posted on June 2, 2005 04:48:12 PM
It's funny to me to watch some here on the left appear to think Mark Felt is their hero or something.
But they sure didn't feel the same way when Linda Tripp was informing on their guy.
And especially since it appears Felt did the same thing himself....
President Nixon's fall, after all, was a triumph for liberal Democrats and muckraking journalists--a triumph neither group has managed to equal since.
To say the least, a protιgι of J. Edgar Hoover makes an unlikely hero in this tale.
Yet consider what has happened in the years since Watergate.
The Democratic Party suffered a series of electoral defeats and today is arguably in its weakest position since before the New Deal.
During the same period, the press has seen a steady erosion in its public esteem.
This is in part because both the Democrats and the press learned the "lessons of Watergate" too well. The press is constantly seeking the next scandal, and the Democrats and the liberal left have taken to portraying policy disagreements as criminal coverups--the impulse behind both the Iran-contra scandal and the Valerie Plame kerfuffle.
As if to underscore the futility of it all, yesterday, hours before the Felt revelation, the Boston Globe published an op-ed by Ralph Nader and some other guy arguing that President Bush should be impeached for liberating Iraq.
Felt himself turns out to have been both a hero of an earlier war on terrorism and a victim of the criminalization of policy differences.
During the Carter administration, as O'Connor notes, Felt, who by then had left the FBI, "was indicted on charges of having authorized illegal F.B.I. break-ins earlier in the decade, in which agents without warrants entered the residences of associates and family members of suspected bombers believed to be involved with the Weather Underground." He was convicted in 1980. "Then, in a stroke of good fortune while his case was on appeal, Ronald Reagan was elected president." On April 15, 1981, Reagan granted Felt a full pardon.
Little wonder, then, that Felt, who had been a registered Democrat, "turned Republican during the Reagan years," as O'Connor notes. In this respect he was far from alone--and by helping to force the resignation of a Republican president, he might have helped set the stage for a Republican ascendancy.
---------
Many question if he was a hero or not, should he have acted more ethically and exposed all this to Congress, when it happened, rather than continue to give leaks to the WashPost. etc..etc...etc.
But his family didn't want him to miss out on the 'book'/movie money since the other Watergate conspirators did profit from their books and he is struggling financially. His daughter said in another report she needs the money to help with her childrens educational expenses...and that she feels Woodward should see some profit too.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on June 2, 2005 04:55:27 PMNixon's Bubbly for Mr. Throat
The Associated Press reports on the latest irony in the story of Mark "Deep Throat"
Felt:
When Felt was on trial for authorizing illegal break-ins during the 1970s at homes of people associated with the radical Weather Underground, Nixon testified on his behalf.
And after Reagan pardoned Felt in 1981, he received a bottle of champagne and this brief note from the disgraced former president: "Justice ultimately prevails."
As we noted yesterday, Felt's background makes him an unlikely hero for the left. Yet John Conyers, a far-left Detroit Congressman, says "he will introduce a resolution commending Mark Felt," according to RawStory.com, which reproduces a Conyers statement:
"Quite frequently, it is courageous whistle blowers such as Mr. Felt who are responsible for disclosing corruption in our government. I have no doubt that, absent Mr. Felt's involvement, we would never have learned about the illegalities and obstruction of justice at the highest levels of our government, up to and including President Nixon.
"Our nation owes Mr. Felt our gratitude. . . ."
Conyers goes on about the "wrongdoing of the current administration," reinforcing our point that the left has overlearned the "lessons of Watergate."
CNN reports that Bill Clinton, appearing on "Larry King Live" last night, also had praise for Felt:
"I think Felt believed that there was a chance that this thing would be covered up," Clinton said, referring to the break-in and Nixon administration's cover-up. "Ordinarily, I think a law enforcement official shouldn't leak to the press because you should let criminal action take its course.
"But there was some reason to believe he was right. He always felt ambivalent about it apparently, and I think that's good," the former president said. "Under these circumstances he did the right thing."
If Congress is going to pass a resolution honoring Felt for blowing the whistle on Nixon, why not make it bipartisan and also honor Clinton administration whistle blower Linda Tripp? As David Schippers, the Democratic lawyer who served as the House Judiciary Committee's chief investigator during the Clinton impeachment inquiry, tells the Chicago Tribune's John Kass, "If he's a hero, and he is, then she's a hero.
