The Clinton Deathwatch News...
Greg Swann
The Clinton Deathwatch News...
A Ramblin' Gamblin' Willie story by Greg Swann
--coming up on six o'clock and it's time for WARY Talk Radio's
Clinton Deathwatch News. On Day 22 of the Deathwatch our top
story comes from Lewis C. Fox, a retired Secret Service officer
who claims to have stood guard outside the Oval Office while
President Bill Clinton met alone for forty minutes with Monica
Lewinsky, then a 21-year-old White House intern. Without
contradicting his account, White House sources sought to portray
Lewis, who retired after 27 years of service, as a man who wears
mismatched socks and only shaves for funerals. Doubt was also
cast on the story by Gennifer Flowers, who claims to have had a
12-year sexual relationship with Clinton. "Forty minutes?" she
said to reporters. "Not in his wildest dream."
The background of this story is the cyclone of accusations and
allegations in which the president is enmired. At the center of
the storm is Ms. Lewinsky, who is alleged to have had a sexual
affair with Mr. Clinton while serving as a White House intern, a
White House staffer and a Pentagon employee. Ms. Lewinsky has
denied the affair in a sworn affidavit and confirmed it in detail
to every person in the flood basin of the Potomac River. Ms.
Lewinsky's special friends were invited to listen to her
answering machine tapes of Mr. Clinton, who reportedly would
phone at odd hours to detail the sex acts he wanted to perform on
her, presumably for something less than forty minutes at a time.
Mr. Clinton has issued a number of terse and unconvincing denials
of the accusations and allegations. At a press conference last
Friday, Mr. Clinton was asked if--in light of the pain
allegations of wrong-doing have brought to him and his family--he
might consider resignation. Clinton replied, "Never. The American
people elected me their president and I'm never gonna let 'em
live it down." Meanwhile White House sources have sought to
portray Ms. Lewinsky as a ditzy, star-struck young woman who
threw herself at the president with pin-point accuracy.
Also at issue are charges that the President suborned perjury
and obstructed justice by attempting to buy Ms. Lewinsky's
silence with high-paying jobs. She may in fact be the only
ditzy, star-struck, extremely young woman to have been granted
the Pentagon's highest security clearance. In a series of events
White House sources have characterized as purely coincidental,
Ms. Lewinsky was subpoenaed to offer testimony in the Paula
Jones sexual harassment case against the president, she
delivered to the president's office a dress and other gifts
Clinton had given her, gifts that had also been subpoenaed, was
driven to a high-priced Washington lawyer by Clinton's close
friend Vernon Jordan and swore out but did not submit an
affidavit denying any sexual involvement with the president. It
is purely coincidental, White House sources say, that Lewinsky
did not submit this affidavit until the very day that Jordan
arranged a high-paying job for her with Revlon Cosmetics. White
House sources have not yet sought to portray Jordan in an
unflattering light.
In addition to the president's unconvincing denials, the White
House has endeavored to counter the allegations by attacking the
honor and credibility of Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr. In an
escalating series of charges, White House sources have sought to
portray Starr as a notorious stick-in-the-mud and an inveterate
stamp collector. In a background interview, an aide close to the
president insisted that Starr is--quote--"a congenital guidance
counselor. He's the kind of guy who organizes newspaper drives,
for god's sake!"
The White House strategy seems to be working, at least for now.
Clinton's poll numbers are up while Starr's are down. It is in
not known whether White House staffers are aware that legal
matters are decided by judges and juries, rather than by polls
and elections. In any case, the president's approval rating has
soared to dizzying heights in recent weeks. As many as 79 percent
of poll respondents approve of the job he's doing, and 100
percent approve of him staying the hell away from their
daughters. As of today, 3,000 ground troops have been slated for
deployment in Iraq, less than one percent of the 500,000 soldiers
deployed in Desert Storm. It is not known how these soldiers,
certain to be slaughtered to the last man, rate the president's
performance. White House sources have sought to portray people
certain to be slaughtered to the last man in the name of
presidential grandstanding as unpatriotic naysayers, possibly
influenced by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
This is a reference to a theory put forth by First Lady Hillary
Rodham Clinton, who claims that all accusations and allegations
against her and her husband originate with a shadowy network of
conservative operatives plotting to bring down what Mr. Clinton
referred to as "the most ethical administration in history". In
the past, Mrs. Clinton has acknowledged having conversations
with Eleanor Roosevelt and Joan of Arc, both deceased. Joan of
Arc is best remembered for herself hearing voices. White House
sources have sought to portray Mrs. Clinton as a woman in full
possession of her faculties. They have also sought to portray
her as svelte, attractive and a natural blonde. White Houses
sources vehemently deny that Mrs. Clinton is the source behind
all White House sources.
Penthouse magazine made news recently by offering Ms. Lewinsky
two million dollars for full rights to her story, to appear in
the magazine along with a layout of semi-nude photos. Playboy
magazine today upped the ante by offering five million dollars
each to both Ms. Lewinsky and Mrs. Clinton if they will promise
never, ever to pose for nude or semi-nude photographs. White
House sources characterized both Playboy and Penthouse magazines
as--quote--"the kind of trash my husband hides in the Oval
Office."
White House sources today sought to portray presidential adviser
James Carville as--quote--"a killer attack chihuahua, a
chain-saw with legs". Asked to comment, Carville said, "Don't
she say the sweetest things?" Carville, who has difficulty
pronouncing the letter R, said his role in the scandal
is--quote--"to be the countahbalance to the Grudge Repoaht".
This is a reference to the Drudge Report, the on-line gossip
newsletter that first broke news of the Lewinsky scandal. It is
not known if the Drudge Report is thought to be a part of the
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, but White House sources have sought
to portray reporter Matt Drudge as a dark, menacing-looking man
with an enormous jaw.
It is arguable that either the allegations or the denials or the
amazing coincidences are costing President Clinton sleep.
Secret Service WAVE records reveal that Little Caesar零 Pizza
has made 37 late-night deliveries to the White House since the
scandal broke. Asked to comment, the Little Caesar零 man said,
"No thank you, no thank you." White House sources have sought
to portray him as a short, fat, swarthy individual with a
large, bulbous nose.
The Clinton Deathwatch News is brought to you by MSNBC, your
24-hour all Clinton Deathwatch cable news network, and by
Microsoft Windows 98, reminding you that an integrated browser
_is_ part of the operating system. Coming up next, a look at
traffic and weather, then it's more of the voice of the
voiceless on 910 AM, WARY talk radio--
_____________________________________________________________________________
PS: As the Clinton Deathwatch draws to a close (I do so hope!),
these are the indiginities I have heaped on the man and his
long-suffering wife:
Where there's smoke, there's firepower
Clinton, Hillary and Janet Reno, diguised a high school
administrators, effect a Waco-like pogrom against teenage
smoking
http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Smoke.html
When you've got your health, you've got everything...
Hillary, in the guise of Nurse Martinetti, explains the
inestimable benefits of socialized medicine
http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Health.html
The purpose of terrorism...
The purpose of terrorism is... ratings...
http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Terrorism.html
His master's voice...
The Bastard-in-Chief celebrates the voluntary
self-censorship of the American media
http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Master.html
Topping tonight's headlines...
News reports from the 1996 presidental election
http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Topping.html
Public service--with a smile
Why Clinton's national service scheme really
isn't slavery...
http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Service.html
Bubba Borgia
The president escapes from the White House for
a night of beer and lamenations
http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Borgia.html
Bubba cools out in the cold
Clinton's Last Days--wine and whining in
Lafayette Park...
http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Bubba.html
The Clinton Deathwatch News...
A news report from the last days of "the most
ethical administration in history"...
http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Deathwatch.html
_____________________________________________________________________________
gsw...@primenet.com
http://www.primenet.com/~gswann (last updated 2/11/98)
70640...@compuserve.com
We are what we do, not what we say we do.
- Janio Valenta
_____________________________________________________________________________
Billy Beck
*Awesome*. Superlatives fail.
Swann: you have firmly jammed every satirist along the by-ways to
the Bridge to the Twenty-First Century into the cheap seats with this
single effort, and that's saying a *lot*. (memo to McP & Barbry: I
still love you guys. DC Dave: it's back to woodshed for you, mate.)
Further: if you don't make it to a White House Enemies List,
there is no such goddamned thing.
I *hate* you - in the same way that I hate bookstores and great
guitar players: I know I'll never have it *all*, and I'll never write
like *you*.
Revel, children:
gsw...@primenet.com (Greg Swann) wrote:
Billy
VRWC fronteer - sigdiv
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/clinton/vrwc.htm
Gary Cruse
On 11 Feb 1998 03:45:00 -0700, gsw...@primenet.com (Greg Swann) graced
us all with:
>Eleanor Roosevelt and Joan of Arc, both deceased.
It is the small touches that
make the masterpiece. This
eight-word jewel sparkles.
Well done, Glenn.
--
Gary
vrwc-crypto
Code Word "Tonstant Weader":
"Men seldom make passes at girls who wear glasses."
Steve Sheldon
mi...@200mhz604e.visi.com (MichaelSchneider) writes:
>--coming up on six o'clock and it's time for WARY Talk Radio's
>Clinton Deathwatch News. On Day 22 of the Deathwatch our top
>story comes from Lewis C. Fox, a retired Secret Service officer
>who claims to have stood guard outside the Oval Office while
>President Bill Clinton met alone for forty minutes with Monica
>Lewinsky, then a 21-year-old White House intern. Without
>contradicting his account, White House sources sought to portray
>Lewis, who retired after 27 years of service, as a man who wears
>mismatched socks and only shaves for funerals. Doubt was also
>cast on the story by Gennifer Flowers, who claims to have had a
>12-year sexual relationship with Clinton. "Forty minutes?" she
>said to reporters. "Not in his wildest dream."
I doubt the White House would have hired someone who dresses so poorly, for
a security position.
I am somewhat concerned by these recent inquisitions by Starr. The idea of
requiring a mother to testify against her own daughter seems puzzling.
Isn't there something that permits a wife from testtifying against a
husband? Shouldn't this same provision hold for parents/children?
I'm also concerned about the requests for testimony from Secret Service
Agents.
I can understand the desire to find out the truth. But I question the
motives when the search for truth hurts people.
David Goldman
> Isn't there something that permits a wife from testtifying against a
>husband? Shouldn't this same provision hold for parents/children?
> I'm also concerned about the requests for testimony from Secret Service
>Agents.
I am concerned about the mealy-mouth responses of Bill Clinton when
asked simple questions by the media.....
Marcia Lewis was NOT testifying against her daughter since her
daughter has not been indicted and is not on trial. Marcia was
testifying on issues related to Clinton's possible perjury.
Craighenry
>From: "J. Reynolds" <cepheus...@hotmail.com>
>Which she, never have worked at the white house, would know nothing
>about, UNLESS they are asking her questions about her daughter. In
>others words, asking her to incriminate her own child and show she has
>committed perjury.
Lewinski becomes a target only if she lied for the president. clinton is the
target, not monica. Starr wants her testimony about possible perjury in order
to show conspiracy to obtruct justice.
Monica's mother cannot really get her in trouble. she can get the president in
truckloads of trouble.
hence why carville and co. don't want her to testify.
J. Reynolds
Which she, never have worked at the white house, would know nothing
about, UNLESS they are asking her questions about her daughter. In
others words, asking her to incriminate her own child and show she has
committed perjury.
In every other instance of a grand jury investigation except this one
with an independent prosecutor, she would never have been called. Even
the most vigorous prosector wouldn't stoop to asking a parent to do that
to their child.
--
"The church says the earth is flat. But I know it's
round for I have seen it's shadow on the moon and
I have more faith in a shadow then the church" - Magellan
John Logajan
Steve Sheldon <she...@visi.com> wrote:
> I doubt the White House would have hired someone who dresses so poorly, for
> a security position.
Are these attacks on Clinton witnesses getting lamer by the minute or what.
--
- John Logajan -- jlog...@skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 -
- 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
- WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan -
Steve Sheldon
John Logajan <jlog...@mirage.skypoint.net> writes:
>Steve Sheldon <she...@visi.com> wrote:
>> I doubt the White House would have hired someone who dresses so poorly, for
>> a security position.
>Are these attacks on Clinton witnesses getting lamer by the minute or what.
It seems usually these "attacks" are actually coming from the Michael
Schneider's of the world.
That is, the WhiteHouse says one thing, and it gets exagerrated into
something completely different.
LShaping
> > I am concerned about the mealy-mouth responses of Bill Clinton when
> > asked simple questions by the media.....
> >
> > Marcia Lewis was NOT testifying against her daughter since her
> > daughter has not been indicted and is not on trial. Marcia was
> > testifying on issues related to Clinton's possible perjury.
> Which she, never have worked at the white house, would know nothing
> about, UNLESS they are asking her questions about her daughter. In
> others words, asking her to incriminate her own child and show she has
> committed perjury.
Amazing, how a response can totally ignore the post it is in response to.
Monica is not on trial. Get it?
John Logajan
J. Reynolds <cepheus...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In every other instance of a grand jury investigation except this one
> with an independent prosecutor, she would never have been called. Even
> the most vigorous prosector wouldn't stoop to asking a parent to do that
> to their child.
