-Caveat Lector-
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 7:29 PM
Subject: CAS: eop.gov visits softwar.net
The White House (minus George Bush who out of the USA) paid Softwar.net a
visit today - according to our website hit records the White House
downloaded data involving C. Boyden Gray - former White House Counsel to
George Bush Sr.
e002.eop.gov
10:32:43 /gray.html
The html is the text of two letters - one to Softwar from C. Boyden Gray
and a reply to C. Boyden Gray concerning the illegal export of
super-computers to Russian and Chinese nuclear weapons labs through a
client that attended secret meetings inside the Clinton White
House.
The entire text of www.softwar.net/gray.html is below:
C. BOYDEN GRAY
Direct Line (202) 663-6888
WILMER, CUTLER & PICKERING
2445 M STREET, N.W,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037-1420
TELEPHONE (202) 663-6000
FACSIMILE (202) 663-6363
March 11, 1998
Mr. Charles R. Smith
Dear Mr. Smith:
It has come to our attention, as counsel to the Computer Systems Policy
Project (the "CSPP"), that you are proposing to publish in Insight Magazine
a story that attempts to link President Clinton's deputy chief of staff
John Podesta, Podesta Associates, Inc., the CSPP and Kenneth Kay, CSPP's
Executive Director, to conflicts of interest and to improper White House
access and favors in return for campaign donations. After reviewing the
article, we were struck by the large number of factual inaccuracies
throughout the article. In an attempt to provide you with the correct
information prior to press, we have collected some of the more egregious
examples below.
Perhaps the most important error in the article concerns the relationship
between Podesta Associates and John Podesta. To our knowledge John Podesta
relinquished all equity, ownership and control of any sort in Podesta
Associates when he took his first position with the Clinton White House in
January 1993. In the brief period during which John Podesta was not working
in the White House during the last five years, from July 1995 until
February 1997, to the best of our knowledge he never regained any ownership
in or control of Podesta Associates. Nor during that period, to the best of
our knowledge, did he violate the one year prohibition on lobbying.
Accordingly, the article' s suggestion of improper conduct by John Podesta
on behalf of Podesta Associates and its then client CSPP appears to be
without any foundation. Any suggestion to the contrary in the face of these
facts would appear to be in blatant disregard of the factual record.
To the extent the article alleges that Podesta Associates was working for
CSPP prior to July 1994, the article is in error. It was only in July 1994
that the CSPP retained Podesta Associates for certain administrative and
professional services, and CSPP did not engage in Administration encryption
issues until November, 1995 (after John Podesta had already left his
position at the White House). In addition, Mr. Kay left Podesta Associates
in January 1997 and set up his own organization that then took over CSPP's
management from Podesta Associates.
The article's portrayal of the Interagency Working Group on Encryption
("IWG") plainly overstates the secretive nature of this body. For example,
in November 1995, the Commerce Department sent out, on behalf of the IWG, a
Media Advisory seeking public comment, to the IWG, on the IWG's "Draft
Export Criteria For Key Escrow Encryption." To facilitate the solicitation
of the public comments, a meeting "free and open to the public" was set up
at which "[r]representatives from the interagency encryption working group
will discuss the draft criteria and answer related questions." The IWG
hardly sounds like the cloak and dagger organization the article portrays.
The article also overstates the DNC campaign contributions of the relevant
parties. Mr. Kay made only one donation to the DNC during this period for a
total donation of $1,250 (the original donation was for $2,500 but Mr. Kay
received a painting in return from the DNC worth $1,250). CSPP made no
contributions to the DNC.
The article's discussion of the meetings between the CSPP and members of
the Administration is misleading. CSPP, like all other industry groups,
exercises its constitutional right to lobby the government on issues of
interests to its members. In turn the government tries to convince
industry, especially industry leaders like the members of CSPP, of the
merits of their positions. Such communication does not fall under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act; CSPP members are not advisors, they are
petitioners. CSPP routinely requests meetings with Administration officials
when its CEO members are in Washington. These meetings are not "secret";
their purpose is to engage the Administration in a dialogue about matters
of interest to the industry. We understand that other industry groups have
engaged in similar meetings with the administration on encryption and other
industry issues.
The article's discussion of the meetings between the CSPP and the
Administration is also inaccurate. For example, the article claims that
CSPP met with the IWG in January 1995. This is incorrect--there was no such
meeting. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the CSPP did not engage the
Administration on encryption until November, 1995. The article also is
incorrect with respect to other meetings between the CSPP and the
Administration. For example, at the June 6, 1995 meeting, CSPP did not meet
with Secretaries Perry or Christopher. Nor does the CSPP engage in biannual
meetings with the National Economic Council, with whom there is certainly
no connection like that described in the article.
In its efforts to convince U.S. high technology companies of the merits of
its encryption policies; the Administration in early 1996 did invite CSPP
representatives with the necessary security clearances to two classified
briefings. Mr. Kay did not participate in these briefings. It is also our
understanding that other interested industry groups were invited to
participate in similar briefings.
Finally, it is our understanding that CSPP staff did on several occasions
try to contact you and left messages.
Accordingly, we repeat that there is absolutely no basis for the article's
suggestion of improper conduct by John Podesta and in view of these factual
inaccuracies, as well as numerous others not mentioned, there is very
little left in the article to support its suggestion that Podesta
Associates, the CSPP, and Mr. Kay were an "unelected, unofficial, and
unaccountable fourth arm of the government."
Sincerely,
CC2
Mr. Paul Rodriguez
Insight, The Washington Times Corp.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CHARLES R. SMITH
SOFTWAR
MARCH 12, 1998
C. BOYDEN GRAY
WILMER, CUTLER, PICKERING
FAX 202/663-6363
REF: ENCRYPTION AND SUPER COMPUTER EXPORT ARTICLE AND JOHN PODESTA
Dear Sir:
Thank you for responding, however, I must clearly note that Mr. Podesta has
chosen NOT to answer the list of questions submitted to him in writing as
per his request. I reserve the right to publish those questions along with
the fact that Mr. Podesta has elected not to respond.
In addition, I wish to point out some very important errors in the letter
that you have presented in defense of Mr. Podesta.
First, you claim that Mr. Podesta joined Podesta Associates in July of
1995. Your claim is in direct conflict with Federal Election Commission
records which show that Mr. John Podesta donated campaign monies prior to
July of 1995 using Podesta Associate as his employer. I, therefore, note
that according to the Federal Election Commission, Mr. Podesta was employed
and paid by Podesta Associates prior to his term of service that you have
indicated. This error begs the question of does anyone know exactly WHEN
did Mr. Podesta join the employ of his brother in 1995?
Secondly, you assert that the CSSP did not discuss encryption issues with
the administration until November 1995. This is in direct conflict with a
briefing memo sent to Ron Brown by current BXA head William Reinsch on June
1, 1995. This memo was obtained from the Commerce Dept. using the Freedom
of Information Act. In this memo Mr. Reinsch states the CSPP had plenty of
previous contact with administration officials prior to June 1, 1995:
"At present, CSPP has not decided whether it will challenge the
government's export limitations of encryption... A CSPP source has stated
that their study was commissioned because there was concern that the
Administration study would not include sufficient industry input... We
recommend you urge continued close contact between CSPP and the NEC on this
issue."
William Reinsch To Ron Brown, June 1, 1995
Furthermore, Mr. Reinsch notes that a government survey on encryption was
given to CSPP members prior to June 1, 1995 and he urged Secretary Brown to
"encourage the CEO's present to send in their responses". This memo is
clear evidence that your claim that the CSPP did not present such issues
before November 1995 is false.
Then there is your claim that Mr. Kay donated only $1,250 dollars to
democratic candidates - the other $1,250 being returned to him in the form
of a "painting". This is in contrary to the Federal Election Commission
donation records for Mr. Kay who listed his employer as "Podesta
Associates" and far less than the FEC records show. The painting matter
also raises more questions of the relationship between the Democratic
National Party and Mr. Kay. What painting? How much is it worth? Who
painted it? Why did the DNC sell it?
Another admission you make in your response is that secret meetings with
CSPP members did take place. What meetings? What policy was discussed? Who
was invited and what waivers were issued for their exposure to classified
materials? Why was the public cut out of a "domestic" issue such as the
security in place in their bank accounts and on their home computers?
Another point you make is that there is no connection between Podesta and
Associates and Mr. John Podesta. In fact, Podesta and Associates sent an
unsolitcited fax to me no more than 30 minutes after I received the
response from Mr. Michael B. Waitzkin, White House Counsel. At no time was
I able to get anyone at Podesta and Associates to respond to my inquiries.
At no time did I send my fax number to Podesta and Associates. Of course,
their fax is a denial of the proposed article and their claim that Mr.
Podesta was employed starting in July of 1995. The rapid and co-ordinated
response by Podesta and Associates with the White House Counsel is a clear
demonstration of exactly HOW CLOSE the relationship is.
Of great concern to me is one whole subject/issue has been avoided
altogether. The illegal export of US built super computers to nuclear
weapons labs in Russia and China. I note that CSPP member Silicon Graphics
and Podesta Associates client IBM exported those computers without license
to Arazmas 17, a Russian nuclear weapons lab. The primary topic of the June
1, 1995 memo to Ron Brown was the CSPP closed meeting on June 6, 1995.
According to Mr. Reinsch's memo, the June 6, 1995 meeting was on the
"current export control levels for computers". I would like to note here
for you that those illegal exports took place directly after that closed
meeting.
Finally, Mr. Podesta has responded through White House attorney, Michael B.
Waitzkin, that he sought and was granted a waiver from conflict of interest
from White House Counsel in 1997. I note that Mr. Podesta obtained that
waiver some four years after his original term of service, AFTER the closed
meetings were held and AFTER the exports took place. Perhaps, you can
supply a copy of that waiver since Mr. Podesta has failed to respond to my
request for that information.
Best Wishes,
Charles R. Smith
SOFTWAR
================================================================
Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT
FROM THE DESK OF:
*Michael Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends
================================================================
<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, mis-
directions 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, CTRLgives 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://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.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