They're both heroes."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
With the identification of Mark Felt as "Deep Throat," it is important to consider Watergate in an historical context.
Since Watergate, the Washington Post has helped perpetuate a double standard on ethics. Far more serious abuses took place in the Clinton administration, yet Clinton finished his term.
It is useful to compare the Nixon and Clinton scandals:
Underlying Offense. The break-in at Democratic headquarters took place without Nixon's knowledge or approval. The participants were former U.S. government agents who had conducted similar activities, both legal an illegal, under Democratic administrations.
Mistakenly or not, they understood their task to be related to protecting our national security.
Bill Clinton had sex with a White House intern barely older than his daughter in the Oval Office. According to Lewinsky, Clinton did not know her name until the third encounter, calling her "Kiddo." Solely for his own self-gratification,
Clinton recklessly endangered our national security. Clinton talked with Lewinsky on open telephone lines. Lewinsky told 11 individuals of the relationship.
Presidential Crimes.
Clinton personally committed felonies by lying under oath in a civil deposition and to a grand jury.
Nixon faced three Articles of Impeachment which held him responsible for the acts of subordinates of which he had no advance knowledge. The Articles do not accuse him of personally committing a felony.
Presidential Lying.
One Article of Impeachment against Nixon was that he lied to the American people. Nixon was never accused of lying under oath.
Clinton lied repeatedly to the American people. He was the first President in history to be accused of lying under oath.
Invasions of Privacy.
Nixon aides went to prison for viewing the contents of a handful of FBI files.
Clinton staffers pawed through hundreds. Evidence suggests that the First Lady may have initiated and/or orchestrated file invasions. Defense Department spokesman Kenneth Bacon got caught leaking Linda Tripp's personnel file.
Misuse of the FBI and IRS.
I believe that abuses have been far more extensive under Clinton, from the White House ordering the FBI to put out a press release accusing the innocent Billy Dale of crimes, to the IRS audits of dozens of conservative organizations. (After NLPC successfully filed suit to open the meetings of Hillary's health care task force, our attorney Kent Brown was audited. For good measure, Brown, a Civil War scholar and author, was booted off a Gettysburg advisory committee.)
Assertions of Privilege.
Nixon's assertion of Executive Privilege led to charges of an "Imperial Presidency,"
but Clinton trumps Nixon on this one. First, Clinton asserted an attorney-client privilege to prevent government lawyers from handing over notes made in meetings with Hillary. Then Clinton fought for two years all the way to the Supreme Court (where he lost 9-0) to claim he was immune from the Paula Jones civil lawsuit. At one point, Clinton's lawyers even claimed that as Commander-in-Chief, Clinton was on "active military duty" and could not be sued. Clinton even sought to invent a new "protective privilege" to prevent Secret Service agents from talking to Ken Starr.
Impact on the Country.
Richard Nixon's forced resignation weakened the nation while it was at war in Vietnam. The 1974 elections resulted in a Congress that cut off aid to South Vietnam, unleashing a Communist bloodbath in Southeast Asia that claimed millions of lives.
While 1974 Impeachment Articles do not accuse Nixon of any specific crime, they do accuse him of violating his oath of office. They make a general case that Nixon brought disrepute to his office and that he was morally unfit to serve.
By this standard, Clinton fares a lot worse.
Nixon-haters cite the fact that the Judiciary Committee in 1974 dropped a count of income tax fraud against Nixon as evidence that crimes of a "personal" nature by the President are not grounds for Impeachment. The charge resulted from a simple question of interpretation as to the deductibility of donating his personal papers to the government. The "tax fraud" allegation was so unfair and far-fetched that even the partisan Judiciary Democrats dropped it.
In the end, we are told that Clinton's felonies are excusable because he only "lied about sex."
Of course, the lies were in response to a sexual harassment lawsuit. If it is all right to lie about sex in a sexual harassment case, I don't think laws against sexual harassment mean much. I don't hear much angst about that from the Washington Post.
---
Peter Flaherty is president of the National Legal and Policy Center, a nonpartisan foundation promoting ethics in public life.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on June 2, 2005 05:26:01 PM
And last, but not least, :
[WashTimes 6-2-05]
In the aftermath, Watergate inspired more than 250 books, 2,400 articles and a half-dozen movies. The "-gate" suffix became a media fixture in its own right, attached to myriad scandals and investigations to follow. Watergate became the litmus test for wrongdoing for some.
