HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » "In 1997--three years aft...

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 02:18 PM

"In 1997--three years after the Clinton health care plan was defeated..."

By Jacob Sullum
May 31, 2016 | 8:22pm

The last time she lived in the White House, Hillary Clinton was in charge of a health care task force that met in secret under a veil of lies. That episode highlighted the haughtiness, deceit and disdain for transparency that continue to cause trouble for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, as illustrated by the recent inspector general’s report on her email practices as secretary of state.

When President Bill Clinton picked his wife to chair the Task Force on National Health Care Reform in 1993, critics sued the first lady, arguing that her participation made the task force subject to the public-meeting and open-record requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The administration successfully argued that Mrs. Clinton, who was not a government employee, nevertheless should be counted as one in this context, making the transparency requirements inapplicable.

There remained the issue of the working groups advising the task force, which supposedly consisted entirely of government employees. That turned out to be a lie.

In 1997 — three years after the Clinton health care plan was defeated, in no small part because of the perception that it had been written behind closed doors without public input and debate — US District Judge Royce Lamberth rebuked the administration for its “outrageous” and “reprehensible” deception concerning participants in the working groups, many of whom were private parties with a stake in the outcome.

“The executive branch of the Government, working in tandem, was dishonest with this court,’’ he wrote. “It is clear that the decisions here were made at the highest levels of Government.”


Lamberth had previously criticized Clinton et al.’s “preposterous,” “incomplete” and “inadequate” responses to the plaintiffs’ requests for relevant information, which had made the discovery process “difficult, drawn-out, and contentious.” He ruled the defendants had “improperly thwarted plaintiffs’ legitimate discovery requests” by raising “meritless” objections.

Two decades later, Clinton’s old habits of entitlement and obfuscation are coming to the fore again. “Voters just don’t trust her,” the New York Times notes, citing a recent survey in which 64 percent of respondents said Clinton is not “honest and trustworthy.” Her response to the email controversy shows why.

When Clinton was appointed secretary of state, the report from the State Department’s inspector general says, departmental policy clearly stated that officials should avoid using private email services for work.

Clinton decided that rule, which was aimed at promoting security and the preservation of records, did not apply to her, and throughout her tenure, she relied exclusively on a personal email system, communicating via a server in the basement of her house in Chappaqua, NY.

Continued....

http://nypost.com/2016/05/31/hillarys-long-record-of-lying-to-keep-the-public-in-the-dark/

16 replies, 772 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 16 replies Author Time Post
Reply "In 1997--three years after the Clinton health care plan was defeated..." (Original post)
KoKo Jun 2016 OP
upaloopa Jun 2016 #1
tonyt53 Jun 2016 #2
Jarqui Jun 2016 #4
KoKo Jun 2016 #6
Jarqui Jun 2016 #8
KoKo Jun 2016 #9
Jarqui Jun 2016 #15
KoKo Jun 2016 #16
dchill Jun 2016 #3
IADEMO2004 Jun 2016 #5
politicaljunkie41910 Jun 2016 #7
KoKo Jun 2016 #10
randome Jun 2016 #12
politicaljunkie41910 Jun 2016 #13
tabasco Jun 2016 #11
KoKo Jun 2016 #14

Response to KoKo (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 02:23 PM

1. It was defeated by right wing advertising on TV

Some people just have to rewrite history

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 02:25 PM

2. Very, very peculiar how a person, and presumably a Sanders supporter, could fault her for trying.

Then you attempt to tie those efforts in with the emails. Peculiar indeed, and sad at the same time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonyt53 (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:01 PM

4. Well, this part is a little interesting in terms of linkage

US District Judge Royce Lamberth rebuked the administration for its “outrageous” and “reprehensible” deception concerning participants in the working groups, many of whom were private parties with a stake in the outcome.

“The executive branch of the Government, working in tandem, was dishonest with this court,’’ he wrote. “It is clear that the decisions here were made at the highest levels of Government.”


In 1993:
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/837/454/2377066/
Lamberth had previously criticized Clinton et al.’s “preposterous,” “incomplete” and “inadequate” responses to the plaintiffs’ requests for relevant information, which had made the discovery process “difficult, drawn-out, and contentious.” He ruled the defendants had “improperly thwarted plaintiffs’ legitimate discovery requests” by raising “meritless” objections.



Judge Royce Lamberth is one of the judge's who recently agreed to Clinton SoS staff depositions in the FOIA cases:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/second-federal-judge-grants-legal-discovery-into-clinton-use-of-private-email-server/2016/03/29/4ca38de8-f5c6-11e5-8b23-538270a1ca31_story.html

and then there's this:
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives
April 2001
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01446.pdf

This isn't the first time providing all the emails was a problem for the Clintons

and then there's this:
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?1997cv1288-359
"Mills’ totally inadequate performance of duty directly led to all the adverse criticism the White House suffered in this document production fiasco."

Judge Royce C. Lamberth, April 3, 2008.

Yep, that's the one and the same Cheryl Mills messing around with the production of Lewinsky emails, etc ... with findings and remarks by the same judge in 1993, 1997 and 2015-16

So history is repeating itself here and the Clintons think Americans are dumb enough to fall for it again ... and by the looks of the polls, they're right!

Meanwhile, the poor poster who raised this is a bum who will be banned June 16th for pointing it out.

Let me point this out: I think Americans and the good people at DU.com deserve better than Trump or Clinton. And another set of deceptions and lies that's been going on for 25 years from Hillary isn't going to change my mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarqui (Reply #4)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:12 PM

6. Thanks for posting the links...

Yes, Judge Lamberth knows "where the bodies are buried" so to speak. Also, Judge Emmet Sullivan who worked on the Whitewater Investigation and who is in charge of the ongoing "Judicial Watch FOIA Law Suit" who is currently in the prossess of deposing six of Hillary's aides in the next month and then add in FBI Director James Comey who also worked as an Assistant Prosecutor on the Whitewater Investigation.

All three have seen the past history of both Clintons. It will be interesting to follow how this goes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #6)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:29 PM

8. They and the media know that people lie for a reason.

Hillary has done a lot of lying about this and this isn't going away until they find out why.

Politifact found her claim that her email practices was allowed to be FALSE:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/31/hillary-clinton/fact-checking-hillary-clintons-claim-her-email-pra/

The IG nailed her on that and that she didn't not adhere to the Federal Records Act (which is a law she broke) and Factcheck.ord confirmed it
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/ig-report-on-clintons-emails/

This was a link I looked up when I was reminded of it by some of Hillary's responses on how she promised to talk with authorities and is now reneging. (She declined the IG for the State Department, her lawyer is making rumblings about how she doesn't have to speak with the FBI and she has the Justice Dept fighting her appearance to give a deposition in Judge Sullivan's FOIA case) and with Cheryl Mills lack of responses in her deposition and with her IT guy pleading the 5th and cutting an immunity deal
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1144&dat=19730324&id=8FwcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=81MEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4033,3229683&hl=en

Back when someone likened it to Watergate, I brushed it off. Since then, they seem to be getting more alike. And maybe what they're really doing is "following the money" to the Clinton Foundation. If they get there in October, what are we going to do? How do we prepare for four years of Donald Trump as president if that happens?

I think they're taking one heck of a risk letting her be the standard bearer for the White House because this stuff is not going away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarqui (Reply #8)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:56 PM

9. Again, thanks for the links...hope visitors will read them...

And, I agree with what you say in your post:

I think they're taking one heck of a risk letting her be the standard bearer for the White House because this stuff is not going away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #9)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:31 PM

15. This is where I think this is all going and have for some time:

Judge orders GOP get more Clinton-related emails before conventions
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/06/hillary-clinton-emails-repubican-national-committee-223793
The requests appear to focus on Clinton critics' claims that the activities of the Clinton Foundation and of some former aides to the Clintons improperly influenced official business at the State Department and USAID. After USAID didn't fork over any documents, the RNC filed a lawsuit in March.


Six of the roughly 38 lawsuits on Clintons emails are from the RNC:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2585867
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-email-idUSMTZSAPEC39S3O4PJ

They want fodder on the Clinton Foundation.

A couple of things folks may be overlooking: the GOP controlled Senate and House are sitting back collecting all this information by the IGs and these investigations/depositions/legal efforts. At some point, with all her lying about this, she may face a contempt charge. But the bigger one is the fishing for emails helps give them substance to string together allegations about the Clinton Foundation. And I guarantee you, that's going to catch a lot more attention that emails with average Americans.

The problem with it is - it's too late for Hillary to clear her name on those allegations when they come. They're going pump the "crooked" narrative and going to show folks "how much money the Clintons got from Saudi Arabia or foreigners on military contracts", etc flirting with the notion of the Clintons getting rich from kickbacks.

With the emails and snippets of evidence they're collecting, they'll be painting an ugly picture with some evidence to present a convincing spin. The House might subpoena her for testimony on the Clinton Foundation during the general elections for example.

The emails are hurting her. The above will really damage her. These are not nice people - they're going to do it to her whether they're accurate or not.

Between now and June 16th. hopefully someone will figure out how to defend against that because after the 16th, we're probably not going to be able to talk about it.

That's what really scares me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarqui (Reply #15)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:41 PM

16. Yep...Some have had problems with "Watergate" Connection

but if this isn't resolved before the Convention or soon after then the Repubs have their knives sharpened and will take her down, either after the Convention (if she wins) or after Inauguration if she manages to win over Trump.

None of us want to see that happen. It will harm the party and harm the country which is not is such great shape these days. This is why we Bernie supporters feel that he must stay in as long as he can, and that he wins CA and does well enough in NJ so that he has the creds to be the Back Up if she falls. If it comes apart after the General Election...then we are in for some rough times.

As you say:

With the emails and snippets of evidence they're collecting, they'll be painting an ugly picture with some evidence to present a convincing spin. The House might subpoena her for testimony on the Clinton Foundation during the general elections for example.

The emails are hurting her. The above will really damage her. These are not nice people - they're going to do it to her whether they're accurate or not.

Between now and June 16th. hopefully someone will figure out how to defend against that because after the 16th, we're probably not going to be able to talk about it.

That's what really scares me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 02:31 PM

3. "...private parties with a stake in the outcome."

Always best done in secret! Now, there's a server for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:07 PM

5. 27 different legislative proposals.... identified in the media by 110 different names

From 1998

http://www.upenn.edu/pnc/ptbok.html

"The Great Health Care Debate of 1993-94 "

Derek Bok
Harvard University


Yet in the end, this vast effort at persuasion exhibited all of the weaknesses already identified and more besides. The debate was confused throughout by the large number of participating groups in Congress. Instead of simplifying the discussion by developing a single Democratic plan, several committees and even individual Senators and Representatives took it upon themselves to introduce separate reform plans, creating a daunting array of options for the public to follow and understand. By the end of the Congressional debates, 27 different legislative proposals were advanced, which in turn were identified in the media by 110 different names.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:23 PM

7. The people who always accuse Hillary supporters of spouting RW talking points

are quoting a NY tabloid as a source for discrediting the Clintons. Who knew?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to politicaljunkie41910 (Reply #7)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:59 PM

10. It's really a "Point of Discussion" for those of us Hard Core Dems who

have lived through many Presidents/Elections...and we want to hold candidates accountable.

What you miss is that We are Democrats! We are able to read articles from differing sources and put it together with our own life experience as being Active Democratic supporters and involved in Elections most of our lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #10)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 06:06 PM

12. But 'we' who lived through that time know enough to discount right-wing pundits.

 

Sorry, but you do not get to claim primacy of the baby-boomer generation.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #10)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 06:19 PM

13. I don't need you to try and school me on how to read and interpret a news article.

I have been accused of reciting RW talking points, all the time when I have done no such thing. As if anything said that may disagree with Bernie or the opinions of his supporters is a RW talking point. And for the record, I have been a member of the Democratic Party for 40 years and haven't missed voting in an election during the past 40 years, so save your schooling for someone else who may need it or welcome it. I for one do not need it, nor do I welcome it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 06:06 PM

11. H. Clinton wants to operate in secret, behind closed doors, outside of public scrutiny.

 

That's why she set up her private email server as Sec. of State.

Her "leadership" on health care was a dismal failure, like her Iraq war and gung-ho Libya intervention.

It's mind boggling that she will be the Democratic nominee. This is not going to end well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tabasco (Reply #11)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 06:23 PM

14. It's like we are "moving backward instead of forward."

Rehashing when we need to Move Forward for a New Generation building on what we have learned from our mistakes of the past.

Hillary and Bill have not learned from their PAST...they DEFEND it. This is the largest problem of why many Bernie supporters just will not be on board. Their world is different from mine..but, I support Bernie's VISION forward given what I've seen our Party become in the past two decades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread