• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Political Hack to Run CIA

Roadtoad,

Finally checked things out. Based on the Wikipedia definition, Panetta would best be described as an internationalist, since what I'm reading supports the notion that he favors cooperation between nations, ideally for mutual benefit, (i.e., NAFTA, and the WTO.) There are limits, it would seem, to that belief, from what I'm reading at the Panetta Institute website, and other locales, but that seems to be the very general gist of this.

However, it's wise to define this, given that the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and others, tend to define "internationalism" as being a threat to American sovereignty. I'm not sure where they get that, but half the time, I don't know where these guys get HALF the crap they do.

Not to sound ignorant, but do the beliefs he holds pose a threat to American sovereignty?

Actually, INRM made an exceptional point.

Thanks

Definitions like this tend to take on odd lives, split personalities, and the like, simply for the benefit of those who sling such things around with out much thought. Pretty dangerous stuff, when you get down to it.

Not just that, people sometimes deliberately misrepresent themselves (i.e. saying you're a liberal when you're actually a conservative or vice versa) -- Bush for example called himself a "Compassionate Conservative.


BeAChooser,

Oh yes ... a man WE can trust. Or can we?

Anyone remember Chinagate and CampaignFinanceGate? Anyone remember Judicial Watch's (as opposed to Janet Reno's) efforts to investigate those two scandals? http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/ois/specials/interim_report/interim_HTML.htm Anyone remember that as a result of JW's efforts, in the spring of 1995, a court ordered the production of Commerce Department documents related to these two scandals? Anyone remember that in 1998 Judicial Watch deposed Nolanda Hill, a close associate and confidant of Ron Brown? Anyone remember that she testified under oath that Brown told her that then White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta and Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta ordered him to defy court orders and obstruct a Judicial Watch suit that was aimed at gathering information related to Chinagate and CampaignFinanceGate by withholding documents until after the 1996 federal elections.

Anyone remember that Panetta was also involved in other Clinton scandals? Like Filegate?

In 1996, White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta issued a statement blaming the "the procedures in place for some three decades" for being inadequate. He called it "a completely honest bureaucratic snafu." Now we all know that procedures weren't the problem in Filegate and it was hardly a completely honest bureaucratic snafu. Was it.

Oh yes ... a man whose judgement we can trust. :rolleyes:

What's FileGate?

Or can we?

Now this is the kind of information that the people need to know...


INRM
 
Last edited:
Roadtoad,

Not to sound ignorant, but do the beliefs he holds pose a threat to American sovereignty?

Not as far as I've understood them. I'm continuing to read, so I'll let you know.


It was both a privilege and a pleasure

Not just that, people sometimes deliberately misrepresent themselves (i.e. saying you're a liberal when you're actually a conservative or vice versa) -- Bush for example called himself a "Compassionate Conservative.

Which should have set off alarm bells.

BeAChooser:

Valid questions, but if the answers went against you, would you still be so hostile to Panetta?
 
What's FileGate?

FileGate was a scandal in which the Clinton administration and democrat operatives illegally obtained access to nearly a thousand (or more) raw FBI data files on various important people (mostly republicans) and were in the process of illegally transferrring the information from them into Whitehouse and DNC computer databases. What makes these raw data files special is that they contain the *dirt* on people ... even unsubstantiated rumors and accusations.

When this activity was first reported, the White House initially only admitted to acquiring 338 files, including "dozens" of Republican files. They hoped the matter would just fade away. But under pressure from Bill Clinger, Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, FBI Director Freeh issued a report that revealed 408 files were actually obtained. Within weeks the number of admitted cases spiraled to about 700 files (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9606/26/fbi.files/index.shtml). Later on hundreds more names were added to the list ... for a total of nearly a 1000 files. Here's the list of names: http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/filegate.html . On top of that, there was sworn testimony by Linda Trip suggesting perhaps many more files were obtained ... perhaps 1000's. And as I indicated, the vast majority of the files were Republicans although it looks like Bill and Hillary did want to know what Carville's file contained.

Bill Clinton (and Panetta) called the controversy a "completely honest bureaucratic snafu." Certainly that was the conclusion of Ken Starr and Robert Ray, the Independent Counsels who investigated the matter. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filegate ) Starr and Ray exonerated both Clintons and found no evidence that anyone higher than Livingstone or Marceca was in any way involved in ordering the files from the FBI. But then Starr and Ray spent less than 10 minutes interviewing Hillary, who others (who Starr and Ray didn't bother to interview at all) later testified (in depositions to Judicial Watch) was the mastermind behind the whole operation.

Wikipedia says Starr found no evidence that information contained in the files of former officials was used for an improper purposes and Ray determined there was no credible evidence of any criminal activity by any individual in the matter. But then they didn't really look very hard for that evidence. Judicial Watch would later obtain testimony clearly indicating the material was being illegally loaded on to DNC computer databases (a crime). And who knows what role the contents of these files played in the Senate impeachment trial or other matters.

According to wikipedia, "Ray's report also concluded that there was no credible evidence that Bernard Nussbaum testified falsely about not having discussed Livingstone's hiring with the First Lady, and found as well that there was no personal relationship between the First Lady and Livingstone". The Ray report makes it sound so innocent. Just a snafu. The Wikipedia article goes on to state that Hillary gave a sworn statement that she had nothing to do with Livingstone's hiring and that "Livingstone also stated under oath there was no truth to the supposed hiring relationship." But the wikipedia article misrepresents a number of things and is leaving out a few details ... and the devil is in the details.

First of all, how significant are these files? The article doesn't say. But during a previous administration (prior to Clinton's), a man went to jail for years for improperly acquiring just one file. Imagine ... they obtain nearly a thousand, mostly on folks the Clinton administration might consider adversaries ... and not one person went to jail or was even indicted.

Here's more that Wikipedia fails to mention. Craig Livingstone was not only a former bar bouncer but a former democrat operative. Anthony Marceca also had ties to democrat politicians, and was specifically requested and hired by Livingstone. In hearings before the House Oversight Committee, Bernard Nussbaum, Counsel to President Clinton during the time the files were acquired, testified under oath that they didn't know who was responsible for hiring Livingstone. A few weeks later, the FBI discovered a memo dated March 1993 of an interview with Bernard Nussbaum by FBI Special Agent Sculimbrene in conjunction with the background investigation of Livingstone. In the memo, Sculimbrene writes: "Bernard Nussbaum, Counsel to the President, advised that he has known [Livingstone] for the period of time that he has been employed in the new administration. [Livingstone] had come highly recommended to him by HILLARY CLINTON, who has known his mother for a longer period of time." Sculimbrene was then interviewed by FBI agents and he confirmed he wrote the memo and was told by Livingstone that Livingstone's mother was a friend of Hillary Clinton. But curiously (or purposefully), the FBI revealed the discovery of the memo to Whitehouse Staff days before notifying the House Oversight committee and Independent Counsel of its existence. This led to questions about whether the FBI was acting independently or working to help the administration conduct damage control. This perception was furthered by the fact that the general counsel of the FBI then edited a letter for the White House that was harshly critical of the chairman Clinger, when he referred the matter of Nussbaum apparently lying to the committee to Ken Starr.

Despite their vast resources, little was accomplished in investigating Filegate by the House Committee, FBI, DOJ or the Independent Council. The Clinton Whitehouse stonewalled everything and some of those organizations (including the IC) made no real effort to get to the bottom of what happened. The wikipedia article mentions Judicial Watch but doesn't give them due credit. It fails to acknowledge that the only reason we even know 900+ files were taken (plus some of the facts I will mention below) is Judicial Watch. It wasn't the FBI or Independent Councils with their huge staffs, budgets and enforcement powers that uncovered the true scope. It was little Judicial Watch filing civil suits for damages and taking depositions under oath.

Among the things they learned were:

Anthony Marceca pled the 5th to questions about the misuse of FBI files and the role of Hillary Clinton in their misuse.

Livingstone eventually admitted to obtaining about a thousand raw FBI data files and to bringing them to the Whitehouse. Most were the files of top Republicans. And Livingstone continued to claim (under oath) he didn't remember who hired him.

Assistant White House Counsel Michelle Peterson admitted that the Clinton White House planned to stall the Filegate case until after the Clintons left office.

Linda Tripp, former executive assistant in the White House Counsel's Office, testified that she observed FBI files of Republicans being loaded onto a White House computer and rooms piled high with the files. She testified the files numbered in the thousands.

Tripp testified she overheard William Kennedy, former Rose Law Firm partner of Hillary Clinton and then associate White House counsel, and Marsha Scott, the first lady's confidante, discussing Hillary Clinton's plan to share the FBI files on a computer database with the Democratic National Committee.

Tripp testified she saw FBI files of Republicans in the office of Kennedy, who supervised Livingstone.

Leslie Gail Kennedy testified that her husband loaded FBI files onto a computer database on a laptop computer while sitting at their kitchen table. For those that don't know, there are several violations of law in doing this which were never prosecuted.

