Shedding A Little Light On The GAO Mud

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Troll-free Private Saloon : One Thread

From CNN's Allpolitics.com, here's the pertinent section.

Although its demand letter seeks information on advice and deliberations, the GAO later said it wants only information on the dates of meetings, the names of those who attended, and the cost of the task force's operations. The demand letter, however, is the legally binding inquiry. (Emphasis mine.)

If the GAO did resubmit a more narrowly focused demand letter, Card said that would restart the process.

Now, see? We've been told that the White House is stonewalling on releasing the names of people involved in the meetings. In fact, the original inquiry letter from the GAO went much further and it is *that* letter that the White House is willing to go to court over.

This is one of the slickest legal maneuvers I've seen in a long time. They made a detailed official request by letter, then said, "well, just give us the names." If the White House were to do that, though, they'd be acknowledging the original request! :)

Ah, y' have to love it.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), January 31, 2002

Answers

(I hate it when I forget to close a tag.)

(For those who care, my comments start with "Now, see?" CNN didn't say that part.)

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), January 31, 2002.


Stephen: Well, I'm on GAO's side on this, the reason being that I strongly suspect that if the details came out about these meetings, it would appall a great many people including yourself. So if GAO can do something legally crafty, more power to them, say I.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), January 31, 2002.

Typical lawyer bullshit. Tie everything up in knots and loopholes to the point where true justice has been hopelessly obstructed and no one can get the truth.

The people know better. Dickhead's immediate response to requests for information was to refuse and conceal. The bottom line is that this makes him guilty as sin unless he proves otherwise, and the harder he tries to conceal, the bigger we think his sins are. If he doesn't start cooperating, we're going to know he was up to some really nasty shit.

-- (actions speak @ louder. tnan words), January 31, 2002.


Peter,

That's as may be. And you know what? I respect *your* position on this, because it's one based on a genuine sense of right and wrong.

(In fact, I have discovered over the past year that I was quite wrong about you, and I apologize for calling you names in the past. You're actually a very intelligent fellow.[g])

I myself have said that, *if any laws were broken*, the people responsible should be punished. I mean that, too.

But I still believe, on the basis of what I've seen and heard, that the fault lies with Kenneth Lay and compatriots, not the White House. No one, not even this Michael Moore guy (whoever he is), has shown one thing that the administration has done that is *illegal.*

Clinton faced the same problem. He did a lot of dumb things, a bunch of unethical things and a host of things that I disagreed with. I didn't like the fact that Chinese money was used to support his reelection, not one bit.

But did he break any laws? That's never been proven. (The thing about Al Gore using the White House phone may be exception, but even Clinton's enemies admitted that was minor, and let it drop eventually.)

The people who are trying to spin this into a giant "Get Bush" movement are doing so for political reasons, nothing more. For some, it's just "payback" for all of the trouble heaped on Clinton. For others, it's ideology; they don't like Bush's positions and even though they personally don't give a rat's patoot about Enron or how much money these employees lost on their pensions, this looks like the best shot yet to Get Bush ... and they're going to roll with it.

Again, I grant that you put some thought into this. Your position is based on an honest sense of right and wrong. I wish the same could be said of the Get Bush At Any Cost Crowd.

This nation is at war, and that war is anything but over. In fact, it's just beginning (as Rumsfeld pointed out today). The White House does not need distractions like this.

NO ONE is talking about the fact that Tom Daschle's wife was behind the big bailout for the airlines (she is a consultant to Northwest, among others). NO ONE (except for you -- I give credit where due) is talking about the fact that the Clinton administration was JUST AS MUCH of a "buddy" to Enron as Bush's. (As you admitted -- remember India?)

That one fact alone is enough to tell me that this is 90% politics.

I was disappointed in the Republicans for their incessant, never-ending 8-year campaign to "get" Clinton. I am just as disappointed in the Democrats in this case, but more so, because we have more important things to worry about right now ... like whether some Arab (who has cowed border security by screaming about profiling and predjudice) has managed to sneak a suitcase full of botulism toxin for the water supply in Chicago.

These "Get Bush" people remind me of the Byzantine nobles who fought and scrabbled amongst themselves for the throne while the empire crumbled around them and the Turks lined up at the walls.

But hey, that's just me.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), January 31, 2002.


Poole:

You sure know a lot more about this stuff than I do. I hear things but I haven't seen any proof to support what I hear, yet.

On the surface it appears that Enron activity involved the transfer of wealth from investors to executives. The transfer may or may have been fraudulent. That is for the courts to decide.

