Radcons...
Samuel Lee
-> understand that there were some SS types who would cheerfully have
-> taken a contract on her themselves at one time...
DB> Probably. Of course, if you consider the individual who wrote the
DB> book that contained accusations that he even eventually had to
DB> admit were without substantiation, we can understand why.
I don't think I read that one...I read the one by the FBI guy...
Basically he was miffed that the administration insisted on doing
things THEIR way rather than HIS way...
-> Liddy only looks good when you compare him to the alternative.
DB> Liddy sucks. Even Rush is more entertaining than him.
As I said, I don't listen to them, I havn't heard Liddy for over 2 years...so
maybe he's changes...I noted then tho that he didn't
insult my intelligence as Limbaugh did..
]]]SL[[[
... "Aw, mom, you act like I'm not even wearing a bungee cord!"
DAN BOSCH
-> -> I seem to recall she was very popular with the secret service...
-> -> Unlike HC...(G)...
-> DB I saw something about an ex-Secret Service guy who said basically
-> the DB> same thing about Hillary.
-> DB> Hillary treats them more like peers and has discussions with the
-> ones DB> assigned to her, etc.
-> Maybe she's gotten used to them...
-> I understand that there were some SS types who would
-> cheerfully have taken a contract on her themselves at one
-> time...
Probably. Of course, if you consider the individual who wrote the
book that contained accusations that he even eventually had to admit
were without substantiation, we can understand why.
It's probably like anything else...Got to find the right person to
spend that much time with. I bet even Sadaam has someone who likes
him...maybe.
-> DB> I heard G. Gordon Liddy (what a low quality commentator) saying
-> DB> yesterday that Clinton's a coward for not forcing Sadaam to open up
-> DB> for an inspection. Think he wants to bomb them if they don't?
-> Liddy only looks good when you compare him to the alternative.
Liddy sucks. Even Rush is more entertaining than him. At least he can
read the news without stumbling all over the place.
Interesting world, isn't it? When an unrepentant ex-convict can be
given a radio program, insult people like there's no tomorrow, and be
considered by many good moral people as entertainment.
DAN BOSCH
-> Did'ja hear what Dan Bosch said to Samuel Lee?
-> DB> I heard G. Gordon Liddy (what a low quality commentator) saying
-> DB> yesterday that Clinton's a coward for not forcing Sadaam to open up
-> DB> for an inspection. Think he wants to bomb them if they don't?
-> If the Iraqis were not needed to help keep the Iranians in check, I
-> think they should have been made into a parking lot long ago. I know,
-> not very PC... ;)
Yeah, but these days who is? <G>
Nic Boie
EH> IOW, roughly 25% of the eligible voters are either stupid or just too
EH> desperate to have one of their "own" in the WH they'll overlook
EH> ANYTHING.
I just have to do this.
Cite it. Or do you not know what cite means? Huh? WHERES YOUR PROOF?
ohh.. your own medicine..
Nic Boie @ 1:282/3043
she...@geocities.com
http://www.dkbbs.base.org
... Label not found: go anywhere you like.
...This copy of ProBoard has been unregistered for 156 days!
Mimi Gallandt
DB> Interesting world, isn't it? When an unrepentant ex-convict can be
DB>given a radio program, insult people like there's no tomorrow, and be
DB>considered by many good moral people as entertainment.
My favorite talk show starts like this:
"The only talk radio NOT hosted by a right wing whacko or a convicted
felon....." :)
Peace and long life
Mimi
o CMPQwk 1.42 9998 oThe more things change, the more they stay insane
Samuel Lee
EH>>> They may get the court to move the deposition proceedings
SL>> The "Court" does not SAY where a deposition takes place.
EH>> Where oh where did I say anything of the sort?
SL> "They may get the COURT to move..." first two lines of quotes...
SL> Need Glasses...?
EH> What a feeble attempt,
There isn't anything FEEBLE about it, unless you count your
reluctance to recognise your own mistake...
It's not a Biggy...It's Not particularly important...
But you said what you said...
And you were wrong...
The court has NO JURISDICTION over ANY property other than
that assigned to it for/by judicial functions...
EH> they realized Paula had the right to attend they changed their minds.
EH> The only thing the court was insisting on was that the president would
EH> be deposed. They gave Him the chioce of where.
