Clinton is arguably the least powerful person on this list and yet she gets singled out for the royal treatment. Did they send the letter to Schumer also? It might have been worth a mention.
I included the whole text of the write ups on Clinton and Hatch just for comparison. I bolded the nasty stuff and the informative stuff on who really had the power.
Dirty Dozen Selection Process
This Dirty Dozen list could have easily been 60 or 70 people - unfortunately. It's a sad reflection on how
bad things are in Congress. We had to limit the list to a number that we could manage, so we decided to
keep it to a dozen people. These dozen people are at the top of our list because they have let us down the
most - and also those who have been in the position to do something. For example, when you are talking
about the Chair of a Committee, then the expectation is much, much higher that they actually provide
some oversight - this is what they are paid to do, after all.
For example, in my case, when Senators Grassley and Leahy came out and said the case was so
credible, and we need to turn the FBI upside-down - this is 4 years ago - and they came on CBS 60
Minutes. And after the Inspector General’s report came out, they wanted to immediately hold public
hearings on my case - both of them. Grassley is a Republican, Leahy is a Democrat - but the person who
prevented the hearings was Senator Hatch. Orrin Hatch was the Chairman at the time - and he basically
told Grassley - a Republican, so this isn’t even a partisan issue - Hatch just said "No no no. I'm not
allowing any hearing on this woman's case."
So that was the selection criteria:
1) If they have specifically let us down: Oversight, Accountability & Meaningful Whistleblower Protection
Laws
2) If they are powerful in the relevant committees: Leadership Position
3) If they are visible
4) If they are up for election
How about I go through the individuals on the Dirty Dozen list and that will give you an idea how we went
about picking these people.
I'm pretty sure Clinton is not in a leadership position in the armed services committee, or any other committee. So, she didn't fulfill one of their own requirements. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
Senator Hillary Clinton-D, NY
Armed Services Committee
Clinton - she's on top because it's alphabetical.
There are several reasons why Clinton is on the list. We have a partner coalition that I mentioned earlier-
Veterans Affairs Whistleblowers Coalition – www.vawbc.com - they are doctors and nurses who blew the
whistle on some incredible criminal and abuse cases in the VA hospitals - I'll send you their letter (links to
come) to Clinton, and also NSWBC's letter (links to come) from February - we made lots of follow up
phone calls and Clinton's office hasn’t even responded!
For the past 4 years these doctors have been trying to get Clinton's attention. a) They are from NY state,
her state, and b) some of these cases are of VA patients who have been murdered.
In one case, some pharmaceutical companies give the VA hospitals $2000 per patient if the patient gives
consent and signs up for some experimental drugs - and in some cases, some of these administrators and
doctors - they forged patients' signatures in order to get the $2000 per head - just like guinea pigs - and
some of these patients died. Because of the medical history of some of these veterans, they shouldn’t
even have been given these experimental drugs - even if they had given their consent.
One guy involved in this case has been jailed for life - but they didn’t pursue it with other doctors - what
happened was that before it even became a public issue - these pharmacists and doctors blew the whistle,
and instead of looking into the issues and investigating it, these people were fired. They had to go and
fight it with IGs and other such bodies - some of them got their jobs back but they're still being harassed
there. But most of these problems that they reported haven’t been corrected. There has been no
accountability, and many of these cases haven’t even been investigated. So for the past 4 years these
people have been trying to blow the whistle - boxes of letters, faxes, emails to Sen. Clinton’s office for the
past four years. Not a response! Sometimes they get a canned response of 3 lines saying 'Sen. Clinton
has always voted for an increase of budgets for the VA.' This is a high profile case - its been in the NY
Times - its a Whistleblowers case, its a NY state case - and we are looking at this woman, Clinton, who is
hawker than the most hawkish - or she pretends to be. She says she's pro-military 'send them to Iraq, let
them die' - but here, she's not even looking after these veterans' rights when they're being murdered in VA
hospitals. These same issues are widespread throughout the country in the other VA hospitals, not just in
New York.
When we at the NSWBC found out about it, we were outraged - so we started sending letters. We called
Clinton’s office, and we asked her to give us an appointment so that we could brief her and show her
some of the patient files, together with the doctors. Nothing! No response. So that's one issue with Clinton.
The second issue with Clinton is that she's on the Armed Services Committee. We have had many DoD
whistleblowers - either on a) big - very big - Halliburton related contract issues, and b) we have had
whistleblowers on torture issues, for example Sergeant Provance who I mentioned earlier. He testified in
the hearings in the House - it's just outrageous. These cases have been mailed to her office - and to this
day, her office has not requested a single hearing into any of these DoD whistleblowers cases - some of
them high profile. To this day they have not released a single press release, they have not responded to
us, they have not responded to these whistleblowers (when I say 'they' I mean the staff members and
Clinton’s office.) This woman is the hawkest of the hawks out there! Here we have Clinton - the queen of
publicity whores - she is literally out there on TV and radio all the time, and at every chance she gets she
wants to show her 'leadership skills' - and she's from NY. We want to go to her constituents in NY and say
'let's look at this woman’s track record, really!' a) where does she stand? Because she's a woman who
takes NO ACTION - that should be her motto! and b) she pretends she's a hawk - but on the other hand,
she sits and watches military people being abused and being screwed up, and murdered in VA hospitals in
her own state! c) she doesn’t even respond to any whistleblower cases and therefore she's antiaccountability
- and is against oversight, and against the public's right to know.
Her constituents have the right to know about this. You're looking at 10 to 15 senior level people - doctors
and pharmacists - they’re not disgruntled employees. Some of these people that were fired have new jobs
now - they’re practicing doctors - and some have gotten their jobs back, and they are still being retaliated
against by the VA administrators. We have had so many DOD whistleblowers; same with them.
This fits into the 'inaction' category that we mentioned earlier, but also 'pretension' - that would be another
word to use! Another thing that I would like to say to people is that the latest surveys show that over 70%
of people have lost faith in Congress - they don’t have any confidence. Hillary, I believe is a very good
example of why some people just shrug and say 'well - they're politicians - what do you expect, they're all
just dirty scumbags - they’re' not going to represent the people'. Sen. Hillary Clinton - with this type of
inaction - coming and pretending with a bunch of baloney - she's a good example of this scumbag
politician. Does she take a stand? Does she really do anything about issues that matter? No! Again - I’m
not talking about one whistleblower's career - I’m talking about the issues. I believe her constituents have
the right to know.
When I send you the letters about Hillary, you'll be able to link it in your article - and also the VAWBC
website - and I also invite anybody who says 'well - they have to prove more' - well, they have to prove
something to us. I would say 'why is the burden of proof in this case with us?’ Here is the information if you
don't believe us.'
She's always in front of the camera - yet for all her exposure, going through her statements in the press or
in hearings, not once has she even mentioned the term "whistleblower." Now - considering the fact that we
have had unprecedented numbers of whistleblowers in the past four years since September 11 - every
week you open the newspaper there's a story about whistleblowers - from the Homeland Security, the
DoD, the CIA, the FBI, and you read about the retaliation against whistleblowers - and yet not once has
Clinton even mentioned whistleblowers - and she's on the Armed Services Committee! Her behavior is
outrageous and yet somehow, whistleblowing isn’t an issue for her. That says a lot in terms of where she
stands, too.
It's not like people say this issue doesn’t exist. It’s a very major issue. It wasn’t until 2001 - but since
September 11 whistleblowing is in the list of the top 5 issues. Since 2001, one of the big issues is
whistleblowers. This administration is always screaming "We have leakers!" but of course we have so
much fraud and waste and abuse and criminal activities that is forcing these whistleblowers to come
forward - because we have so much bad stuff going on - but regardless, we have this huge issue of
whistleblowers - and yet Clinton has not responded.
