[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6999-7001]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                    UPDATE ON LINDA TRIPP FILE CASE

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I want to update my colleagues and the 
American people on the latest developments in the Linda Tripp file 
case. As my colleagues will recall, this is a matter concerning how 
information from the confidential personnel file of a Pentagon civil 
servant was leaked to the media in March of 1998, more than 2 years 
ago, by the Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon and a colleague in 
violation of the Privacy Act.
  As my questions at an Armed Services Committee hearing revealed for 
the first time on April 6, the Pentagon's Office of Inspector General 
essentially completed its investigation of this matter within 4 months 
of the incident. In July of 1998, it referred its report to the Justice 
Department, having found sufficient evidence that a crime had been 
committed.
  From July 1998 until March of 2000, the Justice Department sat on the 
report, taking no action, making us believe the IG report was not 
completed and not given to them--essentially engaging in a coverup, in 
its typical stonewalling, delaying tactics. Then finally, on March 28, 
2000, they quietly returned the report to the Pentagon, informing them 
it would not criminally prosecute anyone in the case.
  I reported all of this to the Senate in a floor statement I made on 
April 11. At that time, I pointed out that the offense in this case--
disseminating to the media information from a Government employee's 
confidential personnel file--was the same offense Chuck Colson pleaded 
guilty to during Watergate. It was the same offense for which Colson 
served in the Federal penitentiary.
  Since all of this was revealed last month, three principal defenses--
I would call them excuses--have emerged as to why Mr. Bacon should not 
be prosecuted. These have been put forth to the media by Mr. Bacon's 
lawyer and by the Justice Department in its decision to take a pass on 
prosecution. Let me state these three defenses and what they are:
  No. 1, defense by Kenneth Bacon is that Bacon only leaked a part of a 
confidential file, not the whole file;
  No. 2, that the Freedom of Information Act ``trumps'' the Privacy 
Act; and

[[Page 7000]]

  No. 3, that Bacon ``didn't intend to break the law.''
  Today, I want to report to the Senate that all of these arguments 
have been refuted and exposed as having no merit in this case. This 
leaves us facing the stark truth: The law was violated, and those who 
violated it should be prosecuted.
  In testimony on April 26 before the Senate Armed Services 
Subcommittee on Readiness, which is the Committee I chair, I asked 
Pentagon Deputy Inspector General Donald Mancuso about these issues. He 
confirmed these points:
  No. 1, that criminal violations of the Privacy Act are not contingent 
on whether a whole file or just a part of a file is compromised.
  Common sense would lead us to this conclusion anyway, but this was 
confirmed by the inspector general in our committee meeting.
  Either one constitutes a violation. There is no distinction between 
leaking part of a file or leaking the entire file.
  Secondly, that there was no formal written Freedom of Information Act 
request made prior to the Tripp file leak; that, in any event, the 
Freedom of Information Act does not trump the Privacy Act; and that, 
indeed, the Freedom of Information Act includes specific exemptions 
directly related to the Privacy Act.
  So we are saying two things really. We are saying, first of all, when 
they said they used the Freedom of Information Act request as an 
excuse, they were lying, because there was no request under the Freedom 
of Information Act. Secondly, if that had happened, there is specific 
exemptions within our law to the Freedom of Information Act, one of 
which is the Privacy Act.
  Finally, in its March 2000 decision not to prosecute, the Justice 
Department stated that Bacon and his colleague ``didn't intend to break 
the law when they released information from Linda Tripp's personnel 
file.''
  What this tells me is that the Justice Department knows the law was 
broken. It is all the more reason why their decision not to prosecute 
is so outrageous. The next time I am stopped by a policeman for 
speeding, I am going to tell him, ``I didn't intend to break the law.'' 
I suppose then everything will be all right.
  Recently, I received a letter from Mr. Bacon's lawyer taking 
exception to a couple of points I made it my previous remarks on the 
floor. I would like to respond to each of those points here:
  First, Bacon's lawyer claims that comparing Kenneth Bacon's offense 
to Chuck Colson's offense in Watergate is ``inaccurate'' and ``unfair'' 
because the two cases, he says, are not ``remotely comparable.''
  But he is wrong. They are directly comparable.
  He goes into a lengthy description of the charges against Colson 
which were dropped by the court. All of this is interesting, but it is 
irrelevant to the current case.
  Colson released information from Daniel Elsberg's confidential file, 
violating Elsberg's privacy.
  Bacon released information from Linda Tripp's confidential file, 
violating Tripp's privacy.
  What could be more ``comparable'' than this?
  Second, Mr. Bacon's lawyer notes that the court said Colson 
implemented ``a scheme to defame and destroy the public image of Daniel 
Elsberg, with the intent to influence, obstruct, and impede the conduct 
and outcome'' of pending investigations and prosecutions.
  Similarly, Bacon's action can easily be seen as part of ``a scheme to 
defame and destroy the public image of Linda Tripp, with the intent to 
influence, obstruct, and impede the conduct and outcome'' of pending 
investigations and possible prosecutions of the President and of Linda 
Tripp herself.
  Let's not forget that Linda Tripp has testified that she was told by 
a top White House aide that she would be ``destroyed'' if she came 
forward and exposed illegal activities she witnessed in the Clinton 
White House, including matters related to the Filegate scandal. Tripp's 
FBI file was one of over 900 FBI files improperly obtained by the 
Clinton White House. Tripp remains a material witness in continuing 
legal proceedings on the Filegate matter.
  In addition, let's not forget that Tripp has also been the target of 
a politically motivated prosecution in Maryland concerning the taping 
of Monica Lewinski's phone calls.
  All of this provides ample evidence of possible motivations ``to 
defame or destroy'' her ``public image.''
  Third, Mr. Bacon's lawyer claims that Bacon did not violate any law 
in releasing the information on Tripp.
  Again, he is simply wrong. Bacon clearly violated the Privacy Act, 
the law which was enacted in 1974 as a direct result of the Colson 
case. It isn't even a close call.
  The contention that the media inquiry constituted a FOIA request that 
somehow superseded the Privacy Act will simply not stand up to 
scrutiny.
  Finally, Mr. Bacon's lawyer makes a legitimate point with which I am 
prepared to agree; and that is, that Mr. Bacon is a dedicated public 
official who has served the Department of Defense with distinction for 
6 years.
  Similarly, Linda Tripp is a dedicated public official who has served 
in the Pentagon and the White House with distinction for many years.
  The problem is that there must be equal application of the law if the 
law is to have any meaning.
  Mr. Bacon simply cannot be permitted to escape responsibility for an 
act that so clearly violated the law--a law which is designed to 
protect the rights of all government employees.
  The news media, I think, has created a particular problem in this 
case. It is a travesty that the major news media have not covered this 
story and informed the American people about why this is important.
  What a contract with how the news media acted during the Watergate 
era. At that time, the news media led the charge to uncover wrongdoing 
by high government officials, explaining why adherence to the rule of 
law was so vital to the protection of liberty.
  In the aftermath of Chuck Colson's pleading guilty in June 1974, 
along with other Watergate figures, newspapers across the country 
expressed appropriate outrage. They covered the story. They commented 
on it forcefully. They didn't sweep it under the rug. They did not say 
they were bored. They did not argue that the country should ``move on'' 
to other things.
  They knew that lawbreaking by high officials was one of the most 
important things they could report to the American people, because, as 
they kept telling us, an informed public is essential to the protection 
of liberty in a democracy.
  Here are a few examples of editorials during the Watergate years. 
Where are the similar editorials today?
  On June 12, 1974, the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin was upset that 
another Watergate figure got off too lightly with a 30-day suspended 
sentence for his Watergate crime. They said.

       The circumstances [in this case] did not call for a tap on 
     the wrist. [The judge's] praise for [the defendant's] 
     integrity in this setting seems inappropriate. If [the 
     defendant] is to be so excused for failing to do his duty . . 
     . then how are others to be held accountable for placing 
     personal loyalty above their duty and the requirements of the 
     law?

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 10 minutes have expired.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Then, speaking of Chuck Colson, on June 4, 1974, the 
Dayton, OH, Daily News wrote:

       In this tawdry matter, Mr. Nixon's White House again has 
     been exposed--this time by an aide who was high in its 
     deliberations and was an intimate of the President's--as 
     acting against the political and judicial process of this 
     country as if they were enemies.

  Finally, in commenting on Chuck Colson, in the home state of the 
Presiding Officer, the Portland, ME, Evening Express wrote on June 30, 
1974:

       Yet another close aide or high appointee of President Nixon 
     has been brought to justice . . . He had attempted to defame 
     Elsberg and destroy his credibility . . . Daily, it becomes 
     abundantly clearer that [the Nixon Administration is] the 
     most morally reprehensible administration in the history of 
     the nation.


[[Page 7001]]


  So who is at fault? Of course, Ken Bacon is at fault for violating 
the law. But I suppose it is human nature to cover up to save oneself. 
Who is really at fault is the press--the media--who are covering up 
this crime. No one can look at the way the press assailed Chuck Colson 
for his crime and now covers up the crime of Ken Bacon without asking, 
``Why? Why are they so defensive of Ken Bacon when they so aggressively 
went after Chuck Colson?'' Unequal application of the law is no worse 
then inequality in reporting. The consequences of both serve to 
diminish our liberty.
  Unfortunately, Ken Bacon, who should have been prosecuted, is now in 
the hands of Secretary of Defense William Cohen. Cohen is charged with 
reviewing the IG report and issuing any administrative discipline, 
short of criminal punishment. I urge him to act swiftly and in accord 
with the seriousness of this matter.
  Federal employees throughout government are watching this case. What 
will it say to them if someone who has so clearly violated the Privacy 
Act is not held accountable?
  It will say that no one's privacy can ultimately be protected, that 
the law is largely meaningless, and that ideal of public service in 
support of the Constitution and the laws is forever diminished.
  Madam President, I am not trying to single out Kenneth Bacon. I don't 
even know him. But I do know Chuck Colson, and he admits he was 
properly prosecuted, and Kenneth Bacon has committed the same crime and 
gets off free. This is wrong.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.

                          ____________________