---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 09:01:47 -0700 From: DOC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: OT: Media Bias After you read the story from the Washington Post (which I believe has already been posted to CAS, then read the tidbits from the San Jose Mercury News. The headlines are, well, simply amazing. Naturally, I shall send a revised copy of this to the Editor, who will ignore it. Nevertheless, I shall feel better. ------------------------------------------------------------- Here is the story from the Washington Post::::::::::::::::: Judge Criticized in Willey Ruling By Bill Miller Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, May 27, 2000; Page A08 A federal appeals court said yesterday that a judge acted improperly when he ruled that President Clinton committed a criminal violation of the Privacy Act by releasing letters from Kathleen E. Willey, the former White House aide who accused him of groping her near the Oval Office. But the three-member appellate panel rejected the White House's bid to shield officials from having to answer questions about their decision to release the Willey letters. The judges' action clears the way for questioning of White House Deputy Counsel Bruce R. Lindsey and others about their handling of the Willey letters. Government lawyers asked the D.C. Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals to take emergency action after U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth found that Clinton and his aides committed a criminal violation of the Privacy Act by making Willey's letters public. Lamberth's ruling, issued in March in a continuing civil suit, did not open the door to criminal prosecution, but the White House said it cast an unfair taint. The appellate judges criticized Lamberth yesterday for inappropriately making "sweeping pronouncements on alleged criminal activity" but said they would review his decision in the usual manner--once the case before him has run its course. The Justice Department contended that Lamberth's decision erroneously branded Clinton a "criminal wrongdoer" and could chill sensitive discussions between presidents and their top advisers. The Justice Department has maintained for more than 25 years that the president and his top aides are not covered by the Privacy Act, the 1974 law covering the release of personnel information in government files. The correspondence from Willey was made public in March 1998, one day after Willey appeared on "60 Minutes" in the midst of the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal. Clinton, who denied Willey's allegations, said he viewed her admiring letters as his best defense. Many of the 15 letters and notes, friendly in tone, were written after the alleged groping incident. Judicial Watch, a conservative group led by lawyer Larry Klayman, revisited the Willey matter as part of a civil lawsuit alleging that the FBI improperly handed over to the Clinton White House hundreds of FBI files of political appointees and government employees in the Reagan and Bush administrations. The suit accused the Clinton administration of violating the privacy rights of its perceived enemies, and Lamberth agreed to let Klayman explore Willey's case to see if it fit a pattern. Lindsey and other aides contended they were not required to answer Klayman's questions about the Willey letters because their communications were protected by attorney-client and other privileges.In his March ruling, Lamberth said the White House failed to make a compelling legal argument that those privileges applied to the discussions about Willey. But then Lamberth took his analysis a step further. He agreed with Judicial Watch that the White House also could not assert the privileges because of what is known as the "crime-fraud exception." Lamberth said Clinton and others deliberately committed a crime by violating the Privacy Act. He ordered Lindsey to answer Klayman's questions. The appeals judges did not address whether Lamberth's interpretation of the Privacy Act was correct. They found only that he didn't need to address that issue. After Lamberth determined that the White House had no legal basis to invoke the privileges, "there was nothing more to be said," the appeals judges stated. The appellate panel consisted of Chief Judge Harry T. Edwards, a Carter appointee, Douglas H. Ginsburg, a Reagan appointee, and David S. Tatel, a Clinton appointee. ------------------------------------------- Now, here is part of the story from the San Jose Mercury, Saturday, May 27, 2000. On http://www.mercurycenter.com/premium/local/docs/summary27.htm we have ===> Privacy ruling reversed A federal appeals court said Friday that a judge acted improperly when he ruled that President Clinton committed a criminal violation of the Privacy Act by releasing letters from Kathleen Willey, the former White House aide who accused him of groping her near the Oval Office. Page 25A (I can't access Page 25A without paying for such internet access.) And, in the newspaper my better half makes me buy, we have : At Page 25A ===> Releasing Willey letters was legal, court says. Followed by the article by Bill Miller quoted above. ------------------------------------------------------- Not to belabor the issue, where in the Sam Hill did the San Jose Mercury come to the conclusion that the privacy ruling was reversed? Mr. Miller said "A federal appeals court said yesterday that a judge acted improperly when he ruled that President Clinton committed a criminal violation of the Privacy Act by releasing letters from Kathleen E. Willey." But read carefully again this sentence and the article. There was no reversal, none, zip, nada. And, how did the San Jose Mercury come to the conclusion that the release of the Willey letters was "legal." Mr. Miller of the Washington Post stated, "The appeals judges did not address whether Lamberth's interpretation of the Privacy Act was correct." That means that Judge Lamberth's interpretation stands for now. In other words, right now, the release of the letters was illegal. A "criminal violation of the Privacy Act." This kind of bias is even low for the San Jose Mercury. ================================================================= Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT FROM THE DESK OF: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> *Mike Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ~~~~~~~~ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends Shalom, A Salaam Aleikum, and to all, A Good Day. ================================================================= <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! 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 <A HREF="http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== 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