"What's Whitewater compared to Watergate?" actress Barbra Streisand asked in a Vanity Fair interview 11 years ago.
But the scandalous patina of Watergate has faded in public memory.
On the 25th anniversary of the break-in in 1997, an Associated Press poll revealed that more than half of respondents couldn't remember the details of Watergate, and 62 percent said it had no impact on whether they still "trusted government."
By the time the 30th anniversary rolled around in 2002, an ABC News poll found that 65 percent of those surveyed said they couldn't even relate "the basic facts of Watergate" to someone else, and 59 percent said President Ford was "right" to pardon Mr. Nixon.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on June 2, 2005 06:17:12 PM
yea I see as much as you post in here...your busy LOL!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Baseball season has started,but they have it all wrong.3 strikes and you're out,4 balls you walk.I can tell you right now a man with 4 balls could not possibly walk
posted on June 2, 2005 06:20:21 PMLinda, you have the longest most boring C&P's
Nope, crowfart, that honor belongs to YOU!
-- Whats the name of that memo again? Shouldnt you be flippin it a few more threads to shove it down somebody's throat?
posted on June 2, 2005 07:02:25 PM
Linda - the only people making this a republican/Democrat issue are Rebuplicans. Nixon was a felon. Are you honestly going to stand up for him? Look at the actions of his White House. Do you HONESTLY believe that his were the actions of someone that deserved to hold the highest office in the land?
Felt did the only thing that could be done in order to bring justice in the situation considering the rather massive scope of corruption at the time. Please don't forget that we are taking about someone that eliminated the office of the Special Prosecuter when Archibald Cox started to come after him and the Attorney General was involved in the coverup and went to jail. How else was he supposed to make sure that a light was shined on the situation?
As for the later conviction of breaking and entering... if you do a little research you will find that at that time, what he did was under the approval of both the FBI and the DOJ. The FBI had worked under the impression that once something was approved and requested by the Justice Department that it was legal. That assumption was challenged in front of the Supreme Court who ruled that the actions were not legal which is what resulted in the conviction but also what justified his pardon.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on June 2, 2005 07:06:48 PM
::By the time the 30th anniversary rolled around in 2002, an ABC News poll found that 65 percent of those surveyed said they couldn't even relate "the basic facts of Watergate" to someone else, and 59 percent said President Ford was "right" to pardon Mr. Nixon.::
To be honest I believe that Ford was right to pardon Nixon. I don't believe that it should have been done because he was not guilty of anything. I think that coming off of Vietnam and and the Watergate investigation and Nixon quitting it was time to let the nation begin to try to come back down years of high tension.
I think that Fords actions had nothing to do clearing Nixon and everything to doing with healing the Nation.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on June 2, 2005 07:20:38 PM
fenix - I will restate what I've said in the past.
Anyone who commits a crime should be punished.
That being said...the dems clinton thought he was ABOVE THE LAW.
AND...the biased MSM only chooses to focus on the wrong doings of the right...never the left.
As we recently saw with Burger going in and stuffing all those documents in his pants. Documents that shouldn't have been removed in the first place.
I could site a zillion more instances of where the dems do something unethical...but they get little to NO press.
Just as the article above points out how the WashingtonPost has 'hovered' over this 30 year old story...all this time...but where was their 'cheering' for someone outting clinton. No where to be seen, as is usually the case.
They protect the left...and slam the right...and lefties here pretend that's a-okay with them...and that it's ethical. Imo, it's not and it shows very poorly just how unethical the left news and tv media acts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on June 2, 2005 07:26:12 PM
AND on your other statement:
Felt did the only thing that could be done in order to bring justice in the situation considering the rather massive scope of corruption at the time.
That is not true. He easily could have gone over heads...straight to asking for a Congressional hearing to report this wrong doing.
HE chose not to....but rather hide behind the curtains and leak out information....which was ILLEGAL...which BROKE our laws.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on June 2, 2005 07:46:37 PM
Felt could have done the proper thing instead of going down back streets and meeting in ally's with news reporters with information that was classified and private. He could have resigned his post in the FBI and went to the authorities with the information he knew, but he didn't. So now he is a hero?
No matter Nixon resigned. But if he had gone to the authorities before that Nixon would have been impeached. Why was everything kept under raps. Maybe he was ashamed of himself, but then again maybe he thought he would have been tried for treason.
