Talk:Jamie Gorelick

message: :Former acting FBI Director Thomas J. Pickard told the September 11 commission in a private interview earlier this year that he was surprised that Jamie S. Gorelick is serving on the panel because she had played a key role in setting the very counterterrorism policies being investigated. According to a summary of that interview obtained by The Washington Times, Mr. Pickard said Ms. Gorelick — who was No. 2 in the Clinton Justice Department under Attorney General Janet Reno — resisted efforts by the FBI to expand the counterterrorism effort beyond simple law enforcement tactics and agencies. 
:On Wednesday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. called for her resignation from the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. The Wisconsin Republican's demand came after it was revealed that Ms. Gorelick, as the No. 2 official in the Clinton Justice Department, was the author of a 1995 directive to the FBI that has been blamed during the hearings for hindering antiterrorism efforts by the U.S. government.  Attorney General John Ashcroft, who declassified the four-page memo before testifying this week, said the Gorelick directive created "draconian barriers" to uncovering the September 11 plot. 
Cut from article:
:...a post she left to devote more time to her current role as commissioner on the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.
I'm surprised there's been so little mention in the press of this woman. How dare she "investigate" Bush for something she did? (And we're all so outraged over Pinochet for overthrowing Allende, or for a few MPs hazing Iraqi officials who had murdered, raped and tortured innocent Iraqis!!) Has no one a sense of perspective?! --Uncle Ed 14:34, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  What's that got to do with her?  Focus Dude, Focus! -G 17:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled section 

message: There's a strong argument that Jamie Gorelick did not in fact have the conflict of interest that some of her detractors accused her of. In reality, when she wrote the memo that Attorney General Ashcroft confronted her with, she was merely following an established set of rules governing information sharing within the Justice Department. Furthermore, according to a Washington Post editorial from last year, the policies and practices of sharing -- and of course, witholding -- intelligence among different government agencies was deeply ingrained throughout the Justice Department. The editorial notes a particularly important conclusion of one of the intellgence appeals courts about the so-called "wall" between intelligence officials and law enforcement:
:That court described the wall's origin as "sometime in the 1980s -- the exact moment is shrouded in historical mist." A set of procedures promulgated in 1995 codified the policy of keeping intelligence and law enforcement separate and significantly fortified the wall. But as the Justice Department's brief itself acknowledged, prosecutors knew long before those procedures were announced that they were not to direct intelligence activities or to use intelligence surveillance to develop criminal cases. And the Bush administration explicitly maintained the 1995 procedures before the Sept. 11 attacks. The wall was no individual's fault but a product of years of department practice, judicial opinions and supervision of intelligence surveillance by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. 
--Ipsedixit 02:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Different Perspective on Gorelick 

message: This article only has two references, and it's not clear those references directly verify the bulk of the information.  There are numerous quotes and statements in this article, including some apparently unsourced statements about "critics" of Gorelick, and it doesn't appear that the two references provided verify all of it.  So basically the article could use a reference update so that all of the information in it can be verified. Dugwiki 17:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a reference for everything. -G 17:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops missed one, now there's one for everything.-G 00:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs more cited references 

message: Not listed on her law firm's website (http://www.wilmerhale.com/jamie_gorelick) is that fact that Jamie Gorelick has also been since 1997 the Vice Chairman of troubled Fannie May, the giant quasi-governmental mortgage lender that has been enmeshed in continuing accounting irregularities since 2004. These irregularities, in addition to understating financial risk, overstated profit by as much as $9 billion (Bloomberg News, 12/14/04). These profit overstatements in turn enriched the firm's officers and directors through incentive compensation programs. 
One example of the sort of Fannie Mae activity that has attracted investigators is the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie May's former CEO. He "resigned" under pressure in 2004, accompanied by a board-awarded termination package consisting of $30 million in stock and options, and a $1 million-a-year pension (also Bloomberg News, 12/14/04).
:And I heard she lied about chopping down a Cherry tree.  How is this relevant?  -G 17:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I withdraw my objection.  My how this article has grown.  I couldn't be more pleased.-G (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

