"Appeals Court rules against McDermott in taped call dispute"
In a 2-1 opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that McDermott violated the rights of House Majority Leader John Boehner, who was heard on the 1996 call involving former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.Damn. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 28, 2006 10:41 AM | Email ThisThe court ordered McDermott to pay Boehner more than $700,000 for leaking the taped conversation. The figure includes $60,000 in damages and more than $600,000 in legal costs.
Dems or Repubs..makes no difference.
Unlike Stefan's focus on bad Dems and never anything about bad Repubs.
Posted by: Lovinusa on March 28, 2006 10:45 AMOh yeah....they are only activist when you disagree with them. Otherwise, they are intepreting the law.
Posted by: Lovinusa on March 28, 2006 10:46 AMStefan makes an argument. I point out flaws. Your advice: don't respond.
Lovely.
Posted by: Lovinusa on March 28, 2006 11:02 AMBagdad Jim was wrong. Though it is not technically illegal to listen in on cell phone calls, nor to tape them, it is illegal to knowingly disclose their content.
He knowingly disclosed the content and much grief was given to the participants on the conference call.
Jim's excuse was that he didn't tape the call, someone gave it to him, so they were wrong but he has the first amendment right to publish the content. Sort of like, "I didn't steal it, someone gave it to me and now it's mine to do what I wish.."
Posted by: SouthernRoots on March 28, 2006 11:13 AMBottom line for me: McDermott is an embarrassment and the sooner he is out of political life the better it will be for Washington. He was such maddeningly annoying when he went to Iraqi prior to the invasion to show "solidarity" with the Iraqi people. What a complete crock, and an insult to every soldier who has gone to Iraq; double true for those who went, and never came back.
Posted by: Brad R. Torgersen on March 28, 2006 11:13 AMPosted by Steve_dog at March 28, 2006 11:00 AM
BWAHAHAHAHAHA don't worry Steve they will starve all by themselves!
Posted by: dcat on March 28, 2006 11:18 AMWaiting for announcement........
Not 'gonna hold my breath.
Posted by: JCM on March 28, 2006 11:27 AMBaghdad Jim probably won't pay a dime of his own money. It will undoubtedly come from donors of one sort or another, and it won't happen until Boehner uses up the $60K in additional legal fees trying to get the money.
In the mean time McDumbmott's poll numbers among constituents will remain high and he'll sail through the next election with his usual overwhelming victory.
To liberals, laws are nothing but an obstacle to be overcome by any means, legal or illegal. It's called lawlessness.
Posted by: Republican (by default) on March 28, 2006 11:28 AMWhat McDermott did was especially foolish because it has overshadowed the fact that the tape was incontrovertable proof that Gingrich was violating a promise he had made to Congress.
Posted by: wayne on March 28, 2006 11:53 AMHe should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. And the same goes for any Republicans that commit similar crimes. All of these politicians think they are above the law. It's high time we see some of them pay some big fines and even do some time so that others learn to think before they do something illegal and wrong.
NOT!!!!!
As I recall this is the case that got Jim kicked off the Ethics Committee.
He didn't disclose this himself because he wanted to avoid the political fallout. He initially denied having any part. He was ultimately named by the couple who originally recorded the phone comversation. They were RAT activists using an illegal scanner.
Posted by: South County on March 28, 2006 12:22 PMSince when is a judge upholding the law, (as opposed to creating new laws), considered judicial activism?
Posted by: swassociates on March 28, 2006 12:33 PMWill you (if you live in the 7th Congressional District) or would you (if you don't) continue to vote for Jim McDermott, knowing that his actions in this case rose to the level of malice, according to the original judge? And do you think that Al Qaeda deserves more privacy on a cell phone conversation than the Speaker of the U.S. House of representatives?
Unless your answers are no and no, you've really got nothing to say and no way to defend yourself.
Posted by: Larry on March 28, 2006 12:36 PMThat is simple to answer - a judge that does not follow the progressive agenda is actively trying to rule by the law, hence an activist judge!
See, it is easy.
Posted by: Fred on March 28, 2006 12:38 PM"Democrats can wire tap and they are called heros. When Military is attempting to capture Terrorist communications using cell phones it is illegal. " Hugh Hewitt said it more than a year ago: "Republicans likes written rules and judges who enforce them; Democrats like unwritten rules and the judges who invent them."
P / P
Fred - nice verbal contortionism.
P / P - well said.
Posted by: Republican (by default) on March 28, 2006 12:49 PMI like to read comments on both blogs.
Posted by: Libertarian on March 28, 2006 01:07 PMDon't try to hold your breath till Baghdad Jim pays the fine either.
Michael,
You're not paying attention . . . Democrats do not commit crimes, only Republicans do.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on March 28, 2006 01:52 PMNow let's see if the elite schmuck pays up.
Posted by: Pbs7mm on March 28, 2006 02:28 PMWhen you consider, for example, that advertising during the Super Bowl costs a million for 30 seconds, this whole invented scandal surrounding that taped phone call and the MSM's covering it for weeks would have been a bargain with $6 million in fines.
Posted by: MJC on March 28, 2006 02:41 PMThe statement, "Though it is not technically illegal to listen in on cell phone calls, nor to tape them, it is illegal to knowingly disclose their content," may be true “technically”, but the whole issue of intercepting cell phone transmissions in the John Boehner incidnet might not be as straightforward as some people think.
What follows is my viewpoint, based on my personal involvement in both amateur radio and law enforcement. This is a viewpoint based on what I believe are two fundamental principles in this case: The Right to Privacy and Reasonable Expectation of Privacy.
Historically, regular land line phone calls (phone calls over regular "wires") could not be monitored or wiretapped unless: 1) One party in a two party call agrees to allow the conversation to be recorded [like when an informant is helping to expose a drug dealer]; 2) you inform the party or parties involved in the call that the phone call is being recorded [“this call may be recorded for quality assurance”]; 3) probable cause exists that certain crimes had been committed (ref: Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, amended by Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and Patriot Act which softened probable cause requirements.)
People could, then in general, make phone calls with an expectation of privacy from the public, and, from government officials (except as provided above).
I believe the fundamental issues here are the right to privacy, a civil right, and the reasonable expectation of privacy, mentioned above. Generally, your right to privacy is explicitly stated in state and federal laws, but also hinges on the reasonable expectation of privacy any individual may or may not have in a given scenario.
If you have a phone conversation on a pay phone at a crowded airport (not in a closed phone booth), an expectation of privacy is not reasonable. Someone standing nearby could certainly hear your conversation. I could record your portion of the conversation legally, but this IS NOT A WIRETAP, as I’m only recording your voice while standing nearby, and your expectation of privacy is not reasonable. If I wiretapped the phone conversation (unless as described above), that would be illegal, and a violation of your right to privacy.
If individual A peeks at individual B changing clothes in a public facility and individual A does this for sexual gratification, but individual B is standing in a common area while changing, though distasteful, it’s not voyeurism, since there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
If individual A peeks at individual B when he/she has an expectation of privacy while changing clothes in a closed room (public or private), and individual A does this for sexual gratification, it is voyeurism – the victim, individual B, had a reasonable expectation of privacy (paraphrased from RCW 9A.44.115).
Traditionally, any radio transmission made is considered public domain. That is, I can monitor any radio transmission I like, and it’s not illegal. I can even legally decode digital transmissions, however it is illegal to decrypt encrypted transmissions.
The burden of securing transmissions has always rested with the parties transmitting. If the transmitting party does not secure their transmission, that’s their problem.
Parties using the public airwaves are generally aware of this, and so there is no “expectation of privacy” when I’m using a CB, Ham radio, or other two-way, radio communication.
However, when cell phones came along (and 10 years ago, when this case started, cell phones were new technoloty) most people did not realize their “phone” conversations could be easily monitored. This right to privacy concern is is what generated amendments to the Code of Federal Regualtions (47 CFR Parts 2 and 15, 1998) regarding scanners and the ability to recieve cell phone transmisions.
People had the same expectation of privacy on cell phones that they had on regular “land line” phones. Only technically savvy people knew their cell phone calls were easily monitored.
The principles of “right to privacy”, and “reasonable expectation of privacy”, defined and protected by law, and based on the original fourth amendment, may not always keep up with technology (example: up-skirt videotaping was technically not illegal in the recent past in WA state, because the law did not contain language that described current day video recording technology). But since it was "technically not illegal" to videotape up a womans dress, no problem right?
Although laws do not explicitly state this, I believe cell phone conversations provide an example of a situation where people do (or at least did 10 years ago, when cell phone technology was new) have a reasonable expectation of privacy, based on the average persons understanding of telephone communication technology 10 years ago, and experience with traditional telephones.
Did John Boehner have a reasonable expectation of privacy when he made his cell “phone call” to Newt Gingrich 10 years ago? I think he probably did. Was John Boehner’s right to privacy violated, if not by law, then at least in principle, when his cell “phone call” was intercepted and recorded, while he was using what was then a new, emerging technology? I would say under the circumstances that existed back then, yes.
But then, not everyone lives by principle.
Posted by: MB on March 28, 2006 03:51 PMThere are specific regulations that may the disclosure of recording of certain transmissions illegal. In other words, you may listen, but you'd better not talk about it or play a recording of it. A specific case: during the action in Granada, some news organizations played tapes of transmissions made by a ham radio operator in Granada. That was specifically illegal. Nor can you disclose what you heard when listening to police transmissions.
Posted by: RadioMattM on March 28, 2006 04:19 PMThe "invented scandal" was the what the MSM did with the contents of the illegally taped conversation. The only newsworthy part of the incident was that Democrats conspired with a Democrat congressman who conspired with a leftist newspaper to slime some Republicans discussing strategy.
Posted by: MJC on March 28, 2006 04:38 PMhttp://www5.metrokc.gov/reports/property_report.asp?PIN=1860600485
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 28, 2006 04:40 PMhttp://146.129.54.93:8193/imgcache/OPR20030110002150-1-11.pdf
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 28, 2006 04:48 PMNow if we can get somebody to start prosecuting the election fraud these guys are perping nationwide, things might just get straightened out.
Tee, hee, hee! (Opp! There I go again).
Jim McDermott should be in jail..
Posted by: Deborah on March 28, 2006 05:57 PMEven though Baghdad Jim's wife owns half the house, isn't BJ still liable for the debt, and can't his half of the house still have the lien attached, which will encumber the house if they try to sell?
O'Dub
Posted by: Obi-Wan on March 28, 2006 07:59 PMAll you partisan leftwing hacks claim that the Bush Administration is so corrupt - yet you don't own up to McDermott being corrupt, along with Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy and Billary. Hypocrites !
I am not denying that there is some corruption at the top, but I can't see any improvement by anyone else your side has to offer up. If any Republican or Democrat for that matter could divorce themselves from the lobbyists and stand for something that favored the common people, they would get my vote - by a vast majority are incapable of being corrupted by money.
Posted by: KS on March 28, 2006 08:01 PMCunningham is also a criminal for taking bribes and should have a nice long stay for violating not only the law.
He also violated the trust a republic needs in it's elected officials. That makes his crime even more infamous. While not a crime, I think crimes by elected officials should have higher penalties for their crimes.
He also had a public image, he should have held his legacy, his legacy as an American hero in higher regard. While not a crime, it is a great moral failing not to regard ones place in posterity.
A quick comparison:
Number close to the Clinton administration who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 44
Number of convictions during his administration: 33
Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
Number of imprisonments: 14
Number of presidential impeachments: 1
Number of independent counsel investigations: 7
Number of congressional witnesses pleading the 5th Amendment: 72
Number of witnesses fleeing the country to avoid testifying: 17
Number of foreign witnesses who have declined interviews by investigative bodies: 19
Number close to the Bush administration who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 0
Number of convictions during his administration: 0
Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 1
Number of imprisonments: 0
Number of presidential impeachments: 0
Number of independent counsel investigations: 1
Number of congressional witnesses pleading the 5th Amendment: 0
Number of witnesses fleeing the country to avoid testifying: 0
Number of foreign witnesses who have declined interviews by investigative bodies: 0
The hit on Bush is "He Lied." What was the "lie?" Not under oath like his predecessor, his "offense" was taking information provided him from multiple sources and acting on that information. FYI the resolution acted on by congress contains 23 counts, only 2 where regard WMD, no one is contesting the other 21 points.
Scooter Libby was investigated for out a CIA "agent." Plame was a classified employee. It is only a crime to out a covert agent. There is a defined difference between classified and covert. He was dinged for "lying" to the Grand Jury. His lie was at worst a faulty recollection of a unimportant conversation with a media wonk. BTW Times Mag filed a court brief making the argument that no crimes where committed in the Plame case. I'll go on the record that the charges against Scooter will be dropped before going to trial. I'll also predict the only place you'll see the story is the blogosphere.
Now Baghdad Jim:
It is crime to record conversations in all states. Some States have 1 party and some 2 party consent laws. The couple in FL where Democratic party activists who happen to have cell phone interception gear, hooked up to recording gear in their car. Then just happen to stumble across the call from Gingrich to Boehner. If any buys that story I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale, cheap.
It is illegal to transfer to posses or transfer or disclose those recordings. It was a felony for McDimwitt to accept the tapes, have the tapes and to give the tapes to the Media. McDimwitt never argued he didn't do it, he argued it was a "special" case and that he was "special" and exempt from the law.
Not only is McDimwitt a felon, he is an arrogant elitist a**.
Cunningham is a fallen hero, and deserves his sentence.
McDimwitt is an lying fool, and is skating.
Justice (snort).
All he had to do was pay 10K to a charity, apologize on the House floor to the Congress and apologize to his "victims".
But Baghdad Jim thought he could win...
HA!!
Posted by: SubDoc on March 29, 2006 08:26 AMAt the least he should be censured by the House of Representatives but I don't see that happening either.
In other words, he knew he had nothing to lose no matter which way the judge called it.
Piece of liberal excrement; wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher. The people on Capitol Hill who vote for him need their heads examined to keep sending him to DC to represent them.
Posted by: Clean House on March 29, 2006 10:47 AMJim McDermott is an embarrassment to Seattle and the 7th CD. He opposes the Patriot Act and opposes the NSA terrorist wiretapping program. But he has no problem with illegally using tapes from REAL domestic wiretapping of a fellow Congressman.
McDermott is an ineffective Congressman, poorly representing his constituents. McDermott acts as if he is 'Congressman for Life,' but despite his long tenure he is isolated, ineffective, with little respect or influence in Congress. It is time for a change. Seattle needs a debate, not a one-sided far left monologue.
Steve Beren
www.steveberen.com
Steve Beren
www.steveberen.com
Several questions:
1. Where did you get your numbers?
2. Do they refer to people actually hired by and serving in the respective administrations? And are these high level appointments, or mostly flunkies.
3. Don't you think these lopsided numbers are due primarily to the fact that Clinton faced a hostile congress out to crucify him, and used every legitimate and/or sleazy means to do so, whereas Bush faces a lapdog congress that refuses to exercise any of its oversight powers? I would wager that if the Dems capture either branch of congress this year, Bush's lawless numbers will explode into public view.
4. Finally, do you have comparable figures for Reagan's administration, as it was my sense that his was, in terms of felony indictments of high level officials, the most corrupt administration in US history, and that only Bush Sr's pardons saved it from being even worst?
Just curious
Posted by: oh-so-curious on March 29, 2006 02:45 PMWas it not all of those papers (MSM) who are calling for the beheading of Bush for "illegal wire taps" but they are willing to back what BJ did? I am more confused about the MSM as I ever was.
Let me think about this... If Bush has a private conversation between someone (lets assume one US citizen) and someone outside the USA recorded (and never released to the public) we should have him impeached (according to the MSM) but if Jimbo has (or was given) a private conversation between 2 known US citizens recorded and then released to the public then we should have our (the MSM) lawyers write a brief to defend him.
Damn that did not help either... still confused.
Last question to clear things up…. Are ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, The Associated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post going to write a brief to defend what Bush is doing???? Is that a NO “F”ing way?
Ken Starr and other prosecutors convinced 14 different juries that crimes had been committed. Just how does a hostile congress fit into that fantasy?
Other than the impeachment, none of the numbers are congressionally related, all executive branch prosecutions, conducted in front of the judical branch.
Your ignorance of how things work betray you.
While I don't have Reagan admin details handy, I know Cap Weinberger's (RIP), indictment was for failing to turn over documents to the Walsh investigation. Documents which Weinberger had already donated to the Library of Congress. The indictment was for failure to disclose public documents.
Iran Contra was a policy mistake, Reagan vowed publicly not to deal with terrorist and then did, What got everybody hot and bother was taking the proceeds of the sales to Iranians and giving to the Contras. The law at the time prohibited funding the Contras with appropriated funds. Technically the money given to Contras was legal, as the proceeds were not appropriated funds. While violated the spirit of the law, help the Contras it was legal.
In hindsight those who opposed the Contras, and supported the Sandinistas, are the same one who place kissy face with Castro and Chaves. Communists.
As to my numbers, I have been around here a long time, and bludgeoned a lot of loony lefties with facts, most of them never come back to the argument, and I haven't seen many of the around here for a long time.
Your tag I have never seen, I leave it up to you to prove me wrong.
It's about credibility.
Posted by: JCM on March 29, 2006 03:30 PMYou may already have this, but here's a list of Clinton 'legacy' convictions, scandals, etc. http://prorev.com/legacy.htm
The Clinton Legacy
The Progressive Review
This list was compiled at the end of the Clinton administration.
Our Clinton Scandal Index
RECORDS SET
- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court
* According to our best information, 40 government officials were indicted or convicted in the wake of Watergate. A reader computes that there was a total of 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House.
Using a far looser standard that included resignations, David R. Simon and D. Stanley Eitzen in Elite Deviance, say that 138 appointees of the Reagan administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were criminally indicted. Curiously Haynes Johnson uses the same figure but with a different standard in "Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years: "By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."
STARR-RAY INVESTIGATION
- Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas (including one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners): 14
- Number of Clinton Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5
- Number of Reagan cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 4
- Number of top officials jailed in the Teapot Dome Scandal: 3
CRIME STATS
- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122
SMALTZ INVESTIGATION
- Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases involving charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and associated individuals and businesses: 15
- Acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6
- Fines and penalties assessed: $11.5 million
- Amount Tyson Food paid in fines and court costs: $6 million
CLINTON MACHINE CRIMES
FOR WHICH CONVICTIONS
HAVE BEEN OBTAINED
Drug trafficking (3), racketeering, extortion, bribery (4), tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement (2), fraud (12), conspiracy (5), fraudulent loans, illegal gifts (1), illegal campaign contributions (5), money laundering (6), perjury, obstruction of justice.
OTHER MATTERS INVESTIGATED BY SPECIAL PROSECUTORS
AND CONGRESS, OR REPORTED IN THE MEDIA
Bank and mail fraud, violations of campaign finance laws, illegal foreign campaign funding, improper exports of sensitive technology, physical violence and threats of violence, solicitation of perjury, intimidation of witnesses, bribery of witnesses, attempted intimidation of prosecutors, perjury before congressional committees, lying in statements to federal investigators and regulatory officials, flight of witnesses, obstruction of justice, bribery of cabinet members, real estate fraud, tax fraud, drug trafficking, failure to investigate drug trafficking, bribery of state officials, use of state police for personal purposes, exchange of promotions or benefits for sexual favors, using state police to provide false court testimony, laundering of drug money through a state agency, false reports by medical examiners and others investigating suspicious deaths, the firing of the RTC and FBI director when these agencies were investigating Clinton and his associates, failure to conduct autopsies in suspicious deaths, providing jobs in return for silence by witnesses, drug abuse, improper acquisition and use of 900 FBI files, improper futures trading, murder, sexual abuse of employees, false testimony before a federal judge, shredding of documents, withholding and concealment of subpoenaed documents, fabricated charges against (and improper firing of) White House employees, inviting drug traffickers, foreign agents and participants in organized crime to the White House.
ARKANSAS ALTZHEIMER'S
Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar.
Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey 161
Bill Burton 191
Mark Gearan 221
Mack McLarty 233
Neil Egglseston 250
Hillary Clinton 250
John Podesta 264
Jennifer O'Connor 343
Dwight Holton 348
Patsy Thomasson 420
Jeff Eller 697
FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES: In the portions of President Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how many times he gave each one.
I don't remember - 71
I don't know - 62
I'm not sure - 17
I have no idea - 10
I don't believe so - 9
I don't recall - 8
I don't think so - 8
I don't have any specific recollection - 6
I have no recollection - 4
Not to my knowledge - 4
I just don't remember - 4
I don't believe - 4
I have no specific recollection - 3
I might have - 3
I don't have any recollection of that - 2 I don't have a specific memory - 2
I don't have any memory of that - 2
I just can't say - 2
I have no direct knowledge of that - 2
I don't have any idea - 2
Not that I recall - 2
I don't believe I did - 2
I can't remember - 2
I can't say - 2
I do not remember doing so - 2
Not that I remember - 2
I'm not aware - 1
I honestly don't know - 1
I don't believe that I did - 1
I'm fairly sure - 1
I have no other recollection - 1
I'm not positive - 1
I certainly don't think so - 1
I don't really remember - 1
I would have no way of remembering that - 1
That's what I believe happened - 1
To my knowledge, no - 1
To the best of my knowledge - 1
To the best of my memory - 1
I honestly don't recall - 1
I honestly don't remember - 1
That's all I know - 1
I don't have an independent recollection of that - 1
I don't actually have an independent memory of that - 1
As far as I know - 1
I don't believe I ever did that - 1
That's all I know about that - 1
I'm just not sure - 1
Nothing that I remember - 1
I simply don't know - 1
I would have no idea - 1
I don't know anything about that - 1
I don't have any direct knowledge of that - 1
I just don't know - 1
I really don't know - 1
I can't deny that, I just -- I have no memory of that at all - 1
THE CLINTON LEGACY:
LONELY HONOR
Here are some of the all too rare public officials, reporters, and others who spoke truth to the dismally corrupt power of Bill and Hill Clinton's political machine -- some at risk to their careers, others at risk to their lives. A few points to note:
- Those corporatist media reporters who attempted to report the story often found themselves muzzled; some even lost their jobs. The only major dailies that consistently handled the story well were the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times.
- Nobody on this list has gotten rich and many you may not have even heard of. Taking on the Clintons typically has not been a happy or rewarding experience. At least ten reporters have been fired, transferred off their beats, resigned, or otherwise gotten into trouble because of their work on the scandals. Whistleblowing is even less appreciated within the government. One study of whistleblowers found that 232 out of 233 them reported suffering retaliation; another study found reprisals in about 95% of cases.
- Contrary to the popular impression, the politics of those listed ranges from the left to the right, and from the ideological to the independent.
PUBLIC OFFICIALS
MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ was a prosecutor on the staff of Kenneth Starr. His attempts to uncover the truth in the Vincent Foster death case were repeatedly foiled and he was the subject of planted stories undermining his credibility and implying that he was unstable. Rodriguez eventually resigned.
JEAN DUFFEY: Head of a joint federal-county drug task force in Arkansas. Her first instructions from her boss: "Jean, you are not to use the drug task force to investigate any public official." Duffey's work, however, led deep into the heart of the Dixie Mafia, including members of the Clinton machine and the investigation of the so-called "train deaths." Ambrose Evans-Pritchard reports that when she produced a star witness who could testify to Clinton's involvement with cocaine, the local prosecuting attorney, Dan Harmon issued a subpoena for all the task force records, including "the incriminating files on his own activities. If Duffey had complied it would have exposed 30 witnesses and her confidential informants to violent retributions. She refused." Harmon issued a warrant for her arrest and friendly cops told her that there was a $50,000 price on her head. She eventually fled to Texas. The once-untouchable Harmon was later convicted of racketeering, extortion and drug dealing.
BILL DUNCAN: An IRS investigator in Arkansas who drafted some 30 federal indictments of Arkansas figures on money laundering and other charges. Clinton biographer Roger Morris quotes a source who reviewed the evidence: "Those indictments were a real slam dunk if there ever was one." The cases were suppressed, many in the name of "national security." Duncan was never called to testify. Other IRS agents and state police disavowed Duncan and turned on him. Said one source, "Somebody outside ordered it shut down and the walls went up."
RUSSELL WELCH: An Arkansas state police detective working with Duncan. Welch developed a 35-volume, 3,000 page archive on drug and money laundering operations at Mena. His investigation was so compromised that a high state police official even let one of the targets of the probe look through the file. At one point, Welch was sprayed in the face with poison, later identified by the Center for Disease Control as anthrax. He would write in his diary, "I feel like I live in Russia, waiting for the secret police to pounce down. A government has gotten out of control. Men find themselves in positions of power and suddenly crimes become legal." Welch is no longer with the state police.
DAN SMALTZ: Smaltz did an outstanding job investigating and prosecuting charges involving illegal payoffs to Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, yet was treated with disparaging and highly inaccurate reporting by the likes of the David Broder and the NY Times. Espy was acquitted under a law that made it necessary to not only prove that he accepted gratuities but that he did something specific in return. On the other hand, Tyson Foods copped a plea in the same case, paying $6 million in fines and serving four years' probation. The charge: that Tyson had illegally offered Espy $12,000 in airplane rides, football tickets and other payoffs. In the Espy investigation, Smaltz obtained 15 convictions and collected over $11 million in fines and civil penalties. Offenses for which convictions were obtained included false statements, concealing money from prohibited sources, illegal gratuities, illegal contributions, falsifying records, interstate transportation of stolen property, money laundering, and illegal receipt of USDA subsidies. Incidentally, Janet Reno blocked Smaltz from pursuing leads aimed at allegations of major drug trafficking in Arkansas and payoffs to the then governor of the state, WJ Clinton. Espy had become Ag secretary only after being flown to Arkansas to get the approval of chicken king Don Tyson.
DAVID SCHIPPERS was House impeachment counsel and a Chicago Democrat. He did a highly creditable job but since he didn't fit the right-wing conspiracy theory, the Clintonista media downplayed his work. Thus most Americans don't know that he told NewsMax, "Let me tell you, if we had a chance to put on a case, I would have put live witnesses before the committee. But the House leadership, and I'm not talking about Henry Hyde, they just killed us as far as time was concerned. I begged them to let me take it into this year. Then I screamed for witnesses before the Senate. But there was nothing anybody could do to get those Senators to show any courage. They told us essentially, you're not going to get 67 votes so why are you wasting our time." Schippers also said that while a number of representatives looked at additional evidence kept under seal in a nearby House building, not a single senator did.
JOHN CLARKE: When Patrick Knowlton stopped to relieve himself in Ft. Marcy Park 70 minutes before the discovery of Vince Foster's body, he saw things that got him into deep trouble. His interview statements were falsified and prior to testifying he claims he was overtly harassed by more than a score of men in a classic witness intimidation technique. In some cases there were witnesses. John Clarke has been his dogged lawyer in the witness intimidation case that has been largely ignored by the media, even when the three-judge panel overseeing the Starr investigation permitted Knowlton to append a 20 page addendum to the Starr Report.
OTHER
THE ARKANSAS COMMITTEE: What would later be known as the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy actually began on the left - as a group of progressive students at the University of Arkansas had formed the Arkansas Committee to look into Mena, drugs, money laundering, and Arkansas politics. This committee was the source of some of the important early Clinton stories including those published in the Progressive Review.
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SCANDALS E-LIST: Moderated by Ray Heizer, this list has been subject to all the idiosyncrasies of Internet bulletin boards, but it has nonetheless proved invaluable to researchers and journalists.
JOURNALISTS
JERRY SEPER of the Washington Times was far and away the best beat reporter of the story, handling it week after week in the best tradition of investigative journalism. If other reporters had followed Seper's lead, the history of the Clintons' machine might have been quite different.
AMBROSE EVANS-PRITCHARD of the London Telegraph did a remarkable job of digging into some of the seamiest tales from Arkansas and the Clinton past. Other early arrivals on the scene were Alexander Cockburn and Jeff Gerth.
CHRISTOPHER RUDDY, among other fine reports on the Clinton scandals, did the best job laying out the facts in the Vince Foster death case.
ROGER MORRIS AND SALLY DENTON wrote a major expose of events at Mena, but at the last moment the Washington Post's brass ordered the story killed. It was published by Penthouse and later included in Morris' "Partners in Power," the best biography of the Clintons.
OTHERS who helped get parts of the story out included reporters Philip Weiss, Carl Limbacher, Wes Phelan, David Bresnahan, William Sammon, Liza Myers, Mara Leveritt, Matt Drudge, Jim Ridgeway, Nat Hentoff, Michael Isikoff, Christopher Hitchens, and Michael Kelly. Also independent investigator Hugh Sprunt and former White House FBI agent Gary Aldrich.
SAM SMITH of the Progressive Review wrote the first book (Shadows of Hope, University of Indiana Press, 1994) deconstructing the Clinton myth and the Review developed a major database on the topic.
The Clintons, to adapt a line from Dr. Johnson, were not only corrupt, they were the cause of corruption in others. Seldom in America have so many come to excuse so much mendacity and malfeasance as during the Clinton years. These rare exceptions cited above, and others unmentioned, deserve our deep thanks.
THE CLINTON LEGACY
The Hidden Election
USA Today calls it "the hidden election," in which nearly 7,000 state legislative seats are decided with only minimal media and public attention. The paper took brief notice because this is the year the state legislatures perform their most important national function: drawing revised congressional districts based on the most recent census.
But there's another important national story here: further evidence of the disaster that Bill Clinton has been for the Democratic Party. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Democrats held a 1,542 seat lead in the state bodies in 1990. As of last November that lead had shrunk to 288. That's a loss of over 1,200 state legislative seats, nearly all of them under Clinton. Across the US, the Democrats control only 65 more state senate seats than the Republicans.
Further, in 1992, the Democrats controlled 17 more state legislatures than the Republicans. After November, the Republicans control one more than the Democrats. Not only is this a loss of 9 legislatures under Clinton, but it is the first time since 1954 that the GOP has controlled more state legislatures than the Democrats (they tied in 1968).
Here's what happened to the Democrats under Clinton, based on our latest figures:
- GOP seats gained in House since Clinton became president: 48
- GOP seats gained in Senate since Clinton became president: 8
- GOP governorships gained since Clinton became president: 11
- GOP state legislative seats gained since Clinton became president: 1,254
as of 1998
- State legislatures taken over by GOP since Clinton became president: 9
- Democrat officeholders who have become Republicans since Clinton became
president: 439 as of 1998
- Republican officeholders who have become Democrats since Clinton became president: 3
NATIONAL CONF OF STATE LEGISLATURES
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/hstptyct.htm
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/demshare2000.htm
Good stuff, I get tired of proving stuff to people who don't even know how the the investigative, indictment and prosecution work.
Posted by: JCM on March 29, 2006 03:59 PMWhere are the Berkeley pinheads (Dinesh) when facts are passed out?
Posted by: Amused by liberals on March 30, 2006 09:44 AM