Clinton accused of even more coverups - His staff deliberately hiding evidence. : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

This from today (02-28-00) - just one more piece of evidence that the national press will choose to ignore.....Drudge (on Sunday's radio broadcast) had some more info on this - but again - NEVER in the mainstream liberal media.


Now, the last few times a person has been publically identified with the Clintons' scandals - they've been equally publically killed shortly thereafter. Does the Republican investigator have the guts to protect this witness against those who might attack her?


Former staffer: 'The tactic is just to stall until they're out of office'


By Scott Park ) 2000, Human Events


A former career White House employee has charged the Clinton administration with attempting to hide from congressional investigators and the office of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr the existence of potentially incriminating White House e-mail messages.

The e-mail messages were hidden by a software glitch when the White House computers were initially searched in response to congressional and independent counsel subpoenas, said Sheryl Hall, onetime head of computer operations in the Clinton White House. When the glitch was discovered, says Hall, Clinton administration officials conspired to prevent Congress from receiving the information.

The information that was withheld contained all the incoming e-mail sent to White House figures over the sensitive two-year period from 1996 to 1998. This included messages to President Bill Clinton and his key staff.

A government contractor who discovered the glitch searched the e-mail data and believed it held damaging information relating to the Monica Lewinsky investigation, Vice President Al Gore's fundraising activities and other Clinton scandals. E-mail messages sent between Lewinsky and White House co-worker Ashley Raines were so raw that "it would make a sailor blush," Hall says the contractor told her.

To keep things quiet, Clinton operatives later falsely labeled all the missing information "classified" and code-named the matter "Project X."

'The Tripp treatment' On Feb. 15, after the Washington Times originally broke the story, President Bill Clinton denied withholding e-mails from Congress.

"I believe that we have complied with every request, and there have been thousands. ... There has never been an intentional effort to do that, and I think that we are in full compliance. I believe we are," the president said.

"We always make a good-faith effort to respond to document requests and we are happy to discuss any concerns people on the Hill and elsewhere may have on these matters," said White House spokesman Jim Kennedy. Because of litigation arising from the incident, Kennedy declined further comment on Hall's allegations.

Hall was a civil service employee. In 1992, she moved to the White House from the Department of the Navy to help modernize an outdated computer system. After she questioned whether the vast new White House computer database, or WHODB, that the Clintons were creating was necessary, White House staff ostracized her. When Hall told administration officials that the project rang warning bells for her, because it could have inappropriate political applications, her duties were stripped.

"They call it 'The Tripp Treatment,'" she said. "I got 'The Tripp Treatment' and this was long before anyone outside the White House had heard of Linda Tripp."

Despite the fact that she had no work to do, Hall still reported to the White House and continued to speak regularly with her former subordinates and with the Northrop-Grumman contractors who maintained the White House computers. Northrop-Grumman had assigned a five-member team to oversee Lotus, a computer program used for e-mails at the White House.

Hall says that in May 1998, a contractor told her that a large database of incoming e-mail messages to the White House had not been attached to the computer network that was searched to satisfy subpoenas. The problem could have been easily fixed, but was not corrected until six months later, in November 1998. This was during the height of Starr's investigation of the Lewinsky scandal.

Congress, she said, still has not had access to the withheld information.

Hall said the contractor told her that had some of the information contained in the withheld e-mails been made public earlier, several of the Clinton scandals would have ended differently.

"They obstructed justice by threatening contractors not to brief administration officials [about the problem] before they testified" to Congress, Hall charges.

'Jail cell with your name on it' In the days before White House computer expert Daniel Barry was to testify before Congress about subpoenaed e-mails and Monica Lewinsky, the Northrop-Grumman contractor with knowledge about the missing e-mails was warned to keep Barry in the dark, Hall said.

"Another contractor with Northrop-Grumman was told by Mark Lindsay, director of the White House Office of Administration, that Lindsay had 'a jail cell' with that contractor's 'name on it' if he divulged any information on Project X," Hall stated.

"One of these contractors was told by administration official Laura Crabtree that he would be fired if he told Daniel Barry, a Clinton White House Office of Administration computer specialist, about Project X. At that point, Barry was unaware of Project X, even though he was about to testify in two days to Congress concerning White House e-mails and Monica Lewinsky. As a result of Crabtree's threat, Barry did not have this relevant information about these 100,000 e-mails when he testified to Congress," said Hall.

What the White House did do was classify the information withheld from Congress. The computer system on which the e-mails came into the system was "open," Hall said.

"The Clinton White House simply did not want the existence of these 'lost' e-mails publicly known -- as they did not want to search them in response to subpoenas and they did not want to have to explain to the American public why e-mails had not been searched in the first place. They thus 'classified' the e-mails improperly to keep them isolated and secret from investigators," Hall stated in a declaration submitted to a federal court in Washington, D.C.

"Prior to 1996 this [computer system] wasn't a classified environment," said Hall. "What logic did they have to classify this if not to suppress it?"

"Public statements responding to recent press reports on this issue by President Bill Clinton, Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta and Clinton White House Spokesman Jim Kennedy are false," Hall alleged in the sworn declaration. "There was no 'good faith' response, nor full compliance by the Clinton White House in terms of e-mail searches to subpoenas from Congress, Independent Counsels, the Justice Department and plaintiffs in this case."

Hall said she told lawyers for Independent Counsel Ken Starr about the vast file of unreported e-mails, but they said it was outside the scope of their investigation and did not pursue the information.

The figure used to describe the number of e-mails is 100,000, but could be much, much higher, said Hall. That's because that was only a preliminary estimate by a contractor soon after the problem was discovered. The contractor estimated there were at least 100,000 messages contained in the missing database, she said.

Northrop-Grumman declined to comment on the matter.

"We're restricted from making any disclosures or comments by our contract covering what's called the Executive Office of the President," said corporate spokesman Jim Taft.

Bob Koch of Northrop-Grumman's Information Technology division referred questions to White House spokesman Jim Kennedy.

Mark Lindsay did not answer inquiries from Human Events. Human Events was also unable to contact Laura Crabtree, now an employee at the Department of Labor.

The Clintons' technique for thwarting Congress was well known within the White House, said Hall.

"The tactic is just to stall until they're out of office. There's no accountability," she said. When the White House Counsel's Office requested searches, they gave instructions to prevent a paper trail.

"You weren't told to make copies [of information that met search criteria from various subpoenas]. You've given all the evidence to the Counsel's Office. People were constantly told by the Counsel's Office don't put anything in e-mail, come see and tell me what you find," said Hall. The message was: "Don't document any of this."

"They knew exactly what they were doing," she said.

White House 'thugs' Hall said that Congress could easily search the missing materials by seizing the tapes now and printing them. If Congress wants to hold anyone accountable, it had better act quickly, said Hall, noting that one six-month stretch of tapes had been overwritten because of "human error."

Congress has yet to give any sign it is pursuing the missing e-mails.

"You know that [White House political operatives] are thugs, but you'd expect the Hill to do something about it," said Hall.

"We haven't done anything with it yet, but that's not saying that's not on our radar screen," said a spokesman for the Senate Government Reform Committee chaired by Sen. Fred Thompson, R.-Tenn.

Mark Corallo, spokesman to House Government Reform Committee Chairman Dan Burton, R.-Ind., said the committee was researching Hall's allegations.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (, February 28, 2000


Robert, sorry but I read about this in mainstream news at least a month ago. Clinton is a dead issue. No one cares, we impeached him and he's still Chief Commanding Officer.

-- Vern (, February 28, 2000.


Thanks for the post. Some of us care. Being a good citizen means throwing away apathy and speaking out. Thanks again for the post.

-- PA Engineer (PA, February 28, 2000.

Vern...have the issues of the day become some passing fad; here today and gone tomorrow? Shame on's as though history itself is becoming, (pardon the expression), "a thing of the past".

-- TM (, February 28, 2000. was satire my friends. I'm just part of the puzzle. I cannot do anything about anything. It appears that most people want to look forward these days and that's not such a bad idea. McCain2000!!!

-- Vern (, February 28, 2000.


Oh now I get it! All that stuff you post about McCain is satire! That explains a lot.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), February 28, 2000.

When the average American chooses to overlook the crimes of of those that serve in the public arena, he unwittingly empowers and emboldens those who would follow in the criminals footsteps. The worst mistake a parent can make is to fail to discipline an unruly child while it is still fresh in his/her memory. If we choose to "forget" about a problem we face today, we will surely face it's meaner and much nastier cousin next week.

-- TM (, February 28, 2000.

When the average American chooses to overlook the crimes of of those that serve in the public arena, he unwittingly empowers and emboldens those who would follow in the criminal's footsteps. The worst mistake a parent can make is to fail to discipline an unruly child while it is still fresh in his/her memory. If we choose to "forget" about a problem we face today, we will surely face it's meaner and much nastier cousin sometime down the road.

-- TM (, February 28, 2000.

TM...who are you lecturing to? We impeached him!!! The American people did not bow down to this guy. McCain2000!!!

-- Vern (, February 28, 2000.

Thanks Robert. I would have prefered to have seen Klinton get the 'dope on a rope' treatment. As for Vern, how about the 'soap in a sock 2000' treatment. Anybody?

-- Will continue (, February 28, 2000.

Get over you what you think, America is a diverise people, we think different thoughts. You can't tell people what too think. Our constition is the many stay, if we lose it we are no more.

-- ET (, February 29, 2000.

World Net Daily.

The National Enquirer of right-wing extremists. LOL!!

Why am I not suprised to see the name of Dan Burton again, one of the most crooked hypocritical bastards to ever walk the face of the Earth.

Consider the source before you give any credence to this trash.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 29, 2000.

Diana Spencer was assassinated by the Royals (its a dead issue)

JFK was assassinated by the CIA (its a dead issue)

Clinton has got away with murder several times both literally and metaphorically (its a dead issue)

yet nothing will be done about any of these crimes


because we let it happen

-- Sir Richard (, February 29, 2000.

What are your credentials, Hawk, so that we may consider your DC80 theories?

-- (-@-.-), February 29, 2000.

"Arkanicide" is a VERY REAL issue. This sitting executive administration has more than enough circumstantial evidence against it to arrest all the top leaders, in scandal after scandal, but it isn't happening because the executive branch HOLDS ALL THE GUNS. They have usurped all the real "enforcement" power, and have blackmailed and bullied congress and the courts. we are in an armed fascists dictatorship now, it only differs in degree from other big dictatorships of the last centry, but we are this close to being just like Hitler's Empire, or Stalins empire, or Mao's empire. It's happening. That's why the continual, massive, all fronts demonization of firearms. Once that is complete, when the population is defanged, then that's it, they won't even have to pretend anymore, like they are doing now. Control of the media in the hands of the few. control of the means of the bulk of food production and distribution, in the hands of the few. control of the means of communication in the hands of the few. control over the pocketbooks in the hands of the few. The root words here are "control" and "few". Pick just about any subject you might care to name, and look closely, and it's in the control of the hands of the "few", the executive branch of government/biginternational companies axis. We now have the worlds highest percentage of the population in prison, and an article today highlights the massive expansion of the federal prison system. Pretty soon it's going to switch to massive federal executions just like china-the administrations dream country, just watch. By then, it will be TOO LATE to do much about it.

-- watchout (it's@coming.real.soon), February 29, 2000.

I see Hawk is well versed in his left wing propaganda which is attack the messenger. In one broad sweep of saying World Net Daily is All right wing extremists fruitcakes he can discredit all of their writings. How about trying to attack the message with some proof that this isn't true.

