From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: ZOE BAIRD: ATTORNEY GEN.
Date: 21 Jan 93 21:34:36 GMT
	<29989@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center

In article <29989@oasys.dt.navy.mil> harvey@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Betty Harvey) writes:

   It doesn't seem 'pretty damn minor' to me.  This will be a woman who is
   put into office to uphold our laws and be in a position to prosecute
   law offenders.  In my mind she should be prosecuted for knowingly breaking
   the law.  This is a simple case of the law pertains to other people -- not
   me.

You would have had nothing worse happen to you.

   As part of her duties as Attorney General she will be the head of INS.  
   She knowingly broke the law.  She admits that she knowingly broke the law.  
   This isn't a case of a mistake -- she knowingly broke the law that she will 
   be entrusted to uphold.  She only paid social security taxes after she
   was caught.  Anyone else would be heading off to jail.  There is no question
   about her intent.  She intended to break the law.

I'm sorry to tell you this, but it's a civil offense.  It would be
unusual for someone to go to jail for this.  They sought legal counsel
who told them essentially "they will not prosecute you for this if you
sponsor them for a green card."  They then tried to find a way to pay
the social security taxes in advance (like putting them in escrow),
but were informed by legal counsel that this was not possible.  When
they were disclosing this information to the transistion team, someone
on the staff knew what to do about it.  They openly filed papers with
the INS and the DOL after they hired these people.  It wasn't a case of
them saying "oh, we're caught now, we better pay the fine".  This is
all documented in correspondence with the attorney in question.  I think
she really had a chance to lie and claim she "didn't recall", but instead
told the truth and took her punishment.  She would be taking a huge (and
I mean huge) pay cut for this job.  Not to mention the fact that she
said she would divest herself of any interest in the companies she worked
for (stock, retirement benefits, etc).

   I can sympathize with the fact that she is a working mother -- so am I.
   Child care is not an easy answer in todays society but that doesn't excuse 
   the facts.

I'm sure it must be tough, especially when you have just started a new
job.  It took them 2 months to find someone who met their
qualifications, even when using an employment agency (mainly because
of the live-in requirement).  Maybe the money they were offering was
too little for anyone but a couple of illegal aliens.  If that's so,
string her up!

Let me emphasize again, that I think that maybe this should disqualify
her because of the cabinet position she is applying for and because of
how recent the offense was.  But I think it's being blown out of
proportion.  I also realize that if she were a Republican there would
be a different set of people screaming.  Perhaps this is the reason for
the fervor.
--


Matt Landrum, CAD Engineer      | e-mail: mdl@cypress.com
Cypress Southeast Design Center | office: (601) 324-4609, FAX - 4614
1 Research Blvd, Suite 200      | "You can get what you want if you
Starkville, MS  39759           | know how to find it." -- Tower of Power