 |  |
| |
| Home • Latest • Archive • Search | |
| |
| |
| Home • Latest • Archive • Search | |
Glass Houses
by Ferguson Foont
| NOTE FROM THE EDITORS: The toll-free U.S. Department of Defense Fraud and Waste Hotline is (800) 424-9098 The Hotline fax number is hotline fax number is Their email is |
After hearing about Linda Tripp's latest absurd motions in her attempt to avoid prosecution for her illegal taping of her conversations with Monica Lewinsky, I felt an irresistible urge to write to her and tell her what I thought of her activities on behalf of Kenneth "Torquemada" Starr.
I booted up my trusty Netscape and went to her website, http://www.lindatripp.com, and read some of the various passages there. I found myself in agreement with very little of what they had to say, so I addressed the following email to feedback@lindatripp.com, the address provided for such things on the website.
> From: (Ferguson Foont)
> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 9:16 AM
> To: feedback@lindatripp.com
> Subject: Your Kind Never Learns
>
> Do you REALLY think it was the public's business who was having sex
> in the White House? I don't.
>
> I would think you'd learn to keep your nose out of others' business,
> but I guess you'll have to go to jail to learn that lesson.
>
> NEVER claim to be "just like me." I mind my own business and I don't
> try to get my friends in trouble.
>
> Who paid for the plastic surgery on your face? Inquiring minds want
> to know. Government employees don't earn enough, and insurance
> doesn't cover it. In your case I would imagine the costs were really
> significant. They almost made you look human. It's amazing what
> medical science is capable of these days.
>
> Personally I hope you rot in jail. There are many others who share
> my view, and for my money they can throw Lucianne Goldberg, Kenneth
> Starr and Richard Mellon Scaife in there with you.
I figured that would be the end of it. I neither wanted nor expected
a response.
So imagine my surprise when, only ten minutes later, I received the
following letter from (ominous music rises in background) THE
PENTAGON!
> From: "Tripp, Linda,,DMDCEAST" <[redacted]@[redacted].pentagon.mil>
> To: (Ferguson Foont)
> Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 09:26:13 -0500
> X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10)
>
> Thank you for your message. Clearly you are grossly misinformed, but
> if you take the time to search the web site, you will find the
> answers to your questions. You know, the ones inquring mind want to
> know? Oh, and for the record, this case was about obstruction of
> justice, witness tampering and perjury. Perhaps you choose to focus
> on the relatively insignficant issue of "sex" because these criminal
> issues strike too close to home?????? Have a great day.
To me this seemed a bit strange. For many years I worked in a
government office, and we were forbidden to use government time and
equipment for personal business. I worked for NASA, which is somewhat
looser in their enforcement of such regulations than the Pentagon, or
so I had heard.
So I wrote back to Ms. Tripp at her Pentagon address as follows, with
a copy to the postmaster of the mail server she had used for personal
business:
> From: (Ferguson Foont)
> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 10:19 AM
> To: Tripp, Linda,,DMDCEAST
> Subject: Your Kind STILL Never Learns
> cc: Postmaster@[redacted].pentagon.mil
>
> Of course it wasn't about any of that. Outwitting a smarmy
> inquisitor on the stand is not perjury. Keeping our elections from
> being overturned by partisan assholes is not "obstruction of
> justice." Last I heard a blowjob wasn't illegal in the District of
> Columbia.
>
> There should never have been any case, much less perjury. The whole
> thing was an attempt to recast Watergate with the parties switched.
> It didn't work and your role in the matter was particularly
> despicable. You were a betrayer of friendship.
>
> I am likely to have many days greater than you. Someday the details
> this whole sorry coup attempt will come out, and you, although your
> part in this was relatively minor, will be the butt of cruel jokes
> for many years to come.
>
> It is only the fact that your part was so minor that you may avoid
> jail. I hope not, though. You deserve it. With friends like you...
>
> You tried to usurp the office of the president, and you stupidly did
> it to the most successful president ever and the most popular at
> this point in his administration. I do hope you go to jail if for no
other reason than you are so pigheadedly unrepentant.
>
> Al Gore will win by SUCH A WIDE MARGIN in November (I predict the
> greatest landslide in history, perhaps even getting 70% of the
> popular vote) that it will serve as a repudiation to everything you
> stupidly believe. It's about time. We will sweep the Republicans
> from congress as we've not done since we used a Hoover to do it.
>
> Happy Days are Here Again. Not for you, though, as befits a liar and
> betrayer of employer and friend alike. You really should learn
> what's appropriately private and what's not. I'd hang onto that
> civil service status if I were you.
>
> Thank you so much for your response. It seems to be a personal
> letter sent from a government system. I shall bring it to the
> attention of appropriate personnel, if you don't mind too awfully
> much.
>
> Have a nice day.
Ms. Tripp, ever responsive and polite, promptly wrote back to me as
follows:
> From: "Tripp, Linda,,DMDCEAST" <[redacted]@[redacted].pentagon.mil>
> To: (Ferguson Foont)
> Subject: RE: Your Kind STILL Never Learns
> Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:19:17 -0500
> X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10)
>
>Government workers are encouraged to answer incoming email. Have an
> even greater day.
And wishing to be equally responsive, I replied:
> From: (Ferguson Foont)
> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 10:38 AM
> To: "Tripp, Linda,,DMDCEAST"
> Cc: postmaster@[redacted].pentagon.mil
> Subject: You REALLY Never Learn
>
> Ah, perhaps so, but I did not e-mail my original message to the
> Pentagon and it did not involve any DoD-related matters whatsoever,
> but instead I addressed my original mail to you at
> feedback@lindatripp.com. If anything this may complicate matters
> even further for you.
>
> We shall let the authorities sort this out. I doubt that I am the
> first who has enjoyed your personal misuse of government equipment
> and time.
>
> I have sent this on to several press agencies to do with as they
> will. I am sure you will enjoy the publicity.
>
> Are you having a nice day yet?
A few moments later my monitor blew up. I am quite convinced this was
a mere coincidence (and it gave me an excuse to get a much larger one anyway).
And after I had fired up the new monitor, I found an e-mail message from one
Kimberley Hildebrand, who identified herself as a "trustee." What follows
is my point-by-point to Ms. Hildebrand:
>Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 16:22:35 -0500
>To: "Kimberly Hildebrand" <[redacted]@prodigy.net>
>From: "Dr. Planarian and Ferguson Foont"
>Subject: Re: Your Kind Never Learns
>
>At 02:09 PM 3/22/00 -0500, you wrote:
>>Dear Mr. Smith:
>>
>>I, for one, hold the Executive Office of the President (or at least I used
>>to) in high regard.
>
>Y'know, here in Brevard County, Florida, we have a councilwoman named Pat
>Poole who objects to naming a street after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,
>and when asked why she said that he never accomplished anything and just
>caused a lot of riots. She refers to blacks exclusively as "those
>people." Yet she claims that she is not a bigot. Your regard for the
>presidency is similar to her broadmindness as it relates to race, I presume.
>
>I imagine you hold the presidency in high regard only so long as the
>position is held by a Republican. I have no regrets in informing you that
>you shall never again hold it in high regard therefore.
>
>> When someone in that office attempts to fix a court
>>case, violate an individual's civil rights and suborn perjury to a federal
>>grand jury, the public might want to know about that.
>
>How would YOU like to be questioned under oath about every sex act you had
>ever experienced in your life? That was the position Bill Clinton was put
>in by the conspiracy of which you evidently have become, wittingly or
>unwittingly, a part.
>
>But this was as part of a case thrown out by the judge as meritless , and
>brought not on the plaintiff's impetus but by Cliff Jackson and the rest
>of the Scaife-paid minions of the Arkansas Project, who persuaded Paula
>Jones to bring this frivolous case in return for a lifetime of financial
>security whether she won or lost.
>
>It was a POLITICALLY-INSPIRED case, not a proper legal matter, and it
>placed Bill Clinton in the position of having either to reveal the details
>of his private sex life or take the more honorable course, take the heat
>for protecting his partner.
>
>Just remember, the allegations of perjury had to do with a deposition that
>was never finalized and never entered into evidence, regarding a matter
>ruled irrelevant in a case that was thrown out as meritless.
>
>But why am I bothering to tell you this. You know the truth. I am a
>personal friend Of Julie Hiatt Steele and I know the truth, too.
>
>> What people don't
>>understand (or refuse to recognize) is that this issue is not about sex.
>
>Of course it was. Don't insult my intelligence. Read the Starr Report.
>
>>It's all about the issues I mentioned above. This all began because of Mr.
>>Clinton's harassment of Kathleen Willey and his attempts to engage his
>>mistress (the individual with whom he chose to break his sacred marriage
>>vows, again)
>
>I imagine that you admire Ronald Reagan. Have you asked Jane Wyman about
>him? At least Bill Clinton is still with his first wife.
>
>> in assuring that his behavior did not come to the public's
>>attention.
>
>It never should have come to the public's attention. It was not the
>public's business.
>
>> He lied to a federal grand jury.
>
>No, he outwitted a dim-bulb prosecutor. No crime in that! He never made
>a contrary-to-fact statement under oath.
>
>> Does that not mean anything to
>>you?
>
>It means what it was. It means something different to you, apparently.
>
>> Why are people so focused on the fact that he had illicit sex with
>>someone other than his wife and ignore the bigger issues at had?
>
>There were no issues, big or small. This matter should never been brought
>before the public's eye.
>
>> I hope
>>none of your "friends" would ever ask you to lie under oath to a federal
>>grand jury.
>
>Rudolph Giuliani not only asked, but ORDERED me to lie under oath to the
>Senate Judiciary Committee back when he was Associate Attorney General in
>1982. I resigned rather than comply. Please do not question my opinion
>of perjury. There is not even any ALLEGATION that Bill Clinton suborned
>perjury.
>
>> I'm assuming you wouldn't consider them much of a friend. Do
>>you think Mrs. Tripp really considered Monica Lewinsky a friend when she
>>pressured her to do that very thing and carried threats to her if she
>>didn't?
>
>I do not think Monica Lewinsky now considers Linda Tripp a friend. She's
>smarter than that, or at least she learns from her mistakes.
>
>>Mrs. Tripp's plastic surgery was offered to her by a kind individual who was
>>tired of hearing the criticisms by individuals such as yourself who seem to
>>place such a high regard on someone's physical appearance as it relates to
>>their credability [sic].
>
>Yeah, it happens every day to people "just like you and me," right? I'm
>not the best looking guy in the world (being somewhat more rotund than I
>should be) and I have spent nearly my entire life in public service but
>nobody has yet offered to spring for my liposuction.
>
>But then I never engaged in a conspiracy to bring down a popular president.
>
>> He has asked to remain anonymous, and we shall respect
>>that request.
>
>I'll bet he has. I could make a guess -- some guy from Pittsburgh, no doubt.
>
>> If you look on the website, you'll see that the actual cost
>>for this surgery was $7,000.
>
>Uh huh. Special Arkansas Project discount there, no doubt.
>
>> Again, your comments regarding Mrs. Tripp's
>>physical appearance and the surgery only prove my point. Gee, it's funny;
>>when Gennifer Flowers came forward and announced that she had had a long
>>term affair with Mr. Clinton, I don't recall any bad press about her
>>appearance.
>
>Well, Ms. Flowers did not resemble Alice the Goon. Such comments tend
>only to be directed at appropriate targets.
>
>>I guess sexy and beautiful are the only acceptable standards in
>>this country.
>
>I lament this as much as anyone, being neither sexy nor
>beautiful. Believe me, when I joke about another's appearance it is only
>because I have so very often become the butt of such jokes myself -- it
>gives me special dispensation in that regard. As the father of a Downs
>Syndrome daughter I get to call people retards sometimes, too.
>
>>I wouldn't be too victorious yet. Mr. Clinton is facing disbarment in
>>Arkansas
>
>Care to make a wager on that?
>
>>and the new Independent Counsel hasn't ruled out indicting Mr.
>>Clinton for his perjury offense (a felony also requiring jail time). As
>>they say, what goes around comes around.
>
>And for YEARS once every couple of months Hillary was going to be indicted
>"next Tuesday." Why it was always supposed to be on a Tuesday I never did
>figure out, but I never saw such an indictment.
>
>I have a standing challenge that has been out on popular web-based
>political forums for anyone to provide me with a direct quote of Bill
>Clinton making any statement under oath that was provably contrary to any
>material fact or a self-contradiction. In two years I have yet to have a
>single taker. He'll never be indicted because, unlike the impeachment
>fiasco, that would require EVIDENCE.
>
>>Why is it that no one wants to admit what Mr. Clinton has done wrong
>
>I don't think his sex life is anyone's business but his and
>Hillary's. When he was asked about it, even under oath, the question
>itself was invalid in my view.
>
>Most politicians have a rather lusty nature, or is this news to you? The
>kind of personality that causes one to become a politician in the first
>place goes hand in hand with an amorous disposition. Even Bob Dole had
>his affairs. Henry "Youthful-at-42-Indiscretion" Hyde was perhaps the
>biggest hypocrite of all, at least if he could wrest that honor away from
>Newt Gingrich.
>
>And if you bothered to read the Starr Report you would not repeat, in such
>a parrotlike fashion, that this was "not about sex," at least not with a
>straight face.
>
>I know of nobody who has never done wrong. I just think Bill Clinton's
>done a truly excellent job in his duties as President of the United
>States, guiding us to our greatest strength, stability and prosperity in
>our history. He is the ONLY two-term president in our entire history
>never to preside over a recession. Unemployment is the lowest it's been
>since we were at war. Crime is down nationwide. Educational test scores
>are up across the board. And, miraculously, we are paying down the ruinous
>Reagan debt.
>
>I for one don't begrudge the guy a little fun, and I consider it a matter
>between him and Hillary and none of my business at all. Nor yours.
>
>> and
>>only wants to criticize Linda Tripp for her actions and physical appearance.
>
>No, I don't ONLY criticize her for her physical appearance. In fact, I
>only criticized the manner by which she got the badly needed improvement
>to it paid for. My criticism revolved around her betrayal of a friend and
>her apparent inability to mind her own business.
>
>If anyone else had been president she would no longer be in the executive
>branch, but Bill Clinton is not as vindictive as his enemies attempt so
>falsely to portray him.
>
>I do hope I can get her in a little trouble for misuse of government time
>and equipment, though. I am going to try.
>
>>You may not like what Linda Tripp was forced to do, but can you honestly
>>admit that when you fully acquaint yourself with all the facts that you will
>>like and support what Mr. Clinton did?
>
>She was forced to do nothing. She did what she did at the behest of
>Lucianne Goldberg, who had dollar signs in her eyes. Why are you lying
>for her?
>
>No money could get me to lie in such a situation, but then I have a sense
>of honor that at least approaches the norm.
>
>We will sweep the Republicans away in November, largely on the memory of
>the coup attempt of which you have belatedly become a part. Were I Al
>Gore the FIRST thing I would do after taking the oath would be to issue a
>Ford/Nixon style pardon to everyone every interviewed as part of the
>Whitewater-related matters, and put a stop to this absurd inquisition once
>and for all.
>
>I might, however, except Linda Tripp from the pardons simply as a warning
>to others to leave their tape recorders at home when they invite their
>"friends" to lunch.
>
>Sincerely,
>Ferguson
I think that, in light of the recent allegations of fun with e-mail
that the Republicans are currently leveling at the White House, this
is of some relevance. It is not legal to use government computers, e-
mail systems , networks and time to do personal business.
But perhaps there's a double standard at work.
Copyright © 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, American Politics Journal Publications, Inc. All rights reserved. ISSN No. 1523-1690