text: I would think the fact that Gorelick earned $26,000,000 in six years while managing a financial institution that subsequently required a $700 billion dollar bailout would be relevant information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.212.137 (talk) 11:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We are lacking a source for the $26M. thanks, --guyzero | talk 18:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And I removed the income until a source can be located per BLP. --guyzero | talk 19:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Gorelik Activity of Note 

message: I deleted the article on Jamie Gorelick that was previously on this page because it was filled with unsourced and innaccurate information.  I cut and pasted a biograhpy of Jamie Gorelick from the 9/11 Commission website in place of the previous Wikipedia article.
I took this action because I believe the previous Wikipedia article had the potential to widely spread false information about Ms. Gorelick.  Ms. Gorelick has been the victim of a vicious right wing smear that held her responsible for the events on 9/11. There is no factual basis for this claim. 
An upcoming ABC-TV docudrama, The Path to 9/11, will generate controversy about Ms. Gorelick. The movie will depict a memo written by Ms. Gorelick as the cause for information that could have prevented 9/11 from being shared. The movie will likely bring great attention to Wikipedia as a source of information about Ms. Gorelick. I've already seen the previous Wikipedia Jamie Gorelick article linked to at other sites.  The false information would only likely spread further.
I plan to write an improved article, which will contain well sourced facts about the controversy surrounding Ms. Gorelick. I will write an explanation of what the memo Ms. Gorelick wrote actually was. I will also explain the origins and reasons for and the true facts about what has been called the "wall between intelligence and law enforcement." I also plan to cover the false claims about Ms. Gorelick and state why those claims are untrue.
This is my first attempt to write a Wikipedia article. I would have spent more time in the sandbox first but the ABC-TV docudrama will air in less than one week. I'll do my best to learn how to use Wikipedia. My writing skills are below Wikipedia level.  Any help with writing an improved article about Ms. Gorelick would be greatly appreciated.
:I object to the article being deleted.  There is no evidence other than the assertions of PREVIOUS ARTICLE FULLY DELETED that these accusations are false in any way.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absensce.-G 16:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The deletion was done by User:The German.  I am reverting SOME of the changes.-G 16:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, the article was garbage, I cleaned it up as much as I could, it was origionally VERY hostile and negative.  Now it's just too negative IMHO.  I think I'm in danger of going overboard and need to stop editing now.  Can someone put in something more positive about her personal life, philosophy, charitable work, something?  This article reads like she's a whirlwind of cosmic evil instead of a bright attorney who allegedly made some questionable decisions that had unfortunate and [IMHO] unforseeable consequences.  I reduced the partisan tone, and cited a reference for EVERYTHING I left in.-G 17:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous Article Fully Deleted

message: I tagged the article NPOV because approximately 4/5 of the article is unreferenced opinion about Gorelick. Not only should negative material be properly cited, the article must also be balanced. The facts of someone's goverment service should be presented neutrally and negative opinions should not be given "undue weight". The article does not even attempt to provide a neutral retelling, starting off with biased framing such as "she did not recuse herself". At best, we should attribute such opinion after explaining the facts, e.g. "Gorelick's role on the commission yadda yadda yadda. George F. Wightwing, among others, said that she should have recused herself due to yadda yadda." --Dhartung | Talk 02:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version of the article does not contain anything along these lines and I could find good sources for everything except her birthday.  On the other hand, any controversy about her appointment to the 9/11 commission is completely gone, and while it wasn't THAT big an issue, it did get mention in national newspapers etc. The article may be too far in the other direction and not NPOV because of that. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced the article, and removed opinion, invective and virtiol, and cited all references and tried to state it in neutral language.  I'm in danger of being overly fair I think, so I'm stopping now.  If anyone has issues with what's in there please tag the NPOV on the specific items.  I attempted a neutral retelling a per Dhartung's suggestion.  -G 17:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jamie Gorelick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070615022636/http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper441/documents/5nkzph1t.pdf to http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper441/documents/5nkzph1t.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jamie Gorelick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090214034804/http://utc.com/utc/Governance/Jamie_S_Gorelick.html to http://www.utc.com/utc/Governance/Jamie_S_Gorelick.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified