, hans...@jps.net wrote:

>In article <EGIAJ...@nonexistent.com>,
> cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips) wrote:
>>
>> One of the reasons rape victims are so reluctant to press
>> charges is that they have to go in front of the world in a
>> courtroom and say "I've been raped."
>>
>> Likewise, a person whose FBI file has been misused, has to,
>> at the least, come forward and say something like, "No, I did
>> not have sex with a prostitute, but someone put that in my
>> FBI file and then it was leaked to the press."
>>
>> That's why access to FBI files is strictly regulated. And that's
>> why, when you get 900 or more files on people without the
>> need to have those files, and you then fail to return them,
>> you have already broken the law.
>
>This is very logical and reasonable. But you have over-simplified the
>actual law. You must know that you have gotten the files without needing
>them to be prosecuted for breaking a crime. Keeping files once you know
>you have gotten the wrong ones? You mean after the young woman came in to
>replace Tony, I presume - since she did know that many of the files were
>useless and had been incorrectly obtained? I again reviewed the Privacy
>Act and I don't see what law she has broken. I do see that the White
>House can be sued for money damages.

Try going back a few steps, Lord High Mayor.

There was not "outdated Secret Service list."

Ergo, those names had to be *put* on a list, and that list
used to generate requests from the FBI.

That's intent.

The fallback story over there is that it was a mistake, but
it was a mistake that was never rectified.

That is: Names not on an "outdated" list, names had to
be *put* on a list---*intent.*

When the "mistake" is discovered, the Files are still not
returned.

Why? Because they were gotten with ill intent in the first
place.


Martin McPhillips

unread,
Sep 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/17/97
to

On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 21:22:39 -0600, hans...@jps.net wrote:

>In article <5vhsv0$i94$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>,


> lnuslad...@gmeds.com (Dan Griffin) wrote:
>>
>> In article <8742495...@dejanews.com>, hans...@jps.net writes...>
>> >In article <5vfh5p$4ve$2...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>,lnuslad...@gmeds.com (Dan
>> Griffin) wrote:

>> >> This was not a screw-up. There has already been testimony that
>> >> people were told to "work on the files" when they had nothing to
>> >> do

>> >The issue is whether they were using these files for a sinister purpose
>> >or not.
>>

>> No it isn't. The unauthorized possession of those files is illegal.
>> Period. It doesn't matter whether they used them to blackmail people
>> or stored them.
>
>You can sue for money damages for negligent unathorized possession. For a
>crime to have occurred, in this context, you must prove willful intent to
>act improperly. I am sorry if you don't know this.

And since there was no "outdated Secret Service list," according
to the Secret Service, then someone had to put those names that
didn't belong on a list and send it over to the FBI.

That's *intent.*

j...@globaldialog.com

unread,
Sep 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/17/97
to

>
>But more importantly, what we really care about is again whether these
>acts arise from a corrupt nature.

Union Calendar No. 469

104th Congress, 2nd Session - - - - - - - - - - House Report 104-862

INVESTIGATION INTO THE WHITE HOUSE AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ON SECURITY
OF FBI BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION FILES

INTERIM REPORT

NINETEENTH REPORT by the
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT

together with ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS

September 28, 1996._Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. Clinger, from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
submitted the following

NINETEENTH REPORT

<snip>

Previous White House Counsels testified to this committee that in

each administration in which they served, the background investigation
process was limited to a very small number of high level individuals.
Those individuals included the White House Counsel to the President,
the Deputy White House Counsel and the Assistant to the Counsel for
Security. In a small number of instances, aspects of a particular
FBI background report would have been discussed with a senior-level
staff member on a need to know basis, without sharing the file.(58)
``Background files were never shown to others in the White House, including
the President, the Vice President, the chief of staff or the director of
presidential personnel,'' according to Richard A. Hauser, Deputy Counsel to
President Reagan.(59)

<snip>

Ms. Jane Dannenhauer, Assistant to the Counsel to the President in
charge of the Security Office during the Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush
administrations, reported that a new administration normally completed its
pass issuance within approximately 6 months, or at most 9 months.

<snip>

Former White House Counsels have testified that the process of reviewing
FBI files ``is a solemn, legal and ethical obligation.''(606) After the
committee discovered that the Office of Personnel Security ordered the files
of hundreds of former Reagan and Bush administration officials, the Director
of the FBI, Louis Freeh, called the actions ``egregious violations of
privacy.''(607) Director Freeh continued to state that the files were ordered
``without justification.''(608) As Director Freeh pointed out, the system
utilized relied on the ``good faith and honor'' of those involved in the
process.(609) As the Washington Post opined on June 17, 1996:

. . . damage was done from Day 1 when Craig Livingstone was
put in this job. The last people in government to have access to, let
alone be custodians of, sensitive background investigation reports and
material should be political operatives. That, unfortunately, is what
the Clinton administration seems to have done. And that's for
starters.(610)

<snip>

Despite complaints from the FBI and Secret Service about inordinate
delays and abuse of past processes, the White House continued to allow

Path

Phil Marlowe

unread,
Sep 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/17/97
to

j...@globaldialog.com wrote:

>Phil Marlowe wrote:
>>
>> j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>>
>> >Phil Marlowe wrote:
>> >>
>> >> j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >Changing the rules in the middle of a game is pretty juvenile,
>> >> >wouldn't you say? Besides, it's so *Clintooniac*.
>> >>
>> >> So sue 'em. It's so good you'll find lawyers who'll bet on the come.
>> >>
>> >> But for criminal pursuit: you got nothin'.
>> > ^^^^^^^
>> >>
>> The use of litlle carrots to underline criminal: slick, snappy.

>Used a fixed font, Phil. ;)

Forgive me for giving you undeserved style points.

>I highlighted your qualifier.

>>
>> You may have forgotten, however, that if they had any improper purpose
>> their actions would indeed be criminal. So your carrots aren't quite
>> apt..

>> Union Calendar No. 469


>>
>> 104th Congress, 2nd Session - - - - - - - - - - House Report 104-862
>>
>> INVESTIGATION INTO THE WHITE HOUSE AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ON SECURITY
>> OF FBI BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION FILES
>>

This is the second time you have posted this piece.


It says people did bad things. It says they should have hired someone
other than Mr. Livingstone. It does not say that Mr. Livingstone or
his employees got the wrong files on purpose, in order to blackmail
Republicans, to make humorous poison-pen birthday cards, or anything
like that. So why do you continue to post it? It is almost completely
irrelevant.

REPORT


>>
>> NINETEENTH REPORT by the
>> COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
>>
>> together with ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS
>>
>> September 28, 1996._Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
>> State of the Union and ordered to be printed
>>
>> Mr. Clinger, from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
>> submitted the following
>>
>> NINETEENTH REPORT
>>
>> <snip>

>>

>> Former White House Counsels have testified that the process of reviewing
>> FBI files ``is a solemn, legal and ethical obligation.''(606) After the
>> committee discovered that the Office of Personnel Security ordered the files
>> of hundreds of former Reagan and Bush administration officials, the Director
>> of the FBI, Louis Freeh, called the actions ``egregious violations of
>> privacy.''(607) Director Freeh continued to state that the files were ordered
>> ``without justification.''(608) As Director Freeh pointed out, the system
>> utilized relied on the ``good faith and honor'' of those involved in the
>> process.(609) As the Washington Post opined on June 17, 1996:
>>
>> . . . damage was done from Day 1 when Craig Livingstone was
>> put in this job. The last people in government to have access to, let
>> alone be custodians of, sensitive background investigation reports and
>> material should be political operatives. That, unfortunately, is what
>> the Clinton administration seems to have done. And that's for
>> starters.(610)
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Despite complaints from the FBI and Secret Service about inordinate
>> delays and abuse of past processes, the White House continued to allow

>> unsuitable individuals to preside over the office. The White House ignored FBI

>> and Secret Service concerns, and the office was eventually found to have
>> inappropriately gathered FBI background files on hundreds of former
>> Reagan and Bush officials.

Fog City Ops


Phil Marlowe

unread,
Sep 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/17/97
to

cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips) wrote:


>On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 02:09:29 GMT, dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil Marlowe) wrote:

>>
>>j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>>
>>>Changing the rules in the middle of a game is pretty juvenile,
>>>wouldn't you say? Besides, it's so *Clintooniac*.
>>
>>So sue 'em. It's so good you'll find lawyers who'll bet on the come.
>>
>>But for criminal pursuit: you got nothin'.

>Of course he has "nothin'," because he's not privy to grand
>jury testimony. Are you?

>>That's my simple point.

>Yes, it was very simple.

