To fully explain Filegate, and do my best job of backing it up, may take a little time. However, let's get started now on the basics, dealing with matters which were so widely and reliably reported that they can be considered to belong in the store of common knowledge.

You probably are asking "what do you consider reliable reporting?" I subscribe to Newsweek, The Washington Post national edition (a weekly), and the New Yorker. I also listen to NPR a fair amount.

OK, what is beyond dispute in Filegate is that the Clinton White House requested and got from the FBI the raw files on scores of Republicans. Most of these people were White House staffers who had just been displaced by Clinton appointees. However, there were exceptons, such as former Sec. of State Jim Baker.

The FBI, when this all came out, apologized profusely and said it had been terribly mistaken to respond to the flood of Clinton White House requests.

This was especially horrendous because of the nature of the FBI raw files. Everything alleged about a person, no matter what kind of slanderous garbage, goes into his raw file.

Now, "Think About It', are you going to dispute any of this? Do I need citations?

If you accept all this, we will be able to go on to the next step, discussing a truly wonderful chap, a Mr. Livingstone.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2001

Answers

A Medical Doctor should review YOUR FILE every time you go off your medication.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2001

Peter, the facts, as you have presented them are indeed in the store of common knowledge and were widely reported by reputable sources. What is at issue is who initiated the requests, what their motives were for making the requests and to what the information was eventually used for.

I have a feeling that the chain that you will be constructing to lead us to Bill Clinton will be a chain of inferences as well as evidence. I do accept a certain amount of inference is necessary in any criminal case. But I will be watching and thinking about the number of them, their strength, and whether the failure of any one inference would collapse your case against Bill Clinton.

As I recall, Filegate was fully investigated by an independent counsel, so a fairly large amount of public material ought to be in the public domain. This truly wonderful Livinstone chap was indicted. Neither Clinton was. Is the report of the IC on the web?

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2001

Well, TAI, count yourself lucky. It looks like you will have the ever witty cpr on your side in this discussion.

I'm not going to go at the Clintons in the way you expect. And no, I haven't read the IC report. IMHO Ken Starr was an idiot who couldn't find his ass with both hands and a map. Clinton has been terribly lucky, in the quality of his enemies.

Livingstone was a thuggish young man who had worked in Clinton's campaign in "security." Probably his most exacting assignment was to accompany "chicken man" to Bush senior's rallies, to prevent him from possibly being roughed up by angry Bush supporters.

Livingstone did not have a sterling reputation. When he became well known, I saw an interview on TV, of a Democrat from Pennsylvania, who had worked for Clinton in the Dem primary in that state. According to him, Livingstone had suggested blackmailing a leading supporter of one of the other candidates.

Then why in God's name was this sort of person named to be head of White House security in the Clinton admiistration? Because, I believe, the Clinton's knew they had a really big problem and did not want a quality person filling that position.

The really big problem, I think, was that a lot of people they staffed the White House with had substance abuse problems that they knew about, and they wanted the temporary badges of these people to be good for a long time.

OK, TAI, how have I done so far? Have I described Livingstone's background adequately?

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2001

Peter, you have freely mixed fact, characterization and inference in this post. The unambiguous facts are: Livingstone worked in Clinton's campaign in security. (You put "security" in quotes. I am not sure why.) Livingstone was hired as chief of security for the White House when the Clinton's took over.

The unnamed witness (a democrat from Pennsylvania) I have no way of verifying the reliability of, but for the sake of your argument I will accept that Livingstone made the "blackmail" suggestion you cite. I also realize that a lot of things that happen in politics could be characterized as "blackmail". (It would be very interesting to know what the actual scope of the suggestion was, rather than to rely on this characterization from an unknown source.)

BTW, I see this anecdote is your sole corroboration for the assertion that Livingstone's reputation wasn't "sterling".

With that, you apparently believe you have established that Livingstone was clearly unfit for the job he was chosen to do. Um, you haven't established that.

Your next inference rests on the unproved assumption that not only was Livingstone unqualified, but that the Clintons perceived him as unqualified, yet persisted in hiring him in spite of this. You offer no facts to bolster this inference.

You then make the further inference that rests wholly on the previous unproved inference - namely that Livingstone's lack of qualifications was viewed as a kind of qualification by the Clinton's, because they needed someone who would do specific dirty work for them, that they were aware of the specific dirty job Livingstone was to do for them, nad that the dirty job was to gloss over the security checks for a bunch of unnamed staffers with drug problems.

You ask how you are doing so far? You are already so far out on a limb with inferences that the merest breath of doubt could dislodge you. I doubt. Getme some facts to bolster this long chain of inferences or you've lost me entirely. I will sit in the jury box and vote to acquit.

Or, you can plow ahead, knowing that you've lost me if you persist on continuing without laying any factual groundwork.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2001

OK, TAI, I'll go into how our hero did his damn job, as indicative of his character. First, though, I have to discuss the Privacy Act.

The Privacy Act is really really tough. I know, because when I worked on my Agency's payroll system, we got lectures until they were coming out our ears. Penalties for looking at someone's personal information unless there was valid need to know were, as I recall, up to a $5000 fine and 6 months in jail per item. Plus of course loss of job. And payroll doesn't have near the sensitive personal data that the personnel system does (with which I was later connected). But the people who absolutely had to worry that they never ran afoul of the Privacy Act were the Agency's security folks, some of whom I knew.

So what you have is Mr. Livingstone, who of course had to be briefed on the Privacy Act due to the nature of his job, engaging in mass criminality. It was he who sent over the requests for raw data to the FBI, using a supply of blank forms signed by Bernard Nussbaum, the top White House lawyer.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2001

Errington, Errington….where have we heard that name before? Are you the same Peter Errington that was a major asshole DOOMER during the Y2K days? Once an idiot, always an idiot. Your input on any subject should come under the heading: BULLSHIT ALERT!!!

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2001

Jeez, cpr, I thought you were a Republican, not a Clinton suckup.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2001

>> So what you have is Mr. Livingstone, who of course had to be briefed on the Privacy Act due to the nature of his job, engaging in mass criminality. <<

The criminality of what Mr. Livingstone did is not in question. If you desire, I will hoot, boo, hiss and throw popcorn at the villian, Mr. Livingstone.

However, I am a skeptic. I have seen how people are "trained" for many jobs. There is nothing comfortable to me about chucking in an "of course" about Mr. Livingstone's awareness of the Privacy Act. This, of course. does not make any difference in the criminality of what he did, but I suspect that it makes a profouond difference to your larger theory of Clinton's criminality that Mr. Livingstone was aware of his own criminal activity and persisted in it.

You can't get such a major piece of your theory confirmed by simply saying, "of course".

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2001

I'm sticking with my "of course."

You argue that perhaps Livingstone was so poorly prepared for this extremely important and sensitive position that he was unaware of the Privacy Act. That's rot.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001

perhaps Livingstone was so poorly prepared for this extremely important and sensitive position

"Perhaps" is a suggestion. It is something people throw out as a possibility, not anything that that is firm.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001

Cherri, it's sheer nonsense.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001

"That's rot."

There is every chance that you could be correct, Peter. But how do you know you are correct? All you have offered is inference from your own experience. That establishes one data point.

I presume that this sort of information would be gathered by a competent investigator. Millions of dollars were spent investigating this crime. The Independent Counsel issued a report on it.

I asked you already if the IC report was on the web, and you dismissed its importance saying that Starr was "an idiot who couldn't find his ass with both hands and a map". Now I suspect that you've never read the IC report and have no interest in the facts of the case, only your theory of it.

It is fine if you believe your own theory. It is OK with me if, based on scraps of truth, gossip, propaganda, inference, facts and guesswork you have pieced together a version of what happens that you are satisfied with. Just realize that as soon as you venture beyond the barest sketch of what happened, you have proved you can't write three sentances together without a conjecture, or an inference based on a conjecture, or a guess based on an inference based on a conjecture.

In real life, this kind of thinking leads to painful incompetance. But, luckily, your opinion about Filegate has no significant consequences whether you are right or wrong. Of course, the lack of consequences deprives you of valuable feedback, such as you get when you aim the hammer incorrectly and hit your thumb instead of the nail.

Rather, you are in the position of a man tossing cards at a hat with his eyes closed and imagining they are falling into the hat every time. The penalty for imagining incorrectly is nil. I am in the position of a man sitting in the next room. Each time you throw a card we engage in this conversation:

Me: Did it go in?

You: Yes.

Me: Did you see it go in?

You: No.

Me: Maybe you know because it sounds different when it hits than when it misses. Is that it?

You: No. But it stands to reason that it went in, because I threw it correctly.

Me: How do you know you threw it correctly?

You: I have seen other people do it.

And so on. You could even be hitting the hat every time for all you or I know. But no matter how enthusiastically you maintain that you did hit the hat every time, I am not going to take your word on it without something more solid than you've been offering me so far.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001

I know about the Privacy Act and you don't.

In an earlier post you stated, "What is at issue is who initiated the requests, what their motives were for making the requests and to what the information was eventually used for."

Under the Privacy Act, the only thing that matters is who made the request (Livingstone) and did he have a legitimate reason (no). The very act of gathering the information was highly illegal, never mind what the intended use was or if it was ever used.

I know something else that you don't know, the chance that Livingstone was merely mistaken. That chance is zero.

Whatever unknowns there may be in this case, one thing is clear: there was mass criminality in what he did. Anybody with any experience in security and with the Privacy Act knows this with certainty.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001

FYI, Peter: UPI news story on the findings of OIC in regard to Filegate .

Excerpt from the story:

"In a prepared statement, Ray said, "In the FBI files matter, the independent counsel determined that there was no substantial and credible evicence that any senior White House official, or first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, was involved in seeking...(FBI) background reports of former White House staff from the prior administrations of President Bush and President Reagan." The White House has been insisting all along that the file summaries were obtained by mistake in late 1993 and early 1994 through the actions of Livingstone, not as the result of a conspiracy to dig up dirt on Republicans.

"The file summaries are not raw FBI files, but are summations used for security clearances. The White House has always contended that the new security officer was mistakenly given an old security list by the Secret Service, and had made file requests from "A" through "D" before discovering that the list was a leftover from the Bush administration.

"In Thursday's statement, Ray praised White House cooperation in the probe. "With respect to these two investigations, the White House provided substantia l cooperation and assistance, as did the FBI and the United States Secret Service," Ray said. "The president did not assert any privileges and the White House...allowed OIC (Office of the Independent Counsel) personnel substantial access to facilities, documents and witnesses..." Nussbaum's exoneration was similarly shattering to four-year-old GOP allegations against the White House and the first lady."

Now I understand your contempt for Ken Starr. He didn't find what you wanted him to find.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001

Peter, you may note that I have already agreed that Livingstone was guilty of criminal acts under the Privacy Act. No one disputes that. If that is your only complaint, then those acts of wrongdoing have been discovered and Livingstone punished.

Do you have a point other than that Livingstone conducted himself wrongly? If you don't, then we can stop tight now, because we are in violent agreement. Booo Livingstone! Booo! Hissssss!

"I know something else that you don't know, the chance that Livingstone was merely mistaken. That chance is zero."

And you know this how?

I am NOT saying you are wrong. I am pointing out that you claim a certain knowledge. It is only reasonable that you demonstrate the factuality of your knowledge. An inference is not a fact. I do NOT say an inference cannot be totally convincing. An inference may approach the certainty of a fact asymptotically. But every inference must be derived from underlying facts. The quality of those facts determines the quality of the inference. I just want to know what underlies what you "know".

Imagine a 500 piece jigsaw puzzle with only three pieces missing. One may infer the final shape and content of the puzzle with a very high degree of accuracy.

Now imagine the same puzzle with only three pieces laid out and the other 497 still in the box. Inferring the final content of the puzzle is hopeless.

The OIC reported that it was given "substantial access to facilities, documents and witnesses." Compared to that level of access to the facts, I suspect you are pissing into the wind. But I am willing to be convinced otherwise, given enough a strong enough case. So far, you are not making much headway.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001

TAI:

Regarding the part in your posting about the FBI files not being the raw files, all I can say is that they were everywhere reported, when the story broke, as being the raw files.

