|
September 13, 2007
Ron Brown's documents lie a moldering in the landfill....
I'm into Clinton nostalgia lately, and I hope readers will indulge me, because the patterns in the recent campaign scandals are so similar to the old scandals that it's downright spooky. I mean, check this out this vintage Washington Post piece from 1997: The exploits of indefatigable Clinton bag man Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie produced the hit of the week at last week's Senate Governmental Affairs Committee hearings on campaign finance. Mr. Trie in early 1996 had temporarily shifted his attention from the president's reelection campaign to his legal defense fund. He had showed up once with a brown envelope containing $460,000 in $1,000 contributions, some on sequentially numbered money orders made out in different names but the same handwriting.Bundling? I'll skip over most of the details, but the scandals led to calls for "reform": Mr. Trie's role as a conduit for campaign contributions seems to have been well known. An agricultural cooperative in Thailand wired him $100,000 a couple of weeks before two of its executives were to meet the president at a White House coffee. At least half the money was converted to cash shortly afterward; what happened to it next is unclear. The coffee was arranged by DNC fund-raiser John Huang and a businesswoman, Pauline Kanchanalak, who was the co-op's U. S. representative and herself a major Clinton campaign contributor. Some if not all of her contributions have been returned by the DNC because of questions about their source.And now that Congress has cleaned it up, it'll never happen again, right? Anyone still remember Commerce Secretary Ron Brown -- whose death has been described as saving the Clinton Administration? I'm not interested in conspiracy theories over his death, as things like that make little difference. It's like the Vince Foster conspiracy theories; what I always wanted to know about was what was in his hard drive, not which way some crackpot said the blood ran, or whether X-rays were "missing." There were no criminal cases, and there never will be, so worrying about dead bodies strikes me as silly. Documents, however, are another matter, because they speak for themselves. They don't commit suicide or die of natural causes, and hard drives cannot accidentally destroy themselves. Bodies decompose, but documents are forever! At least, they're supposed to be. When documents die, it's inherently more suspicious than when people die, because there isn't as much room for ambiguity. To continue this exercise in nostalgia from a decade ago, Ron Brown was annoyed that the financial shenanigans of the Clintons had turned him into a peddler of trade mission seats: Hill painted a picture of her friend Brown as furious with the White House, and especially first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, for instigating the plan. "I'm not a [mother-expletive deleted] tour guide for Hillary," Brown complained privately to Hill, according to her account.Using the FOIA, Judicial Watch tried and tried to get the documents, but the untimely and tragic death of Ron Brown seems to have triggered a massive shredding campaign. The coverup was so egregious that it upset U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth (who presided over the Judicial Watch litigation). In a strongly worded Memorandum Opinion, Judge Lamberth excoriated the conduct of Commerce Department officials. It's a very long opinion, but the Wall Street Journal commented on a few gems: ....not much of anyone in Washington beyond a few reporters seems to have noticed that on December 22 a federal district judge denounced the behavior of a group of Clintonesque former Commerce Department officials as akin to "hooligans" and "scofflaws." What's more, he said the department's handling of a lawsuit over the late Ron Brown's trade junkets has been so untrustworthy that he is appointing a special magistrate to keep an eye on them.The scandal was called "Commercegate" -- and there's still a Wiki entry, but you better look fast, as the title is now being disputed by "No adequate explanation has been given as to why these documents were destroyed." Furthermore, the judge said: "[the Department's] misconduct in this case is so egregious and so extensive that... the agency [should be held] fully accountable for the serious violations that it appears to have deliberately committed".It strikes me that one way of ensuring accountability might be to not reelect the people who presided over the lack thereof. Especially if they're resistant to the reforms inspired by their original conduct. Enough nostalgia. I should get with the real world of today. UPDATE: The Washington Post is waxing nostalgically too, about "An Unwelcome Echo." Hmmm.... Some clever candidate ought to reecho this book and title it "A Choice, not an Unwelcome Echo." MORE: I do not mean to suggest that everyone who expresses skepticism about the official conclusions regarding the Foster death is a crackpot. Some are, some aren't. (My apologies to anyone who took that characterization personally. If it's any consolation, I often refer to myself as a crackpot.) posted by Eric on 09.13.07 at 09:45 AM
Comments
I studied the Foster case, and concluded that it's a waste of time. They ought to focus on the documents. There's still no answer with regard to Vincent Foster's hard drive, yet people argue over things which will never be known. The bodies of Foster and Brown prove only that they are dead. Regarding Katyn, the bodies were found in 1943, but what finally established Soviet guilt was not the bodies (which had been shot in the head with German Walthers), but Soviet documents. Bodies merely establish death. No one disputes that Foster and Brown are dead, but I think it is foolish to imagine that murder investigations will ever be opened. Regardless of which way someone said the blood ran, whether X-rays should have been taken, etc. (Those things are the stuff of numerous and conflicting conspiracy theories.) As a practical matter, documents are easier to examine than bodies, as well as freely shareable. Eric Scheie · September 13, 2007 12:12 PM I don't look for more investigations, Eric. I've bloody had 'em up-to-here. And that's exactly why I know better than to sneer-off those two cases. Billy Beck · September 13, 2007 04:10 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
September 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
September 2007
August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Tired of taking the news seriously?
Extremism in pursuit of Cicero Ron Brown's documents lie a moldering in the landfill.... Libertarians On Drugs Money goes in circles? Education is child's play Taking Freeganomics seriously? Wrong song! It's not 1992! I had absolutely no knowledge about the temporary parking, officer! 9/11/01
Links
Site Credits
|
|
"Bodies decompose, but documents are forever!"
Oh, man. That's rich. Waitaminnit... let's try that on for size as a principle.
"Katyn Forest". Yum.
Did you ever study the Vince Foster case, Eric? What, exactly, is a "crackpot" in your world?