Judge Susan Wright covers for Clinton
R. Wiley
US District Judge Susan Wright granted a request by
Slick Willy's lawyers for an indefinate extension
on the gag order preventing release of evidence from
Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit against the
Slickster.
rw
King Pineapple
becoming public?
Mary E Knadler
(R. Wiley) writes:
>
>.
>
>US District Judge Susan Wright granted a request by
>Slick Willy's lawyers for an indefinate extension
>on the gag order preventing release of evidence from
>Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit against the
>Slickster.
>
>
>rw
>
She's sure a Clinton fan, isn't she? Wonder if she gets that
"swooning" & fainting" or whatever they call that THING that these
Democrat women get over Clinton.
They just lose it completely & "Freak Out". Oh, what power
this man has over SOME women. I think we should demand only male
Judges in any Clinton decisions.
Mary E Knadler
writes:
>raw...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu (R. Wiley) writes: > .
>>
>> US District Judge Susan Wright granted a request by
>> Slick Willy's lawyers for an indefinate extension
>> on the gag order preventing release of evidence from
>> Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit against the
>> Slickster.
>>
>>
>> rw
>>
>becoming public?
All those affairs he's been covering up for years.
yasmin2
zu...@ix.netcom.com
King Pineapple <crai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> raw...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu (R. Wiley) writes: > .
> >
> > US District Judge Susan Wright granted a request by
> > Slick Willy's lawyers for an indefinate extension
> > on the gag order preventing release of evidence from
> > Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit against the
> > Slickster.
> >
> becoming public?
Ummm, Jones' lawyers _also_ asked that the records be kept sealed.
I have no problem with that. Nothing that was in there is any
of your business or my business. AFAIK, It's mostly scurrilous
stuff dug up by dint of abusive discovery by Jones' lawyers, some
of which they came near to getting slapped for by Wright (but
she seems to have thought that tossing the case was enough punishment
for them). . .
If anyone feels strongly enough that the information obtained from
them in deposition or affidavit is being unfairly withheld from the
public, they may go right ahead and repeate their story in front
of the cameras. The order doesn't prevent this; it simply prevents
material gathered through coerced discovery from being made public
in a case that no longer matters. . . .
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
R. Wiley
>In article <6o86qk$liv$1...@news.monad.net>,
> King Pineapple <crai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> raw...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu (R. Wiley) writes: > .
>> >
>> > US District Judge Susan Wright granted a request by
>> > Slick Willy's lawyers for an indefinate extension
>> > on the gag order preventing release of evidence from
>> > Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit against the
>> > Slickster.
>> >
>> What's in those piles of evidence that Bubba is trying to keep from
>> becoming public?
>Ummm, Jones' lawyers _also_ asked that the records be kept sealed.
Not according to the AP. I quote;
"She gave both sides until today to raise objections. No objection
has been raised by lawyers for Jones"
Do you have other, verifiable, information?
rw
Daryl V. Grier
to dracula.
zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> In article <6o86qk$liv$1...@news.monad.net>,
> King Pineapple <crai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > raw...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu (R. Wiley) writes: > .
> > >
> > > US District Judge Susan Wright granted a request by
> > > Slick Willy's lawyers for an indefinate extension
> > > on the gag order preventing release of evidence from
> > > Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit against the
> > > Slickster.
> > >
> > What's in those piles of evidence that Bubba is trying to keep from
> > becoming public?
>
> Ummm, Jones' lawyers _also_ asked that the records be kept sealed.
Daryl V. Grier
FBI files in on Judge Susan Weber Wright? The truth to a liberal
(socialist) is like a cross to dracula.
Mary E Knadler wrote:
> In <rawiley....@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> raw...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
> (R. Wiley) writes:
> >
> >.
> >
> >US District Judge Susan Wright granted a request by
> >Slick Willy's lawyers for an indefinate extension
> >on the gag order preventing release of evidence from
> >Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit against the
> >Slickster.
> >
> >
zu...@ix.netcom.com
raw...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu (R. Wiley) wrote:
> zu...@ix.netcom.com writes:
>
> >In article <6o86qk$liv$1...@news.monad.net>,
> > King Pineapple <crai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > US District Judge Susan Wright granted a request by
> >> > Slick Willy's lawyers for an indefinate extension
> >> > on the gag order preventing release of evidence from
> >> > Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit against the
> >> > Slickster.
> >> >
> >> becoming public?
>
> >Ummm, Jones' lawyers _also_ asked that the records be kept sealed.
>
>
> "She gave both sides until today to raise objections. No objection
> has been raised by lawyers for Jones"
>
> Do you have other, verifiable, information?
I read something about a week ago that the Jones lawyesr were
also asking that some record be sealed. I remember it because
it seemed that both capms had been united on this _against_ the
efforts of newspapers to get the record unsealed. I'll have to
dig through the old papers, and see what I can come up with.
I looked at more recent stuff, and saw an article that said
Jones' lawyers said that any decision on whether to seek to keep
the record sealed was her decision, but the article didn't reporton
whether she had made any decision WRT this. Your article doesn't
dispute this; what is unclear is whether she _has_ taken a position.
I don't know what her position would be; it will be interesting.
One reason for keeping such records sealed, from her perspective,
is that the Clintons had a fair bit on her sexual history as well
(although they didn't use it at trial), which might prove embarrassing
to her. Whether she asks for disclosure in an effort to embarrass
the president though at a price to herself, or choses to keep the
stuff under seal, might go towards showing a bit what her aims were
in undertaking the trial. She _may_ just ask that the records
concerning herself be kept sealed, but I doubt she would prevail on
such a request, if the records on Clinton are unsealed.
Fair enough?
Surfin' Al
The main point though is that Clinton's side doesn't want the stuff
unsealed. What happens if Jones' *appeal* gets thrown out? Will they
be unsealed then? Sure, but by that time Clinton will be out of office
and nobody will care. If he can delay as much as possible with the other
stuff like the Secret Service testifying, he'll be out of there before
any "nasty" revelations come out, and the American sheep, er, public
won't care.
Mary E Knadler
I thought I read the Jones attorneys were not sure about unsealing the
documents until they had decided whether to appeal or not.
yasmin2
zu...@ix.netcom.com
Surfin' Al <ha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> zu...@ix.netcom.com writes: >
[snip]
> > I don't know what her position would be; it will be interesting.
> > One reason for keeping such records sealed, from her perspective,
> > is that the Clintons had a fair bit on her sexual history as well
> > (although they didn't use it at trial), which might prove embarrassing
> > to her. Whether she asks for disclosure in an effort to embarrass
> > the president though at a price to herself, or choses to keep the
> > stuff under seal, might go towards showing a bit what her aims were
> > in undertaking the trial. She _may_ just ask that the records
> > concerning herself be kept sealed, but I doubt she would prevail on
> > such a request, if the records on Clinton are unsealed.
> >
> > Fair enough?
>
> The main point though is that Clinton's side doesn't want the stuff
> unsealed. What happens if Jones' *appeal* gets thrown out? Will they
> be unsealed then? Sure, but by that time Clinton will be out of office
> and nobody will care. If he can delay as much as possible with the other
> stuff like the Secret Service testifying, . . .
What the hay does the Secret Service testimony have to do with the
JOnes case?
> . . . he'll be out of there before
> any "nasty" revelations come out, and the American sheep, er, public
> won't care.
I take it by this that you _do_ care about who the President might
or might not have diddled. . . .
Do you really think it is the province of our courts to go digging
through people's sex lives and hanging all the dirty linen out
in public for all to see? Curious notion you have about what
the government's job is. Maybe we could encourage them to do
the same for you. . . . Oh, forgot, you don't _have_ any dirty
linen. . . .
Surfin' Al
> Surfin' Al <ha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > zu...@ix.netcom.com writes: >
>
> [snip]
>
> > > I don't know what her position would be; it will be interesting.
> > > One reason for keeping such records sealed, from her perspective,
> > > is that the Clintons had a fair bit on her sexual history as well
> > > (although they didn't use it at trial), which might prove embarrassing
> > > to her. Whether she asks for disclosure in an effort to embarrass
> > > the president though at a price to herself, or choses to keep the
> > > stuff under seal, might go towards showing a bit what her aims were
> > > in undertaking the trial. She _may_ just ask that the records
> > > concerning herself be kept sealed, but I doubt she would prevail on
> > > such a request, if the records on Clinton are unsealed.
> > >
> > > Fair enough?
> >
> > The main point though is that Clinton's side doesn't want the stuff
> > unsealed. What happens if Jones' *appeal* gets thrown out? Will they
> > be unsealed then? Sure, but by that time Clinton will be out of office
> > and nobody will care. If he can delay as much as possible with the other
> > stuff like the Secret Service testifying, . . .
>
> What the hay does the Secret Service testimony have to do with the
> JOnes case?
used to distract attention from other matters.
> > . . . he'll be out of there before
> > any "nasty" revelations come out, and the American sheep, er, public
> > won't care.
>
> I take it by this that you _do_ care about who the President might
> or might not have diddled. . . .
>
> Do you really think it is the province of our courts to go digging
> through people's sex lives and hanging all the dirty linen out
> in public for all to see? Curious notion you have about what
> the government's job is. Maybe we could encourage them to do
> the same for you. . . . Oh, forgot, you don't _have_ any dirty
> linen. . . .
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Arne Langsetmo
>
If the sex results in commission of felonies by elected officials, sure
as hell *is* the province of the courts. That's exactly what they're
doing. BTW, I did a wash today and used Clorox, my linen is clean.
zu...@ix.netcom.com
Surfin' Al <ha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> zu...@ix.netcom.com writes: > In article <6oi6nj$bdt$1...@news.monad.net>,
[snip]
> > Do you really think it is the province of our courts to go digging
> > through people's sex lives and hanging all the dirty linen out
> > in public for all to see? Curious notion you have about what
> > the government's job is. Maybe we could encourage them to do
> > the same for you. . . . Oh, forgot, you don't _have_ any dirty
> > linen. . . .
>
> If the sex results in commission of felonies by elected officials, sure
> as hell *is* the province of the courts.
The sex "results in" the commission of felonies? Huh? Why, did
someone carry out the act for longer than the other party consented
to? What felonies are you talking about here?
This "it ain't about the sex" foofrah really irks me. YES, IT'S
ABOUT SEX! Starr is asking if the Secret Service has any
information as to whether any sex occurred. He grabbed Lewinsky's
dress to see if it had semen on it. He subpoenaed book purchases
of Lewinsky to see if she might be into kinkiness. He had old
lovers of Lewinsky, and even high school chums come to town to
testify as to her personal habits. He wants to know if she had
sex with the President.
Why? Supposedly because Clinton might have lied about it in a civil
deposition. So fr***ing what. . . People lie in civil cases
_all_ the time, and many times about _core_ elements of the case,
where there is no question about materiality (unlike here, where
the materiality of his deposition is _quite_ dubious, IMHO).
No one bothers to go after these people; at the very worst, the
_judge_ in the case might slap them with contempt of court.
Now explain why it's so fr***ing important to you (and the country)
whether Clinton was honest about something that was at most of
concern to Jones and _Jones only_ (although even here I would
say that it wasn't even Jones' business). Who got hurt here,
_even if all allegations are true_?
Face it, Starr's a fr***ing panty-sniffer:
"In the latest travesty, as revealed by the Washington Post,
Starr used prosecutors and FBI agents to interrogate Arkansas
state troopers about women with whom Bill Clinton allegedly had
affairs prior to his presidency. Starr's deputy argues that
they had a duty to find out whether Clinton might have confided
some incriminating statements to these women. Fine--until you
consider the questions Starr's agents actually asked. They
wanted to know whether one woman had borne a child who
resembled Clinton and whether any of the officers had witnessed
Clinton having sex with local women."
(U.S. News and World Report, July 21, 1997)
This was _before_ the Lewinsky matter even came up.
Yes, it's about sex, plain and simple. Starr wants to dig into
Clinton's private _legal_ sexual conduct, and _you_ think that's
his job.
*sheesh*
Togethe...@my-dejanews.com
Please give this message to your wife or girlfriend.
You murdered your best friend, the one who lived next door to you and your
grandmother. Murderers like you are terrible role models for anybody's
child. You are a lustful liar who fondles young people you work with. I feel
so sorry for your son, with such a father as your husband. I honestly don't
see how you've stayed with him for so long! The reason is he supplies you
with the drugs you sniff up your nose. Your husband is a homosexual so your
marraige is just a sham to provide him cover.
Think with me, suppose some honest citizens with a billion dollars told the
whole world the truth about you and your sinful husband every day for say,
six years. Suppose. Now dear, I have known our President and his lady well.
I was his entire staff at the very beginning, typed all his letters (note
the WC/rn on bottom left hand margin of all his earliest campaign letters, rn
is I) and did my very best for him and our country. The President of our
America did not murder his nextdoor neighbor and best friend, Vince Foster.
The President of the United States is no skirt chaser, he's more like a
preacher. He always tells the truth, and his wife, a high spirited,
beautiful filly when I knew them, loves him very much. If anything she loves
him a little too much. (We should all be so lucky in life.)
Now, dear, I will make a deal with you. I am going to believe everything
in the first paragraph if you fail to respond or do not say you are sorry for
being such a silly gullible old fool. In November, vote republican for evil.
Vote Democratic and you will help silence evil. CHOOSE!
Surfin' Al
Federal Judges think it's his job too. How come the Secret Service is
planning on breaking the law over an alleged sexual encounter? When
government officials start behaving like they are above the law, we
should all be a little worried. Make that a lot worried. If the SS
does as they are threatening (not showing up as supoeanaed) they are
sending a message that the laws of this country don't apply to them.
zu...@ix.netcom.com
Why? I don't give a damn about _who_ thinks what. I want to know
_why_ this is his job. If you're sufficiently leaden-headed that
the government's (or even just some government employee's) say-so
is good enough for you, you're a great candidate for becoming a
totalitarian government's "model citizen". Dittohead, perchance?
> . . . How come the Secret Service is
> planning on breaking the law over an alleged sexual encounter? . . .
Say _what_? How, pray tell, are they planning on "breaking the law"?
> . . . When
> government officials start behaving like they are above the law, we
> should all be a little worried.
Who is behaving as if they were above the law (and how)? There is
little that is happening that I don't think would be every person's
right in a case like this. . . . You will note that I didn't say
aboev that I think it is only when the President's sex life is
put under the microscope that I find it reprehensible. I think it
just as much an abuse of the government's investigatory powers to
do this to _anybody_. . . .
> . . . Make that a lot worried. If the SS
> does as they are threatening (not showing up as supoeanaed) they are
> sending a message that the laws of this country don't apply to them.
Ummm, no, they haven't done any such thing. They have asked that
a court decide if they are required to submit to Starr's subpoena.
Nothing wrong with that. There are any number of reasons for
refusing to answer a subpoena, available to anyone. Why do you think
they are "above the law" here? Why do you think they _should_ be
required to testify in this case? Do you think that _you_, for
instance, should be required to submit to a subpoena if Starr were
to ask you, for whatever reason fit his fancy? Would that be your
"public duty"? If so, I think I might be able to suggest a few
countries that would be glad to have such a fine civic-minded
person as you. . . .
Surfin' Al
Moot point now, but what I referred to was a news report that said that
there was a possibility that the SS would refuse to show up at the court
room as required today, i.e. to ignore the supoena. To the Secret Service
agents' credit, they *did* show at the grand jury room. So I hereby
take back what I said about them believing they're above the law, at
least this far. I'm just going to sit back and watch the rest of this
sorry saga play out. So far in the past 48 hours, a veritable plethora
of Federal Judges have sided with Starr on this one. *They* think it's
his job.
Ed Burke
> >So far in the past 48 hours, a veritable plethora
> >of Federal Judges have sided with Starr on this one. *They* think it's
> >his job.
> So you think the federal judciary does and should have the right to
> authorize prosecutors to interrogate everyone who's ever known Bill
> Clinton about his sex life, all based on allegations of consensual sex
> between adults...
Take it up with Janet Reno. She's the one who authorized investigation
into the Lewinsky angle.
Mark Edward Balcom
>
> Now explain why it's so fr***ing important to you (and the country)
> whether Clinton was honest about something that was at most of
> concern to Jones and _Jones only_ (although even here I would
> say that it wasn't even Jones' business). Who got hurt here,
> _even if all allegations are true_?
>
Funny.
I don't remember any such defense from you of Packwood.
Do I sence a bit of partisianship here?
Mark
.
Ed Burke
> >> So you think the federal judciary does and should have the right to
> >> authorize prosecutors to interrogate everyone who's ever known Bill
> >> Clinton about his sex life, all based on allegations of consensual sex
> >> between adults...
> >Take it up with Janet Reno. She's the one who authorized investigation
> >into the Lewinsky angle.
> http://www.ags.uci.edu/~dehill/witchhunt/ccla/pages/fijnje.htm
The woman should be in prison herself.
Mark Edward Balcom
> Do you think that _you_, for
> instance, should be required to submit to a subpoena if Starr were
> to ask you, for whatever reason fit his fancy? Would that be your
> "public duty"?
Are you really that ignorant of the law?
A subpoena carries the legal weight of a court order.
The laws of these United States require compliance with such orders.
Contempt of court charges should not be entertained lightly by people. In
many states there is no appeal.
> If so, I think I might be able to suggest a few
> countries that would be glad to have such a fine civic-minded
> person as you. . . .
>
And I doubt very much that you would actually wish to live in a country
where government officials were free to decide which laws they were to
adhere to and which they could ignore.
You, sir, are either,
ill informed,
ignorant,
extremely partisan,
a hypocrite,
or a troll.
Mark
Mark Edward Balcom
> I'm just going to sit back and watch the rest of this
> of Federal Judges have sided with Starr on this one. *They* think it's
> his job.
And how could any thinking person think otherwise?
Today's decisions were predicted by Rush.
They were predicted by other conservative observers.
Some liberals had really stuck their necks out with contrary opinions and
predictions.
buddy k even claimed that those with my views had no knowledge of the
pertinent laws. He should read the decisions and consenting opinions
handed down.
Didn't they (the judges)also give Janet Reno a "bloody nose" for her
sillyness?
Mark
Your tax dollars at work ;o)
Surfin' Al wrote:
> >
>
> Moot point now, but what I referred to was a news report that said that
> there was a possibility that the SS would refuse to show up at the court
> room as required today, i.e. to ignore the supoena. To the Secret Service
> agents' credit, they *did* show at the grand jury room. So I hereby
> take back what I said about them believing they're above the law, at
> least this far. I'm just going to sit back and watch the rest of this
> sorry saga play out. So far in the past 48 hours, a veritable plethora
> of Federal Judges have sided with Starr on this one. *They* think it's
> his job.
I think your overstating what the various courts have indicated. I'd say they
believe that what Starr's doing is within the 'scope' his mandate (because the
paramaters of his mandate are so broadly drawn.) Whether or not "they think its
his job," I'd submit they, to a man/woman, do not believe his job is to range as
far from the sex issue as he has. Many of the persons he's questioned are not
likely to be able to shed any light on whether or not BC and ML were alone together
let alone had sex. Surely, most could only provide hearsay evidence and so their
testimony would never make it through the court house door.
phil
Your tax dollars at work ;o)
Ed Burke wrote:
> nob...@nsm.htp.org says...
>
> > >So far in the past 48 hours, a veritable plethora
> > >of Federal Judges have sided with Starr on this one. *They* think it's
> > >his job.
>
> > So you think the federal judciary does and should have the right to
> > authorize prosecutors to interrogate everyone who's ever known Bill
> > Clinton about his sex life, all based on allegations of consensual sex
> > between adults...
>
> Take it up with Janet Reno. She's the one who authorized investigation
> into the Lewinsky angle.
Bit of irony there, eh?
phil
Frank Suo
[...]
> Why? Supposedly because Clinton might have lied about it in a civil
> deposition. So fr***ing what. . . People lie in civil cases
> _all_ the time, and many times about _core_ elements of the case,
> where there is no question about materiality (unlike here, where
> the materiality of his deposition is _quite_ dubious, IMHO).
> No one bothers to go after these people; at the very worst, the
> _judge_ in the case might slap them with contempt of court.
> Now explain why it's so fr***ing important to you (and the country)
> whether Clinton was honest about something that was at most of
> concern to Jones and _Jones only_ (although even here I would
> say that it wasn't even Jones' business). Who got hurt here,
> _even if all allegations are true_?
>
> Face it, Starr's a fr***ing panty-sniffer:
[...]
It's a pretty twisted perversion of law when a person testifying in his
own defense can be charged with perjury. As a general principal, the
proposition makes no sense whatever. Yet, this is exactly what Starr is
trying to do: charge Clinton with perjury based on testimony Clinton gave
in his own defense, in a baseless civil trial where Clinton was the
defendant.
If Clinton had testified in someone else's trial that he had not, in the
past 10 years, uttered the phrase, "building a bridge to the 21'st
century," and Starr had a campaign video of Clinton saying those very
words, then yes, that perjury would be worthy of prosecution. But the idea
of charging Clinton with perjury for defending himself in court is pure
nonsense.
No prosecutor in his right mind would make such a ridiculous perjury
charge, yet Starr, in his right-wing mind, is doing just that. He's on a
witch hunt, plain and simple. His $40 million investigation is essentially
a failure, and he's trying desperately to pin something, anything on the
President. The IRS pales in comparison to Ken Starr's methods; I wonder
when the hearings will start...
HOOVER
Cad
>
>And the point of the title of this post is??
Starr's perverse obsession with Clinton's sex life makes J Edgar
Hoover's spying on JFK look like a girl scout jamboree.
Surfin' Al
where he specifically says :"I'm investigating Mr. Clinton's sex life"?
Get back to us with the answer.
zu...@ix.netcom.com
Mark Edward Balcom <ma...@vr-net.com> wrote:
> zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >
> > Now explain why it's so fr***ing important to you (and the country)
> > whether Clinton was honest about something that was at most of
> > concern to Jones and _Jones only_ (although even here I would
> > say that it wasn't even Jones' business). Who got hurt here,
> > _even if all allegations are true_?
>
>
> I don't remember any such defense from you of Packwood.
>
> Do I sence a bit of partisianship here?
>
> Mark
Packwood was accused of unwanted sexual advances, IIRC. . .
But you don't remember any such defence of Packwood from me
because I wasn't saying anything either way here at the time.
Now, tell me. Do _you_ think that Starr's investigation is
about an issue of burning importance to the country? Or is it
a perse-, uh, prosecutor out in search of a "crime", any "crime",
to pin on the President? Isn't the job of a prosecutor to
go out and investigate who committed a crime, rather than go
out and investigate someone to find out what crime they committed?
I'd say that when it gets turned around like that, it starts
to seem kind of personal. . . .
Capt J Tar
hominem attacks on Mr. Starr, or anyone else who does not get in line do
yourselves and the country a great disservice.
Cad
Read the papers much there, Surfin' Al?
Knopp
<C327BD49B207883A.63EFE110...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>, edmun...@hotmail.com (Ed Burke) wrote:
> nob...@nsm.htp.org says...
>
>
> > >> So you think the federal judciary does and should have the right to
> > >> authorize prosecutors to interrogate everyone who's ever known Bill
> > >> Clinton about his sex life, all based on allegations of consensual sex
> > >> between adults...
>
> > >Take it up with Janet Reno. She's the one who authorized investigation
> > >into the Lewinsky angle.
>
> > http://www.ags.uci.edu/~dehill/witchhunt/ccla/pages/fijnje.htm
>
> The woman should be in prison herself.
Leave it Bill Clinton to appoint a crook to the office of Attorney General.
"Birds of a Feather"...and all that.
--
-Knopp
Ed Burke
> Now, tell me. Do _you_ think that Starr's investigation is
> about an issue of burning importance to the country?...
His line of investigation was regarded as sufficiently serious to impress
Reno, who OK'd it.
Surfin' Al
>
> [...]
>
> > Why? Supposedly because Clinton might have lied about it in a civil
> > deposition. So fr***ing what. . . People lie in civil cases
> > _all_ the time, and many times about _core_ elements of the case,
> > where there is no question about materiality (unlike here, where
> > the materiality of his deposition is _quite_ dubious, IMHO).
> > No one bothers to go after these people; at the very worst, the
> > _judge_ in the case might slap them with contempt of court.
> > whether Clinton was honest about something that was at most of
> > concern to Jones and _Jones only_ (although even here I would
> > say that it wasn't even Jones' business). Who got hurt here,
> > _even if all allegations are true_?
> >
> [...]
>
> It's a pretty twisted perversion of law when a person testifying in his
> own defense can be charged with perjury. As a general principal, the
> proposition makes no sense whatever. Yet, this is exactly what Starr is
> trying to do: charge Clinton with perjury based on testimony Clinton gave
> in his own defense, in a baseless civil trial where Clinton was the
> defendant.
>
> If Clinton had testified in someone else's trial that he had not, in the
> past 10 years, uttered the phrase, "building a bridge to the 21'st
> century," and Starr had a campaign video of Clinton saying those very
> words, then yes, that perjury would be worthy of prosecution. But the idea
> of charging Clinton with perjury for defending himself in court is pure
> nonsense.
Not just in court, he said it at a photo opp also, so basically he
said it to the whole country.
Jonathan S. Mark
>In article
>
>Leave it Bill Clinton to appoint a crook to the office of Attorney General.
>"Birds of a Feather"...and all that.
Sorry, it is Linda Tripp, Kathleen Willey and David Hale who have the
criminal records. Monica, Janet Reno and Bill are clean as that allegedly
semen-stained blue dress turned out to be.
Jonsweet10
President Clinton was compelled to give a civil deposition in the civil case
brought by Paula Jones. He swore to tell the truth under penalties of perjury.
It seems likely (but not yet proven beyond a reasonable doubt) that he
perjured himself. He may have asked others to commit perjury and alos
obstructed justice.
Truthfulness in civil depositions is neccessary for the sytem to be just.
I agree that it may be a poor public policy to prosecute every case of civil
perjury. It just is not cost effective. All cases of civil perjury deserve to
be prosecuted. A public official who has a position of high public trust
does need to be prosecuted.
Your arguement that others get away with civil perjury is not a serious
arguement. Who would argue that since most murderers don't go to jail that we
should not prosecute any murderers?
I believe that committing a felony is clear grounds for impeachment. The
President is ultimately responsible for the enforcement of our laws. For him
to lie under oath (pejury) to give himself an advantage in a civil case is
absolutely unacceptable. If he did lie under oath, he is unfit to be
President. As Alexander Hamilton made clear in the Federalist Papers, "High
Crimes" does not neccessarily involve the violation of any law. It is a
violation of the public trust.
Danforth Wolfgang Worthlington, III
>(Cad) writes:
> In <35B04D...@global.net> HOOVER <ho...@global.net> writes:
>> >And the point of the title of this post is??
>>
>> Starr's perverse obsession with Clinton's sex life makes J Edgar
>> Hoover's spying on JFK look like a girl scout jamboree.
>
> Can you supply us with any quote from Mr. Starr, any legal documents, etc
> where he specifically says :"I'm investigating Mr. Clinton's sex life"?
> Get back to us with the answer.
Starr argued against executive privilege and demanded to question
presidential aide Sidney Blumenthal, among others, in his quest to
prove perjury, subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice.
Once Sidney was eventually forced into Kenny's Kourt, he was asked;
"Have you ever discussed with Mrs. Clinton
whether the President has a sex addiction?"
"Does the President believe that oral sex is sex?"
"Does the President's religion include sexual intercourse?"
If Starr's entire investigation isn't just a panty-raid,
why do you suppose Starr's persecutors Jackie Bennett and
Solomon Wisenberg asked Sidney Blumenthal these questions
in front of their grand jury?
This question:
"Does the President's religion include sexual intercourse?"
...is particularly insane! What the hell's up with that?
Bruce Campbell
Danforth Wolfgang Worthlington, III wrote in message
<6or2nd$m...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
What is the source of information? Did Starr leak this also?
It certainly is a silly line of questioning just like the silly explanations
that initially came out like the President doesn't believe oral sex is
really sex.
zu...@ix.netcom.com
<CF06734F174B3698.0E6CD47D...@library-proxy.airnews.net
>, edmun...@hotmail.com (Ed Burke) wrote:
I didn't ask what Reno thought. I asked for the poster's opinion.
Are you in the habit of saying that everything Reno says is OK is
just fine by you? I don't _think_ so. . . . So why would you cite
Reno as an authority for _your_ position?
zu...@ix.netcom.com
I dunno. Why don't you read the posts in the thread and see?
And the point of _your_ post was? . . .
Mark Edward Balcom
>
> Now, tell me. Do _you_ think that Starr's investigation is
> about an issue of burning importance to the country?
It is about perjury, bribery, tampering with witnesses, suborning
perjury, violation of campaign finance laws, fraud, and a few others.
Why do you think that they are no big deal just because Clintoon is the
accused?
>Or is it
> a perse-, uh, prosecutor out in search of a "crime", any "crime",
> to pin on the President?
I assume that question to be politically retorical. It is obviously not
meant to be taken seriously.
> Isn't the job of a prosecutor to
> go out and investigate who committed a crime, rather than go
> out and investigate someone to find out what crime they committed?
>
Perhaps you and buddy k should both read the law that empowers, indeed
requires, the "special prosecutor" to investigate alleged criminal
activity by ranking members of the government. It is indeed his job to
determine IF a crime has been committed and to determine the details of
that activity. He is both investigator and prosecutor. The scope of his
investigation is (and was) determined by the Attorney General. Janet Reno
gave him his assignments. Once that has happened he becomes the
investigator and prosecutor who represents the government of the United
States.
I didn't say that I liked the law. But, it is the law. Laws in this
country are to be uniformly enforced. We do not have classes who are
exempt . It is the party which is screaming now about how unfair it is
who is responsible for it's wording and very existence. Sometimes the
chickens come home to roost.
Mark
Jonathan S. Mark
>What is the source of information? Did Starr leak this also?
>
>It certainly is a silly line of questioning just like the silly
explanations
>that initially came out like the President doesn't believe oral sex is
>really sex.
As with the "semen-stained blue dress" story, the claim that President
Clinton made such a claim is false.
Are there real crimes out that the lawyers in the OIC can investigate? What
is the difference, anyway, if the President or anyone for that matter did
believe that "oral sex was not sex?" Persons who believed that would be
mistaken but that belief would not relate to criminality.
Nor ought government to investigate such a belief.
The meddlesome intrusion that began with the Republican party promoting
"family values" instead of "good government" has now turned on the
Republicans themselves. Newt Gingrich told Republican congressman not to
talk about the Kenneth Starr activities because it will promote a backlash
against the Republicans.
They know that Kenny Baby is unpopular in the hinterlands.
Mark Edward Balcom
> His $40 million investigation is essentially
> a failure, and he's trying desperately to pin something, anything on the
> President.
Yeh, and the secret service doesn't have to testify, either.
Failur? About 15 convictions, so far. That sounds pretty fruitful to
me.
>The IRS pales in comparison to Ken Starr's methods; I wonder
> when the hearings will start...
Why don't we wait and see. I wouldn't want to make too many wild claims
without knowing any facts about what evidence has or has not been
uncovered. A person can look pretty silly afterwards. You know, like
those who were so darn sure that the secret service didn't have to
testify.
Did you offer the same defense for Nixon?
Mark
Mark Edward Balcom
>
> What is the source of information? Did Starr leak this also?
>
Don't you find it interesting that the liberal Clintoon apoloists all
know so much about what goes on behind closed doors? How is it that they
all know so much about secret grand jury proceedings?
Mark
Bruce Campbell
Jonathan S. Mark wrote in message <350f0...@newsprime.tidalwave.net>...
>Bruce Campbell wrote in message ...
>>
>explanations
>>that initially came out like the President doesn't believe oral sex is
>>really sex.
>
>
>As with the "semen-stained blue dress" story, the claim that President
>Clinton made such a claim is false.
The claim was floated in the news. Who knows where any of this comes from?
>
>Are there real crimes out that the lawyers in the OIC can investigate?
The biggest mystery is what does Starr have. Like it or not, this isn't
about oral sex with Monica.
What
>is the difference, anyway, if the President or anyone for that matter did
>believe that "oral sex was not sex?" Persons who believed that would be
>mistaken but that belief would not relate to criminality.
I was pointing out the silliness of both sides regarding the whole sex
thing.
>
>Nor ought government to investigate such a belief.
>
>The meddlesome intrusion that began with the Republican party promoting
>"family values" instead of "good government" has now turned on the
>Republicans themselves. Newt Gingrich told Republican congressman not to
>talk about the Kenneth Starr activities because it will promote a backlash
>against the Republicans.
Actually last week they decided not to talk about Clinton because the White
House was drawing enough attention to itself and they didn't need to pile
on.
>
>They know that Kenny Baby is unpopular in the hinterlands.
Of course he is, he can't and shouldn't respond to most of this crap. So
instead we get alot of backdoor stuff like he leaked. Well maybe he did and
maybe he didn't. But if he doesn't have anything then there won't be
anything to leak. Or, if he really isn't leaking, then the spinmeisters have
to work that much harder to convince us he doesn't have anything.
Notice how everybody on the NG wants to come to a quick fast conclusion.
This is simply because nobody knows what Starr has. The evidence, or lack
of, is merely speculation on the part of the public.
Ed Burke
> > > Now, tell me. Do _you_ think that Starr's investigation is
> > > about an issue of burning importance to the country?...
> > His line of investigation was regarded as sufficiently serious to impress
> > Reno, who OK'd it.
> I didn't ask what Reno thought. I asked for the poster's opinion.
> Are you in the habit of saying that everything Reno says is OK is
> just fine by you? I don't _think_ so. . . . So why would you cite
> Reno as an authority for _your_ position?
I'm making the obvious point that a Clinton partisan was presented with
evidence that neither of us is privy to and judged that the line of
inquiry was legitimate. Very persuasive circumstance.
Jonathan S. Mark
>>As with the "semen-stained blue dress" story, the claim that President
>>Clinton made such a claim is false.
>
>The claim was floated in the news.
Oh yeah? If "floated" by in the news, huh? Well, excrement floats...
>Who knows where any of this comes from?
We live in an era in which a claim being "floated in the news" means as much
as "my astrologer told me..."
For instance, last week Tim Russert of NBC "floated in the news" a claim
from "sources close to Ken Starr' that Starr was investigating whether
members of the Secret Service had acted as pimps.
Starr protested, perhaps one of the few occasions in which Starr was
actually innocent of a leak. Russert backtracked to say it came from
Congress based upon their opinion of what Starr was up to. Then Russert
backtracked some more, mentioning people that the source had spoken to and
NOT EVEN MENTIONING STARR!
Finally Russert's defense was "I do not make this stuff up" meaning perhaps
that SOMEONE had told him that, but maybe not even someone in Congress.
Not much to go on, in my view. "Floated in the news" of and by itself means
as much as "floated in the garbage."
>>Are there real crimes out that the lawyers in the OIC can investigate?
>
>The biggest mystery is what does Starr have. Like it or not, this isn't
>about oral sex with Monica.
The alleged sex with Monica is the first story on a ten-story building.
Once that is gone the edifice collapses.
>I was pointing out the silliness of both sides regarding the whole sex
>thing.
If you admit the "sex thing" is silly then why is Starr investigating who
Monica had sex with?
>Actually last week they decided not to talk about Clinton because the White
>House was drawing enough attention to itself and they didn't need to pile
>on.
Are you saying that Starr's unpopularity has NOTHING to do with it? That
the Republicans are not supporting him in the hinterlands because Starr does
not need it?
It is because Starr is unpopular and politicians are reluctant to support
unpopular causes. That is true of Republican politicians as well.
Knopp
> In article <35AFD7...@vr-net.com>,
> Mark Edward Balcom <ma...@vr-net.com> wrote:
> > zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Now explain why it's so fr***ing important to you (and the country)
> > > whether Clinton was honest about something that was at most of
> > > concern to Jones and _Jones only_ (although even here I would
> > > say that it wasn't even Jones' business). Who got hurt here,
> > > _even if all allegations are true_?
> >
> > Funny.
> >
> > I don't remember any such defense from you of Packwood.
> >
> > Do I sence a bit of partisianship here?
> >
> > Mark
>
> Packwood was accused of unwanted sexual advances, IIRC. . .
...and Bill Clinton was accused of improper use of his employees for his
personal sexual gratification. He's said to have lied under oath in order
to make it appear that he hadn't ever asked another female employee to
"kiss it". You do need to find out if he indeed asked another employee to
"kiss it" to determine if Mr. Clinton is guilty of perjury, just as it was
necessary to find out if Bob Packwood slapped a few fannies to determine
whether or not he sexually harassed co-workers.
> But you don't remember any such defence of Packwood from me
> because I wasn't saying anything either way here at the time.
>
> Now, tell me. Do _you_ think that Starr's investigation is
> about an issue of burning importance to the country? Or is it
Yes. Whether or not the chief law enforcement agent of the the United
States feels that he's above the law is of burning importance to the
country.
> a perse-, uh, prosecutor out in search of a "crime", any "crime",
> to pin on the President? Isn't the job of a prosecutor to
No. He was given "specific, credible evidence" to suggest that the
President had committed perjury.
> go out and investigate who committed a crime, rather than go
> out and investigate someone to find out what crime they committed?
> I'd say that when it gets turned around like that, it starts
> to seem kind of personal. . . .
Don't take it personally....you didn't (I don't think) committ perjury.
--
-Knopp
Knopp
<csourc...@nicom.com> wrote:
> Knopp wrote in message ...
> >In article
>
> >
> >Leave it Bill Clinton to appoint a crook to the office of Attorney General.
> >"Birds of a Feather"...and all that.
>
>
>
> Sorry, it is Linda Tripp, Kathleen Willey and David Hale who have the
...why is it that Clinton chooses to associate themselves with
criminals...and mostly Democrat criminals at that!
> criminal records. Monica, Janet Reno and Bill are clean as that allegedly
> semen-stained blue dress turned out to be.
It was black, and that's what Monica was said to have claimed on tape. As
far as their being "clean", I was only responding to apparent claim by
another Clinton appologist that Ms. Reno WAS dirty.
--
-Knopp
Jonathan S. Mark
>...and Bill Clinton was accused of improper use of his employees for his
>personal sexual gratification.
Who accused him? Monica Lewinsky has not. Why is Kenneth Starr dragging
her into the now defunct Jones case by Kenneth Starr?
>> Now, tell me. Do _you_ think that Starr's investigation is
>> about an issue of burning importance to the country? Or is it
>
>Yes. Whether or not the chief law enforcement agent of the the United
>States feels that he's above the law is of burning importance to the
>country.
Oh really? So this case is not about sex, it is about "feelings!" Talk
about touchy-feely law enforcement. Starr: "Did you touch it, Mr.
President? Did Monica touch it? Agent Cockrell, did the President touch it?
How about Monica, Agent Cockrell? Did Monica touch it?"
zu...@ix.netcom.com
> > instance, should be required to submit to a subpoena if Starr were
> > to ask you, for whatever reason fit his fancy? Would that be your
> > "public duty"?
>
> Are you really that ignorant of the law?
No. Are you?
> A subpoena carries the legal weight of a court order.
>
> The laws of these United States require compliance with such orders.
No. There are a number of reasons that you can legally refuse
compliance with such an order:
FRCrP Rule 17:
(c) For Production of Documentary Evidence and of Objects. A
subpoena may also command the person to whom it is directed to
produce the books, papers, documents or other objects designated
therein. The court on motion made promptly may quash or modify the
subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive. The
court may direct that books, papers, documents or objects
designated in the subpoena be produced before the court at a time
prior to the trial or prior to the time when they are to be offered
in evidence and may upon their production permit the books, papers,
documents or objects or portions thereof to be inspected by the
parties and their attorneys.
You may make a motion to quash for any number of reasons.
FRCrP Rule 17:
(g) Contempt. Failure by any person without adequate excuse to
obey a subpoena served upon that person may be deemed a contempt of
the court from which the subpoena issued or of the court for the
district in which it issued if it was issued by a United States
magistrate judge.
Note: "_may_ be deemed a contempt of the court" and "without adequate
excuse". It is up to the judge to decide if there is contempt of court.
There is no automatic "crime" WRT failing to heed a subpoena.
> Contempt of court charges should not be entertained lightly by people. In
> many states there is no appeal.
Yes. Agreed. But you fail to answer the question: Can Starr
subpoena _you_ to testify in the Whitewater investigation? If he
does, can you refuse to go?
> > If so, I think I might be able to suggest a few
> > countries that would be glad to have such a fine civic-minded
> > person as you. . . .
>
> And I doubt very much that you would actually wish to live in a country
> where government officials were free to decide which laws they were to
> adhere to and which they could ignore.
I haven't suggested _anywhere_ that people can or should disobey the
law, either government agents or citizens. I _am_ saying that anyone
who thinks they _have_ to comply with whatever subpoena gets handed
to them should consult a lawyer.
> You, sir, are either,
>
> ill informed,
>
> ignorant,
>
> extremely partisan,
>
> a hypocrite,
>
> or a troll.
And you're a nitwit. Before you assume I'm ignorant of the law,
why don't you bother to check up a little on my posts.
zu...@ix.netcom.com
Surfin' Al <ha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> zu...@ix.netcom.com writes: > In article <6okmla$ha5$1...@news.monad.net>,
> > Surfin' Al <ha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > zu...@ix.netcom.com writes: > In article <6oj48e$a6b$1...@news.monad.net>,
> > > > Surfin' Al <ha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > zu...@ix.netcom.com writes: > In article <6oi6nj$bdt$1...@news.monad.net>,
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > > > Do you really think it is the province of our courts to go digging
> > > > > > through people's sex lives and hanging all the dirty linen out
> > > > > > in public for all to see? Curious notion you have about what
> > > > > > the government's job is. Maybe we could encourage them to do
> > > > > > the same for you. . . . Oh, forgot, you don't _have_ any dirty
> > > > > > linen. . . .
> > > > >
> > > > > If the sex results in commission of felonies by elected officials,
> > > > > sure as hell *is* the province of the courts.
> > > >
> > > > The sex "results in" the commission of felonies? Huh? Why, did
> > > > someone carry out the act for longer than the other party consented
> > > > to? What felonies are you talking about here?
> > > >
> > > > This "it ain't about the sex" foofrah really irks me. YES, IT'S
> > > > ABOUT SEX! Starr is asking if the Secret Service has any
> > > > information as to whether any sex occurred. He grabbed Lewinsky's
> > > > dress to see if it had semen on it. He subpoenaed book purchases
> > > > of Lewinsky to see if she might be into kinkiness. He had old
> > > > lovers of Lewinsky, and even high school chums come to town to
> > > > testify as to her personal habits. He wants to know if she had
> > > > sex with the President.
> > > >
> > > > Why? Supposedly because Clinton might have lied about it in a civil
> > > > deposition. So fr***ing what. . . People lie in civil cases
> > > > _all_ the time, and many times about _core_ elements of the case,
> > > > where there is no question about materiality (unlike here, where
> > > > the materiality of his deposition is _quite_ dubious, IMHO).
> > > > No one bothers to go after these people; at the very worst, the
> > > > _judge_ in the case might slap them with contempt of court.
> > > > whether Clinton was honest about something that was at most of
> > > > concern to Jones and _Jones only_ (although even here I would
> > > > say that it wasn't even Jones' business). Who got hurt here,
> > > > _even if all allegations are true_?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Starr used prosecutors and FBI agents to interrogate Arkansas
> > > > state troopers about women with whom Bill Clinton allegedly had
> > > > affairs prior to his presidency. Starr's deputy argues that
> > > > they had a duty to find out whether Clinton might have confided
> > > > some incriminating statements to these women. Fine--until you
> > > > consider the questions Starr's agents actually asked. They
> > > > wanted to know whether one woman had borne a child who
> > > > resembled Clinton and whether any of the officers had witnessed
> > > > Clinton having sex with local women."
> > > >
> > > > (U.S. News and World Report, July 21, 1997)
> > > >
> > > > This was _before_ the Lewinsky matter even came up.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it's about sex, plain and simple. Starr wants to dig into
> > > > Clinton's private _legal_ sexual conduct, and _you_ think that's
> > > > his job.
> > > >
> > > > *sheesh*
Noted here: The complete absence of any response to the substance
of what I wrote above. . .
> > > Not just *I* think it's his job, the Attorney General and a panel of 3
> > > Federal Judges think it's his job too. . . .
> >
> > Why? I don't give a damn about _who_ thinks what. I want to know
> > _why_ this is his job. If you're sufficiently leaden-headed that
> > the government's (or even just some government employee's) say-so
> > is good enough for you, you're a great candidate for becoming a
> > totalitarian government's "model citizen". Dittohead, perchance?
> >
> > > . . . How come the Secret Service is
Thanks for indicating the snippage. Courtesy for you. . . .
> Moot point now, but what I referred to was a news report that said that
> there was a possibility that the SS would refuse to show up at the court
> room as required today, i.e. to ignore the supoena. . . .
Who gives a damn whatthe _media_ thinks? By "media", you're probably
referring to "talking heads", in any case. . . . *sheesh*
> . . . To the Secret Service
> agents' credit, they *did* show at the grand jury room. So I hereby
> take back what I said about them believing they're above the law, at
> least this far. I'm just going to sit back and watch the rest of this
> sorry saga play out. So far in the past 48 hours, a veritable plethora
> of Federal Judges have sided with Starr on this one. *They* think it's
> his job.
They have (for the most part) not made any judgement on what his jobs
is. That wasn't the issue at bar.
You _still_ haven't answered why _you_ think it is his job. Please
do so. Do me a favour and explain _why_ Starr was properly panty-sniffing
even before the Lewinsky affair (as reported above).
Thanks.
zu...@ix.netcom.com
> > I'm just going to sit back and watch the rest of this
> > sorry saga play out. So far in the past 48 hours, a veritable plethora
> > of Federal Judges have sided with Starr on this one. *They* think it's
> > his job.
>
I do. Why don't you show me the error of my ways and respond to my
original longish post?
> Today's decisions were predicted by Rush.
Yeah, I checked your posting history. Another DodoHead. Mostly
hot air directed at Henry Kilpatrick. Are you obsessing on him or
something?
> They were predicted by other conservative observers.
I would have bet the same way, but I don't think it's a good
idea. If nothing else, Starr should have tried to work out some
kind of a deal to get whatever information he _really_ needed
voluntarily. These Secret Service people are required, as are
any federal employees, to report any information they have
about the commission of a crime. They did not. That should be good
enough for Starr. Do _you_ think that they _did_ see crimes
being committed, and didn't report them? If so, what crimes
would those be? If not, then why go to all this bother to try
and force them to testify in front of a grand jury? Do you
_really_ think that the interest of justice is served by this?
Is it worth the cost of breaching the trust between the POTUS
and Secret Service?
> Some liberals had really stuck their necks out with contrary
> opinions and predictions.
My opinion still stands. It's a bad idea. Why don't you explain
where your opinion here differs from mine.
> buddy k even claimed that those with my views had no knowledge of the
> pertinent laws. He should read the decisions and consenting opinions
> handed down.
"Consenting opinions"? Is that anything like consensual sex?
Say, weren't you the one claiming to know about the law in another
post?
I'm about to tear into Rehnquist's flight of illogic and sleaziness,
as well as Silberman's strange comments, in another post here. Keep
your eyes open for it.
> Didn't they (the judges)also give Janet Reno a "bloody nose" for her
> sillyness?
Only the right-wing Reagan appointee Silberman, who's been known to have
made some rather partisan comments in the past as well.
STEPHEN J VERMULLEN
side of this argument about Clinton ,or whatever the subject, they always
resort to name calling and personal attacks of whoever they disagree
with.It's a sure way to tell that they have no more reasonable arguments to
present. Clinton is as guilty as sin and we all know it. Now lets get him
out of there.
Tony G.
let loose with:
>I find it amusing that when ever liberals find them selves on the losing
>side of this argument about Clinton ,or whatever the subject, they always
>resort to name calling and personal attacks
Really?
>of whoever they disagree
>with.It's a sure way to tell that they have no more reasonable arguments to
>present. Clinton is as guilty as sin and we all know it. Now lets get him
>out of there.
Reagan, Bush, Clinton, pond scum, dog shit, white trash, etc...
You wouldn't know a liberal if one bitch slapped you.
zu...@ix.netcom.com
> >
> > Now, tell me. Do _you_ think that Starr's investigation is
> > about an issue of burning importance to the country?
>
> perjury, violation of campaign finance laws, fraud, and a few others.
Ummm, then could you explain why he started his panty-sniffing in
1997, as I pointed out in my first post? And, BTW, he is not
investigating CFL violations. And not a hell of a lot has come
out of anything else he's looking into.
> Why do you think that they are no big deal just because Clintoon is
> the accused?
I think it's a big deal that private sexual behaviour is becoming
the "legitimate subject" of IC investigations. You don't see a
problem with that?
> > . . . Or is it
> > a perse-, uh, prosecutor out in search of a "crime", any "crime",
> > to pin on the President?
>
> I assume that question to be politically retorical. It is obviously not
> meant to be taken seriously.
That's "rhetorical", my legal-minded friend. No, the question is
not. Do we have an IC out seeking to pin some crime on a person,
or a IC seeking to show that some person committed a specific
crime?
> > . . . Isn't the job of a prosecutor to
> > go out and investigate who committed a crime, rather than go
> > out and investigate someone to find out what crime they committed?
>
> Perhaps you and buddy k should both read the law that empowers, indeed
> requires, the "special prosecutor" to investigate alleged criminal
> activity by ranking members of the government.
28 U.S.C. Section 592:
(1) In general. - A preliminary investigation conducted under
this chapter shall be of such matters as the Attorney General
considers appropriate in order to make a determination, under
subsection (b) or (c), on whether further investigation is
warranted, with respect to each potential violation, or
allegation of a violation, of criminal law.
OK. Sounds to me like they are talking about investigating a crime,
not a person.
> . . . It is indeed his job to
> determine IF a crime has been committed and to determine the details of
> that activity. He is both investigator and prosecutor. The scope of his
> investigation is (and was) determined by the Attorney General. Janet Reno
> gave him his assignments. Once that has happened he becomes the
> investigator and prosecutor who represents the government of the United
> States.
And there are _many_ that feel that he has _far_ exceeded the scope
of the jurisdiction granted him. I think it was a bad mistake to
let him _near_ the Lewinsky stuff, given that she was a witness in
the Jones case, and he had _volunteered_ a brief on behalf of Jones
in her case against the President. What possessed Reno to accede
to _Starr's_ request for the expanded jurisdiction, I haven't the
foggiest. As the saying goes, the _only_ thing that Whitewater and
Lewinsky have in common is that they are both 24 years old. And the
President is the target. Maybe, just maybe, the latter is the _real_
nexus. Which would indicate that my supposition about Starr going
after the _man_, not the crime, is true.
Maybe you can explain why Starr though panty-sniffing was within
his jurisdiction _before_ he was given this authority by the
Special Circuit judges (not Reno, BTW. . .), as reported by
U.S. News in that article I posted a while back. And why Starr
thought he had the authority to wire Tripp _before_ he went to
Reno to ask for jurisdiction.
> I didn't say that I liked the law. But, it is the law. Laws in
> this country are to be uniformly enforced. . . .
Translation: "I don't like the law, but as long as it gets that
c***s***er Clinton before they do away with it and we get a
Republican president, that's just fine with me.
So tell me: If the laws are to be uniformly enforced, then
why would anyone _dream_ of hauling the President up on
perjury charges for a civil case?
> . . . We do not have classes who are
> exempt.
Good. Then you are in agreement that it matters not if the person
is the President or a used car salesman WRT whether perjury charges
should be brought.
> It is the party which is screaming now about how unfair it is
> who is responsible for it's wording and very existence. . . .
I don't think the law is wrong. I think _Mr. Starr_ is wrong.
For the reasons that I have spelled out here and before this.
I do not think he is following the law. In fact, in the one
case he argued before the Supreme Court so far on Whitewater,
_they_ have told him he is over-reaching.
> . . . Sometimes the
> chickens come home to roost.
Glad you're so forthright and honest about your vindictive attitude.
zu...@ix.netcom.com
Surfin' Al <ha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> bab...@ix.netcom.com(Cad) writes: > In <35B04D...@global.net> HOOVER
> > Hoover's spying on JFK look like a girl scout jamboree.
> >
> Can you supply us with any quote from Mr. Starr, any legal documents, etc
> where he specifically says :"I'm investigating Mr. Clinton's sex life"?
> Get back to us with the answer.
Why do we need Starr's comments? Can't you figure it out for yourself?
Maybe you can explain why Starr had the FBI check a dress for semen
stains. But, I tender for your consideration once again:
"In the latest travesty, as revealed by the Washington Post,
Starr used prosecutors and FBI agents to interrogate Arkansas
state troopers about women with whom Bill Clinton allegedly had
affairs prior to his presidency. Starr's deputy argues that
they had a duty to find out whether Clinton might have confided
some incriminating statements to these women. Fine--until you
consider the questions Starr's agents actually asked. They
wanted to know whether one woman had borne a child who
resembled Clinton and whether any of the officers had witnessed
Clinton having sex with local women."
(U.S. News and World Report, July 21, 1997)
Note that Starr's deputy didn't deny the behaviour; just defended it.
Let's see _you_ defend it.
zu...@ix.netcom.com
jonsw...@aol.com (Jonsweet10) wrote:
> I do not think your position makes sense.
>
> President Clinton was compelled to give a civil deposition in the civil
> case brought by Paula Jones. He swore to tell the truth under penalties
> of perjury.
> It seems likely (but not yet proven beyond a reasonable doubt) that he
Nope. Perjury is the false statement under oath of a _material_ fact
to a judicial proceeding. It is quite debatable whether this was a
statement about a material fact, even if false. Aside from whether
it had _anything_ to do with the merits of Jones case had it gone to
trial, since the Jones case was dismissed as a matter of law, any such
deposition could not have affected the outcome. In my read of Kungys
v. U.S., 485 U.S. 759, 108 S.Ct. 1537, 1546 (1988), this would make
it immaterial.
> . . . He may have asked others to commit perjury and alos
> obstructed justice.
Subornation of perjury requires more: You would have to prove that
he "procured a witness to commit perjury", not that he simply tried
to get her to change her story. You might try "intimidation to
influence testimony", but there you would have to prove intimidation,
physical force, or threat, which, AFAIK, no one has alleged.
You might have better luck with the "obstruction of due administration
of justice", as this does away with the problem of materiality, but
here you would have to show that Clinton _intended_ to subvert or
undermine the due administration of justice, and this was done
"corruptly". If all he _intended_ was to keep this stuff off the
front pages, you don't have a charge here.
In all of the above, you have some evidentiary hurdles to cross,
as well as the legal nits.
> Truthfulness in civil depositions is neccessary for the sytem to be
> just.
Ummm, so goes the theory, but people lie in civil cases all the time,
and generally nothing is done about it. Why is it so fr***ing
important to _you_ in _this) case?
> I agree that it may be a poor public policy to prosecute every case of
> civil perjury. . . .
Thank you.
> . . . It just is not cost effective. All cases of civil perjury
> deserve to be prosecuted. . . .
Why? "De Minimis Non Curat Lex": The law does not deal in trifles.
> . . . A public official who has a position of high
> public trust does need to be prosecuted.
Even if it's for the tiniest thing, as long as that guy is someone you
have a visceral idislike for and want to get out of office. Do you
_really_ think Reagan _didn't_ know that he was selling Hawk missiles
to Iran? Contrast that to this case.
> Your arguement that others get away with civil perjury is not a
> serious arguement. Who would argue that since most murderers don't
> go to jail that we should not prosecute any murderers?
Your analogy is flawed. Fix it up and get back to me.
> I believe that committing a felony is clear grounds for impeachment.
> The President is ultimately responsible for the enforcement of our
> laws. For him to lie under oath (pejury) to give himself an advantage
> in a civil case is absolutely unacceptable. . . .
If he did indeed lie, maybe he did it because he didn't want it
splayed across the front pages across the country through abusive
discovery and sleazy filings by the Jones team (which they did).
But you still have a few things to prove in order to make a felony
of it.
> . . . If he did lie under oath, he is
> unfit to be President.
I dunno. It seems you had your mind made up on this issue a while
back, no?
> As Alexander Hamilton made clear in the Federalist Papers, "High
> Crimes" does not neccessarily involve the violation of any law. It
> is a violation of the public trust.
And what "trust" did he violate here? I think we'rew getting to
the nub of the matter. You seem to think he had a _duty_ to disclose
to the world his private sexual behaviour. Bottom line, you're just
one more panty-sniffer. Please explain why you think he has such
a duty.
zu...@ix.netcom.com
capt...@aol.com (Capt J Tar) wrote:
> Those of you who support Mr. Clinton at any cost, including continued ad
> hominem attacks on Mr. Starr, or anyone else who does not get in line do
> yourselves and the country a great disservice.
Oh, no, I think I do this country a great service when I hold the
actions of the government up to scrutiny, and when I complain, here
and in the New York Times, about Starr's assaults on the Constitution,
and criticise him for engaging in a partisan witch-hunt that has
atavistically devolved into a panty-sniffing expedition. I noted
in the _first_ post with this thread title that Starr had commenced
his panty-sniffing before Lewinsky had ever come on the scene. What
do you have to say to _that_?
zu...@ix.netcom.com
"Bruce Campbell" <btc...@mci2000.com> wrote:
>
> Danforth Wolfgang Worthlington, III wrote in message
> <6or2nd$m...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> >Surfin' Al <ha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> <6oqkv2$j50$1...@news.monad.net>...
> >> In <35B04D...@global.net> HOOVER <ho...@global.net> writes:
> >>> >And the point of the title of this post is??
> >>>
> >>> Starr's perverse obsession with Clinton's sex life makes J Edgar
> >>> Hoover's spying on JFK look like a girl scout jamboree.
> >>
> >> Can you supply us with any quote from Mr. Starr, any legal documents, etc
> >> where he specifically says :"I'm investigating Mr. Clinton's sex life"?
> >> Get back to us with the answer.
> >
> >presidential aide Sidney Blumenthal, among others, in his quest to
> >prove perjury, subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice.
> >
> >Once Sidney was eventually forced into Kenny's Kourt, he was asked;
> >
> >"Have you ever discussed with Mrs. Clinton
> >whether the President has a sex addiction?"
> >
> >"Does the President believe that oral sex is sex?"
> >
> >"Does the President's religion include sexual intercourse?"
> >
> >If Starr's entire investigation isn't just a panty-raid,
> >why do you suppose Starr's persecutors Jackie Bennett and
> >Solomon Wisenberg asked Sidney Blumenthal these questions
> >in front of their grand jury?
> >
> >This question:
> >"Does the President's religion include sexual intercourse?"
> >
> >...is particularly insane! What the hell's up with that?
>
>
> It certainly is a silly line of questioning just like the silly
> explanations that initially came out like the President doesn't
> believe oral sex is really sex.
There is a difference between Starr's "silly line of questioning"
and the "silly explanations". One is fully Constitutional free
speech, and the other is done within the confines of the judicial
system, with the full power of the law behind it. See the
difference?
Von Jaeger
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Really?
You respond by spouting "White Trash" and "Bitch" slapping?
I guess you are just a redneck nigger with all that hate and
slandering and a desire to slap "bitches" eh?
I guess it is safe to assume that the person who acknowledged that
"Clinton is as guilty as sin" hit a raw nerve?
Pack your racist back pack and join the Holocaust revisionists you
foul cretin.
I hope the irony makes you cringe.
"Terrorism, more often than not,
comes from the quill of a pen
than from the barrel of a gun"
--Hunter--
wol...@nospamdoitnow.com
>In article <6okmla$ha5$1...@news.monad.net>,
> Surfin' Al <ha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> zu...@ix.netcom.com writes: > In article <6oj48e$a6b$1...@news.monad.net>,
>> > Surfin' Al <ha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > zu...@ix.netcom.com writes: > In article <6oi6nj$bdt$1...@news.monad.net>,
>> >
>> > [snip]
>> >
>
(cut)
>> > Yes, it's about sex, plain and simple. Starr wants to dig into
>> > Clinton's private _legal_ sexual conduct, and _you_ think that's
>> > his job.
>> >
>> > *sheesh*
>> >
>> Not just *I* think it's his job, the Attorney General and a panel of 3
>> Federal Judges think it's his job too. . . .
>
>Why? I don't give a damn about _who_ thinks what. I want to know
>_why_ this is his job.
Our Gov gave it to him, Clinton's appointee, but would have never done
it if Clinton didn't put himself into that position.
> If you're sufficiently leaden-headed that
>the government's (or even just some government employee's) say-so
>is good enough for you, you're a great candidate for becoming a
>totalitarian government's "model citizen". Dittohead, perchance?
Like a Clinton supporter, perchance ?
Of course you don't give a damn, you believe in Clinton
Heard a woman on the radio, she was asked if she would believe that
Clinton done all the he was accused of if Clinton admitted it, she
said "NO, If pres Clinton admitted it, he must be under pressure from
the right-wing "
Her mind is made up and closed.
Like alot of Clinton supporters I read here!
Wolf
That's right, join The War On Right Wing Ignorance,
stop being ignorant about the right, the more you
know of the truth the more conservatives there will
be!
===================================================
Mankind believes in something he cannot comprehend
and comprehends something he cannot believe
-----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
The worst inequality, is trying to make something not
equal, equal
Remove the nospam to e-mail
Bruce Campbell
zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote in message <6ornlp$5se$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Like when Clinton was deposed. And with all due respect, how do we know
these questions were asked? We can only assume so. If you assert that oral
sex isn't sex don't be surprised if the question comes up when investigating
possible perjury regarding the relationship.
Bruce Campbell
Jonathan S. Mark wrote in message <350f1...@newsprime.tidalwave.net>...
>Bruce Campbell wrote in message <_L9s1.3927$os4.7...@news.mci2000.com>...
>
>
>>>As with the "semen-stained blue dress" story, the claim that President
>>>Clinton made such a claim is false.
>>
>>The claim was floated in the news.
>
>Oh yeah? If "floated" by in the news, huh? Well, excrement floats...
>
I was referring to the news story that Clinton didn't believe oral sex was
sex not the dress story.
>
>>Who knows where any of this comes from?
>
>
>We live in an era in which a claim being "floated in the news" means as
much
>as "my astrologer told me..."
It seems to me that everbody loves the news when it supports their side.
>
>For instance, last week Tim Russert of NBC "floated in the news" a claim
>from "sources close to Ken Starr' that Starr was investigating whether
>members of the Secret Service had acted as pimps.
>
>Starr protested, perhaps one of the few occasions in which Starr was
>actually innocent of a leak. Russert backtracked to say it came from
>Congress based upon their opinion of what Starr was up to. Then Russert
>backtracked some more, mentioning people that the source had spoken to and
>NOT EVEN MENTIONING STARR!
>
>Finally Russert's defense was "I do not make this stuff up" meaning perhaps
>that SOMEONE had told him that, but maybe not even someone in Congress.
>
>Not much to go on, in my view. "Floated in the news" of and by itself means
>as much as "floated in the garbage."
My point was who do you think floated along a news story that suggested
Clinton didn't think oral sex was sex? His supportes or his detractors?
>
>
>>>Are there real crimes out that the lawyers in the OIC can investigate?
>>
>>The biggest mystery is what does Starr have. Like it or not, this isn't
>>about oral sex with Monica.
>
>
>The alleged sex with Monica is the first story on a ten-story building.
>Once that is gone the edifice collapses.
That's your guess, so be it. The fact is nobody knows what Starr has.
>
>
>
>>I was pointing out the silliness of both sides regarding the whole sex
>>thing.
>
>
>If you admit the "sex thing" is silly then why is Starr investigating who
>Monica had sex with?
I think it is a very minor part of the investigation. I think that Starr is
pursueing perjury and obstruction of justice, otherwise I think the three
judge panel would have slapped him down.
>
>
>>Actually last week they decided not to talk about Clinton because the
White
>>House was drawing enough attention to itself and they didn't need to pile
>>on.
>
>
>Are you saying that Starr's unpopularity has NOTHING to do with it? That
>the Republicans are not supporting him in the hinterlands because Starr
does
>not need it?
I'm saying that they believe they have the most to gain by watching. Clinton
appears to be taking a bunker mentally to the whole thing. The best thing
the Republicans can do is sit back and let it happen.
Ed Burke
> > It is about perjury, bribery, tampering with witnesses, suborning
> > perjury, violation of campaign finance laws, fraud, and a few others.
> Ummm, then could you explain why he started his panty-sniffing in
> 1997, as I pointed out in my first post? And, BTW, he is not
> investigating CFL violations. And not a hell of a lot has come
> out of anything else he's looking into.
The obvious deduction is that there's something involved here that's a
lot more important than the Sleaze-in-Chief's lies about porking interns.
Apparently Reno thought so when she OK'd this line of inquiry.
> > Why do you think that they are no big deal just because Clintoon is
> > the accused?
> I think it's a big deal that private sexual behaviour is becoming
> the "legitimate subject" of IC investigations. You don't see a
> problem with that?
Starr was pursuing this angle of inquiry before Clinton got caught in
perjury in his Jones testimony. Obviates your claim.
> And there are _many_ that feel that he has _far_ exceeded the scope
> of the jurisdiction granted him...
OK. Clinton should fire him in that case. Why doesn't he?
> I think it was a bad mistake to
> let him _near_ the Lewinsky stuff, given that she was a witness in
> the Jones case, and he had _volunteered_ a brief on behalf of Jones
> in her case against the President. What possessed Reno to accede
> to _Starr's_ request for the expanded jurisdiction, I haven't the
> foggiest...
"You haven't the foggiest" seems to comprise your general take on all
matters related to this case. The one thing we can be sure of is that
Starr presented convincing evidence--and given Reno's partisanship, it
must have been REALLY convincing--of serious crimes, and that none of us
are privy to that evidence yet.
zu...@ix.netcom.com
wol...@nospamdoitnow.com wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jul 1998 19:01:55 GMT, zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> >In article <6okmla$ha5$1...@news.monad.net>,
> > Surfin' Al <ha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> zu...@ix.netcom.com writes:
[snip]
> >> > Yes, it's about sex, plain and simple. Starr wants to dig into
> >> > Clinton's private _legal_ sexual conduct, and _you_ think that's
> >> > his job.
> >> >
> >> > *sheesh*
> >> >
> >> Not just *I* think it's his job, the Attorney General and a panel of 3
> >> Federal Judges think it's his job too. . . .
> >
> >Why? I don't give a damn about _who_ thinks what. I want to know
> >_why_ this is his job.
>
> Our Gov gave it to him, Clinton's appointee, but would have never done
> it if Clinton didn't put himself into that position.
Ah, _another_ one unclear on the concept weighs in. Are you of the opinion
that anything the government does is proper just because the _government_
does it?
And do you think that Starr _wouldn't_ be asking these type of
questions unless Clinton had "put himself into that position"?
Then how would you explain this:
"In the latest travesty, as revealed by the Washington Post,
Starr used prosecutors and FBI agents to interrogate Arkansas
state troopers about women with whom Bill Clinton allegedly had
affairs prior to his presidency. Starr's deputy argues that
they had a duty to find out whether Clinton might have confided
some incriminating statements to these women. Fine--until you
consider the questions Starr's agents actually asked. They
wanted to know whether one woman had borne a child who
resembled Clinton and whether any of the officers had witnessed
Clinton having sex with local women."
(U.S. News and World Report, July 21, 1997)
Please explain how _that_ fits his jurisdictional mandate.
> > If you're sufficiently leaden-headed that
> >the government's (or even just some government employee's) say-so
> >is good enough for you, you're a great candidate for becoming a
> >totalitarian government's "model citizen". Dittohead, perchance?
>
> Like a Clinton supporter, perchance ?
No. I make my own decisions as to what's right and wrong. Seems
_you_ have some difficulty in this regard. At the very least, you
seem to have difficulty formulating and expressing your own opinions
on matters. Not uncommon amongst DodoHeads. . . .
> Of course you don't give a damn, you believe in Clinton
No. I like some things he's done, and don't like others. I
_detest_ what Starr is doing (and trying to do) and feel this
is a travesty in a free and civil society.
> Heard a woman on the radio, she was asked if she would believe that
> Clinton done all the he was accused of if Clinton admitted it, she
> said "NO, If pres Clinton admitted it, he must be under pressure from
> the right-wing "
>
> Her mind is made up and closed.
She is not me. Argue with _me_ here. You want to go argue with
her, then get the fr** out of this thread. She ain't here.
> Like alot of Clinton supporters I read here!
Ditto my last comment.
I'm still waiting for any kind of a justification as to why
Starr is entitled to panty-sniff. Get cracking.
Tony G.
with:
>On Sun, 19 Jul 1998 03:24:21 GMT, kur...@fatnet.net (Tony G.) wrote:
>>On 19 Jul 1998 02:50:06 GMT, "STEPHEN J VERMULLEN" <IS...@prodigy.net>
>>let loose with:
>>>I find it amusing that when ever liberals find them selves on the losing
>>>side of this argument about Clinton ,or whatever the subject, they always
>>>resort to name calling and personal attacks
>>Really?
>>>of whoever they disagree
>>>with.It's a sure way to tell that they have no more reasonable arguments to
>>>present. Clinton is as guilty as sin and we all know it. Now lets get him
>>>out of there.
>>Reagan, Bush, Clinton, pond scum, dog shit, white trash, etc...
>>You wouldn't know a liberal if one bitch slapped you.
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>Really?
>You respond by spouting "White Trash" and "Bitch" slapping?
>I guess you are just a redneck nigger with all that hate and
>slandering and a desire to slap "bitches" eh?
Bitch slap isn't gender specific. Its something G Gordon and Chuck
Colson heard allot while in stir I would guess.
>I guess it is safe to assume that the person who acknowledged that
>"Clinton is as guilty as sin" hit a raw nerve?
As guilty as Bush and Reagan.
>Pack your racist back pack and join the Holocaust revisionists you
>foul cretin.
No that would be right wingers. The holocaust happened just like the
USA's killing of hundreds of thousands during the Philippine
insurrection. Makes you feel good to be a right wing flag waver hunh?
Why did you bring up the holocaust looking for some cheap points?
"I'll seem real smart if I can toss the holocaust in... maybe I can
squeeze the term PC in too, then I'll be as smart as Rush tells me I
am"
>I hope the irony makes you cringe.
That Clinton is a small time Reagan?
zu...@ix.netcom.com
"Bruce Campbell" <btc...@mci2000.com> wrote:
>
> zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote in message <6ornlp$5se$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >In article <eu8s1.2933$os4.6...@news.mci2000.com>,
> > "Bruce Campbell" <btc...@mci2000.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Danforth Wolfgang Worthlington, III wrote in message
> >> <6or2nd$m...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
[snip]
> >> >Starr argued against executive privilege and demanded to question
> >> >presidential aide Sidney Blumenthal, among others, in his quest to
> >> >prove perjury, subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice.
> >> >
> >> >Once Sidney was eventually forced into Kenny's Kourt, he was asked;
> >> >
> >> >"Have you ever discussed with Mrs. Clinton
> >> >whether the President has a sex addiction?"
> >> >
> >> >"Does the President believe that oral sex is sex?"
> >> >
> >> >"Does the President's religion include sexual intercourse?"
> >> >
> >> >If Starr's entire investigation isn't just a panty-raid,
> >> >why do you suppose Starr's persecutors Jackie Bennett and
> >> >Solomon Wisenberg asked Sidney Blumenthal these questions
> >> >in front of their grand jury?
> >> >
> >> >This question:
> >> >"Does the President's religion include sexual intercourse?"
> >> >
> >> >...is particularly insane! What the hell's up with that?
> >>
> >> What is the source of information? Did Starr leak this also?
> >>
> >> It certainly is a silly line of questioning just like the silly
> >> explanations that initially came out like the President doesn't
> >> believe oral sex is really sex.
> >
> >There is a difference between Starr's "silly line of questioning"
> >and the "silly explanations". One is fully Constitutional free
> >speech, and the other is done within the confines of the judicial
> >system, with the full power of the law behind it. See the
> >difference?
>
> Like when Clinton was deposed. . . .
Ummmm, I guess you don't. The deposition was _another_ attempt
at hijacking the judicial machinery for political purpose. Try
again. What _is_ the difference between public statements of
opinion and judicially enforced questioning under penalty of
perjury concerning matters which _should_, IMHO, be protected
from such scurrilous panty-sniffing by the government? By what
right does Starr get to ask people about other people's _religious_
beliefs? Do you see nothing _wrong_, nay, _ominous_ in a
government that does that?
> . . . And with all due respect, how do we know
> these questions were asked? We can only assume so. . . .
I don't know. If the original poster here could provide sources,
I would appreciate it as well. My guess would be that Blumenthal,
under no restriction of confidentiality, might have related
the questions he was asked. But it _could_ be that someone
else provided this information.
> . . . If you assert
> that oral sex isn't sex don't be surprised if the question comes
> up when investigating possible perjury regarding the relationship.
Of what legal significance is Blumenthal's opinion as to what Clinton
believes? Have we come to the point where courts are to decide
what we believe?
Knopp
<csourc...@nicom.com> wrote:
> Knopp wrote in message ...
>
> >...and Bill Clinton was accused of improper use of his employees for his
> >personal sexual gratification.
>
> Who accused him? Monica Lewinsky has not. Why is Kenneth Starr dragging
> her into the now defunct Jones case by Kenneth Starr?
Because Mr. Clinton is said to have committed perjury in his attempts to
have the case thrown out, and have encouraged others to do the same.
> >> Now, tell me. Do _you_ think that Starr's investigation is
> >> about an issue of burning importance to the country? Or is it
> >
> >Yes. Whether or not the chief law enforcement agent of the the United
> >States feels that he's above the law is of burning importance to the
> >country.
>
>
> Oh really? So this case is not about sex, it is about "feelings!" Talk
"Feelings" as in his respect for the Constitution of the United States.
While you may not feel this is important, I'd suggest that you are in the
minority.
> about touchy-feely law enforcement. Starr: "Did you touch it, Mr.
> President? Did Monica touch it? Agent Cockrell, did the President touch it?
> How about Monica, Agent Cockrell? Did Monica touch it?"
He's already said that this didn't happen. IF it did, he's committed a felony.
--
-Knopp
Knopp
> In article <6oqkv2$j50$1...@news.monad.net>,
> Surfin' Al <ha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > bab...@ix.netcom.com(Cad) writes: > In <35B04D...@global.net> HOOVER
> <ho...@global.net> writes:
> > > >
> > > >And the point of the title of this post is??
> > >
> > > Starr's perverse obsession with Clinton's sex life makes J Edgar
> > > Hoover's spying on JFK look like a girl scout jamboree.
> > >
> > Can you supply us with any quote from Mr. Starr, any legal documents, etc
> > where he specifically says :"I'm investigating Mr. Clinton's sex life"?
> > Get back to us with the answer.
>
> Why do we need Starr's comments? Can't you figure it out for yourself?
> Maybe you can explain why Starr had the FBI check a dress for semen
> stains. But, I tender for your consideration once again:
We know why. Ms. Goldberg said that Ms. Lewinsky claimed on tape that she
had a semen stained black cocktail dress.
--
-Knopp
zu...@ix.netcom.com
<3068F929E75D04EC.294632C4...@library-proxy.airnews.net
>, edmun...@hotmail.com (Ed Burke) wrote:
> zu...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
> > > It is about perjury, bribery, tampering with witnesses, suborning
> > > perjury, violation of campaign finance laws, fraud, and a few others.
>
> > Ummm, then could you explain why he started his panty-sniffing in
> > 1997, as I pointed out in my first post? And, BTW, he is not
> > investigating CFL violations. And not a hell of a lot has come
> > out of anything else he's looking into.
>
> The obvious deduction is that there's something involved here that's a
> lot more important than the Sleaze-in-Chief's lies about porking interns.
> Apparently Reno thought so when she OK'd this line of inquiry.
No:
"In the latest travesty, as revealed by the Washington Post,
Starr used prosecutors and FBI agents to interrogate Arkansas
state troopers about women with whom Bill Clinton allegedly had
affairs prior to his presidency. Starr's deputy argues that
they had a duty to find out whether Clinton might have confided
some incriminating statements to these women. Fine--until you
consider the questions Starr's agents actually asked. They
wanted to know whether one woman had borne a child who
resembled Clinton and whether any of the officers had witnessed
Clinton having sex with local women."
(U.S. News and World Report, July 21, 1997)
The obvious conclusion is that Starr is on a panty-sniffing
expedition, and is pursuing it with overwhelming zeal, and
probably a raging hard-on. His deisre to "get" the President
on something, _anything_, is transparent.
> > > Why do you think that they are no big deal just because Clintoon is
> > > the accused?
>
> > I think it's a big deal that private sexual behaviour is becoming
> > the "legitimate subject" of IC investigations. You don't see a
> > problem with that?
>
> Starr was pursuing this angle of inquiry before Clinton got caught in
> perjury in his Jones testimony. Obviates your claim.
That _was_ my point, you moron. The "perjury" hook was just the
means for Starr to try to legitimize this intrusion. Glad you
agree with me. Now explain why it's anybody's business, much less
the legitimate subject of a IC investigation costing millions.
> > And there are _many_ that feel that he has _far_ exceeded the scope
> > of the jurisdiction granted him...
>
> OK. Clinton should fire him in that case. Why doesn't he?
Political reasons, most probably. IMHO, it may well be better to
let Starr go on with this travesty, and do some real damage to the
Republicans in the fall. I don't think anyone disputes the fact
that Clinton is a political animal, and a successful one at that.
> > I think it was a bad mistake to
> > let him _near_ the Lewinsky stuff, given that she was a witness in
> > the Jones case, and he had _volunteered_ a brief on behalf of Jones
> > in her case against the President. What possessed Reno to accede
> > to _Starr's_ request for the expanded jurisdiction, I haven't the
> > foggiest...
>
> "You haven't the foggiest" seems to comprise your general take on all
> matters related to this case. The one thing we can be sure of is that
> Starr presented convincing evidence--and given Reno's partisanship, it
> must have been REALLY convincing--of serious crimes, and that none of us
> are privy to that evidence yet.
Nope. All that is needed is "information sufficient to constitute grounds
to investigate whether any person described in subsection (b) _may_ have
violated any Federal criminal law. . ." (my emphasis) and the attorney
general determines that "there are reasonable grounds to believe that
further investigation is warranted. . ."
The only constraints on sufficiency of the evidence is that the
attorney general should _consider_ the "credibility" and "specificity"
of the information.
There is no requirement of there being "convincing evidence", much less
"RELLAY convincing--of serious crimes".
So Starr got the Tripp tapes (the contents of which seem to be know to
just about everybody), used these to request an expansion, and then
has used his position to engage in a panty-sniffing expedition. But
I point out that he started his panty-sniffing _before_ the Lewinsky
matter arose. Plain as day. We can see the horizons of his investigation
from the material that has leaked out, and from the reports of the
various people subpoenaed. I don't think there are any big surprises
there. We know what the alleged behavior is. And _this_ is a
matter worthy of several Supreme Court cases, many millions of dollars
of taxpayer money, and the subpoenaing of many people, just to
testify about private consensual sexual behaviour?
Bruce Campbell
zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote in message <6otd2d$k26$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
I understand the difference. But why all the quick conclusions about Starr's
_alledged_ line of questioning? If a witness testified that Clinton said in
his religion oral sex was not sex so you can deny we had sex would it not be
appropriate to verify/refute that. We don't know in what context the
questioning came up. We can only speculate.
As to the sex aspect of the case, it's not going anywhere. It's the perjury
and obstruction that the White House is worried about. I know you don't
believe its material. But the judges havn't stopped Starr so perhaps they
disagree ...or perhaps there is something we don't know about that hasn't
been leaked.
And of course I do see something wrong and ominous about a govt that looks
into our private lives. But, I'm also very concerned about any politician,
like the president, who may take a cavalier attitude about sex. Not because
of the sex but because of the potential for blackmail or espionage. What do
you think this President would do if Monica had taped their meetings and
threatened to go public. Or if the Chinese had set up a rendezvous and taped
it, do you think perhaps they could persuade him to support most favored
nation status. History is full of examples where Heads of State or those in
power were compromised over affairs. Even if the public believes what he
does in private life is nobody's business. It does potentially affect the
nations business.
>
>> . . . And with all due respect, how do we know
>> these questions were asked? We can only assume so. . . .
>
>I don't know. If the original poster here could provide sources,
>I would appreciate it as well. My guess would be that Blumenthal,
>under no restriction of confidentiality, might have related
>the questions he was asked. But it _could_ be that someone
>else provided this information.
My whole point is that this is all speculation, is it about sex or perjury
or obstruction or the vast right wing conspiracy. Did Starr leak or did the
White House. Or maybe the Judges. Or cancer man from the x-files. Hell he
seems to know everything.
>
>> . . . If you assert
>> that oral sex isn't sex don't be surprised if the question comes
>> up when investigating possible perjury regarding the relationship.
>
>Of what legal significance is Blumenthal's opinion as to what Clinton
>believes? Have we come to the point where courts are to decide
>what we believe?
It could simply be verifying or refuting previous testimony. Maybe, Monica
stated that Clinton told her oral sex wasn't sex. Asking Blumenthal would be
a way to try to verify that. Clinton has been asked to testify six times
before the Grand Jury and he has declined. If this is just _sex_ why doesn't
he testify and merely say something like "I am a southern gentleman and I
had no intention of discussing my private sex life, I told a little white
lie and that's all".
Do you really think anybody is going to pursue that as perjury. or even
obstruction if he told Monica to do the same?
Sorry Arne, but there is too much smoke for such a supposedly little fire.
Von Jaeger
>On Sun, 19 Jul 1998 07:05:39 GMT, Nu...@Biz.com (Von Jaeger) let loose
>with:
>
>>On Sun, 19 Jul 1998 03:24:21 GMT, kur...@fatnet.net (Tony G.) wrote:
>
>>>On 19 Jul 1998 02:50:06 GMT, "STEPHEN J VERMULLEN" <IS...@prodigy.net>
>>>let loose with:
>
>>>>I find it amusing that when ever liberals find them selves on the losing
>>>>side of this argument about Clinton ,or whatever the subject, they always
>>>>resort to name calling and personal attacks
>
>>>Really?
>
>>>>of whoever they disagree
>>>>with.It's a sure way to tell that they have no more reasonable arguments to
>>>>present. Clinton is as guilty as sin and we all know it. Now lets get him
>>>>out of there.
>
>>>Reagan, Bush, Clinton, pond scum, dog shit, white trash, etc...
>
>>>You wouldn't know a liberal if one bitch slapped you.
>
>>HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>>Really?
>
>>You respond by spouting "White Trash" and "Bitch" slapping?
>
>>I guess you are just a redneck nigger with all that hate and
>>slandering and a desire to slap "bitches" eh?
>
>Bitch slap isn't gender specific. Its something G Gordon and Chuck
>Colson heard allot while in stir I would guess.
I see through that guise.
>
>>I guess it is safe to assume that the person who acknowledged that
>>"Clinton is as guilty as sin" hit a raw nerve?
>
>As guilty as Bush and Reagan.
Refresh my memory... What were Reagan and Bush found guilty of? How
many of their staffs went to jail for wrong doing?
>
>>Pack your racist back pack and join the Holocaust revisionists you
>>foul cretin.
>
>No that would be right wingers. The holocaust happened just like the
>USA's killing of hundreds of thousands during the Philippine
>insurrection. Makes you feel good to be a right wing flag waver hunh?
>
Um, yes. A lot better than you must feel as panty waist draft dodging
commie hugger. BTW it was a DEMOCRAT who was in the WH when said
abuses occured. Figure that one out!
>
>Why did you bring up the holocaust looking for some cheap points?
>"I'll seem real smart if I can toss the holocaust in... maybe I can
>squeeze the term PC in too, then I'll be as smart as Rush tells me I
>am"
No chance, you are starting too late with too little.
>
>
>>I hope the irony makes you cringe.
>
>That Clinton is a small time Reagan?
Just wait till Ken Starr drops "da bomb" on Billy. Then the China
investigation will open up and the REAL Clinton scandal will make
Reagan and Bush look like Choir boys.
Jonathan S. Mark
>> Why do we need Starr's comments? Can't you figure it out for yourself?
>> Maybe you can explain why Starr had the FBI check a dress for semen
>> stains. But, I tender for your consideration once again:
>
>We know why. Ms. Goldberg said that Ms. Lewinsky claimed on tape that she
>had a semen stained black cocktail dress.
Lucianne Goldberg admitted making that up. See page 136 of the Brill's
article in the August issue of Brill's content magazine:
"In fact, Goldberg is not sure that Tripp said Lewinsky had talked about
having _saved_ a dress, as opposed to a dress simply having been stained. 'I
MIGHT HAVE ADDED THE PART ABOUT IT BEING SAVED, Goldberg told me.'"
(Capitalization added by me for emphasis.)
Did Goldberg tell Starr that Lewinsky had saved a semen-stained dress? If
so, then Starr should ARREST Goldberg for making false statements to
Starr's investigators.
That is, unless Starr likes having people lie about Lewinsky., so that Kenny
Baby can then "investigate" it.
Did Starr investigate the semen-stained blue dress WITHOUT asking Goldberg
about it? Why? Is it because he knew the statement was a lie, and didn't
want to put Goldberg in the position of repeating a false statement to his
investigators?
zu...@ix.netcom.com
kno...@hotmail.com (Knopp) wrote:
> In article <6oqpf0$bgl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > In article <35AFD7...@vr-net.com>,
> > > > whether Clinton was honest about something that was at most of
> > > > concern to Jones and _Jones only_ (although even here I would
> > > > say that it wasn't even Jones' business). Who got hurt here,
> > > > _even if all allegations are true_?
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't remember any such defense from you of Packwood.
> > >
> > > Do I sence a bit of partisianship here?
> > >
> > > Mark
> >
> > Packwood was accused of unwanted sexual advances, IIRC. . .
>
> ...and Bill Clinton was accused of improper use of his employees for his
And I suppose that all I have to do is accuse you of giving me
an improper wedgie and that will allow me to ask you under court
compulsion how many times you have taken it up the ass. . .
You note, BTW, exactly how far that accusation got. The only
thing that Paula got out of it was the opportunity to panty-sniff
through use of court order on all kinds of inadmissible stuff, which
her lawyers cleverly "disclosed" in court filings, prompting
Wright to threaten them with sanctions for _their_ behaviour. . . .
> . . . He's said to have lied under oath in order
> to make it appear that he hadn't ever asked another female employee to
> "kiss it".
Nor did they _ask_ Clinton in the deposition if he _had_ done such.
Turns out that the Jones lawyers questioning was most likely inadmissible
and, IMHO, immaterial. The discovery was meant, as Bennett pointed out
in resisting production of some of the stuff, to harrass and embarrass
the President.
> You do need to find out if he indeed asked another employee to
> "kiss it" to determine if Mr. Clinton is guilty of perjury,
No, you moron. See above.
> . . . just as it was
> necessary to find out if Bob Packwood slapped a few fannies to
> determine whether or not he sexually harassed co-workers.
If the fannies in question belonged to the accusers, yes. His
was not, though, a civil proceeding. And to be perfectly honest,
if they had asked him about his private, consensual conduct,
I would think that this line of questioning would be unjustified
as well.
> > But you don't remember any such defence of Packwood from me
> > because I wasn't saying anything either way here at the time.
> >
> > Now, tell me. Do _you_ think that Starr's investigation is
> > about an issue of burning importance to the country? Or is it
>
> Yes. Whether or not the chief law enforcement agent of the the United
> States feels that he's above the law is of burning importance to the
> country.
How many people are charged with criminal perjury for their testimony
in civil cases? The answer is: _Very_ few. Then tell me why this
_particularly_ intrusive and abusive questioning should be held to
be grounds for criminal perjury charges.
> > a perse-, uh, prosecutor out in search of a "crime", any "crime",
> > to pin on the President? Isn't the job of a prosecutor to
>
> No. He was given "specific, credible evidence" to suggest that the
> President had committed perjury.
Then why was Starr asking this:
"In the latest travesty, as revealed by the Washington Post,
Starr used prosecutors and FBI agents to interrogate Arkansas
state troopers about women with whom Bill Clinton allegedly had
affairs prior to his presidency. Starr's deputy argues that
they had a duty to find out whether Clinton might have confided
some incriminating statements to these women. Fine--until you
consider the questions Starr's agents actually asked. They
wanted to know whether one woman had borne a child who
resembled Clinton and whether any of the officers had witnessed
Clinton having sex with local women."
(U.S. News and World Report, July 21, 1997)
> > go out and investigate who committed a crime, rather than go
> > out and investigate someone to find out what crime they committed?
> > I'd say that when it gets turned around like that, it starts
> > to seem kind of personal. . . .
>
> Don't take it personally....you didn't (I don't think) committ perjury.
I would have told them to "kiss it" right then and there if _anyone_
had asked me the questions they asked Clinton. And they could have
locked me up for contempt of court, and I still wouldn't answer.
But I'm not the President, and for political reasons, he would
have had a hard time of it telling them to shove it with their
abusive discovery.
I take it _very_ personally when the government becomes abusive
of people's freedoms. And that goes for the big guys as well as
the little ones.
zu...@ix.netcom.com
> >
> > >personal sexual gratification.
> >
> > her into the now defunct Jones case by Kenneth Starr?
>
> Because Mr. Clinton is said to have committed perjury in his attempts to
> have the case thrown out, and have encouraged others to do the same.
Or might he have done this in an effort to keep it from getting splayed
all over the front pages of newspapers, which is what _did_ happen
after it got out? It does make a difference, you know.
[snip]
Jonathan S. Mark
>Because Mr. Clinton is said to have committed perjury in his attempts to
>have the case thrown out, and have encouraged others to do the same.
WHO said that? To be perjurious a statement must be: (1) under oath; (2)
knowingly false; AND (3) material, meaning of significance to the matter
being investigated.
WHO said that President Clinton committed perjury? Not Monica, not the
judge in the Jones case, and not the Jones attorneys.
Kenny Baby is the one who says it, and he cannot investigate an alleged
"crime" if he is already declaring the target of his investigation is
guilty.
SO I ask again: WHO says that President Clinton committed perjury? If Starr
is the one who says it he should resign over his bias. Has Starr said that?
>> >Yes. Whether or not the chief law enforcement agent of the the United
>> >States feels that he's above the law is of burning importance to the
>> >country.
>>
>>
>> Oh really? So this case is not about sex, it is about "feelings!" Talk
>
>"Feelings" as in his respect for the Constitution of the United States.
>While you may not feel this is important, I'd suggest that you are in the
>minority.
YOU JUST SAID ITAGAIN! You wish to have an investigation into President
Clinton's "feelings." What statute of criminal law regulates one's
"feelings," may I ask?