>Simple enough to have come from
>the the bilious gurge of Augie
>Chiasma.

>Gee, I hope Augie isn't using
>*my* computers again.

Petty, pointless.

Don't waste *our* government-subsidized electrons with fluff.,

Marlowe
Fog City Ops


Brad Kepley

unread,
Sep 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/17/97
to

>Only an idiot would think the Clinton Administration ordered an audit of
>Jones, which helps her and hurts him, which would put the Clinton
>Administration at grave risk for no possible gain. Think twice, post
>once.

I doubt that the Clinton administration "ordered" the IRS to audit Jones.
I don't doubt at all that a Democratic sympathiser would have decided to
audit Jones. It's more than likely though that someone informed on Jones
and it's very likely that the someone who informed is a Democratic
operative or partisan. What can start up an IRS audit is a scandal in
itself.

--
| "The natural progress of things is for government |
| to gain ground and for liberty to yield" |
| Thomas Jefferson |
| Brad Kepley kep...@photon.phys.unca.edu 704-252-8330/Voice-Days |

Martin McPhillips

unread,
Sep 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/17/97
to

On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 20:51:45 -0600, hans...@jps.net wrote:

>In article <19970914203...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> reynm...@aol.com (Reynmeistr) wrote:
>>
>> Typical Hanson/Ebenezer spew:

>> >The issue is whether they were using these files for a sinister purpose

>> >or not. There is no proof that they used them for a sinister purpose.
>> >
>> >

>> Tell us RH--- is the oddly-timed IRS audit of Paula Jones exempt from your
>> blinkered inquiries also? If you answer in a certain way, RH, it will
>> cement your reputation as a Useful Idiot.
>

>Only an idiot would think the Clinton Administration ordered an audit of
>Jones,

Why? From your rose-colored bell jar do you think that
Clinton is more principled than Richard Nixon?

Clinton makes Nixon look like Abraham Lincoln.

>which helps her and hurts him,

I guess you haven't quite caught onto the fact that Clinton, like
a true out of control career criminal, simply believes he can
get away with anything. Have you seen the list of "right wing"
publications and foundations that the IRS has suddenly taken
an interest in?

Has it helped him and hurt them?

What IRS audit? You mean the one that was missing for two
years and turned up in the White House residence in Hillary's
book room? You mean the FBI Files on 900 people? You mean
the stuff taken from Foster's office? You mean the files at the
Rose Law firm that Hilly had destroyed (on Castle Grande) just
two years after the deal was done and while it was in litigation?

What IRS audit? What, me worry?

>which would put the Clinton
>Administration at grave risk for no possible gain. Think twice, post
>once.

Think a month, post once a year. Really, there's no need to hear
your crap more often than that.

hans...@jps.net

unread,
Sep 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/17/97
to

In article <EGMuC...@nonexistent.com>,

cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips) wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 21:22:39 -0600, hans...@jps.net wrote:
>
> >In article <5vhsv0$i94$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>,
> > lnuslad...@gmeds.com (Dan Griffin) wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <8742495...@dejanews.com>, hans...@jps.net writes...>
> >> >In article <5vfh5p$4ve$2...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>,lnuslad...@gmeds.com (Dan
> >> Griffin) wrote:
> >> >> This was not a screw-up. There has already been testimony that
> >> >> people were told to "work on the files" when they had nothing to
> >> >> do
> >> >The issue is whether they were using these files for a sinister purpose
> >> >or not.
> >>
> >> No it isn't. The unauthorized possession of those files is illegal.
> >> Period. It doesn't matter whether they used them to blackmail people
> >> or stored them.
> >
> >You can sue for money damages for negligent unathorized possession. For a
> >crime to have occurred, in this context, you must prove willful intent to
> >act improperly. I am sorry if you don't know this.
>
> And since there was no "outdated Secret Service list," according
> to the Secret Service, then someone had to put those names that
> didn't belong on a list and send it over to the FBI.
>
> That's *intent.*
>
> I am sorry if you don't know this.

I know about the claim. I know others say that this claim is disputed,
even by those in the Secret Service. I also know that given the nature of
the names it seems highly likely that there was such a list. i know from
Lisa Wetzl (See topic: Filegate: Wetzl's Statement:"

I do not know the details of how Tony was doing the Update Project. I
could see, however, that he was using a Secret Service list because of
the distinctive green and white computer paper on which these lists are
printed. In addition, while I knew these lists were not entirely
accurate, they were the only source of information that Office of
Personnel Security could work from in trying to determine the names of
all of the holdover employees.

...

When I first picked up the project, I looked at the materials both Nancy
and Tony had gathered in their work on the Update Project. Nancy's
materials were in the vault and they consisted of a Secret Service list
and hundreds of completed one page FBI request forms with Bernard
Nussbaum's name on it. These forms were stacked in alphabetical order.
When I looked at the Secret Service list she had left I knew immediately
that it was out of date. It was extremely long and appeared to contain
hundreds of names from past administrations. These names were listed in
alphabetical order. I do not recall if it had any indication of whether
an employee was active or inactive. Although I could not be certain, it
looked to me as if Nancy had attempted to complete an FBI request form
for each name on the Secret Service list. I determined that these forms
and the list had so many out of date names that they would be more work
to sort through than to start over from scratch. Therefore, I threw away
this list and the forms.

end

Wetzl appeared highly credible.

I note that there has been no legal action taken on this matter.

RH

Phil Marlowe

unread,
Sep 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/17/97
to

j...@globaldialog.com wrote:

>Phil Marlowe wrote:
>>
>> j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Changing the rules in the middle of a game is pretty juvenile,
>> >wouldn't you say? Besides, it's so *Clintooniac*.
>>
>> So sue 'em. It's so good you'll find lawyers who'll bet on the come.
>>
>> But for criminal pursuit: you got nothin'.

> ^^^^^^^
>>
The use of litlle carrots to underline criminal: slick, snappy.

You may have forgotten, however, that if they had any improper purpose


their actions would indeed be criminal. So your carrots aren't quite
apt..

Good try, though.

Marlowe

Fog City Ops
(Formerly Enewetak City Ops)

Fog City Ops


Martin McPhillips

unread,
Sep 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/17/97
to

You mean the sworn testimony by the Secret Service officials
befor Congress?

>I know others say that this claim is disputed,
>even by those in the Secret Service.

Really? I saw the guys who were in charge of the list generation
tell the Congressmen that there was no chance in hell that
they would provide an outdated list. That's a pretty unusual
position for the Secret Service, to dispute the White House
line.

>I also know that given the nature of
>the names it seems highly likely that there was such a list.

There was a list all right, but it didn't come from the Secret
Service, according to sworn testimony by the people who
generate the lists. Not only did they say they didn't provide
the list, but that their system prevented such an occurrence.

>i know from
>Lisa Wetzl (See topic: Filegate: Wetzl's Statement:"

Is she with the Secret Service, or did she work for
Craig Livingstone in that office? Can you discern the
difference?

>I do not know the details of how Tony was doing the Update Project. I
>could see, however, that he was using a Secret Service list because of
>the distinctive green and white computer paper on which these lists are
>printed.

So the list was printed on green and white paper, distinctive.

What a surprise. So, all that indicates to me is that once it is
demonstrated that there was no such list generated by the
Secret Service, the fact that *Tony* printed the list out on
Secret Service "green and white" *computer paper* is more
evidence of intent, intent to conceal, including the forging of
what is, in fact, a Secret Service document, i.e., a real list
of people who need security clearance checks.

>In addition, while I knew these lists were not entirely
>accurate, they were the only source of information that Office of
>Personnel Security could work from in trying to determine the names of
>all of the holdover employees.

Stop. The Secret Service people responsible for the lists
testified that they provided no such "out-of-date" lists, and that
such lists cannot be produced under their system.

Those "out-of-date" lists were created, by someone, with intent,
for the purposes of getting FBI Files on members of former
administrations.

Martin McPhillips

unread,
Sep 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/17/97
to

On Wed, 17 Sep 1997 19:47:35 GMT, dicktuck@usa'nip'.net (Phil Marlowe) wrote:


>But to argue that this was done to get incorrect files for a bad
>purpose, required for a criminal prosecution, which, remember is the
>point from long ago, is a mile or two from demonstrated.

There was no "outdated Secret Service" list.

In other words, the list with the people from former administrations
on it (i.e., Republicans) had to be put together by someone.

And it wasn't the Secret Service.

That's *intent* in the process of getting files that had no justification
to get.

In addition, one of the other Clintooniacs, as a *defense,* cited
Lisa Wetzl testimony that the names were on the distinctive
Secret Service green and white "computer paper."

So, add forging of official documents to the charges against
the people who made up the list.

It wasn't done by the Secret Service.

>You appear to have a critical link or two missing from your argument.

Well, you are missing an argument altogether.

Martin McPhillips

unread,
Sep 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/17/97
to

On 17 Sep 1997 10:40:25 GMT, kep...@zeno.phys.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) wrote:

>>Only an idiot would think the Clinton Administration ordered an audit of

>>Jones, which helps her and hurts him, which would put the Clinton


>>Administration at grave risk for no possible gain. Think twice, post
>>once.
>

>I doubt that the Clinton administration "ordered" the IRS to audit Jones.

I would have to disagree with that. I would bet that Clinton gave the high
sign to whoever he has in place to handle this stuff at the IRS.

Only a stunning series of admissions by those involved would ever
make it known, but this is Clinton's pattern all the way.

The IRS, remember, is auditing all those conservative publications
and foundations that are supposed to be behind Jones.

The Jones audit fits right into the theory espoused in the White
House generated report on "Conspiracy Commerce."

This is Nixon to the power of 10.

Phil Marlowe

unread,
Sep 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/17/97
to

j...@globaldialog.com wrote:

>Phil Marlowe wrote:
>>
>> j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>>
>> >Phil Marlowe wrote:
>> >>
>> >> j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Phil Marlowe wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> j...@globaldialog.com wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Changing the rules in the middle of a game is pretty juvenile,
>> >> >> >wouldn't you say? Besides, it's so *Clintooniac*.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So sue 'em. It's so good you'll find lawyers who'll bet on the come.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But for criminal pursuit: you got nothin'.
>> >> > ^^^^^^^
>> >> >>
>> >> The use of litlle carrots to underline criminal: slick, snappy.
>>

>> >Used a fixed font, Phil. ;)
>>
>> Forgive me for giving you undeserved style points.
>>
>> >I highlighted your qualifier.
>>
>> >>

>> >> You may have forgotten, however, that if they had any improper purpose
>> >> their actions would indeed be criminal. So your carrots aren't quite
>> >> apt..
>>

>> >> Union Calendar No. 469
>> >>
>> >> 104th Congress, 2nd Session - - - - - - - - - - House Report 104-862
>> >>
>> >> INVESTIGATION INTO THE WHITE HOUSE AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ON SECURITY
>> >> OF FBI BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION FILES
>> >>
>>
>> This is the second time you have posted this piece.
>> It says people did bad things. It says they should have hired someone
>> other than Mr. Livingstone. It does not say that Mr. Livingstone or
>> his employees got the wrong files on purpose, in order to blackmail
>> Republicans, to make humorous poison-pen birthday cards, or anything
>> like that. So why do you continue to post it? It is almost completely
>> irrelevant.

>No; it is not irrelevant, since you and other Clintoon crack


>smokers has stated over and over that "they all do it",
>and that there was no ill intent. Well, bub, there was ill intent,
>and it began with the takedown of the security checks that had
>been standard fare for the Executive, and the substitution of
>security checks on Republicans.

I said "almost" completely irrelevant" because I know you can
theoretically spin the de-emphasis of this function into something
bad. But to argue that this was done to get incorrect files for a bad


purpose, required for a criminal prosecution, which, remember is the
point from long ago, is a mile or two from demonstrated.

You appear to have a critical link or two missing from your argument.

Marlowe.


Fog City Ops


Toni Howard

unread,
Sep 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/17/97
to
> > > The issue is whether they were using these files for a sinister purpose
> > > or not.
> >
> > The issue *is* whether a law was broken or not. It was. Throw them all
> > in a deep dark pit where they will never see the light of day again.
> >
> Perhaps you could throw them in a pool and simply see if they float.
>
> Read the Privacy Act. Note that for a person to be prosecuted for
> improper disclosure he must know that what he has done is improper. Note
> that the prohibition agains improper "maintenance," if you use that as
> your fallback, applies to agencies, not human beings.
>
> If you still want to simply throw them in a pit, either you view the
> available evidence in a way which many reasonable people would find
> unwarranted, or you obviously are made of wood and float.


The Secret Service has already stated that the list of names the White
House had files on is nothing like any list their computers are set up
to generate. And also shot down the idea that it was an old list, by
pointing out quite simply that the list used for White House personnel
is updated several times a week, which means there is no way that in
1993 the list would contain Bush or Reagan political appointees, aids or
associates. There is no way they just happened to have a 'old' list. The
FBI have also stated that they have no idea how the White House acquired
these files.

This act is a crime. If there has ever been a poster child for federal
abuse of power it is without question this administration. The
ridiculousness of any American citizen defending such a contemptible act
is unfathomable.

Evidently the files were obtained for the purpose of political
espionage, because the files were retrieved when President Clinton was
under attack by Republicans. It appears that the White House was looking
for something to dig up on the opposing party. Reports that White
House political consultant Dick Morris had blamed the first lady for the
White House's acquisition of the files further bolster the evil intent
and in no way demonstrates any innocence intention.

This is about criminal behavior, abuse of power and corruption. The
fact the democrats still fail to condemn this act shows that they are
completely out of touch with reality.

Laws are always open to interpretation according to the particular
circumstance to which they might be applied.

I, as many others do, understand the Privacy Act to mean that the
possession of these files is in direct violation of the 1974 Federal
Privacy Act and of the National Security Act. Which in simple terms
means that at least 408 Felonies have been committed by the White House.

The head of the FBI, Director Louis Freeh said “the
procedures were flawed and resulted in an egregious invasion of
privacy.” How can the court conclude he was wrong?

--

Skatko

unread,
Sep 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/18/97
to

>
>This act is a crime. If there has ever been a poster child for federal
>abuse of power it is without question this administration. The
>ridiculousness of any American citizen defending such a contemptible act
>is unfathomable.
>
Didn't Chuck Colson do *time* for looking, LOOKING, at someones FBI file?
And these Bozo's get away with having 900 (probably much more than that)
files sitting around for *whatever* they were using them for. What a disgrace.

sheila

Reynmeistr

unread,
Sep 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/18/97
to

> the list had so many out of date names that they would be more work
>to sort through than to start over from scratch. Therefore, I threw away
>this list and the forms.
>
>end
>
>Wetzl appeared highly credible.
>
>I note that there has been no legal action taken on this matter.
>
>RH

Hey, LiaRH. There is a $90 MILLION LAWSUIT underway against the Dowager
General, Craig Livingston, Anthony Marceca and others, on this very matter.
Hitlery tried to scuttle away. The judge kept her in. You knew this, and
therefore expose yourself once again as a pathetic liar. Sweet dreams.....
hope you can ignore those nasty ghost trains.

Phil Marlowe

unread,
Sep 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/20/97
to

ska...@aol.com (Skatko) wrote:

>sheila

There was probably substantial evidence that Colson did something
improper.

With these 900 files, many are suspicious but there does not appear to
be substantial evidence that these people acted in the willful
improper way required for violation of the law.

Here is how others have replied to that statement. Some, such as
Cayenne, have said that the list was "impossible" so there must have
been an improper motive to have gotten files not reproducible by SS
computers. But other evidence contradicts that. We know they were
working from large, out-of-date lists from testimony of those working
in the office, for instance.I have seen posted, uncontested, the claim
that others have testified that terribly out-of-date SS lists were
possible despite protestations to the contrary. I don't know if that
is true, but I have read credible testimony of workers in the office
that large, out-of-date lists were mistakenly used. So we can't be
sure one way or the other.

Some say that once the files were seen to be out of date, they should
have been returned. I'm not sure what law that violates, if any, and I
suspect that the mere retention of these files would probably be
viewed differently from having them for, say, black mail purposes.
There may be a violation of a misdemeanor somewhere - but I couldn't
find the law.

One person indicated a law about maintining files in a lap-top
computer without proper notice, but that law actually applies to
agencies, subjecting them to lawsuits, which seems the proper remedy
here, not to humans, and the factual premise has been questioned
anyway.

That lack of clear evidence that a crime has been committed probably
explains why no one has been punished as Colson was. Mere suspicions
that people have acted badly, such as you seem to have, aren't enough.


And if you think about it, it's probably not a disgrace to withhold
punishment until you have clear evidence of a crime. You may feel that
such evidence exits, but many others do not.

And since Mr. Starr is a very conservative Republican, not likely to
have fond views of the Administration, his failure to proceed on this
matter may reflect that independent parties view it more as I do than
as you do.

If that summary is wrong, let me know why,.

Marlowe


Fog City Ops


pelmark

unread,
Sep 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/22/97