Regarding the White House cover story, of Livingtone mistakenly working from an outdated list, don't make me laugh. We are asked to believe that a man who at least has the intelligence to dress himself in the morning plunks through this old list from A to D (which includes Jim Baker) before it dawns on him "My God, these aren't our people."

Regarding where I intended to go after establishing what I believe is the clear criminality of Livingstone, I have already told you that I am going to go in a different direction than you suppose.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001

"I have already told you that I am going to go in a different direction than you suppose."

No doubt it will be filled with sex, drugs, murder and depravity. I eagerly await the next installment! Drive on, Peter.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001

Well, I guess I'll start meandering toward my conclusion by raising the question of who Livingstone's boss was. Both the White House and Livingstone himself stonewalled on that rather obvious question. He had to testify before Congress, and was tremendously evasive, but finally he realized who his boss was. Vince Foster, dead at the time. The first time, I believe, that the Clinton people used the ploy, blame it on the dead man. Though not the last.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001

You are attempting to cast doubt on whether Vince Foster was Livingstone's boss. That is fine. Again, you may be right.

But your suspicion that this was a lie cannot be used as proof that it was a lie. In logic that is called asserting the conclusion or making a circular argument. A suspicion of this sort is useful as a motivation for finding out the truth but you cannot rest there.

Your obvious doubt that Vince Foster was his boss begs the question, who was Livingstone's boss and how did you come to identify this person as his boss?

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001

While I certainly can't argue the fine points of this debate, as I am not privy to the secrets of national security; I am privy to the "secrets" of Plain Common Sense.

And I can definitively say that TAI, if given the task of hitting a barn labelled "Common Sense" with a cannon from a distance of 3 feet, would have a 97% chance of missing the mark.

The fine points of FileGate don't really matter. There is enough other evidence; humongous mountains of evidence; "unimpeachachable" solar systems of evidence. You're defending the wrong man. Patently obvious to any kindergartener.

When there are 300 million tons of smoke, I'd say there's a fire. Anyone who denies the existence of that amount of 'smoke' where the Clintons are concerned is either blind or dead. (As is the case for many of the Clintons' former associates.)

Get a clue, won't you?

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2001

To TAI:

Let me ask you a question: Do you think that there is any chance that the White House cover story is true?

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2001

As soon as I saw the name "Peter Errorington" I started to giggle. Credibilty? Ya got none pal...

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2001

"Do you think that there is any chance that the White House cover story is true?"

Of course. Certainly nothing in the laws of physics precludes it from being true. Nothing in the laws of human nature make it impossible. And finally, it conforms well to Murphy's Law.

Even if you believe that this "cover story" is false, you must understand that an essential rule for the design of a cover story is that it must not be impossible. You may find this one wildly implausible, but your doubt does not make the story impossible.

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2001

Chicken Little: "The fine points of FileGate don't really matter."

I suppose you are correct, if you consider the "fine points" to be: who did what, when and why. Feel free to dispense with these "fine points", if that gives you that airy, free feeling, set loose from the bounds of actual silly facts.

I kind of value my approach. For me it lowers the chance of waking up with a hangover, a tattoo, and a lot of embarrassing memories to live down. You may feel differently. It takes all kinds, they say.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2001

TAI:

Let's skip the pedantry. I'll rephrase my question: Do you think that there is even a modest chance that the White House cover story is true?

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2001

"Do you think that there is even a modest chance that the White House cover story is true?"

I am not in possession of any facts that would indicate it is not true.

I thought you were going to provide me with the facts that led you to your own conclusions in this matter. Jumping ahead to the conclusions without examining the facts seems a silly way to proceed. I already know your opinion. I am looking for more than that.

As for the "pedentry", ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2001

To TAI:

Fact: Under the Privacy Act, the mere gathering of the files on the Republicans was highly illegal (never mind the intended use).

Fact: For someone to be unaware of the Privacy Act, in as sensitive a security position as Livingstone had, is so ludicrous that I regard the opposite as clear fact.

Fact: For someone requesting the information from the FBI not to have been aware that these people were Republicans, is so ludicrous that I regard the opposite as clear fact.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2001

Your first "Fact" is already agreed to. Your second two are "facts" only insofar as, yes, you do hold those opinions, based on those assumptions. I take your word on that fact as conclusive, but irrelevant.

The fact that you regard something to be ludicrous is in the nature of a conclusion, not an argument. What you do not perceive is that you must give me some reason to come to the same conclusion other than the fact that you have reached that conclusion yourself.

You seem to regard the process by which you reached that conclusion to be irrelevant and your conclusion to be the only important information you need to give me. OTOH, I regard the process by which you reached the conclusion as the only important information you can give me. I will reach my own conclusions, thank you, rather than merely adopt yours.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2001

I have already told you why I have used the word "ludicrous" to describe the claims refuted in my second and third points. I have pointed out that security people above all others have to be immensely concerned with the Privacy Act. (Not refuted by you). I have pointed out the absurdity of Livingstone (who had spent his entire life as a political operative) going through a "wrong" list of great length and not realizing that none of those Republicans was at the time a member of Clinton's White House staff.

My conclusions would be treated as facts by anybody using a lick of good sense. They would be trated as suppositions only by someone determined to continue to believe six impossible things before breakfast.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2001

"(Not refuted by you)"

Peter, you mistake what I am doing here. First, I am not saying you are wrong, so I have no interest in refuting you (proving you wrong). I am simply listening to you tell me why you are right. However, each time you make an inference, I am looking for the grounds upon which it was made and measuring how far a leap you have made from the evidence you present to the conclusion you draw.

You are using arguments from probability, such as:

"I have pointed out the absurdity of Livingstone (who had spent his entire life as a political operative) going through a "wrong" list of great length and not realizing that none of those Republicans was at the time a member of Clinton's White House staff."

You believe this is such a common sense conclusion that it doesn't need to be strengthened by a single fact. You simply assert what "must" be and want to move on with your assertion taken as fact. This is fine for you. I am muley and stubborn, I guess. I would want to know the story Livingstone and other witnesses told the OIC and figure out, for example, whether Livingstone's story contradicted anyone else.

Can't you offer me anything more solid than, 'it could not have happened any way but the way I am telling you it happened?' Because I don't accept you have enough facts at your disposal to make that assertion - if you do, you haven't shared them with me.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2001

First of all, it is my understanding that the OIC did not do the investigation, that Ken Starr, not realizing what he had, farmed it back to the FBI. And the FBI, it could be argued, had an interest in downplaying the scandal because of its earlier and highly embarrassing involvement.

Anyway, that's the argument Judicial Watch plans to make shortly. (Not that I'm a whole-hearted supporter of Judicial Watch.)

There is such a thing as a prima facie case. I think I've got one. A businessman caught with double books is assumed conclusively by the IRS to be guilty of tax fraud. There is no excuse for it, it doesn't matter what his story is or if it's contradicted or not by anyone else.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2001

"There is such a thing as a prima facie case. I think I've got one."

As I have told you, Livingstone's guilt is beyond question. You are reaching for a matter of motive. Motive is much harder to establish than guilt. I am just asking you to establish it using some set of facts..

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2001

The White House cover story is that Livingstone was not guilty, that he merely made a mistake.

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2001

Well, Peter, you have already given a method for finding out whether or not they are telling the truth.

They have said the incorrect files were on a list from the Bush Administration running from A to D. Therefore, all you have to do is find a number of people in this "improper" group that were not in the A to D group. Can't just locate one or two, Livingstone must have had other lists, you know. Democrats don't count.

Can you do this? Can JudicialWatch? I don't consider Klayman reliable, too many of his suits have been dismissed with, essentially, the judge saying, "this is stupid as hell". One last week was dismissed after Klayman failed to show anyone was interested in publishing the woman's wild claims about Clinton, nor that Clinton was ever interested in preventing their publication. Not a sterling performance.

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2001

"The The White House cover story is that Livingstone was not guilty, that he merely made a mistake."

It is a well-established principle that breaking a law mistakenly has no bearing on guilt or innocence. If you break a law you are guilty of breaking that law.

It is quite possible that Livingstone both made a mistake and he was guilty, but it is clear that he was guilty of making the requests, and the requests were illegal. That fact is well-established.

Livingstone's guilt does not bear on whether he made the requests by mistake. If you want to speak to whether the requests were made mistakenly or knowlingly, you have to show something different than the fact that the requests were made. You have to show he had knowledge that the requests were illegal before making them.

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2001

To Paul Davis:

I have already said I don't go along with everything Judicial Watch does.

As far as going beyond the A-D list, I don't have to. Using that list as an excuse for what happened is pathetic (see my answer to TAI, below).

To TAI:

When I use the word "guilty", I don't mean inadvertently breaking the law. I mean breaking the law deliberately, for which there is an overwhelmingly strong prima facie case, as I have patiently explained over and over on this thread.

To repeat myself one more time: To imagine that Livingstone, a political operative all his life, didn't know these people were Republicans is absolutely absurd.

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2001

"To imagine that Livingstone, a political operative all his life, didn't know these people were Republicans is absolutely absurd."

And to rely on this argument, without further evidence, as the sole grounds to treat your conclusion as a fact, is an obvious weak link in your argument. It is a pure inference.

But, weak or strong, it is an indispensible part of your argument, so let's just agree that you've done your best to establish this as a fact and move on to wherever you are going.

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2001

Weak inference my ass. I believe I have demonstated conclusively, not by mere assertion, but by sound argument, beyond any reasonable doubt, two things:

a. Whatever motivations Livingstone had, they were criminal.

b. Therefore the White House cover story is crap.

You are no doubt very proud of your scepticism, but it is possible to keep waving the banner of scepticism in areas where it is bloody foolish.

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2001

Yes, by all means. Erring boy should finish his seriously flawed argument. Let's get to the point, huh?

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2001

"I believe I have demonstated conclusively, not by mere assertion, but by sound argument [that] Whatever motivations Livingstone had, they were criminal."

Here is the substance of your argument in your own words:

"To imagine that Livingstone, a political operative all his life, didn't know these people were Republicans is absolutely absurd."

The key word here is "imagine." To imagine anything about Livingstone's state of knowledge, without evidence, is to rely on one's imagination exclusively. I am merely pointing out the provenance of your conclusion. I am not debating its factuality. My comments have not been directed at the accuracy of your conclusions, but the quality of the argument that led you there.

For instance, I could conclude that Jay is from Australia. If my wife asked how I came to that conclusion, I might say, "because Jay said 'too right, mate' and only other time I've heard that phrase was in an advertisement for an Australian beer on tv", or I could say, "When Jay cashed a traveler's check, he showed the clerk his Australian passport."

I could be drawing the right conclusion in both cases. But one argument inspires more confidence than the other.

To say that you find your argument highly convincing is to state the obvious. When I say that you have drawn an inference here without any supporting evidence, I am only stating a fact. Retorting that I am 'absurdly sceptical' for noticing this fact just shows irritation to no purpose.

As I said at the beginning, I accept that a certain amount of inference is necessary, no matter what conclusion is drawn. So don't tell me you have made a convincing argument. Just make your argument and my conviction will either follow or not.

-- Anonymous, February 26, 2001

To TAI:

You're just playing word games. There is no similarity between your example and what I have argued. You don't happen to be a lawyer in real life, by any chance?

-- Anonymous, February 26, 2001

"There is no similarity between your example and what I have argued."

My example demonstrated, among other things, that the quality of an argument is separable from the accuracy of the conclusion. If anything, that should bolster your argument, considering.

Just to show I am not trying to mislead anyone about the nature of your argument. here it is again, in your own words:

"I believe I have demonstated conclusively, not by mere assertion, but by sound argument [that] Whatever motivations Livingstone had, they were criminal."

"To imagine that Livingstone, a political operative all his life, didn't know these people were Republicans is absolutely absurd."

If left out any facts in your favor, or anything else of substance, please feel free to adduce them once more.

"You don't happen to be a lawyer in real life, by any chance?"

No. I have no connection to the justice system in any capacity, not as an officer of the court, employeee of a law firm, prisoner, law professor, law-related journalist, law enforcement officer or any other connection you care to name.

Would it have helped your argument if I were?

-- Anonymous, February 26, 2001

Because of your obfuscation, I thought you might be a lawyer.

You call for "facts", ignoring completely logic and plausibility. I'm quite sure now that the only piece of evidence you would acknowledge as a relevant fact would be a signed confession.

-- Anonymous, February 26, 2001

ErringBOY, the only thing you have ever proved conclusively to anyone here or elsewhere for that matter, is that you are proto-typical Gov't Waste of Space collecting a pay check until the pension is ready.

GET LOST!!!

-- Anonymous, February 26, 2001

Hey, Chuckles, why don't you join in this discussion. I think TAI needs some bolstering.

-- Anonymous, February 26, 2001

" I'm quite sure now that the only piece of evidence you would acknowledge as a relevant fact would be a signed confession."

Try me. What have you got to lose?

And consider this. Certainly I am not the only person reading this thread. Speak past me to the lurkers and you may win some converts, if you can. Your odds are especially good if you actually do present a reasonable set of facts to bolster your arguments from probability.

Why so timid? I am not savaging you, calling you an idiot or casting doubt on your parentage. I am only evaluating your argument by the standards I find useful and presenting my evaluation - just as you are presenting your evaluation of the facts you found pertinent in drawing your own conclusion. That seems like a fair bargain.

Not only that, I repeatedly acknowledge that you could be right, in spite of the factors I am calling into prominence. I do not insist I know the truth. I only look at the type and amount of evidence you are able to bring to bear on the question of Clinton's guilt, Livingstone's motives, or the outcome of their combined actions.

Again, why so timid? What do you have to lose, except perhaps a few people on the Internet who decide not to agree with your conclusions? I am really trying to lower the bar for you here, Peter. Please continue - to whatever end you think appropriate.

-- Anonymous, February 26, 2001

OK, one more time, and I will go very very slowly.

It is impossible to conceive of anyone holding down Livingstone's job as being unaware of the Privacy Act. That's the bread-and-butter of the damn job. That is a fact, and anyone who suggests it's a mere conjecture is a bloody fool.

If you agree with this, I'll continue.

-- Anonymous, February 26, 2001

"If you agree with this, I'll continue."

I don't agree with what you said. It is not impossible to conceive of such a thing when one is ignorant. My ignorance is a natural state. I have never had to do Livingstone's job. How on earth would you expect me to be anything but ignorant of the details of his job?

But you have not rememdied my ignorance. "Because I said so" is not a remedy for ignorance. "You are a fool to think otherwise" is not a remedy for ignorance. Information is a remedy. All you need to do is to recall how you learned what you know and tell me about it. Instead, you just keep saying what amounts to, "it is true, dammit, and if you can't see that you are stupid."

I'm sorry. That is not information. That is the assumption of authority without the substance of it. I can well believe that to yourself, you are an authority. For me to view you as an authority, you will need to stretch a bit further.

Or you can give up.

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2001

Think,

I don't know *where* the specific breakdown occurred, whether it was at the FBI or in the White House, but there's no doubt that the Privacy Act was violated.

And I can tell you this much about Peter's assertion: anyone who works for the US Government and who handles personal information *should* know of the privacy laws.

For example, my wife works for Social Security. Just taking someone's file home (even by accident) is grounds for dismissal; divulging the information to anyone outside of SSI is grounds for criminal prosecution. That's one of the FIRST things that she was told when she began training.

Again, I don't know where the specific breakdown occurred in the infamous FBI Files Case that we're discussion here. I have my suspicions, but that's all they are: suspicions.

But acting as though nothing wrong occurred is silly. The investigation never concluded that no wrongdoing had occurred; it concluded that they couldn't figure out who was to blame -- a fine, but important, distinction.

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2001

"But acting as though nothing wrong occurred is silly."

I agree. But I have not been guilty of that particular silliness. I have written repeatedly on this thread that it is clear the Privacy Act was violated by Mr. Livingstone.

Peter is trying to establish criminal intent.

Here is how I look at it. Criminal intent is more difficult to prove than criminal activity. For that reason, I am actually willing to admit a much lower standard of evidence. In fact, I am perfectly willing to let Peter complete his argument, whether he presents any evidence or not. All I propose to do is listen, learn, and evaluate his argument to see how strong it is by my own standards.

