Goodbye unlimited access

I was an FBI special agent in the Clinton White House and in an
extraordinary position to both observe and document a dangerous and
sweeping national security collapse that was occurring right under my
nose. The “system” seemed disinterested in doing anything about it.

Out of sheer frustration, I finally decided to “blow the whistle” on
the high-level political corruption I witnessed because I realized the
liberal mainstream media never intended to accurately report what
Clinton and his staff was doing and the Congress seemed powerless to
stop the damage.

If the U.S. Senate gets its way, it’s unlikely any future federal
employees will take the chance that I did. I’ve already notified key
House Republicans that if such a law had been in place in 1995, I
wouldn’t have written “Unlimited Access,” my first-hand account about
guarding the Clintons at the White House. Why?

It’s the risk of doing hard time in the federal penitentiary, stupid!

In an Oct. 10th Washington Times editorial — and echoed in the next
day’s Washington Post — it was disclosed that, “Congress will vote this
week on legislation to criminalize whistle-blowing by government
employees. If approved, this legislation would severely curtail the
public’s access to information which is embarrassing to government
officials and important for Americans to know.”

The Times’ editorial goes on to point out that the provision, hidden
deep within the Senate Intelligence Authorization Act of 2001, provides
that government officials could face up to three years in jail and a
fine of up to $10,000 for leaking classified information.

I can’t say I’ve ever seen an issue that’s brought both Washington
newspapers into agreement at the same time. Conservatives are linking
arms with the ACLU and these political odd-fellows are working fast and
hard to fend off a major assault on the First Amendment.

Members of Congressman Bob Barr’s staff have advised me that his
office is indeed working with the American Civil Liberties Union to
defeat this measure but they’re concerned it may be too late. It’s also
reported that House Judicial Chairman Henry Hyde, R. Ill., has joined
with Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., in a rare display of unity on the
issue. They say that the anti-whistle blower provision “has profound
First Amendment implications.”

My view, based on my first-hand experience, is that the biggest
problem with this law is the government gets to decide what’s
“classified” and can open criminal investigations on the mere suspicion
that something may be — or may have come from something — that’s
“classified.”

Having worked for the FBI for 26 years, I can testify that there are
many FBI executives who operate as if everything is classified. The FBI
has a history of making life miserable for any employee who chooses to
surface wrongdoing “outside the loop.” The FBI is not alone in this
group-think approach to the issue of employee revelations to outsiders.
Washington papers have documented dozens and dozens of whistle-blower
retaliations by angry federal agency managers.

Can’t you just see corrupt politicians like Bill and Hillary Clinton,
clapping their hands in glee, realizing what a great new weapon the U.S.
Senate is willing to give them? One can only wonder what our Senate was
thinking. This law — if passed — can be used to hammer people, like
me, who feel compelled to honor our oaths to the Constitution and tell
the truth!

And if this president signs this ridiculous provision into law, we
might as well call it, “Bill and Hillary’s revenge.” Revenge against
the federal employees who resisted their assaults on our laws as well
trying to highlight their loopy notions of how not to protect our
national security.

How interested are Bill and Hillary and Al Gore in getting to the
bottom of any recent White House scandals? Well, they displayed true
allegiance — not to the Constitution — but to their own unbridled
political and personal ambitions in that infamous trumped-up criminal
investigation of former director of the White House Travel Office, Billy
Dale.

In Dale’s case, they did not allow the risk of sending an honest man
to prison to stand in the way of their selfish political plans. The
Dale case taught us many things. For example, just how little
protection federal law enforcement agencies have against misuse by
crooked politicians.

Where is the evidence that immoral politicians are no longer misusing
federal enforcement agency resources? As I recall, the U.S. Senate had
significant interest in the Dale case. Where’s the evidence that the
White House will not strike again — or that this time the FBI will
refuse to be an instrument of that abuse?

Where’s the new federal law that makes it a felony for high FBI
officials to allow themselves to be used in politically inspired
frame-ups?

Where’s the new federal law that sends to jail any IRS employees who
abuse power by auditing a president’s enemies? And, will Secret
Service agents now be forced to report felonies committed in their
presence by a corrupted president, his spouse, or their employees? The
Supreme Court says that a Secret Service agent should testify but
where’s the new federal law that requires it?

The Republican controlled U.S. Senate has not begun to address these
serious concerns. However, it now seems they have time to make it even
more difficult to surface serious wrongdoing in the executive branch.
This is an odd use of precious legislative time since several good laws
on the books already give security officials the tools that allow them
to investigate and punish those who give away our greatest national
treasures.

According to the Washington Times, “Government employees would
clearly be less inclined to leak classified documents to reporters if
threatened with jail time. The legislation further infringes on the
First Amendment right to free expression.”

Is the Washington Times expressing a real concern? In David
Schippers’ new book “Sellout,” as former Chief Investigative Counsel to
a House impeachment investigation, Mr. Schippers relates how he and his
staff learned first hand why whistle blowers do not come forward — and
sometimes even lie under oath. Schippers found out they remain silent
or even lie to protect themselves!

Consider this passage from Schipper’s book reporting an interview
with Kathleen Willey concerning the abusive treatment she received at
the hands of the most powerful man in the world: “She was frightened
and convinced that if she testified she would be indicted by Janet
Reno’s Justice Department. She had seen how Billy Dale of the White
House Travel Office had actually been indicted and tried for crimes he
had not committed, reportedly because he had gotten in the way of the
Clinton administration” (pg. 116).

Willey’s logic is sound. Just ask Linda Tripp how high-level whistle
blowers fare when they take on the power.

Another woman who was reportedly raped by a young Mr. Clinton has
claimed she lied under oath about it so that she would not receive more
punishment from the Clinton “Mafia.”

The same U.S. Senate that stands accused by Mr. Schippers as selling
out the Constitution and U.S. citizens in return for political cover —
by refusing to remove President Bill Clinton — now has passed a law
that, if approved by the House and sent to be signed, will make it
nearly impossible to get at the truth about the Clintons, or any future
corrupt administrations.

I have stated to Congressman Barr in no uncertain terms that if this
Senate law had been on the books in 1995 when I considered writing my
now vindicated book, “Unlimited Access,” my book would never have been
written. Would I then turn to a friendly journalist? The answer is no.

Who would face a lengthy, expensive criminal investigation — and
hard time — putting their life in the hands of a journalist in the
current climate of hostility toward government whistle blowers? Many in
the media and, sadly, too many in our population at large, treat whistle
blowers with the same respect that the Mafia gives to people like Sammy
“The Bull” Gravano.

Why doesn’t the Senate just send a dead fish wrapped in a newspaper
to each federal employee? The negative impact on the surfacing of truth
would be about the same and we would not be tying up a virtual army of
FBI agents who would have to be deployed to investigate these pesky
leakers.

Isn’t it already tough enough to be a whistle blower? Just ask Linda
Tripp.