Deborah Perroy, a White House staffer, testified under oath that operatives of Craig Livingstone were going through FBI and CIA files of Republicans and that it was Hillary Clinton who hired and directed Livingstone.

Sherry Rowlands ('friend' of Clinton's spinmaster at the time, Dick Morris) testified that Morris admitted to her that Hillary Clinton was the mastermind of Filegate.

Sheryl Hall, another White House staffer, testified that Livingstone worked for Hillary Clinton.

Sign-out logs showed a six-month gap (akin to President Nixon's infamous 18 - minute tape gap) in detailing who removed which FBI files from the White House Office of Personnel Security.

Secret Service documents showed numerous visits by Livingstone into the White House residence but no explanation was forthcoming about the purpose of those visits.

And since that time, even more curious facts have come to light.

Independent Counsel Ken Starr had told the American people that the illegally obtained files had been returned to the FBI ... but years later, his replacement, Ray admitted to Sam Donaldson and George Will that they were still in the White House vault. Remember that Ken Starr was the #2 name on the list of suggested names provided by the Clinton's for the job of IC. Maybe this tells us why. And once Ray knew that the files were still in White House hands, he should have ordered them removed too. One wonders who the ICs really worked for. ;)

In 2001, after denying for five years that Hillary Clinton had anything to do with bringing him to the White House in 1993, Craig Livingstone admitted that she may have had a hand in his hiring.

But throughout all this, Hillary claimed she never even knew Craig livingstone. Not just the mother ... Craig himself. Never mind what the many photos of them together suggest.

20000327_xnjdo_new_photos3.jpg

Hillary with Donna Shalala (there's Livingstone!)

20000327_xnjdo_new_photos8.jpg

Hillary in the WhiteHouse (there's Livingstone!)

20000327_xnjdo_new_photos4.jpg

Hillary with friends (there's Livingstone!)

20000327_xnjdo_new_photos5.jpg

Hillary strolling with ... guess who ... Livingstone!

By the way, it took a court order obtained by Judicial Watch before the Clinton Whitehouse would release those seemingly innocent photos of Hillary and Livingstone. :D
 
Valid questions, but if the answers went against you, would you still be so hostile to Panetta?

Can you demonstrate that the answers go against me? I don't think you can. For example, can you prove that Nolanda Hill lied about anything in her testimony? Truth is, time and again what Nolanda Hill testified to under oath was confirmed by later discoveries and the testimony of other people. If Hill was telling the truth and Brown was being honest about what he told her, then Panetta committed a serious crime ... obstruction of justice to keep the public from learning the Clinton administration committed an even bigger crime. Which means Panetta is NOT trustworthy.
 
BeAChooser,

That is very disturbing, a political party obtaining illegal data from the FBI on political opponents.

If allowed to go too far it would make it impossible for any opposition to win in an election...
 
That is very disturbing, a political party obtaining illegal data from the FBI on political opponents.

Did you know that the man (a democrat) who wrote the articles of impeachment against Nixon is on the record saying Bill Clinton should have been impeached a second time for his abuse of the FBI and IRS (which the evidence shows Bill also used against his political opponents)?
 
That is very disturbing, a political party obtaining illegal data from the FBI on political opponents.

Do you know there has never been an accounting of the FBI files that were taken? Where are they now ... because the last we heard they were still in Whitehouse hands? Nor was there ever any investigation of what happened to the data that had already been loaded onto DNC computers (like the one Kennedy was typing into in his kitchen). Is that data still in a DNC database somewhere? Or in Hillary's closet? :D
 
BeAChooser,

Did you know that the man (a democrat) who wrote the articles of impeachment against Nixon is on the record saying Bill Clinton should have been impeached a second time for his abuse of the FBI and IRS (which the evidence shows Bill also used against his political opponents)?

I did not know this. However if Clinton was responsible for taking FBI and IRS records and using it against political opponents, he should have been impeached for that.

That would have been a much better charge to level against him than impeaching him for perjury.

Do you know there has never been an accounting of the FBI files that were taken?

I did not know that.

Where are they now ... because the last we heard they were still in Whitehouse hands?

I would assume they are in Whitehouse hands to this day.

Nor was there ever any investigation of what happened to the data that had already been loaded onto DNC computers (like the one Kennedy was typing into in his kitchen). Is that data still in a DNC database somewhere? Or in Hillary's closet?

Probably in the hands of the DNC or the Whitehouse


INRM
 
if Clinton was responsible for taking FBI and IRS records and using it against political opponents, he should have been impeached for that. That would have been a much better charge to level against him than impeaching him for perjury.

You have to understand that the fix was in from almost the beginning. Here is what David Schippers, who put together the impeachment case against Clinton had to say in his book:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_1_17/ai_72273372

Schippers Exposes Impeachment Debacle

Insight on the News, *Jan 1, 2001 *by J. Michael Waller

... snip ...

In SellOut: The Inside Story of President Clinton's Impeachment, written with Alan P. Henry, Schippers describes in sickening detail how Hyde's committed band of House managers and professional investigators was betrayed not just by Clinton partisans but by Republican leaders as well.

And Schippers says the impeachment investigation of Clinton hardly was about the president's glandularly overexcited conduct. It was about corruption of power: the Citizenship USA initiative, which put hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens on the voter rolls, and Filegate, in which nearly 1,000 raw, secret FBI personnel files on Republican former officials wound up in first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's hands and may have been used to blackmail congressmen and senators. Worst of all, in Schippers' view was a national-security lapse: Chinagate, in which the president of the United States deliberately may have compromised US. national security in exchange for illegal secret payments from Chinese military intelligence.

These, and not the Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones sideshows, are the reasons the House voted to impeach Clinton. But it was an uphill fight even in the House. Then the Senate -- which didn't want to know the facts, in Schippers' account -- would not go along. And so a corrupt elite was able to keep its hold on power.

Insight interviewed Schippers shortly after the Nov. 7 elections. While he remains as tight-lipped as ever about the classified evidence against Clinton, he is decidedly blunt about the impeachment experience, where he sees the country headed and who he believes sold out.

... snip ...

DS: After we saw the material assembled in the secure committee room, and after the House voted for the inquiry on Oct. 8, 1998, I went to Henry Hyde and said: "We are going to start a heavy investigation. We're not going to touch Lewinsky; we're going to look at Chinagate, Filegate and all the other -gates. I estimated that we wouldn't be ready to file our findings until July or August 1999.

... snip ...

Insight: Why did the Thompson committee drop the ball on Chinagate?

DS: Timperlake and Triplett both had the same question. Nobody seemed to know. We were reaching out for more information, and we were told, "Stop, it's over." Little did I realize the frustration we would be facing within a month.

Insight: What kind of job did the House commission led by Rep. Christopher Cox of California do in investigating the Chinagate issues?

DS: Oh, Cox and his colleagues did a good job, but it's all still classified and nobody can get at it. Cox made clear that he was aware U.S. security had been seriously compromised but he couldn't go into the specifics because of the security issue.

... snip ...

DS: Our original plan was not to make anything public, to keep it under the tightest security, until we made our reports. But it was Gephardt and Gingrich who decided they were going to let out all the crap. Unfortunately most of it was that sex stuff the media immediately fastened on to send up the battle cry that "It's only about sex."

Insight: What kind of damage did their leaks do?

DS: Had it not gone to the media, and had I been able to list 15 felonies, you'd have seen almost no sex in it. It was the felonies on which we focused.

... snip ...

Insight: Gingrich and Gephardt discredited the impeachment investigation?

DS: Oh, yes. They were the ones who against our wishes put out [President Clinton's] grand-jury testimony. Never mind that the deposition [to Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch] was more useful. First, it was shorter; second, it contained many more lies, more provable lies.

Insight: But the sex issue obscured the damage to U.S. national security.

DS: The whole national-security dimension was lost. The entire matter of the fact that he [Clinton] was committing perjury, obstructions and all that -- that was lost. The Filegate thing was lost, everything we intended to get into.

... snip ...

DS: ... snip ... When we finished in the House -- the managers, the staff and myself -- we honestly believed that once the actual evidence was presented in a trial atmosphere where the American people could see and hear what happened without the use of the word "sex" they would see the witnesses, the victims, the documents, the films.

We had four to five weeks' worth of evidence. We thought that once this was presented and the American people saw the troth the Democrats would be required to vote their conscience. We thought we would convict and remove him.

That's why we were so shocked when [Senate Majority Leader] Trent Lott told Henry Hyde, "You're not going to dump that garbage on us." Suddenly we realized that our own people were going to sell us down the river in the Senate. We were terribly upset.

... snip ...

Insight: What do you mean when you say that it may have been Filegate that kept the senators from convicting Clinton?

