Clinton appointees - Obstructing justice?
K. Knopp
Here's a suggestion for all of you tired of these investigations dragging
on and on. Find out why this "cooperation" that the White House claims to
be engaging in, dosen't apply to Clinton's appointees, or is conviently
forgot when the commitees request documents from them. Stonewalling will
only cost the taxpayers more money.
Two Clinton Allies Take Fifth
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former Clinton administration official Webster Hubbell
and Democratic fund-raiser John Huang told Congress Thursday they will
claim a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refuse to
turn over subpoenaed documents, a House counsel confirmed.
Two of the key figures in the Democratic fund-raising controversy, Hubbell
and Huang informed the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee by
letter, said Barbara Comstock, the panel's chief investigative counsel.
The two had been ordered in the subpoenas to produce the documents by Thursday.
Two other figures in the fund-raising controversy, presidential friend
Charles Yah Lin Trie and Thai businesswoman Pauline Kanchanalak, have
instructed their lawyer not to accept service of Senate subpoenas for
business records, Senate sources said Thursday.
Hubbell refused to produce any documents, Comstock said. Huang produced
some documents and declined to turn over others on the advice of his
attorney. Huang's letter, however, suggested he would consider turning over
more documents if he were given limited immunity for the document
production, she said.
Comstock declined to say how the panel will respond to the refusal to
produce documents.
But Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, said the Fifth Amendment claim
would not hold up in court and appeared to be made simply to delay the
panel's investigation.
``Generally speaking, there is no (Fifth Amendment) privilege for financial
records, records kept in the ordinary course of business, daybooks, even
diaries,'' diGenova said.
``What they are trying to do is lead the way for congressional immunity''
for testimony that Huang and Hubbell might be ordered to give at hearings,
diGenova said. For consistency's sake, ``they are trying to link the
documents to testimony,'' he said.
Loren Petrich
What is especially curious about this whole Lippo scandal is that
the right wing seems to think that only President Clinton and his friends
are to be criticized about this, and *not* any of the Lippo Group
executives, such as John Huang.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
K. Knopp
In article <petrichE...@netcom.com>, pet...@netcom.com (Loren
Petrich) wrote:
> What is especially curious about this whole Lippo scandal is that
> the right wing seems to think that only President Clinton and his friends
> are to be criticized about this, and *not* any of the Lippo Group
> executives, such as John Huang.
Oh no...you have got it all wrong. I myself believe that both are to be
criticized, but what can we do about non-americans in Indonesia breaking
our laws? John Huang on the other hand is an American and should go to
trial for his actions. John Huang's old friend from Arkansas, who brought
him to Washington, BIll Clinton should also be held responsible for the
illegalities he helped to perpetuate. Send them both up the river if the
broke the law.
Anti-spammer
K. Knopp wrote:
...
> But Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, said the Fifth Amendment claim
> would not hold up in court and appeared to be made simply to delay the
> panel's investigation.
People can't withhold *evidence* with the 5th. They know that
too. More Clinton crime from the "most ethical administration in
history".
> ``Generally speaking, there is no (Fifth Amendment) privilege for financial
> records, records kept in the ordinary course of business, daybooks, even
> diaries,'' diGenova said.
What do we expect from the most criminal administration in history?
Brett
__________________________________________________________________
1) Lie, cheat and steal.
2) If accused of criminal activity, slander the accuser.
3) Obstruct justice.
The Clinton ethics manual.
Anti-spammer
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> What is especially curious about this whole Lippo scandal is that
> the right wing seems to think that only President Clinton and his friends
> are to be criticized about this, and *not* any of the Lippo Group
> executives, such as John Huang.
Sheesh, these attempts to change the subject are becoming
more pathetic by the day.
Huang is going to hang, just like the rest of them.
Brett
_______________________________________________________________
Loren should stop reading those DNC faxes every day.
kenfran
administration. Clinton is pretty small potatoes. (in homor of Dan
Quayle)
Anti-spammer
kenfran wrote:
...
> Correction: the most criminal administration in history was the Reagan
> administration. Clinton is pretty small potatoes. (in homor of Dan
> Quayle)
Keep dreaming. The Clinton administration is corrupt from top
to bottom. It's only a question of time now before the co-president
become indicted co-conspirators.
The most criminal administration in history.
Brett
________________________________________________________________________
C. L. Williams
kenfran <ken...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Anti-spammer wrote:
>>
>> K. Knopp wrote:
>> ...
>> > But Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, said the Fifth Amendment claim
>> > would not hold up in court and appeared to be made simply to delay the
>> > panel's investigation.
>>
>> People can't withhold *evidence* with the 5th. They know that
>> too. More Clinton crime from the "most ethical administration in
>> history".
>>
>> > ``Generally speaking, there is no (Fifth Amendment) privilege for financial
>> > records, records kept in the ordinary course of business, daybooks, even
>> > diaries,'' diGenova said.
>>
>> What do we expect from the most criminal administration in history?
>>
>> Brett
>> __________________________________________________________________
>> 1) Lie, cheat and steal.
>> 2) If accused of criminal activity, slander the accuser.
>> 3) Obstruct justice.
>>
>> The Clinton ethics manual.
>Correction: the most criminal administration in history was the Reagan
>administration. Clinton is pretty small potatoes. (in homor of Dan
>Quayle)
I love it! A liberal spells "potatoes" correctly and doesn't know it.
C.L. Williams
Sig altered so as not to offend any liberals.
Mitchell Holman
}
} What do we expect from the most criminal administration in history?
}
Pardons, of course.
Lots and lots of those Republican "tough on crime" pardons.
(You *were* talking about the Reagan/Bush years, weren't you?)
Mitchell Holman
"Between 1980 and 1989, some 138 appointees of the Reagan administration either resigned
under an ethical cloud or were criminally indicted. This marks the largest collection of
political wrongdoers in the nation's history."
Elite Deviance - David R. Simon & D. Stanley Eitzen
Ford
On Sun, 23 Feb 1997 21:45:58 -0800, kenfran <ken...@concentric.net>
wrote:
>Anti-spammer wrote:
>>
>> K. Knopp wrote:
>> ...
>> > But Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, said the Fifth Amendment claim
>> > would not hold up in court and appeared to be made simply to delay the
>> > panel's investigation.
>>
>> People can't withhold *evidence* with the 5th. They know that
>> too. More Clinton crime from the "most ethical administration in
>> history".
>>
>> > ``Generally speaking, there is no (Fifth Amendment) privilege for financial
>> > records, records kept in the ordinary course of business, daybooks, even
>> > diaries,'' diGenova said.
>>
>> What do we expect from the most criminal administration in history?
>>
>> Brett
>> __________________________________________________________________
>> 1) Lie, cheat and steal.
>> 2) If accused of criminal activity, slander the accuser.
>> 3) Obstruct justice.
>>
>> The Clinton ethics manual.
>Correction: the most criminal administration in history was the Reagan
>administration. Clinton is pretty small potatoes. (in homor of Dan
>Quayle)
Yep, all the Gipper had to do was claim a lack of memory or awareness
and the public swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.
gp
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has
made a lot of people very angry and been widely
regarded as a bad move....... Douglas Adams
Fetus
Ford wrote:
> e)
>
> Yep, all the Gipper had to do was claim a lack of memory or awareness
> and the public swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.
>
does that , you know.
Fetus
Fetus
kenfran wrote:
> Correction: the most criminal administration in history was the Reagan
> administration. Clinton is pretty small potatoes. (in homor of Dan
> Quayle)
But "potatoes" is the correct spelling!
Fetus
Rich Travsky
Anti-spammer wrote:
> kenfran wrote:
> ...
> > Correction: the most criminal administration in history was the Reagan
> > administration. Clinton is pretty small potatoes. (in homor of Dan
> > Quayle)
> to bottom. It's only a question of time now before the co-president
> become indicted co-conspirators.
Yawn. We've been hearing that for years. Still waiting for proof and
charges.
Come back when something happens.
> The most criminal administration in history.
Clinton has a loooonnnng ways to go to catch up with the Reagan
administration.
Reagan sleaze started right at the beginning when his natinoal security
advisor was popped for bribe taking. According to David R. Simon & D.
Stanley Eitzen,
authors of Elite Deviance, a whopping 138 Reagan people were either
indicted
or had to resign.
Reagan - The most criminal administration in history.
Get over it, Bonzo's a crook.
RT
What did Reagan know and when did he forget it? - kenfran
Paul H. Henry
] kenfran wrote:
] ...
]
] > Correction: the most criminal administration in history was the Reagan
] > administration. Clinton is pretty small potatoes. (in homor of Dan
] > Quayle)
]
] Keep dreaming. The Clinton administration is corrupt from top
] to bottom. It's only a question of time now before the co-president
] become indicted co-conspirators.
Put your money where your mouth is. Name the date by which you think the
President will be indicted, and let's see some cash on the table. Either
that or shut the hell up.
--
=============================================================================
_ (phe...@halcyon.com) || Okay, folks. Show's over. Nothing
|_) || to see here. Move along.
| aul H. Henry - Seattle, Wash.||"I'm a hoochie-coochie man!" --Muddy Waters
====================== http://www.halcyon.com/phenry/ =====================
Ford
Yes, I suppose it does make for a handy excuse. After the fact.
gp
socrates
In article <3310FC...@127.0.0.1>, ro...@127.0.0.1 says...
>
>kenfran wrote:
>...
>
>> Correction: the most criminal administration in history was the
Reagan
>> administration. Clinton is pretty small potatoes. (in homor of Dan
>> Quayle)
>
> Keep dreaming. The Clinton administration is corrupt from top
>to bottom. It's only a question of time now before the co-president
>become indicted co-conspirators.
>
I am not hear to discuss the merits of one presidency over the other,
however I find it interesting that despite millions of tax dollars and
four years of digging no one can find any evidence of criminal wrong
doing on the part of the president.
BTW whether or not Reagan was involved in Iran Contra he did make it
policy to appoint persons to high offices specifically because they
would refuse to follow the guidelines congress had passed. For example
Reagan chose his Head of the EPA specifically so the person would not
enforce the laws congress passed.
>
Jeffrey Scott Linder
socr...@hunter1.com (socrates) wrote:
>In article <3310FC...@127.0.0.1>, ro...@127.0.0.1 says...
>>
>>kenfran wrote:
>>...
>>
>>> Correction: the most criminal administration in history was the
>Reagan
>>> administration. Clinton is pretty small potatoes. (in homor of Dan
>>> Quayle)
>>
>> Keep dreaming. The Clinton administration is corrupt from top
>>to bottom. It's only a question of time now before the co-president
>>become indicted co-conspirators.
>>
>> The most criminal administration in history.
>I am not hear to discuss the merits of one presidency over the other,
>however I find it interesting that despite millions of tax dollars and
>four years of digging no one can find any evidence of criminal wrong
>doing on the part of the president.
There is evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the President. Whether
that evidence is enough to confict in court or to warrant impeachment
is the issue.
>BTW whether or not Reagan was involved in Iran Contra he did make it
>policy to appoint persons to high offices specifically because they
>would refuse to follow the guidelines congress had passed. For example
>Reagan chose his Head of the EPA specifically so the person would not
>enforce the laws congress passed.
So is Clinton then responsible for the wrongdoing of the people in his
Administration as well?
JSL
socrates
In article <5f4kbt$crr$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
lind...@osu.edu says...
>
>socr...@hunter1.com (socrates) wrote:
>
>>In article <3310FC...@127.0.0.1>, ro...@127.0.0.1 says...
>>>
>>>kenfran wrote:
>>>...
>>>
>>>> Correction: the most criminal administration in history was the
>>Reagan
>>>> administration. Clinton is pretty small potatoes. (in homor of Dan
>>>> Quayle)
>>>
>>> Keep dreaming. The Clinton administration is corrupt from
top
>>>to bottom. It's only a question of time now before the co-president
>>>become indicted co-conspirators.
>>>
>>> The most criminal administration in history.
>
>>I am not hear to discuss the merits of one presidency over the other,
>>however I find it interesting that despite millions of tax dollars
and
>>four years of digging no one can find any evidence of criminal wrong
>>doing on the part of the president.
>
>There is evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the President. Whether
>that evidence is enough to confict in court or to warrant impeachment
>is the issue.
The only evidence I have seen has been purely circumstantial
>
>>BTW whether or not Reagan was involved in Iran Contra he did make it
>>policy to appoint persons to high offices specifically because they
>>would refuse to follow the guidelines congress had passed. For
example
>>Reagan chose his Head of the EPA specifically so the person would not
>>enforce the laws congress passed.
>
>So is Clinton then responsible for the wrongdoing of the people in his
>Administration as well?
>
If he appoints someone with the specific intent of them committing
wrong doing, the yes he is.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
socr...@hunter1.com (socrates) wrote:
I thought there was "no....evidence" of criminal wrongdoing. Like I
said, there IS evidence. Whether that is enough to convince a jury is
another question.
>>
>>>BTW whether or not Reagan was involved in Iran Contra he did make it
>>>policy to appoint persons to high offices specifically because they
>>>would refuse to follow the guidelines congress had passed. For
>example
>>>Reagan chose his Head of the EPA specifically so the person would not
>>>enforce the laws congress passed.
>>
>>So is Clinton then responsible for the wrongdoing of the people in his
>>Administration as well?
>>
>If he appoints someone with the specific intent of them committing
>wrong doing, the yes he is.
Is the Head of the EPA a law enforcement official? What can you say
about Clinton's justice department not enforcing the Beck decision?
JSL
socrates
>>>There is evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the President. Whether
>>>that evidence is enough to confict in court or to warrant
impeachment
>>>is the issue.
>
>
>>The only evidence I have seen has been purely circumstantial
>
>I thought there was "no....evidence" of criminal wrongdoing. Like I
>said, there IS evidence. Whether that is enough to convince a jury is
>another question.
>
evidence in the legal sense. That reason is that it can so easily be
dead wrong.
>>>
>>>>BTW whether or not Reagan was involved in Iran Contra he did make
it
>>>>policy to appoint persons to high offices specifically because they
>>>>would refuse to follow the guidelines congress had passed. For
>>example
>>>>Reagan chose his Head of the EPA specifically so the person would
not
>>>>enforce the laws congress passed.
>>>
>>>So is Clinton then responsible for the wrongdoing of the people in
his
>>>Administration as well?
>>>
>>If he appoints someone with the specific intent of them committing
>>wrong doing, the yes he is.
>
>Is the Head of the EPA a law enforcement official? What can you say
>about Clinton's justice department not enforcing the Beck decision?
>
>JSL
>
>
Excuse me I am not sure what point you are making about the EPA and law
enforcement. However I will say again If President Clinton has
appointed someone who he knows will not enforce legislation that
congress has passed then he is guilty of unethical and possibly
criminal behavior. You seem to have missed my whole position. I am
not here to engage in the typical conservative/liberal polarization, I
am interested in facts. And there seems to be a fair amount of
unethical behavior on both sides of the political fence.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
socr...@hunter1.com (socrates) wrote:
>>>>There is evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the President. Whether
>>>>that evidence is enough to confict in court or to warrant
>impeachment
>>>>is the issue.
>>
>>
>>>The only evidence I have seen has been purely circumstantial
>>
>>I thought there was "no....evidence" of criminal wrongdoing. Like I
>>said, there IS evidence. Whether that is enough to convince a jury is
>>another question.
>>
>There is a reason that circumstantial evidence is not considered
>evidence in the legal sense. That reason is that it can so easily be
>dead wrong.
Circumstantial evidence can be used. It is usually not enough to
convict without some physical proof.
>>>>
>>>>>BTW whether or not Reagan was involved in Iran Contra he did make
>it
>>>>>policy to appoint persons to high offices specifically because they
>>>>>would refuse to follow the guidelines congress had passed. For
>>>example
>>>>>Reagan chose his Head of the EPA specifically so the person would
>not
>>>>>enforce the laws congress passed.
>>>>
>>>>So is Clinton then responsible for the wrongdoing of the people in
>his
>>>>Administration as well?
>>>>
>>>If he appoints someone with the specific intent of them committing
>>>wrong doing, the yes he is.
>>
>>Is the Head of the EPA a law enforcement official? What can you say
>>about Clinton's justice department not enforcing the Beck decision?
>>
>>JSL
>>
>>
>Excuse me I am not sure what point you are making about the EPA and law
>enforcement.
You complained the Reagan was somehow a crook because his EPA chief
would not enforce some laws.
>However I will say again If President Clinton has
>appointed someone who he knows will not enforce legislation that
>congress has passed then he is guilty of unethical and possibly
>criminal behavior.
Well, there you have it. Clinton will not enforce the Beck decision
therefore evidence of a crime has been presented.
>You seem to have missed my whole position. I am
>not here to engage in the typical conservative/liberal polarization, I
>am interested in facts. And there seems to be a fair amount of
>unethical behavior on both sides of the political fence.
Unethical, Yes I would agree. Illegal. No. That has been done by
just one side.
JSL
Anti-spammer
socrates wrote:
...
> I am not hear to discuss the merits of one presidency over the other,
> however I find it interesting that despite millions of tax dollars and
> four years of digging no one can find any evidence of criminal wrong
> doing on the part of the president.
Because the investigation isn't over yet. People aren't proven
guilty until they've had their day in court. Clinton aplogists whining
that he hasn't been proven guilty is silly.
And it's taken years because Clinton keeps obstructing justice.
When he finally gets to court, his lawyers will no doubt argue
that his indictment wasn't "timely" and thus is unconstitutional.
Brett
_________________________________________________________________________
Reagan deserves to be on the rock at Rushmore.
Clinton deserves to be breaking rocks at Leavenworth.
kenfran
>
Reagan lied, got subordinates to take the fall for him, and generally
obstructed the investigation of Iran-Contra. And we are talking about
shipping arms to a country that HE considered an enemy of the U.S.,
violating the law against the executive office raising funds for the
contras, and winking at cocaine shipments by the contras because they
were "freedom fighters." Sure. And my basset hound is a Republican
senator.
And the Republicans are now stretching out an investigation into a
private deal where Clinton was not a principal, and actually lost money
on. Some equivilent, Brett.
The Reagan Years--the most criminal administration in history. Beats out
the former champion, Republican Warren G. Harding.
C. L. Williams
kenfran <ken...@concentric.net> wrote:
The Democrats clearly have problems when they have to go back ten or
fifteen years to divert attention from today's headlines.
kenfran
when he was captured. OK, I brought it up to the last Republican
president. And how long ago did you say Whitewater was, anyway? And
Gennifer Flowers?
And I notice that you didn't try to deny Reagan's crimes.
Gary Frazier
>kenfran <ken...@concentric.net> wrote:
>C.L. Williams
And C.L. here can't refute anything said about Reagan, so this lame
diversionary tactic is what he comes up with instead.
Besides, everyone knows that Jimmy Carter is responsible for everything
that went wrong during the Reagan and Bush administrations, right C.L.?
Cripes, you guys are so lame.
--
Gary
Ima Phayck
kenfran wrote:
...
> And I notice that you didn't try to deny Reagan's crimes.
Because after tens of millions of dollars and a man who
admitted he hated and wanted to get Reagan as "independent"
prosecutor...nothing was ever charged against him.
There are no crimes to speak of.
Brett
____________________________________________________________
We'll make sure Reagan is put on Rushmore.
And that Clinton is breaking rocks in Leavenworth.
Alan Bomberger
> >The Democrats clearly have problems when they have to go back ten or
> >fifteen years to divert attention from today's headlines.
>
>
> >C.L. Williams
>
> And C.L. here can't refute anything said about Reagan, so this lame
> diversionary tactic is what he comes up with instead.
So the Reagan administration violated the law? There was an
investigation, trials, convictions. What is the point? The
Clinton administration is violating the law. Let's get to
the investigations, trials, and convictions.
--
My opinions are free, worth nothing, and not Apple's
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. - David Hume
<http://www.webcom.com/thinker> Hypertext editor for creative people.
kenfran
Alan Bomberger wrote:
>
> In article <5fdakr$8...@garcia.efn.org>, gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier) wrote:
>
> > >The Democrats clearly have problems when they have to go back ten or
> > >fifteen years to divert attention from today's headlines.
> >
> >
> > >C.L. Williams
> >
> > And C.L. here can't refute anything said about Reagan, so this lame
> > diversionary tactic is what he comes up with instead.
>
> So the Reagan administration violated the law? There was an
> investigation, trials, convictions. What is the point? The
> Clinton administration is violating the law. Let's get to
> the investigations, trials, and convictions.
The news just came out that during Bush's re-election campaign, big
donors were invited to dinner at Quayle's official residence, the Naval
Observatory. Let's get on to the investigations, trials, and
convictions.
Anonymous
In article <abomberger-03...@alan1.lansys.apple.com>,
abomb...@apple.com (Alan Bomberger) wrote:
> So the Reagan administration violated the law? There was an
> investigation, trials, convictions. What is the point? The
> Clinton administration is violating the law. Let's get to
> the investigations, trials, and convictions.
And the lack of any evidence whatsoever is proof that there has been a coverup!
--
woof
Fetus
kenfran wrote:
>
> The news just came out that during Bush's re-election campaign, big
> donors were invited to dinner at Quayle's official residence, the Naval
> Observatory.
Huh? Quayle's home was at the Naval Observatory? I'd heard people call
him a "space brain" before, but I didn't think they were serious! ;)
Fetus
riding the night train...
Michael Zarlenga
kenfran (ken...@concentric.net) wrote:
: The news just came out that during Bush's re-election campaign, big
: donors were invited to dinner at Quayle's official residence, the Naval
: convictions.
Did Quayle use the residence to fund raise?
Did he sit in that office and strong arm donors like Gore did?
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
Al Gore : the best shakedown man in fundraising today
kenfran
Michael Zarlenga wrote:
>
> kenfran (ken...@concentric.net) wrote:
> : The news just came out that during Bush's re-election campaign, big
> : donors were invited to dinner at Quayle's official residence, the Naval
> : Observatory. Let's get on to the investigations, trials, and
> : convictions.
>
> Did Quayle use the residence to fund raise?
When a letter from the campaign committee says that big donors will be
invited ti dinner with the VP, the answer is simple--YES.
>
> Did he sit in that office and strong arm donors like Gore did?
He gave them a little o9f the old soft shoe.
Michael Zarlenga
kenfran (ken...@concentric.net) wrote:
: > Did Quayle use the residence to fund raise?
: When a letter from the campaign committee says that big donors will be
: invited to dinner with the VP, the answer is simple--YES.
I disagree.
Inviting people to dinner with the VP after they give money
is one thing, calling them from the VP's residence and asking
for money is another.
: > Did he sit in that office and strong arm donors like Gore did?
: He gave them a little o9f the old soft shoe.
I guess that's a "no," eh?
Mitchell Holman
}We'll make sure Reagan is put on Rushmore.
}
Too late, "I'm a fake".
Reagan should have been put on Mt Rushmore the day
he was elected.
And left there for the rest of his term........
Mitchell Holman
"Between 1980 and 1989, some 138 appointees of the Reagan administration either resigned
under an ethical cloud or were criminally indicted. This marks the largest collection of
political wrongdoers in the nation's history."
Elite Deviance - David R. Simon & D. Stanley Eitzen
kenfran
Clinton invited donors to the White House. But it perfectly fine with
you to have Quayle invite donors to his official residence.
You have just demonstrated a perfect case of subjective morality.
(That's the stuff you accuse liberals of teaching in school.)
C. L. Williams
kenfran <ken...@concentric.net> wrote:
I agree it's an outrage and believe you liberals should call for a
full investigation of Dan Quayle.
C. L. Williams
kenfran <ken...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Alan Bomberger wrote:
>>
>> In article <5fdakr$8...@garcia.efn.org>, gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier) wrote:
>>
>> > >The Democrats clearly have problems when they have to go back ten or
>> > >fifteen years to divert attention from today's headlines.
>> >
>> >
>> > >C.L. Williams
>> >
>> > And C.L. here can't refute anything said about Reagan, so this lame
>> > diversionary tactic is what he comes up with instead.
>>
>> So the Reagan administration violated the law? There was an
>> investigation, trials, convictions. What is the point? The
>> Clinton administration is violating the law. Let's get to
>> the investigations, trials, and convictions.
>The news just came out that during Bush's re-election campaign, big
>donors were invited to dinner at Quayle's official residence, the Naval
>Observatory. Let's get on to the investigations, trials, and
>convictions.
I agree. You liberals should call for a full investigation of Quayle.
Write a letter to the editor.
Alan Bomberger
> Michael Zarlenga wrote:
> >
> > kenfran (ken...@concentric.net) wrote:
> > : The news just came out that during Bush's re-election campaign, big
> > : donors were invited to dinner at Quayle's official residence, the Naval
> > : Observatory. Let's get on to the investigations, trials, and
> > : convictions.
> >
> > Did Quayle use the residence to fund raise?
>
> When a letter from the campaign committee says that big donors will be
> invited ti dinner with the VP, the answer is simple--YES.
> >
> > Did he sit in that office and strong arm donors like Gore did?
>
> He gave them a little o9f the old soft shoe.
The ruling during Carter administration was that it was ok in
residences but not ok in offices. The WhiteHouse is clearly
a mixed use building but there are parts that are clearly
offices.
Alan Bomberger
> Gee, here all you conservatives were making a big deal of it when
> Clinton invited donors to the White House. But it perfectly fine with
> you to have Quayle invite donors to his official residence.
> You have just demonstrated a perfect case of subjective morality.
> (That's the stuff you accuse liberals of teaching in school.)
Not all conservatives. Entertaining in the residence has been
ruled ok (during Carter). Sleazy, and wrong, even for Quayle
but not illegal. Besides, Quayle isn't in office now, you missed
your chance to whine about him :)
So far Gore is in deep doo doo and Clinton is just sleazy on
a GRAND scale.
There may be Hatch Act violations associated with Clinton people
but, alas, that doesn't apply to Clinton himself. Sigh...
Josh J Fielek
In article <5fi20s$3...@paperboy.ids.net>,
Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>kenfran (ken...@concentric.net) wrote:
>: > Did Quayle use the residence to fund raise?
>
>: When a letter from the campaign committee says that big donors will be
>
>I disagree.
>
>Inviting people to dinner with the VP after they give money
>is one thing, calling them from the VP's residence and asking
>for money is another.
Actually, Gore called from the Whitehouse VP office. Calling from the
VP residence would have been legal.
J
--
Joshua J. Fielek DoD#385 AMA#517381 WERA#968 The Garage of Xanadu:
j...@inri.com 1981 R80G/S-PD* 1990 906 Paso(Ayeka)*
Strive to avoid the mistakes of the 1975 RD350 1990 EX500(cold backup)
past -- come up with new ones on your own! 1988 EX500* 198X Aero 80(Turbo)*
kenfran
Alan Bomberger wrote:
>
> In article <331CE1...@concentric.net>, ken...@concentric.net wrote:
>
> > Gee, here all you conservatives were making a big deal of it when
> > Clinton invited donors to the White House. But it perfectly fine with
> > you to have Quayle invite donors to his official residence.
> > You have just demonstrated a perfect case of subjective morality.
> > (That's the stuff you accuse liberals of teaching in school.)
>
> Not all conservatives. Entertaining in the residence has been
> ruled ok (during Carter). Sleazy, and wrong, even for Quayle
> but not illegal. Besides, Quayle isn't in office now, you missed
> your chance to whine about him :)
>
> So far Gore is in deep doo doo and Clinton is just sleazy on
> a GRAND scale.
>
> There may be Hatch Act violations associated with Clinton people
> but, alas, that doesn't apply to Clinton himself. Sigh...
>
broken. As long as the contributor was not solicited to bring the
contribution to the official building and the contribution was handed
over to the DNC, it was legal.
Alan Bomberger
> Thanks to the posting of the law, it is obvious that the law was not
> broken. As long as the contributor was not solicited to bring the
> contribution to the official building and the contribution was handed
> over to the DNC, it was legal.
Oh, you mean Maggie... Well... about solicitation. Had she said
"No I can't do that" and stopped, I would agree with you. But she
said .. "but you can write a check for the DNC"... and _that_
is solitication. She broke the law. Gore broke the law.
kenfran
Dave Mosier wrote:
>
> kenfran wrote:
> >
> > Alan Bomberger wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <331CE1...@concentric.net>, ken...@concentric.net wrote:
> > >
> > > > Gee, here all you conservatives were making a big deal of it when
> > > > Clinton invited donors to the White House. But it perfectly fine with
> > > > you to have Quayle invite donors to his official residence.
> > > > You have just demonstrated a perfect case of subjective morality.
> > > > (That's the stuff you accuse liberals of teaching in school.)
> > >
> > > Not all conservatives. Entertaining in the residence has been
> > > ruled ok (during Carter). Sleazy, and wrong, even for Quayle
> > > but not illegal. Besides, Quayle isn't in office now, you missed
> > > your chance to whine about him :)
> > >
> > > So far Gore is in deep doo doo and Clinton is just sleazy on
> > > a GRAND scale.
> > >
> > > There may be Hatch Act violations associated with Clinton people
> > > but, alas, that doesn't apply to Clinton himself. Sigh...
> > >
> > broken. As long as the contributor was not solicited to bring the
> > contribution to the official building and the contribution was handed
> > over to the DNC, it was legal.
>
> *WHILE ON* government property.
unless the aceptor did not solicit it to be delivered there, and if it
was passed on to the DNC
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
Dave Mosier <ldmo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Well have you got a jail large enough to hold all those repuke house
members who gladly acceptted lobbying money on the floor of the house?
Eleanor Rotthoff
Dave Mosier <ldmo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>kenfran wrote:
But you apparently haven't heard Maggie Williams' creative explanation
for this incident. It seems that she didn't "accept" the money or
"receive" it; she just "handled" it and promptly turned the money over
to the DNC. As a lawyer I have to admit that I am totally baffled
about the distinction between "receiving" or "accepting" money, on the
one hand, and "handling" it on the other.
If this is some sort of valid legal distinction, however, it has
interesting implications. Can I tell IRS on April 15 that I didn't
"receive" my 1996 income -- that I merely "handled" it and promptly
turned it over to my creditors (including a large chunk to various
levels of government)? If so, under the Williams theory, I should
have no federal tax liability for '96. I think I like it. <BG>
Eleanor Rotthoff
Dave Mosier
That's quite the interesting point you raise, but somehow I get the
feeling that Clinton and his associates consider themselves above
the law.
Dave Mosier
kenfran wrote:
>
> Dave Mosier wrote:
> >
> > kenfran wrote:
> > >
> > > Alan Bomberger wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <331CE1...@concentric.net>, ken...@concentric.net wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Gee, here all you conservatives were making a big deal of it when
> > > > > Clinton invited donors to the White House. But it perfectly fine with
> > > > > you to have Quayle invite donors to his official residence.
> > > > > You have just demonstrated a perfect case of subjective morality.
> > > > > (That's the stuff you accuse liberals of teaching in school.)
> > > >
> > > > Not all conservatives. Entertaining in the residence has been
> > > > ruled ok (during Carter). Sleazy, and wrong, even for Quayle
> > > > but not illegal. Besides, Quayle isn't in office now, you missed
> > > > your chance to whine about him :)
> > > >
> > > > So far Gore is in deep doo doo and Clinton is just sleazy on
> > > > a GRAND scale.
> > > >
> > > > There may be Hatch Act violations associated with Clinton people
> > > > but, alas, that doesn't apply to Clinton himself. Sigh...
> > > >
> > > broken. As long as the contributor was not solicited to bring the
> > > contribution to the official building and the contribution was handed
> > > over to the DNC, it was legal.
> >
> > Oh please! The law forbids *ACCEPTING* campaign contributions
> > *WHILE ON* government property.
> was passed on to the DNC
It's obvious to me that you have no problems with Democrats breaking
the law, but you do have problems with Republicans breaking the law.
The fact is, *ACCEPTING* contributions on gov't property is against
the law, no exceptions, period. That is a blatant misuse of federal
property. If you're going to defend the Clinton/Gore fundraising
practices, then the least you could do is stop bitching about Dan
Quayle accepting contributions on his residential property.
RHA
In article <33219608...@news.io.com>,
Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>Dave Mosier <ldmo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>kenfran wrote:
>
>>> broken. As long as the contributor was not solicited to bring the
>>> contribution to the official building and the contribution was handed
>>> over to the DNC, it was legal.
>>
>>Oh please! The law forbids *ACCEPTING* campaign contributions
>>*WHILE ON* government property.
>
>for this incident. It seems that she didn't "accept" the money or
>"receive" it; she just "handled" it and promptly turned the money over
>to the DNC. As a lawyer I have to admit that I am totally baffled
>about the distinction between "receiving" or "accepting" money, on the
>one hand, and "handling" it on the other.
OK, lets try this: You find in your mailbox a letter addressed to
to your neighbor. If you take the letter out, has the letter been
received? Are you merely handling it when you walk over and give
it to your neighbor?
BTW, unless you can show campaign checks fall under Ms. Williams'
duties, I'm willing to accept that she innocently acted as a
conduit. She possibly shouldn't have taken it, but she didn't
know it was improper.
>
>If this is some sort of valid legal distinction, however, it has
>interesting implications. Can I tell IRS on April 15 that I didn't
>"receive" my 1996 income -- that I merely "handled" it and promptly
>turned it over to my creditors (including a large chunk to various
>levels of government)? If so, under the Williams theory, I should
>have no federal tax liability for '96. I think I like it. <BG>
Too bad, constructive receipt! Show Ms. Williams represented
constructive receipt. Was it an expected duty of hers, to accept
campaign checks?
>
>Eleanor Rotthoff
--
rha
kenfran
Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:
>
> Dave Mosier <ldmo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >kenfran wrote:
>
> >> Thanks to the posting of the law, it is obvious that the law was not
> >> broken. As long as the contributor was not solicited to bring the
> >> contribution to the official building and the contribution was handed
> >> over to the DNC, it was legal.
> >
> >Oh please! The law forbids *ACCEPTING* campaign contributions
> >*WHILE ON* government property.
>
> But you apparently haven't heard Maggie Williams' creative explanation
> for this incident. It seems that she didn't "accept" the money or
> "receive" it; she just "handled" it and promptly turned the money over
> to the DNC. As a lawyer I have to admit that I am totally baffled
> about the distinction between "receiving" or "accepting" money, on the
> one hand, and "handling" it on the other.
>
> interesting implications. Can I tell IRS on April 15 that I didn't
> "receive" my 1996 income -- that I merely "handled" it and promptly
> turned it over to my creditors (including a large chunk to various
> levels of government)? If so, under the Williams theory, I should
> have no federal tax liability for '96. I think I like it. <BG>
>
If you read more than part a of the statute, you would see that it makes
an exception for money not solicited to be delivered to the gov't
building, if the money is handed over to a political committee within a
week.
Glad I don't have you for an attorney, Eleanor.
kenfran
Dave Mosier wrote:
>
> kenfran wrote:
> >
> > Dave Mosier wrote:
> > >
> > > kenfran wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Alan Bomberger wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <331CE1...@concentric.net>, ken...@concentric.net wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Gee, here all you conservatives were making a big deal of it when
> > > > > > Clinton invited donors to the White House. But it perfectly fine with
> > > > > > you to have Quayle invite donors to his official residence.
> > > > > > You have just demonstrated a perfect case of subjective morality.
> > > > > > (That's the stuff you accuse liberals of teaching in school.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Not all conservatives. Entertaining in the residence has been
> > > > > ruled ok (during Carter). Sleazy, and wrong, even for Quayle
> > > > > but not illegal. Besides, Quayle isn't in office now, you missed
> > > > > your chance to whine about him :)
> > > > >
> > > > > So far Gore is in deep doo doo and Clinton is just sleazy on
> > > > > a GRAND scale.
> > > > >
> > > > > There may be Hatch Act violations associated with Clinton people
> > > > > but, alas, that doesn't apply to Clinton himself. Sigh...
> > > > >
> > > > broken. As long as the contributor was not solicited to bring the
> > > > contribution to the official building and the contribution was handed
> > > > over to the DNC, it was legal.
> > >
> > > Oh please! The law forbids *ACCEPTING* campaign contributions
> > > *WHILE ON* government property.
> > was passed on to the DNC
>
> It's obvious to me that you have no problems with Democrats breaking
> the law, but you do have problems with Republicans breaking the law.
>
> The fact is, *ACCEPTING* contributions on gov't property is against
> the law, no exceptions, period. That is a blatant misuse of federal
> property. If you're going to defend the Clinton/Gore fundraising
> practices, then the least you could do is stop bitching about Dan
> Quayle accepting contributions on his residential property.
Read the law. Part a says it is illegal, Part b says except when the
money was not solicited to be delivered to the building, and was turned
over to a political committee within a week.
So much for your "no exceptions, period."
Paul H. Henry
In article <3320BA...@earthlink.net>, Dave Mosier
<ldmo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[...]
] Oh please! The law forbids *ACCEPTING* campaign contributions
] *WHILE ON* government property.
And yet, it's amazing how our conservative friends didn't manage to work
themselves into this kind of sputtering rage when John Boehner handed out
checks from the tobacco lobby to his Republican pals on the House floor.
--
=============================================================================
_ (phe...@halcyon.com) || Federal funds spent since last October to
|_) || gild Newt Gingrich's office ceiling, gold
| aul H. Henry - Seattle, Wash.|| excluded: $40,400 (Harper's Index, 3/97)
========== My Home Page Is Back! http://www.halcyon.com/phenry/ ==========
Eleanor Rotthoff
ri...@praline.no.neosoft.com (RHA) wrote:
> OK, lets try this: You find in your mailbox a letter addressed to
> to your neighbor. If you take the letter out, has the letter been
> received? Are you merely handling it when you walk over and give
> it to your neighbor?
You "analogy" is simply inapt because in the hypothetical you
construct I have absolutely no control over what is put in my mailbox.
In Ms. Williams' situation, she was quite free to say, "Accepting
campaign contributions in the White House is inappropriate, not to
mention illegal. As thrilled as I am about your desire to contribute,
I must ask you to deliver your check directly to the DNC."
> BTW, unless you can show campaign checks fall under Ms. Williams'
> duties,
It's beginning to look as though that was a part of *everybody's* job
description in this administration.
>I'm willing to accept that she innocently acted as a
> conduit. She possibly shouldn't have taken it, but she didn't
> know it was improper.
Abner Mikva has said publicly that during his tenure as White House
counsel he issued a memorandum pointing out flatly that fundraising
(including accepting contributions) at the White House was absolutely
illegal and must under no circumstances be done. Maggie Williams was
serving as the First Lady's Chief of Staff during the entire time when
Mikva was serving as counsel. One must assume therefore that she
received a copy of his memo. On what do you base your assertion that
she "didn't know it was improper"?
Eleanor Rotthoff
Shawn
kenfran wrote:
>
> Dave Mosier wrote:
> >
> > kenfran wrote:
> > >
> > > Dave Mosier wrote:
> > > >
> > > > kenfran wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Alan Bomberger wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In article <331CE1...@concentric.net>, ken...@concentric.net wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Gee, here all you conservatives were making a big deal of it when
> > > > > > > Clinton invited donors to the White House. But it perfectly fine with
> > > > > > > you to have Quayle invite donors to his official residence.
> > > > > > > You have just demonstrated a perfect case of subjective morality.
> > > > > > > (That's the stuff you accuse liberals of teaching in school.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not all conservatives. Entertaining in the residence has been
> > > > > > ruled ok (during Carter). Sleazy, and wrong, even for Quayle
> > > > > > but not illegal. Besides, Quayle isn't in office now, you missed
> > > > > > your chance to whine about him :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So far Gore is in deep doo doo and Clinton is just sleazy on
> > > > > > a GRAND scale.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There may be Hatch Act violations associated with Clinton people
> > > > > > but, alas, that doesn't apply to Clinton himself. Sigh...
> > > > > >
> > > > > Thanks to the posting of the law, it is obvious that the law was not
> > > > > broken. As long as the contributor was not solicited to bring the
> > > > > contribution to the official building and the contribution was handed
> > > > > over to the DNC, it was legal.
> > > >
> > > > *WHILE ON* government property.
> > > was passed on to the DNC
> >
> > It's obvious to me that you have no problems with Democrats breaking
> > the law, but you do have problems with Republicans breaking the law.
> >
> > The fact is, *ACCEPTING* contributions on gov't property is against
> > the law, no exceptions, period. That is a blatant misuse of federal
> > property. If you're going to defend the Clinton/Gore fundraising
> > practices, then the least you could do is stop bitching about Dan
> > Quayle accepting contributions on his residential property.
>
> Read the law. Part a says it is illegal, Part b says except when the
> money was not solicited to be delivered to the building, and was turned
> over to a political committee within a week.
> So much for your "no exceptions, period."
Gore is making "strongarm" solicitation phone calls as well as the DNC
gang from China and yet you don't believe the money was solicited? Earth
to Kenfran your fantasy world is crumbling.
sws...@home.com
On Son, 09. M=E4r 1997 09:36 Uhr, Paul H. Henry
<mailto:phe...@halcyon.com> wrote:
> In article <3320BA...@earthlink.net>, Dave Mosier
> <ldmo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> ] *WHILE ON* government property.
>
work
> themselves into this kind of sputtering rage when John Boehner
handed out
> checks from the tobacco lobby to his Republican pals on the House
floor.
>
Since it seems that there is a law against accepting money on
government property, then I assume that if they got in a car and drove
around the block a couple of times and exchanged the money this would
be OK. PLEASE! This is a stupid ass law anyway... being enforced and
used at this time to try and tear down the popularity of the one that
took the White House from the Repubs. and kept it for a second term
for the first time since Roosevelt. Gosh! We aren't a little sore
about loosing are we? :-) Dole was a jerk anyway... quite lame
indeed. Try to get a real winner to run, like Powell and you might
win! I might even vote for him for one reason. He was willing to stand
in the Republican Convention and state his opinions about welfare and
abortion, even though it was at odds with the religious right... even
to the point of getting booed! This means the religios right will not
have a strangle hold on him... and this is the key thing that drives
me away from the Reublican Party. Dump the religious right, and I bet
the Repubs. will win a lot more elections.
kenfran
> > > > > *WHILE ON* government property.
> > > > was passed on to the DNC
> > >
> > > It's obvious to me that you have no problems with Democrats breaking
> > > the law, but you do have problems with Republicans breaking the law.
> > >
> > > The fact is, *ACCEPTING* contributions on gov't property is against
> > > the law, no exceptions, period. That is a blatant misuse of federal
> > > property. If you're going to defend the Clinton/Gore fundraising
> > > practices, then the least you could do is stop bitching about Dan
> > > Quayle accepting contributions on his residential property.
> >
> > Read the law. Part a says it is illegal, Part b says except when the
> > money was not solicited to be delivered to the building, and was turned
> > over to a political committee within a week.
> > So much for your "no exceptions, period."
>
> Gore is making "strongarm" solicitation phone calls as well as the DNC
> gang from China and yet you don't believe the money was solicited? Earth
> to Kenfran your fantasy world is crumbling.
Learn to read. "Solicited to be delivered to the building." That means
that the person who solicited the money asked for it to be delivered to
the building, as opposed to the contributor bringing it there on his
own. The law says it is legal if there was no request to bring the
money to the building, and the money was turned over to the political
committee within a week. Is your reading comprehension up to dealing
with that, or are you just gonna say "DUH" again?
Claude Akins
kenfran wrote:
>
> Alan Bomberger wrote:
> >
> > In article <331CE1...@concentric.net>, ken...@concentric.net wrote:
> >
> > > Gee, here all you conservatives were making a big deal of it when
> > > Clinton invited donors to the White House. But it perfectly fine with
> > > you to have Quayle invite donors to his official residence.
> > > You have just demonstrated a perfect case of subjective morality.
> > > (That's the stuff you accuse liberals of teaching in school.)
> >
> > Not all conservatives. Entertaining in the residence has been
> > ruled ok (during Carter). Sleazy, and wrong, even for Quayle
> > but not illegal. Besides, Quayle isn't in office now, you missed
> > your chance to whine about him :)
> >
> > So far Gore is in deep doo doo and Clinton is just sleazy on
> > a GRAND scale.
> >
> > There may be Hatch Act violations associated with Clinton people
> > but, alas, that doesn't apply to Clinton himself. Sigh...
> >
> Thanks to the posting of the law, it is obvious that the law was not
> broken. As long as the contributor was not solicited to bring the
> contribution to the official building and the contribution was handed
> over to the DNC, it was legal.
Legal-as in Gore accepting foreign donations?
Dave Mosier
Shawn wrote:
>
> kenfran wrote:
> >
> > Dave Mosier wrote:
> > >
> > > kenfran wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dave Mosier wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > *WHILE ON* government property.
> > > > unless the aceptor did not solicit it to be delivered there, and if it
> > > > was passed on to the DNC
> > >
> > > It's obvious to me that you have no problems with Democrats breaking
> > > the law, but you do have problems with Republicans breaking the law.
> > >
> > > The fact is, *ACCEPTING* contributions on gov't property is against
> > > the law, no exceptions, period. That is a blatant misuse of federal
> > > property. If you're going to defend the Clinton/Gore fundraising
> > > practices, then the least you could do is stop bitching about Dan
> > > Quayle accepting contributions on his residential property.
> >
> > Read the law. Part a says it is illegal, Part b says except when the
> > money was not solicited to be delivered to the building, and was turned
> > over to a political committee within a week.
> > So much for your "no exceptions, period."
>
> Gore is making "strongarm" solicitation phone calls as well as the DNC
> gang from China and yet you don't believe the money was solicited? Earth
> to Kenfran your fantasy world is crumbling.
Shawn,
He's in denial. It's getting harder and harder for him to admit that
Democrats are capable of doing wrong things. Look at the lengths he
goes to to rationalize their behavior. I've never seen anyone reach
that far before....hell, the San Jose Mercury Views is even condemning
DNC fundraising practices.
Dave Mosier
If you know so much about the law, how come you haven't sued K-Mart for
those ADA violations you were telling me about in a previous post?
Second, if Gore is within the law, how come he's not hanging on to the
money? How come he's returning it? How come the DNC is returning
*millions* of dollars if it's all within the law? Why would they return
the money if it was obtained by legal means?
And, how come you have a problem with Quayle accepting money in his
private residence, but you don't have a problem with the
Clinton/Gore/DNC fundraising practices? Is it because you judge
Democrats by a different standard than you judge Republicans by?
Eleanor Rotthoff
kenfran <ken...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Learn to read. "Solicited to be delivered to the building." That means
>that the person who solicited the money asked for it to be delivered to
>the building, as opposed to the contributor bringing it there on his
>own. The law says it is legal if there was no request to bring the
>money to the building, and the money was turned over to the political
>committee within a week. Is your reading comprehension up to dealing
>with that, or are you just gonna say "DUH" again?
18 USC Sec. 607 reads as follows:
"(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or receive any
contribution within the meaning of section 301(8) of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971 in any room or building occupied in the
discharge of official duties by any person mentioned in section 603,
or in any navy yard, fort, or arsenal. Any person who violates this
section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
three years, or both."
The language to which you refer is contained in subsection (b) of
section 607 which refers *only* to "the receipt of contributions by
persons on the staff of a Senator or Representative". In other words,
a congressional staffer who receives a campaign contribution in the
mail isn't breaking the law as long as it wasn't solicited to be sent
in and is promptly turned over to the appropriate destination. Makes
sense, doesn't it? But the exception refers only to congressional
staffers, not to anyone else. Subsection (a) on the other hand refers
to "any person".
Eleanor Rotthoff
Michael Zarlenga
sws...@home.com wrote:
: Since it seems that there is a law against accepting money on
: government property, then I assume that if they got in a car and drove
: around the block a couple of times and exchanged the money this would
: be OK. PLEASE! This is a stupid ass law anyway... being enforced and
: used at this time to try and tear down the popularity of the one that
: took the White House from the Repubs. and kept it for a second term
: for the first time since Roosevelt. Gosh! We aren't a little sore
Yeah, it's all a GOP ploy to persecute the most ethical man in
White House ever. Poor Clinton. Boo hoo ...
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
Willie "Because that's where the money is" Sutton for Congress.
At least with him at the FICA helm you EXPECT to get robbed.
Ian L. Bayne
sws...@home.com wrote:
>
> On Son, 09. Mär 1997 09:36 Uhr, Paul H. Henry
> <mailto:phe...@halcyon.com> wrote:
> > In article <3320BA...@earthlink.net>, Dave Mosier
> > <ldmo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > ] *WHILE ON* government property.
> >
> > And yet, it's amazing how our conservative friends didn't manage to
> work
> > themselves into this kind of sputtering rage when John Boehner
> handed out
> > checks from the tobacco lobby to his Republican pals on the House
> floor.
> >
>
> government property, then I assume that if they got in a car and drove
> around the block a couple of times and exchanged the money this would
> be OK. PLEASE! This is a stupid ass law anyway... being enforced and
> used at this time to try and tear down the popularity of the one that
> took the White House from the Repubs. and kept it for a second term
> for the first time since Roosevelt. Gosh! We aren't a little sore
The fact of the matter is that
1. We have laws
2. Those laws were broken by the White House staff and the President
The president really doesn't believe that he is subject to American law,
or subject to civil suits, or ANYTHING.
The Vice President goes around blasting Republicans for believing the
right to smoke is covered in your personal freedoms. He attacks
Republicans for accepting tobacco firm money.
YET, for TWO YEARS FOLLOWING the death of his sister "due to smoking",
he owned a tobacco farm, and accepted money himself from tobacco
lobbyists.
And talking about Clinton and the DNC, the RNC has had to return ZERO
dollars due to questionable sources, yet, every DAY the DNC is returning
hundreds of thousands of dollars after the fact, after they are
discovered by others.
The mere fact that the law is being broken questions the integrity and
honesty of the President and Vice President, now they're arguing with
the FBI over WHO was negligent in the passing of illegal wrong doing
involving the DNC..
ENOUGH is ENOUGH, we have a country to run, by the time this guy gets
his legal problems sorted through his term will be over.
I believe the most honerable thing for the country, would be for him and
his VP to step down until all of these legal issues are taken care of.
sws...@home.com
On Mon, 10. M=E4r 1997 22:20 Uhr, Dave Mosier
contributions
> > > > > *WHILE ON* government property.
Why are they returning money if no law was broken? Well, the same
reason a company re-calls a product that is suspected to have a
problem... ie; marketing.
sws...@home.com
--Cyberdog-AltBoundary-0006D4DD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Die, 11. M=E4r 1997 12:47 Uhr, Michael Zarlenga
<mailto:zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
> sws...@home.com wrote:
> : Since it seems that there is a law against accepting money on
> : government property, then I assume that if they got in a car and
drove
> : around the block a couple of times and exchanged the money this
would
> : be OK. PLEASE! This is a stupid ass law anyway... being enforced
and
> : used at this time to try and tear down the popularity of the one
that
> : took the White House from the Repubs. and kept it for a second
term
> : for the first time since Roosevelt. Gosh! We aren't a little sore
>
> Yeah, it's all a GOP ploy to persecute the most ethical man in
> White House ever. Poor Clinton. Boo hoo ...
>
> --
> -- Mike Zarlenga
> finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
>
> Willie "Because that's where the money is" Sutton for Congress.
> At least with him at the FICA helm you EXPECT to get robbed.
>
I never said he was the most ethical... my point is that if you want
to hold him to the fire for this, then you need to hold Bush to the
fire, and Reagan, and Gingrich, etc.... Because they have all done
questionable things. And, none of them deserve to be let off the hook
if you really want to persue truth.
--Cyberdog-AltBoundary-0006D4DD
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Cyberdog-MixedBoundary-0006D4DE"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--Cyberdog-MixedBoundary-0006D4DE
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<X-FONTSIZE><PARAM>12</PARAM><FONTFAMILY><PARAM>Geneva</PARAM>On Die,
11. M=E4r 1997 12:47 Uhr, </FONTFAMILY></X-FONTSIZE>
--Cyberdog-MixedBoundary-0006D4DE
Content-Type: application/X-url
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Description: Michael Zarlenga
bWFpbHRvOnphcmxlbmdhQGNvbmFuLmlkcy5uZXQ=
--Cyberdog-MixedBoundary-0006D4DE
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<X-FONTSIZE><PARAM>12</PARAM><FONTFAMILY><PARAM>Geneva</PARAM> wrote:
</FONTFAMILY></X-FONTSIZE><X-FONTSIZE><PARAM>12</PARAM><FONTFAMILY><PAR=
AM>Geneva</PARAM>
</FONTFAMILY></X-FONTSIZE><X-FONTSIZE><PARAM>12</PARAM><FONTFAMILY><PAR=
AM>Geneva</PARAM>> sws...@home.com wrote:
> : Since it seems that there is a law against accepting money on
> : government property, then I assume that if they got in a car and
drove
> : around the block a couple of times and exchanged the money this
would
> : be OK. PLEASE! This is a stupid ass law anyway... being enforced
and
> : used at this time to try and tear down the popularity of the one
that
> : took the White House from the Repubs. and kept it for a second
term
> : for the first time since Roosevelt. Gosh! We aren't a little sore
>
> Yeah, it's all a GOP ploy to persecute the most ethical man in
> White House ever. Poor Clinton. Boo hoo ...
>
> --
> -- Mike Zarlenga
> finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
>
> Willie "Because that's where the money is" Sutton for Congress.
> At least with him at the FICA helm you EXPECT to get robbed.
> </FONTFAMILY></X-FONTSIZE><X-FONTSIZE><PARAM>12</PARAM><FONTFAMILY><P=
ARAM>Geneva</PARAM>
I never said he was the most ethical... my point is that if you want
to hold him to the fire for this, then you need to hold Bush to the
fire, and Reagan, and Gingrich, etc.... Because they have all done
questionable things. And, none of them deserve to be let off the hook
if you really want to persue truth.</FONTFAMILY></X-FONTSIZE>
--Cyberdog-MixedBoundary-0006D4DE--
--Cyberdog-AltBoundary-0006D4DD--
kenfran
"illegal" activity, but also "improper" activity on the part of both
parties, and including congress.
RHA
In article <3325a410...@news.io.com>,
Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>kenfran <ken...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>>Learn to read. "Solicited to be delivered to the building." That means
>>that the person who solicited the money asked for it to be delivered to
>>the building, as opposed to the contributor bringing it there on his
>>own. The law says it is legal if there was no request to bring the
>>money to the building, and the money was turned over to the political
>>committee within a week. Is your reading comprehension up to dealing
>>with that, or are you just gonna say "DUH" again?
>
>18 USC Sec. 607 reads as follows:
>
>"(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or receive any
Give the legal meaning of "receive".
>contribution within the meaning of section 301(8) of the Federal
>Election Campaign Act of 1971 in any room or building occupied in the
>discharge of official duties by any person mentioned in section 603,
>or in any navy yard, fort, or arsenal. Any person who violates this
>section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
>three years, or both."
>
>The language to which you refer is contained in subsection (b) of
>section 607 which refers *only* to "the receipt of contributions by
>persons on the staff of a Senator or Representative". In other words,
>a congressional staffer who receives a campaign contribution in the
>mail isn't breaking the law as long as it wasn't solicited to be sent
>in and is promptly turned over to the appropriate destination. Makes
>sense, doesn't it? But the exception refers only to congressional
>staffers, not to anyone else. Subsection (a) on the other hand refers
>to "any person".
>
>Eleanor Rotthoff
--
rha
RHA
In article <33232485...@news.io.com>,
Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>ri...@praline.no.neosoft.com (RHA) wrote:
>
>> OK, lets try this: You find in your mailbox a letter addressed to
>> to your neighbor. If you take the letter out, has the letter been
>> received? Are you merely handling it when you walk over and give
>> it to your neighbor?
>
>You "analogy" is simply inapt because in the hypothetical you
>construct I have absolutely no control over what is put in my mailbox.
Yesterday I thought you had handed me my head. But lo, Burden of
Proof comes along. What happened? A federal campaign law attorney
uses my mailbox example (and doesn't even resort to wrong address)
and concludes Ms. Williams' action is within the law. Oh, you
may bitch and complain, but he was a campaign lawyer and you ain't.
I'll go with the expert. Oh, I taped the show, want me to post
the exact words?
--
rha
sws...@home.com
On Die, 11. M=E4r 1997 12:57 Uhr, Ian L. Bayne> > On Son, 09. M=E4r 1997 09:36 Uhr, Paul H. Henry
> > <mailto:phe...@halcyon.com> wrote:
> > > In article <3320BA...@earthlink.net>, Dave Mosier
> > > <ldmo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > ] *WHILE ON* government property.
> > >
> > > And yet, it's amazing how our conservative friends didn't manage
to
> > work
> > > themselves into this kind of sputtering rage when John Boehner
> > handed out
> > > checks from the tobacco lobby to his Republican pals on the
House
> > floor.
> > >
> >
> > government property, then I assume that if they got in a car and
drove
> > around the block a couple of times and exchanged the money this
would
> > be OK. PLEASE! This is a stupid ass law anyway... being enforced
and
> > used at this time to try and tear down the popularity of the one
that
> > took the White House from the Repubs. and kept it for a second
term
> > for the first time since Roosevelt. Gosh! We aren't a little sore
But, that is exactly what all this hype is designed to do. It is
intended to keep the President from pursuing any course of action that
might result in real change for our country. In the best senario for
the Repubs. the President and Mr. Gore resign, then a strange silence
over all these *issues* would ensue. If they were replaced by another
Democrat they would now be the target of this *justified* scrutiny. If
they were so fortunate to have one of their own placed in the White
House they would stop trying to find dirt under every rug, while
persuing their own self interests- whether improper or not. I say that
if we are going to have this kind of mentality, the only fair thing to
do is decalre that all individuals that have ever held office be
declared inelligible for any futre office, that no company or
organization can contribute money to any campaign, that only the
voters for a particular office can contribute (no contributing to
campaigns you cannot vote in- as in other states besides your own),
that a maximum of $1,000 from any individual be the limit on
contributions, that PACs be outlawed, and that term limits be
implemented. This will get rid of the corruption you seem so disgusted
about within the White House.
mike...@austin.ibm.com
In article <AF4C279...@24.1.70.191>, sws...@home.com writes:
>
> But, that is exactly what all this hype is designed to do. It is
> intended to keep the President from pursuing any course of action that
> might result in real change for our country. In the best senario for
> the Repubs. the President and Mr. Gore resign, then a strange silence
> over all these *issues* would ensue. If they were replaced by another
> Democrat they would now be the target of this *justified* scrutiny. If
> they were so fortunate to have one of their own placed in the White
> House they would stop trying to find dirt under every rug, while
> persuing their own self interests- whether improper or not. I say that
> if we are going to have this kind of mentality, the only fair thing to
> do is decalre that all individuals that have ever held office be
> declared inelligible for any futre office, that no company or
> organization can contribute money to any campaign, that only the
> voters for a particular office can contribute (no contributing to
> campaigns you cannot vote in- as in other states besides your own),
> that a maximum of $1,000 from any individual be the limit on
> contributions, that PACs be outlawed, and that term limits be
> implemented. This will get rid of the corruption you seem so disgusted
> about within the White House.
>
>
I don't think that the American People are concerned so much about campaign
reform as the fact that the White House may be compromised to foreign powers
that don't have our best interest at heart.
What real change do you want to see? Concentration camps? Taxes out our butts.
What!!!. Clinton mostly seems to be concerned about where his next piece of ass
is comming from. While there are some sinister folks running around in the White
House and every government agency they can get into.
--
Michael (Mike) C. Dean
IBM - RISC/6000 Division
Austin, Texas.
Disclaimer - The opinions expressed in this append are mine alone.
Chip & Gabriela
kenfran wrote:
> > > > > > *WHILE ON* government property.
> > > > > was passed on to the DNC
> > > >
> > > > It's obvious to me that you have no problems with Democrats breaking
> > > > the law, but you do have problems with Republicans breaking the law.
> > > >
> > > > The fact is, *ACCEPTING* contributions on gov't property is against
> > > > the law, no exceptions, period. That is a blatant misuse of federal
> > > > property. If you're going to defend the Clinton/Gore fundraising
> > > > practices, then the least you could do is stop bitching about Dan
> > > > Quayle accepting contributions on his residential property.
> > >
> > > Read the law. Part a says it is illegal, Part b says except when the
> > > money was not solicited to be delivered to the building, and was turned
> > > over to a political committee within a week.
> > > So much for your "no exceptions, period."
> >
> > gang from China and yet you don't believe the money was solicited? Earth
> > to Kenfran your fantasy world is crumbling.
>
> that the person who solicited the money asked for it to be delivered to
> the building, as opposed to the contributor bringing it there on his
> own. The law says it is legal if there was no request to bring the
> money to the building, and the money was turned over to the political
> committee within a week. Is your reading comprehension up to dealing
> with that, or are you just gonna say "DUH" again?
It was only legal thru slight of hand. Illegality should not be
contestable when it comes to foreign donations to the DNC fund however.
Eleanor Rotthoff
ri...@praline.no.neosoft.com (RHA) wrote:
>Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>
>>You "analogy" is simply inapt because in the hypothetical you
>>construct I have absolutely no control over what is put in my mailbox.
>
> Yesterday I thought you had handed me my head.
I had no intention of doing that. If it came across that way, I'm
sorry.
> But lo, Burden of
> Proof comes along. What happened? A federal campaign law attorney
> uses my mailbox example (and doesn't even resort to wrong address)
> and concludes Ms. Williams' action is within the law.
On what basis did he reach that conclusion? Purely on the basis of
that analogy? Or did he have some precedent or additional analysis
which he was relying on?
> Oh, you
> may bitch and complain, but he was a campaign lawyer and you ain't.
Agreed wholeheartedly. But I still want to know what his basis was
for reaching that conclusion. If it was just the mailbox analogy,
then his specialized expertise doesn't come into play. That's pure
logic, and I'm sorry but the logic still isn't persuasive to me.
> I'll go with the expert. Oh, I taped the show, want me to post
> the exact words?
I'm not sure the exact words are necessary. But what was the
substance of his argument?
BTW Burden of Proof usually presents several different points of view
on the subject under discussion. Did everyone else agree with this
one lawyer? I heard a campaign finance lawyer announce solemnly the
other day that Al Gore's fundraising solicitation from the White House
"is in a gray area", which is simply absurd; but then that lawyer is a
Clinton supporter -- partisanship uber alles.
Eleanor Rotthoff
Eleanor Rotthoff
>>18 USC Sec. 607 reads as follows:
>>"(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or receive any
> Give the legal meaning of "receive".
There is no "legal meaning of 'receive'" if by that you mean some sort
of special meaning in law which differs from the ordinary meaning of
the term. Black's Law Dictionary defines the word as follows: "To
take into possession and control; to accept custody of; to collect."
That's the same meaning we attach to the word in ordinary
conversation, ne c'est pas?
Eleanor Rotthoff
RHA
In article <332984a...@news.io.com>,
Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>ri...@praline.no.neosoft.com (RHA) wrote:
>
>>Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>>
>>>construct I have absolutely no control over what is put in my mailbox.
>>
>> Yesterday I thought you had handed me my head.
>
>I had no intention of doing that. If it came across that way, I'm
>sorry.
I just meant "demolished my argument", no insult taken.
>
>> But lo, Burden of
>> Proof comes along. What happened? A federal campaign law attorney
>> uses my mailbox example (and doesn't even resort to wrong address)
>> and concludes Ms. Williams' action is within the law.
>
>On what basis did he reach that conclusion? Purely on the basis of
>that analogy? Or did he have some precedent or additional analysis
>which he was relying on?
>
>> Oh, you
>> may bitch and complain, but he was a campaign lawyer and you ain't.
>
>Agreed wholeheartedly. But I still want to know what his basis was
>for reaching that conclusion. If it was just the mailbox analogy,
>then his specialized expertise doesn't come into play. That's pure
>logic, and I'm sorry but the logic still isn't persuasive to me.
>
>> I'll go with the expert. Oh, I taped the show, want me to post
>> the exact words?
>
>I'm not sure the exact words are necessary. But what was the
>substance of his argument?
>
>BTW Burden of Proof usually presents several different points of view
>on the subject under discussion. Did everyone else agree with this
>one lawyer? I heard a campaign finance lawyer announce solemnly the
>other day that Al Gore's fundraising solicitation from the White House
>"is in a gray area", which is simply absurd; but then that lawyer is a
>Clinton supporter -- partisanship uber alles.
Read your own words: '..."is in a gray area", which is simply absurd;
but then that lawyer is a Clinton supporter -- partisanship uber
alles.' Just because someone supports Clinton, their professional
words become suspect? You're saying, then, everything you post
is hypocritical rubbish because you're a right-wing flunky. Right?
Lady, your maturity is suspect.
Yeah, here is where I really am teed off. Right-wingers live to
accuse. It would be great if I could read an intelligent and honest
right-winger, but I guess Hell should be expected to install
ski-lifts first.
--
rha
kenfran
the Senate Caucus Room, she was suddenly not sure if those would be
illegal. (Gray area absurd?)
In another post she was absolutely sure that the purpose of the law was
to prevent fund-raising on public property. In yet another post, it was
OK for Quayle to use his residence. (Public property notwithstanding)
But it was illegal, she says, for Gore to call from Clinton's residence.
(Residences are used for official business sometimes)
I would call this legal obfuscation. The lawyers write the laws so that
you have to hire a good lawyer (oxymoron?) to do anything without
violating the law.
Chip & Gabriela
sws...@home.com wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10. Mär 1997 22:20 Uhr, Dave Mosier
> for
> > those ADA violations you were telling me about in a previous post?
> >
> > Second, if Gore is within the law, how come he's not hanging on to
> the
> > money? How come he's returning it? How come the DNC is returning
> > *millions* of dollars if it's all within the law? Why would they
> return
> > the money if it was obtained by legal means?
> >
> > And, how come you have a problem with Quayle accepting money in his
> > private residence, but you don't have a problem with the
> > Clinton/Gore/DNC fundraising practices? Is it because you judge
> > Democrats by a different standard than you judge Republicans by?
> >
>
> Why are they returning money if no law was broken? Well, the same
> reason a company re-calls a product that is suspected to have a
> problem... ie; marketing.
Not a good argument Mr.swstark. Money was only "returned" after
scrutiny NOW! Not during and immediately after the campaign. What's
more, the DNC's reporting they can't fund the paybacks. I suppose IOU's
are being written. Explain DNC accepted foreign donations without
relying on McCurry's/Carvelle's/Gore's/Clinton's mealy-mouthed
explanations. Stick to facts.
kenfran
Chip & Gabriela wrote:
> =
> sws...@home.com wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 10. M=E4r 1997 22:20 Uhr, Dave Mosier
> > <mailto:ldmo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > kenfran wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dave Mosier wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > kenfran wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dave Mosier wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > kenfran wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alan Bomberger wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In article <331CE1...@concentric.net>,
> > > ken...@concentric.net wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Gee, here all you conservatives were making a big dea=
> > > > > > > > contribution to the official building and the contributio=
n
> > was
> > > handed
> > > > > > > > over to the DNC, it was legal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oh please! The law forbids *ACCEPTING* campaign
> > contributions
> > > > > > > *WHILE ON* government property.
> > > > > > unless the aceptor did not solicit it to be delivered there,
> > and if it
> > > > > > was passed on to the DNC
> > > > >
> > > > > It's obvious to me that you have no problems with Democrats
> > breaking
> > > > > the law, but you do have problems with Republicans breaking the=
> > law.
> > > > >
> > > > > The fact is, *ACCEPTING* contributions on gov't property is
> > against
> > > > > the law, no exceptions, period. That is a blatant misuse of
> > federal
> > > > > property. If you're going to defend the Clinton/Gore
> > fundraising
> > > > > practices, then the least you could do is stop bitching about
> > Dan
> > > > > Quayle accepting contributions on his residential property.
> > > >
> > > > Read the law. Part a says it is illegal, Part b says except when
> > the
> > > > money was not solicited to be delivered to the building, and was
> > turned
> > > > over to a political committee within a week.
> > > > So much for your "no exceptions, period."
> > >
> > > If you know so much about the law, how come you haven't sued K-Mart=
> > for
> > > those ADA violations you were telling me about in a previous post?
> > >
> > > Second, if Gore is within the law, how come he's not hanging on to
> > the
> > > money? How come he's returning it? How come the DNC is returning
> > > *millions* of dollars if it's all within the law? Why would they
> > return
> > > the money if it was obtained by legal means?
> > >
> > > And, how come you have a problem with Quayle accepting money in his=
> > > private residence, but you don't have a problem with the
> > > Clinton/Gore/DNC fundraising practices? Is it because you judge
> > > Democrats by a different standard than you judge Republicans by?
> > >
> >
> > Why are they returning money if no law was broken? Well, the same
> > reason a company re-calls a product that is suspected to have a
> > problem... ie; marketing.
> =
> Not a good argument Mr.swstark. Money was only "returned" after
> scrutiny NOW! Not during and immediately after the campaign. What's
> more, the DNC's reporting they can't fund the paybacks. I suppose IOU'=
s
> are being written. Explain DNC accepted foreign donations without
> relying on McCurry's/Carvelle's/Gore's/Clinton's mealy-mouthed
> explanations. Stick to facts.
Explain Dole and Nootie taking foreign donations from the Fanjuls. Look
it up. Nootie has a donation from Jose fanjul listed. Fanjul is a
Spanish citizen.
Eleanor Rotthoff
kenfran <ken...@concentric.net> wrote:
>In a reply to me on the RNC raising funds in the Library of Congress and
>the Senate Caucus Room, she was suddenly not sure if those would be
>illegal. (Gray area absurd?)
Yes, I pointed out to you that the statute refers to "any room or
building occupied in the discharge of official duties" and that, since
I have not researched the interpretation which has been given to that
language, I don't know whether the Library of Congress and the Senate
Caucus Room fall into that category or not. Offices do; residences
don't. My hunch is that the Library of Congress probably doesn't
(because it isn't "occupied in the discharge of official duties"), but
the Senate Caucus Room may, but that's just a hunch.
>In another post she was absolutely sure that the purpose of the law was
>to prevent fund-raising on public property.
What I said was that purpose of the statute was to prevent politicians
from using their taxpayer-funded offices for fundraising purposes.
Clearly, the statute (which has been posted verbatim a number of
times) does not refer to all public property.
>In yet another post, it was
>OK for Quayle to use his residence. (Public property notwithstanding)
Residences are not "occupied in the discharge of official duties", are
they? The law has been interpreted to exclude residences and, in the
case of the President, the residential portion of the White House.
That may strike some as hair-splitting, but the concept makes sense --
pols can do what they want to do in their own homes, but not in their
offices. If we require certain of them to live in official
residences, that is still their home and they should not be prohibited
from doing there what others can do in their homes.
.
>But it was illegal, she says, for Gore to call from Clinton's residence.
>(Residences are used for official business sometimes)
Gore didn't make his calls from Clinton's residence which would, I
gather, have been quite okay. He made the calls from his own office
in the White House. Clinton couldn't make such calls from the Oval
Office either.
>I would call this legal obfuscation. The lawyers write the laws so that
>you have to hire a good lawyer (oxymoron?) to do anything without
>violating the law.
No, kenfran, it isn't obfuscation at all. All criminal statutes are
written very precisely and construed very strictly, which is a good
thing. After all, we wouldn't want the cops running around willy
nilly arresting people on the basis of a bunch of loosey-goosey
language which might mean anything at all, would we?
Actually, this is a very simple statute. It only becomes complicated
when someone tries to make it apply to certain people and not to
others. If Quayle had made fundraising calls from his office in the
White House, he would have been in violation of the statute too. It
wasn't at all complicated to former White House counsel Abner Mikva
who circulated a memo at the White House saying flatly, "You can't do
it."
