« Motion Filed to Compel NRO to Comply with Court Order | Main | FBI Settles John Lennon Case; I'm Quoted »

December 20, 2006

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Phil

Assuming you are the Scott Hodes mentioned in today's LA Times article for having restricted access to the John Lennon files, I can only say that you are a despicable un-American unprincipled phony. Risk of military retaliation? Right.

Its not often that in one's lifetime he or she is so completely discredited, and their lack of character so fully revealed in such a public manner. Deservedly so.


Scott Hodes

Phil, you are entitled to your opinion. However, the article only mentions me in relation to a deposition I gave on the case. I don't see anything about a risk of military retaliation in it. As I am not free to discuss this matter further without government clearance, I'll let the article speak for itself.

Phil

Scott,

The first paragraph of that article clearly states that the "military retaliation" concern/issue was the FBI's main argument.

It also says that you were the head of the relevant FBI department at some point during the litigation, and you continued to make nearly equally dishonest (as now revealed) claims regarding the ramifications of release.

This isnt about Republican vs. Democrat..sounds like Clinton's guys fought as hard to keep this file sealed just as hard as current Chief Justice Roberts did in his old position. The only halfway plausible claim in what I read is the idea of a promise of confidentiality to a foreign nation. Why did you (all) then have to come up with this line of BS to support it? If that is not a sufficient claim, then be honorable and make it anyway, and just lose. Dont take the easy/sleazy road and hide behind secrecy laws to prevent embarrasment to public officials- paraphrasing you. Some people deserve embarrassment.

Yes, this has touched a cord with me, and I hope you can understand that. I would have been the first one to say "well, if Clinton's guys are adamant about this, there must be something to it. Now I see there wasn't. Or if there was, it was surrounded by other dishonest claims. It speaks volumes about the arrogance and impurity of our government. Where was the person who at some point should just stand up, at risk of his own position, and says "wait, this is crap...lets come clean."

I know, let me guess, its not so simple, right?

Sorry for my cynicsm and obvious anger, but that is what this article makes me feel...cynical and angry. Perhaps its not fair to dump this on you, but only you know that.

Scott Hodes

Phil--I see the part about military retaliation in the article. However, that is not what I said in my declaration, and I'm not sure who at the FBI or Justice Department said it as there were a number of people assigned to this matter over the lengthy period it was in the court system.

Additionally, I can tell you that for the brief time I was at the FBI, political appointees were not involved in this decision--I'm not sure they knew it existed.

Podo

Nice site! Get yourself Adsense account, you can make nice money from this blog.
Check out here:
http://1stmoneymakingweb.blogspot.com/

Viagra Price

Hi great blog , this has touched a cord with me, and I hope you can understand that. I would have been the first one to say "well, if Clinton's guys are adamant about this, there must be something to it. Now I see there wasn't. Or if there was, it was surrounded by other dishonest claims. It speaks volumes about the arrogance and impurity of our government. Where was the person who at some point should just stand up, at risk of his own position, and says "wait, this is crap...lets come clean."
thanks for the topic

The comments to this entry are closed.