When we request to go and brief her, and her staff - meet with her office, she doesn’t want to know. She’s
not even giving appointments. Why? Because we are not defense contractors, we are not contributing to
her campaign. Mrs. Clinton - why is it that your staff - being on the Armed Services Committee, and
therefore responsible for DoD whistleblowers - why is it that they don't want to even become aware of the
issues? or even give an appointment for half an hour? To me, that says a lot. For someone who is so high
profile, and who pretends otherwise. People need to be aware of this.
In a way, even though I'm fighting against them, I have more respect for those people who oppose
whistleblowers directly and say 'we're opposing it, we're not going to protect whistleblowers.' But these
hypocrites who just sit down behind closed doors and actually go along with those who oppose
whistleblowers, but out in public, they just pretend they don't know anything, as if this justifies their
inaction. But then, when it comes to talk, they say they have leadership skills and they care for this
country, and they think they are 'it' - well that is hypocrisy. I respect someone more like Dreier or Souder
who come right out and say 'I'm anti-whistleblowers - and I don't believe we should be giving any rights to
whistleblowers ' - at least we know where they stand, but this hypocrite Clinton, watch out, she's far more
dangerous, because this woman has no stand - it's simply inaction - this type of person has no leadership
skills. She should not be in a leadership position.
However, with Clinton, I don’t know how much we can influence her election because I know that she has
been running strong, but remember that she got booed at the Take Back America conference! You know,
everyone always looks for the first person to boo at these things, and once one person started many
others joined in. It was great to see some Democrats with spines out there! So I guess that's as much as
we hope to achieve with Hillary being on the Dirty Dozen list - we can start the booing!
Contrast that hatchet job, the length, the vitriol, to the calm statement about Orrin Hatch, the real powerhouse who BLOCKED THE HEARINGS.Senator Orrin Hatch-R, UT
Senate Judiciary Committee
Select Committee on Intelligence
Now over to Orrin Hatch - he was the Chair of the Judiciary Committee. As a whistleblower I have dealt
with Orrin Hatch's office as the leadership for the Judiciary Committee for the Senate, and I know how he
was for my case - but besides that, just look at his record. Since 1986, Orrin Hatch has always sided with
secrecy - especially when it comes to do with anything related to law enforcement - FBI, CIA, NSA - and
he has always voted against whistleblowers and that has been consistent throughout his career - since
1984.
With first hand experience, I dealt with his office and the Senate Judiciary Committee for 2.5 years - but
also as NSWBC, we have been trying to deal with the Senate Judiciary Committee, they don’t want to
even read or listen - they are not even open to look into any of these issues or have briefings. Just the way
that we finally succeeded with Congressman Shays we have been begging the Senate Judiciary
Committee to hold hearings - both on whistleblowers in general like the ones we had with Shay's
committee - but also on some high profile cases.
You know about my petition, right - that is for the Senate Judiciary Committee. That was the first
committee I went to as a whistleblower - it's been 4.5 years, and they promised that they were going to
investigate and have public hearings - 4.5 years later I’m sitting here - they are not even willing to look at
the case - even to have a meeting, or a briefing on it! For 2 years they said that they had to wait for the IG
report, then when the IG report came out - and it basically backed up everything that I said - and now they
say 'No - this is prevented by Senator Hatch' - as I mentioned earlier - but also on whistleblower legislation
they are completely irresponsive. They don’t even respond to any request for legislation or amendments
for whistleblowers protection. The Senate Judiciary Committee has not held a single hearing on
whistleblowers issues since 2001 - they have not had a single investigation on whistleblowers cases from
the FBI, and we have had so many whistleblower cases. There have been some with Sen. Grassley - but
it's not going to mean anything unless it is followed by action and hearings - so even though in some
cases, like mine and Mike German's case, Sen. Grassley and Sen. Leahy have done some preliminary
investigations, and based on their findings they come to senior people like Hastert and Specter and say
'let's have hearings - this is disastrous!' but they get blocked.
Who are the people who are doing the
blocking? Specter, but he's not up for election, and before that it was Sen. Hatch.
So, out of 60 or 70 people, she chooses Clinton for the bulk of her rage. The people who actually blocked hearing, those POWERFUL ENOUGH TO BLOCK were given better treatment.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