At 91 nothing will happen as it shouldn't but the truth should have been told in 1970.
posted on June 2, 2005 08:05:06 PM
::That is not true. He easily could have gone over heads...straight to asking for a Congressional hearing to report this wrong doing.::
Linda - he did not have the authority to call for a congressional hearing. His boss could have... but wait... his boss was involved in the cover-up.
Even when the invesigations went in front of a grand jury nothing was presented to the regarding Nixon because it was determined that Presidential Immunity protected him from indictment.
::HE chose not to....but rather hide behind the curtains and leak out information....which was ILLEGAL...which BROKE our laws.::
How is exposing criminal activity illegal?
It's funny, I watched another former Assistant Director of the FBI on CSPAN (channel flippin - not a regular stop for me) and when asked what he thought his response was that Felts actions went against everything you are taught and everything that is expected of you in the FBI but at that time, in that climate there was really nothing else to do. He said that your first obligation is to the Constitution and because of the scope of corruption the only way to serve the constitution was to operate outside of official channels. He said that put in the same situation, he probably would have acted in the same manner.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on June 2, 2005 08:23:09 PMhe did not have the authority to call for a congressional hearing. His boss could have... but wait... his boss was involved in the cover-up.
No, fenix, he could have chosen to take other routes...not having to go though his boss...which was my point. And it's done all the time by whistleblowers.
[i]How is exposing criminal activity illegal[i]?
I'm talking about when he met SEVERAL times with the two WashPost writers. Giving out government information that shouldn't have been released to the 'press'.
I've got to get some dinner now...I'm starving.....but as they always say....'Where there's a will, there's a way."
Personally, from all that I've read...he didn't have the guts to just report it. He OWED Nixon for testifing on his behave for his own conviction. He also 'owed' Reagan for paroning him. So maybe he had mixed feelings...he wanted to 'get even' for not getting the job he thought he should have....but the republicans had saved his butt. So this was a way to do so and keep them from exposing HIS felonies? Who knows....and at this point I don't really care.
Some are asking for him to be charged....whether or not he is...because of his age and health...it's not likely.
And your mystery is now solved....you have appeared [to me] to be as excited about this as I was when I discover that proof that clinton had padded our military budget with medical programs. lol
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on June 2, 2005 08:50:30 PM
I love the Ann Coulter banter. I admit that yours was funnier than Fenix's, Linda. (I could've sworn you said you thought she was intelligent in the other thread.)
posted on June 2, 2005 09:26:45 PM
Yes fenix as I stated earlier that he could have resigned then gone to the higher ups and reported what he had, but instead he decided that meeting in back streets and alleys with news reporters was the right thing to do. He chose to disobey his oath for the FBI by removing confidential documents out of the FBI to the news reporters.
He would have been more than a hero then but now since he took the route he did is he still a hero?
I might be wrong as I have been before but I think the longer this story is top news the more we will know that someone is in it for the money. We already know that the daughter wants a piece of the pie. Does she deserve it. No.
posted on June 2, 2005 09:56:41 PM
::Well fenix I saw the same person and I don't know how unless you taped his interview that you can say what he said.::
Because I am still in my 30's and have retained much of my short term memory.
::Fenix-Now if you saw a head of department, do something that was horribly wrong would you run to a news reporter?::
Lets put this into context Libra. A regular court cannot investigate, the FBI which is one of two federal agencies embowered to investigate such things is headed by an individual that is involved so they are out. Justice Department would be they only other government agency but, well, their head, the Attorney General is so tied up in this whole thing that he later serves time in prison. Since you can't as a single individual start a congressional investigation the only avenue left would be to create such such a public furor that there was no longer a way to facilitate a cover-up and the only way to do that it to go to the press. So yes. Had I been in that same situation, I would have gone to the press. Who would you have gone to?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on June 2, 2005 10:01:06 PM
::No, fenix, he could have chosen to take other routes...not having to go though his boss...which was my point. And it's done all the time by whistleblowers.::
WHO Linda. You keep saying he could have gone to someone else but who could he have gone to? Whistleblowqers go to the FBI and we have already played out that scenario. ONce you take the FBI and Justice Depts out, where do you go? CIA does not have jurisdiction so now that you have repeated stated he shouod have gone somewhere else, where should he have gone that would have had the power to be able to overcome cover-up efforts put forth by the White House and Attorney General of the United States with assistance from the head of the FBI?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on June 2, 2005 10:12:39 PM
::He OWED Nixon for testifing on his behave for his own conviction.::
Not unless he was psychic. That conviction did not happen until eight years later in 1980.
Libra - as far as I know and have read, he never turned ANY records over to Woodward. He guided Woodward in his investigation, kept him focused on the right path and confirmed information that he rooted out from other sources but he did not directly provide information. If you read the book you'll see there were a couple times when Woodward was totally frustrated by how vague DT was and tried to get him to just come out and give him the direct info.
As far as who is in it for the money... Isn't it funny that the big players that have come out and called him a traitor and said he only came forward for the money so far are all guys who served time than got out and wrote a book.
KRAFTY - I found the quote today by accident. I was looking for an anti Katie Couric site (I was really bored!!) and found the quote in the transcripts of an interview where she compared Katie to Eva Braun. It was too funny to pass up.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
- Ann Coulter
[ edited by fenix03 on Jun 2, 2005 10:15 PM ]
posted on June 2, 2005 10:42:14 PM
Fenix, what do you mean he guided. By bringing facts that were confidential to a news reporter was technically wrong and you know it. But stand by what you say as you are always right and everyone else is wrong.
Ethically it was wrong. He was a member of the FBI and should have gone to his superior and then if that didn't work went elsewhere.
He was a rejected employee.
posted on June 2, 2005 10:59:15 PM
Libra - have you read the book lately? He didn't bring facts. He told them to follow the money trail, he confirmed involvement about certain players when Woodward came to him a nd said he had been told so and so was involved. He kept them on track but it was people like Sloan and Segretti that actually laid out the facts.
You still have not answered my question. You say that Felt should have gone to his superiors. He only had one superior Libra and that was Patrick Gray. The same Patrick Gray that was appointed to the job by Nixon and the same Patrick Gray that under orders from Erlichman threw incriminating papers into the Potomac River. I guess the next person would be the Attorney General but that was Mitchell and he was convicted of conspiracy and obstruction of justice.
So again I ask.... WHO should he have gone to? Name them. If not the individual, the organization. FBI is out, Justice is out, CIA is out by reason of their charter.
Who still existed with enough power and influence to overcome the White House working in colusion with the FBI and Justice Department?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
- Ann Coulter
[ edited by fenix03 on Jun 2, 2005 11:00 PM ]
Nothing about the money trail.....It was all about information from the FBI
Technically, it was illegal to talk about grand jury information or FBI files -- or it could have been made to look illegal.
Felt believed he was protecting the bureau by finding a way, clandestine as it was, to push some of the information from the FBI interviews and files out to the public, to help build public and political pressure to make Nixon and
posted on June 2, 2005 11:52:48 PM
Libra - I have asked you two quesrtions now and you have not answered either one of them...
1) Who should he have gone to
2) Have you read the book? Have you read the actual accounts written at the time of what went down and what information came from what sources?
Have you watched the interviews in the past two days with Woodward?
Here are some of the comments formthe Larry King interview today
....he was what we always called "the reluctant source," somebody who did not come to us, somebody who would not say, this is everything that's going on, this is what the story is, these are documents. He would only guide us and steer us. And when we would find out something, he would confirm it. And there are many specifics in our book, "All the President's Men," but you see, it was really shoe leather, knocking on doors, Carl going down, finding various people like the bookkeeper, who said there's a secret fund. And then I could go to Mark Felt and say, OK, is that in the FBI files? What does it mean? And then we could talk to other sources, so we were on really solid ground when we were writing these stories. He was critical, but all these other people were also.
ON the money specifically....
CALLER: The clip leads right into my question. The phrase, "follow the money," which was in the movie, obviously, but I don't believe was in the book. Did Deep Throat ever actually say that exact phrase?
KING: Bob?
WOODWARD: Yeah, that's a very good question. It was Dan Shore (ph) who discovered that -- we thought it was in the book. It's not in the book, or our notes. There are phrases like that, and the clear implication is, get on the trail of the money. But the simple phrase, "follow the money," as best we can tell, he did not say.
Seriously Libra - If you get a chance, you should read the book. I think you will really enjoy it. It's got intrigue and dirty politics and people that hate Ted Kennedy ( ) and... everything but sex. There is no sex.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
:
