As Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton, she penned the infamous “wall” memo that prevented intelligence agencies from sharing information in the run-up to September 11.

(snip)

Tomorrow, July 17, we mark the 13th anniversary (TWA Flight 800) of that event and remember the 230 souls whose deaths official DC has conveniently forgotten.

As deputy attorney general, Gorelick’s assignment was to rein in the FBI. This was becoming increasingly necessary.

Although putting a “bomb” spin on his leaks to the New York Times, Jim Kallstrom, who headed up the FBI investigation, had spent the first five weeks after the crash pursuing the truth.

The Clintons did not consider Gorelick’s boss, Janet Reno, to be reliable. They had much more confidence in Gorelick, who served the Justice Department in a role the Soviets would call “political officer.”

(snip)

At this juncture, five weeks into the investigation, even if Gorelick knew no more than what she read in the New York Times, she would have known that explosive residue had been found all over the plane and that the possibility of a mechanical failure was more “remote” than ever.

(snip)

The FBI had already leaked to the New York Times information that would result in a headline on August 23, top right: “Prime Evidence Found That Device Exploded in Cabin of Flight 800.”

This article stole the thunder from Clinton’s election-driven approval of welfare reform in that same day’s paper and threatened to undermine the peace and prosperity message of next week’s Democratic National Convention.

What followed in the next several weeks was the most ambitious and successful cover-up in American peacetime history. At its center was Jamie Gorelick.

Given her role, the months after the crash had to have been emotionally harrowing. She did not know whether she would wake up one morning and find Washington Post reporters at her door eager to turn her into a 1990s version of John Mitchell or H.R. Haldeman.

(snip)

On May 7, 1997, the day after Gorelick’s 47th birthday, the Clintons appear to have rewarded her for her steely performance with a job that would pay her 877,573 in that first half-year alone.

According to a Lexis search, not one reporter even questioned why Fannie Mae chair Jim Johnson would appoint the inexperienced Gorelick to the most plum position in Washington.

Had the reporters inquired, they would have learned that Johnson’s resume for the chairmanship included a job as executive assistant to Vice President Walter Mondale and work on five Democratic presidential campaigns.

They might also have learned that Clinton had appointed five reliable hacks to the Fannie Mae board: the chief of staff and deputy campaign manager from his 1992 campaign, a former White House aide, a major DNC fund-raiser and Lincoln bedroom guest, and a GOP real estate mogul who endorsed Clinton in 1992.

One does not have to be a cynic to suspect that Clinton had something to do with Gorelick’s appointment.

Six years and about $25.6 million later, Gorelick responded to the call of duty once more and took her seat on the 9-11 commission.

In testifying before that commission, anti-terror czar and Clinton suck-up Richard Clarke asked that intelligence analysts "be forgiven for not thinking about [aviation terror] given the fact that they hadn't seen a lot in the five or six years intervening about it."

Almost assuredly, Clarke had downplayed talk of aviation terror during those years to take Flight 800 off the table.

Almost assuredly, Gorelick took the 9-11 post to keep it off. By this time, she had not just her reputation to protect, but a small fortune.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jamie Gorelick ?  Jamie Gorelick ?  What other events have I heard this name with?  hmmmm.....

Oh yes!  She is an attorney for AIPAC!

Download Full Letters Here

Excerpt:

Last week, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that Aipac had stopped payments to Rosen's and Weissman's lawyers since the spring.The report, confirmed by sources close to both sides, said that Lowell, Rosen's attorney, had incurred some $993,000 in fees in the first year of representing Rosen, through August 2005. He has written off $300,000 and was still owed $476,000 by Aipac, which means that Aipac had paid him only $217,000. Aipac's bylaws obligate the organization to cover legal fees in such situations, except in cases of "gross negligence, bad faith, fraud, willful misconduct or willful breach of such person's duties and responsibilities in any material respect."

In addition to the bylaws, a letter representing an agreement between Aipac's and Rosen's lawyers states that Aipac has agreed to pay for the legal representation in this case.

Nowhere does it explicitly say, however, that Aipac must advance the payments on a month−by−month basis. This week, attorneys for the two former employees received a letter from Aipac's attorney, making clear that the lobbying group does not intend to pay the fees before the trial is over. The letter says that Aipac "never committed to advance the costs" of Rosen's and Weissman's defense on a regular basis, "and certainly not irrespective of develops in the investigation and now prosecution." The letter also points out that because the organization's bylaws stipulate that indemnification of legal fees"depends in part on the nature of an employee's conduct," the question of whether Aipac would be required to indemnify the two "cannot be addressed or resolved until current proceedings against them have been concluded." The letter was signed by Jamie Gorelick, a prominent Washington lawyer, who was deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration and apparently was recently hired by Aipac to handle the dispute over the legal fees.

Rosen and Weissman, who also recently hired a labor−law specialist to consider whether to sue Aipac over the halting of legal fees, believe they have a solid case, sources close to the two said. They are relying particularly on the fact that Aipac did make monthly payments between August 2004 and March 2005. That monthly pattern, they argue, establishes a course of conduct known in contractual law as Pro−Israel Jewish spies fued over legal fees after being caught red handed!

Pro−Israel Jewish spies fued over legal fees after being caught red handed!

"detrimental reliance," meaning that their attorneys have been relying on monthly payments, and that cutting off payments would be to the defendants' detriment, according to sources close to the two.

Sources close to Rosen and Weissman said that barring upfront payments to their lawyers, the defense might not be able to afford expert witnesses and advisors, such as experts on classified documentation or on jury selection.

Aipac obviously has an interest in the full exoneration of the two, sources close to the lobbying group confirmed. Aipac also seems to have enough money to fund the best defense possible. According to Aipac's official filings, it raised more than $59 million in 2004 in combined taxed and tax−exempt contributions, far more than any previous year.The totals for the past four years is as follows: 2003 − $43 million; 2002 − $37 million; 2001 − $25 million; 2000 − $22 million. Numbers for 2005 are not yet available but the total is expected to surpass last year's, Aipac officials confirmed.

Asked why they have stopped paying legal fees, Aipac officials did not answer directly. Dorton, the spokesman, told the Forward that Aipac "made a very generous offer" to cover the men's past and future defense costs. Rosen and Weissman rejected the offer because they wanted to preserve their right to sue Aipac in the future, Dorton alleged,calling Rosen's and Weissman's decision "misfortunate." Sources close to Aipac said the offer was for a total of $1.625 million, to be split equally between the two law firms. Sources close to Rosen and Weissman confirmed the sum and the fact that the two rejected the offer. They argued, however, that the proposed sum was less than the accumulated arrears, leaving nothing for the critical period of the trial.

Moreover, they said that the upfront payment offer was conditioned on their making no future claims, including coverage of fees of appeals procedures, if needed. The sources charged that Aipac seems more concerned about the money, despite its flourishing fund raising, than with the requirements of a robust defense.

Conversations with sources close to Aipac suggest that the organization is trying to protect itself not only against financial damages but also against damage to its reputation, while fending off ongoing pressurefrom the government. Aipac's decision, sources said, was motivated by several factors: mushrooming legal fees; critics' suggestions that by paying the legal fees Aipac has not fully dissociated itself from the scandal, and pressure from the government to manifest its rejection of Rosen and Weissman. Aipac, therefore, seems to have made the following calculation, say sources close to the organization: By deferring the payments until the trial is over, Aipac could both protect its imageand reduce its financial risks. If the two are found not guilty,covering their legal fees after the fact would not be an embarrassment and would be a worth while price to pay for the scandal to evaporate. 

(snip)

I wonder why AIPAC's spokewomen, Orly Taitz thought there would be no serious affect on AIPAC if a witness in the case was asked to fake his own suicide?


Related To AIPAC:

http://defendourfreedoms.net/2009/05/02/the-aipac-case-fallout.aspx
The AIPAC Case Fallout

http://defendourfreedoms.net/2009/05/19/who-rules-america.aspx
Who Rules America?

http://defendourfreedoms.net/2009/05/20/from-2004-at-aljazeerah--aipac-agents-send-stolen-us-nuke-technology-to-china.aspx
From 2004 at Al-Jazeerah - AIPAC Agents Send Stolen US Nuke Technology To China?

http://defendourfreedoms.net/2009/05/25/us-policy-towards-iran-is-nothing-more-than-an-israeli-charade.aspx
U.S. policy towards Iran is nothing more than an Israeli charade

Related to Fannie Mae:

http://defendourfreedoms.net/2009/07/08/the-role-of-government-affordable-housing-policy-in-creating-the-global-financial-crisis-of-2008.aspx
The Role of Government Affordable Housing Policy in Creating the Global Financial Crisis of 2008