I am not contradicting Peter's conclusions, excpet where he makes logical mistakes. For example, Peter is using pure arguments from probability to establish the factuality of Livingstone's:

1) Awareness of the Privacy Act and its provisions.

2) Awareness that he was requesting and receiving files he had no legitimate right to see.

If Peter can establish these facts, he can easily and naturally argue that Livingstone not only broke the law but intended to break the law.

This is a perfectly legitimate effort.

Where I contradict Peter is not on the grounds that he is using arguments from probability, but his repeated assertions that such an argument, by itself, leads to certainty. He uses words like, "of course" and "must", when the correct words are "probably" and "may". That is the drawback of relying solely on probability - it weakens the chain of argument by leaving room for doubt. If you are honest, you have to state your conclusions in a mealy-mouthed way.

The standard way to fix that problem is simple. You present evidence.

Did Livingstone admit to investigators that he knew about the Privacy Act? Bingo! You have established your fact. Did Livingstone deny knowledge of the Privacy Act, yet he received some training, and the trainer testifies that he covered the Privacy Act. Bingo! Your level of probability hits the ceiling. Did Livingstone remind a subordinate to follow some provision of the Privacy Act? Bingo! Did Livingstone have a well-thumbed copy of the Privacy Act in his filing cabinet? Bingo! Your level of probability goes up substantially!

Peter hasn't even told me what the OIC concluded about Livingstone's criminal intent. All he tells me is that if I do not accept Livingstone's criminal intent as a fact rather than an inference based on very little evidence, then I am a silly, absurd, pettifogging idiot.

In turn, I am saying I will accept "may have", but he has yet to prove "must have". Peter continues to insist he has proved "must have". That is where we have bogged down.

Meantime, my memory of the outcome is that Livingstone is in jail. As yet, I have no reason to believe that an injustice was done in this case, either by shooting too low or too high, based on the argument Peter has presented so far.

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2001

TAI says that I don't even tell him what OIC concluded about Livingstone's criminal motivation.

The answer is in the newspaper article which TAI has linked to, above: The OIC said his office "did not investigate violations of the Privacy Act...because such offenses are excluded from the jurisdiction of the independent counsel."

Regarding your belief that Livingstone is in jail, I wish he were, but my understanding is that he was just allowed to resign without ever being indicted or jailed.

I'm sure what I'm going to say next will in your opinion be mere conjecture rather than the hard facts you so dote on. But for anyone with the intelligence to grasp the concept of a prima facie case, it is rather amusing. Consider that Livingstone was a political operative, working at such jobs as advance man, for a great many years (he goes back to at least Gary Hart). Consider that the A-D list contained the names of extremely well-known political operatives on the Repubican side, such as Tony Blankley, A.B. Culvahouse, and Ken Duberstein. OK, I'm a bit of a political junkie, but I know those names. Now imagine Livingstone pretending that he has just realized that those people were Republicans: "Oh, THAT Tony Blankley. Oh THAT A.B. Culvahouse."

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2001

All prima facie really means is that there is enough evidence to convince the onlooker at once without the need to add any more. The difficulty with presuming that you have a prima facie case, is that each onlooker has a different idea of what constitutes enough evidence to produce an instant conviction of guilt.

An experienced prosecutor would probably tell you that, even if the defendent was found holding a smoking gun and leaning over the bleeding body, it is still a good idea to have a ballistics test, to test for powder residue on the defendent's hand and to establish a motive for the killing. Just in case.

You look at the evidence you have presented and it convinces you instantly. But that is you not me. But surely you don't need my approval. Nothing is riding on this. I'm just a guy listening to you tell me what you think happened and why. You keep buttonholing me and trying to get me to commit to your view. I reserve judgement so far.

But do go on.

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2001

If you aren't convinced by the sheer ridiculousness of the White House cover story, then I say screw it. I'm not continuing this discussion.

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2001

I don't understand why my agreement is needed in order to justify continuing the conversation. But it's your call. Thanks anyway for the effort up to this point.

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2001