Actually, Victoria Tensing pointed out that Clinton's own Justice Department
forced a father suffering from Alzheimers(sp) to testify against his son.
In Lewis's case, she is idenified in her daughter's tapes as being a party
to suborning perjury, convincing Linda Tripp to lie in the Paula Jones
civil matter. That's why Lewis initially pleaded the 5th and had to be
granted use immunity.
Lewinsky is already cooked without her mother's testimony. The FBI and
OIC had Tripp wired and witnessed Lewinsky's attempts to suborn
perjury. Her mother could scarecly add more damage, since it is an
open and shut case.
John Logajan
Steve Sheldon <she...@visi.com> wrote:
> John Logajan <jlog...@mirage.skypoint.net> writes:
>>Lewinsky is already cooked without her mother's testimony. The FBI and
>>OIC had Tripp wired and witnessed Lewinsky's attempts to suborn
>>perjury. Her mother could scarecly add more damage, since it is an
>>open and shut case.
> Oh, and now the Tripp case is before the Mass. state courts, regarding her
> illegal taping of conversations with Lewinsky.
I don't know what your point is in regards to my comment, but in any event
your "factoid" is not true. The county prosecuter has refered the matter
to the state prosecuter who has said he will hold off investigating it
for the time being (probably in deference to the OIC.) Prosecutors are
not "Mass. state courts" -- not the least of which you've identified
the wrong state.
Steve Sheldon
John Logajan
In mn.general Steve Sheldon <she...@visi.com> wrote:
> John Logajan <jlog...@mirage.skypoint.net> writes:
>>Steve Sheldon <she...@visi.com> wrote:
>>> I doubt the White House would have hired someone who dresses so poorly, for
>>> a security position.
>>Are these attacks on Clinton witnesses getting lamer by the minute or what.
> It seems usually these "attacks" are actually coming from the Michael
> Schneider's of the world.
Are you saying that someone forged the post attributed to you?
Just another victim of the vast right wing conspiracy, ehy?
LShaping
> >> I doubt the White House would have hired someone who dresses so
poorly, for
> >> a security position.
> >Are these attacks on Clinton witnesses getting lamer by the minute or
what.
> It seems usually these "attacks" are actually coming from the Michael
> Schneider's of the world.
One just came from an eye witness retired secret service agent.
J. Reynolds
John Logajan wrote:
>
> J. Reynolds <cepheus...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In every other instance of a grand jury investigation except this one
> > with an independent prosecutor, she would never have been called. Even
> > the most vigorous prosector wouldn't stoop to asking a parent to do that
> > to their child.
>
> Actually, Victoria Tensing pointed out that Clinton's own Justice Department
> forced a father suffering from Alzheimers(sp) to testify against his son.
Haven't heard anything about this, but I would obviously have to say
this was a gross misuse of justice as well. From various prosecutors
and lawyers on the news this morning, the impression I got was that the
would not call a parent to testify.
> In Lewis's case, she is idenified in her daughter's tapes as being a party
> to suborning perjury, convincing Linda Tripp to lie in the Paula Jones
> civil matter. That's why Lewis initially pleaded the 5th and had to be
> granted use immunity.
>
> Lewinsky is already cooked without her mother's testimony. The FBI and
> OIC had Tripp wired and witnessed Lewinsky's attempts to suborn
> perjury. Her mother could scarecly add more damage, since it is an
> open and shut case.
>
Then there was no need to call her, if the case was so open and shut.
And we can argue the legality of those tapes to a great extent. Tripp's
original taping spree, which she took to Starr, was highly illegal under
both federal laws and the laws of the state of Maryland. Starr may have
granted her immunity, but Maryland hasn't yet and probably won't.
Having her wired on that premise seems shakily legal to me at best, not
to mention the fact that, from my understanding, the first wire tapped
yielded nothing of substance and he had to have Tripp go back and ask
more pointed and leading questions, which brings up the issue of
possible entrapment.
I'm not a lawyer so the legality of every aspect of this case is not my
privy. However, we have parties on both sides who have a vested
interest in being proven right by what ever means are possible, and
there is no telling just who is lying and who is being on the level. My
feeling is that everyone is lying to various degrees, and no one is to
be trusted until all the facts finally come out.
J. Reynolds
> >OIC had Tripp wired and witnessed Lewinsky's attempts to suborn
> >perjury. Her mother could scarecly add more damage, since it is an
> >open and shut case.
>
> illegal taping of conversations with Lewinsky.
Maryland... and they won't deal with the issue until Starr is finished
(which means in about two more years). The state DA has refused to
prosecute her until then, and hasn't said definitively if the will or
not at that point.
J. Reynolds
I did not ignore the post I replied to, I responded to one aspect of it,
that of a parent testifying against their children. The only reason
Starr has called her is in the hope that she will say something they can
use to either a) pressure Monica into giving her testimony without full
immunity; or b) prove that she's lying so the can prosecute her for
perjury. Otherwise, it's doubtful her mom would know a whole hell of a
lot about some people she's never met and never worked for. It would be
about as brilliant as calling me to testify about Clinton's possible
perjury. She can only possibly testify about Monica's possible perjury.
As far as Starr seems concerned, everyone is on trial, but like a poor
marksman, he keeps hitting everyone but his intended target.
John Logajan
In mn.general J. Reynolds <cepheus...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> And we can argue the legality of those tapes to a great extent. Tripp's
> original taping spree, which she took to Starr, was highly illegal under
> both federal laws and the laws of the state of Maryland. Starr may have
> granted her immunity, but Maryland hasn't yet and probably won't.
> Having her wired on that premise seems shakily legal to me at best, not
> to mention the fact that, from my understanding, the first wire tapped
> yielded nothing of substance and he had to have Tripp go back and ask
> more pointed and leading questions, which brings up the issue of
> possible entrapment.
Tripp didn't break federal laws. Whether she knew there was a Maryland
law has been ruled by Maryland's Supreme Court twice to be an
exonerating circumstance (since it varies from other state laws and
the federal law.)
[I will again assert my Libertarian belief that anyone ought to be
able to tape their own conversations.]
The state law is not binding upon federal actions, so both the tapes
themselves and their catalysis to further investigations is within the
law.
As to entrapment -- this would be a hard sell, since Lewinsky is on
Tripp's tapes establishing a pattern of attempting to suborn perjury.
Entrapment would require the government to entice Lewinsky to do
something illegal that she wouldn't have done otherwise -- clearly
not the case here (i.e. the "talking points.")
Stephen Lajoie
In article <a6HE.63$b%5.11...@ptah.visi.com>,
Steve Sheldon <she...@visi.com> wrote:
>mi...@200mhz604e.visi.com (MichaelSchneider) writes:
>
>
>
>>--coming up on six o'clock and it's time for WARY Talk Radio's
>>Clinton Deathwatch News. On Day 22 of the Deathwatch our top
>>story comes from Lewis C. Fox, a retired Secret Service officer
>>who claims to have stood guard outside the Oval Office while
>>President Bill Clinton met alone for forty minutes with Monica
>>Lewinsky, then a 21-year-old White House intern. Without
>>contradicting his account, White House sources sought to portray
>>Lewis, who retired after 27 years of service, as a man who wears
>>mismatched socks and only shaves for funerals. Doubt was also
>>cast on the story by Gennifer Flowers, who claims to have had a
>>12-year sexual relationship with Clinton. "Forty minutes?" she
>>said to reporters. "Not in his wildest dream."
>
>
>a security position.
The guy is retired. He has a constitutional right to wear any kind of sock
he wants in any combination. Just because you're a democrat doesn't mean
you can go and retroactively fire some one so they lose their pension.
> I am somewhat concerned by these recent inquisitions by Starr. The idea of
>requiring a mother to testify against her own daughter seems puzzling.
Maybe you're easily puzzled?
> Isn't there something that permits a wife from testtifying against a
>husband?
Yes, it is considered a violation of your right to privacy and your right
not to testify against yourself. The courts believe that marriage is such
a close relationship that it requires some protections from state inquery.
> Shouldn't this same provision hold for parents/children?
No. Children grow up and move away. Not the same.
> I'm also concerned about the requests for testimony from Secret Service
>Agents.
Why?
> I can understand the desire to find out the truth. But I question the
>motives when the search for truth hurts people.
If the truth hurts those who commit crimes, it is not reason
to not use every allowable means to persue it.
--
Steve La Joie | "I think the biggest weapon of the totalitarian state
laj...@eskimo.com | is the oppression of the individual by economic means.
| In this manner, the people are made to fall in line
| with the principles of the government" A. Einstein
Gary Frazier
>> > I am concerned about the mealy-mouth responses of Bill Clinton when
>> > asked simple questions by the media.....
>> >
>> > Marcia Lewis was NOT testifying against her daughter since her
>> > daughter has not been indicted and is not on trial. Marcia was
>> > testifying on issues related to Clinton's possible perjury.
>> Which she, never have worked at the white house, would know nothing
>> about, UNLESS they are asking her questions about her daughter. In
>> others words, asking her to incriminate her own child and show she has
>> committed perjury.
>Amazing, how a response can totally ignore the post it is in response to.
>Monica is not on trial. Get it?
No, she's just another one of the victims of Starr's fishing expedition.
I wonder what role Monica played in the failed land deal that is
ostensibly the subject of Starr's inquisition?
--
Gary
http://www.efn.org/~gfrazier
Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! http://www.cauce.org
Greg Smith
In article <6bvgs7$m...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
LSha...@worldnet.att.net, LShaping, says...
>
>> > I am concerned about the mealy-mouth responses of Bill Clinton when
>> > asked simple questions by the media.....
>> >
>> > Marcia Lewis was NOT testifying against her daughter since her
>> > daughter has not been indicted and is not on trial. Marcia was
>> > testifying on issues related to Clinton's possible perjury.
>
>
>> Which she, never have worked at the white house, would know nothing
>> about, UNLESS they are asking her questions about her daughter. In
>> others words, asking her to incriminate her own child and show she has
>> committed perjury.
>
>
>Amazing, how a response can totally ignore the post it is in response to.
>Monica is not on trial. Get it?
>
She will be on trial, no doubt. Ken Starr has a long track record of
intimidating witmesses with threats of prosecution, unless they testify to
whatever story he wants the grand jury to hear. Poor Ken Starr after
three years and $40 million he is trying to build a case around Monica
Lewinski who already has a huge credibility problem. Who would believe
anything that she said?
The investigation of "special" prosecutor Kenneth Starr will begin soon.
Starr seems as out of control as Richard Nixon was.
Steve Sheldon
John Logajan <jlog...@mirage.skypoint.net> writes:
>In mn.general Steve Sheldon <she...@visi.com> wrote:
>> John Logajan <jlog...@mirage.skypoint.net> writes:
>>>Steve Sheldon <she...@visi.com> wrote:
>>>> I doubt the White House would have hired someone who dresses so poorly, for
>>>> a security position.
>>>Are these attacks on Clinton witnesses getting lamer by the minute or what.
>> It seems usually these "attacks" are actually coming from the Michael
>> Schneider's of the world.
>Are you saying that someone forged the post attributed to you?
>Just another victim of the vast right wing conspiracy, ehy?
John, I think your losing it.
I was following up to a Michael Schneider post which was a dump of
something someone else wrote. That someone else, said that the Clinton's
were claiming the guy couldn't shave or match socks.
My response was what you quoted, just saying that I doubt that's true since
the White House wouldn't have hired him if that was the case.
At least we now know why Hooked on Phonics is so popular.
John Logajan
Gary Frazier <gfra...@efn.org> wrote:
> I wonder what role Monica played in the failed land deal that is
> ostensibly the subject of Starr's inquisition?
You are mistaken. The investigation of the Jones civil case perjury
is a seperately authorized by Reno and the three judge Appeals court
panel. They could have handed it to a new IC, but since Starr was
already looking into Hubble trouble, the AJ figured Starr might as
well handle it too.
Blame Reno, not Starr. Actually, blame Clinton.
John Logajan
Steve Sheldon <she...@visi.com> wrote:
>>>>> I doubt the White House would have hired someone who dresses so poorly,
>>>>> for a security position.
>>>>Are these attacks on Clinton witnesses getting lamer by the minute or what.
> I was following up to a Michael Schneider post which was a dump of
> something someone else wrote. That someone else, said that the Clinton's
> were claiming the guy couldn't shave or match socks.
> My response was what you quoted, just saying that I doubt that's true since
> the White House wouldn't have hired him if that was the case.
I see.
> At least we now know why Hooked on Phonics is so popular.
Hooked? I deny it. In fact, I've never even inhaled.
Steve Sheldon
laj...@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie) writes:
>In article <a6HE.63$b%5.11...@ptah.visi.com>,
>Steve Sheldon <she...@visi.com> wrote:
>>mi...@200mhz604e.visi.com (MichaelSchneider) writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>>--coming up on six o'clock and it's time for WARY Talk Radio's
>>>Clinton Deathwatch News. On Day 22 of the Deathwatch our top
>>>story comes from Lewis C. Fox, a retired Secret Service officer
>>>who claims to have stood guard outside the Oval Office while
>>>President Bill Clinton met alone for forty minutes with Monica
>>>Lewinsky, then a 21-year-old White House intern. Without
>>>contradicting his account, White House sources sought to portray
>>>Lewis, who retired after 27 years of service, as a man who wears
>>>mismatched socks and only shaves for funerals. Doubt was also
>>>cast on the story by Gennifer Flowers, who claims to have had a
>>>12-year sexual relationship with Clinton. "Forty minutes?" she
>>>said to reporters. "Not in his wildest dream."
>>
>>
>> I doubt the White House would have hired someone who dresses so poorly, for
>>a security position.
>The guy is retired. He has a constitutional right to wear any kind of sock
>he wants in any combination. Just because you're a democrat doesn't mean
>you can go and retroactively fire some one so they lose their pension.
At least now I know why Hooked on Phonics is such a big advertiser on the
Limbaugh show.
Can't you people read?
>> Isn't there something that permits a wife from testtifying against a
>>husband?
>Yes, it is considered a violation of your right to privacy and your right
>not to testify against yourself. The courts believe that marriage is such
>a close relationship that it requires some protections from state inquery.
That's what I thought.
>> Shouldn't this same provision hold for parents/children?
>No. Children grow up and move away. Not the same.
Were you abused as a child? I can't understand anybody who isn't close to
their parents.
I can't understand any parent who wouldn't be willing to go to jail rather
than testify against their child.
Perhaps you need to learn more family values?
>> I'm also concerned about the requests for testimony from Secret Service
>>Agents.
>Why?
The purpose of the Secret Service is to protect the President. Their
purpose is not to watchdog the President so that inquiries can be made
later. What they see and what they here in the performance of their job
duties is far more confidential than any lawyer or doctor privilege.
>> I can understand the desire to find out the truth. But I question the
>>motives when the search for truth hurts people.
>If the truth hurts those who commit crimes, it is not reason
>to not use every allowable means to persue it.
And if the search hurts innocent bystanders?
F. Prefect
On 12 Feb 1998 19:53:38 GMT, bulla...@justice.com (Greg Smith)
wrote:
The stupid fucker is worse that dirty. Getting Welinsky's Mother to
provide testimony that would be of use if dumb fuck Starr is unable to
bribe Welinsky into providing the Grand Jury with the testimony
(regardless of the truth) he wants to hear is a travesty. He's a
piece of shit that Reno should flush down the nearest toilet.
F. Prefect
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has
made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded
as a bad move.....Douglas Adams
Lone_Wolf
In <6bvles$kbk$2...@shadow.skypoint.net> John Logajan <jlog...@mirage.skypoint.net> writes:
#Gary Frazier <gfra...@efn.org> wrote:
#> I wonder what role Monica played in the failed land deal that is
#> ostensibly the subject of Starr's inquisition?
#You are mistaken. The investigation of the Jones civil case perjury
#is a seperately authorized by Reno and the three judge Appeals court
#panel. They could have handed it to a new IC, but since Starr was
#already looking into Hubble trouble, the AJ figured Starr might as
#well handle it too.
#Blame Reno, not Starr. Actually, blame Clinton.
Actually, the legal tie-in is Vernon Jordan, the source of several lucrative contracts
to Hubbell, contracts in which nobody knows what kind of services Hubbell performed.
But he conveniently developed a lot of memory lapses about what went on in the
Whitewater affair. Then somebody (Tripp) came to Starr and indicated that they had
evidence that Jordan was helping someone (Lewinsky) obtain employment and advising her
to deny an affair with Clinton in the Jones case. So Lewinsky suddenly becomes a
witness to a pattern of possibly illegal behavior, behavior that Starr was already
chartered to investigate.
James
#--
# - John Logajan -- jlog...@skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 -
# - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
# - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan -
Lone_Wolf
In <6bvkr1$q...@garcia.efn.org> gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier) writes:
#In <6bvgs7$m...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> "LShaping" <LSha...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
#>> > I am concerned about the mealy-mouth responses of Bill Clinton when
#>> > asked simple questions by the media.....
#>> >
#>> > Marcia Lewis was NOT testifying against her daughter since her
#>> > daughter has not been indicted and is not on trial. Marcia was
#>> > testifying on issues related to Clinton's possible perjury.
#>> Which she, never have worked at the white house, would know nothing
#>> about, UNLESS they are asking her questions about her daughter. In
#>> others words, asking her to incriminate her own child and show she has
#>> committed perjury.
#>Amazing, how a response can totally ignore the post it is in response to.
#>Monica is not on trial. Get it?
#No, she's just another one of the victims of Starr's fishing expedition.
#I wonder what role Monica played in the failed land deal that is
#ostensibly the subject of Starr's inquisition?
The person who recommended her to Revlon, found her a lawyer, and recommended her
for a Pentagon job is the SAME person who helped Web Hubbell get a bunch of lucrative
consulting contracts for which nobody knows what work he performed. THAT is the tie-in
to Whitewater, that a person already suspected of arranging deals to influence
testimony is alleged to have arranged employment oppurtunities for Lewinsky to influence
her testimony in a civil case.
James
#--
# Gary
#http://www.efn.org/~gfrazier
#Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! http://www.cauce.org
M Soja
On 12 Feb 1998 12:08:01 -0800, gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier) posted:
>In <6bvgs7$m...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> "LShaping" <LSha...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>Amazing, how a response can totally ignore the post it is in response to.
>>Monica is not on trial. Get it?
>No, she's just another one of the victims of Starr's fishing expedition.
Yeah, all those crooks are just "victims."
>I wonder what role Monica played in the failed land deal that is
>ostensibly the subject of Starr's inquisition?
Living up to your doofus nickname, eh? Did the Department of Justice
have anything to do with expanding Starr's probes?
The land deal is still under investigation. Janet Reno and the three
judge panel ordered Starr to also investigate the Travel Office
affair. Janet Reno and the three judge panel also ordered Starr to
investigate the 900+ illegal FBI files found in the White House. And
guess what? Janet Reno and the three judge panel ordered Starr to
investigate the possible perjury, suborning of perjury, obstruction of
justice, and intimidation of witnesses by the Clinton administration.
Grow up, Gar.
M Soja
>In article <6bvgs7$m...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
>>Amazing, how a response can totally ignore the post it is in response to.
>>Monica is not on trial. Get it?
>She will be on trial, no doubt. Ken Starr has a long track record of
>intimidating witmesses with threats of prosecution, unless they testify to
>whatever story he wants the grand jury to hear.
You have proof to back that up? Or even a more specific assertion?
In other words name One from his long track record. And don't try
Susan McDougal. She has immunity from everything except perjury. If
Susan is afraid of perjuring herself it's because she thinks Starr can
prove she lies.
>Poor Ken Starr after
>three years and $40 million he is trying to build a case around Monica
>Lewinski who already has a huge credibility problem. Who would believe
>anything that she said?
What, you worry? Big circles under Prez Clinton's eyes says he's
worried about who might believe her.
Martin McPhillips
On Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:49:50 GMT, gar...@gte.net (F. Prefect) wrote:
>On 12 Feb 1998 19:53:38 GMT, bulla...@justice.com (Greg Smith)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>The investigation of "special" prosecutor Kenneth Starr will begin soon.
>>Starr seems as out of control as Richard Nixon was.
>
>The stupid fucker is worse that dirty. Getting Welinsky's Mother to
>provide testimony that would be of use if dumb fuck Starr is unable to
>bribe Welinsky into providing the Grand Jury with the testimony
>(regardless of the truth) he wants to hear is a travesty. He's a
>piece of shit that Reno should flush down the nearest toilet.
Gosh, you guys really are getting desperate.
Got yourselves a little too deep into an identification
with that criminal in the White House it appears.
Too bad.
Craighenry
>From: gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier)
>I wonder what role Monica played in the failed land deal that is
>ostensibly the subject of Starr's inquisition?
Nice try, but it was Janet Reno who expanded Starr's jurisdiction to cover
travelgate, filegate, and now interngate. Starr is not on a fishing
expedition, he is conducting an investigation sanctioned by the DOJ.
Michael+Schneider
In article <E%IE.90$b%5.18...@ptah.visi.com>, she...@visi.com (Steve
Sheldon) wrote:
> Can't you people read?
Tell me where you read about the "hill".
------------------------------------------------------------------
D#lete "blizzard" to reply email.
"Kings of the High Frontier" -- Victor Koman, 1997 Prometheus Award
See Claire Wolfe's review; order: http://www.pulpless.com/king.html
Welcome to Rancho Runnamukka: http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Top 5% of Web; mentioned in Time Mag.
A Military Action: http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum
Michael+Schneider
In article <a6HE.63$b%5.11...@ptah.visi.com>, she...@visi.com (Steve
Sheldon) wrote:
> I doubt.....
I'm sorry, I didn't catch what you were saying about Vince's glasses
bouncing down that "hill" in Fort Marcey Park.
Run it by me again.
Michael+Schneider
In article <6bvfph$igs$1...@shadow.skypoint.net>, John Logajan
<jlog...@mirage.skypoint.net> wrote:
> Steve Sheldon <she...@visi.com> wrote:
> > I doubt the White House would have hired someone who dresses so poorly, for
> > a security position.
>
> Are these attacks on Clinton witnesses getting lamer by the minute or what.
"Lame"?
That one could barely hobble from the bed to the pot.
Sam A. Kersh
she...@visi.com (Steve Sheldon) wrote:
> At least now I know why Hooked on Phonics is such a big advertiser on the
>Limbaugh show.
>
> Can't you people read?
Er, if you are not a listener, how would you know???
Sam A. Kersh
NRA Life Member
NRA-ILA Contributor
Second Amendment Foundation Contributor
TSRA, JPFO, LEAA
Ducks Unlimited
TP&WL Operation Game Thief
http://www.flash.net/~csmkersh/csmkersh.htm
No Spam, Please
===============================================================
If you're too busy to hunt, you're too busy.
Note: in off-seasons, substitute "fishing" for "hunting"
Read John Ross' "Unintended Consequences"
Gary Frazier
McPhillips, you're seriously delusional.
Clinton is staying, and Starr is on the way out...so is that asshole
Scaife. The worm has been outed.
--
Gary
http://www.efn.org/~gfrazier
jim hofmann
Gary Frazier wrote:
>
>
> Scaife. The worm has been outed.
YAWN! Scaife is OLD news, who cares - yesterday's papers?
We wanna know if the DNA analysis has been completed yet...
--- Jim
Knopp
In article <6bvk02$u0q$3...@brokaw.wa.com>, bulla...@justice.com (Greg
Smith) wrote:
<SNIP>
> She will be on trial, no doubt. Ken Starr has a long track record of
> intimidating witmesses with threats of prosecution, unless they testify to
> whatever story he wants the grand jury to hear. Poor Ken Starr after
Please cite such a proposterous claim. It's likely the result of years of
chemical dependancy and a severe crush on pudgy women in prison grays.
> three years and $40 million he is trying to build a case around Monica
> Lewinski who already has a huge credibility problem. Who would believe
> anything that she said?
I guess the same sort of people that would believe anything Bill Clinton said.
> The investigation of "special" prosecutor Kenneth Starr will begin soon.
> Starr seems as out of control as Richard Nixon was.
......in the little world inside your head.
--
Please remove PEZ from the address to reply via E-Mail. This is a
"Spam-Buster".
J. Reynolds
Bobby Archer wrote:
>
> Perhaps she should have thought of the consequences when she advised
> her daughter and Tripp on how lie under oath.
>
> Now she gets to teach by example.....
So, your telling me your part of the grand jury, or you were privy to
her conversations with her daughter? That you somehow "know" she told
her daughter to lie under oath because of one of those two things? Or
are you pyschic, able to read minds from a great distance? You've
listened to the tapes and seen the written document alleged to give
pointers on answering a grand jury?
All your facts are based on rumor, innuendo, and leaks made for
political gain. Try again when you have hard, proven facts. If it
turns out to be true, I will gladly allow Ms. Lewis to continue her
teaching lessons. Otherwise, I consider this a major mistake, and feel
that parents should have the same priviledge rights that spouses have.
It's ridiculous to think they don't, since blood is thicker (and a hell
of a lot more long lasting) then marriage.
J. Reynolds
John Logajan wrote:
>
> In mn.general J. Reynolds <cepheus...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > And we can argue the legality of those tapes to a great extent. Tripp's
> > original taping spree, which she took to Starr, was highly illegal under
> > both federal laws and the laws of the state of Maryland. Starr may have
> > granted her immunity, but Maryland hasn't yet and probably won't.
> > Having her wired on that premise seems shakily legal to me at best, not
> > to mention the fact that, from my understanding, the first wire tapped
> > yielded nothing of substance and he had to have Tripp go back and ask
> > more pointed and leading questions, which brings up the issue of
> > possible entrapment.
>
> Tripp didn't break federal laws. Whether she knew there was a Maryland
> law has been ruled by Maryland's Supreme Court twice to be an
> exonerating circumstance (since it varies from other state laws and
> the federal law.)
My understanding was that Starr tried to grant her immunity from federal
and state laws, which would imply that she broke some federal statute.
The state of Maryland implied the same when it said Starr could exempt
her from federal prosecution, but not state.
>
> [I will again assert my Libertarian belief that anyone ought to be
> able to tape their own conversations.]
And I will defend your right to want this. I, however, don't like the
idea that my boss or a co-worker could tape me at anytime they wish,
possibly talking about something I do outside of work on my own time and
is none of their business and then use it to blackmail me or incriminate
me.
> The state law is not binding upon federal actions, so both the tapes
> themselves and their catalysis to further investigations is within the
> law.
The constitution guarantees that right of states to make laws not
covered by the federal government. Assuming that your right and their
is no federal law, then this would be a serious abridgement of that
constitutional guarantee.
> As to entrapment -- this would be a hard sell, since Lewinsky is on
> Tripp's tapes establishing a pattern of attempting to suborn perjury.
> Entrapment would require the government to entice Lewinsky to do
> something illegal that she wouldn't have done otherwise -- clearly
> not the case here (i.e. the "talking points.")
Too true, the "talking points" definitely point a solid finger at
Monica's perjury and guilt. But, since that tape falls under the wire,
which is based on the earlier illegal tapings, it's still of dubious
legal value. And this still leaves us wondering why Starr needs to call
her mom to witness if he has all of this evidence from the tapes. How
much more proof do you need that she lied, other than her saying "We
should lie." Makes me wonder how much of the information being leaked
about what's on these tapes is really true, for that sounds like a cut
and dried case of perjury to me.
J. Reynolds
LShaping wrote:
>
> John Logajan, they are grasping at straws here. The cannibal left wants
> the honorable Linda Tripp punished because she is the patriot who began the
> end of Bill Clinton's career.
Oh god... this is about as logical and intelligent as the "vast right
wing conspiracy" theory floated by Hillary.
Please... all we have here is an oversexed president, an over-eager
intern, an over-zelous tape making secretary, and an incompetent special
prosecutor. They are all lying, all trying to save face, and not a damn
one of them deserves the title patriot.
Scott Erb
In article <34e3655d...@news.nyct.net>, cay...@nyct.net says...
>Gosh, you guys really are getting desperate.
>
>Got yourselves a little too deep into an identification
>with that criminal in the White House it appears.
>
>Too bad.
(snicker)
Too bad for you, since not only is Clinton enjoying record popularity, but
there is virtually no chance any of this will touch him. You're
frustrated, impotent, and wrong.
Face it, the American people have rejected your arguments. They have
elected Clinton twice, and attempts to fish for any reason to get rid of
him have caused a backlash.
Clinton has been well served by his enemies. You guys make yourself look
so kooky, you make Clinton more popular.
It is deliciously ironic, and I love watching it!
You know, I never really liked Clinton very much, but the way he
frustrates folk like you make it a joy to have him as President.
Ah, but go on with your impotent and pathetic accusations and lies.
Sometimes losers just come back for more, like Charlie Brown running up to
kick Lucy's football. But it makes for great entertainment to watch, and
soemtimes its fun to pile on a bit and make fun of you all ;)
PLMerite
Steve Sheldon wrote in message ...
> The purpose of the Secret Service is to protect the President. Their
>purpose is not to watchdog the President so that inquiries can be made
>later. What they see and what they here in the performance of their job
>duties is far more confidential than any lawyer or doctor privilege.
>
The purpose of the Secret Service is to protect the President from physical
harm, not to be keepers of his illegal activities. They are sworn law
enforcement officers, not the damn Mafia. They wouldn't hesitate to testify
against you for something you did, so why should they be expected to turn a
blind eye to something illegal that the President might do - that's what
you'd expect from, say, Saddam Hussein's bodyguards, not the President of
the United States'.
>>> I can understand the desire to find out the truth. But I question the
>>>motives when the search for truth hurts people.
>
>>If the truth hurts those who commit crimes, it is not reason
>>to not use every allowable means to persue it.
>
> And if the search hurts innocent bystanders?
What innocent bystanders? Monica, Clinton, Jordan, etc., are all adults.
The inquiry is not about whether Monica performed oral sex on Bill Clinton -
it's about whether she was asked to commit perjury by the Pres. or someone
close to him in her deposition to Paula Jones' lawyers. It's about whether
she gave prepared (by someone else) 'talking points' to Linda Tripp
encouraging her to give false testimony. The sexual aspect that is being
played up is merely a distraction, which allows the Left to hide behind the
charade that 'what he does in his private life is his business.'
Regards, PLMerite
PLMerite
Steve Sheldon wrote in message ...
>
>>> Isn't there something that permits a wife from testtifying against a
>>>husband?
>
>>Yes, it is considered a violation of your right to privacy and your right
>>not to testify against yourself. The courts believe that marriage is such
>>a close relationship that it requires some protections from state inquery.
>
> That's what I thought.
>
>>> Shouldn't this same provision hold for parents/children?
>
>>No. Children grow up and move away. Not the same.
>
> Were you abused as a child? I can't understand anybody who isn't close to
>their parents.
>
> I can't understand any parent who wouldn't be willing to go to jail rather
>than testify against their child.
>
> Perhaps you need to learn more family values?
>
So, children shouldn't be allowed to testify against their parents in cases
of abuse?
How about father/son rape teams (that is not unheard of, either) ?
What if the child did something to YOU and the parent knew about it, would
you still be for allowing the parent to cover-up for the child?
Spouses testify against each other all the time, usually to save themselves
from prosecution.
If some legal scholar could give the historical background behind the reason
spouses cannot be forced to testify, it might help here.
Regards, PLMerite
Jerry Peacock
>All your facts are based on rumor, innuendo, and leaks made for
>political gain. Try again when you have hard, proven facts. If it
>turns out to be true, I will gladly allow Ms. Lewis to continue her
>teaching lessons. Otherwise, I consider this a major mistake, and feel
>that parents should have the same priviledge rights that spouses have.
>It's ridiculous to think they don't, since blood is thicker (and a hell
>of a lot more long lasting) then marriage.
Mother Lewinsky has an option. She can refuse to testify against her
daughter's interests, thereby daring Starr to jail her for contempt. So
let's
see how loyal she is to her daughter. If she goes to jail, she proves she is
willing to sacrifice for her daughter. If she doesn't go to jail and
snitches
out her own flesh and blood, well, so much for blood being thicker, etc.
>--
>"The church says the earth is flat. But I know it's
> round for I have seen it's shadow on the moon and
> I have more faith in a shadow then the church" - Magellan
But Magellan was wrong. A cone can cast a round shadow. So can an egg.
So can a crescent. And how could he prove it was the earth's shadow.
No, to put his faith in a shadow was a supreme act of foolishness.
pyotr filipivich
gt6...@gypsy.cad.gatech.edu (Lone_Wolf) writes:
>In <6bvles$kbk$2...@shadow.skypoint.net> John Logajan <jlog...@mirage.skypoint.net> writes:
>#Gary Frazier <gfra...@efn.org> wrote:
>#> I wonder what role Monica played in the failed land deal that is
>#> ostensibly the subject of Starr's inquisition?
>#You are mistaken. The investigation of the Jones civil case perjury
>#is a seperately authorized by Reno and the three judge Appeals court
>#panel. They could have handed it to a new IC, but since Starr was
>#already looking into Hubble trouble, the AJ figured Starr might as
>#well handle it too.
>#Blame Reno, not Starr. Actually, blame Clinton.
>Actually, the legal tie-in is Vernon Jordan, the source of several lucrative
>contracts to Hubbell, contracts in which nobody knows what kind of services
>Hubbell performed. But he conveniently developed a lot of memory lapses
>about what went on in the Whitewater affair. Then somebody (Tripp) came
>to Starr and indicated that they had evidence that Jordan was helping
>someone (Lewinsky) obtain employment and advising her to deny an affair
>with Clinton in the Jones case. So Lewinsky suddenly becomes a witness to
>a pattern of possibly illegal behavior, behavior that Starr was already
>chartered to investigate.
To quote from a column in the Wall Street Journal:
"Had Mr Clinton not delayed the Paula Jones trial so long, her
lawyers wouldn't have been around to subpeona other women. Had
his agents not smeared Paula Jones, maybe she'd have settled her
suit long ago. Had superlawyer Bob Bennett not said Linda Tripp
[actually, another woman iirc] wasn't believable, maybe she wouldn't
have taped her friend Ms Lewinsky."
and then goes on to connect how Hubble was paid by a Revlon affiliated
company just before Hubble suffered his memory lapse. Keywords: "Vernon
Jordan, Revlon, aid to possible witnesses".
The last couple sentences are interesting:
"When he was first appointed, Mr Starr was every Democrat's
favorite Republican Lawyer, the type who thought everyone played
by the Marquess of Queensbury rules. He's learned the hard way
that this White House doesn't. If he's now a threat to the
Clinton presidency, Mr Clinton has made him so."
Starr 'War': Back to Smash-Mouth Defense.
by Paul A. Gigot
Pg a14 (editorials) 98 Jan 30.
>James
>#--
># - John Logajan -- jlog...@skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 -
># - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
># - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan -
--
pyotr filipivich aka Nikolai Petrovich.
A herring is a herring, but a good cigar is a cuban.
A stroke of the brush does not guarentee art from the bristles.
Jerry Peacock
>>> > Isn't there something that permits a wife from testtifying against a
Yes. Yes. But it doesn't. Same for brother/brother (Kazinsky). Lover/lover
(Zamora), friend/friend (Nichols, Fourier).
jim hofmann
J. Reynolds wrote:
>
> Bobby Archer wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps she should have thought of the consequences when she advised
> > her daughter and Tripp on how lie under oath.
> >
> > Now she gets to teach by example.....
>
> So, your telling me your part of the grand jury, or you were privy to
> her conversations with her daughter? That you somehow "know" she told
> her daughter to lie under oath because of one of those two things? Or
> are you pyschic, able to read minds from a great distance? You've
> listened to the tapes and seen the written document alleged to give
> pointers on answering a grand jury?
>
> political gain. Try again when you have hard, proven facts. If it
The allegations and tape transcripts were published or broadcast in New
York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, ABC newsetc.
It's been three weeks. It is time for Clinton to tell his side of the
story.
--- Jim
Alanirving
You are absolutely correct about Starr. He's doing the job
he has been ask to do and he is doing it very well given
the WH stonewalling, ignoring subpoenas, etc.
Ask yourself who stands to gain by painting Starr the bad
guy?
al
LShaping
LShaping
Yup, we don't know half the story. Only Starr really knows. But it does
look like congress is getting ready to hang Bill Clinton.
Bobby Archer
On Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:49:50 GMT, gar...@gte.net (F. Prefect) wrote:
>
>The stupid fucker is worse that dirty. Getting Welinsky's Mother to
>provide testimony that would be of use if dumb fuck Starr is unable to
>bribe Welinsky into providing the Grand Jury with the testimony
Welinsky? You really ought to lay off the sauce.
I realize these are difficult times but.....
>(regardless of the truth) he wants to hear is a travesty. He's a
>piece of shit that Reno should flush down the nearest toilet.
I wonder what poor Ms Lewinsky feels when she closes her eyes
and sees her precious young daughter with the First Pervert's potus
jammed down her throat?
Got any kids Ford?
Bobby Archer
On Thu, 12 Feb 1998 13:31:36 -0500, "J. Reynolds"
<cepheus...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>David Goldman wrote:
>>
>> > Isn't there something that permits a wife from testtifying against a
>> >husband? Shouldn't this same provision hold for parents/children?
>>
>> > I'm also concerned about the requests for testimony from Secret Service
>> >Agents.
>>
>> I am concerned about the mealy-mouth responses of Bill Clinton when
>> asked simple questions by the media.....
>>
>> Marcia Lewis was NOT testifying against her daughter since her
>> daughter has not been indicted and is not on trial. Marcia was
>> testifying on issues related to Clinton's possible perjury.
>
>Which she, never have worked at the white house, would know nothing
>about, UNLESS they are asking her questions about her daughter. In
>others words, asking her to incriminate her own child and show she has
>committed perjury.
>
>In every other instance of a grand jury investigation except this one
>with an independent prosecutor, she would never have been called. Even
>the most vigorous prosector wouldn't stoop to asking a parent to do that
>to their child.
Gary Cruse
On Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:16:40 -0500, jim hofmann <jhof...@erols.com>
graced us all with:
Gary Frazier wrote:
> Scaife. The worm has been outed.
Here, broomboy, out this worm:
Judicial Watch, the conservative group, cited questions raised by
a military pathologist who says Brown could have been shot before the
his Air Force plane crashed into the Croatian mountains in filing the
request with three federal appeals court judges who appoint
independent councils.
The request was immediately supported by the District of Columbia
chapter of the NAACP.
--
Gary
vrwc-crypto
Code Word "Wright-Wing":
The lady across the hall tried to rob a department store...
With a pricing gun... She said, "Give me all of the money
in the vault, or I'm marking down everything in the store."
Bill Kasper
The late bulla...@justice.com (Greg Smith) gave us the following newsflash
from beyond the grave:
<snip>
=Starr seems as out of control as Richard Nixon was.
...and using the same set of logical analitical abilities, you can conclude
that fish are those little winged creatures that nest in trees..
Sometimes, I have a hard time separating the pro-active Clinton operatives
from the plain old vanilla-variety idiots who simply flawlessly parrot their
masters' lines. Which are you, Echo or Eichmann?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Kasper, Militia of One,
SIGINT, Mechanized Information Cavalry, VR-WC->
"Conspire early, and often"
Michael+Schneider
In article <6bu2f2$dn$1...@blaze.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com
(Michael Rivero) wrote:
"We saw what appeared to be a flare going straight up. As a matter of fact,
we thought it was from a boat. It was a bright reddish-orange color. Once it
went into flames I knew that it wasn't a flare."
- Lou Desyron, Flight 800 eye-witness; ABC World News Sunday; 07/21/96.
"I looked up because it sounded like thunder. I kept looking trying to
figure out what it was. And that's when I saw a flare come off the water.
The flare, trailing orange flame, shot up roughly at a 45 degree angle, then
rapidly increased it's angle of ascent. Then it appeared to strike
something. This was the strangest thing I ever saw. Everyone calls it a
'missile theory,' but when you see something, you know what you see, and I
didn't see a 'theory'."
- Tom Dougherty, Flight 800 eye-witness; interviewed on Hard Copy, 1996
"It was what we would best describe as a boat flare, a reddish object going
up. It went up and a few seconds later we saw an explosion in the sky. I
can't say if it came off shore or on shore. At first, we thought it was a
boat flare. It zigzagged a little. We thought it was strange. Then, several
seconds later, we saw an eruption of fire. We never heard anything. We saw a
fireball, and at that point we identified what was an aircraft. We could see
it fluttering down. We were the third boat on Long Island to report the
incident to the Coast Guard. It was something going up to it beforehand.
Yes, I saw flaming debris go down. Something attracted us to the area before
it exploded. And even my wife and my oldest daughter, we all were witnesses
to it. There definitely was something there first before the aircraft went
down."
- Donald Eick, Flight 800 eye-witness; October 20, 1997; The
Press-Enterprise, Riverside, CA.
"I picked it up three seconds before it turned into a bright white ball,
which split. I thought it was fireworks. And then I didn't know what to
think because from the white ball, I saw two wide orange bands of light fall
down, obviously the fuel igniting. I'll lay my ass on the table and tell the
president or the FBI, and someone can hypnotize me: There was no way that
red light was descending. It was ascending. It made contact with what turned
out to be that airplane and made a white bright light and then split in two.
If I were in a courtroom and the prosecutor says I've got an eyewitness,
then I become a trump card. We're not just one witness but 135 or more
strong. I saw something hit the right side of the plane. My opinion was it
blew the wing off on impact. I assumed something went through the airplane,
like behind first class and into the wing. My honest opinion, my gut
feeling, is that we have the most brilliant people in the world and the best
technology, [and] if they've been on scene for a year and they've not come
up with something, as a critical thinker I have to ask, could they be
covering up something?"
- William Gallagher, fisherman from N.J. who witnessed Flight 800 crash;
October 20, 1997, The Press-Enterprise
"[The FBI] said, 'Are you sure you didn't see something going down and not
going up?' I said, 'No....Gosh sakes I ain't that stupid. I ought to be able
to tell if something is going up in the air or going down in the air. No,
and I said I'm not changing my mind about it. I'll stick to that until I
die. I said I saw something going up and I said there was no question in my
mind. I said I'm telling you what I saw."
- Roland Penney, Flight 800 eye-witness; quoted from an interview with Cdr.
William Donaldson presented at the AIM conference, October 18, 1997.
"It looked like a big skyrocket going up. The flash looked like a rocket
launch at a fireworks display".
- Paul Runyan, Flight 800 eye-witness; N.Y. Daily News, 11/09/96
"More than 150 credible witnesses - including several scientists and
business executives - have told the FBI and military experts they saw a
missile destroy TWA 800. 'Some of these people are extremely, extremely
credible,' a top federal official said. 'When we asked what they saw and
where they saw it, the witnesses out east pointed to the west, and the
people to the west pointed to the east'."
- The New York Post, September 22, 1996.
"Almost due south [of the helicopter], there was a hard white light, like
burning pyrotechnics, in level flight. I was trying to figure out what it
was. It was the wrong color for flares. It struck an object coming from the
right and made it explode."
- Capt. Chris Baur, eye-witness to Flight 800 crash; July 1996.
"This is either a train wreck in the sky, or an explosive device - mid-air,
outside the plane. The measurements [from the flight recorder] indicate
there was an explosion - a big explosion - outside the cockpit."
- Navy Cmdr. William Donaldson (ret.); a former plane crash investigator;
Louisville Courier-Journal, 1-9-98
"My God! Somebody's shooting at that airplane!"
- Crew of a British Airways jet flying behind Flight 800 whom radioed to air
traffic control; July 17, 1996.
"I know what I saw. I saw an ordnance explosion. And whatever I saw, the
explosion of the fuel was not the initiator of the event. It was one of the
results. Something happened before that which was the initiator of the
disaster.''
- Frederick C. Meyer, An Air National Guard helicopter pilot who witnessed
the explosion of TWA Flight 800; 7/29/97; Riverside Press.
"We know what we saw. We weren't drunk. I looked up and my immediate
response was, I never saw an alert flare like that. It was projecting upward
with a stream of smoke behind. I don't think our accounts will be reflected
in the final version [of the FBI report]. I have a hard time believing that
the FBI believes its conclusions. I don't believe that the truth is ever
going to come out."
- Jim Naples, Flight 800 eye-witness; November 24, 1997, The New York
Observer, (p.16)
"She [Ms. Osborn] said they were mistaken in what they saw. That's not very
professional, and it's not the way to dispute eyewitness statements. Those
witness statements should be part of the public record. And they [the
F.B.I.] have to come up with a credible scenario of why the eyewitnesses saw
what they saw."
- Paul Marcone - Press Secretary to Rep. James Traficant - House Aviation
Subcommittee
"It's (the C.I.A.) message to the eyewitnesses: Shut up, you didn't see
anything." (referring to the CIA-made video)
- Philip Weiss - The New York Observer - November 24, 1997
"All evidence would point to a missile. All those witnesses who saw a streak
that hit the airplane...you have to assume it's a missile. In an
investigation like this, you can't overlook anything."
- Adm. Thomas Moorer, former Chairman of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff;
Louisville Courier-Journal, 1-9-98
Sven Faret, Private Pilot - Airborne
"Pin flash of light near the shore" - "It looked like a rocket launch at
a fireworks display. My first impression was that the National Guard had
shot down one of their own planes."
Colonel Stratemeier - Pilot
"said he had seen what appeared to be the trail of a shoulder fired SAM
ending in a flash on the 747"
Richard Grauer (25 yr old Fishing Tackle sales)
"It was a thin trail of smoke going up fast - then there was this huge
pink ball of fire"
Mike & Claire - The Rancho Runnamukka http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/
http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/CRASH/TWA/CIAVIDEO/ciavideo.html
Awarded a Lycos "Top 5%" of the web!
Craighenry
>From: gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier)
>Clinton is staying, and Starr is on the way out...so is that asshole
>Scaife. The worm has been outed.
>--
> Gary
yes Clinton is staying. the timing was never right for impeachment. Starr
has wanted out a long time..... but when he goes he will send a voluminous
report to congress which will be very interesting indeed. mr. scaife will
still have his hundreds of millions of dollars to spend as he wishes..... he is
going nowhere.
UltraZ
bulla...@justice.com (Greg Smith) wrote:
>In article <6bvgs7$m...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
>LSha...@worldnet.att.net, LShaping, says...
>>
>>> > I am concerned about the mealy-mouth responses of Bill Clinton when
>>> > asked simple questions by the media.....
>>> >
>>> > Marcia Lewis was NOT testifying against her daughter since her
>>> > daughter has not been indicted and is not on trial. Marcia was
>>> > testifying on issues related to Clinton's possible perjury.
>>
>>
>>> Which she, never have worked at the white house, would know nothing
>>> about, UNLESS they are asking her questions about her daughter. In
>>> others words, asking her to incriminate her own child and show she has
>>> committed perjury.
>>
>>
>>Amazing, how a response can totally ignore the post it is in response to.
>>Monica is not on trial. Get it?
>>
>She will be on trial, no doubt. Ken Starr has a long track record of
>intimidating witmesses with threats of prosecution, unless they testify to
>whatever story he wants the grand jury to hear. Poor Ken Starr after
>three years and $40 million he is trying to build a case around Monica
>Lewinski who already has a huge credibility problem. Who would believe
>anything that she said?
>The investigation of "special" prosecutor Kenneth Starr will begin soon.
>Starr seems as out of control as Richard Nixon was.
Must be a living hell down in the basement of the WH.,
UZ
David Makin
G'day all
Michael+Schneider <mi...@blizzard.visi.com> wrote in article
<mike1-12029...@13-106.dynamic.visi.com>...
> In article <6bu2f2$dn$1...@blaze.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com
> (Michael Rivero) wrote:
>
> "We saw what appeared to be a flare going straight up. As a matter of
fact,
<much deleted>
This has been posted numberous times before, it is a highly selective
section of witness statements about the TWA-800 disaster and has been
criticised in a.d.a and a.c without any recent response from the original
poster (who is still posting on these ng at least).
Since Michael+Schneider hasn't added anything to it I believe that it's
reposting by him/her is just spam and/or an attempted Troll.
If you would like to discuss this post and the TWA-800 missile theory then
please only reply to the alt.conspiracy newsgroup as that is where it
belongs.
David
views expressed in this post are not the responsibility of my employer,
wife or pet cat.
Martin McPhillips
On 12 Feb 1998 16:37:12 -0800, gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier) wrote:
>In <34e3655d...@news.nyct.net> cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips) writes:
>
>
>>Gosh, you guys really are getting desperate.
>
>>Got yourselves a little too deep into an identification
>>with that criminal in the White House it appears.
>
>McPhillips, you're seriously delusional.
>
>Clinton is staying, and Starr is on the way out...so is that asshole
>Scaife. The worm has been outed.
Uh huh...
Gosh, you guys really are getting desperate.
Got yourselves a little too deep into an identification
with that criminal in the White House it appears.
John Logajan
Gary Frazier <gfra...@efn.org> wrote:
> Clinton is staying, and Starr is on the way out...so is that asshole
> Scaife. The worm has been outed.
Scaife must be an enemy of the state, ehy? How do you plan to off him?
--
- John Logajan -- jlog...@skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 -
- 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
Nevets
On 13 Feb 1998 00:34:29 GMT, "LShaping" <LSha...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
>John Logajan, they are grasping at straws here. The cannibal left wants
>the honorable Linda Tripp punished because she is the patriot who began the
>end of Bill Clinton's career.
Patriot? How so?
Gary Cruse
On Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:07:59 -0500, "J. Reynolds"
<cepheus...@hotmail.com> graced us all with:
> Otherwise, I consider this a major mistake, and feel
>that parents should have the same priviledge rights that spouses have.
>It's ridiculous to think they don't, since blood is thicker (and a hell
>of a lot more long lasting) then marriage.
On the surface, this seems reasonable. As it turns out,
the fact that blood relations are stronger means that forcing
related people to testify against each other is less likely
to destroy the bond, than is placing the same stress on the
a marriage. Since breaking up a marriage is a likelier
outcome, the marriage is protected.
>--
--
Gary
vrwc-crypto
Code Word "Wright-Wing":
My house is on the median strip of a highway.
You don't really notice, except I have to
leave the driveway doing 60 MPH.
Ian Goddard
On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 02:02:41 (Michael+Schneider) wrote:
>"My God! Somebody's shooting at that airplane!"
>- Crew of a British Airways jet flying behind Flight 800 whom radioed to air
>traffic control; July 17, 1996.
IAN: This is a pretty significant quote.
What is the source for it? How did it come
to be known and quoted? I'd like to include
it in any future witness references, so long
as it can be accurately and clearly referenced.
Is this a genuine Rivero post?
**************************************************************
VISIT Ian Williams Goddard ---> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
______________________________________________________________
IDENTITY MATRIX | I D E N T I T Y C O N S E R V A T I O N
-----------------| The basis of logic is identity (ID). The
1 2 3 | basis of ID is difference. Degrees of dif-
_________ | ference can be quantified as ID units. The
1 | 0 1 2 | | ID Matrix shows the ID units of three num-
| | | bers, and may do so unto infinity. The ID
2 |-1 0 1 | | units of each number are derived from the
| | | others, and therefore ID is holistic not
3 |-2 -1 0 | | atomistic. As the sum of all ID units unto
----------- | infinity equals 0, identity is conserved.
_________________|____________________________________________
GODDARD'S METAPHYSICS-> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/meta.htm
______________________________________________________________
Martin McPhillips
On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 03:26:14 GMT, gcr...@vrwc.org (Gary Cruse) wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:07:59 -0500, "J. Reynolds"
><cepheus...@hotmail.com> graced us all with:
>
>> Otherwise, I consider this a major mistake, and feel
>>that parents should have the same priviledge rights that spouses have.
>>It's ridiculous to think they don't, since blood is thicker (and a hell
>>of a lot more long lasting) then marriage.
>
> On the surface, this seems reasonable. As it turns out,
> the fact that blood relations are stronger means that forcing
> related people to testify against each other is less likely
> to destroy the bond, than is placing the same stress on the
> a marriage. Since breaking up a marriage is a likelier
> outcome, the marriage is protected.
Come on Gary, Ma Barker and the Boys ought to have
had the privilege.
Martin McPhillips
Because she recognized that in the United States you shouldn't
be cornered and cajoled into lying for the President when
he's being sued for sexual harassment.
She protected herself, and her absolute prerogative not
to have to lie for a slob of a guy who happens to be
the Chief Executive.
RHA
In article <6bvgan$igs$2...@shadow.skypoint.net>,
John Logajan <jlog...@mirage.skypoint.net> wrote:
>J. Reynolds <cepheus...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In every other instance of a grand jury investigation except this one
>> with an independent prosecutor, she would never have been called. Even
>> the most vigorous prosector wouldn't stoop to asking a parent to do that
>> to their child.
>
>forced a father suffering from Alzheimers(sp) to testify against his son.
Yes, you're absolutely correct; it was Presidential Orders
61A/94-SEC-1-d approving the use of instruments of physical
persuasion and mental tom-foolery in persecution of all
Federal Jay-Walking felonies and above. You must be keeping
a close eye on such POs.
OTOH, it was probably a republican hold-over that pulled that
trick.
>
>In Lewis's case, she is idenified in her daughter's tapes as being a party
>to suborning perjury, convincing Linda Tripp to lie in the Paula Jones
>civil matter. That's why Lewis initially pleaded the 5th and had to be
>granted use immunity.
>
>Lewinsky is already cooked without her mother's testimony. The FBI and
>OIC had Tripp wired and witnessed Lewinsky's attempts to suborn
>perjury. Her mother could scarecly add more damage, since it is an
>open and shut case.
>
>--
> - John Logajan -- jlog...@skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 -
> - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
> - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan -
--
rha
Martin McPhillips
On Thu, 12 Feb 98 21:36:35 EST, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott Erb) wrote:
>In article <34e3655d...@news.nyct.net>, cay...@nyct.net says...
>
>>Gosh, you guys really are getting desperate.
>>
>>Got yourselves a little too deep into an identification
>>with that criminal in the White House it appears.
>>
>>Too bad.
>
>(snicker)
>
>Too bad for you, since not only is Clinton enjoying record popularity, but
>there is virtually no chance any of this will touch him. You're
>frustrated, impotent, and wrong.
Popularity counts for very little in a grand jury investigation as
the evidence mounts that you perjured yourself, subornded perjury
from others, obstructed justice, and used job offers to
obtain silence.
You're ignorant, delusional, and ridiculous.
>Face it, the American people have rejected your arguments.
Oh, really? Well, there's 23 American people in the grand jury
room. Let's see what they think.
>They have
>elected Clinton twice, and attempts to fish for any reason to get rid of
>him have caused a backlash.
Nixon.
>Clinton has been well served by his enemies. You guys make yourself look
>so kooky, you make Clinton more popular.
Clinton is "popular" because the economy is doing well, and
people are getting along all right. That, fortunately, is not
a ticket for him to break the law as he pleases. It was not
guys like me who brought this matter to the Attorney General
who recommended that the three-judge panel turn it
over to Ken Starr.
And it's not guys like me who are covering it 24-hours
a day.
And if you knew *anything* about what the polls are
saying, you would understand that the people are
content to wait until the facts come in, and we'll see
what happens when that happens.
The President has already looked the people in the
eye and said "I did not have sexual relations with that
woman." "I never told anyone to lie."
Well, you might believe he was telling the truth, and
most of the American people might believe he was
lying, but they are going to wait to find out what the
truth is.
>It is deliciously ironic, and I love watching it!
Really? Do you even have the faintest idea exactly what
it is that you are watching? It doesn't sound to me like
you do, or even that you could.
>You know, I never really liked Clinton very much, but the way he
>frustrates folk like you make it a joy to have him as President.
You must be confusing me with someone who cares
whether you *really* liked him or not. But to the extent
that his scandals have brought characters like you out
of the woodwork, I would suppose there might be some
peculiar joy in Mudville from these travails.
>Ah, but go on with your impotent and pathetic accusations and lies.
>Sometimes losers just come back for more, like Charlie Brown running up to
>kick Lucy's football. But it makes for great entertainment to watch, and
>soemtimes its fun to pile on a bit and make fun of you all ;)
You should put your talents for "irony" to some appropriate
work. Try writing greeting cards for the United Nations.
Nevets
On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 03:41:50 GMT, cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips)
wrote:
Not to mention she lied about being someone's friend.
Michael+Schneider
In article <6c07hd$9eo$1...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, scot...@maine.maine.edu
(Scott Erb) wrote:
> In article <34e3655d...@news.nyct.net>, cay...@nyct.net says...
>
> >Gosh, you guys really are getting desperate.
> >
> >Got yourselves a little too deep into an identification
> >with that criminal in the White House it appears.
> >
> >Too bad.
>
> (snicker)
>
> Too bad for you, since not only is Clinton enjoying record popularity....
Adolf Hitler enjoyed record popularity.
Gary Cruse
On Thu, 12 Feb 1998 23:17:48 -0500, "PLMerite"
<Stoc...@smokebombhill.com> graced us all with:
>
>If some legal scholar could give the historical background behind the reason
>spouses cannot be forced to testify, it might help here.
Because it could break up the marriage. Brothers,
who don't sleep and reproduce together, can't
be so easily broken up.
--
Gary
vrwc-crypto
Code Word "Wright-Wing":
I used to be a bartender at the Betty Ford Clinic.
John Logajan
J. Reynolds <cepheus...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Tripp didn't break federal laws. Whether she knew there was a Maryland
>> law has been ruled by Maryland's Supreme Court twice to be an
>> exonerating circumstance (since it varies from other state laws and
>> the federal law.)
> My understanding was that Starr tried to grant her immunity from federal
> and state laws, which would imply that she broke some federal statute.
> The state of Maryland implied the same when it said Starr could exempt
> her from federal prosecution, but not state.
I've heard that from one of Drudge's original scoops -- but what Tripp
was granted immunity for (if anything) was never really spelled out.
Since she didn't break a federal wiretap law, I've guessed that she was
granted immunity for her part in conspiring to obstruct justice (coming up
with the idea to fake a medical condition to escape testifying.)
That's just a guess, of course.
> And I will defend your right to want this. I, however, don't like the
> idea that my boss or a co-worker could tape me at anytime they wish,
> possibly talking about something I do outside of work on my own time and
> is none of their business and then use it to blackmail me or incriminate
> me.
I think the incremental risk is much smaller than you suggest. After all,
if you are telling them incriminating or even just embarrasing stuff --
how do you intend to stop them from repeating it publicly -- tape or
no tape.
>> The state law is not binding upon federal actions, so both the tapes
>> themselves and their catalysis to further investigations is within the
>> law.
> The constitution guarantees that right of states to make laws not
> covered by the federal government. Assuming that your right and their
> is no federal law, then this would be a serious abridgement of that
> constitutional guarantee.
Huh? All I said was that the federal courts don't have to uphold the
state laws -- that's what the state courts are for.
> Monica's perjury and guilt. But, since that tape falls under the wire,
> which is based on the earlier illegal tapings, it's still of dubious
> legal value.
The taping wasn't illegal in federal law, so there is no problem in
federal court. However, I think I recall some talking head saying that
the tapes would even come in to a state court -- since they weren't
made by police. [For instance, if the police raid a mafia headquarters
and discover incriminating tape recordings that were made in violation
of the law, do you really think the court would or should throw them
out?]
> And this still leaves us wondering why Starr needs to call
> her mom to witness if he has all of this evidence from the tapes. How
> much more proof do you need that she lied, other than her saying "We
> should lie." Makes me wonder how much of the information being leaked
> about what's on these tapes is really true, for that sounds like a cut
> and dried case of perjury to me.
I believe it is all but certain as far as Monica is concerned. But no
one thinks Starr cares about going after Monica except to get up the
chain (Jordan, Hubbel, Clinton.) He wants to find out where the
talking points came from (did Mrs. Lewis write them herself?) and
where did Monica get the idea that perjury is seldom prosecuted --
a rare bit of information that might have come from a lawyer. Which
lawyer? Under what circumstances did he tell Monica this -- what
was he trying to encourage, if anything?
Mary E Knadler
In <a6HE.63$b%5.11...@ptah.visi.com> she...@visi.com (Steve Sheldon)
writes:
>
>mi...@200mhz604e.visi.com (MichaelSchneider) writes:
>
>
>
>>--coming up on six o'clock and it's time for WARY Talk Radio's
>>Clinton Deathwatch News. On Day 22 of the Deathwatch our top
>>story comes from Lewis C. Fox, a retired Secret Service officer
>>who claims to have stood guard outside the Oval Office while
>>President Bill Clinton met alone for forty minutes with Monica
>>Lewinsky, then a 21-year-old White House intern. Without
>>contradicting his account, White House sources sought to portray
>>Lewis, who retired after 27 years of service, as a man who wears
>>mismatched socks and only shaves for funerals. Doubt was also
>>cast on the story by Gennifer Flowers, who claims to have had a
>>12-year sexual relationship with Clinton. "Forty minutes?" she
>>said to reporters. "Not in his wildest dream."
>
>
> I doubt the White House would have hired someone who dresses so
poorly, for
>a security position.
>
>
> I am somewhat concerned by these recent inquisitions by Starr. The
idea of
>requiring a mother to testify against her own daughter seems puzzling.
>
> Isn't there something that permits a wife from testtifying against a
>husband? Shouldn't this same provision hold for parents/children?
>
>
> I'm also concerned about the requests for testimony from Secret
Service
>Agents.
>
>
the
>motives when the search for truth hurts people.
How about McVeigh's sister had to send her brother to the
death chamber. Also the Kazinski family almost had the
same problem.
Imagine to expect these people to testify before a grand jury.
How perfectly AWFUL. When you advise your daughter to lie
in an affadvit, that might just happen wouldn't you think?
Some people evidently think they are above the law.
They are not!
yasmin2
Craighenry
>From: scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott Erb)
>Too bad for you, since not only is Clinton enjoying record popularity, but
>there is virtually no chance any of this will touch him. You're
>frustrated, impotent, and wrong.
>Face it, the American people have rejected your arguments. They have
>elected Clinton twice, and attempts to fish for any reason to get rid of
>him have caused a backlash.
We'll see about that in November. Oh, by the way, if the right is so impotent
and so out of step with "america", why are high level dems like DiFi and
Panetta refusing to run this year?
>you make Clinton more popular.
>
>
funny thing about popularity, Bush was at 90% in feb 1991, dropped to the
forties by summer of 1992.
>Ah, but go on with your impotent and pathetic accusations and lies.
>Sometimes losers just come back for more, like Charlie Brown running up to
>kick Lucy's football.
Yeah those republican losers, winning election after election at the state and
local level. if this be losing, give me more of it.
> But it makes for great entertainment to watch, and
>soemtimes its fun to pile on a bit and make fun of you all ;)
Now that i believe. the piling on part.
John Logajan
Craighenry <craig...@aol.com> wrote:
> funny thing about popularity, Bush was at 90% in feb 1991, dropped to the
> forties by summer of 1992.
When you are on the top, the only way to go is down. In some strategies
this is a disaster (peaking early.)
gary
On 13 Feb 1998 04:47:06 GMT, yas...@ix.netcom.com (Mary E Knadler)
wrote:
>
>
>How about McVeigh's sister had to send her brother to the
>death chamber. Also the Kazinski family almost had the
>same problem.
>
>Imagine to expect these people to testify before a grand jury.
>How perfectly AWFUL. When you advise your daughter to lie
>in an affadvit, that might just happen wouldn't you think?
>
>Some people evidently think they are above the law.
>
>They are not!
>
> yasmin2
Another lie posted by Mary....This is why you get no respect.
Show the proof that Anyone advised their daughter to lie in an
"affadvit"
Do you have no morals at all...is this tactic what you teach your
children?
Michael+Schneider
Quotes collected by the esteemable Michael Rivero:
"We saw what appeared to be a flare going straight up. As a matter of fact,
"My God! Somebody's shooting at that airplane!"
- Crew of a British Airways jet flying behind Flight 800 whom radioed to air
traffic control; July 17, 1996.
"I know what I saw. I saw an ordnance explosion. And whatever I saw, the
explosion of the fuel was not the initiator of the event. It was one of the
results. Something happened before that which was the initiator of the
disaster.''
- Frederick C. Meyer, An Air National Guard helicopter pilot who witnessed
the explosion of TWA Flight 800; 7/29/97; Riverside Press.
