The Mary Jo White Memo: Documentation of clintons' and Gorelick's willful, seditious malfeasance

U.S. Dept. of Justice ^ | 4.30.04 | Mia T

[Mia T]

The Mary Jo White Memo:
Documentation of clintons' and Gorelick's willful, seditious malfeasance

by Mia T, 4.30.04

 

ary Jo White's memo is documentation of the clintons' and Gorelick's willful, seditious malfeasance.

White's 1995 memo effectively put the clinton-Gorelick cabal on contemporaneous notice that Gorelick's Wall was placing America at grave risk from terrorism.

The memo explicitly warned that the protective wall the clintons and Gorelick were busy erecting (doubtless to blind domestic law enforcement to the clintons' illegal foreign schemes) would (also) blind domestic law enforcement to terrorist plots foreign and domestic.

From this it follows that Gorelick's Wall was not the clintons' and Gorelick's simple (albeit monumental) blunder.

Rather, Gorelick's Wall was no less than the clintons' and Gorelick's malfeasance--willful, self-serving and seditious--with the metastasis of al Qaeda and 9/11 the sorry endpoint.

NOTE: Bin Laden declared war on America throughout the clintons' watch. Had the clintons understood that this was war, not crime, that a terrorist war requires only one consenting player, Gorelick's Wall would be just another clintoncorruption footnote.

"The Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him [bin Laden].

At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

MORE

bill clinton
Sunday, Aug. 11, 2002
Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio:
I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer

It is critical to understand that this same terrorism-is-crime-not-war flawed, dangerous thinking animates John Kerry, and the left, generally.

A post-9/11 America must never again put these dangerous pre-9/11 dinosaurs in any positions of leadership. To do so would be to place at grave risk no less than our very existence.

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

Bored Certified
NEW virtual john kerry can bore + snowboard at the same time series

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

Reverse Gorelick

by Mia T, 4.15.04
QUINN IN THE MORNING (ESSAY DISCUSSED)
(MP3, REAL, WINDOWS MEDIA, WINAMP)

e would have it backwards and miss the point entirely if we were to attribute The Gorelick Wall and the attendant metastasis of al Qaeda during the clintons' watch, (which, incidentally, was then in its incipient stage and stoppable), to the '60s liberal mindset.

Rampant '60s liberalism was not the underlying rationale for The Gorelick Wall.

Rather, The Gorelick Wall was the underlying rationale for--The Gorelick Wall was (insofar as '60s liberalism was the Wall's apparent impetus) a cynical cover for --the willful, methodical malpractice and malfeasance that was the product of the virulent clinton strain of rampant '60s liberalism.

While it is true that The Gorelick Wall was the convenient device of a cowardly self-serving president, The Wall's aiding and abetting of al Qaeda was largely incidental, (the pervasiveness of the clintons' Nobel-Peace-Prize calculus notwithstanding).

The Wall was engineered primarily to protect a corrupt self-serving president. The metastasis of al Qaeda and 9/11 were simply the cost of doing business, clinton-style.

Further confirmation of the Wall-as-cover-for-clinton-corruption thesis:

• Gorelick's failure to disclose the fact that she authored the memo that was the efficient cause of 911

• Gorelick's surreal presence on the 911 commission investigating Gorelick's Justice Department, a maneuver that effectively removes from the universe of witnesses a central witness, Gorelick, even as it uniquely positions a central player, Gorelick, to directly shape the commission's conclusions. (Is there any question which two people are responsible for Gorelick's insertion on the commission?)

Conversely, that it never occurred to anyone on the commission that Gorelick's flagrant conflict of interest renders her presence on the commission beyond farce calls into question the commission's judgment if not its integrity. Washington's mutual protection racket writ large, I suspect.

The Gorelick Wall is consistent with, and an international extension of, two essential acts committed in tandem, Filegate, the simultaneous empowering of the clintons and disemboweling of clinton adversaries, and the clinton Putsch, the firing and replacement of every U.S. attorney extant.

Filegate and the clinton Putsch,
committed in tandem,
the product of a careful criminal calculus,
at once empowered clinton
and disemboweled his opponents.
clinton was now free to betray with abandon
not only our trust,
but the Constitution as well.

The Common Man
Mia T
February, 1998

Allegations of international clinton crimes swirling around the White House in 1995 and beyond support The-Wall-as-cover-for-international-clinton-crimes thesis.

Once the clintons' own U.S. attorneys were in place, once the opposition was disemboweled by the knowledge that their raw FBI files had been in the possession of the clintons, once domestic law enforcement was effectively blinded to foreign data by Gorelick's Wall, the clintons were free to methodically and seditiously and with impunity auction off America's security, sovereignty and economy to the highest foreign bidder.

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com
missus clinton's REAL virtual office update
http://hillarytalks.blogspot.com
http://virtualhillary.blogspot.com
http://virtualclintonlibrary.blogspot.com
http://www.hillarytalks.us
http://www.hillarytalks.org
fiendsofhillary.blogspot.com
fiendsofhillary.us
fiendsofhillary.org
fraudsofhillary.com

Newly released Justice Department memos show that September 11 panel commissioner Jamie S. Gorelick was more intimately involved than previously thought with hampering communications between U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies fighting terrorism.

As the No. 2 person in the Clinton Justice Department, Ms. Gorelick rejected advice from the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who warned against placing more limits on communications between law-enforcement officials and prosecutors pursuing counterterrorism cases, according to several internal documents written in summer 1995.

"It is hard to be totally comfortable with instructions to the FBI prohibiting contact with the United States Attorney's Offices when such prohibitions are not legally required," U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White wrote Ms. Gorelick six years before the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and at the Pentagon.

"Our experience has been that the FBI labels of an investigation as intelligence or law enforcement can be quite arbitrary, depending upon the personnel involved and that the most effective way to combat terrorism is with as few labels and walls as possible so that wherever permissible, the right and left hands are communicating," she wrote.

The documents -- released yesterday by the Justice Department at the request of two Senate Republicans -- drew renewed calls for Ms. Gorelick to testify publicly before the September 11 commission about the so-called "wall" between law enforcement and intelligence agencies that many have blamed for allowing the 2001 terrorist attacks to occur.

Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, said yesterday that Ms. Gorelick's policies regarding the wall contributed to "blinding America to this terrible threat."

Also, he said, the newly released memos raised apparent conflicts with statements Ms. Gorelick has made recently defending herself and her role in the Clinton Justice Department.

"These documents show what we've said all along: Commissioner Gorelick has special knowledge of the facts and circumstances leading up to the erection and buttressing of 'that wall' that, before the enactment of the Patriot Act, was the primary obstacle to the sharing of communications between law enforcement and intelligence agencies," Mr. Cornyn said.

In a June 19, 1995, memo, Ms. White recommended a series of changes to a Gorelick policy that went beyond legal requirements in separating law- enforcement and intelligence agencies.

Memos show Gorelick involvement in 'wall'
Charles Hurt and Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published April 29, 2004

copyright Mia T 2004

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[liberallarry]

My contention is that the importance of the Wall in PREVENTING terrorist attacks is being exagerated, and its importance in preventing improper domestic spying is being MINIMIZED, for political reasons.

It's obvious that the political climate PRIOR to 911 was much different than subsequently - which means that all priorities were different. The Administration, the Commission, and everyone else in a position to know have acknowledged that - agreeing that prior to 911 large military responses to terrorism were politically impossible...and that was not the only limitation.

I hope to put together a more detailed, better researched response to the posts subsequent to mine - but so far have not found the time.

I know. Excuses, excuses, excuses...but I'm sure every regular poster understands all too well the pressures of trying to keep up. :)

[liberallarry]

Geez MUD, I didn't even realize you were pinging me to a new thread so my previous post may not make any sense...or less sense than usual. :)

[liberallarry]

The full text of the memo (linked to the article) and this interview seem relevant. I haven't read them yet...but I hope to.

[Mia T]

If you had gone to the DOJ link posted at the top of this thread, and then had clicked on Supplementary Material under the heading "Attorney General's 9/11 Testimony and Supplementary Material," you would have gotten the mary jo white memo in fast-downloading pdf format.

 

 

[Mia T]

1. Your contention of exaggeration: It is based on... what, exactly? The events leading up to and including 9/11 are the obvious counterexample to your "contention."
2. clinton's curiously timed if sporadic military incursions into countries, empty tents and aspirin factories are the obvious counterexamples to your second point....

 

"WAG THE DOG" revisited

Mia T, 2.14.04

 

hillary talks: On Military Tactics
WHEN TO BOMB

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

Lopez: You sorta defend Clinton against "wag the dog" criticisms in regard to that infamous August 1998 (Monica times) bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan and some bin Laden strongholds in Afghanistan. That wasn't the problem, was it &emdash; that we fired then?

Miniter: Certainly the timing is suspicious. The day before the East African-embassy bombings, Monica Lewinsky had recanted her prior affidavit denying a sexual relationship with Clinton. The sex scandals kicked into overdrive.

Still, the president wasn't doing too much in combating bin Laden because of his sex scandals &emdash; he was doing too little. He should have launched more missile strikes against bin Laden and the hell with the political timing. Besides, after the East African-embassy bombings, any president would have been negligent not to strike back. If he had not, it would be open season on Americans. He would have been as ineffectual as Carter was during the Tehran hostage crisis. Indeed, this was the mistake made following the attack on the USS Cole.

But Clinton was distracted by sex and campaign-finance scandals and his political support was already heavily leveraged to get him through those scandals. If he fought bin Laden more vigorously, the leftwing of the Democratic party might have deserted him &emdash; which could have cost him the White House.

Instead Clinton's token, ineffectual missile strikes that only emboldened bin Laden. He believed that America was too intimidated to fight back &emdash; and was free to plan one of the most-murderous terrorist attacks in history.

THE MOVIE
hillary talks: On Military Tactics
WHEN TO BOMB

initer's reasoning here is a bit weak.

It is precisely the clintons' bin-Laden-emboldening inaction to the attack on the USS Cole and the clintons' bin-Laden-emboldening token, ineffectual, August 1998 missile strikes of aspirin factories and empty tents that eliminate "bin-Laden-emboldenment avoidance" as the rationale for the latter decision and support "wag the dog," instead.

Taken together, feckless clinton inaction and feckless clinton action serve only to reinforce the almost universally held notion: the clinton calculus was, is, and always will be, solely self-serving. (I will have more to say on this as it relates to the Gorelick memo.)

In the case of the non-response to the attack on the Cole, an unam biguous act of war, the clinton rationale, according to no less than Madeleine Albright, was a clinton Nobel Peace Prize by Arab appeasement. i.e., a clinton Nobel Peace Prize by bin-Laden-emboldenment.

And in the case of the curiously-timed, ineffectual (and, therefore, bin-Laden-emboldening) token missile strikes, the clinton rationale was Lewinsky-recantation distraction -- clearly not bin-Laden-emboldenment avoidance. (This is not to say there wasn't a Nobel factor here, too. Obsolete intelligence, bolstered by the redundancy of a clinton tipoff, ensured that both bin Laden and the Mideast Muslim ego would escape unscathed.)

WASHINGTON -- Two Norwegian public-relations executives and one member of the Norwegian Parliament say they were contacted by the White House to help campaign for President Clinton to receive this year's Nobel Peace Prize for his work in trying to negotiate peace in the Middle East.

Clinton Lobbies for Nobel Prize: What a Punk
White House Lobbied For Clinton Nobel Peace Prize
Updated Friday, October 13, 2000
By Rita Cosby
 

 

There's been speculation in the last few months that Clinton was pursuing a Mideast peace accord in an effort to win the prize and secure his legacy as president.

AIDES PUSH CLINTON FOR THE NOBEL

 

 

At the time, clinton observed: "I made more progress in the Middle East than I did between Socks and Buddy." Retrospectively, it is clear that clinton's characterization was not correct.

Mia T, Buddy Death Report Raises More Questions Than It Answers

 

 

COMING APART:
What clinton was REALLY saying. . . and why. . . when he bashed Bush in Canada

ADDENDUM 12.13.03:

As for pathologic self-interest, check out Richard Miniter's C-SPAN interview; the interview is contained in my latest virtual hillary movie (below), hillary talks:ON TERROR; it is absolutely devastating for the clintons. Miniter lays out in sickening detail the clintons' monumental failure to protect America.

Note in particular Madeleine Albright's shocking reason given at the time of the USS Cole attack why the clinton administration should not respond militarily. It tell us everything we need to know about the clintons. It tell us why clinton redux is an absolutely suicidal notion.

Notwithstanding their cowardice, corruption, perfidy and essential stupidity, the clintons, according to Albright, made their decision not to go after the terrorists primarily to enhance their own legacy and power. The clintons calculated that such inaction would MAXIMIZE THEIR CHANCES TO RECEIVE THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. No matter that that inaction would also maximize the terrorists' power, maximize America's danger.

Mia T, The Democratic Party's Problem Transcends Its Anti-War Contingent2

 Mia T,The Nobel as clinton Pavlovian stimulus--a timeline

 

 

 

hillary talks:ON TERROR
(reinstalling the clintons in the White House has one advantage over suicide)

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)


missus clinton's REAL virtual office update
http://hillarytalks.blogspot.com
http://virtualhillary.blogspot.com
http://virtualclintonlibrary.blogspot.com
http://www.hillarytalks.us
http://www.hillarytalks.org
fiendsofhillary.blogspot.com
fiendsofhillary.us
fiendsofhillary.org
fraudsofhillary.com

[Jimmy Valentine]

Keep banging away at this one Mia. This is the keystone of the whole Clinton Crime family. If this can be ripped open in the main stream press, everything will tumble down around the Clinton's heads.

Regards,

[aruanan]

Do you have a link to the entire Mary Jo White memo?

[Mia T]

My previous answer to you notwithstanding, the clintons had an embarrassment of opportunities to rally the country.

 

Bin Laden had declared war on us repeatedly, had committed acts of war against us repeatedly, during the clintons' watch....

When terrorists declare war on you…and then proceed to kill you… you are, perforce, at war. At that point, you really have only one decision to make: Do you fight the terrorists… or do you surrender?

Contrary to clinton/leftist-media spin, this war waged against America by the terrorists did not begin on September 11, 2001. The terrorists--bin Laden--had declared war on America repeatedly, had killed Americans repeatedly, throughout the clinton years.

Remarkably, the same terrorists hit the same WTC building in 1993, and clinton, 15 minutes away from the devastation, didn't even bother to visit the site, preferring instead to add his old bromides on the economy to the pollution along the Jersey Turnpike. (Ironically, the legacy clinton would desperately, futilely seek throughout his life was right under his nose on that day in 1993; but he was too self-absorbed--too stupid, some would say--to see it.)

And as for the September 11 attacks, they were planned in May 1998, on the clintons' watch, in the Khalden Camp in southeastern Afghanistan.

The terrorists declared war on America on the clintons watch and the clintons surrendered.

Democrats, from the clintons to Kerry, reflexively choose "surrender."
President Bush chooses '"fight."
Andrew Cuomo didn't call the Democrats "clueless" for no reason.

Kerry's Fatal(clinton)Error
Mia T, 3.16.04

bill clinton admits: I DID NOT PROTECT AMERICA FROM TERRORISTS
(WHY THE CLINTONS, KERRY AND THE LEFT ARE DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA)

 

by Mia T, 3.31.04

 

link to movie
requires Flash Player 6, available HERE

CLINTON TURNED DOWN SUDAN'S OFFERS OF BIN LADEN
HEAR CLINTON'S SECRETLY TAPED "ADMISSION" NOW

by Mia T, 3.28.04

 

"The Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him [bin Laden].

At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have; but they thought it was a hot potato. They didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

bill clinton
Sunday, Aug. 11, 2002
Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio:
I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer

"The instant that second plane hit, I said to the person with whom I was speaking, 'Bin Laden did this.' I knew immediately. I know what this network can do."

bill clinton

To hear Clinton now say "We must do more to reduce the pool of potential terrorists" is thus beyond farce. He had numerous opportunities to reduce that pool, and he blew it.

A Fish Rots from the Head
Investor's Business Daily

Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
MANSOOR IJAZ
December 5, 2001

 

 

 

isten carefully to clinton's "admission." Watch the flash movie. Diagram the sentences.

It's the classic clinton snake-oil sales pitch that exploits liberal credulousness and the gestalt concepts of structural economy and closure (the tendency to perceive incomplete forms as complete). This allows clinton to tell the story of his utter failure to fight terrorism, his failure to take bin Laden from Sudan, his repeated failures, in fact, to decapitate an incipient and still stoppable al Qaeda, without explicitly admitting it.

"The Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again; [so] they released him [to America]."

Note that the linkage between the above two sentences and the indirect object of the second sentence are each implied, giving clinton plausible deniability.

"[H]e had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

This position is surprising on two counts:

1. clinton has never been one to allow the rule of law get in his way.
   
2. Although bin Laden had repeatedly declared war on America during clinton's tenure, clinton treats terrorism not as a war but as a law enforcement problem, which, by definition is defensive, after-the-fact and fatally-too-late.

The impeached ex-president fails to understand that when terrorists declare war on you…and then proceed to kill you… you are, perforce, at war. At that point, you really have only one decision to make: Do you fight the terrorists… or do you surrender?

Critical to the understanding of the clintons' (and Kerry's and the left's) inability to protect America from terrorism is the analysis of clinton's final phrase, "though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

"I did not bring him [Osama bin Laden] here... though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

This phrase is clinton's explicit rejection of both bin Laden's repeated declarations/acts of war and the (Bush) doctrine of preemption to fight terror.

This phrase underscores clinton's failure to understand that:

• a terrorist war requires only one consenting player
• defining bin Laden's acts of war as "crimes'' is a dangerous, anachronistic, postmodern conceit (It doesn't depend on what the meaning of the word "war" is) and amounts to surrender
• preemption serves a necessary, critically protective, as well as offensive function in any war on terror.

The sorry endpoint of this massive, 8-year clinton blunder was, of course, 9/11 and the exponential growth of al Qaeda.

ASIDE: It is beyond farce, therefore, for Richard Clarke to exalt clinton, (whose response to terrorism--in those rare ("bimbo") instances when he did, in fact, respond--was feckless, at best), even as he attempts to take down Bush, a great president whose demonstrated vision, courage and tenacity in the face of seditious undermining by the power-hungry clintons and their leftist goons is nothing short of heroic.

 

"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have; but they thought it was a hot potato."

Finally, this last paragraph underscores clinton's penchant for passing off the tough problems (and the buck) to others (while arrogating their solutions as his own). It would have been a simple matter for him to take bin Laden. Why did he turn the offer down?

The answer was inadvertently if somewhat obliquely provided by Madeleine Albright at the cabinet meeting that would decide the disposition of the USS Cole bombing by al Qaeda [that is to say, that would decide to do what it had always done when a "bimbo" was not spilling the beans on the clintons--nothing--only Clarke wanted to retaliate militarily for this unambiguous act of war].

According to Albright, a [sham] Mideast accord would yield [, if not peace for the principals, surely] a Nobel Peace Prize for clinton [an unprincipled fraud whose only significance is the devastation that he (and his zipper-hoisted spinoff) have wreaked on America].

[Mia T]

see post #25

[aruanan]

Thanks!

[Mia T]

you're welcome :)

[Amityschild]

must read ping

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP

[nopardons]

Another good one,Mia! :-)

[Faith]

Thank you, Mia T. The malfeasance of the Clinton years will ripple through this nation for decades to come. May we never have to suffer through another Clinton presidency. And beyond that, given what the party has become, may we never have to suffer through another Democrat presidency.

[Joy Angela]

Nothing happend in the CLINTON White House without HILLARY knowing about it =

Hillary Knows, Hillary Plots,
Hillary Schemes.

Just ask her daughter.

"Chelsea Victoria" Clinton
"Shall-See Victory"

How Hillary's blood must curdle
living in such rage for so long.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.

HILLARY's rage has been bubbling up for some time now over...

US Freepers just nailing her on the Internet.

US Freepers following her around at her 'Living History' booksignings with our CLARITY Demonstrations right across the street.

...So much so that HILLARY now finds herself having to mention US Freepers on NBC's JAY LENO 'Tonight' Show...

...as well as having to make her own .."Do you know what I've been accused of doing..?" phone calls into Conservative Talk Radio to complain.

...Then the Enemy Within HILLARY saves her "Real" Newsmaking Anti-U.S. feelings known to the World's Foreign Press, not America's.

...Now why was it, again, that HILLARY just had to make all those trips to North Africa and Eastern Europe with CHELSEA in tow while First Lady..?

.

[PhilDragoo]

[Joy Angela]

Perhaps Hillary was gathering Campaign Donations
from adoring Foreign Leaders.