The only obfuscation floating around these days is in the explanations
which are offered for some of these actions -- like the supposed
distinction between "receiving" and "handling", and Jack Quinn's
notion that a fundraising solicitation by telephone actually solicits
only at the receiving end of the call, not the originating end.
*That* is creative lawyering.
Eleanor Rotthoff
Eleanor Rotthoff
ri...@praline.no.neosoft.com (RHA) wrote:
>Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>BTW Burden of Proof usually presents several different points of view
>>on the subject under discussion. Did everyone else agree with this
>>one lawyer? I heard a campaign finance lawyer announce solemnly the
>>other day that Al Gore's fundraising solicitation from the White House
>>"is in a gray area", which is simply absurd; but then that lawyer is a
>>Clinton supporter -- partisanship uber alles.
>
> Read your own words: '..."is in a gray area", which is simply absurd;
> but then that lawyer is a Clinton supporter -- partisanship uber
> alles.' Just because someone supports Clinton, their professional
> words become suspect?
Not at all, but IMHO one should always take a partisan's bias into
consideration in evaluating their comments -- not to disregard them,
but to factor the bias into the mix. And when the partisan makes a
statement that is absurd on its face, then partisanship may be the
explanation.
And the statement that the legality of Al Gore's conduct "is in a gray
area" (without even an attempt to explain why) is sufficiently absurd
to make one suspect that the speaker has let his partisanship run away
with him. The most plausible defense of this proposition which I have
heard is Jack Quinn's -- the notion that with a telephone
solicitation, the solicitation occurs at the site of the receiving end
of the telephone call, not the originating end of the call -- and
that's quite a stretch! A lawyer as talented and creative as Quinn
rarely has to reach that far.
> You're saying, then, everything you post
> is hypocritical rubbish because you're a right-wing flunky. Right?
No, but I definitely think that anyone reading my posts should
recognize that I have a point of view and take that into account. And
if my statements are absurd on their face, then it may be that I have
let my partisanship run amok. I try not to, but I'm human.
> Lady, your maturity is suspect.
Thanks tons. Ad hominem adds much to the discussion.
> Yeah, here is where I really am teed off. Right-wingers live to
> accuse. It would be great if I could read an intelligent and honest
> right-winger, but I guess Hell should be expected to install
> ski-lifts first.
Would it be regarded as an accusation (or too disruptive of your own
accusations) to point out that you didn't answer the questions I
posed. You said that a campaign finance lawyer had opined on Burden
of Proof that Maggie Williams' acceptance of the $50,000 campaign
contribution at the White House was perfectly legal. I asked you to
post for us his rationale. I also asked you if everyone on Burden of
Proof agreed with this lawyer. Would you like to answer the questions
now?
Eleanor Rotthoff
Eleanor Rotthoff
kenfran <ken...@concentric.net> wrote:
>In a reply to me on the RNC raising funds in the Library of Congress and
>the Senate Caucus Room, she was suddenly not sure if those would be
>illegal. (Gray area absurd?)
For what it's worth, an AP dispatch today quotes Larry Sabato, a
University of Virginia professor who has studied the campaign finance
system at great length, as expressing the opinion that these two
occurrences are entirely legal. According to Sabato, "It's crass, but
legal".
Eleanor Rotthoff
Chip & Gabriela
kenfran wrote:
> Explain Dole and Nootie taking foreign donations from the Fanjuls. Look
> it up. Nootie has a donation from Jose fanjul listed. Fanjul is a
> Spanish citizen.
Quote the news source, release date and their pedigree. Regardless, the
occupied Whitehouse was won by Clinton and is not immune from scrutiny
of foreign Asian & drug felon donations that were not only blatant(i.e.
multiple documented + allowed visits + photos) but not plausably
explained as to why we should believe Clinton was so "uninformed".
That's what the NSA's are for. The FBI informed the NSA and the NSA's
responsibility is to brief the president upon breakfast in the morning.
Chip & Gabriela
sws...@home.com wrote:
>
> On Die, 11. Mär 1997 12:57 Uhr, Ian L. Bayne> > > On Son, 09. Mär 1997 09:36 Uhr, Paul H. Henry
> > > <mailto:phe...@halcyon.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <3320BA...@earthlink.net>, Dave Mosier
> > > > <ldmo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > ] *WHILE ON* government property.
> > > >
> intended to keep the President from pursuing any course of action that
> might result in real change for our country. In the best senario for
> the Repubs. the President and Mr. Gore resign, then a strange silence
> over all these *issues* would ensue. If they were replaced by another
> Democrat they would now be the target of this *justified* scrutiny. If
> they were so fortunate to have one of their own placed in the White
> House they would stop trying to find dirt under every rug, while
> persuing their own self interests- whether improper or not. I say that
> if we are going to have this kind of mentality, the only fair thing to
> do is decalre that all individuals that have ever held office be
> declared inelligible for any futre office, that no company or
> organization can contribute money to any campaign, that only the
> voters for a particular office can contribute (no contributing to
> campaigns you cannot vote in- as in other states besides your own),
> that a maximum of $1,000 from any individual be the limit on
> contributions, that PACs be outlawed, and that term limits be
> implemented. This will get rid of the corruption you seem so disgusted
> about within the White House.
What level of corruption in the Whitehouse is acceptable to you for
the existing Clinton regime and what would YOU propose to do about it?
RHA
In article <332984d...@news.io.com>,
Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>ri...@praline.no.neosoft.com (RHA) wrote:
>>Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>"(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or receive any
>
>> Give the legal meaning of "receive".
>
>There is no "legal meaning of 'receive'" if by that you mean some sort
>of special meaning in law which differs from the ordinary meaning of
>the term. Black's Law Dictionary defines the word as follows: "To
>take into possession and control; to accept custody of; to collect."
>That's the same meaning we attach to the word in ordinary
>conversation, ne c'est pas?
Receive??? Did Ms. Williams "receive" the check? To use the
word "receive" (to me, at least) implies a rightful possession,
as in "she could legally cash it." I do not dispute she had
it physically, but she was moving it from person "A" to person "B".
So, to respond to *your* question, no, she didn't "receive it".
Now the question becomes: what does "control" and "custody" mean?
Ms. Williams do not "control" the check, she did not "collect"
the check. Did she take "possession", yes, but a limited type of
possession because she didn't have "control".
Let's examine a hypothetical question. I want to give you money.
I give my check to a secretary in the next office to yours and
ask her to give it to you, she loses it. Now I want you to return
the money *or* perform the task implicit in accepting my money
(a campaign contribution). Did you get my money? (As far as I know,
Ms. Williams did not work for Bill's campaign, Al's, nor the DNC.
She is the equivalent of a secretary in the next office.)
--
rha
Harold Brashears
ri...@praline.no.neosoft.com (RHA) wrote:
>In article <332984d...@news.io.com>,
>Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>>ri...@praline.no.neosoft.com (RHA) wrote:
>>>Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>18 USC Sec. 607 reads as follows:
>>
>>>>"(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or receive any
>>
>>> Give the legal meaning of "receive".
>>
>>There is no "legal meaning of 'receive'" if by that you mean some sort
>>of special meaning in law which differs from the ordinary meaning of
>>the term. Black's Law Dictionary defines the word as follows: "To
>>take into possession and control; to accept custody of; to collect."
>>That's the same meaning we attach to the word in ordinary
>>conversation, ne c'est pas?
>
> Receive??? Did Ms. Williams "receive" the check? To use the
> word "receive" (to me, at least) implies a rightful possession,
> as in "she could legally cash it."
In that case, your definition differs from that of the standard
dictionary and even Black's Law Dictionary. Why do you think there is
a difference?
> I do not dispute she had
> it physically, but she was moving it from person "A" to person "B".
This appears to be a very interesting redifinition of the English
language. By this logic, if "A" gives me a stolen radio, and I give
it to "B" at a later time, I never received the radio, thus am guilty
of no crime?
> So, to respond to *your* question, no, she didn't "receive it".
In your opinion.
> Now the question becomes: what does "control" and "custody" mean?
> Ms. Williams do not "control" the check,
I would say she did "control" the check. She decided to whom she
would give it and when. She controlled the use of the asset, at least
to the extent that, as long as it was in her hand, no one else had
access to it. In addition, of course, she could have controlled
whether she accepted it or not.
>she did not "collect"
> the check. Did she take "possession", yes, but a limited type of
> possession because she didn't have "control".
She could have eaten it, burned it, wiped her rear with it, decide who
and when to give it to someone, and you maintain she did not have
control solely because she could not cash it? A similar argument
would be that "A" gets a bike from a driveway, but they are not
physically capable of riding it, so they give it to "B", who can ride
it. Thus "A" is not guilty of stealing, because they could not use
the object of the theft?
> Let's examine a hypothetical question. I want to give you money.
> I give my check to a secretary in the next office to yours and
> ask her to give it to you, she loses it. Now I want you to return
> the money *or* perform the task implicit in accepting my money
> (a campaign contribution). Did you get my money? (As far as I know,
> Ms. Williams did not work for Bill's campaign, Al's, nor the DNC.
> She is the equivalent of a secretary in the next office.)
In this case, the secretary "received" the check, and held on to it
with the intent to give it to someone else later. The rest is a red
herring. It is not relevant that she lost the check. She, as a
government employee, took it on government property.
If this only happened once, I am not impressed, and do not think that
it is material. But there is no reason to try to further corrupte the
language to protect Clinton.
Regards, Harold
------
"The once-proud party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Al Smith,
Bobby Kennedy, Gore Vidal, Jimmy Breslin, Norman Mailer,
Mario Cuomo and Ed Koch is a mess, full of pipsqueaks,
opportunists, complainers and namby-pambys who are barely
able to project an image."
--Maureen Dowd, New York Times, 20 Feb 97
Frank Pittel
Dave Mosier (ldmo...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:
: >
: > Dave Mosier <ldmo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
: >
: > >kenfran wrote:
: >
: > >> Thanks to the posting of the law, it is obvious that the law was not
: > >> broken. As long as the contributor was not solicited to bring the
: > >> over to the DNC, it was legal.
: > >Oh please! The law forbids *ACCEPTING* campaign contributions
: > >*WHILE ON* government property.
: >
: > But you apparently haven't heard Maggie Williams' creative explanation
: > for this incident. It seems that she didn't "accept" the money or
: > "receive" it; she just "handled" it and promptly turned the money over
: > to the DNC. As a lawyer I have to admit that I am totally baffled
: > about the distinction between "receiving" or "accepting" money, on the
: > one hand, and "handling" it on the other.
: >
: > If this is some sort of valid legal distinction, however, it has
: > interesting implications. Can I tell IRS on April 15 that I didn't
: > "receive" my 1996 income -- that I merely "handled" it and promptly
: > turned it over to my creditors (including a large chunk to various
: > levels of government)? If so, under the Williams theory, I should
: > have no federal tax liability for '96. I think I like it. <BG>
: >
: > Eleanor Rotthoff
: That's quite the interesting point you raise, but somehow I get the
: feeling that Clinton and his associates consider themselves above
: the law.
AlGore already said the law didn't apply to them.
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
Eleanor Rotthoff
ri...@praline.no.neosoft.com (RHA) wrote:
> Receive??? Did Ms. Williams "receive" the check? To use the
> word "receive" (to me, at least) implies a rightful possession,
> as in "she could legally cash it."
I think you will find that, despite all attempts to split hairs,
neither in common usage nor in legalese does the word "receive"
connote legal ownership.
<snip>
Eleanor Rotthoff
Paul Havemann
RHA (ri...@praline.no.neosoft.com) sez:
: Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
:>ri...@praline.no.neosoft.com (RHA) wrote:
:>>Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
:>
:>>>18 USC Sec. 607 reads as follows:
:>
:>>>"(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or receive any
:>
:>> Give the legal meaning of "receive".
:>
:>There is no "legal meaning of 'receive'" if by that you mean some sort
:>of special meaning in law which differs from the ordinary meaning of
:>the term. Black's Law Dictionary defines the word as follows: "To
:>take into possession and control; to accept custody of; to collect."
:>That's the same meaning we attach to the word in ordinary
:>conversation, ne c'est pas?
: Receive??? Did Ms. Williams "receive" the check? To use the
: as in "she could legally cash it."
Boy, I'd hate to have seen you watching the Super Bowl. What, do you
suppose that when someone caught a kick, he could take the ball home --
or better yet, deposit the pigskin in his bank account? ;}
: I do not dispute she had
: it physically, but she was moving it from person "A" to person "B".
: So, to respond to *your* question, no, she didn't "receive it".
: Now the question becomes: what does "control" and "custody" mean?
: Ms. Williams do not "control" the check, she did not "collect"
: the check. Did she take "possession", yes, but a limited type of
: possession because she didn't have "control".
Split all the hairs you want, Rick; it only demonstrates how desperate
you are to continue apologizing for "the most ethical administration in
history." It's actually kind of sad, watching you contort yourself
this way.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Paul Havemann (pa...@hsh.com)
"It is wrong to raise money on the promise of guaranteeing
specific kinds of access. That is wrong and we have stopped that."
-- President Bill Clinton, August 4, 1995
"Mistakes were made..."
-- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 1997, finally admitting
that he and the DNC continued to 'raise money on the
promise of guaranteeing specific kinds of access.'
My Cross
erot...@io.com (Eleanor Rotthoff) purported:
>ri...@praline.no.neosoft.com (RHA) wrote:
>> Receive??? Did Ms. Williams "receive" the check? To use the
>> word "receive" (to me, at least) implies a rightful possession,
>> as in "she could legally cash it."
>I think you will find that, despite all attempts to split hairs,
>neither in common usage nor in legalese does the word "receive"
>connote legal ownership.
Au contraire - in accounting terms (and we _are_ talking about money),
there are definite definitions of what it means to "receive" money.
You need to deposit it - just getting the check doesn't count. For
legal purposes (primarily for the benefit of tax law), there is a
strict meaning. If you receive a check in the mail on December 29th,
there is a huge difference between depositing that check on December
31 and depositing it on January1.
C.H. Kelley
kenfran wrote:> > > On Mon, 10. Mär 1997 22:20 Uhr, Dave Mosier
> > > <mailto:ldmo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > kenfran wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dave Mosier wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > kenfran wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dave Mosier wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > kenfran wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Alan Bomberger wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In article <331CE1...@concentric.net>,
> > > > ken...@concentric.net wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > law was
> > > > not
> > > > > > > > > broken. As long as the contributor was not solicited to
> > > bring the
> > > > > > > > > contribution to the official building and the contribution
> > > was
> > > > handed
> > > > > > > > > over to the DNC, it was legal.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Oh please! The law forbids *ACCEPTING* campaign
> > > contributions
> > > > > > > > *WHILE ON* government property.
> > > and if it
> > > > > > > was passed on to the DNC
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's obvious to me that you have no problems with Democrats
> > > breaking
> > > > > > the law, but you do have problems with Republicans breaking the
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The fact is, *ACCEPTING* contributions on gov't property is
> > > against
> > > > > > the law, no exceptions, period. That is a blatant misuse of
> > > federal
> > > > > > property. If you're going to defend the Clinton/Gore
> > > fundraising
> > > > > > practices, then the least you could do is stop bitching about
> > > Dan
> > > > > > Quayle accepting contributions on his residential property.
> > > > >
> > > > > Read the law. Part a says it is illegal, Part b says except when
> > > the
> > > > > money was not solicited to be delivered to the building, and was
> > > turned
> > > > > over to a political committee within a week.
> > > > > So much for your "no exceptions, period."
> > > >
> > > > If you know so much about the law, how come you haven't sued K-Mart
> > > > those ADA violations you were telling me about in a previous post?
> > > >
> > > > Second, if Gore is within the law, how come he's not hanging on to
> > > the
> > > > money? How come he's returning it? How come the DNC is returning
> > > > *millions* of dollars if it's all within the law? Why would they
> > > return
> > > > the money if it was obtained by legal means?
> > > >
> > > > And, how come you have a problem with Quayle accepting money in his
> > > > Clinton/Gore/DNC fundraising practices? Is it because you judge
> > > > Democrats by a different standard than you judge Republicans by?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Why are they returning money if no law was broken? Well, the same
> > > reason a company re-calls a product that is suspected to have a
> > > problem... ie; marketing.
> >
> > scrutiny NOW! Not during and immediately after the campaign. What's
> > are being written. Explain DNC accepted foreign donations without
> > relying on McCurry's/Carvelle's/Gore's/Clinton's mealy-mouthed
> > explanations. Stick to facts.
> it up. Nootie has a donation from Jose fanjul listed. Fanjul is a
> Spanish citizen.
There's no violation of law here. The contribution was not solicited
on gov't property.
This is the same excuse you're using to defend Gore and Clinton.
Eleanor Rotthoff
myc...@mycross.com (My Cross) wrote:
>erot...@io.com (Eleanor Rotthoff) purported:
>>I think you will find that, despite all attempts to split hairs,
>>neither in common usage nor in legalese does the word "receive"
>>connote legal ownership.
>
>Au contraire - in accounting terms (and we _are_ talking about money),
>there are definite definitions of what it means to "receive" money.
I agree wholeheartedly that there are definite definitions of what it
means to "receive" money. I just don't agree that any of those
definitions, in accounting, in law, or in common usage, includes the
concept of ownership. For example, the law uses the term "receipt of
stolen goods" which clearly connotes "receiving" property which one
does not own.
>You need to deposit it - just getting the check doesn't count.
True enough. On the other hand, if you deposit a check which you have
received but to which you are not legally entitled, that's called
misappropriation of funds or, more bluntly, theft. Again, a clear
distinction between "receiving" and ownership.
>For legal purposes (primarily for the benefit of tax law), there is a
>strict meaning. If you receive a check in the mail on December 29th,
>there is a huge difference between depositing that check on December
>31 and depositing it on January1.
As a tax lawyer I quite understand the concept you're talking about,
but it's purely a timing issue -- a question of whether you received
the funds in one tax year or another. It has nothing whatever to do
with the issue of whether or not "to receive" also means "to own" or
"to have a legal right to". According to both the American Heritage
Dictionary and Black's Law Dictionary (not to mention various statutes
and case law interpretations), contrary to the previous poster's
assertion, it doesn't mean that.
Eleanor Rotthoff
My Cross
erot...@io.com (Eleanor Rotthoff) purported:
>myc...@mycross.com (My Cross) wrote:
>>erot...@io.com (Eleanor Rotthoff) purported:
>>>I think you will find that, despite all attempts to split hairs,
>>>neither in common usage nor in legalese does the word "receive"
>>>connote legal ownership.
>>
>>Au contraire - in accounting terms (and we _are_ talking about money),
>>there are definite definitions of what it means to "receive" money.
>I agree wholeheartedly that there are definite definitions of what it
>means to "receive" money. I just don't agree that any of those
>definitions, in accounting, in law, or in common usage, includes the
>concept of ownership. For example, the law uses the term "receipt of
>stolen goods" which clearly connotes "receiving" property which one
>does not own.
Hmmm... then are you trying to argue that the White House aide who
physically took possession of the check "owned" the money? Did she
"receive" it? When she took possession of the envelope, did that mean
the DNC had "received" it? Did they "own" it at that time?
Seems to me the DNC "received" it and "owned" it when the check cleard
the bank, and not before. Therefore, the WH aide was merely a conduit
and the DNC did not "receive" campaign money on federal property.
>>You need to deposit it - just getting the check doesn't count.
>True enough. On the other hand, if you deposit a check which you have
>received but to which you are not legally entitled, that's called
>misappropriation of funds or, more bluntly, theft. Again, a clear
>distinction between "receiving" and ownership.
??? If the check is signed and the bank cashes it, it's good and
you're entitled to it. How do you "steal" a check? Of course, I
guess you could modify the amount or something, but nothing like that
is even remotely involved in this case, so I'm having trouble
understanding what you mean.
>>For legal purposes (primarily for the benefit of tax law), there is a
>>strict meaning. If you receive a check in the mail on December 29th,
>>there is a huge difference between depositing that check on December
>>31 and depositing it on January1.
>As a tax lawyer I quite understand the concept you're talking about,
>but it's purely a timing issue -- a question of whether you received
>the funds in one tax year or another. It has nothing whatever to do
>with the issue of whether or not "to receive" also means "to own" or
>"to have a legal right to".
Sure it does - it has to do with _when_ you "received" and "have
ownership of" the money. Until it's deposited, you haven't received
it. Therefore the WH did not "receive" money on WH grounds.
RHA
In article <3331b44c...@nntp.st.usm.edu>,
Harold Brashears <brsh...@whale.st.usm.edu> wrote:
>ri...@praline.no.neosoft.com (RHA) wrote:
>
>>In article <332984d...@news.io.com>,
>>>ri...@praline.no.neosoft.com (RHA) wrote:
>>>>Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>18 USC Sec. 607 reads as follows:
>>>
>>>>>"(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or receive any
>>>
>>>> Give the legal meaning of "receive".
>>>
>>>There is no "legal meaning of 'receive'" if by that you mean some sort
>>>of special meaning in law which differs from the ordinary meaning of
>>>the term. Black's Law Dictionary defines the word as follows: "To
>>>take into possession and control; to accept custody of; to collect."
>>>That's the same meaning we attach to the word in ordinary
>>>conversation, ne c'est pas?
>>
>> word "receive" (to me, at least) implies a rightful possession,
>> as in "she could legally cash it."
>
>dictionary and even Black's Law Dictionary. Why do you think there is
>a difference?
>
>> it physically, but she was moving it from person "A" to person "B".
>
>language. By this logic, if "A" gives me a stolen radio, and I give
>it to "B" at a later time, I never received the radio, thus am guilty
>of no crime?
>
>
>
>> Now the question becomes: what does "control" and "custody" mean?
>> Ms. Williams do not "control" the check,
>
>would give it and when. She controlled the use of the asset, at least
>to the extent that, as long as it was in her hand, no one else had
>access to it. In addition, of course, she could have controlled
>whether she accepted it or not.
>
>> the check. Did she take "possession", yes, but a limited type of
>> possession because she didn't have "control".
>
>and when to give it to someone, and you maintain she did not have
>control solely because she could not cash it? A similar argument
>would be that "A" gets a bike from a driveway, but they are not
>physically capable of riding it, so they give it to "B", who can ride
>it. Thus "A" is not guilty of stealing, because they could not use
>the object of the theft?
Mr. Brashears, you are pathetic. I looked up "receive" in Black's
Legal Dictionary and encountered two key words "possession" and
"control". "Possession" has a page and a half dedicated to it,
"control" had a much shorter but very powerful series of meanings.
"Receive" is more than "holding in one's hand". Your and
Ms. Rotthoff's quibbling is sad.
BTW, you're right, I decided not to get back to Ms. Rotthoff
concerning what was said on an episode of Burden of Proof
concerning the alleged Federal Campaign laws violations. All I
said was a lawyer specializing in such law thought Ms. Williams
did nothing wrong by taking the contributor's check. Rotthoff
immediately dismissed the lawyer as a Clinton supporter when of
course she has no way of knowing that. I don't know that he was,
I'd have to view the episode....which I'm not going to do because
you and Ms. Rotthoff are so sleazy you simply dismiss anyone
who agrees with Clinton as being a Clinton supporter. I don't
have time to entertain dittobots and rushputzs.
Understand one point about that show, that lawyer would have put
his career on the line by lying on a show with an international
audience. You and Ms. Rotthoff may be so ethically challenged as
to be willing to intentionally lie on TV but you'll have to
prove the lawyer in question did so by yourself.
--
rha
Eleanor Rotthoff
myc...@mycross.com (My Cross) wrote:
>erot...@io.com (Eleanor Rotthoff) purported:
>>I agree wholeheartedly that there are definite definitions of what it
>>means to "receive" money. I just don't agree that any of those
>>definitions, in accounting, in law, or in common usage, includes the
>>concept of ownership. For example, the law uses the term "receipt of
>>stolen goods" which clearly connotes "receiving" property which one
>>does not own.
>
>Hmmm... then are you trying to argue that the White House aide who
>physically took possession of the check "owned" the money?
Since I am clearly failing utterly to make the point clear, let's
review the bidding, as it were. Initially I made a very small joke
about the White House's attempts to split non-existent hairs by trying
to create a meaningless distinction between "handling" a check and
"receiving" it. RHA then challenged me to "Give the legal meaning of
'receive'". My reply was that there is no "legal meaning" of receive
if by that one means a special definition which differs from the use
of the word by the layman.
At that point RHA replied, "To use the word 'receive' (to me at least)
implies a rightful possession, as in 'she could legally cash it.' I
replied that neither in lay usage nor in legalese does the term "to
receive" connote legal ownership, i.e. Maggie Williams could not
legally have cashed a check made payable to the DNC.
At that point you entered the fray by pointing out that for income tax
purposes the word "receive" has a special gloss. I replied that the
gloss to which you refer has to do with *when* someone receives funds
(or more accurately the tax year in which one is deemed to have
received funds) and not whether or not the concept of "receiving"
funds connotes ownership, which I stoutly maintain it does not.
Now, are we on the same page?
> Did she "receive" it?
Did Maggie Williams receive the check? Based on the facts as they
have been reported, of course she did. She took possession and
custody of it.
>When she took possession of the envelope, did that mean
>the DNC had "received" it?
Now that's an interesting legal question. Clearly, she was acting as
an agent for someone -- the DNC's agent? Johnny Chung's agent? One
could, I suppose, argue that one either way.
>Did they "own" it at that time?
If Williams was acting as an agent for the DNC, then delivery to
Williams constituted delivery to the DNC. If she was acting as
Chung's agent, then he had a legal right to demand that she return the
check to him up to the point at which she delivered it to the DNC.
But when ownership of the check passed from Chung to the DNC is quite
beside the point. The statute bars federal employees from receiving
campaign contributions in "a building used in the discharge of
official duties".
>Seems to me the DNC "received" it and "owned" it when the check cleard
>the bank, and not before. Therefore, the WH aide was merely a conduit
>and the DNC did not "receive" campaign money on federal property.
Well, I don't agree with your analysis, but it's really a moot point.
The statute doesn't bar the *DNC* from receiving money on federal
property. It bars a federal employee (Williams) from receiving money
in a "building used in the discharge of official duties".
>>>You need to deposit it - just getting the check doesn't count.
Here is perhaps where I failed to make my point clear. Depositing the
check is crucial for income tax purposes. But I can legally "receive"
a check and never, ever cash it.
>>True enough. On the other hand, if you deposit a check which you have
>>received but to which you are not legally entitled, that's called
>>misappropriation of funds or, more bluntly, theft. Again, a clear
>>distinction between "receiving" and ownership.
>
>??? If the check is signed and the bank cashes it, it's good and
>you're entitled to it. How do you "steal" a check?
Easily, although I don't recommend it. <g> You take a check made
payable to someone else, endorse it by signing that person's name on
the back of it, and cash it. The fact that the bank erroneously fails
to verify the endorsement doesn't prevent you from being charged with
theft. And it certainly doesn't mean that you're entitled to the
money.
>Of course, I guess you could modify the amount or something, but
>nothing like that is even remotely involved in this case, so I'm
>having trouble understanding what you mean.
Well, I suppose we got off on a tangent. The central point is that
there is a clear distinction between receiving money and owning it. A
clerk in a retail store "receives" money all day, every day. She
doesn't own the funds she receives. And the store proprietor owns the
funds long before he deposits them in the bank. In fact, if he wants
to take the cash (and even the checks) home and stuff it all in his
mattress rather than ever depositing it in a bank, he still owns it.
<snip>
Eleanor Rotthoff
My Cross
erot...@io.com (Eleanor Rotthoff) purported:
>myc...@mycross.com (My Cross) wrote:
>>erot...@io.com (Eleanor Rotthoff) purported:
>>>I agree wholeheartedly that there are definite definitions of what it
>>>means to "receive" money. I just don't agree that any of those
>>>definitions, in accounting, in law, or in common usage, includes the
>>>concept of ownership. For example, the law uses the term "receipt of
>>>stolen goods" which clearly connotes "receiving" property which one
>>>does not own.
>>
>>Hmmm... then are you trying to argue that the White House aide who
>>physically took possession of the check "owned" the money?
>Since I am clearly failing utterly to make the point clear, let's
>review the bidding, as it were. Initially I made a very small joke
>about the White House's attempts to split non-existent hairs by trying
>to create a meaningless distinction between "handling" a check and
>"receiving" it.
Apparently it is _not_ a "meaningless distinction" - it determines
whether or not a law was broken and therefore potentially whether a
sitting president and/or vice president can be removed from office. I
thought you were a lawyer - you should understand that these
"meaningless differences" in semantics can be the difference between
jail and freedom.
> RHA then challenged me to "Give the legal meaning of
>'receive'". My reply was that there is no "legal meaning" of receive
>if by that one means a special definition which differs from the use
>of the word by the layman.
>At that point RHA replied, "To use the word 'receive' (to me at least)
>implies a rightful possession, as in 'she could legally cash it.' I
>replied that neither in lay usage nor in legalese does the term "to
>receive" connote legal ownership, i.e. Maggie Williams could not
>legally have cashed a check made payable to the DNC.
Yes - I followed all that - and I think you're wrong. Maggie Williams
could also not legally "receive" a check made payable to the DNC.
Perhaps she could serve as a conduit through which the check passed,
but the fact that that happened on federal property is no more
relevant than if they had sent it through the US Mail, which is also
federal property. These distinctions are very important - they are
the Rules of the Game.
>At that point you entered the fray by pointing out that for income tax
>purposes the word "receive" has a special gloss. I replied that the
>gloss to which you refer has to do with *when* someone receives funds
>(or more accurately the tax year in which one is deemed to have
>received funds) and not whether or not the concept of "receiving"
>funds connotes ownership, which I stoutly maintain it does not.
When you mail funds, does the post office "receive" them? Obviously
there are two possible perspectives on how to answer that question.
Yes, they physically receive it, but no they don't have any control or
ownership over the money. But I would think that the law in regard to
the White House/DNC money is using the "ownership" version of the word
"receive", otherwise the federal property of the post office could not
be used to transfer funds to the DNC.
>Now, are we on the same page?
Not sure. Are we? I understand what you're saying - do you
understand what I'm saying?
>> Did she "receive" it?
>Did Maggie Williams receive the check? Based on the facts as they
>have been reported, of course she did. She took possession and
>custody of it.
Here we disagree. She no more "received" it than the mail carrier
"receives" a piece of mail to be delivered. And apparently the legal
powers that be agree.
>
>>When she took possession of the envelope, did that mean
>>the DNC had "received" it?
>Now that's an interesting legal question. Clearly, she was acting as
>an agent for someone -- the DNC's agent? Johnny Chung's agent? One
>could, I suppose, argue that one either way.
One could _always_ aregue _anything_ either way. :) But - I take
issue with your characterization. If I mail you a check, is the mail
carrier an "agent" for you? I don't think so.
>>Did they "own" it at that time?
>If Williams was acting as an agent for the DNC, then delivery to
>Williams constituted delivery to the DNC.
I'll agree with that.
> If she was acting as
>Chung's agent, then he had a legal right to demand that she return the
>check to him up to the point at which she delivered it to the DNC.
I'll agree with that, too, except that I don't think it is necessary
to consider her Chung's "agent". And I'm not sure about the "legal
right to demand" the return of it. I would just assume that if he
asked for it back, she would give it back because she's a nice person,
but whether there is a legal issue there, I can't comment.
>But when ownership of the check passed from Chung to the DNC is quite
>beside the point. The statute bars federal employees from receiving
>campaign contributions in "a building used in the discharge of
>official duties".
And once again, we get back to that crucial definition of the word
"receive".
>>Seems to me the DNC "received" it and "owned" it when the check cleard
>>the bank, and not before. Therefore, the WH aide was merely a conduit
>>and the DNC did not "receive" campaign money on federal property.
>Well, I don't agree with your analysis, but it's really a moot point.
>The statute doesn't bar the *DNC* from receiving money on federal
>property. It bars a federal employee (Williams) from receiving money
>in a "building used in the discharge of official duties".
But is a check that she can't cash "money" as far as she is concerned?
She can't deposit it.
>>>>You need to deposit it - just getting the check doesn't count.
>Here is perhaps where I failed to make my point clear. Depositing the
>check is crucial for income tax purposes. But I can legally "receive"
>a check and never, ever cash it.
Yes, you will have received the check. But you will _not_ have
received the money. That is the crucial point. It is illegal to
receive money, but you don't receive the money until you cash the
check.
>>>True enough. On the other hand, if you deposit a check which you have
>>>received but to which you are not legally entitled, that's called
>>>misappropriation of funds or, more bluntly, theft. Again, a clear
>>>distinction between "receiving" and ownership.
>>
>>??? If the check is signed and the bank cashes it, it's good and
>>you're entitled to it. How do you "steal" a check?
>Easily, although I don't recommend it. <g> You take a check made
>payable to someone else, endorse it by signing that person's name on
>the back of it, and cash it. The fact that the bank erroneously fails
>to verify the endorsement doesn't prevent you from being charged with
>theft. And it certainly doesn't mean that you're entitled to the
>money.
Okay, but that's a different crime, and nobody is accusing anybody of
doing that in this case, so I don't see the relevance.
>>Of course, I guess you could modify the amount or something, but
>>nothing like that is even remotely involved in this case, so I'm
>>having trouble understanding what you mean.
>Well, I suppose we got off on a tangent. The central point is that
>there is a clear distinction between receiving money and owning it.
No - the distinction is between receiving a check and receiving the
money represented by that check.
> A
>clerk in a retail store "receives" money all day, every day. She
>doesn't own the funds she receives. And the store proprietor owns the
>funds long before he deposits them in the bank. In fact, if he wants
>to take the cash (and even the checks) home and stuff it all in his
>mattress rather than ever depositing it in a bank, he still owns it.
No - if he does that, he does _not_ own the money. He only owns the
money when he cashes the check. Try taking your next paycheck, stuff
it under your mattress, and then try to spend the money. I think
you'll find that you do not own the money. (unless you have direct
deposit)
><snip>
>Eleanor Rotthoff
Eleanor Rotthoff
myc...@mycross.com (My Cross) wrote:
<massive snip to try to cut to the chase>
>When you mail funds, does the post office "receive" them?
Of course it does.
>Obviously
>there are two possible perspectives on how to answer that question.
>Yes, they physically receive it, but no they don't have any control or
>ownership over the money.
Bingo! You have just made my point. They "receive" it, but they
don't own it. They only have the responsibility to transmit the funds
to the person designated. But to say that the post office doesn't
"receive" the funds but merely "handles" them is making a distinction
which the law does not recognize.
>But I would think that the law in regard to
>the White House/DNC money is using the "ownership" version of the word
>"receive",
And I repeat -- there is no "'ownership' version of the word
'receive'" known to the law, not in the context of this statute, not
in the context of any other statute with which I am familiar.
>otherwise the federal property of the post office could not
>be used to transfer funds to the DNC.
I'm afraid I don't follow you. 18 USC 607 does not cover use of the
mails for transmitting political contributions.
>>Did Maggie Williams receive the check? Based on the facts as they
>>have been reported, of course she did. She took possession and
>>custody of it.
>
>Here we disagree. She no more "received" it than the mail carrier
>"receives" a piece of mail to be delivered.
But you just agreed above that the mail carrier *does* receive a piece
of mail to be delivered; he just doesn't own it.
>And apparently the legal powers that be agree.
And how do you arrive at that conclusion?
>If I mail you a check, is the mail carrier an "agent" for you? I don't think so.
Well, you're mistaken. The law treats the US Postal Service as the
agent for the recipient of the funds. It is for that reason that a
tenant who mails his rent check on the first of the month, properly
addressed and bearing sufficient postage, has timely paid his rent,
assuming that the funds are received by the landlord within a
reasonable time thereafter. The Postal Service is deemed to be the
agent of the landlord.
<snip>
>But is a check that she can't cash "money" as far as she is concerned?
>She can't deposit it.
Why are you focusing on the concept of "money"? The statute doesn't
even use the term "money". It bars the receipt of political
contributions and defines a "contribution" as "any direct or indirect
payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money, or
any services or anything of value..." I think you would agree that a
check is certainly within that definition.
>Yes, you will have received the check. But you will _not_ have
>received the money. That is the crucial point. It is illegal to
>receive money, but you don't receive the money until you cash the
>check.
No, the statute does not bar the receipt of "money". It bars the
receipt of "contributions".
<snip>
>>Well, I suppose we got off on a tangent. The central point is that
>>there is a clear distinction between receiving money and owning it.
>
>No - the distinction is between receiving a check and receiving the
>money represented by that check.
Sorry, but that is not the way Congress chose to write the statute.
It would be quite a useful distinction for Ms. Williams if it in fact
existed, but it doesn't. And interpreting the statute in that way
would render it meaningless. After all, very few contributors show up
with a suitcase full of cash, and even if they did, the federal
employee would have no legal right to the cash. If only legal access
to the cash represented by the check is barred, then why have the
statute at all? No federal employee would ever have legal access to
the cash represented by a check made payable to the DNC or the RNC.
OTOH if you want to pursue a determined quest for a theory which would
justify Ms. Williams' attempt to maintain that she did not "receive"
the funds in question, be my guest.
Eleanor Rotthoff
My Cross
erot...@io.com (Eleanor Rotthoff) purported:
>myc...@mycross.com (My Cross) wrote:
><massive snip to try to cut to the chase>
>>When you mail funds, does the post office "receive" them?
>Of course it does.
>>Obviously
>>there are two possible perspectives on how to answer that question.
>>Yes, they physically receive it, but no they don't have any control or
>>ownership over the money.
>Bingo! You have just made my point. They "receive" it, but they
>don't own it. They only have the responsibility to transmit the funds
>to the person designated. But to say that the post office doesn't
>"receive" the funds but merely "handles" them is making a distinction
>which the law does not recognize.
Nonsense. If the post office workers actually "received" the funds in
the check, I think they would be arrested, because that would be
stealing. But they don't "receive" the money - they only possess the
envelope containing the check.
>>But I would think that the law in regard to
>>the White House/DNC money is using the "ownership" version of the word
>>"receive",
>And I repeat -- there is no "'ownership' version of the word
>'receive'" known to the law, not in the context of this statute, not
>in the context of any other statute with which I am familiar.
You already said you were familiar with the tax laws, in which there
most definitely _is_ a distinction between the "ownership" and
"possession" meanings. So which is it: are you familiar with this
distinction, or are you _not_ familiar with it? You've said both, and
I don't know which of your statements you really meant.
>>otherwise the federal property of the post office could not
>>be used to transfer funds to the DNC.
>I'm afraid I don't follow you. 18 USC 607 does not cover use of the
>mails for transmitting political contributions.
Isn't the Post Office federal property? Aren't postal workers federal
employees? Doesn't the law say that federal employees may not
"receive" campaign funds - especially on federal property? It would
seem to me that this demonstrates that merely being a conduit of an
envelope does _not_ violate the law. And that's what Maggie Williams
did.
>>>Did Maggie Williams receive the check? Based on the facts as they
>>>have been reported, of course she did. She took possession and
>>>custody of it.
>>
>>Here we disagree. She no more "received" it than the mail carrier
>>"receives" a piece of mail to be delivered.
>But you just agreed above that the mail carrier *does* receive a piece
>of mail to be delivered; he just doesn't own it.
No - they possess it, they do not receive the money. Neither did
Maggie Williams.
>>And apparently the legal powers that be agree.
>And how do you arrive at that conclusion?
Because nobody's been charged with a crime. The facts are
acknowledged - if there was a crime, there would be charges. Janet
Reno has said that she has been advised that there was no violation of
the law.
>>If I mail you a check, is the mail carrier an "agent" for you? I don't think so.
>Well, you're mistaken. The law treats the US Postal Service as the
>agent for the recipient of the funds. It is for that reason that a
>tenant who mails his rent check on the first of the month, properly
>addressed and bearing sufficient postage, has timely paid his rent,
>assuming that the funds are received by the landlord within a
>reasonable time thereafter. The Postal Service is deemed to be the
>agent of the landlord.
So are you implying that if the check gets lost in the mail that the
post office can be sued for not fulfilling their role as somebody's
agent in a financial transaction?
><snip>
>>But is a check that she can't cash "money" as far as she is concerned?
>>She can't deposit it.
>Why are you focusing on the concept of "money"?
Because that's the key to this whole thing: funds, money,
contributions - whatever term you'd like to use.
> The statute doesn't
>even use the term "money". It bars the receipt of political
>contributions and defines a "contribution" as "any direct or indirect
>payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money,
I thought you said it didn't use the term "money" - then you quote
them using exactly that term.
> or
>any services or anything of value..." I think you would agree that a
>check is certainly within that definition.
To Maggie Williams, the check has no value in the terms you quoted.
Granted, this is a nit-picky detail, but if you really are a lawyer,
you know that that makes all the difference in the world.
>>Yes, you will have received the check. But you will _not_ have
>>received the money. That is the crucial point. It is illegal to
>>receive money, but you don't receive the money until you cash the
>>check.
>No, the statute does not bar the receipt of "money". It bars the
>receipt of "contributions".
And "contributions" are ... ... ... money.
><snip>
>>>Well, I suppose we got off on a tangent. The central point is that
>>>there is a clear distinction between receiving money and owning it.
>>
>>No - the distinction is between receiving a check and receiving the
>>money represented by that check.
>Sorry, but that is not the way Congress chose to write the statute.
>It would be quite a useful distinction for Ms. Williams if it in fact
>existed, but it doesn't. And interpreting the statute in that way
>would render it meaningless. After all, very few contributors show up
>with a suitcase full of cash, and even if they did, the federal
>employee would have no legal right to the cash. If only legal access
>to the cash represented by the check is barred, then why have the
>statute at all?
Now there's a good question...
> No federal employee would ever have legal access to
>the cash represented by a check made payable to the DNC or the RNC.
You have a point there.
>OTOH if you want to pursue a determined quest for a theory which would
>justify Ms. Williams' attempt to maintain that she did not "receive"
>the funds in question, be my guest.
Well, not me, but I would venture to guess that that is exactly what
Ms. Williams' lawyers are pursuing. And so far they seem to be
prevailing.
>Eleanor Rotthoff
Gary - KJ6Q
erot...@io.com (Eleanor Rotthoff) wrote:
>ri...@praline.no.neosoft.com (RHA) wrote:
>
>> Receive??? Did Ms. Williams "receive" the check? To use the
>> word "receive" (to me, at least) implies a rightful possession,
>> as in "she could legally cash it."
>
>neither in common usage nor in legalese does the word "receive"
>connote legal ownership.
>
>
>Eleanor Rotthoff
BUT, Rick gets an "A" for his transparent attempt at the 'ol liberal bob
and weave...
Nice try, but no cigar!
--
Gary..KJ6Q.. 2nd AMENDMENT: THE ONLY ONE WITH TEETH!
=======================================================
NRA: No Real Action
No Rational Accomplishments
Not Regarded Affectionately
========================================================