-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">
</A> -Cui Bono?-
Privacy Concerns -
http://www.angelfire.com/biz/privacyconcerns/index.html
.c The Associated Press
By PETE YOST
WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal judge ruled today that President
Clinton
``committed a criminal violation of the Privacy Act'' by releasing
private letters to cast doubt on the credibility of a woman who
accused him of making a sexual advance in the White House.
U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ordered White House
lawyers to
answer questions they previously refused in a lawsuit brought by
the
conservative legal group Judicial Watch, which has filed numerous
suits against the Clinton administration.
``This court finds that the plaintiffs have presented facts that
establish a criminal violation of the Privacy Act,'' Lamberth ruled.
Such a violation is a misdemeanor.
The judge, a Republican appointee, added that evidence in the case
``established that the president had the requisite intent for
committing a criminal violation of the Privacy Act'' when he
authorized the release of the letters in the midst of the 1998
criminal investigation that led to his impeachment and acquittal.
The White House released Kathleen Willey's letters the morning
after a
1998 TV appearance in which she alleged the president made an
unwanted
sexual advance next to the Oval Office in 1993.
Presidential aides used the letters to cast doubt on Willey's
allegations, saying the letters showed she remained friendly with
Clinton after the alleged incident. Clinton has denied any
wrongdoing.
The White House and the Justice Department were reviewing the
ruling
today and had no immediate comment.
Lawrence Barcella, a veteran Washington lawyer, questioned
whether a
violation occurred.
``I'd be shocked if then-White House counsel) Chuck Ruff hadn't
done a
complete legal analysis of this issue before the letters were
released,'' said Barcella. ``And in Clinton's case, he appears to be
relying on the advice of his legal counsel. Differing legal opinions
don't always equal a violation.''
Lamberth's ruling comes in a lawsuit over the White House
gathering of
hundreds of FBI background files on Republican appointees. The
judge
allowed Judicial Watch wide latitude in exploring the issue of
whether
the White House routinely gathered and released damaging
information
about its political opponents.
As part of the discovery process, the group was allowed to ask
extensive written questions about the release of the Willey letters
even though Willey is not a party to the suit. Presidential aides
refused to answer some of those questions, prompting Lamberth's
ruling.
Lamberth held that the White House was informed by one of the
judge's
own rulings, nine months before the release of the Willey letters in
1998, that the White House was covered by the Privacy Act.
The White House maintains ``that the president did not act willfully
because the Department of Justice has, in the past, taken the
position
that the White House office is not subject to the Privacy Act,'' the
judge noted.
``This court, however, has already rejected this argument in this
same
case,'' Lamberth added. ``When the president and EOP (executive
office
of the president) released the letters they were fully aware of this
court's ruling that the Privacy Act was applicable and that the
disclosure of the letters was therefore prohibited.''
Lamberth said three top presidential aides - Deputy Counsel Bruce
Lindsey, former Counsel Charles F.C. Ruff and former Deputy
Counsel
Cheryl Mills - engaged in discussions that led to the release of the
letters.
The ruling notes the senior lawyers ``had their discussions about
whether the letters should be released'' and ``ultimately
recommended
their release to the president.'' Clinton ``concurred in this
recommendations,'' the judge said.
``The plaintiffs have established that the president committed a
criminal violation of the Privacy Act,'' the judge ruled.
Lamberth rejected the White House claim that Lindsay and four
other
White House aides did not need to answer questions about the
letters
because of attorney-client privilege.
``The discussions regarding the release of the Willey letters, even if
initially protected by the attorney-client privilege, fall squarely
within the crime-fraud exception to this privilege,'' he ruled.
Lamberth's ruling simply clears the way for Judicial Watch to press
the White House to answer additional questions about the Willey
letters.
However, the Justice Department has an open investigation into
another
impeachment-related release of damaging information about a critic
-
the Pentagon's release of data from Linda Tripp's personnel file.
In grand jury testimony in August 1998, Clinton denied Willey's
allegations and referred to the release of the letters, telling
prosecutors: ``You know what evidence was released after the `60
Minutes' broadcast that I think pretty well shattered Kathleen
Willey's credibility.''
Clinton told the grand jury that he considered releasing the letters
earlier, but ``frankly, her husband had committed suicide. She
apparently was out of money. And I thought, `Who knows how
anybody
would react under that?' So I didn't.
``But, now when `60 Minutes' came with the story and everybody
blew it
up, I thought we would release it,'' he said.
``I didn't know the volume of contact that she had which undermined
the story she has told. But I knew there was some of it,'' the
president added.
AP-NY-03-29-00 1321EST
--
Kathleen
Thought for the day: It is impossible to distinguish, from a distance, whether the
bureaucrats associated with your project ar
e simply sitting on their hands, or frantically trying to cover their asses. If you
observe a bureaucrat closely enough to make
the distinction above, he will react to your observation by covering his ass.
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
