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 : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: alan w who wrote (17285)	7/23/1998 10:09:00 AM
From: cody andre	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

"Slightly ashamed" is like being "Slightly pregnant" ... The reason and thought process of some Americans are really screwed up by PC-ness.

To: alan w who wrote (17285)	7/23/1998 11:10:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 20981

July 23, 1998 ESSAY / By WILLIAM SAFIRE Unclosed Filegate WASHINGTON -- Remember "Filegate"? Three years ago we learned that the White House had been regularly pulling the files from the F.B.I. on hundreds of Republicans -- ostensibly for security clearance, but including hundreds of former Reagan and Bush appointees never being considered for jobs. Even Clinton partisans shuddered at shades of an "enemies list." White House spokesmen dismissed it as a "bureaucratic snafu," caused by a Secret Service that couldn't keep its lists straight. Suspicion fell on D. Craig Livingstone, a Democratic advance man unqualified for his sensitive security post. Because some Clinton appointees had drug problems in their pasts, White House operatives may have felt that a supply of political mud was needed to drive off potential critics. The F.B.I. admitted wrongdoing in being so complaisant, apologized and said it would never again ship files over without proper paperwork. But it was obviously not qualified to investigate White House abuse of its files; Janet Reno asked for independent counsel, and the matter was assigned to Ken Starr, who had an organization up and running. Starr has never come to closure. Years passed; Livingstone, seeking no immunity, testified to Congress that everybody and therefore nobody was to blame. Starr's investigation languished. Fortunately for the public interest in privacy, an organization called Judicial Watch launched a class-action suit in behalf of people whose files had been unlawfully examined. This week it provided The Washington Times with an expanded list of names of those whose most intimate affairs were examined by this political operative and his bosses. The list, still growing, is up to 900 names; some, like Linda Tripp, were holdovers, but at least 400 were not -- from James Brady to James Baker, John Whitehead to James Carville. (Some White House snoop probably said merrily, "Let's see what they've got on Carville.") If the prosecutor cannot indict after all this time, he should issue a report. Here are questions that need answering: Was Livingstone hired at Hillary Clinton's suggestion? Who gave this former bar bouncer the names of the targets of White House curiosity -- names that he then ordered up from a roundheeled F.B.I.? Did the F.B.I. send over only summaries, as the White House claims, or were raw files or letters sometimes included? Before being returned to the F.B.I., were the contents of these confidential files typed into White House computer data bases? "I can see a secretary or some poor intern being relegated to typing up somebody's information on the computer," Livingstone told the reporter Bill Sammon of The Washington Times this week, "... so that the President could read it or the chief of staff could read it." Here is this series invader of privacy blithely envisioning the transmission of F.B.I. files loaded with hearsay smears being fed to the President himself, for reading amusement on his computer screen. We know that Whodb, pronounced "who-to-be," the White House Office Data Base, has on it tens of thousands of potential contributors and people who owe the Clintons favors, accessible by name, affiliation, race and religion. We do not yet know what else is in these unprecedented political dossiers. Who in the White House cooked up the excuse offered when Filegate first surfaced, that the Secret Service was to blame for providing an outdated list of names? After Secret Service agents testified to Congress that this was untrue, and that the names of former White House aides were clearly marked "inactive," Clinton's Treasury harassed the agents with a costly investigation. The Senate counter-investigated that harassment; the agents were exonerated and their legal bills paid. Now, ironically, the White House is posing as the big friend of a Secret Service reluctant to testify -- while clinging to the canard that an inefficient Secret Service was the cause of hundreds of invasions of privacy. As Clinton stonewallers talk about the President's privacy, and as White House spinmeisters seize the issue of privacy on the Internet, think about Livingstone's eye to the keyhole of more than 400 Republican bedrooms. If Starr cannot indict, he should report forthwith; then, if necessary, Congress should act. nytimes.com