View Full Version : Linda Tripp Gets Settlement from U.S. in Privacy Suit
Missouri Mule
11-04-2003, 12:14 AM
First I heard of this.
================
Linda Tripp Gets Settlement from U.S. in Privacy Suit
NewsMax ^ | 11/3/03 | Limbacher
The U.S. government will fork over a half-million bucks to Linda Tripp of Monica Lewinsky scandal fame, as part of a settlement of lawsuits that chaged U.S. officials violated her privacy.
According to court documents, Tripp sued the Defense Department and the U.S. government for leaking information that she was interviewing for a job at a lower rank and salary than her old job and for disclosing details from her security clearance.
Tripp's secretly taped conversations with Lewinsky.
Tripp will be paid 595,000 -- also receiving a retroactive increase in her pay grade which will be used to re-calculate her retirement benefits.
"This is a long awaited first step toward holding the government accountable under the Privacy Act," Tripp said in a statement.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1014095/posts
MrZero
11-04-2003, 02:23 AM
-Telephone recording device....$35.00
-Cassette Tapes for secretly recording conversations of a friend who turned to you in confidence about her affair with the President of the Untied States....$2.99
-Seeing that the Cassette Tapes end up in the right hands....FREE
-Independent Counsel Investigation of the President for receiving oral sex in the Oval Office....$40,000,000
-Legal Fees incurred by President $10,000,000
-Legal Fees incurred by secretly recorded friend....$2,000,000
-Legal Fees incurred to self by the investigation....$325,000
-House Impeachment investigation and hearings resulting in Impeachment of President....$900,000
-Having the audacity to sue the Defense Department for violating your privacy and receiving a settlement of $595,000.....PRICELESS
Missouri Mule
11-04-2003, 09:51 AM
And most of this would have been prevented had Mr. Clinton simply been a man, owned up to his behavior and offered to resign. That would have been the manly thing to have done and not to have hidden behind Hillary's black pantsuit.
allan
11-04-2003, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by Missouri Mule
And most of this would have been prevented had Mr. Clinton simply been a man, owned up to his behavior and offered to resign. That would have been the manly thing to have done and not to have hidden behind Hillary's black pantsuit.
I agree that Clinton should have been a man and owned up to what he did, and apologized to the American people. But I don't think resigning was the right thing to do.
As to the Tripp settlement, as much as I am not a fan of hers, I know how important maintaining government security is, and it is not right to leak these type of details, so I am glad that she was properly compensated.
Missouri Mule
11-04-2003, 11:09 AM
I said "offered to resign." He could have waited a few days and made the final decision. The American people would have registered their approval or disapproval. Had they signaled as they would that he should be forgiven, then it would have all been over and done with quickly and the business of the nation could have been conducted. Instead he took the coward's way out. But had he resigned, Gore would have become president and Bush would only be a footnote in history.
Captain America
11-04-2003, 01:50 PM
I agree 100% Muley. I also think that Bush should come clean as well and offer to resign.
Missouri Mule
11-04-2003, 03:56 PM
Would you feel more comfortable with Dick Cheney? After all he is supposed to be the "brains" behind the "puppet" George Dubya Bush, isn't he?
marie
11-04-2003, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by Missouri Mule
Would you feel more comfortable with Dick Cheney? After all he is supposed to be the "brains" behind the "puppet" George Dubya Bush, isn't he?
Actually, the latest consensus is that Cheney is the "brains" behind the "puppet". If you're interested, I will find the article. And yes, Bush needs to come clean.
allan
11-04-2003, 05:04 PM
Wow, I don't know how true this is, and Alterman is an admitted partisan, but if he is true then the mainstream press got the Tripp story very wrong:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/752664.asp
When her name surfaced in the news in connection with the Lewinsky affair, reporter Jane Mayer was assigned a profile of her by the New Yorker. I interviewed Mayer about her reporting and learned that during the course of her investigation, she tracked down numerous friends and family members of Tripp, without any help, she assures me, from the White House or anyone else in the government.
Mayer found Tripp s step-mother, who blurted out that Tripp had such a foul disposition, she’d even gotten into a brawl and been arrested. The step-mother, who has confirmed that she was the source of this information, and gave Mayer sufficient detail to allow her to file an FOIA request, and to track down Tripp’s arrest record from the local police station where she was busted.
Armed with a facsimile of her arrest, Mayer then called the Pentagon, to see whether the Defense Department had any record of her arrest, and to see whether she had properly disclosed it, as is required under the law. The press office at the Pentagon checked her record, and reported back to Mayer that Tripp had no arrest record, as far as they knew.
This was the ostensible infringement of Tripp’s privacy. The government did not disclose her arrest record. The government attempted to suggest she had no arrest record. It was her step-mother who blew the whistle on her, not the government. And it was old-fashioned, factual reporting that disclosed that Tripp lied to get a top security clearance.
Missouri Mule
11-04-2003, 06:13 PM
I don't believe that was the problem, if my memory serves me correctly. One of the WH officials released something that he should not have and there were calls for him to be investigated. It was not dissimilar to the business with Joseph Wilson. Some "payback" was going on.
Captain America
11-04-2003, 08:22 PM
Would you feel more comfortable with Dick Cheney?
B-dog, you DO have a way of bringing me back to reality.;)
Missouri Mule
11-04-2003, 11:11 PM
CA: I really don't think the upcoming election is going to settle very much. We'll be in the ground before this terrorism business is settled three or four decades from now. Either candidate cannot go back to the situation that obtained prior to 9/11. We're not going to get rid of the Patriot Act, Homeland Security or the other safety precautions that have come about.
Captain America
11-05-2003, 01:38 PM
Often I have to remind myself that our presidents, although the target of our complaints, are not that single handedly responsible for things like our economy, terrorism, state of the union. They are sometimes merely sittling in the drivers seat of a car with no steering wheel. But THEY are the driver so who else can we fuss at?
Missouri Mule
11-05-2003, 02:02 PM
They do set the direction of the country though and their appointees to the cabinet and other high level offices do the actual work.
Then there are the courts which is why these elections are so bitterly fought. One of the many reasons I vote Republican. That hatchet job on that black judge is disgraceful.
allan
11-05-2003, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by Missouri Mule
Then there are the courts which is why these elections are so bitterly fought. One of the many reasons I vote Republican. That hatchet job on that black judge is disgraceful.
Which one?
Missouri Mule
11-05-2003, 02:23 PM
Bush’s nominee for the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, Janice Rogers Brown.
Captain America
11-05-2003, 02:33 PM
Clarence Thomas got beat up pretty bad too.
Missouri Mule
11-05-2003, 02:36 PM
The Dems had a legitimate beef about his relative lack of experience but dragging that other nonsense in was pretty disgusting. I listened to the whole thing and I was furious.
I mean let's get real here. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California is a national disgrace. How did those clowns get on the court anyway? Practically every decision they come down is overturned because it is so ridiculous.
Captain America
11-05-2003, 02:59 PM
Such is California B-dog. It's the smog. Bad on brain-cells:p
The Man
11-05-2003, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Missouri Mule
First I heard of this.
================
Linda Tripp Gets Settlement from U.S. in Privacy Suit
NewsMax ^ | 11/3/03 | Limbacher
The U.S. government will fork over a half-million bucks to Linda Tripp of Monica Lewinsky scandal fame, as part of a settlement of lawsuits that chaged U.S. officials violated her privacy.
According to court documents, Tripp sued the Defense Department and the U.S. government for leaking information that she was interviewing for a job at a lower rank and salary than her old job and for disclosing details from her security clearance.
Tripp's secretly taped conversations with Lewinsky.
Tripp will be paid 595,000 -- also receiving a retroactive increase in her pay grade which will be used to re-calculate her retirement benefits.
"This is a long awaited first step toward holding the government accountable under the Privacy Act," Tripp said in a statement.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1014095/posts
Wonder if Herr Asscroft had anything to do with this? And no, it isn't a misspelling!
The Man
11-05-2003, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by MrZero
-Telephone recording device....$35.00
-Cassette Tapes for secretly recording conversations of a friend who turned to you in confidence about her affair with the President of the Untied States....$2.99
-Seeing that the Cassette Tapes end up in the right hands....FREE
-Independent Counsel Investigation of the President for receiving oral sex in the Oval Office....$40,000,000
-Legal Fees incurred by President $10,000,000
-Legal Fees incurred by secretly recorded friend....$2,000,000
-Legal Fees incurred to self by the investigation....$325,000
-House Impeachment investigation and hearings resulting in Impeachment of President....$900,000
-Having the audacity to sue the Defense Department for violating your privacy and receiving a settlement of $595,000.....PRICELESS
First of all you are funny! You are absolutely correct sir! Another 1/2 mill gone. When you think about it, a mill here, a mill there. . . .first thing you know it adds up to real money!
allan
11-05-2003, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by The Man
Wonder if Herr Asscroft had anything to do with this? And no, it isn't a misspelling!
Is that really necessary? Throwing childish insults at those you don't agree with politically accompolishes nothing and limits the ability of people to debate rationally.
NetxMan
11-05-2003, 03:51 PM
I was gonna ask the same thing. But looks like you beat me to it.
Missouri Mule
11-05-2003, 03:55 PM
Same here.
up2date
11-05-2003, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by allan
Is that really necessary? Throwing childish insults at those you don't agree with politically accompolishes nothing and limits the ability of people to debate rationally. Thank you, Allan.
The Man: you could have made your point in any number of ways without resorting to this. If you want to be taken seriously, dispense with the petty schoolyard insults.
allan
11-05-2003, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by Missouri Mule
Same here.
Danged conservatives always co-opting the liberal agenda :D :D.
Captain America
11-05-2003, 06:51 PM
I believe that Ms. Tripp should sue. I doubt she'll ever get to pose for Playboy.
(I read that somewhere.)
Missouri Mule
11-05-2003, 07:09 PM
Not all of us can be as pretty as you.
Captain America
11-05-2003, 08:10 PM
Ahhhh... sad but true.:p
Simon666
11-08-2003, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by Missouri Mule
And most of this would have been prevented had Mr. Clinton simply been a man, owned up to his behavior and offered to resign. That would have been the manly thing to have done and not to have hidden behind Hillary's black pantsuit.
I'm sorry but if a government finds it important what people including presidents do in their private sex-life they deserve it in my eyes.
Missouri Mule
11-08-2003, 10:11 PM
This was not about Clinton's sex life. It was about the lies. He he come clean immediately, asked for forgiveness for his indiscretions, it would have been defused. Put the blame where it rightly belongs.
Simon666
11-09-2003, 07:02 PM
Oh come on, he made that lie in an investigation on his sex life. The number of men on this planet that lie about this item runs probably in the billions. I have heard of very little to no married men that immediately admitted they fucked around. :rolleyes:
Missouri Mule
11-10-2003, 05:24 PM
This wasn't merely about lying about his sex life. It was the blatant lies to the American people then lying under oath.
I can't speak for other men but I have been married for 31 years and have never run around on my wife, nor has she. I guess I'm old fashioned.
shikaki
11-10-2003, 05:43 PM
DrMizer makes an innuendo and 15 additional comments are made about the innuendo. I am back in playschool. :D
Simon666
11-10-2003, 07:38 PM
I did not say the whole impeachment thing was not about lying under oath, I do say this happened in a case investigating his sex life with taxpayer money. They deserved it and I stick to that.
Missouri Mule
11-11-2003, 11:04 AM
Do you believe that flagrant lying under oath should be inoperative because he is the president? He was, after all, disbarred from practicing law. That ought to count for something.
Simon666
11-11-2003, 03:14 PM
No I don't, but looking at the context, I find it excusable. His sexlife is his business, if he would have abused taxpayer money or lied to the public to get to war for example, now that would be inexcusable.
Missouri Mule
11-11-2003, 04:55 PM
Why should we lower the standard of conduct because he is the "CEO" of the United States?
Simon666
11-11-2003, 07:13 PM
Look, this is more typical for the European attitude: when they asked the previous, now dead president, whether the rumours about him having an illegitimate daughter were true, he said "Oui, et alors?", "Yes, so what?".
We judge people in their job on the basis of how they do their job, not whether they have good or bad morals and especially not on what they do in their private life, that's their business. I think over all Clinton did a (very) good job, apart from the war against the Serbs and doing nothing to stop Ruanda, but I have my own government to blame for those too.
Missouri Mule
11-11-2003, 10:20 PM
I think it is fairly common for people in other countries to look with favor on liberal politicians in foreign countries because they are seen to be amenable to compromise and "getting along."
Clinton was the world's best smoozer to come along in a coon's age. Bush doesn't play that game and he is seen to be unreasonable and unreasoning.
Simon666
11-12-2003, 07:25 AM
That's your interpretation. Bush is described by journalists who interview him as rather sympathetic too by the way.
vBulletin v3.6.1, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.