Oh I know this is old news. As long as the most corrupt administration ever is moving ahead with eroding all our personnal freedoms all is right with the world according to Hawk.

-- Lucy (, February 29, 2000.

Keep the pressure applied--please! Hopefully the taint of Bill will drift towards Slipary Hillary. SDR

-- Sully D Rascals (Go Baby@Don', February 29, 2000.

This Country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.

Abraham Lincoln First Inaugural Address Washington, D.C. March 4, 1861

When will we either start talkin Chinese or Stand for America and take her back?!

-- s (, March 01, 2000.

Can you say... "Gold-digging, disgruntled, ex-employees, who didn't get as much attention form the prez as they would have liked to get"?

I wonder how long after the Republicans start bribing her to lie under oath she will visit her plastic surgeon. Who will get the best results from that nose job they've always wanted... Paula Jones, Linda Tripp, or Sheryl Hall? I see what she means when she says she is getting "the Tripp treatment"! ROTFLMAO!

Can you say... "Vast right-wing conspiracy"?

Read it all in World Net Daily, coming soon to a grocery store shelf near you! LOL!

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), March 01, 2000.


I see you are still presenting your disinformation tactics of attacking the messenger and not the message. I pointed this out a few posts above.

Your cute little remarks about peoples appearances do not discredit their message. You and Hillary and James Carville with your rhetoric of vast right wing conspiracy doesn't cut it anymore.

Please try just once to give some truly factual information of why these things aren't true without using The 25 Rules of Disinformation.

-- Lucy (, March 01, 2000.


"Please try just once to give some truly factual information of why these things aren't true without using The 25 Rules of Disinformation."

That's easy. It is a principle that our judicial system has been based on since the establishment of this country and our constitution.

Conservatives like to overlook this principle since they prefer to crucify anyone who doesn't fit into their narrow-minded view of life.

It is called "Innocent until proven guilty."

These are nothing more than politically-motivated false allegations, slander, and defamation of character, by right-wingers with no morals, and I am not going to sit here and allow you to pass them off as truth until they are proven.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), March 01, 2000.

I must agree with Lucy. Hawk you're dismissing the message because of it's source. The allegations aren't farfetched to me, this coming from a prez who has redefined the meaning of the word "is".

If I was like you Hawk, I'd have dismissed your theories on MD80 right from the start, considering the source...

-- Chris (#$%^&, March 01, 2000.

"It is called "Innocent until proven guilty." "

Yes, and what we're doing is called "investigating" and considering the allegations. You're making broad sweeping statements and stereo-typings with "These are nothing more than politically-motivated false allegations, slander, and defamation of character, by right-wingers with no morals,"

You've closed your mind to possibilities that there might be some truth to the allegations. You're doing exactly the same thing that you've acused those of doing by dissmissing your MD80 theories and allegations.

Try to drop labels and stereotypes in your mind, and focus on what is being presented, then try connecting dots. Helps if you don't put yourself in label box also.

-- Chris (#$%^&, March 01, 2000.


Why are you being impartial, and extremely critical of my views, without any scrutiny of what Lucy said? She is the one who is claiming that these allegations are true, and I'm saying that they cannot be considered true until proven. If you want to disregard that basic principle, then why not just lock up everyone in concentration camps for doing nothing wrong? It seems you are letting your pre-determined biases from the unjustified Monica scandal color your conclusion of these allegations, even though no factual evidence has been presented. You've already convicted them, not based on this alleged incident, but earlier ones.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), March 01, 2000.


Where did I say that these allegations were true? All I said was you discredit any investigation in one full sweep because of your terribly narrow view. There should be no investigation because in your mind there exists a right wing conspiracy?

I find this reasoning terribly shallow, but does coincide with leftist excuses.

-- Lucy (, March 01, 2000.

They HAVE been proven.

Not publicized...but absolutely proven.

< I wonder how long after the Republicans start bribing her to lie under oath she will visit her plastic surgeon. Who will get the best results from that nose job they've always wanted... Paula Jones, Linda Tripp, or Sheryl Hall? I see what she means when she says she is getting "the Tripp treatment"! ROTFLMAO! >>


Are you denying the Clintons' received millions in illegal overseas money? Proven in Senate and House hearings. Admitted to by Glenn, in fact.


Are you denying he has assaulted, abused, and intimidated over a dozen government employees since the early 70's? Alleged incidents numbers over 24, over 12 witnesses and people have been named.

Are you denying he and his staff continue to lie, intimidate witnesses, and coverup these items?

Over 125 witnesses have left the country RATHER than be interviewed. More than 150 government employees have used the "I can't remember" trick to coverup lies and delays and interfere with proper sworn investigation more than 1800 times.

1800 times, when asked specific questions - they answered "I can't remember." Rather than perjure themselves - like their boss did. Proved. The impeachment was NOT about sex - the evidence was his perjured testimony about sexual predation and harassment - which, by the way, does not need other evidence to convict in a criminal court. The word of one witness is sufficient.

Are you denying he (through his staff) is abusing the IRS and FBI, is hindering investigations into these matters? Proved.

MORE than 1000 FBI files, and hundreds of IRS audits have been specifically and deliberately targetted (requested by writing) of conservative groups and people who have written about Clinton. NO liberal group has been audited by his IRS.

Do you deny he used tax payer money to create government databases from the FBI files, then shared those databases with the DNC. Proved.

Do you deny the DNC needed to RETURN - meaning they were PROVED to have received at lest this much money - over 20 millions of dollars from illegal foreign contributors?

Do you deny they continue to ASK for continued foreign money? Proved.

Do you deny they have lied in public? Lied to Congress? Lied to investigators? Hindered investigations? (Wht happened to the 27 pages of noted ripped from an FBI agent's notebooks about the Chinese money? Do you claim she too is "bribed" by the Republicans?

Do you deny he raped Juanita? Were the witnesses who saw her bleeding - after being in private with Clinton in the room - are "bribed" too?

Do you wish to continue?

Let us apply a the same degree of "proof" and "innocent until proven" to Justice Thomas. What evidence - and when was any such evidence provided - to indicate he ever mis-treated his accuser?

There are eyewitness reports of Clinton using cocaine, buying coaciane, and having people buy cocaine for him. Were they bribed too? (What witnesses claim Bush ever used any illegal drug? NONE. But this story has repeatedly surfaced every time the liberal media wish - most recently during sweeps week.)

Do you wish to go into circumstantial evidence? THAT'S LEGAL evidence too!

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (, March 01, 2000.

Hawk, lets put aside the logical argument Robert above just made, and only consider this:

The original post's allegations are that Clinton covered up emails that included damning evidence of his affair with Lewinsky, right?

Clinton did say "I never had sex with that woman", right?

I say, Clinton DID have sex with that woman, the evidences, actual and circumstancial, proved that to me.

Now, what I'm saying is this: it would make sense that Clinton tried to cover up those damning emails through a "computer glitch", since he tried to cover up and deny the whole affair to begin with. I'm not saying its actually what happened, it could have been a legitimate glitch, or this whole story of emails and computer glitch could have been made up. But to dismiss it right away as "right-wing" conspiracy and political mud-slinging without further considerations is letting the wool be pulled over your eyes willingly. It is....sheeple behavior.

-- Chris (#$%^&, March 01, 2000.

"I find this reasoning terribly shallow, but does coincide with leftist excuses."

Can we drop the "right-wing" "leftist" name calling?

Does anyone but me see the self-destructing (as a nation) behavior in doing this? "I'm not going to listen to you because you're a right-wing religious nut", and "I'm not going to listen to you because you're a left extremist communist wacko". So nobody listens to anybody, and all the while the president and the gov. in general laughs at us while tightening the noose around our necks.

-- Chris (#$%^&, March 01, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