DS: I don't think that anybody in the White House or the president's entourage picked up the phone and called senators and said, "Look, we've got something on you and if you do this we're going to out you," but after the [Bob] Livingston matter broke and he resigned [even though he was scheduled to be speaker of the House], everybody got the message. And a lot of people may have had something in their background that they didn't want made public. Who knows? But everybody knew that if the president had it he would use it. There was always that sword of Damocles over their heads. Maybe that affected the way the senators voted.

... snip ...

DS: Oh, yeah, some of the things I learned in the [Charles] Labella report [on campaign finance from the FBI], some of the things in the room that now are in the archives. I can't go into specifics, but there's a lot of material there that corroborated the theory that there was a massive obstruction of justice. There are an awful lot of leads that, had I had more concrete evidence of the kind we intended to get, would have led a hell of a lot more into Chinagate.

Also, I would have gone more into Filegate. And I would have gone into the matter of [late commerce secretary] Ron Brown and [Clinton/Gore fund-raiser and suspected Chinese spy] John Huang and those trips that were being sold on Commerce planes. There's a lot more I would have gone into had we had more direct proof, but we were given no chance to get it.

Insight: What were the biggest obstacles?

DS: Time. And the leadership in the House. Right after the [1998] election, Henry Hyde was told, "You will finish this by the first of December and, if this goes on into the next Congress, you won't get authorization; you won't get more money for the investigation. We don't want you to do any further investigation. You go with what you've got." Which essentially was the Paula Jones case.

... snip ...

Insight: So the Republicans helped cover up for Clinton?

DS: Originally we were told that it wouldn't come out of committee and that if it did come out of the committee they'd make sure that 40 Republicans came out against impeachment in the House. We asked that all the Republicans come over and look at what we had, hear the witnesses, see the evidence. We had 65 Republicans over, including a number who said they weren't going to impeach. And, of those 65, all but one voted to impeach.
 
Getting back to the topic, Leon Panetta's qualifications ... consider this ...

Panetta was White House Chief of Staff from 1994 to 1997. That's the exact period during which Monica Lewinsky had her *intimate* affair with President Bill Clinton ... in the Oval Office. The affair lasted from November 1995 to late 1997. She initially worked in the office of the Chief of Staff although she later moved to the Office of Legislative Affairs and then to the Pentagon. Even after leaving the Whitehouse for the Pentagon, she made dozens of visits to the Whitehouse.

Yet Panetta claimed to not know a thing about the relationship. In fact, just before grand jury questioning (8 hours of it) he claimed he didn't have any recollection of Monica. Don't you folks think that's truly amazing, considering this women got so close to Clinton over so long a period of time on so many occasions? Amazing because one of the Chief of Staff's responsibilities is handling the President's schedule? So, of course, it makes perfect sense to appoint someone so absolutely clueless to be head of the CIA. :rolleyes:
 
Not to sound wacky, but maybe Obama wants it to be easier for the Israeli's to spy on us-- he picked Rahm Emmanuel, and he has extreme ties to Israel...

During Clinton's administration he was called what amounted to being a spy for Israel.
 
Getting back to the topic, Leon Panetta's qualifications ... consider this ...

Panetta was White House Chief of Staff from 1994 to 1997. That's the exact period during which Monica Lewinsky had her *intimate* affair with President Bill Clinton ... in the Oval Office. The affair lasted from November 1995 to late 1997. She initially worked in the office of the Chief of Staff although she later moved to the Office of Legislative Affairs and then to the Pentagon. Even after leaving the Whitehouse for the Pentagon, she made dozens of visits to the Whitehouse.

Yet Panetta claimed to not know a thing about the relationship. In fact, just before grand jury questioning (8 hours of it) he claimed he didn't have any recollection of Monica. Don't you folks think that's truly amazing, considering this women got so close to Clinton over so long a period of time on so many occasions? Amazing because one of the Chief of Staff's responsibilities is handling the President's schedule? So, of course, it makes perfect sense to appoint someone so absolutely clueless to be head of the CIA. :rolleyes:

I already listed that as a qualification for the job:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4325443#post4325443
 
This announcement surprised me... I have some experience with Neon Leon, congressman in the Monterey Bay area where I grew up (he and Norm Mineta were my windows into Washington, depending on where the redistricting fell on any given year). He earned a good reputation as a reformer, and I would consider him pretty well qualified from an executive and ethical standpoint.

Whether he has any good ideas for the CIA, however, I'm skeptical. It's possible he'll do a great job, but he could also turn out to be a terrible force-fit. I'll be interested in the hearings.

I hired Leon as my attorney way back in the 70, I was extremely impressed with him, and he has been doing an excellent job with his institutes and the conversion of the former Fort Ord into a university. I think he is a strong administrator,
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom