Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (1148)	10/3/2000 11:17:04 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 10042

Lawyer Changes E-Mail Testimony By Pete Yost Associated Press Writer Tuesday, Oct. 3, 2000; 7:52 p.m. EDT WASHINGTON –– A former White House lawyer has changed some of her testimony in the e-mail controversy after being brought before a grand jury and confronted with documents by prosecutors in Independent Counsel Robert Ray's office. The changes submitted by ex-White House lawyer Michelle Peterson in a civil court filing give a glimpse of Ray's investigation into whether the White House covered up the e-mail problem in 1998 at the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Presidential aides deny any cover-up. "During the course of my testimony to the grand jury, it appeared from the documents shown to me that I may have been mistaken," Peterson wrote in a three-page declaration to a federal court last Wednesday. Asked about the e-mail probe Tuesday, Ray senior counsel Keith Ausbrook declined to comment. During grand jury testimony last month, Ray's prosecutors confronted Peterson with proof that contrary to earlier statements she had made, a stack of White House e-mails that she checked in June 1998 did not duplicate in its entirety e-mails that had been turned over to Kenneth Starr's office five months earlier. A copy of one e-mail in a "test" batch from June 1998 was not turned over to Starr the previous January, although the text of the message was contained in a separate e-mail turned over to the prosecutors. The "test" e-mails also contained an e-mail with a "cc" list of people to whom the message was sent. The "cc" list, which was not given to Starr, would have been useful to prosecutors as they tried to determine precisely who might have information about Lewinsky's relationship with President Clinton. White House spokesman Elliot Diringer said the two e-mails were the only differences. "These were inconsequential differences that had no meaningful impact on any inquiry," said Diringer. In addition to the differences in two e-mails, Peterson's declaration also suggests that Ray's office is investigating why the White House did not produce a computerized index of e-mails, which could have revealed that Starr's office was not getting all the computer messages it had subpoenaed in the Lewinsky investigation. The log, which was printed out during the June 1998 test, "to my knowledge was not produced" to Starr's office, Peterson wrote. Peterson's conclusion in 1998 that the two stacks of e-mails duplicated each other lulled the White House counsel's office into believing that a glitch in the e-mail archiving system had been fixed and that subpoenas from various investigations were being fully complied with, according to testimony by White House aides. It wasn't until this year that the White House computer problem surfaced in a civil suit filed by a conservative group, Judicial Watch. The suit alleges that the Clinton White House invaded the privacy of former White House employees in the Reagan and Bush administrations by improperly gathering their FBI background files. As part of that lawsuit, the conservative group gathered declarations from several White House computer contractors who said they were threatened to keep quiet about the e-mail problem in 1998. Separately Tuesday, a prominent Washington attorney hired in 1998 by White House computer contractor Northrop Grumman, apparently in some capacity relating to the e-mail problem, refused to answer virtually all questions posed to him on the witness stand by Judicial Watch attorney Larry Klayman. Earl Silbert invoked attorney-client privilege and said he didn't recall the names of the White House officials with whom he spoke during two brief conversations. Silbert represented the contractor briefly after employees reported the alleged threats to keep silent about the e-mail problem. washingtonpost.com

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (1148)	10/3/2000 11:17:18 PM
From: pezz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

I noticed you didn't respond to my challenge......Himmmmmmm I eagerly await tomorrow's polls ........All of'em!

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (1148)	10/4/2000 6:47:12 AM
From: long-gone	Respond to of 10042

There is so much spin even in the "scientific" polls only the vote will tell us who will win - that and price of oil - which plays far better for the Gov. & would do even more to support him if more had read the VP's book. We are getting exactly what Gore wanted - HIGHER PRICED OIL.