From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #93 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Tuesday, March 24 1998 Volume 02 : Number 093 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 07:42:50 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: Asset Forfeiture Legislation (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 11:27:06 -0600 From: Gary Stocker To: tsra-email-list@Mailing-List.net Subject: Asset Forfeiture Legislation - -- Texas State Rifle Association Email --- March 22, 1998 The House will soon consider asset forfeiture legislation. HR 1835 provides much needed reforms of existing laws to ensure that the rights of individuals are protected from government abuse. Unfortunately, the Clinton Justice Department is pushing another bill, HR 1965, that would give the government far-reaching power to seize the property and businesses of individuals merely suspected of wrongdoing. Please call your Congressman at 202-225-3121, and urge him/her to support HR 1835, true asset seizure reform legislation, and OPPOSE the Clinton Administration's power grabbing bill, HR1965. Please visit the Texas State Rifle Association website: http://www.tsra.com/ If you wish to no longer receive email from TSRA, please reply to this message. - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 07:48:31 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: Lawmakers Assail Clinton's "Back Door" Gun Ban (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 11:38:46 -0600 From: Gary Stocker To: tsra-email-list@Mailing-List.net Subject: Lawmakers Assail Clinton's "Back Door" Gun Ban - -- Texas State Rifle Association Email --- March 22, 1998 The Senate Republican Policy Committee, which develops and coordinates legislative policy making for the GOP in the Senate and is chaired by NRA Director Sen. Larry Craig (ID), sharply criticized the Clinton Administration's "back door" plan for a sweeping new ban on firearms. At issue: thousands of foreign-made firearms -- guns the Committee report accurately termed "legally importable under President Clinton's 1994 Semi-Auto Gun Ban and the 1968 'sporting purposes' import standard." The President's goal: banning guns by circumventing Congress and sing his power to halt imports. "While every firearm sold in the United States meets or exceeds the exact standard set forth in Clinton's Semi-Auto Gun Ban, the Administration is now attempting to justify further restrictions -- only now ignoring the role of Congress," the Committee report explained. The next salvo in the battle over the Bigger Clinton Gun Ban will be fired any day now, when the Treasury Department releases its review of the 1968 "sporting purposes" standard. NRA-ILA predicts that the Clinton Administration will misuse this unconstitutional standard and ban as many imported semiautomatic firearms as possible -- all guns legal under his own gun ban -- continuing the Clinton tradition of hypocrisy, abuse of power and elimination of Second Amendment rights by every means possible. Call the Senate Republican Policy Committee at 202-224-2946, compliment them for their document titled "Clinton's New Gun Ban" dated March 16, 1998, and request a copy so you can mail one to your elected representatives. You may also download a copy from the SRPC's website at http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/pubindex98.htm Please visit the Texas State Rifle Association website: http://www.tsra.com/ If you wish to no longer receive email from TSRA, please reply to this message. - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 08:26:38 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: Anita Hill, Clinton is OK if he supports Women rights - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 20:59:29 -0500 From: jim hofmann Subject: Re: CAS: AP: Anita Hill Suffers Mental Breakdown So this is what it has come to? Psssttt... girls... Al Gore will support the same policies and he doesn't grope married women and interns. - - --- Jim At 7:51 PM -0600 3/22/98, jqp@inxpress.net wrote: >At 05:42 PM 3/22/98 -0800, Ray Heizer wrote: >> >>[ This was untitled where I found it so I made up my own title ] >> >>By JIM ABRAMS Associated Press Writer >> >>WASHINGTON (AP) -- Anita Hill says her case against Clarence Thomas is >>different from charges made against President Clinton and urges women to >>consider the bigger issue of the administration's policies toward women >>before judging his personal behavior. >> > >Spoken like a true socialist. > > "What you bitchin about? So the man stuck his hand > in your crotch. Ain't you got better day care, bitch?" > >========================================================================== >This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If >you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to >majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 20:03:30 -0600 From: jqp@inxpress.net Subject: Re: CAS: LAT: Feminists Break Ranks Over Clinton's Alleged Sexual Advances(Washn) At 07:51 PM 3/22/98 -0600, you wrote: >Feminists Break Ranks Over Clinton's Alleged Sexual >Advances > > By David G. Savage and Alan C. > Miller (c) 1998, Los Angeles > Times > > > In an opinion piece published in > Sunday's New York Times, > Steinem said the president may > have ``made a gross, dumb and > reckless pass at a supporter during > a low point in her life,'' but he is > ``not guilty of sexual harassment'' > because it happened only once > and he backed away when > rebuffed. > Cool! Gloria Steinem says I'm allowed to touch the genitals of whatever woman I want, as long as I don't rape her, and I don't try it again unless it was successful. ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 21:08:28 -0500 From: Harold Kahl Subject: CAS: Limericks: Prez sets new standard ... The Sunday talk shows were infested With gals who were just interested In making excuses For Bill's sex abuses No matter who he has molested. We men owe the Prez quite a lot For the new workplace rights we have got. We've all got free passes To grab women's asses But remember you just get one shot. ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 13:13:47 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: Dallas Morning Newspaper attacks movie about Waco (fwd) Film on Branch Davidian standoff criticized The Dallas Morning News: Top story index Film on Branch Davidian standoff criticized Makers of Oscar-nominated documentary deny that it's biased and inaccurate 03/21/98 By <"mailto:lhancock@dallasnews.com">Lee Hancock The Dallas Morning News WACO - This is the Branch Davidian story according to Hollywood: Federal police attacked a religious sect as a publicity stunt, tormented members for 51 days after they fought back and finished them off with tear gas, machine guns and fire. The tale, told in "Waco: The Rules of Engagement," will be among five nominees contending for the 1998 Oscar for best documentary Monday. But there's a problem. The film didn't get many facts right, according to the massive public record on the incident and officials who investigated it from Waco to Washington. Information mischaracterized or ignored includes evidence and testimony from congressional hearings, a 1994 criminal trial of Branch Davidians, court opinions and U.S. Treasury and Justice Department reviews. Dan Gifford, whose Los Angeles production company funded the film, defends it as good journalism. "What you see in that film is my best judgment based on 25 years in news departments of what the public could handle, what they would be willing to see," said Mr. Gifford, a former TV reporter. The film's researcher, Michael McNulty, said he blamed the government for the film's weaknesses because its agencies wouldn't cooperate. "I don't claim that our film is the end-all, be-all truth about Waco," said Mr. McNulty, who also has been paid to investigate for the Branch Davidians' pending wrongful-death lawsuit against the government. "I do think it takes a very large step in the direction of telling the truth." Others say the film gives an inaccurate picture of the tragedy that took the lives of more than 80 Branch Davidians and four federal agents. A congressman who was chairman of the 1995 Waco hearings said he and colleagues reviewed the film and found no merit to its most explosive charge: that the FBI set the compound fire and shot Branch Davidians to keep them in the inferno. "Am I concerned that this encourages people to believe something that I think is patently untrue? Yes, I am concerned," said U.S. Rep. Bill McCollum, R-Fla. Even one of the sect members' defense lawyers said he was disturbed by the film's conclusions because they were unsupported. "I think that everybody really wants to put this horrible story on the government because they're dissatisfied with the government's performance in this. But the truth was bad enough. Why not tell the truth?" said Joe Turner of Austin. Justice Department, FBI and Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms officials said the film's charges were baseless. "Based on what I know, if there were an Oscar for truth, it wouldn't have been nominated," said Justice Department spokesman Bert Brandenberg. Mr. Gifford said he decided to make the film after talks with Mr. McNulty, a Colorado resident and former radio talk show host who began researching the standoff in 1993. Mr. McNulty's Waco work first got attention when he helped "Soldier of Fortune" magazine debunk a 1993 video contending that flame-throwing FBI tanks started the fire. The 1997 film begins by portraying the Branch Davidians as unorthodox but unthreatening and contends that the ATF targeted them for publicity. Not mentioned is the fact that the McLennan County Sheriff's Department asked the ATF to investigate because of evidence that the sect was amassing illegal weapons. The film doesn't mention reports of automatic gunfire, shots fired at passersby or trial testimony that sect leader David Koresh taught followers that they must be willing to kill for God. McLennan County Sheriff Jack Harwell, who appears in the film, said it appeared "slanted to make the federal people look bad. They did enough to hurt themselves without slanting it." The movie condemns the affidavit that the ATF used to justify searching the compound as sloppy and inflammatory. It doesn't say that sect defense lawyers never challenged its legality or mention its documentation of extensive purchases of guns, parts for making machine guns and explosives ingredients. Investigators eventually traced more than $242,000 in ordnance purchases. Grenades, silencers, more than 1 million bullets and 48 illegal machine guns were found in the burned compound. When the film explores the ATF's Feb. 28, 1993, raid, it embraces Branch Davidian allegations that the ATF started the shootout that left four agents and six sect members dead. The film includes some agents' statements that the sect fired first. But it doesn't mention that three journalists who watched the battle testified in the Branch Davidians' trial that the first shots came from the compound. Mr. Gifford said those accounts and other trial information were excluded because of time constraints. Though acquitted of conspiring to kill agents, eight sect members were convicted of voluntary manslaughter and weapons charges. The film doesn't mention the convictions. The movie doesn't mention trial and congressional testimony and Treasury Department review findings about what the sect did after being tipped 30 minutes before the raid. "They didn't give themselves up. They got ready for battle," said former Assistant Treasury Secretary Ronald Noble, who oversaw the treasury inquiry. "Don't the filmmakers have an obligation to check the record?" The film contends that three Texas National Guard helicopters strafed the compound and fatally shot an unarmed Branch Davidian on its tower. It doesn't mention ATF agents' trial testimony, confirmed by FBI ballistics tests, that the tower man was armed and was killed by an agent on the ground. It also doesn't mention three National Guard pilots' trial testimony and sworn statements in the con gressional record that no one fired from the helicopters. Mr. Gifford said he didn't trust the FBI lab and thinks the pilots didn't see what happened or are lying. He said he believes allegations by Mr. Koresh and his followers that the helicopters shot up the compound. "They just don't have the ring of people who are making things up," he said. The film dismisses the government's finding, endorsed by the House inquiry, that sect members started the fire that destroyed the compound. The fire erupted about noon on April 19, six hours after the FBI tanks began bashing holes in the compound and inserting tear gas. An FBI airplane using a heat-sensitive or infrared video camera captured the fire starting in three places in three minutes. Investigators determined that the blaze was fueled by flammable liquids found along with opened fuel containers throughout the co mpound wreckage. FBI transmitters picked up voices of compound occupants discussing pouring fuel and setting fires throughout that morning. The last transmission, recorded at 11:48 a.m. said, "Let's keep that fire going." The film doesn't include that or two surviving Branch Davidians' statements about hearing voices yelling about lighting fires. The film suggests that FBI tanks spread fuel by crushing fuel cans in the building and added more flammable vapors with a component of its tear gas. Not mentioned are testimony and letters to Congress from chemical experts stating that the cited tear gas component is a fire retardant. The film says the FBI started the fire, probably with an incendiary device. It states that the blaze jumped through the building in the form of two fireballs that two surviving Davidians said they saw. James Quintiere, a University of Maryland professor who led the arson investigation, said the fireball stories are scientifically impossible. The fireballs would have been detected by the FBI infrared camera, he said. Mr. Gifford said he thinks the fireballs moved too fast and failed to generate enough heat to be captured on the infrared video. The movie doesn't mention that 19 Branch Davidians had fatal gunshot wounds, many from close range. Four of the 17 children who perished died of gunshots, and a 3-year-old was stabbed, according to autopsy reports. The movie says someone outside the compound fired machine guns into the building to keep sect members inside as the fire broke out. It offers an analysis by a former Defense Department infrared expert who said the infrared video includes flashes that can only be machine-gun fire. The expert, physicist Edward Allard, said in an interview that he had never viewed or analyzed gunfire on infrared film before Mr. McNulty showed him the FBI's Waco video. But Mr. Allard said he was certain that its flashes were from hundreds of rounds of automatic gunfire. Government officials say the flashes were sunlight reflections. The Waco movie bolsters Mr. Allard's gunfire analysis by showing segments of a similar assessment written by an infrared expert for CBS' "60 Minutes." The film says that "fear . . . kept "60 Minutes" from informing the American people." "60 Minutes" producer Rome Hartman said he didn't pursue the story because other experts offered opposite opinions. He said the filmmakers never contacted "60 Minutes." "That makes me think I can't put much stock in their journalistic integrity," he said. In response to queries from "The Washington Post" last spring about the film's gunfire allegation, the Justice Department conducted an inquiry and concluded that there was no gunfire on the video or any government gunfire April 19, said department spokesman Brandenberg. The "Post" reported that other experts were divided on the issue. Mr. McNulty and Mr. Gifford say they have information that the flashes came from guns of secret military teams deployed at Waco. Neither would elaborate, but Mr. McNulty said he would deal with that allegation in a video sequel being financed by a Colorado entertainment company. Mr. McNulty said he thinks the truth was covered up because "the White House gave the order to eliminate the evidence and remove the witnesses, so that's what happened." "http://www.dallasnews.com/index/in-the-news-nf.htm "http://dmnweb.dallasnews.com/feedback" - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 14:08:24 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: A Real BraveHeart in D.C. (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- [A letter from Ron Paul.] Dear Friend: The other day, I made a huge "gaffe" on national TV: I told the truth about the crimes of the U.S. government. As you can imagine, the ceiling fell in, and a couple of walls too. Congressmen are supposed to support the government, I was told. Oh, it's okay to criticize around the edges, but there are certain subjects a member of the House of Representatives is not supposed to bring up. But I touched the real "third-rail" of American politics, and the sparks sure flew. I was interviewed on C-SPAN's morning "Washington Journal," and I used the opportunity, as I do all such media appearances, to point out how many of our liberties have been stolen by the federal government. We must take them back. The Constitution, after all, has a very limited role for Washington, D.C. If we stuck to the Constitution as written, we would have: no federal meddling in our schools; no Federal Reserve; no U.S. membership in the UN; no gun control; and no foreign aid. We would have no welfare for big corporations, or the "poor"; no American troops in 100 foreign countries; no Nafta, Gatt, or "fast-track"; no arrogant federal judges usurping states rights; no attacks on private property; and no income tax. We could get rid of most of the cabinet departments, most of the agencies, and most of the budget. The government would be small, frugal, and limited. That system is called liberty. It's what the Founding Fathers gave us. Under liberty, we built the greatest, freest, most prosperous, most decent country on earth. It's no coincidence that the monstrous growth of the federal government has been accompanied by a sickening decline in living standards and moral standards. The feds want us to be hamsters on a treadmill -- working hard, all day long, to pay high taxes, but otherwise entirely docile and controlled. The huge, expensive, and out-of-control leviathan that we call the federal government wants to run every single aspect of our lives. Well, I'm sorry, but that's not America. It's not what the Founders gave us. It's not the country you believe in. It's not the country I believe in. So, on that ,TV interview, I emphasized not only the attacks on our property, but also the decline of our civil liberties, at the hands of the federal police. There are not supposed to be any federal police, according to the Constitution. Then I really went over the line. I talked about the Waco massacre. Bill Clinton and Janet Reno claim those 81 church members, including 19 children, burned down their own church and killed themselves, and good riddance. So they put the few survivors on trial, and threw them in prison for 40 years. We're not supposed to remember that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms--talk about an unconstitutional agency--rather than arrest David Koresh on his regular morning jog, called in the 'IV stations for a big publicity bonanza, and sent a swat team in black masks and black uniforms to break down his front door, guns blazing. They also sent in a helicopter gunship, to shoot at the roof of a church full of innocents. The Branch Davidians resisted, and after a heartless siege of almost two months, and after cutting off food, water, and electricity, and playing horrible rock and roll through huge speakers 24 hours a day, the feds sent in the tanks to crush the walls of the church, and inject poisonous CS gas. Now, CS gas is banned under the Paris Convention on Chemical Warfare. The U.S. could not use it in a war. But it could and did use it against American civilians. After the tanks did their work on the church, the place burst into flame, and all 81 people--men, women, children, and babies--were incinerated in a screaming horror. Did some feds set the fire? Did the flammable CS gas ignite, since without electricity, the parishioners were using lanterns? Did a tank knock over a lantern, striking one of the bales of hay being used against the thin walls as a "defense" against bullets? Or did the Davidians, as Clinton and Reno claim, kill themselves? A new documentary--Waco: The Rules of Engagement--may show, through FLIR infrared photography, FBI snipers killing the Davidians by shooting through the back of the church, where no media cameras were allowed. This film won a prize at the famed Sundance Film Festival. It was made by people who took the government's side, until they investigated. Whatever the truth, there's no question that an irresponsible federal government has innocent blood on its hands, and not only from Waco. And the refusal of corrupt and perverse liberals to admit it means nothing. In my r~ interview, in answer to a caller's question, I pointed out that Waco, and the federal murders at Ruby Ridge--especially the FBI sniper's shot that blasted apart the head of a young mother holding her baby--caused many Americans to live in fear of federal power. Then I uttered the sentiment that caused the media hysteria: I said that a lot of Americans fear that they too might be attacked by federal swat teams for exercising their constitutional rights, or merely for wanting to be left alone. Whoa! You've never seen anything like it. For days, in an all-out assault, I was attacked by Democrats, unions, big business, establishment Republicans, and--of course--the media, in Washington and my home state of Texas. Newspapers foamed at the mouth, calling me a "right-wing extremist." (Say, isn't that what George III called Thomas Jefferson?) I was even blamed for the Oklahoma City bombing! And by the way, I don't believe we've gotten the full truth on that either. All my many opponents were outraged that a Congressman would criticize big government. "If you don't like Washington, resign!" said a typical big-city newspaper editorial. But the media, as usual, were all wet. (Do they ever get anything right?) The average Congressman may go to Washington to wallow in power, and line his pockets with a big lobbying job for a special interest (so he can keep ripping-off the taxpayers). But that's not why I'm in Congress. It's not why I left my medical practice as a physician. It's not why I put up with all the abuse. It's not why I refuse a plush Congressional pension. I'm in this fight for a reason. I want to hand on to my children and grandchildren, and to you and your family, a great and free America, an America true to her Constitution, an America worthy of her history. I will not let the crooks and clowns and criminals have their way. I'm in Congress to represent the ideas of liberty, the ideas that you and I share, for the people of my district, for the people of Texas, for the people of America. That's why I'm working to stop federal abuses, and to cut the government: its taxes, its bureaucrats, its paramilitary police, its spending, its meddling overseas, and every single unconstitutional action it takes. And not with a pair of nail scissors, but with a hammer and chisel. Won't you help me do this work? Not much of the federal leviathan would be left, if I had my way. But you'd be able to keep the money you earn, your privacy would be secure, your dollar would be sound, your local school would be tops, and your kids wouldn't be sent off to some useless or vicious foreign war to fight for the UN. But Jefferson and the other Founders would recognize our government, and our descendants would bless us. By the way, when I say cut taxes, I don't mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing. Recently, I asked a famous Republican committee chairman--who's always talking about getting rid of the IRS--why he engineered a secret $580 million raise for the tax collectors. "They need it for their computers," this guy told me. So the IRS can't extract enough from us as it is! The National Taxpayers Union says I have the highest pro-taxpayer rating in Congressional history, that I am the top "Taxpayer's Best Friend." You know I won't play the Capitol Hill games with the Capitol Hill gang, denouncing the IRS while giving the Gestapo more of your money. Or figuring out some other federal tax for them to squeeze out of you. I also want to abolish the Federal Reserve, and send Alan Greenspan out to get a job. The value of our dollar and the level of our interest rates are not supposed to be manipulated by a few members of the power elite meeting secretly in a marble palace. The Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, pure and simple. The only Constitutional money is gold and silver, and notes redeemable in them. Not Fed funny money. Without the Federal Reserve, our money could not be inflated, at the behest of big government or big banks. Your income and savings would not lose their value. Just as important, we wouldn't have this endless string of booms and busts, recessions and depressions, with each bust getting worse. They aren't natural to the free market; they're caused by the schemers at the Fed. President Andrew Jackson called the 19th -century Fed "The Monster" because it was a vehicle for inflation and all sorts of special-interest corruption. Let me tell you, things haven't changed a bit. I also work to save our schools from D.C. interference. Thanks to the feds, new curriculums not only smear the Founders as "racist, slave-owning elitists," they seek to dumb down our students so they will all be equal. "Look-say" reading and the abolition of phonics has the same purpose, and so does the new "fuzzy" math, in which there are no right and no wrong answers. That must be what they use in the U.S. Treasury! It's certainly what they use in the U.S. Congress. But ever since the beginning of federal aid to education and accelerating with the establishment of the rotten Department of Education, SAT scores have been dropping. Schools, with few exceptions, are getting worse every year. To save our kids, we must get the sticky fingers of the feds off our local schools, and let parents rule. That's what the Constitution says, and the Bible too. And then there's my least favorite foreign topic, the UN. World government is obviously unconstitutional. It undermines our country's sovereignty in the worst way possible. That's why I want us out of the UN, and the UN itself taking a hike. After all, the UN is socialist and corrupt (many votes can be bought with a "blonde and a case of scotch," one UN ambassador once said). It costs many billions, and it puts our soldiers in UN uniforms under foreign commanders, and sends them off to unconstitutional, undeclared wars. When Michael New, one of the finest young men I've ever met, objected to wearing UN blue, he was kicked out of the American Army. What an outrage. Not one dime for the UN, and not one American soldier! Not in Haiti, not in Bosnia, not in Somalia, not in Rwanda. I know it's radical, but how about devoting American military efforts to defending America, and only America? Such ideas, said one newspaper reporter, make me a maverick who will never go far because he won't 'go along to get along.'" Darn right. What does "go far" mean? Get a big government job? The heck with that. And I won't sell my vote for pork either. When I walked through the U.S. Capitol this morning, I got angry. The building is filled with statues and paintings of Jefferson, Madison, and the other Founders. Those great men sacrificed everything to give us a free country, and a Constitution to keep it that way. When I was first elected, I placed my hand on the Bible and swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. That's exactly what I'm fighting for. But such ideas drive the liberals crazy. That's why I badly need your help. I've been targeted nationally for defeat. The Democrats, the AFL-CIO, the teachers union, big business PACs, the trial lawyers, the big bankers, the foreign-aid lobbyists, the big media, and the establishment Republicans want to dance on my political grave. The Fed, the Education Department, and the UN are anxious to join in. They can't stand even one person telling the truth. And they're terrified when that truth gains the people's support. Right now, four well-funded Democrats are competing to try to beat me, and a Republican is rumored to have been offered money at a secret meeting in Mexico(!) if he would try to knock me off in a primary. Won't you help me stay up here to fight? Frankly, I'm in trouble if you don't. My Texas district has 22,000 square miles (not a misprint). I've got to travel all over it, set up small offices to be manned by volunteers, advertise, pay phone bills, and distribute video and audio tapes to the people to get around the big-media lies. As I know from my last election, which I won by the skin of my teeth, the media will carry any smear, repeat any libel, throw any piece of mud, no matter how untrue. In fact, the less true, the more they like it. They are determined to silence me. But you can help me overcome all this. Together, we can beat the bad guys arrayed against our country and our freedom. We can support the Constitution. We can win. Your generous contribution of $25 or $50 would be great. $100, $250, or even $500 or $1,000 would be magnificent. Of course, any amount would help, and in return, I will keep you up-to-date on this fight as a member of my "kitchen cabinet." What great men founded this country. What great people have carried on their fight. That fight is not lost, not if you will join it. Washington, D.C., is a loser, but among the people, our ideas are gaining every single day. Keep the tide turning in our direction. Please make your most generous contribution. Join this fight for the Constitution, and stop those who want to rip it up, and throw it in the Potomac. Together, we can join the Founders' fight. Together, we can make history. Sincerely, (sign) Ron Paul U.S. Congressman P.S. Without you, I may be lost, and they'll be breaking out the champagne in D.C. Please, don't let this fight for the Constitution and liberty falter. Help me win it. Congressman Ron Paul The Taxpayer's Best Friend Physician, author, and statesman, Dr. Ron Paul (Republican of Texas) is the nation's leading defender of free markets, sound money, and strong families. Elected to Congress in the seventies and eighties, and re-elected in 1996, he serves on the banking and education committees. Ron Paul works in Congress to defend the Constitution, cut taxes, curb the Federal Reserve, and end government meddling in our homes and schools. He is the recipient of the best rating in history from the National Taxpayers Union, and has also been praised for refusing to take part in the lavish Congressional pension scheme. Dr. Paul co-founded the U.S. Gold Commission with Jesse Helms, co-authored its Case for Gold, and brought about the first minting of gold coins since 1933. Ron Paul has also written hundreds of articles, and such books as Abortion and Liberty and Freedom Under Siege. He is the founder of two educational organizations, FREE and the National Endowment for Liberty, distinguished counselor to the Ludwig von Mises Institute and a trustee of the Foundation For Economic Education. A pro-life champion in Congress, Dr. Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies. Ron Paul and his wife of 40 years, Carol, make their home in Surfside, Texas. They are the parents of five children and the grandparents of 13. A former Air Force flight surgeon, Dr. Paul is a graduate of Gettysburg College and Duke University Medical School. Committee to Re-elect Ron Paul .837 W. Plantation Clute, Texas 77531. 1-890-RON PAUL ========================================================================== money-ethics@uwsa.com is an unmoderated maillist about money and government. To join or leave send e-mail to majordomo@uwsa.com TO: majordomo@uwsa.com Subject: - -------------------------------------- (un)subscribe money-ethics Visit http://www.moneymaker.com/frb/index.htm or http://www.uwsa.com Support UWSA.COM at http://www.uwsa.com/UWSACOMintro.html - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 14:15:04 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: TPDL 4-L032498 (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 09:28:53 From: Wayne Mann Subject: TPDL 4-L032498 THE POLITICAL DIGEST LITE =A9 "THE Internet Clipping Service" 1079 Farroll Arroyo Grande, Ca. 93420-4136 tpd@callamerica.net Vol 4-L032498 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Heard this on the radio the other day... The word POLITICS comes from the Greek words POLY,=20 meaning many, and TICS, meaning blood-suckers. Today's Quote: "Trade cannot be free if it must balance at national boundaries." -- George Gilder =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [01] Hillary May Use Executive Privilege=20 By JOHN SOLOMON Associated Press Writer [Editors Note: Please notice the bias in this headline. It more=20 properly should say, "Hillary trying to use [...]" or even, as they say=20 in Hawaii, more-better would be, "Hillary outrageously trying to=20 [.....]" However the way it is, it implies that there is nothing out of=20 the ordinary going on, when in fact, IMO, it is a stupid claim for no=20 other purpose than to stall.] =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [03] Supreme Court rejects former prostitute's case Copyright =A9 1998 Nando.net Copyright =A9 1998 Agence France-Presse=20 [Editors Note: Interesting point I had not thought of before.] =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [04] *****White House said to have urged withholding documents *****Copyright =A9 1998 Nando.net *****Copyright =A9 1998 The Associated Press=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [07] ATF Informant Appears at Grand Jury Again=20 03/24/1998=20 By Diana Baldwin The Oklahoman =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [08] Executive Privilege Claim Covers First Lady's Talks With Blumenthal By Susan Schmidt Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, March 24, 1998; Page A06=20 [Editors Note: Note this headline states as fact Hillary can claim it.=20 And so no one wastes their time, I do realize the writer does not=20 write the headline, so we shouldn't blame the writer, This is true, but=20 in many cases the headline is just extracted from the article although=20 it doesn't appear to be in this case.] =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [09] *****Sale of Trade Mission Spots Alleged Brown Said White House Directed Scheme,=20 *****Ex-Partner Testifies *****By Edward Walsh and Peter Slevin *****Washington Post Staff Writers *****Tuesday, March 24, 1998; Page A06 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [10] Rancor grows over invoking privilege By Bill Sammon THE WASHINGTON TIMES =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [11] Hill abuzz over inaction By Sean Scully THE WASHINGTON TIMES =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [14] Commerce trips called fund-raisers By George Archibald THE WASHINGTON TIMES =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [15] Stephanopoulos cites 'journalist privilege'=20 Uncooperative attitude cited in Judicial Watch 'Filegate' suit=20 By Wesley Phelan =A9 Copyright 1998, WorldNetDaily.com=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =09=09=09FOR RENT =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D HOW TO SUBSCRIBE BELOW AT END =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [01] Hillary May Use Executive Privilege=20 By JOHN SOLOMON Associated Press Writer [Editors Note: Please notice the bias in this headline. It more=20 properly should say, "Hillary trying to use [...]" or even, as they say=20 in Hawaii, more-better would be, "Hillary outrageously trying to=20 [.....]" However the way it is, it implies that there is nothing out of=20 the ordinary going on, when in fact, IMO, it is a stupid claim for no=20 other purpose than to stall.] WASHINGTON--White House efforts to use executive privilege to keep prosecutors from getting testimony about some advice President Clinton got in the Monica Lewinsky case may be intended to also cover conversations first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton had with aides.=20 Sources familiar with the investigation said Monday the White House may rely on two court rulings to bolster its claims that Mrs. Clinton should be shielded.=20 Clinton said today in Uganda he didn't know anything about it.=20 One source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the White House has always maintained that Mrs. Clinton has been a frequent adviser to her husband, and "that is true here as well."=20 The Washington Post and MSNBC reported specifically that the White House is trying to extend a claim of executive privilege, the right of the president to keep secret certain communications with his aides, to cover conversations involving Mrs. Clinton.=20 One of Mrs. Clinton's advisers, Sidney Blumenthal, was among two presidential aides who have refused some of prosecutor's questions on executive privilege grounds. Sources have said the White House formally invoked the privilege in court filings last week, although the proceeding was under court seal.=20 White House officials declined comment late Monday on the reports involving Mrs. Clinton. Likewise, they have not confirmed on the record that executive privilege has been claimed in the case at all.=20 Clinton, in Uganda on an African tour, was asked today about invoking executive privilege and whether it would signal he has something to hide.=20 "That's a question that's being asked and answered back home by the people who are responsible for (it) and I don't believe I should be discussing that there," Clinton said.=20 Asked about executive privilege for Mrs. Clinton, the president said: "I saw an article about it in the paper today. I haven't discussed it with the lawyers. I don't know. You should ask someone who does."=20 Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni was at his side during the=20 exchange. In making the legal claim that the privilege should be=20 extended to cover any conversations in which the first lady was=20 present, the White House may stand on two court decision from=20 earlier Clinton controversies -one giving Mrs. Clinton government=20 status and the other that extended the privilege generically to=20 "presidential advisers."=20 In 1993, a federal judge ruled that Mrs. Clinton had to be=20 considered a "de facto official" of the federal government because=20 of her extensive role in overseeing the president's failed health care=20 initiative. Presidential lawyers also are likely to draw from an=20 appeals court decision unsealed last year involving Clinton's attempt=20 to shield the release of some information in the investigation of=20 former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy by claiming executive=20 privilege.=20 In that ruling, the court held that even conversations between two=20 presidential advisers, away from the president, could be covered by=20 executive privilege if the discussion involved formulating advice to=20 the president. "We believe, therefore, that the public interest is best=20 served by holding that communications made by presidential=20 advisers in the course of preparing advice for the president come=20 under the presidential communications privilege, even when these=20 communications are not made directly to the president," the court=20 ruled.=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [03] Supreme Court rejects former prostitute's case Copyright =A9 1998 Nando.net Copyright =A9 1998 Agence France-Presse=20 [Editors Note: Interesting point I had not thought of before.] WASHINGTON (March 23, 1998 10:36 p.m. EST http://www.nando.net) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned down a former prostitute's bid to legalize the world's oldest profession by drawing a parallel between selling one's body and having an abortion. Without comment, the nine-member court refused to hear the case centering on whether a Florida mother of two's right to privacy extended to the sale of her body. In her suit originally filed in 1994, the ex-prostitute identified as "Jane Roe" turned to the historic abortion ruling "Roe v. Wade," which says that women have a fundamental right to privacy over their own bodies. "If an abortionist can enter a woman's womb ... with a cash transaction from the female to the abortionist and that's deemed a constitutional fundamental right, then how can a woman not have the right to use her own reproductive organs to give away sex or charge for it as she sees fit?" Roe asked in court documents. Roe's attorney, Elliott Shaw, on Monday called the judges "cowards" and "hypocrites" for rejecting the case. "This is a disaster," he said. "It's a fool's paradise to think we live in a free country. The state owns your body." =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [04] *****White House said to have urged withholding documents *****Copyright =A9 1998 Nando.net *****Copyright =A9 1998 The Associated Press=20 WASHINGTON (March 23, 1998 3:42 p.m. EST http://www.nando.net) -- A former business partner of the late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown said Monday that Brown told her presidential aides instructed him to withhold documents proving the White House was selling U.S. trade mission slots for campaign donations. Appearing in federal court, Nolanda Hill said Brown raised the possibility of destroying a 1-inch-thick packet of Commerce Department letters she said linked donations and trade mission slots. She said she advised him not to destroy the documents, but never saw them again after their discussion. She said the discussion occurred shortly before Brown died in a plane crash in Croatia in April 1996. No such documents have been turned over to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, which is suing the Commerce Department in an effort to determine if U.S. trade slots are being sold for political donations. Hill and Brown were in business together and she is under indictment for allegedly conspiring to divert hundreds of thousands of dollars from companies she controlled to her partner. Though not named in the indictment, Hill's partner in the company was Brown. In a three-page affidavit released at the start of a federal court hearing in which she testified, Hill said: "I became aware, through my discussions with Ron, that the trade missions were being used as a fund-raising tool for the upcoming Clinton-Gore presidential campaign and the Democratic Party. "Ron told me that domestic companies were being solicited to donate large sums of money in exchange for their selection to participate on trade missions of the Commerce Department," Hill's affidavit stated. "Ron expressed to me his displeasure that the purpose of the Commerce trade missions had been and were being perverted at the direction of the White House," she added. "I further learned through discussions with Ron that the White House, through Leon Panetta and John Podesta, had instructed him to delay the case by withholding the production of documents prior to the 1996 elections, and to devise a way not to comply with the court's orders," Hill added. The White House denied the allegations. "Ms. Hill's allegations regarding Leon Panetta and John Podesta and the White House are false in every respect," White House spokesman James Kennedy said. Podesta commented, "The only thing accurate in Ms. Hill's affidavit with respect to me and my conduct is the spelling of my name." Hill said the five or six documents which she reviewed in the 1-inch-thick packet of papers were written by Commerce Department employee Melissa Moss of the Office of Business Liason. She said Brown used profanity in describing how Moss had written such letters, apparently without his knowledge. Under questioning by Judicial Watch attorneys before U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, Hill said that she was asked by Brown whether he could get rid of the documents and whether that would constitute obstruction of justice. "I said it looked to me like it would be" obstruction, Hill said she replied. "I pointed out to him that it was taking an awful big risk" in destroying the documents because copies of them existed elsewhere, Hill said on the witness stand in the lawsuit by Judicial Watch. Hill's affidavit outlining the alleged scheme was signed Jan. 17 and was publicly released Monday in open court. In it, Hill says that Moss "based on my knowledge, ... has not told the truth in response" to "a number of questions concerning Commerce Department trade missions, as well as other representations she has made under oath. Attempts Monday to locate Moss for comment were unsuccessful. Hill said that she is concerned that "the Clinton administration, and more particularly its Justice Department, will try to retaliate against me" and she asked that the affidavit be kept under seal. She said she had "a fear for my personal and my family's well-being and safety." By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [07] ATF Informant Appears at Grand Jury Again=20 03/24/1998=20 By Diana Baldwin The Oklahoman Testimony before the Oklahoma County grand jury investigating the Oklahoma City bombing once again Monday apparently focused on a former undercover informant for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Conflicting stories by former ATF informant Carol Howe are at the center of some claims that the government had prior knowledge about the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. Howe contends she warned her ATF supervisor, Angela Graham, about talk of bombing a federal building by residents of Elohim City, a white separatist community in eastern Oklahoma. The government says Howe's information was not specific enough to act on. Tulsa attorney Clark Brewster told The Oklahoman he hopes the grand jury gets to the truth surrounding the Oklahoma City bombing. Although, he said ''a lot was left unsaid'' Monday when his client Dave Roberts, the former agent-in-charge of the Tulsa ATF office, testified. Brewster also represented Howe before the grand jury twice and during a federal trial where she was acquitted on unrelated bombing charges. He denied there was any conflict in representing both Roberts and Howe. ''Carol Howe told the truth. Dave Roberts told the truth,'' Brewster said. ''I don't believe their testimony contradicted in any manner.'' He refused to be specific on his clients' testimony. Brewster and attorney Sam Cox appeared with Roberts before the grand jury for about two hours. Roberts, now assigned to the Dallas ATF office, had no comment. Roberts supervised Graham, who was assigned to Howe when she worked for the bureau from August 1994 to March 1995. Howe was deactivated because of mental instability, agency officials have said. Graham made her second appearance Monday before the grand jury investigating a broader conspiracy in the April 19, 1995, bombing. The explosion resulted in the deaths of 168 people. Richard O'Carroll, Graham's attorney, reiterated his earlier statement that Howe's stories are ''damnable lies.'' ''Elohim City and the Murrah Building are not related -- never have been related,'' O'Carroll said Monday. Brewster said Graham testified twice that Howe had given her information about blowing up federal buildings. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [08] Executive Privilege Claim Covers First Lady's Talks With Blumenthal By Susan Schmidt Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, March 24, 1998; Page A06=20 [Editors Note: Note this headline states as fact Hillary can claim it.=20 And so no one wastes their time, I do realize the writer does not=20 write the headline, so we shouldn't blame the writer, This is true, but=20 in many cases the headline is just extracted from the article although=20 it doesn't appear to be in this case.] President Clinton's claim of executive privilege in the Monica S. Lewinsky investigation is intended in part to prevent prosecutors from inquiring about conversations that White House aide Sidney Blumenthal had with first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, sources familiar with the matter said yesterday. Clinton has invoked executive privilege in an effort to block Blumenthal and White House lawyer Bruce R. Lindsey from having to answer certain questions before the grand jury examining whether the president engaged in perjury or obstruction of justice in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. Clinton is also asserting attorney-client privilege to bar Lindsey from being required to answer some questions presented by independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr. The central question in the dispute between Starr and the White House concerns the scope of a president's ability to protect the confidentiality of communications within his administration. Yet the involvement of Hillary Clinton also raises the side issue of how the quasi-official role of first lady fits into the constitutional framework, a problem that has arisen regularly since she moved into the White House in 1993 with plans to restructure the nation's health care system. Her emergence in the executive privilege fight -- which was the subject of closed-door oral arguments last week -- also underscores the extent to which Hillary Clinton has been involved in White House efforts to contain any political and legal damage from the allegations that her husband engaged in sexual relations with Lewinsky and other women. The White House apparently maintained that Blumenthal's talks with her were protected from prosecutors under the same principle that covers discussions among White House officials talking about how to advise the president. An appeals court ruled last year in a case involving Mike Espy, the former agriculture secretary who has since been indicted on corruption charges, that executive privilege extends not just to communications involving the president himself but also to those of senior advisers. The question now may be whether the first lady counts as such an adviser in a legal sense. "The reality is first ladies are part of the policy-making process of the White House even though they don't have the official capacity," said Mark J. Rozell, a political scientist at American University who has written a book on executive privilege. "Conceivably a case can be made that a first lady could be privy to conversations of a confidential nature." However, Rozell added that, as a general matter, Clinton's assertion of privilege in the Lewinsky investigation is on weak ground and including the first lady "could be a stretch, quite frankly." The White House filed a brief formally invoking executive privilege last Wednesday after Starr filed papers attempting to force Lindsey and Blumenthal to respond to the questions they declined to answer in their grand jury testimony last month, according to a source close to the case, which remains under seal.=20 Starr and Neil Eggleston, an outside lawyer hired by the White House after the Justice Department declined to handle the case, presented arguments behind closed doors Friday to U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson, who observers expect to rule within several weeks and whose decision could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. A claim of executive privilege involving Hillary Clinton's conversations with others in the White House was advanced once before but quickly abandoned. In 1996, Starr's office sought notes taken by White House lawyers in conversations with the first lady about long-subpoenaed billing records from her law firm that were eventually discovered in the White House residence. The White House argued then that its lawyers were gathering information from Hillary Clinton to prepare advice for the president, but in the end it dropped the executive privilege claim and argued instead that the notes should be protected under the doctrine of attorney-client privilege. The case went to the Supreme Court, which sided with Starr last June. Sources said yesterday that a significant portion of the arguments on both sides presented to Johnson Friday concerned the question of whether the communications Starr wants to question Lindsey and Blumenthal about can be rightly claimed as subject to executive privilege. The resolution of this dispute also could cover planned testimony by two other aides: deputy chief of staff John D. Podesta, whose scheduled appearance before the grand jury today has been postponed, and deputy counsel Lanny A. Breuer, who has been subpoenaed but has not yet appeared. Since Blumenthal is not a lawyer, Clinton cannot assert an attorney-client privilege claim over conversations he had with Hillary Clinton after the Lewinsky story erupted in January. One area Starr is investigating concerns the extent to which Blumenthal and others in the White House sought to disrupt the investigation by disseminating negative information about Starr and his staff. While declining to testify about internal discussions before the grand jury, Blumenthal has said he answered all questions about his contacts with reporters regarding the independent counsel's office.=20 Blumenthal is a proponent within the White House of a theory that Starr is part of what Hillary Clinton called a "vast right-wing conspiracy" determined to bring down the president.=20 The claim of executive privilege in this case raises the constitutional question of whether its use extends beyond cases involving the national interest to the president's personal interest. Three areas traditionally considered protected are: law enforcement matters, military or diplomatic affairs, and information that goes to the "deliberative process" of making public policy.=20 In a 1994 memo, then-White House counsel Lloyd N. Cutler said that "in circumstances involving communications relating to investigations of personal wrongdoing by government officials, it is our practice not to assert executive privilege, either in judicial proceedings or in congressional investigations."=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [09] *****Sale of Trade Mission Spots Alleged Brown Said White House Directed Scheme,=20 *****Ex-Partner Testifies *****By Edward Walsh and Peter Slevin *****Washington Post Staff Writers *****Tuesday, March 24, 1998; Page A06 An indicted woman who was a business partner of the late commerce secretary Ronald H. Brown testified in federal court yesterday that Brown complained to her about what he described as a White House-directed scheme to offer U.S. businesses places in overseas trade missions sponsored by the department in exchange for campaign contributions to President Clinton and the Democratic Party. Nolanda B. Hill -- who on March 13 was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges that she diverted more than $200,000 from companies she controlled to finance her shopping sprees -- made that assertion in an affidavit and testimony in a civil suit against the Commerce Department by Judicial Watch, a conservative group that is seeking to establish a link between the trade missions and campaign contributions. "Ron told me that domestic companies were being solicited to donate large sums of money in exchange for their selection to participate on trade missions of the Commerce Department," Hill said in the Jan. 17 affidavit that was unsealed yesterday. "Ron expressed to me his displeasure that the purpose of the Commerce trade missions had been, and was, being perverted at the direction of the White House." Hill also asserted that Brown told her he had been instructed by former White House chief of staff Leon E. Panetta and current deputy chief of staff John Podesta to delay production of documents sought in the Judicial Watch lawsuit until after the 1996 election and not to comply with court orders in the case. White House spokesman Jim Kennedy said, "Ms. Hill's allegations regarding Leon Panetta and John Podesta and the White House are false in every respect." Kennedy quoted Podesta as saying, "The only thing accurate in Ms. Hill's affidavit with respect to me and my conduct is the spelling of my name." Reached at his home in California, Panetta said of Hill's allegations, "It's crazy. It's absolutely false." Brown, a former Democratic National Committee chairman, was killed in a plane crash in Croatia in 1996 while leading a Commerce Department trade mission. The trade missions are highly valued by many U.S. business firms as a means to help them improve access to foreign markets. Judicial Watch filed its lawsuit to force the Commerce Department to produce documents on how participation in the trade missions was decided. Hill was a close friend of Brown and in her affidavit described herself as his "close personal confidant for over seven years." She testified that in early 1996 Brown showed her a stack of documents and that the top five or six were letters to trade mission participants from Melissa Moss, a former DNC official then with the Commerce Department's Office of Business Liaison. Each letter "specifically referenced a substantial financial contribution to the Democratic National Committee," Hill said. Yesterday's testimony did not include the names of any businesses that Hill said were asked for contributions in return for a trade mission spot. But it did include excerpts from a videotaped deposition of Moss in which she denied using DNC donor lists in putting together the trade missions. Hill said in her affidavit that Moss "has not told the truth in response to a number of questions concerning Commerce Department trade missions." In her deposition, Moss said she left Commerce in March 1996 and is now in private business. According to Hill, Brown told her that first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton was the driving force behind the efforts to raise as much money as possible for President Clinton's reelection and the DNC. She quoted Brown as saying he was "just doing my chores" for the first lady in the fund-raising efforts. Assistant U.S. Attorney Bruce R. Hegyi said at the hearing that Hill's allegations should be referred to the Justice Department's public integrity section for investigation. On Friday, government lawyers asked U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth to end the case in Judicial Watch's favor. In an expanded version of a proposal made last August, the government offered to pay the group's legal fees and undertake a comprehensive search for documents. The suggestion was opposed by lawyers for Judicial Watch and Lambert did not rule immediately.=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [10] Rancor grows over invoking privilege By Bill Sammon THE WASHINGTON TIMES President Clinton's refusal to say whether he has invoked executive privilege to shield his wife and aides in the White House sex-and-lies probe is an unprecedented maneuver that adds a new level of secrecy to an already shrouded scandal. Although sources close to the administration have said Mr. Clinton has decided to formally invoke the refuge, the White House yesterday refused to confirm that the president has actually signed a document asserting privilege for first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and aides such as Bruce Lindsey, Sidney Blumenthal and John Podesta. The attempt to shield Mrs. Clinton, first reported yesterday by NBC News, was immediately savaged by=20 Rep. Bob Barr, a member of the House Judiciary Committee and an early advocate of impeachment proceedings. "This claim is absolutely ridiculous," said Mr. Barr, Georgia Republican. "There is simply no other word for it. Despite what she may think, the first lady is not an elected official. Hillary Clinton has not been elected or appointed to represent one single American voter and has absolutely no basis upon which to claim executive privilege." Former federal prosecutor Victoria Toensing added: "I don't remember her being on the ballot. Who's next --Socks?" Meanwhile, Monica Lewinsky's father said yesterday that executive privilege will only prolong his daughter's isolation. "The longer this delays, the more difficult it becomes," Dr. Bernard Lewinsky told the Associated Press. White House spokesman James Kennedy defended Mr. Clinton's decision to stay mum about whether he has invoked the privilege to conceal conversations about the scandal from independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr. "Our position is that the sealed nature of the proceeding precludes us from commenting in any way on it," Mr. Kennedy said. But legal scholars said the secrecy ordered by U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson, who is overseeing the grand jury, does not prevent Mr. Clinton from publicly revealing whether he has formally invoked the privilege. "The mere stating that you have invoked it does not violate any of the rules surrounding grand jury proceedings," said Robert Alt, adjunct fellow at the John M. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University in Ohio. "There's no way the judge would have told him to be silent on this question. "But in addition, I think it's a true disservice to the public not to make them aware of this fact," said Mr. Alt, who writes on legal issues for the center. "If the president is trying to cover up that he is invoking executive privilege, this truly raises some ugly specters: What is it that he's trying to pull? What is he trying to carry out behind closed doors here?" Aside from the inevitable comparisons to Richard Nixon, who invoked executive privilege in a failed bid to prevent release of the Watergate tapes, there is another reason why Mr. Clinton might be leery of admitting he has resorted to the politically charged defense: It would lead to more scrutiny of the claim's merits. Many legal experts doubt that conversations about the sex-and-lies scandal would be covered by a claim of executive privilege, which historically has been reserved for the administration of federal law and the formulation of federal policy. "The White House itself recognizes that this is an extraordinary stretch and that it is embarrassing to try and defend the indefensible," said Pepperdine University law professor Douglas Kmiec, who headed the Justice Department=B4s office of legal counsel during the Reagan administration. "To suggest that you are duty-bound not to talk about an invalid privilege claim is to just lay error upon error and to extend an illegitimate claim to even greater levels of illegitimacy," Mr. Kmiec said. "It is entirely unprecedented. There is no established presidential practice of secrecy about asserting secrecy." University of Pittsburgh law dean Peter Shane, an expert on presidential power, said Mr. Clinton's reported attempt to shield his wife behind executive privilege could open up a new legal battleground. Mrs. Clinton is believed to be playing a key role in directing damage control in the scandal. "It may be that what [Mr. Clinton] wants to do is make sure, for at least these purposes, Hillary counts as an aide," Mr. Shane said. While private conversations between the president and his wife would likely be protected by spousal privilege, Mrs. Clinton's talks with aides such as Mr. Lindsey might be fair game for Mr. Starr unless the White House can successfully argue that Mrs. Clinton functions as another presidential aide. Failure of that argument might result in even more evidence for Mr. Starr. If Mrs. Clinton is ruled to be a private citizen, any third-party participation she might have had in talks with her husband and his aides would invalidate claims of executive privilege that might otherwise apply if she had not been present, Mr. Shane suggested. The White House has hired a private attorney, Neil Eggleston, to handle the executive privilege aspect of Mr. Clinton's defense. Some say this demonstrates the weakness of the president's claim of executive privilege, which would normally be handled by Attorney General Janet Reno. "Even Attorney General Reno, it seems to me, has caught up on this question," Mr. Kmiec said. "For a long time, she was being brought into privilege assertions after the fact to kind of ratify decisions made by [then White House Counsel] Jack Quinn or others in the Clinton administration. "But she's dropped out of this one altogether," Mr. Kmiec said. "She's basically told the White House, 'If you want to assert executive privilege, you better go get private counsel.' And that in itself is a dramatic illustration of how the interests of the United States government are not implicated by this assertion of privilege. "Because if, in fact, the interests of the office of the presidency were at stake, it would be outrageous for the attorney general not to supply counsel and not to be aggressively defending the assertion of privilege. But because it relates to a private, personal concern, dealing with personal malfeasance, the only lawyer available to them is a criminal defense lawyer." =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [11] Hill abuzz over inaction By Sean Scully THE WASHINGTON TIMES The Democrats -- not the Republican leadership -- are creating the "do nothing" atmosphere on Capitol Hill, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said yesterday. "Democrats filibuster every bill that comes up," the Mississippi Republican said in his weekly news conference. "They delay every bill," he said, and cause "the schedule to be shoved off." The president and some Democrats have tried to tag the Republicans with the do-nothing label in advance of the November elections. They say the Congress has set an unusually short session for this year and has managed to accomplish little of note so far. High-profile issues, such as NATO expansion, IRS reform, a mammoth deal with the tobacco industry and emergency help for the cash-strapped International Monetary Fund have not yet come to a vote. But Mr. Lott said he is trying to move as quickly as possible. He said he had hoped to deal with NATO expansion before the Easter recess, but bills dealing with the budget, disaster relief and decertification of Mexico as a full partner in the drug war must come first. Democrats have stalled "to the point where now we are running out of time, and we've got emergencies," he said. He said he has called 31 "cloture" votes, the way the Senate cuts off filibusters, during the 105th Congress so far -- most of them to cut off Democratic filibusters. He had 49 cloture votes in the 104th Congress. Mr. Lott conceded that one major item is stalled because of Republicans: The Senate Finance Committee has not finished work on an IRS-reform bill, making it unlikely the Senate will act before April 15, as GOP leaders had hoped. "Until the committee acts, I can't just call up something out of whole cloth," he said. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, could not be reached for comment. House leaders dispute the do-nothing tag as well, saying they are moving forward aggressively. "The Democrats made up the do-nothing label," said Michele Davis, spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Texas Republican. "They're going to choke on it." Indeed, the American public doesn't seem to mind the relatively quiet pace on Capitol Hill. A Wall Street Journal/NBC poll early this month found 57 percent of Americans approve of the way Congress is doing its job, the best score in a decade. House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt, Missouri Democrat, has been reluctant to call the Republicans do-nothings, but he often reminds the leadership that there is still much on the agenda. In other matters yesterday, Mr. Lott said he thought the Senate would pass emergency funding for the IMF, but only with conditions to ensure reforms. "I think it's very important that we take steps to try to protect American taxpayers' dollars at IMF," he said, "[and] make sure we know how these funds are being spent by the IMF." He also said he supports expansion of NATO beyond the three nations now proposed for admission: Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic. He opposes plans to put a three- or five-year moratorium on further expansion. "I think that time will be required before any others would really be ready ... [but] to put an arbitrary moratorium on it, I don't think would be the wise way to go," he said. Newly admitted nations should enjoy the protection of American nuclear weapons, he said. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [14] Commerce trips called fund-raisers By George Archibald THE WASHINGTON TIMES The late Commerce Secretary Ronald H. Brown's former business partner testified yesterday that first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton decided to use administration trade missions to raise Democratic political donations. Nolanda B. Hill, 53, also said in U.S. District Court that the White House orchestrated a department cover-up of documents linking Commerce trade missions to political donations to the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Mrs. Hill, indicted last week for fraud and tax evasion, testified in a lawsuit brought by the public-interest law firm Judicial Watch that Mr. Brown gave her departmental letters only weeks before his April 1996 death that showed business executives were being asked to pay a minimum of $50,000 for seats on foreign trade missions. Mrs. Hill said he told her he was under orders from the White House to withhold documentary evidence "prior to the 1996 elections" that seats on administration-organized trade missions were bought with political donations. And in an affidavit unsealed yesterday by U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, Mrs. Hill said Mr. Brown's White House instructions came "through [former Chief of Staff] Leon Panetta and [Cabinet Secretary] John Podesta ... to devise a way not to comply with the court's orders" in the lawsuit. White House spokesman James Kennedy called Mrs. Hill's assertions "false in every respect." Mr. Podesta issued a statement saying Mrs. Hill was accurate only in the spelling of his name. Mr. Panetta could not be reached for comment. Judge Lamberth promised Mrs. Hill protection. She has said she feared Justice Department retaliation for her testimony. She gave her affidavit in the case Jan. 17. After her affidavit was filed with the court, she was indicted on charges of conspiring to divert more than $500,000 to Mr. Brown from her Corridor Broadcasting Corp., and $232,000 to her own use from unpaid loans amounting to $21 million from now-defunct Sunbelt Savings Association. The former owner of two television stations in Dallas faces nine felony counts of defrauding the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Internal Revenue Service. In her affidavit, Mrs. Hill said, "I am concerned ... that if I [testify], the Clinton administration, and more particularly its Justice Department, will try to retaliate against me." Judge Lamberth said he asked Mrs. Hill's criminal attorney, Stephan Charles, to help her plan her testimony. The judge intervened after being informed by Judicial Watch in a sealed motion that Mrs. Hill was being represented by Washington attorney Courtney Simmons Elwood, who also represents Terry F. Lenzner, a private investigator hired by President Clinton's attorneys in the White House sex-and-lies scandal. Mr. Charles told Judge Lamberth he was unaware until last week that she was even a target in an ongoing criminal investigation that evolved from a closed independent counsel probe of Mr. Brown's business activities with Mrs. Hill before his death. During day-long testimony, Mrs. Hill said Mr. Brown showed her "an inch-thick" set of Commerce Department documents linking trade missions and political contributions, which he carried in an ostrich-skin portfolio. During a meeting at the Watergate Hotel about three weeks before he was killed in the plane crash in Croatia, Mrs. Hill said, she read "fou= r or five on top" and saw letters on Commerce Department stationery detailing how businesses paid the Democratic National Committee $50,000 each for seats on overseas business delegations headed by Mr. Brown. One letter said, "'Glad you've agreed to $50,000 to the DNC,' or something like that," she said, while a second said, "The DNC has not got their $50,000 yet." "Ron told me these documents came from Commerce Department files," she said. "He wanted to destroy them" because his business dealings with Mrs. Hill were then under investigation by an independent counsel, she said. "I felt like he was asking for trouble. I pointed out to him that he would be taking an awful risk about obstruction [of justice] because surely they existed someplace else," she said. Mrs. Hill said the letters seeking donations were written by Melissa Moss, Commerce's business liaison, who was at the DNC as a fund-raiser when Mr. Brown was DNC chairman. In a videotaped deposition, Miss Moss "absolutely, categorically" denied linking trade missions to DNC contributions. Under cross-examination by Justice Department attorney Bruce Hegyi, Mrs. Hill said she does not know what happened to the documents, which were not produced by Commerce officials in response to subpoenas in Judicial Watch's lawsuit. Mrs. Hill said she talked to Mr. Brown "every day, sometimes several times a day" after he was named commerce secretary. They were partners before the election in a company called First International, formed when Mr. Brown was DNC chairman, and had long been close friends. She said Mr. Brown first resisted pressure to use the trade missions for Democratic political donations, but Mrs. Clinton and White House officials overrode his objections after the Republican sweep of Congress in 1994. "He thought he was worth more than $50,000 a pop," Mrs. Hill said. "He knew it was not right. ... The purpose was perverted at the direction of the White House." Mr. Brown believed Mrs. Clinton was "very instrumental" in the decision. The secretary told her, "'I'm doing my chores for Hillary Rodham Clinton' -- he felt that way," Mrs. Hill testified. She said Mr. Brown told her that Mrs. Clinton took the lead over the president in such matters at the White House. "He thought she was the stronger of the two in terms of political workings." =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [15] Stephanopoulos cites 'journalist privilege'=20 Uncooperative attitude cited in Judicial Watch 'Filegate' suit=20 By Wesley Phelan =A9 Copyright 1998, WorldNetDaily.com=20 Larry Klayman's Judicial Watch will be asking the court to sanction former White House aide George Stephanopoulos for his uncooperative and mocking attitude during a deposition in the group's "Filegate" lawsuit.=20 In spite of Stephanopoulos' ridicule of the proceedings, Klayman was able to establish several important facts. First, Stephanopoulos did not search his files for documents pursuant to the subpoena. Judicial Watch will be seeking court sanctions for that failure. Second, Stephanopoulos confirmed the accuracy of his statement on the ABC program "This Week" Feb. 8, that White House allies were talking about a long-term "Ellen Rometsch strategy." The statement referred to former East German spy Ellen Rometsch, with whom John F. Kennedy reportedly had an affair.=20 When members of Congress considered investigating the matter, FBI Director Hoover threatened to destroy their reputations by using information contained in their FBI files. The implication of Stephanopoulos' statement was that the White House and its allies will attempt to destroy the reputation of anyone perceived to be a threat to the survival of the Clinton administration. Judicial Watch is seeking to determine if the White House and its allies are using confidential FBI files in furtherance of that strategy.=20 Stephanopoulos defined what he meant by "White House ally" generally, but he refused to define it in the context of his statement on ABC. In refusing to answer he cited a journalistic privilege which, Judicial Watch will argue, has no basis in law, and would not apply to him if it did. Stephanopoulos left the administration to accept a position as a commentator for ABC News.=20 James Carville was a somewhat more cooperative witness than Stephanopoulos. Before the deposition, Carville and his attorney told the court he had made reservations to fly to South America on March 15, the day before the deposition was scheduled. But the tickets he submitted in evidence showed that the flight was, in fact, scheduled for the evening of March 16. The court said in response, "Carville (and his attorney) sought to mislead the court from the outset and to delay this deposition." Following that reprimand Carville apparently thought it best to cooperate.=20 Carville brought his own videographer to record the deposition. About two hours into the proceedings Klayman discovered that the videographer had the camera trained on him and his notes, instead of the deponent. Klayman suspected that the tape revealed the work product of his client, which turned out to be the case. Judicial Watch will be seeking sanctions for this invasion of privacy, which, ironically, occurred within the context of an invasion of privacy lawsuit. Klayman was able to establish during the deposition that Carville has a file on Judicial Watch, and that he had talked to people in the White House about Judicial Watch.=20 "It's obvious that Carville and others are doing research on any entity they consider to be an adversary of this administration," said Klayman.=20 Judicial Watch, the government watchdog organization headed by Larry Klayman, is representing several White House employees of the Reagan and Bush administrations whose confidential FBI files were improperly obtained by the White House. The White House and FBI are being sued under the federal Privacy Act, while the individual defendants -- Hillary Rodham Clinton, Bernard Nussbaum, Craig Livingstone, and Anthony Marceca -- are being sued for the common law tort of invasion of privacy. The federal suit, which is currently in the discovery phase, seeks $90 million in damages.=20 To prevail in the suit, Judicial Watch must prove that the files were turned over in a grossly negligent fashion and/or intentionally.=20 George Stephanopoulos began his deposition with the comment, "Unbelievable." The tone of his comments became more derisive and supercilious from there. On page nine of the deposition Klayman stated, "Let the record reflect that apparently there is a lot of laughing around the table. I didn't mean to be funny." Stephanopoulos replied, "You don't have to try." A bit later Stephanopoulos stated that Klayman's actions in bringing the case and deposing him were "frivolous, partisan and prejudicial," and that Klayman was, in his opinion, "not an honorable attorney, (but) a partisan attorney . . . looking to raise money for your organization."=20 Stephanopoulos offered various other opinions on Klayman, including a conjecture that he was unable to read, that he was wasting everyone's time, and finally "you just don't listen, do you?"=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D The POLITICAL DIGEST is essentially an Internet "Clipping=20 Service." We gather many "Political News Articles" and "Political=20 Columns and Editorials" that are on the Internet and combine them into=20 one text file, just as a "Clipping Service" does for people with=20 "Hard Copies" of newspapers. We do NOT charge for the material.=20 NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes= =2E TPD (THE POLITICAL DIGEST) which contains political=20 articles only and will average about 200 K. Cost is $90.00 per year. TPDL (THE POLITICAL DIGEST LITE) which will average=20 about 50 K and will be selected articles out of the TPD & TPDP.=20 TPDP (THE POLITICAL DIGEST PLUS) which is all=20 Commentary's and Editorials from all over the nation, plus selected=20 other articles that we find interesting. This will average about=20 250K. TPDP costs $90.00 per year. TPDXTRA (THE POLITICAL DIGEST XTRA) which is FREE=20 but sent out on an infrequent basis. It contains things too large=20 for TPDL and doesn't fit into TPD & TPDP very well.=20 Usually TPDXTRA will contain only one item.=20 To subscribe to TPD and/or TPDP mail Cash, Check, or money=20 order to: Wayne Mann 1079 Farroll Arroyo Grande, Ca. 93420-4136 To receive THE POLITICAL DIGEST LITE=20 just send an e-mail message with the word subscribe TPDL=20 in the subject line to tpd@callamerica.net.=20 To stop receiving the TPDL just send an e-mail message with=20 Unsubscribe TPDL or in the subject line to tpd@callamerica.net.=20 Thank you. No Charge, it's FREE. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D \\/ayne //\annn "'Liar' is just as ugly a word as "thief", because it implies the presence= =20 of just as ugly a sin in one case as in the other. If a man lies under oat= h=20 or procures the lie of another under oath; if he perjures himself or suborn= s=20 perjury, he is guilty under the statute law. - Under the higher law, under= =20 the great law of morality and righteousness, he is precisely as guilty if,= =20 instead of lying in a court, he lies in a newspaper or on the stump; and in= =20 all probability, the evil effects of his conduct are infinitely more widespread=20 and more pernicious." -- Theodore Roosevelt - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #93 ************************