"We know what we saw. We weren't drunk. I looked up and my immediate
response was, I never saw an alert flare like that. It was projecting upward
with a stream of smoke behind. I don't think our accounts will be reflected
in the final version [of the FBI report]. I have a hard time believing that
the FBI believes its conclusions. I don't believe that the truth is ever
going to come out."
- Jim Naples, Flight 800 eye-witness; November 24, 1997, The New York
Observer, (p.16)
"She [Ms. Osborn] said they were mistaken in what they saw. That's not very
professional, and it's not the way to dispute eyewitness statements. Those
witness statements should be part of the public record. And they [the
F.B.I.] have to come up with a credible scenario of why the eyewitnesses saw
what they saw."
- Paul Marcone - Press Secretary to Rep. James Traficant - House Aviation
Subcommittee
"It's (the C.I.A.) message to the eyewitnesses: Shut up, you didn't see
anything." (referring to CIA's whitewash video)
- Philip Weiss - The New York Observer - November 24, 1997
"All evidence would point to a missile. All those witnesses who saw a streak
that hit the airplane...you have to assume it's a missile. In an
investigation like this, you can't overlook anything."
- Adm. Thomas Moorer, former Chairman of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff;
Louisville Courier-Journal, 1-9-98
Sven Faret, Private Pilot - Airborne
"Pin flash of light near the shore" - "It looked like a rocket launch at
a fireworks display. My first impression was that the National Guard had
shot down one of their own planes."
Colonel Stratemeier - Pilot
"said he had seen what appeared to be the trail of a shoulder fired SAM
ending in a flash on the 747"
Richard Grauer (25 yr old Fishing Tackle sales)
"It was a thin trail of smoke going up fast - then there was this huge
pink ball of fire"
From: C.C.J...@worldnet.att.net (C.C. Jordan) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997
02:55:29 GMT Message-ID: <33c59b43...@netnews.worldnet.att.net> I live
on eastern Long Island. I am good friends with several of the Air Force
flyers out of West Hampton. An USAF Blackhawk was flying (training) only
three miles away from Flight 800 on a heading to observe the crash. The Plane
Commander, a Major, said, in my presence, that he saw what he believed was a
missile, coming from sea level go up and explode. He stated this to NTSB
investigators and to Air Force debriefers. He is a gulf war veteran and has
seen many night time sam launches, both shoulder launched and fixed sight. No
one has yet to refute his observation. Could he be mistaken? Sure. Is it
likely he is mistaken? No. NTSB and the FAA have no **real** answer for the
crash, or do they? ....By the way, This guy was one of the pilots who flew
the Blackhawks 650 miles out into the atlantic to rescue stranded seamen,
refueling several times from a C-130. The Air force believes him. They are
the 106th Rescue Wing flying C-130 and Blackhawk aircraft. Top notch
professionals.
Colonel Stratemeier - Pilot
"said he had seen what appeared to be the trail of a shoulder fired SAM
ending in a flash on the 747"
Patrick Grant - 02:27pm Jul 19, 1997 ET (#300 of 321)
I live on Long Island. And there were more than a hundred people
out here including cops, firemen and National Guard who saw
something streak into the sky before the plane came down. Now
experts can tell you what would of, or should of, or could of
happened. But an eye witness will tell you what really happened.
And when a hundred people see something, it's not an illusion. I
believe the investigators are lying when they say they don't know
what happened. And I'd like to see them be forced to take
polygraphs. And even those who believe that the government isn't
running a cover up should support giving the investigators lie
detectors. We all want the truth, don't we?
Craighenry
Clintonite stonewalling continues. and here i thought the internet was going
to produce open, intellectual debate.....>Subject: Re: The Clinton Deathwatch
News...
>From: m...@guesswho.com (gary)
>Date: Fri, Feb 13, 1998 04:51 EST
>Message-id: <34e41790.4775179@news>
Proof comes at the trial. The grand jury decides if there is enough evidence
to proceed to trial. the tripp tapes have Monica saying that she discussed the
plan for tripp to lie with her mom.
so, it makes a lot of sense for the GJ to see if there is credible evidence
that Monica was telling the truth about that charge and if her mother was
participating in obstruction of justice.
JeH
>
> >>On 12 Feb 1998 19:53:38 GMT, bulla...@justice.com (Greg Smith)
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>The investigation of "special" prosecutor Kenneth Starr will begin soon.
> >>>Starr seems as out of control as Richard Nixon was.
> >>
> >>provide testimony that would be of use if dumb fuck Starr is unable to
> >>bribe Welinsky into providing the Grand Jury with the testimony
> >>(regardless of the truth) he wants to hear is a travesty. He's a
> >>piece of shit that Reno should flush down the nearest toilet.
>
> >Gosh, you guys really are getting desperate.
>
> >Got yourselves a little too deep into an identification
> >with that criminal in the White House it appears.
>
>
> Scaife. The worm has been outed.
> Gary
> http://www.efn.org/~gfrazier
> Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! http://www.cauce.org
Isn't it amazing when the liberals like Gary are so upset that they cannot see
the true villain in this case? The one who could not keep it in his pants with
a 21 year old? Sorry Gary baby, Starr is in this for the long haul and will
long be considered a hero in this mess for years to come. You're going down
Billy the Knobber!
pelmark
In article <6bvk02$u0q$3...@brokaw.wa.com>, bulla...@justice.com (Greg
Smith) wrote:
<SNIP ARTICLE>
> She will be on trial, no doubt. Ken Starr has a long track record
of
> intimidating witmesses with threats of prosecution, unless they
testify to
> whatever story he wants the grand jury to hear.
*Cite* it, please.
And when you post "Susan McDougall", then post the prosecution of her
that Ken Starr brought against her for not "...testify[ing] to
whatever story he wants the grand jury to hear".
> Poor Ken Starr after
> three years and $40 million he is trying to build a case around
Monica
> Lewinski who already has a huge credibility problem. Who would
believe
> anything that she said?
LOL! Another advocate of the Nanny State *lying* about money! Really
worried about that $40 million, are you? *Where* did you get "$40
million"?
Well, just to put it into perspective, by the time the radio plays 2
current hits, the federal government has spent $30 million. It does it
that in about 9 minutes, 24 hours a day, 365 days per year. Try
figuring out a $1.73 trillion dollar budget, and thanks for becoming a
Fiscal Conservative. Of course, this does not include the Social
Security surplus, spent off-budget, which Clinton now says must be
"saved".
Since you parasites have *never* met a federal hand out you don't
like, your sudden new interest in 0.0002% of the spending of the
proposed federal budget (and done over *three* years, which makes it
even less) is laughable.
IOW, your pompous windbag assertions aside, it *ain't* the money that
has you concerned. But thanks for playing.
> The investigation of "special" prosecutor Kenneth Starr will begin
soon.
> Starr seems as out of control as Richard Nixon was.
Starr is "out of control"? LOL!
Your Hero, President Clinton seems to be a touch out of control.
-
-
J. Reynolds
jim hofmann wrote:
>
> J. Reynolds wrote:
> >
> > Bobby Archer wrote:
> > >
> > So, your telling me your part of the grand jury, or you were privy to
> > her conversations with her daughter? That you somehow "know" she told
> > her daughter to lie under oath because of one of those two things? Or
> > are you pyschic, able to read minds from a great distance? You've
> > listened to the tapes and seen the written document alleged to give
> > pointers on answering a grand jury?
> >
> > All your facts are based on rumor, innuendo, and leaks made for
> > political gain. Try again when you have hard, proven facts. If it
>
> The allegations and tape transcripts were published or broadcast in New
> York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, ABC newsetc.
Never broadcast, only published by Newsweek who never says where they
got their access to the tapes, which IMO implies another leak. I also
noted that the quotes came from tape number 2 of the wire, and not tape
number 1, which still suggest that Starr got nothing from Tripp's first
conversation and had to have her go back with leading questions to
incriminate Clinton (except for the question points... Monica
incriminated herself well enough on that one all alone, but that still
didn't get the main target, the pres.). Since you, personally, have not
heard the tapes nor have the knowledge of where Newsweek gets them from
(although maybe you do... I am making an assumption here about your
knowledge of the case and assumptions can always be wrong), you are
basing your opinion on my above stated list: rumors, innuendos and
leaks.
> It's been three weeks. It is time for Clinton to tell his side of the
> story.
>
> --- Jim
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I wish he would. It probably wouldn't
do anything but muddy an already confusing situation, but so be it.
--
"The church says the earth is flat. But I know it's
round for I have seen it's shadow on the moon and
I have more faith in a shadow then the church" - Magellan
J. Reynolds
John Logajan wrote:
>
> I've heard that from one of Drudge's original scoops -- but what Tripp
> was granted immunity for (if anything) was never really spelled out.
> Since she didn't break a federal wiretap law, I've guessed that she was
> granted immunity for her part in conspiring to obstruct justice (coming up
> with the idea to fake a medical condition to escape testifying.)
> That's just a guess, of course.
It's as good a guess as any I've seen so far. I would have to think
that maybe that was the intent of his immunity declaration, especially
in the face of no federal wire-tapping laws.
>
> > And I will defend your right to want this. I, however, don't like the
> > idea that my boss or a co-worker could tape me at anytime they wish,
> > possibly talking about something I do outside of work on my own time and
> > is none of their business and then use it to blackmail me or incriminate
> > me.
>
> I think the incremental risk is much smaller than you suggest. After all,
> if you are telling them incriminating or even just embarrasing stuff --
> how do you intend to stop them from repeating it publicly -- tape or
> no tape.
>
Just because they can repeat it, doesn't mean it's true. Just ask Ms.
Tripp who tried to repeat a number of juicy tidbits she thought she had,
only to be labeled a kook.
She was reduced to taping a "good friend" of hers to be vindicated.
>
> > The constitution guarantees that right of states to make laws not
> > covered by the federal government. Assuming that your right and their
> > is no federal law, then this would be a serious abridgement of that
> > constitutional guarantee.
>
> Huh? All I said was that the federal courts don't have to uphold the
> state laws -- that's what the state courts are for.
Can you explain why? My understanding of constitutional law suggests
that the federal courts absolutely have to uphold state law if the crime
was committed in that state and is not contrary to federal law. Just
because the case is federal shouldn't mean that they can ignore a states
right to protect their populace (and I'm assuming I've misunderstood
this constitutional guarantee and what your saying is correct, so work
it from that perspective).
>
> > Monica's perjury and guilt. But, since that tape falls under the wire,
> > which is based on the earlier illegal tapings, it's still of dubious
> > legal value.
>
> The taping wasn't illegal in federal law, so there is no problem in
> federal court. However, I think I recall some talking head saying that
> the tapes would even come in to a state court -- since they weren't
> made by police. [For instance, if the police raid a mafia headquarters
> and discover incriminating tape recordings that were made in violation
> of the law, do you really think the court would or should throw them
> out?]
If the tapes were made illegally, yes they should. Fair is fair, and if
we create of set of rules, everyone should play by them (yes...
including the president).
> > And this still leaves us wondering why Starr needs to call
> > her mom to witness if he has all of this evidence from the tapes. How
> > much more proof do you need that she lied, other than her saying "We
> > should lie." Makes me wonder how much of the information being leaked
> > about what's on these tapes is really true, for that sounds like a cut
> > and dried case of perjury to me.
>
> I believe it is all but certain as far as Monica is concerned. But no
> one thinks Starr cares about going after Monica except to get up the
> chain (Jordan, Hubbel, Clinton.) He wants to find out where the
> talking points came from (did Mrs. Lewis write them herself?) and
> where did Monica get the idea that perjury is seldom prosecuted --
> a rare bit of information that might have come from a lawyer. Which
> lawyer? Under what circumstances did he tell Monica this -- what
> was he trying to encourage, if anything?
Good points, all of which I hope will one day be answered. Nothing I
hate more than a scandal that never comes to conclusion. There is one
more possibility... there is at least one book on the market, written by
a trial lawyer, about how to testify before a grand jury. She could
just as easily gotten the information from that source. However, there
obviously are dozens of questions still answered, and I for one will
continue to reserve judgment on just what is going on in this case until
all the facts are out (and I mean publicly, not just leaked by the white
house or by Starr's office).
> --
> - John Logajan -- jlog...@skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 -
> - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
> - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan -
--
Steve Sheldon
m...@guesswho.com (gary) writes:
>On 13 Feb 1998 04:47:06 GMT, yas...@ix.netcom.com (Mary E Knadler)
>wrote:
>>
>>
>>How about McVeigh's sister had to send her brother to the
>>death chamber. Also the Kazinski family almost had the
>>same problem.
>>
>>Imagine to expect these people to testify before a grand jury.
>>How perfectly AWFUL. When you advise your daughter to lie
>>in an affadvit, that might just happen wouldn't you think?
>>
>>Some people evidently think they are above the law.
>>
>>They are not!
>>
>> yasmin2
>Another lie posted by Mary....This is why you get no respect.
>Show the proof that Anyone advised their daughter to lie in an
>"affadvit"
>Do you have no morals at all...is this tactic what you teach your
>children?
Now, this is actually something different.
If they are questioing her on whether she encouraged people to lie, then
she would be testifying against herself.
Not the same thing.
