1997-09-13 - Re: House National Security committee guts SAFE, worse than no bill

Header Data

From: “Brock N. Meeks” <brock@well.com>
To: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Message Hash: 1b6a734cd4e49d69a0401828fb82a2309e667630df73aea5c7f14a6d34d0e057
Message ID: <Pine.3.89.9709122143.A11840-0100000@well.com>
Reply To: <>
UTC Datetime: 1997-09-13 04:23:39 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 12:23:39 +0800

Raw message

From: "Brock N. Meeks" <brock@well.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 12:23:39 +0800
To: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Subject: Re: House National Security committee guts SAFE, worse than no bill
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9709122143.A11840-0100000@well.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Don't count on the language being yanked in Judiciary.  The real "only 
hope" is actually an incredibly low tech and unsexy thing called "time."

The 105th Congress wants to split early, possibly in three weeks!  Yes, 
three weeks (hard working lot, eh?)  There is no way this bill gets 
through the Rules committee with multiple versons floating around and 
then gets brought to the floor for a vote... won't happen.

So that sets up next year....

As for teh "violent split" in the White House, sure there is, but the 
split is *very deep* as in, deep in the Org chart.  The starting players, 
save one, are all on board with the FBI plan.  The one courageous main 
player is a Clinton loyalist until he dies, but Gore can't stand him.  

Our main man has the ability to pick up the phone--at any time-- and get 
Clinton on teh other end.  He whispers intoBill's ear, but Bill is a lame 
duck and is setting up Gore for the "long run" in 2000.

Nobody wants to look soft on crime, esp. in the ramp up to 2000.

The White House will back this mandatory language, I'll bet on it 
(really, I'll bet on it, any takers?) the only "game" left here is to 
figure out how Gore will try and save face by supporting a recanting of 
his 'no mandatory crypto" stance.