Unless something else is discovered, I doubt that much will come of the campaign contribution thingy unless it relates to the following subject:

That subject would be energy deregulation which was sold as returning to market control. Could they have had something else in mind? I am told that this is the area to watch for revelations. No proof, just the skuttlebutt that I heard from people who worry about these things and live inside the beltway.

I will wait and see.

Best Wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), January 31, 2002.



Peter,

A pedantic point: when I ask (rhetorically) if Clinton "broke any laws," I'm speaking of campaign finances and influence on the White House.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), January 31, 2002.


Z,

On the surface it appears that Enron activity involved the transfer of wealth from investors to executives. The transfer may or may have been fraudulent. That is for the courts to decide.

That's basically what I was saying above. If laws were broken, nab 'em. (And just for the record, I think Enron DID engage in outright fraud, but that's just my opinion.)

And on influence: I have said elsewhere that the REAL solution is campaign finance reform. What makes this particular exercise so hypocritical is that virtually every politician in Congress has taken money from someone, only to vote later in a favorable manner on something for that contributor.

They're slick about it: they know how to do it on the left side of the law. But they've always got a way to wash their hands of it.

In this case, for example, the Bush Administration can point out that it didn't sign the Kyoto Treaty, which is something that Enron wanted BADLY (because it would help their gas business).

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), January 31, 2002.


Z,

On the surface it appears that Enron activity involved the transfer of wealth from investors to executives. The transfer may or may have been fraudulent. That is for the courts to decide.

That's basically what I was saying above. If laws were broken, nab 'em. (And just for the record, I think Enron DID engage in outright fraud, but that's just my opinion.)

And on influence: I have said elsewhere that the REAL solution is campaign finance reform. What makes this particular exercise so hypocritical is that virtually every politician in Congress has taken money from someone, only to vote later in a favorable manner on something for that contributor.

They're slick about it: they know how to do it while just barely staying on the right side of the law, and they'll always have a way to wash their hands of it.

In this case, for example, the Bush Administration can point out that it didn't sign the Kyoto Treaty, which is something that Enron wanted BADLY (because it would help their gas business).

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), January 31, 2002.


... ? How'd THAT happen? We got hackers! :)

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), January 31, 2002.

Poole:

You said: And on influence: I have said elsewhere that the REAL solution is campaign finance reform. What makes this particular exercise so hypocritical is that virtually every politician in Congress has taken money from someone, only to vote later in a favorable manner on something for that contributor.

Your assumption is that the money given to certain Republicans forced them to go against their better judgement and support deregulation. It appears more likely that they got the money because they were already true believers. That is why the "word" ;o) says that this reform will do little.

I am told the damage will be in the administration's belief that the maximization of profits in the energy business, through wealth transfer from consumers, was good policy, and is where the problems for the administration will occur.

As I said, I will wait and see. I am told that this is going to get very messy. Then there is the old saying, when you smell shit you are in Texas. ;<)))

Best Wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), January 31, 2002.



"The people who are trying to spin this into a giant "Get Bush" movement are doing so for political reasons, nothing more. For some, it's just "payback" for all of the trouble heaped on Clinton. For others, it's ideology; they don't like Bush's positions and even though they personally don't give a rat's patoot about Enron or how much money these employees lost on their pensions, this looks like the best shot yet to Get Bush ... and they're going to roll with it."

LOL! You got it! Congraulations Poole Fool, you might actually be getting smarter!

"Again, I grant that you put some thought into this. Your position is based on an honest sense of right and wrong. I wish the same could be said of the Get Bush At Any Cost Crowd. "

I wish the same could be said of the Kenny Starr Witch Hunt Repug Crowd, but it's too late, the damage is done. Revenge is a dish best served cold!

"This nation is at war, and that war is anything but over. In fact, it's just beginning (as Rumsfeld pointed out today). The White House does not need distractions like this."

I think you got that backwards, Poole Fool. The nation is at war with crooked politicians and corrupt corporations. I've noticed too that the Bush administration all of a sudden seems to be talking a lot more about the threat of terrorism ever since the Cheney scandal came into the spotlight. Wag the Dog, Dubya style! We don't need distractions like that, we need to find out exactly what these crooked bastards have been doing to screw the American people. Dubya the deceiver may be fooling the Poole Fools of the world, but he ain't fooling the rest of us!

-- LOL (you@are.confused), January 31, 2002.


Thank you. Thank you for revealing your soul with the time tattered but clearly to you heartfelt line "Revenge is a dish best served cold!" Read you till now as possibly someone with conviction worth note. Thanks again.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), January 31, 2002.

Stephen:

Thanks for the kind words. I think the fights we've had in the past have been because of the human failing of stereotyping, affecting me, you, most people. You know what I mean: doomers feel all pollies are idiots, especially anyone who is low enough to post on vile Debunkers. Or pollies feel that all doomers are morons, especially anyone who is so beyond help as to have posted on the original TB2K. I'm sure we can both agree that that is a lot of shit.

OK, on to politics. I don't think the Democrats want to drive W from office. I think they want to gain firm control of Congress so they can shitcan his domestic program. And while wanting the war on terrorism to go on unhindered, under Bush, I must say that I prefer the Democrats running things domestically.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), January 31, 2002.


Z,

I am told that this is going to get very messy.

I am told precisely the same thing, and I DREAD it, just as I dreaded the endless Monica Lewinsky crap.

What the Democrats are missing is that it's NOT just going to be messy for BUSH. It's going to be messy for everyone in Washington, from Daschle and Kerry on down to Jim Trafficant (who's got legal battles of his own right now -- the Democrats have never really like him, anyway).

Do you know the real reason why this is happening? The Democrats KNOW that it's risky, but they feel like they have nothing to lose. So, when the Democrats start making one accusation after another, the Republicans will immediately counter with gory details about how the Democrats have increased their take of soft-money donations just since Jeffords gave them defacto control of the Senate. All of the old Clinton stuff will get a fresh squeeze to see if any juice is left.

Z, a report came out tonight that shows that Global Crossing's largest benefactor in the last election was ... drum roll, please ... JOHN McCAIN, the media's darling of election reform!

I *know* you're too smart to think that the Democrats will be able to focus all of the mud on the Bush administration. Surely you don't believe that? Especially given that Bush is actually MORE popular now than Clinton was (and HE weathered IMPEACHMENT, remember?).

The White House is going to be throwing equal but opposite mud right back at them, down to which Democratic Congresscreatures helped THEIR cronies get political appointments in return for donations.

(To everyone else here: please re-read that last sentence. The Democrats are JUST AS GUILTY of giving political apointments to cronies in recognition of donations. Only the most naive would believe otherwise!)

Now, the Democrats obviously want to focus on Enron. (They DO NOT want to bring Global Crossing and K-Mart into it, you can believe that!) But -- once again -- do you REALLY think that strategists like Karl Rove are going to let them get away with that?

My argument is, they're ALL guilty, Republicans and Democrats alike. Anyone who says otherwise is playing pure partisan politics. The election system as a whole needs to be cleaned up and if they'd call a truce and concentrate on that instead, the country would benefit.

There will be NO benefit whatsoever from a mudslinging contest.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), January 31, 2002.


Oh please, don't be silly! No thanks are necessary. We're just doing what any decent citizen would do, fighting for truth, justice, and the American way! When Dub and Dick are finally locked up, the world will be a much better place, then you can thank us.

-- (Justice @ For. All!), February 01, 2002.


I don't think the Democrats want to drive W from office. I think they want to gain firm control of Congress so they can shitcan his domestic program.

Absolutely. We agree on that one.

But there are better ways to do it.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), February 01, 2002.


"My argument is, they're ALL guilty, Republicans and Democrats alike."

LOL, don't ever try to write spin for the media, Poole, you suck at it! Some people may be naive, but they aren't deaf, dumb, and blind.

Receiving contributions is not a crime, but when you secretly design plans to pay back your contributors at tremendous cost to the public, it is. HUGE difference.

-- (nice@try.spinman), February 01, 2002.


spinman,

The only problem with your (il)logic is that you ignore the *fact* that Democrats have granted favors for political contributions, too.

That's not spin. That's a fact.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), February 01, 2002.


Poole:

You said: The only problem with your (il)logic is that you ignore the *fact* that Democrats have granted favors for political contributions, too.

In my experience it is true that some Democrats and Republicans have done that. It is also my experience that the ones that do are in a small minority.

The problem lies in the fact that most of each party actually believe this stuff. It is part of the corporate mentallity that was so visible at Enron. Only profit margin counts when making decisions. One commandment replacing the ten. ;o)))

This approach is valid when you are making cars. Not so good when you are talking about an essential service necessary to safety and life; such as, electricity and telephone service. The logical conclusion to this philosophical approach is that LA and NYC would have power and Camilla, GA, wouldn't. I don't have time to write a Flint-length analysis, but this is where the problem may be.

It will be interesting to see it unfold. I am sure that some heads will roll over the matter. Our state was wise in keeping regulation of the power industry. We will see what happens.

Best Wishes,,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), February 01, 2002.


If the Republicans succeed in making the two parties equivalent in the public mind, with respect to campaign money buying favorable treatment, then they can thank their lucky stars for the venality of the Clinton Administration.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), February 02, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