>> about touchy-feely law enforcement. Starr: "Did you touch it, Mr.
>> President? Did Monica touch it? Agent Cockrell, did the President touch
it?
>> How about Monica, Agent Cockrell? Did Monica touch it?"
>
>He's already said that this didn't happen. IF it did, he's committed a
felony.
Not so. Reread the federal perjury statute. To be perjurious a statement
must be: (1) under oath; (2) knowingly false; AND (3) material, meaning
significant to the matter being adjudicated.
Sex with the President is not material to any crime, nor is it a crime
itself. President Clinton could testify tomorrow that he had gone for a
ride in a UFO, and the matter would not be perjurious, even though it was
false.
>
>--
>-Knopp
Knopp
> On Sun, 19 Jul 1998 13:52:35 -0400 kno...@hotmail.com (Knopp) wrote:
>
> >> > > >And the point of the title of this post is??
> >> > >
> >> > > Starr's perverse obsession with Clinton's sex life makes J Edgar
> >> > > Hoover's spying on JFK look like a girl scout jamboree.
>
> >We know why. Ms. Goldberg said that Ms. Lewinsky claimed on tape that she
> >had a semen stained black cocktail dress.
>
> And this is in some way related to "high crimes and misdemeanors"?
Perjury is a felony. Most consider felonies to be high crimes. Evidence
of semen belonging to Mr. Clinton on a dress owned by Ms. Lewinsky would go
toward showing that a felony had been committed.
> Maybe kenny starr thinks so, but the overehleming majority of the
> American Public do not.
Most Americans, according to most polls believe that if Mr. Clinton broke
the law, he should resign, regardless of whether or not they like Ken
Starr.
> Starr's popularity rating is vying with Saddam Hussein's for last
> place.
..and Mr. Hussein's popularity has just about as much to do with the truth
of whether or not Mr. Clinton is a felon as that of Ken Starr's.
> And the Republicans are quite aware of that fact.
--
-Knopp
Knopp
> On Sun, 19 Jul 1998 13:55:11 -0400 kno...@hotmail.com (Knopp) wrote:
>
>
> >> >> Now, tell me. Do _you_ think that Starr's investigation is
> >> >> about an issue of burning importance to the country? Or is it
> >> >
> >> >Yes. Whether or not the chief law enforcement agent of the the United
> >> >States feels that he's above the law is of burning importance to the
> >> >country.
>
> You and 12% of the voters beleive that.
> In a democracy, a group that small can be ignored.
In a democracy, public opinion does not dismiss criminal activity.
> >"Feelings" as in his respect for the Constitution of the United States.
> >While you may not feel this is important, I'd suggest that you are in the
> >minority.
>
> You need to get outside your cabin every once in a while. Buy a
> newspaper, listen to something other than Rush, watch somebody other
> than Pat Robertson. If your only source of news is the Drudge report,
> your perception of reality tends to be a little skewed.
My perception is fine. It's those who choose to the White House who's
opinions are so skewed as to suggest that it's okay to lie under oath.
> >He's already said that this didn't happen. IF it did, he's committed a
felony.
>
> Spare us your legal opinions. Any number of *qualified* lawyers have
> told you over and over again that this is incorrect. Why don't you
I've not heard from a single qualified lawyer.
> cite the section of the US Code you think that this violates?
Are you suggesting that it's okay to lie under oath in a way that would
cause another American citizen to be denied testimony they think will add
credbility to their claims?
--
-Knopp
Knopp
<csourc...@nicom.com> wrote:
> Knopp wrote in message ...
>
> >Because Mr. Clinton is said to have committed perjury in his attempts to
> >have the case thrown out, and have encouraged others to do the same.
>
>
> WHO said that? To be perjurious a statement must be: (1) under oath; (2)
> knowingly false; AND (3) material, meaning of significance to the matter
> being investigated.
>
> WHO said that President Clinton committed perjury? Not Monica, not the
> judge in the Jones case, and not the Jones attorneys.
>
> Kenny Baby is the one who says it, and he cannot investigate an alleged
> "crime" if he is already declaring the target of his investigation is
> guilty.
> SO I ask again: WHO says that President Clinton committed perjury? If Starr
People in this country are innocent until proven guilty. IT HAS BEEN SAID
that there is specific credible evidence to suggest that he has committed
perjury. Mr. Starr is investigating this evidence and all the Clinton
appologists can do is whine about it.
> is the one who says it he should resign over his bias. Has Starr said that?
No. Lots of peple (pundits...Ms. Goldberg....etc.) HAVE said that the
evidence points to Mr. Clinton's guilt. Mr. Starr's never said it himself.
> >> >Yes. Whether or not the chief law enforcement agent of the the United
> >> >States feels that he's above the law is of burning importance to the
> >> >country.
> >>
> >>
> >> Oh really? So this case is not about sex, it is about "feelings!" Talk
> >
> >"Feelings" as in his respect for the Constitution of the United States.
> >While you may not feel this is important, I'd suggest that you are in the
> >minority.
>
>
> YOU JUST SAID ITAGAIN! You wish to have an investigation into President
> Clinton's "feelings." What statute of criminal law regulates one's
> "feelings," may I ask?
Not and investigation INTO his feelings, but the actions he takes based on
those "feelings". Your attempts to distort are noted.
> >> about touchy-feely law enforcement. Starr: "Did you touch it, Mr.
> >> President? Did Monica touch it? Agent Cockrell, did the President touch
> it?
> >> How about Monica, Agent Cockrell? Did Monica touch it?"
> >
> >He's already said that this didn't happen. IF it did, he's committed a
> felony.
>
>
> Not so. Reread the federal perjury statute. To be perjurious a statement
> must be: (1) under oath; (2) knowingly false; AND (3) material, meaning
> significant to the matter being adjudicated.
Whether or not Bill Clinton had a habit of requesting that his employees
service him in order to satisfy his sexual needs was already determined by
Judge Wright to be signifactly relevant to Ms. Jones argument. Mr.
Clinton's attorney's had tried to fight that line of questioning, lost, and
he was ordered by Ms. Wright to honestly answer the questions given to him.
Any attempts to do otherwise is a result of his illegally trying to
circumvent the orders of the court in order to obstruct justice. Sorry.
> Sex with the President is not material to any crime, nor is it a crime
> itself. President Clinton could testify tomorrow that he had gone for a
But it was already deemed to be material in Ms. Jones civil trial.
Knopp
> Knopp wrote in message ...
>
> >> Why do we need Starr's comments? Can't you figure it out for yourself?
> >> Maybe you can explain why Starr had the FBI check a dress for semen
> >> stains. But, I tender for your consideration once again:
> >
> >We know why. Ms. Goldberg said that Ms. Lewinsky claimed on tape that she
> >had a semen stained black cocktail dress.
>
>
> Lucianne Goldberg admitted making that up. See page 136 of the Brill's
> article in the August issue of Brill's content magazine:
>
> "In fact, Goldberg is not sure that Tripp said Lewinsky had talked about
> having _saved_ a dress, as opposed to a dress simply having been stained. 'I
> MIGHT HAVE ADDED THE PART ABOUT IT BEING SAVED, Goldberg told me.'"
> (Capitalization added by me for emphasis.)
So you are saying that Ms. Goldberg didn't "make it up", but that the story
was based on what Ms. Lewinsky had said to Ms. Tripp. Thank you for
supporting my claim.
> Did Goldberg tell Starr that Lewinsky had saved a semen-stained dress? If
> so, then Starr should ARREST Goldberg for making false statements to
> Starr's investigators.
Ms. Goldberg, (according to the quote you gave from the less then credible
source) says that she can't remember whether she specifically stated that
she "saved" the stain. That's hardly grounds for criminal action.
> That is, unless Starr likes having people lie about Lewinsky., so that Kenny
> Baby can then "investigate" it.
Ms. Goldberg was merely reporting on what had been said from a third party.
Any relevant information as to a dress would have been obtained by Starr
himself. Obviously someone other then Ms. Goldberg verified the claim, or
they wouldn't have taken into evidence dresses.
> Did Starr investigate the semen-stained blue dress WITHOUT asking Goldberg
It was black (according to Goldberg) ABC NEWS got it wrong.
> about it? Why? Is it because he knew the statement was a lie, and didn't
Most likely he got the info from the same source Ms. Goldberg got it.
> want to put Goldberg in the position of repeating a false statement to his
> investigators?
*yawn*
--
-Knopp
Cad
kno...@hotmail.com (Knopp) writes:
>
>In article <199807191905...@nsm.htp.org>,
Spee...@nsm.htp.org wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 Jul 1998 13:52:35 -0400 kno...@hotmail.com (Knopp)
wrote:
>>
>> >> > > >And the point of the title of this post is??
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Starr's perverse obsession with Clinton's sex life makes J
Edgar
>> >> > > Hoover's spying on JFK look like a girl scout jamboree.
>>
that she
>> >had a semen stained black cocktail dress.
>>
>
>Perjury is a felony. Most consider felonies to be high crimes.
Evidence
>of semen belonging to Mr. Clinton on a dress owned by Ms. Lewinsky
would go
>toward showing that a felony had been committed.
>
>> Maybe kenny starr thinks so, but the overehleming majority of the
>> American Public do not.
>
>Most Americans, according to most polls believe that if Mr. Clinton
broke
>the law, he should resign, regardless of whether or not they like Ken
>Starr.
>
>> Starr's popularity rating is vying with Saddam Hussein's for last
>> place.
>
>..and Mr. Hussein's popularity has just about as much to do with the
truth
>of whether or not Mr. Clinton is a felon as that of Ken Starr's.
>
>> And the Republicans are quite aware of that fact.
>
>--
>-Knopp
Just like the hundreds of other bullshit rumors and canards about
supposed events or evidence, it never quite panned out. None of them
did. If this was Vegas and you had based your bets on this crap, Louie
the Lip would now be living in your house and your wife would be
serving him dinner tonight.
Jonathan S. Mark
>
>Perjury is a felony. Most consider felonies to be high crimes. Evidence
>of semen belonging to Mr. Clinton on a dress owned by Ms. Lewinsky would go
>toward showing that a felony had been committed.
NO! Perjury must be material. What if President Clinton claimed in a sworn
affadavit that Buddy was a Siamese cat. Would he be guilty of perjury? No,
because the statement would not be material or relevant.
Contrary to what Starr cultists claim to believe, perjury is more than just
lying under oath. The perjurious statement must be material. That is an
old principle of common law, as old as the inviolability of lawyer-client
privilege after death, another aspect of law KENNY BABY seeks to do away
with as it interferes with his panty-sniffing.
Sniifff! Good one, Kenny Boy!
>Most Americans, according to most polls believe that if Mr. Clinton broke
>the law, he should resign, regardless of whether or not they like Ken
>Starr.
What furniture polish have you been inhaling? Or maybe you too, like Starr,
have been sniffing Monica's panties for too long.
The most recent poll I saw, and I think it was an NBC poll, said that EVEN
IF President Clinton had sex with Monica, lied about it under oath and asked
Monica to do the same most Americans STILL would not want him to resign.
>..and Mr. Hussein's popularity has just about as much to do with the truth
>of whether or not Mr. Clinton is a felon as that of Ken Starr's.
>
Another flip-flop by the Starr cultists. They argue, on the one hand, that
Starr has an impeccable reputation and therefore we should withhold
judgement because "none of us knows what he has."
Then they say that Starr's horrendous reputation with the American public
doesn't matter.
Which is it? Starr has a great reputation and therefore we should trust he
has the evidence? Or Starr has a lousy reputation but that doesn't matter?
Jonathan S. Mark
>My perception is fine. It's those who choose to the White House who's
>opinions are so skewed as to suggest that it's okay to lie under oath.
It is legal to lie under oath as long as the matter is not material.
>I've not heard from a single qualified lawyer.
Nor have you looked for one, obviously, since what you claim to believe
(that all lies under oath, no matter how trivial, are perjurious) is false.
>Are you suggesting that it's okay to lie under oath in a way that would
>cause another American citizen to be denied testimony they think will add
>credbility to their claims?
YES! If the judge excludes the testimony because it is irrelevant it does
not matter what the plaintiff thinks. Plaintiff = Paula Jones. Judge =
Susan Wright. Different people.
Jonathan S. Mark
>People in this country are innocent until proven guilty. IT HAS BEEN SAID
>that there is specific credible evidence to suggest that he has committed
>perjury.
For the umpteenth time, WHO said that? Not Monica. Not Judge Wright. Not
Paula Jones or her attorneys. SO WHO SAID IT?
Kenny Baby says it, and then uses the fact that HE says it to justify HIS
investigation. That is not the way it is supposed to work. Judge Wright or
the Paula Jones attorneys could have referred this matter to the DOJ, but
that is not what happened.
Kenny BABY jumped the gun. He cannot make statements that the President is
guilty while he investigates that same president. It violates the
recognized right of a citizen to an UNBIASED prosecutor.
> Mr. Starr is investigating this evidence and all the Clinton
>appologists can do is whine about it.
When this matter is all over we will see who is doing the whining. Linda
"Man-Beast" Tripp is whining already...
>No. Lots of peple (pundits...Ms. Goldberg....etc.) HAVE said that the
>evidence points to Mr. Clinton's guilt.
That is not a justification for a criminal investigation. Pundits do not
determine whether a grand jury should be convened.
> Mr. Starr's never said it himself.
How do you know what he says in his leaks of grand jury information? You
state authoritatively as a fact that which you could not know.
>> >> >Yes. Whether or not the chief law enforcement agent of the the
United
>> >> >States feels that he's above the law is of burning importance to the
>> >> >country.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Oh really? So this case is not about sex, it is about "feelings!"
Talk
>> >
>> >"Feelings" as in his respect for the Constitution of the United States.
>> >While you may not feel this is important, I'd suggest that you are in
the
>> >minority.
>>
>>
>> YOU JUST SAID ITAGAIN! You wish to have an investigation into President
>> Clinton's "feelings." What statute of criminal law regulates one's
>> "feelings," may I ask?
>
You said that this investigation was important because "Yes. Whether or not
the chief law enforcement agent of the the United States feels that he's
above the law is of burning importance to the country."
If the investigation is to determine whether or not President Clinton
"feels" that he is above the law then this is indeed an investigation into
the President's feelings.
>Whether or not Bill Clinton had a habit of requesting that his employees
>service him in order to satisfy his sexual needs was already determined by
>Judge Wright to be signifactly relevant to Ms. Jones argument. Mr.
>Clinton's attorney's had tried to fight that line of questioning, lost, and
>he was ordered by Ms. Wright to honestly answer the questions given to him.
After Judge Wright saw the horse excrement that the Jones lawyers brought
back, something about questioning whether the president had ever touched
Monica's breasts through her clothing, Judge Wright was so appalled that she
THREW the stuff out. Not only was testimony about Monica not relevant in
the Jones case, the judge EXCLUDED it!
>But it was already deemed to be material in Ms. Jones civil trial.
No. It was excluded.
Jonathan S. Mark
>>
yourself?
>> >> Maybe you can explain why Starr had the FBI check a dress for semen
>> >> stains. But, I tender for your consideration once again:
>> >
she
>> >had a semen stained black cocktail dress.
>>
>>
>> article in the August issue of Brill's content magazine:
>>
>> "In fact, Goldberg is not sure that Tripp said Lewinsky had talked about
>> having _saved_ a dress, as opposed to a dress simply having been stained.
'I
>> MIGHT HAVE ADDED THE PART ABOUT IT BEING SAVED, Goldberg told me.'"
>> (Capitalization added by me for emphasis.)
>
>So you are saying that Ms. Goldberg didn't "make it up", but that the story
>was based on what Ms. Lewinsky had said to Ms. Tripp. Thank you for
>supporting my claim.
Your inability to read and understand a simple English-language quotation is
noted. Did you break the 300 level on your English SAT, may I ask?
>> Did Goldberg tell Starr that Lewinsky had saved a semen-stained dress?
If
>> so, then Starr should ARREST Goldberg for making false statements to
>> Starr's investigators.
>
>Ms. Goldberg, (according to the quote you gave from the less then credible
>source) says that she can't remember whether she specifically stated that
>she "saved" the stain. That's hardly grounds for criminal action.
Goldberg says that she has no recollection of Tripp ever telling her that
Monica had saved a semen-stained blue dress. Yet Goldberg previously
claimed Monica saved a semen-stained blue dress.
Why did Goldberg say that, if she has NO MEMORY of anyone ever telling her
that? Because Goldberg made it up.
Making up stories and then telling them to FBI investigators is a crime.
That the prosecutor, Starr, wants to be lied to in that way is beside the
point.
>Ms. Goldberg was merely reporting on what had been said from a third party.
No, she made it up. See above. She has no memory of anyone telling her that
Monica saved a semen-stained blue dress, and yet you claim someone did tell
her that. How do you know?
>Any relevant information as to a dress would have been obtained by Starr
>himself. Obviously someone other then Ms. Goldberg verified the claim, or
>they wouldn't have taken into evidence dresses.
Obviously. You say so. According to you, Starr cannot seize Monica's
dresses unless they have semen-stains on them. Starr seized Monica's
dresses, therefore her dresses must have semen-stains.
>> Did Starr investigate the semen-stained blue dress WITHOUT asking
Goldberg
>
>It was black (according to Goldberg) ABC NEWS got it wrong.
That is a big difference! Thank God! For a minute I thought that Lucianne
Goldberg, with the connivance of Starr, had fabricated a story of a
semen-stained blue dress. Actually, Goldberg fabricated a story of a
semen-stained BLACK dress. What a relief! Now the country can trust
Goldberg and Starr again.
>> about it? Why? Is it because he knew the statement was a lie, and
didn't
>
>Most likely he got the info from the same source Ms. Goldberg got it.
Goldberg now says that she made it up, that she has no memory of anyone ever
telling her that Monica saved a semen-stained dress. So yes, Kenny Baby and
Lucianne Goldberg did get the story of the semen-stained dress from the same
place...Lucianne Goldberg's IMAGINATION!
Ed Burke
> > I'm making the obvious point that a Clinton partisan was presented with
> > evidence that neither of us is privy to and judged that the line of
> > inquiry was legitimate. Very persuasive circumstance.
> Reno, by law, must give "great weight" to the recommendations of
> the independent counsel when deciding whether to make a determination
> that an expansion of the invesitgation is warranted. Both politically
> and legally, it would have been hard for her to turn this request down...
Utter nonsense. As the New York Times notes in a blistering editorial
today, she's been doing precisely that in a far more serious case
involving illegal campaign money traced to the White House. It's on
their web site right now. She clearly could have vetoed this line of
inquiry as she did the one the NYT talks about, with evidence that is
screaming for investigation--and yet she didn't. A suggestive
circumstance.
jim hofmann
>
> In article <D6ls1.2991$b75.2...@news.mci2000.com>,
> "Bruce Campbell" <btc...@mci2000.com> wrote:
> >
> > Jonathan S. Mark wrote in message <350f1...@newsprime.tidalwave.net>...
>
>
> > >If you admit the "sex thing" is silly then why is Starr investigating who
> > >Monica had sex with?
> >
> > I think it is a very minor part of the investigation. I think that Starr is
> > pursueing perjury and obstruction of justice, otherwise I think the three
> > judge panel would have slapped him down.
>
> fellow Federalist Society member, went and named him to replace the
> perceivedly underperforming Fiske after his little lunchtime chat with
> Lauch Fircloth and Jesse Helms. Helps to have friends in high places. . . .
I can just imagine the broad and evil conspiracy launched over soggy
salads and salty soup. "Sentelle, you go back to those other judges
and promise them plenty of panties to sniff if they go along with this
Starr fella. Starr'll do anything we tell him -- bha-ha-ha, the poor
President is a goner fershure bha-hahahaha.... OK, Lauch and I will go
back to the Senate and act like nothing happened at this lunch. At our
next Federalist Society meeting we will have to exchange codewords and
put our secret rings together. None dare call it a conspiracy! Zipper
those lips, boys and there will be plenty of panties for everyone to
sniff.
Waitress? Check please. Bha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
--- Jim
Jonathan S. Mark
>
>I doubt it. Ken Starr's _their_ hand-picked golden boy. Sentelle,
>fellow Federalist Society member, went and named him to replace the
>perceivedly underperforming Fiske after his little lunchtime chat with
>Lauch Fircloth and Jesse Helms. Helps to have friends in high places. . .
.
I doubt it also. When this is all over, maybe someone will ask why Sentelle
fired Fiske in the first place. IF Sentelle has received even a dollar from
Richard Mellon Scaife then it is conceivable Sentelle could be impeached.
For certain, Sentelle will never be appointed to a higher court.
By the way, speaking of appointments to higher courts, I noticed that one
of the judges who slapped down the protective function privilege argument
was former Reagan Supreme Court nominee Douglas Ginsburg. I have just one
question: What was Douglas Ginsburg SMOKING when he rejected the Secret
Service argument?
I hear that Judge Ginsburg, a well-known toker from way back, retired to his
chambers for a nice spliff before he wrote his opinion.
You have to hand it to these Conservatives. They love that tobackee (Linda
Tripp) but they also love that wackee tobackee. It was undignified,
however, for Judge Ginsburg to set his robes on fire with his spliff and
just sit there taking it all in. Also, when he was surrounded by cannabis
smoke while appearing on the bench it did little to enhance his court's
reputation as a place of seriousness.
zu...@ix.netcom.com
<8A7B2B1ABA4219BC.C83549F4...@library-proxy.airnews.net
>, edmun...@hotmail.com (Ed Burke) wrote:
> zu...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
> > > > Now, tell me. Do _you_ think that Starr's investigation is
> > > > about an issue of burning importance to the country?...
>
> > > His line of investigation was regarded as sufficiently serious to impress
> > > Reno, who OK'd it.
>
> > I didn't ask what Reno thought. I asked for the poster's opinion.
> > Are you in the habit of saying that everything Reno says is OK is
> > just fine by you? I don't _think_ so. . . . So why would you cite
> > Reno as an authority for _your_ position?
>
> I'm making the obvious point that a Clinton partisan was presented with
> evidence that neither of us is privy to and judged that the line of
> inquiry was legitimate. Very persuasive circumstance.
Reno, by law, must give "great weight" to the recommendations of
the independent counsel when deciding whether to make a determination
that an expansion of the invesitgation is warranted. Both politically
and legally, it would have been hard for her to turn this request down.
But that doesn't give it her imprimatur of worthiness (and in fact the
standards for a referral are fairly low to begin with). It may well
have been deference to the panty-sniffer, who had _already_ begun
his investigation before requesting an expansion of his jurisdiction
to include these events.
zu...@ix.netcom.com
"Bruce Campbell" <btc...@mci2000.com> wrote:
>
> Jonathan S. Mark wrote in message <350f1...@newsprime.tidalwave.net>...
[snip]
> >If you admit the "sex thing" is silly then why is Starr investigating who
> >Monica had sex with?
>
> I think it is a very minor part of the investigation. I think that Starr is
> pursueing perjury and obstruction of justice, otherwise I think the three
> judge panel would have slapped him down.
I doubt it. Ken Starr's _their_ hand-picked golden boy. Sentelle,
fellow Federalist Society member, went and named him to replace the
perceivedly underperforming Fiske after his little lunchtime chat with
Lauch Fircloth and Jesse Helms. Helps to have friends in high places. . . .
[snip]
zu...@ix.netcom.com
>
> > In article <6oqkv2$j50$1...@news.monad.net>,
> > Surfin' Al <ha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > bab...@ix.netcom.com(Cad) writes: > In <35B04D...@global.net> HOOVER
> > <ho...@global.net> writes:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Starr's perverse obsession with Clinton's sex life makes J Edgar
> > > > Hoover's spying on JFK look like a girl scout jamboree.
> > > >
> > > where he specifically says :"I'm investigating Mr. Clinton's sex life"?
> > > Get back to us with the answer.
> >
> > Maybe you can explain why Starr had the FBI check a dress for semen
> > stains. But, I tender for your consideration once again:
>
> We know why. Ms. Goldberg said that Ms. Lewinsky claimed on tape that she
> had a semen stained black cocktail dress.
If true, what might that tell you about the worth of the tapes? And
of Monica's value as a witness?
And why do you keep snipping that USNWR snippet without responding?
Why was Starr panty-sniffing back in 1997? Got an answer? Tell
me, is it about sex or isn't it?
Knopp
bab...@ix.netcom.com(Cad) wrote:
<SNIP>
> Yo, K-nopp. Reality check, babe. There was no semen stained dress.
> Just like the hundreds of other bullshit rumors and canards about
> supposed events or evidence, it never quite panned out. None of them
BUT...that was apparently a claim by Ms. Lewinsky. Whether she later had
the dress cleaned or not has no relevance on the fact that this was
revealed by Ms. Lewinksy, and not made up by Ms. Goldberg.
> did. If this was Vegas and you had based your bets on this crap, Louie
> the Lip would now be living in your house and your wife would be
> serving him dinner tonight.
*yawn*
--
-Knopp
Knopp
> In article <knopp_-ya02408000...@news.netaxs.com>,
> kno...@hotmail.com (Knopp) wrote:
> > In article <350f4...@newsprime.tidalwave.net>, "Jonathan S. Mark"
> > <csourc...@nicom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Knopp wrote in message ...
> > >
> > > >...and Bill Clinton was accused of improper use of his employees for his
> > > >personal sexual gratification.
> > >
> > > Who accused him? Monica Lewinsky has not. Why is Kenneth Starr dragging
> > > her into the now defunct Jones case by Kenneth Starr?
> >
> > Because Mr. Clinton is said to have committed perjury in his attempts to
> > have the case thrown out, and have encouraged others to do the same.
>
> Or might he have done this in an effort to keep it from getting splayed
> all over the front pages of newspapers, which is what _did_ happen
> after it got out? It does make a difference, you know.
Not at all. Perjury is perjury. If his lies would have a tendency to
influence a jury that a plaintiff's claim was less credible, then he has
committed perjury. Mr. Jones claims where that Mr. Clinton had a habit of
asking employees for sexual gratification, did so with her, and that she in
some way suffered. If he hadn't lied under oath (if indeed he did), Ms.
Jones claims that Mr. Clinton was an apparent serial abuser of his female
employees would be judged more credible. I don't think that even a Clinton
appolgist could argue against that.
--
-Knopp
Carl J. Hudecek
What has P Jones to do with Whitewater?
*******************************************************
In <knopp_-ya02408000...@news.netaxs.com>
kno...@hotmail.com (Knopp) writes:
Knopp
chud...@ix.netcom.com(Carl J. Hudecek) wrote:
> What has P Jones to do with Whitewater?
About the same thing as Travelgate and FBIFILESgate.
--
-Knopp
Gary Lantz
throughout his life and that is why they are treated differently. Can you
imagine them trying to lay out this type of scandal on JFK??? Charles you
may be right about Ann Coulter, but this distortion of personalities also
destroys the Justice and Respect of the Media. And we understand people
like Klayman and Levin whose opinions are bought and Ann Coulter who wants
some of that action.
Cad
Right. Discredited former so-called scandals. Kind of like the one
being discussed now.
Tony G.
with:
>On Sun, 19 Jul 1998 14:02:47 GMT, kur...@fatnet.net (Tony G.) wrote:
>>On Sun, 19 Jul 1998 07:05:39 GMT, Nu...@Biz.com (Von Jaeger) let loose
>>with:
>>>On Sun, 19 Jul 1998 03:24:21 GMT, kur...@fatnet.net (Tony G.) wrote:
>>>>On 19 Jul 1998 02:50:06 GMT, "STEPHEN J VERMULLEN" <IS...@prodigy.net>
>>>>let loose with:
>>>>>I find it amusing that when ever liberals find them selves on the losing
>>>>>side of this argument about Clinton ,or whatever the subject, they always
>>>>>resort to name calling and personal attacks
>>>>Really?
>>>>>of whoever they disagree
>>>>>with.It's a sure way to tell that they have no more reasonable arguments to
>>>>>present. Clinton is as guilty as sin and we all know it. Now lets get him
>>>>>out of there.
>>>>Reagan, Bush, Clinton, pond scum, dog shit, white trash, etc...
>>>>You wouldn't know a liberal if one bitch slapped you.
>>>HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>>>Really?
>>>You respond by spouting "White Trash" and "Bitch" slapping?
>>>I guess you are just a redneck nigger with all that hate and
>>>slandering and a desire to slap "bitches" eh?
>>Bitch slap isn't gender specific. Its something G Gordon and Chuck
>>Colson heard allot while in stir I would guess.
>I see through that guise.
Good dittohead.
>>>I guess it is safe to assume that the person who acknowledged that
>>>"Clinton is as guilty as sin" hit a raw nerve?
>>As guilty as Bush and Reagan.
>Refresh my memory... What were Reagan and Bush found guilty of?
Clinton been found guilty of? If he goes to trial for something and
he's found innocent you'll still find something else to occupy your
time. Lets say Clinton is found guilty of something and gets booted
out, what are the chances that you hold a republican president to the
same stringent requirements you hold Bill to.
>How many of their staffs went to jail for wrong doing?
How many were pardoned by Bush? How many has Clinton pardoned.
>>>Pack your racist back pack and join the Holocaust revisionists you
>>>foul cretin.
>>No that would be right wingers. The holocaust happened just like the
>>USA's killing of hundreds of thousands during the Philippine
>>insurrection. Makes you feel good to be a right wing flag waver hunh?
>Um, yes. A lot better than you must feel as panty waist draft dodging
>commie hugger. BTW it was a DEMOCRAT who was in the WH when said
>abuses occured. Figure that one out!
I'm a commie hugger and a democrat? News to me. But thank you for
proving that democrats can support imperialism and mass murder just
like republicans.
Remember this? Didn't you agree with this statement at one time.
I find it amusing that when ever liberals find them selves on the
losing side of this argument about Clinton ,or whatever the subject,
they always resort to name calling and personal attacks
Oh the irony.
>>Why did you bring up the holocaust looking for some cheap points?
>>"I'll seem real smart if I can toss the holocaust in... maybe I can
>>squeeze the term PC in too, then I'll be as smart as Rush tells me I
>>am"
>No chance, you are starting too late with too little.
>>>I hope the irony makes you cringe.
>>That Clinton is a small time Reagan?
>Just wait till Ken Starr drops "da bomb" on Billy. Then the China
>investigation will open up and the REAL Clinton scandal will make
>Reagan and Bush look like Choir boys.
I'm sure Ollie North will love it.