-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"> </A> -Cui Bono?- WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peace at any cost is a prelude to war! CONGRESS ACTION: March 12, 2000 ================= ROUTINE ABUSE: This president, who likes to claim "firsts" for things he had absolutely nothing to do with, always fails to include a notable first for which he really does hold the record: he is the first President of the United States to be cited for contempt of court by a federal judge for his "contumacious conduct", for his "willful refusal" to obey court orders and for giving statements under oath that were "intentionally false". Clinton's actions were, according to the judge, "conduct which abuses the judicial process". But the judge expressly noted that Clinton's conduct took place within the realm of his unofficial duties (defending a lawsuit for sexual harassment). But what about his official duties? Apparently when it comes to "contumacious conduct", the Clinton administration doesn't draw such fine lines of distinction between official and unofficial duties. And most of the major media, apparently having grown so used to "contumacious conduct" by this president, simply doesn't bother to even report it any more. Everyone recalls, although nobody seems much to care about, the antics of Bill and Hillary trying to explain how Rose Law Firm billing records, under subpoena for two years, were suddenly and mysteriously discovered in the White House living quarters. As lawyers, the Clintons swore to uphold and respect the legal process, but it is obvious that lawyer Bill views subpoenas just about as seriously as he views oaths, including his oath of office. The most recent example involves subpoenas issued for a series of White House e-mail messages, subpoenas issued by a federal grand jury and by congressional committees investigating the collection of FBI files by the White House, fundraising irregularities in the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign, and Commerce Department trips with corporate contributors. The House Committee on Government Reform has received evidence that, in the words of a letter from Committee Chairman Dan Burton to Attorney General Janet Reno, ".hundreds of thousands of e-mails sent to White House employees from outside the White House complex have never been reviewed to determine whether they are responsive to document requests and subpoenas." Burton went on to observe "The appearance created by this failure is that you have no intention of pursuing a vigorous investigation of the White House." To the big surprise, it should be added, of no one. After all, Reno's hand-picked investigator into campaign finance abuses by the Clinton-Gore team, Charles LaBella, wrote of Janet Reno's refusal to appoint an Independent Counsel to investigate those abuses, "The contortions that the [Justice] Department has gone through to avoid investigating these allegations is apparent." The evidence of the Clinton administration's latest "contumacious conduct" came from Sheryl Hall, the chief of White House computer operations during the relevant time period. Hall has alleged, in a lawsuit for job harassment and reprisals, and in statements to the Committee on Government Reform, that e-mail messages from August, 1996 through November, 1998 had not been surrendered pursuant to the subpoenas, and that the White House had labeled those e-mails as "classified". Hall claims that the e-mails were covered up as part of a plan to stonewall the congressional investigations until Clinton left office. When the existence of those documents was uncovered and brought to the attention of White House officials, Hall claims that she, and the independent contractors working on the White House computer system who discovered the e-mails, were threatened. According to Hall, one contractor was told by a White House official that ".they had a jail cell with his name on it if he discussed the matter." Hall left the White House after she was demoted for questioning the political misuse of the White House database (called WHODB), and she further charged that Hillary Clinton herself oversaw the political misuse of that database. No doubt the cadre of Clinton defenders, ever ready to fan out in the media to defend any and all depredations of Bill or Hillary, would argue that the invasion of privacy involved in using confidential FBI files to create an enemies list (WHODB and Filegate), the acceptance of campaign contributions from questionable -- to say the least -- foreign sources (Chinagate), and suspicious overseas trips for corporate contributors arranged by Ron Brown's Commerce Department, do not strictly involve Bill Clinton's official duties as President of the United States. The fact that Clinton would not have been in a position such that his underlings could acquire confidential FBI files, the Clinton-Gore campaign would not have been given money by communist China, and the Commerce Department would not have been motivated to reward contributors, but for Bill's position as President of the United States, would not phase his defenders in the least. Those cadres of Clinton defenders would make those ludicrous defenses, that is, if there were any need to mount a public defense. But since nobody much seems to care, those defenders have been silent, no doubt marveling at how much the Clintons can get away with because of the incredible favoritism of their pals in the major media, and the unbelievable lethargy of the American public where the Clintons are concerned. Bill Clinton knows how gullible the media is and how disinterested the public has become in his shenanigans. Ever the victim when it suits his purposes, when he was asked about the missing e-mails, Clinton whined "If the American people knew how much of their money we'd have to spend complying with requests for e-mails, they might be quite amazed, but we certainly have done our best to do that." As with all Clinton pronouncements, care must be exercised to be sure of what he is actually saying. Normal people might conclude that his assurance of having "done our best to do that" refers to "complying with requests for e-mails". But with Clinton, one never knows. Perhaps his "that" refers to amazing the American people with how much of their money he can spend. In any event, Congressman Dan Burton is quite clear about the nature of Bill Clinton's conduct, and about the festering sinkhole of corruption into which his administration has thrown the entire machinery of government and the administration of justice. In a letter to Beth Nolan, Counsel to the President, Congressman Burton observed "While I am under no illusion that it might be time consuming and expensive to reconstruct the e-mail records in question, I also am not prepared to accept the notion that the President and the White House do not have an obligation to obey the law. Indeed, if Attorney General Reno had made any real effort to conduct a thorough and vigorous investigation into the illegal fundraising matter, she would be first in line demanding compliance with document requests and the President would not be permitted the luxury of railing at Congress and the various Independent Counsel offices." One can only hope. But the disgusting reality is that Bill Clinton is shielded by the sheer magnitude and variety of his "contumacious conduct", conduct that is so massive, so pervasive, involving so many areas, infecting so much of the government, and so perverting to the administration of justice, that the public and members of Congress have trouble focusing on any one set of activities. As soon as people begin to get a grasp on one outrage, another one comes along to astound everyone with its sheer brazenness, pushing the previous abuses into the background. And as additional evidence is uncovered by ongoing investigations, the media simply dismisses any new revelations as "old news" (only the latest outrage, about which little is yet known due to administration stonewalling, constituting "new news"). But the particulars of the various specific activities of the Clinton-Gore administration are less important than the one overriding question all people should be asking themselves over the next few months, as they contemplate the possibility of electing Al Gore -- mister "no controlling legal authority" -- to the presidency; and the possibility of electing Hillary -- Ms. "vast right-wing conspiracy" -- and more of her like-minded leftists, to the House and Senate. Do we really want four more years of this? Indeed, can the republic survive four more years of this? "My highest priority is to protect the rights of the accused, not to convict the guilty." -- Janet Reno, March 8, 1993 "Previous to the execution of any official act of the President the Constitution requires an oath of office. This oath I am now about to take, and in your presence: That if it shall be found during my administration of the Government I have in any instance violated willingly or knowingly the injunctions thereof, I may (besides incurring constitutional punishment) be subject to the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony." -- George Washington; Second Inaugural Address (March 4, 1793) "Will a virtuous and sensible people choose villains or fools for their officers?" -- John Dickinson; Delaware delegate to the Constitutional Convention, member of the Continental Congress 1774-1776 HIGH RISK HUD: Late last year, the media reported the confiscation from New York City of $60 million in housing funds for the homeless by Andrew Cuomo's Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD). What a story! Republican Mayor Giuliani could be portrayed as abusing the poor helpless homeless, and democrat white knight Cuomo had to ride in to the rescue. Cuomo's excuse for the money-grab (even the left-wing Washington Post called it an "unprecedented" action) was that disbursement of those funds had become politicized, and HUD would make sure that the funds were spent properly, without such abuse. Since HUD was allegedly acting to combat waste, fraud, and abuse (and not, of course, making an effort to influence Hillary's Senate campaign), might it also have been relevant for the media to mention a 1999 General Accounting Office finding that HUD itself has "deficiencies [that] place the integrity and accountability of HUD's programs at high risk" and that "internal control weaknesses and problems with information and financial management systems persist"? According to a report issued just this month by the Senate Committee On Governmental Affairs, HUD, which improved its operations slightly in 1998 and received a clean opinion on its financial statements (meaning only that the Office of Inspector General [OIG] deemed its financial statements reliable), fell back in 1999 and received a disclaimer of opinion (meaning the OIG could not determine the reliability of the information contained in it's financial statements). The Year 2000 audit released this month showed that HUD once again suffers from severe financial management weaknesses which, for example, caused it to make over $900 million in excess subsidy payments, and that it failed to spend $151 million that Congress had authorized for public housing. Senator Fred Thompson, Chairman of the Committee, commented "Many people think that financial management is an issue that doesn't affect ordinary people. But, at HUD and other agencies, poor financial management means that crooks are stealing from the government and people that need these funds are going without." Sounds like someone needs to take over HUD's money to make sure it is spent properly. Might it have been relevant for the media to also mention that HUD is currently involved in a criminal probe over allegations of contract fraud and bid-rigging that have allegedly cost the taxpayer over $5 billion in just two cases, and that important evidence in those cases that had been "sequestered" by the HUD OIG over two years ago has since mysteriously disappeared? The answer to all of the above is no, it would not have been relevant, from the media's perspective, to report anything negative about HUD. Because, as usual, the media has adopted the democrat spin (has the major media ever supported the republican position on any issue and criticized the democrat position?), and the politically correct take was to make republican Giuliani look as bad as possible, and democrat Cuomo (and thus the Clinton administration -- and Hillary) look as good as possible, without any inconvenient things like facts getting in the way. That's the liberal way of things: dissemble, distort, and ignore or cover up inconvenient facts. But the media isn't biased, they keep assuring us. They just can't understand why growing numbers of people simply don't trust them to provide all the relevant facts on any given issue. FOR MORE INFORMATION. ======================== ROUTINE ABUSE: House Committee on Government Reform: http://www.house.gov/reform/ HIGH RISK HUD: General Accounting Office (HUD report OCG 99-8): http://www.gao.gov/ Senate Committee On Governmental Affairs: http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/030200_pressc.htm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mr. Kim Weissman [EMAIL PROTECTED] **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ] <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