Steve Sheldon
"PLMerite" <Stoc...@smokebombhill.com> writes:
>Steve Sheldon wrote in message ...
>>
>>>> Isn't there something that permits a wife from testtifying against a
>>>>husband?
>>
>>>Yes, it is considered a violation of your right to privacy and your right
>>>not to testify against yourself. The courts believe that marriage is such
>>>a close relationship that it requires some protections from state inquery.
>>
>> That's what I thought.
>>
>>>> Shouldn't this same provision hold for parents/children?
>>
>>>No. Children grow up and move away. Not the same.
>>
>> Were you abused as a child? I can't understand anybody who isn't close to
>>their parents.
>>
>So, children shouldn't be allowed to testify against their parents in cases
>of abuse?
Please follow these steps:
#1. Take both hands, and place on sides of head.
#2. Find a nearby table top.
#3. Slam head into table top.
I'm hoping this will shake the rocks out of your head.
Hint: We we're talking about voluntarily testifying, we were talking about
forced testimony. You know... "If you don't testify, we'll hold you in jail
for contempt of court" type stuff.
>How about father/son rape teams (that is not unheard of, either) ?
See above.
>What if the child did something to YOU and the parent knew about it, would
>you still be for allowing the parent to cover-up for the child?
I would hope in this case that the parent had conscience enough to do the
right thing.
>Spouses testify against each other all the time, usually to save themselves
>from prosecution.
That's nice. See above.
>If some legal scholar could give the historical background behind the reason
>spouses cannot be forced to testify, it might help here.
It probably would.
But in the meantime, could you try to get the rocks out of your head?
Burnt Pancakes
David Makin attempted to suppress the truth in message
<01bd3826$daa374e0$6a14...@makind.mail.fisheries.nsw.gov.au>...
>G'day all
>
>[snip]
>
>Since Michael+Schneider hasn't added anything to it I believe that it's
>reposting by him/her is just spam and/or an attempted Troll.
>
Bald assed smear tactic ...
>If you would like to discuss this post and the TWA-800 missile theory then
>please only reply to the alt.conspiracy newsgroup as that is where it
>belongs.
>
Oh, you mean it's just another scurrilous act of the Vast Right Wing
Conspiracy - dolt!!
Burnt
Gary Frazier
>Quotes collected by the esteemable Michael Rivero:
And selectively presented, as Michael is wont to do.
"esteemable" is a pretty hilarous adjective to describe a obsessive,
compulsive liar like Rivero...but then, you're just like him in that
regard, Schneider.
acti...@worldonline.nl
mi...@blizzard.visi.com (Michael+Schneider) wrote:
>Quotes collected by the esteemable Michael Rivero:
<deleted>
Can anyone provide the list of TWA 800 passengers ?
John Logajan
J. Reynolds <cepheus...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > And I will defend your right to want this. I, however, don't like the
>> > idea that my boss or a co-worker could tape me at anytime they wish,
>> > possibly talking about something I do outside of work on my own time and
>> > is none of their business and then use it to blackmail me or incriminate
>> > me.
>>
>> I think the incremental risk is much smaller than you suggest. After all,
>> if you are telling them incriminating or even just embarrasing stuff --
>> how do you intend to stop them from repeating it publicly -- tape or
>> no tape.
>>
> Just because they can repeat it, doesn't mean it's true. Just ask Ms.
> Tripp who tried to repeat a number of juicy tidbits she thought she had,
> only to be labeled a kook.
> She was reduced to taping a "good friend" of hers to be vindicated.
Keep in mind that the taped conversations would only suffice to back
up actual conversations (ignoring faked tapes which is another topic.)
Therefore "friends" who make false claims about conversations are not
going to be providing tape recordings which prove themselves liars.
Therefore the only relevant case is "friends" repeating your actual
statements -- tape recorded or not.
Here's the kicker -- once they repeat your statements truthfully,
you have to decide whether to publicly lie in order to disavow them.
That's why I say the incremental risk is very small. If you are holding
them to a moral standard not to tape, then you must hold yourself to
a moral standard not to deny any truthful revelations they go public with.
Therefore there isn't much difference between a taped conversation
and an undenied witness statement.
>> All I said was that the federal courts don't have to uphold the
>> state laws -- that's what the state courts are for.
> Can you explain why? My understanding of constitutional law suggests
> that the federal courts absolutely have to uphold state law if the crime
> was committed in that state and is not contrary to federal law. Just
> because the case is federal shouldn't mean that they can ignore a states
> right to protect their populace (and I'm assuming I've misunderstood
> this constitutional guarantee and what your saying is correct, so work
> it from that perspective).
They just don't typically enforce each other's laws. That's different
than active interference. Federal and state courts have different
rules and enforce different laws.
chai...@gunssavelives.com
Don't agonize. Organize.
http://GunsSaveLives.com
if the S.S. sees the President commit a federal crime, they likely would
be obligated to ARREST hime on the spot!
that would be funny.
PLMerite wrote:
>
> Steve Sheldon wrote in message ...
>
> > The purpose of the Secret Service is to protect the President. Their
> >purpose is not to watchdog the President so that inquiries can be made
> >later. What they see and what they here in the performance of their job
> >duties is far more confidential than any lawyer or doctor privilege.
> >
> The purpose of the Secret Service is to protect the President from physical
> harm, not to be keepers of his illegal activities. They are sworn law
> enforcement officers, not the damn Mafia. They wouldn't hesitate to testify
> against you for something you did, so why should they be expected to turn a
> blind eye to something illegal that the President might do - that's what
> you'd expect from, say, Saddam Hussein's bodyguards, not the President of
> the United States'.
>
> >>> I can understand the desire to find out the truth. But I question the
> >>>motives when the search for truth hurts people.
> >
> >>If the truth hurts those who commit crimes, it is not reason
> >>to not use every allowable means to persue it.
> >
> > And if the search hurts innocent bystanders?
>
> What innocent bystanders? Monica, Clinton, Jordan, etc., are all adults.
> The inquiry is not about whether Monica performed oral sex on Bill Clinton -
> it's about whether she was asked to commit perjury by the Pres. or someone
> close to him in her deposition to Paula Jones' lawyers. It's about whether
> she gave prepared (by someone else) 'talking points' to Linda Tripp
> encouraging her to give false testimony. The sexual aspect that is being
> played up is merely a distraction, which allows the Left to hide behind the
> charade that 'what he does in his private life is his business.'
>
> Regards, PLMerite
--
Don't agonize. Organize.
http://GunsSaveLives.com
chai...@gunssavelives.com
see if this gets you there.
http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/SUICIDE/suicide.html
Michael+Schneider wrote:
>
> In article <a6HE.63$b%5.11...@ptah.visi.com>, she...@visi.com (Steve
> Sheldon) wrote:
>
> > I doubt.....
>
> I'm sorry, I didn't catch what you were saying about Vince's glasses
> bouncing down that "hill" in Fort Marcey Park.
>
> Run it by me again.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> D#lete "blizzard" to reply email.
>
> "Kings of the High Frontier" -- Victor Koman, 1997 Prometheus Award
> See Claire Wolfe's review; order: http://www.pulpless.com/king.html
>
> Welcome to Rancho Runnamukka: http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Top 5% of Web; mentioned in Time Mag.
> A Military Action: http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum
--
Mary E Knadler
In <6c1de5$i...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> "pelmark"
yasmin2
Alanirving
What's all this death watch crap?
Clinton's death would be the worst possible outcome to
the present unpleasantness in DC. I personally hope that
Clinton will live to be a very, very old man. Let him live
down the consequences of his shameful and distructive
life. Let him live on as an example to all of how important
character, particularily in leaders, is to the welfare of all
God fearing people and to the perpetuation of our representative republic.
May Bill live long enough to serve out his prison term.
al
Knopp
In article <mike1-12029...@13-106.dynamic.visi.com>,
mi...@blizzard.visi.com (Michael+Schneider) wrote:
> In article <6c07hd$9eo$1...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, scot...@maine.maine.edu
> (Scott Erb) wrote:
>
> > In article <34e3655d...@news.nyct.net>, cay...@nyct.net says...
> >
> > >Gosh, you guys really are getting desperate.
> > >
> > >Got yourselves a little too deep into an identification
> > >with that criminal in the White House it appears.
> > >
> > >Too bad.
> >
> > (snicker)
> >
> > Too bad for you, since not only is Clinton enjoying record popularity....
>
>
> Adolf Hitler enjoyed record popularity.
I hear that Nixon was a pretty popular guy too....won two elections and was
considered a pretty good president if I remember correctly.
--
Please remove PEZ from the address to reply via E-Mail. This is a
"Spam-Buster".
Mary E Knadler
In <6c27hi$k02$1...@shadow.skypoint.net> John Logajan
<jlog...@mirage.skypoint.net> writes:
>
>J. Reynolds <cepheus...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> > And I will defend your right to want this. I, however, don't
like the
>>> > idea that my boss or a co-worker could tape me at anytime they
wish,
>>> > possibly talking about something I do outside of work on my own
time and
>>> > is none of their business and then use it to blackmail me or
incriminate
>>> > me.
>>>
>>> I think the incremental risk is much smaller than you suggest.
After all,
>>> if you are telling them incriminating or even just embarrasing
stuff --
>>> how do you intend to stop them from repeating it publicly -- tape
or
>>> no tape.
>>>
>
you don't want to get out about yourself.
You know what they say about keeping anything a secret.
It is just about impossible.
yasmin2
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
PEZk...@citynet.net (Knopp) wrote:
um he didn't win the second election without resorting to his dirty
trick campaign including the Watergate breakin. As for being popular,
not hardly. There was more than one effigy of him burnt or hanged.
>--
>Please remove PEZ from the address to reply via E-Mail. This is a
>"Spam-Buster".
Let The White Rose enlighten you.
http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
gdy weasel
pelmark
In article <6c49v5$50c$1...@usenet49.supernews.com>,
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
> PEZk...@citynet.net (Knopp) wrote:
<SNIP ARTICLE>
> >I hear that Nixon was a pretty popular guy too....won two elections
and was
> >considered a pretty good president if I remember correctly.
>
> um he didn't win the second election without resorting to his dirty
> trick campaign including the Watergate breakin. As for being
popular,
> not hardly. There was more than one effigy of him burnt or hanged.
This is one of the better displays of historical revisionism I have
read. Nixon's election in 1972 over George McGovern was a *landslide*
and had its basis in the political stances of the McGovern campaign
which had little appeal to voters. That Nixon forces were so
*paranoid* that they resorted to "dirty tricks" in an election they
were going to win handily has been commented on by political
historians as an indication of the political fears of the Nixon
election forces, and was unnecessary to the outcome of the election.
Which should tell you about Nixon.
McGovern didn't even carry his *home* state, dip. McGovern carried
Massachusetts and I believe one more state, which I cannot recall at
this moment. My recollection may be faulty, but I believe Nixon
carried more than 70% of the popular vote, so your contention is in
error. Big time.
George McGovern was shellacked, and it wasn't because of Nixon's
tricksters; the famous "double thousands" and a campaign which seemed
incapable of effectively getting McGovern's message across to voters.
McGovern came across to voters, and whether it was right or wrong
makes no difference, as being a whacky, tax and spend liberal.
For your own enlightenment, you may want to consider this. Running for
President means a Party puts forth a candidate who should have a basic
level of appeal. IOW, political parties don't nominate candidates who
have a 20% personal popularity. Most politicians are "approved" by
40-50% of the particular area's voting population, and it is the
undecided and swing voters which determine the victor. When a
candidate wins 60% of the popular vote, it is considered by the
professional political types as a "landslide".
Given two candidates without the baggage of scandal, problematic
histories, or extremely controversial views, it is *difficult* to get
more than half of the voters to vote for, or against, a particular
candidate. Which is why many races end up 52-48%, 55-45%, 53-47%, etc.
Finally, Bill Clinton was the Democratic Party answer to the simple
fact that they could not elect Presidents; Jimmy Carter in 1976 was a
fluke owing to Nixon and Watergate, running against an "appointed"
President in Gerald Ford. The "New Democrat" is an attempt to get away
from Presidential candidates who are tax and spend, big government
promoters who Americans rejected election after election until 1992
with a *publicly* different type of candidate in Clinton. A "stealth"
moderate, and quite capable of promoting and advocating an ever
increasing larger federal government including his attempt to
nationalize the health care industry in 1993.
Your post on Nixon's '72 victory due to "dirty tricks" is
*ridiculous*. Nixon wiped out McGovern in one of the largest victories
in Presidential elections in history.
Vernon Bludgeon
cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhascist) wrote:
>Gosh, you guys really are getting desperate.
Care to provide examples?
Dave Gonzo
Vernon Bludgeon
John Logajan <jlog...@mirage.skypoint.net> wrote:
>Gary Frazier <gfra...@efn.org> wrote:
>> Clinton is staying, and Starr is on the way out...so is that asshole
>> Scaife. The worm has been outed.
>Scaife must be an enemy of the state, ehy? How do you plan to off him?
Just make Linda Tripp his secretary, the way she was for Vince Foster.
That should do the trick...
Dave Gonzo