No...they didn't GIVE him anything...
They have no authority to GIVE him a CHOICE...
It's HIS perogative.
Just as its Paula's perogative as to WHERE she will be deposed
when BC's attorneys decide to do so...
Depositions are NO BIG DEAL...
Until the MEDIA get involved and turn it into a 3 ring circus.
EH> If they had that choice, do you think they would be waffling over
EH> where the deposition will take place?
The lawyers could CARE LESS...it's the media & PR people
making a fuss...(not to mention a few fido GOPhers)
... OFFLINE 1.50 "Haggbard Celine slept here!"
Ross Sauer
-=> Quoting Charles Doll to George Lagergren <=-
SH>> "The Clinton economy is doing great!!! And He did it!!!"
GL> Question: If a "sleaze" candidate like Clinton can beat the GOP
GL> candidate twice, what does this say about how the voters feel about
GL> the Republican Party and whether the Repubs represent the voters'
GL> desires and interests at the Prez level?
CD>
CD> To answer: "sleaze" voters MUST feel that way.
Or the real answer: That most people really don't give a tinker's damm
about charges flung by "conservatives," and are more interested in how
the economy is doing or if we're in a war.
Ross Sauer pa...@bbs.sts.net
Green & Gold going to the Super Bowl!
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR]
George Rudzinski
-=> Quoting Stan Hardegree to Ed Hulett <=-
EH> Yeah, that's it, He doesn't remember doing anything wrong.
SH> Exactly. If he doesn't remember the encounter how can he possibly
SH> remember the nature of his actions during that encounter -- if he does
SH> not remember it?
SH> Stupid client. Incompetent lawyers.
Stupid client?
How many women have you flashed your weenie to that you have forgotten?
george
... We put too much into the oceans and take too much out of the oceans.
Samuel Lee
I'm going to break my rule and answer you this ONE time...
Lest anyone be misled...
CD>> Are you not subpoened for a deposition or ,if you prefer, a
CD>> sworn interrogatory? If so the court can easily say where it
CD>> shall be.
SL> The only place a court can "Summon" you to is _The Court_...
CD> Bull! I have been summoned for a deposition and it wasn't to a
CD> court room.
If you were "summoned" to a deposition, someone figured that was
the ONLY way to get you to show up...and unless it was PERSONALLY
SERVED it wasn't exactly OFFICIAL anyway. AND...if you were
OFFICIALLY summoned it was to a location OFFICIALLY under the
courts jurisdiction...
CD> You are also summoned for jury duty and you sit in a dreary
CD> room allday.
Well, Pima County's Court administrator is a bit more humane...
But you will note that the JURY/Selection rooms are INDEED
under the courts jurisdiction, officially labelled, and usually
have Rules/Regs and explanations posted to clarify this...
CD> Any place you are summoned
CD> TO is an extension of the Court.
Well, you're at least HALF right...since no court will over step
it's own authority and summon you to somplace that it has no
authority over...However...it does NOT have any authority
over a lawyers rented offices, the local restaurant, or
any private residence...Yet depositions have been done in all
three...
CD> Sometimes ,but if you don't go , you are summoned.
Yes...to the court...
... OFFLINE 1.50 "... Farfignewton...the cookie of the stars ...."
Samuel Lee
SH>> Among the "seemingly conflicting comments" were that Slick
SH>> says he does not remember an encounter with Paula Jones and
SH>> simultaneously that he did nothing wrong.
SH>> Those two statements don't exactly square with each other.
SL> Thats absolutely nuts...
SL> If he never met her, what could he POSSIBLY have done
SL> that was "WRONG."...???
SH> He didn't say that he never met her. He said that he does not
SH> remember meeting her. A distinction with a difference.
Ok...I see your point point...
But I still have to insist that if he does not REMEMBER
meeting her...He could not REMEBER doing anything WRONG
with her, COULD HE...???
I think you should agree these are NOT "conflicting comments"
They fit together real well...
The alternative would seem to be for him to admitt...He
may have done something wrong, that he dosen't recall, with a
woman he doesn't remember meeting...Ludicrous...
... OFFLINE 1.50 "There's more than one way to skin a cat....get a sander!"
Stan Hardegree
SH>> would do this year). Given that Slick is being hauled into
SH>> court this year to defend himself for masturbating in front
SH>> of a strange woman and given the fact that the Arkie piece
SH>> of trash broke his party getting re-elected, what is the rationale
SH>> for that up arrow?
EH> Perhaps I can clear this up.
EH> It's not an up arrow, it's a "fully erect" arrow.
Now, THAT possibility hadn't occurred to me. If a woman staffer at Newsweek
assigned the arrow, it could also be an engorged, well, nah, forget it.
Discussions of the Little Man in the Boat are probably not wise.
Stan Hardegree
EH>> Yeah, that's it, He doesn't remember doing anything wrong.
SH>> Exactly. If he doesn't remember the encounter how can he
SH>> possibly remember the nature of his actions during that
SH>> encounter -- if he does not remember it?
SH>> Stupid client. Incompetent lawyers.
GR> Stupid client?
"I am the only president in history who knew anything about agriculture when I
got there."
GR> How many women have you flashed your weenie to that you have
Holeeee shit.
Charles Doll
DB>> Interesting world, isn't it? When an unrepentant ex-convict
DB>>given a radio program, insult people like there's no tomorrow,
MG> My favorite talk show starts like this:
MG> "The only talk radio NOT hosted by a right wing whacko or a
MG> convicted
MG> felon....." :)
Yes but starting this May he can't say that on his Saturday broadcasts.
Bill Archer
EH>> If they had that choice, do you think they would be waffling
SL> The lawyers could CARE LESS...it's the media & PR people
SL> making a fuss...(not to mention a few fido GOPhers)
Your record of futility remains unblemished:
" the Clinton camp moved to change the venue to deny news cameras the
chance to photograph Mrs. Jones at the White House,"
- - - -
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Loath to see Paula Jones tread on White House
grounds, President Clinton's legal team has moved his weekend
deposition...
- - - -
"In brief, oblique remarks, White House press secretary Michael McCurry
indicated that the President would journey a few blocks to the office of
his lawyer, Robert Bennett, about 10 a.m., thereby denying Mrs. Jones
and her lawyers the graphic trappings of the White House grounds when
they question Clinton under oath about his sex life."
DAN BOSCH
-> -> I don't think I read that one...I read the one by the FBI guy...
-> DB> Did you see the interview with him not long ago? It was an
-> DB> interesting event. I don't really think he shed any light on
-> DB> anything, but he had this aura as if he could.
-> That pretty much sums up the book too...
-> This great build up that leads to "I caught a couple of faggots
-> DOING IT in the white house" AND "Some of Hillarys friends are
-> known Lesbians"....
-> Leading to the denoument of...It wasn't like that when George
-> was president...
Hey! That was worthy of a book! And so what that he had to admit
that his "true account" wasn't all known truth? SO?
-> -> They have Limbaugh and Liddy...We had Tom and Dick... sort of
-> -> illustrates the difference in attitudes hmmmm...?'
-> DB> Watch out. We'll be called on to provide answers for that comment
-> DB> soon enough! Have a good one, Samuel.
-> Shall we refer them to Gudio...?
No. We believe in democracy.
Did you see the special edition program on CNN with trial lawyers,
former Bush White House attorney, and Cammaratta <sp>, Paula Jones'
ex-attorney? Every single one but the Ex thought that Paula would have
a very difficult time making a case and thought that she should have
settled this long ago instead of the grand standing she's been doing.
Ross Sauer
-=> Quoting Mimi Gallandt to Dan Bosch <=-
DB> Interesting world, isn't it? When an unrepentant ex-convict can be
DB>given a radio program, insult people like there's no tomorrow, and be
DB>considered by many good moral people as entertainment.
MG>
MG> My favorite talk show starts like this:
MG>
MG> felon....." :)
Is that Don Imus?
Because he goofed, he forgot about Jim Hightower.
Samuel Lee
CD> Can you tell me where the court that
CD> required the Kansas school district to raise taxes to the tune of
CD> a couple billion dollars , build numerous new schools, establish
CD> magnet schools, require new gymns to ber built, all of which is
CD> coopting the money ,time and effort of citizens and their property
CD> that they had no jurisdiction over ----got THEIR authority?
Sure Charles...They got it from the PEOPLE...
Most likely the PEOPLE of the state of Kansas? (mo?) in this case.
*I suspect* the state has a LAW requiring school district to maintain
certain MINIMUM standards...and in this case it was necessary for the court to
uphold the LAW...
Terrible isn't it...But then having seen the condition of some of the ROADS
around Kansas City I *DO* understand....
This ain't topeka toto...
]]]SL[[[
... "The greatest productive force is human selfishness."
Ronnie Thompson
-=> Quoting Charles Doll to Mimi Gallandt <=-
DB>> Interesting world, isn't it? When an unrepentant ex-convict
DB>> can be
DB>>given a radio program, insult people like there's no tomorrow,
DB>>and be considered by many good moral people as entertainment.
MG> My favorite talk show starts like this:
MG> "The only talk radio NOT hosted by a right wing whacko or a
MG> convicted
MG> felon....." :)
CD> Yes but starting this May he can't say that on his Saturday
CD> broadcasts.
ROFL!!!
Ronnie in NC
... I am Hillary, hear me roar. I'm more important than Al Gore....
Bobby Archer
SL> I'm not at all familiar with the details, but in general
SL> it's got to be tough...cause all the discrimination is
SL> 3rd or 4th hand...and I don't think that they can trace
SL> it back to Clinton...
SL> I notice tho that the money trail is starting to lead
SL> back to GOP type sources....now THERE is a a scanal in the making!
"There's no place like home!"
<click> <click>
"There's no place like home!"
<click> <click>
DAN BOSCH
-> -> Leading to the denoument of...It wasn't like that when George
-> -> was president...
-> DB> Hey! That was worthy of a book! And so what that he had to admit
-> DB> that his "true account" wasn't all known truth? SO?
-> I get the distinct impression...The clinton Admin agreed to let
-> this guy stay on there until he retired in a couple of years...
-> Then when he proved to be a real pain, discovered they were stuck
-> with him since clinton had BIGGER problems to deal with at the FBI.
Sort of like the woman that taped "conversations" she had in secret
and in confidence? Then dumped them on Ken Starr when he couldn't
find anything else for $36 million of tax payer money?
-> -> Shall we refer them to Gudio...?
-> DB> No. We believe in democracy.
-> I also believe in pestecide...
Good point.
-> DB> Every single one but the Ex thought that Paula would
-> DB> have a very difficult time making a case
-> I'm not at all familiar with the details, but in general
-> it's got to be tough...cause all the discrimination is
-> 3rd or 4th hand...and I don't think that they can trace
-> it back to Clinton...
From the information I've seen, I don't think there's much chance of
her getting a Civil Rights judgement against Clinton.
But then, on top of all this, the new allegations of affairs and
coverups comes up.
If it turns out that he did it (PLEASE: All conservatives attention:)
If it turns out that Clinton did pressure this young woman into doing
what Ken Starr is claiming, then he should resign.
And if Ken Starr can't prove it quickly and cleanly, I suggest he
resign. He's ruining the life of a 24 year old woman just to keep
investigating. He botched all the rest.
-> I notice tho that the money trail is starting to lead
-> back to GOP type sources....now THERE is a a scanal in the making!
WHich is probably one reason this new allegation has come about. What I
want to know is why this woman who taped these conversations and who was
alleged to have had sexual relations with George Bush was still working
at the White House.
And when will we see full disclosure from the Republican party for the
money trail that is leading to them? And when will Newt and some other
congressmen (both Republican and Democrats) get called on the carpet for
these expensive trips they're taking on behalf of private companies?
Allen Birkholz
-=> Mimi Gallandt spoke unto Dan Bosch <=-
-=> Upon the subject Radcons... <=-
MG> My favorite talk show starts like this:
MG> "The only talk radio NOT hosted by a right wing whacko or a convicted
MG> felon....." :)
Alan Colmes. I used to listen to him, but
the station went to classic country music.
He was amusing at times, but I found that
his reasoning capacity was sorely lacking.
I felt he was at his best interviewing a
guest rather than analyzing current events.
Politics was certainly not his strong suite. :-)
AJB
... "Milhouse, we live in the age of cooties!" - Bart Simpson
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
Allen Birkholz
-=> Charles Doll spoke unto Mimi Gallandt <=-
-=> Upon the subject Radcons... <=-
MG>> My favorite talk show starts like this:
MG>> "The only talk radio NOT hosted by a right wing whacko or a
MG>> convicted
MG>> felon....." :)
CD> Yes but starting this May he can't say that on his Saturday
CD> broadcasts.
D<EXON>mn! I have been out of the loop for a
while. What did he do this time?
Personally, I think that Bill Maher makes for
a better political comedien/commentator/host
than Alan Colmes.
AJB
... Ciao for niao?
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
Stan Hardegree
DB> WHich is probably one reason this new allegation has come
DB> about. What I want to know is why this woman who taped
DB> these conversations and who was alleged to have had sexual
DB> relations with George Bush was still working at the White
DB> House.
Cite please.
Samuel Lee
DB> Sort of like the woman that taped "conversations" she had in
DB> secret and in confidence? Then dumped them on Ken Starr when he
DB> couldn't find anything else for $36 million of tax payer money?
I don't see anything here of any value...such tapes are
inadmissable and only serve to perpetuate the scandal mongering.
DB> From the information I've seen, I don't think there's much chance
DB> of her getting a Civil Rights judgement against Clinton.
Nope...her role is to milk the case along until the next
election heats up, and then try and get it into court
where she can make Clinton look like a Woman Basher and
distract some female voters into "Punishing" the Dems for
Clinton's alleged "CRIMES."...It COULD have an effect...
Look at what Clark did to OJ with her "Wife Beater"
prosecution. But I suspect the DEMS have considerd this
and are ready to counter spin the media to negate the worst
of the female reaction....Hillary can "Stand By Her Man" etc.
DB> If it turns out that Clinton did pressure this young woman into doing
DB> what Ken Starr is claiming, then he should resign.
And how is anyone EVER going to prove that...???
DB> And if Ken Starr can't prove it quickly and cleanly, I suggest he
DB> resign.
Again???
-> I notice tho that the money trail is starting to lead
-> back to GOP type sources....now THERE is a a scanal in the making!
DB> money trail that is leading to them?
Hah...NEVER...
DB> And when will Newt and some other congressmen
DB> (both Republican and Democrats) get called on the carpet
DB> for these expensive trips they're taking on behalf of
DB> private companies?
Not until/if incorporation laws change to return the non-breathers
to the realm of "The PUBLIC good" rather than "Good for PROFIT."
... OFFLINE 1.50 "Originality is the art of concealing your source."
Samuel Lee
SL> But it's not anywhere near anything that purports to be a serious
SL> political discussion...
NB> God what a great post!!!
It's always nice to know somebody likes em...
... OFFLINE 1.50 "Klingons have Built in bottle openers!"
Samuel Lee
CD>> Can you tell me where the court that
CD>> required the Kansas school district to raise taxes to the
CD>> schools, establish magnet schools, require new gymns to ber
CD>> built, all of which is coopting the money ,time and effort
CD>> of citizens and their property that they had no jurisdiction
CD>> over ----got THEIR authority?
SL> Sure Charles...They got it from the PEOPLE...
CD> Still trying to bluff your way around?
No Bluff Charles, the constitution starts "We The People"
CD> It was a Federal judge and Federal judges are NOT supposed to have any
CD> authority over the public funds of a school board.
No they're not "supposed" to...
Until they are *Petitioned* to take it, on behalf "Of The People."
I'm quite sure that's what happened here...
But I don't have the details and you havn't provided any.
All you've done is whine about TAXS...
... OFFLINE 1.50 "No Newt, is GOOD Newt!"
DAN BOSCH
-> DB> If it turns out that Clinton did pressure this young woman
-> DB> into doing what Ken Starr is claiming, then he should resign.
-> Starr has made no claim that she had an affair with Clinton. SHE
-> seems to have made that claim to various friends and co-workers. Did
-> someone TELL you Starr said that, or are you just making it up
-> because you don't like Starr?
Earl, your venom is dripping. Give it up. Starr is bringing the
allegations that Clinton pressured her into changing her story. Notice
up above where I said if it turns out that Clinton did it, that he
should resign. What more do you want? I never said that Starr made a
claim about an affair.
Your animosity seems to be causing a problem with your objectiveness.
-> DB> And if Ken Starr can't prove it quickly and cleanly, I suggest he
-> DB> resign. He's ruining the life of a 24 year old woman just to
-> DB> keep investigating.
-> Tripp gave him evidence suggesting perjury and obstrruction of
-> justice. And you think he should resign for trying to investigate
-> the situation? Do you also think Reno should resign for giving Starr
-> jurisdiction?
Did I not say "IF Ken Starr can't prove it quickly and cleanly..."?
Actually, I was echoing Saffire on this point.
-> DB> What I want to know is why this woman who taped these
-> DB> conversations and who was alleged to have had sexual
-> DB> relations with George Bush was still working at the White
-> DB> House.
-> Why do you make these things up? She left the White House in May of
-> 1994!! She taped the conversations in an effort to protect HERSELF
-> from perjury charges, which became especially important when
-> (according to Tripp and maybe the tapes too) Lewinsky said SHE would
-> lie under oath and tried to get Tripp to do the same.
Again, your reading comprehension seems to be suffering. I never said
that "Tripp was the source of these allegations". I was referring to
why she was still working there. Would you want someone working in your
office if she supposedly had (even if unproven) a love interest with
your political opposite?
-> As for the Bush sex thing, CNN identified her as a SOURCE of those
-> rumors, NOT as an OBJECT of them!! What in the world are you talking
-> about?
Actually, I should ask you that question, as I NEVER made any charges
against Tripp or that Starr was the one claiming that Clinton was having
an affair.
DAN BOSCH
->
-> ->>> -> Liddy only looks good when you compare him to the alternative.
-> ->>> -> he didn't insult my intelligence as Limbaugh did..
-> ->>> DB> I don't know. Rush insults me, but Liddy abuses...
-> ->>> I guess they'd fit right in around here...(G)...
-> DB>> Perfectly! Perfectly...
-> ->>> They have Limbaugh and Liddy...We had Tom and Dick...
-> ->>> sort of illustrates the difference in attitudes hmmmm...?'
-> DB>> Watch out. We'll be called on to provide answers for that
-> DB>> comment soon enough!
-> DB>> Have a good one, Samuel.
-> EH>> Ah, isn't that cute... they're bonding.
-> TY> is that bonding or a buttsniff...
-> Well, that's how they bond...
Ah, now you're bonding...or crotch sniffing.
Ronnie Thompson
-=> Quoting DAN BOSCH to SAMUEL LEE <=-
-> -> Leading to the denoument of...It wasn't like that when George
-> -> was president...
-> DB> Hey! That was worthy of a book! And so what that he had to admit
-> DB> that his "true account" wasn't all known truth? SO?
-> I get the distinct impression...The clinton Admin agreed to let
-> this guy stay on there until he retired in a couple of years...
-> Then when he proved to be a real pain, discovered they were stuck
-> with him since clinton had BIGGER problems to deal with at the FBI.
DB> Sort of like the woman that taped "conversations" she had in
DB> secret and in confidence?
Hmmmm.....seems like I remember, not too long ago, a couple in Florida
doing ALMOST the same thing. Only in that situation, they were ILLEGALLY
intercepting a cellphone call. Can't exactly remember what your take was
on that. Care to expound on it??
DB> Then dumped them on Ken Starr when he
DB> couldn't find anything else for $36 million of tax payer money?
The FBI spends millions of dollars daily in persuing criminals. Do you gripe
about that or is it only when the criminal could turn out to be a man you
seem to like??
.............
-> DB> Every single one but the Ex thought that Paula would
-> DB> have a very difficult time making a case
-> I'm not at all familiar with the details, but in general
-> it's got to be tough...cause all the discrimination is
-> 3rd or 4th hand...and I don't think that they can trace
-> it back to Clinton...
DB> From the information I've seen, I don't think there's much chance
DB> of her getting a Civil Rights judgement against Clinton.
She might not, however with possible obstruction of justice charges against
Clinton and his possible resignation from the presidency, she may not care.
Clinton lied to the American public since 1992 regarding Gennifer Flowers
and has finally (under oath) admitted to doing the same thing that he told
the American public he didn't do. Now he is claiming he didn't proposition
Paula Jones. In the last few days, he has claimed he didn't have any "impro-
per sexual relationship" with a young intern. The young woman claims he
didn't screw her but did accept oral sex from her, as he didn't believe it
was sex if it was only oral sex. Seems like certain Fan Clubbers were
hollaring as loud as they could, when the same thing was said about Newt
Gingrich. You don't remember YOUR stance on that one, do you Dan??? Anyhow,
THINKING PEOPLE know how much of a liar Bill Clinton is. Now it's time for
those of you who don't like to think, to do so. Perhaps if you'd take off
your rose colored glasses, you'll see the sex pervert for what he is. You
can't allow yourself to keep being fooled. It's not nice.
DB> But then, on top of all this, the new allegations of affairs and
DB> coverups comes up.
DB> If it turns out that he did it (PLEASE: All conservatives
DB> attention:) If it turns out that Clinton did pressure this young woman
DB> into doing what Ken Starr is claiming, then he should resign.
DB> And if Ken Starr can't prove it quickly and cleanly, I suggest he
DB> resign. He's ruining the life of a 24 year old woman just to keep
DB> investigating. He botched all the rest.
You don't know that he's botched ANY of the investigation. You are just
HOPING he did. Starr might have a whole wheelbarrow of evidence against
Bill Clinton. I don't know and you don't know. Just admit it. BTW, as
far as my own feelings about Clinton resigning.....I think it would be a
total disgrace..to the country...to have allowed this man to represent us,
both here and abroad. I think it's a disgrace for some many Americans, many
of them good, to actually fall for this lying sex pervert, and elect him not
once, but twice! I'm sure those who voted for him are cheering him on now.
I don't think he will resign though, as he will feel like this too shall pass
as most in the past has done. He is bull headed enough to try to stick it
out and basically tell Americans to just stick it up our asses. If he does
that, I don't even see him having the backing of his own party in the event
that talk of impeachment springs up. I guess we shall see. If I were Iraq,
I'd be heading towards my bunker. I predicted a few weeks back that Clinton
might try something to deflect away from his deposition in the Paula Jones
suit.....I'd not put it past him now, anything to take Ms Lewinsky's picture
off of the tv.
Ronnie in NC
... Recipe for Clinton Stew: A little weenie in hot water.
Stan Hardegree
DB>> Sort of like the woman that taped "conversations" she had
DB>> when he couldn't find anything else for $36 million of tax
DB>> payer money?
SL> I don't see anything here of any value...such tapes are
SL> inadmissable and only serve to perpetuate the scandal
SL> mongering.
They won't need the tapes. If the contents of the tapes becomes important to
the case, Linda Tripp can simply tesitfy to what she heard.
Lewinsky has offered to testify to the affair in exchange for immunity, an
affair that Slick denied under oath.
DAN BOSCH
-> DB> Sort of like the woman that taped "conversations" she had in
-> DB> secret and in confidence? Then dumped them on Ken Starr when he
-> DB> couldn't find anything else for $36 million of tax payer money?
-> I don't see anything here of any value...such tapes are
-> inadmissable and only serve to perpetuate the scandal mongering.
Samuel, the problem with this is that he and she swore under oath that
nothing went on. If he actually pressured her not to tell the truth,
and she later changes her mind (which the latest rumors say), then
there's deep trouble at the WH.
-> DB> From the information I've seen, I don't think there's much chance
-> DB> of her getting a Civil Rights judgement against Clinton.
-> Nope...her role is to milk the case along until the next
-> election heats up, and then try and get it into court
-> where she can make Clinton look like a Woman Basher and
-> distract some female voters into "Punishing" the Dems for
-> Clinton's alleged "CRIMES."...It COULD have an effect...
-> Look at what Clark did to OJ with her "Wife Beater"
-> prosecution. But I suspect the DEMS have considerd this
-> and are ready to counter spin the media to negate the worst
-> of the female reaction....Hillary can "Stand By Her Man" etc.
Funny how Paula Jones seems to have taken a back seat, isn't it?
-> DB> If it turns out that Clinton did pressure this young woman into
-> doing DB> what Ken Starr is claiming, then he should resign.
-> And how is anyone EVER going to prove that...???
By admission. If she admits it, there will be a total media stampede
and Congressional investigations and Clinton's presidency will be in
deep trouble.
Russell Baker said that if he can't keep his libido in check, then he
has a problem and should give the reins to Gore. And he usually
supports the president.
-> DB> And if Ken Starr can't prove it quickly and cleanly, I suggest he
-> DB> resign.
-> Again???
If it's not true. And if he didn't have enough sense to investigate it
before letting the information slip out, he doesn't deserve to be
investigator. It should also be noted that the media keeps calling
Tripp, Lewinsky's friend. With friends like that...
And she's spoken to literary agents...
-> DB> And when will Newt and some other congressmen
-> DB> (both Republican and Democrats) get called on the carpet
-> DB> for these expensive trips they're taking on behalf of
-> DB> private companies?
-> Not until/if incorporation laws change to return the non-breathers
-> to the realm of "The PUBLIC good" rather than "Good for PROFIT."
IT's amazing that we limit the amount of "gifts" our officials can take,
but it's ok to put them up in $2000 a night rooms, give them first class
tickets for themselves and staff...Those aren't gifts?
Things need changing...
Bill Archer
SL>>> The lawyers could CARE LESS...it's the media & PR people making
SL>>> a fuss...(not to mention a few fido GOPhers)
BA>> "President Clinton's legal team has moved his weekend
BA>> deposition..."
BA>> The lawyers apparently *did* care.
SL> *According* to the REPOTERS...ya know the "MEDIA & PR people"
SL> I mentioned were making this into some sort of -mini scandal-.
SL> (seem quote above - Mine is the one that starts SL>...)
So the reporters were lying and Clinton's lawyers didn't
want to have it moved?
Bobby Archer
DB>> Sort of like the woman that taped "conversations" she had in
SL> I don't see anything here of any value...such tapes are
SL> inadmissable and only serve to perpetuate the scandal mongering.
They may or may not be admissable in a legal proceeding
but from a political standpoint, they would still be devastating.
"Ok...sure, I fooled around in the Oval Office with a chick about the
same age as my daughter and I encouraged her to lie about it but
a jury will never hear any of it."
Political suicide.
And Ms Lewisky's testimony would certainly be admissable.
Earl Croasmun
DB> If it turns out that Clinton did pressure this young woman
->> Starr has made no claim that she had an affair with Clinton.
->> SHE seems to have made that claim to various friends and
->> co-workers. Did someone TELL you Starr said that, or are you
->> just making it up because you don't like Starr?
DB> Starr is bringing the allegations that Clinton pressured her
DB> into changing her story
Evidently Lewinsky has made that "allegation" on tape. When did Starr make the
allegation, in your opinion? He IS investigating it, with the Reno stamp of
approval.
DB> And if Ken Starr can't prove it quickly and cleanly, I suggest he
DB> resign. He's ruining the life of a 24 year old woman just to
DB> keep investigating.
->> Tripp gave him evidence suggesting perjury and obstrruction of
->> justice. And you think he should resign for trying to
->> investigate the situation? Do you also think Reno should
->> resign for giving Starr jurisdiction?
DB> Did I not say "IF Ken Starr can't prove it quickly and cleanly..."?
You are repeating yourself without answering. He got evidence suggesting a
crime. Do you think he should resign just because ONE investigation did not
pan out? Do you think he should have REFUSED to investigate possible crimes by
Clinton, Jordan, Lewinsky, and Tripp? And do you therefore think that RENO
should resign?
DB> What I want to know is why this woman who taped these
DB> conversations and who was alleged to have had sexual
DB> relations with George Bush was still working at the White
DB> House.
->> Why do you make these things up? She left the White House in
->> May of 1994!! She taped the conversations in an effort to
->> protect HERSELF from perjury charges, which became especially
->> important when (according to Tripp and maybe the tapes too)
->> Lewinsky said SHE would lie under oath and tried to get Tripp
->> to do the same.
DB> Again, your reading comprehension seems to be suffering. I never said
DB> that "Tripp was the source of these allegations".
You asked why she taped it. I answered. You said she was still working in the
White House. I informed you that you were over 3.5 years WRONG. And you said
that she is "alleged" to have had sexual relations with Bush. You are the ONLY
person who seems to believe this. Why did you make it up?
DB> I was referring to why she was still working there. Would you
DB> want someone working in your office if she supposedly had
DB> (even if unproven) a love interest with your political
DB> opposite?
You are still spouting nonsense. You are still Dan.
George Lagergren
-=> Quoting Bob Ackley to George Lagergren <=-
BA> Replying to a message of George Lagergren to Stan Hardegree:
GL> -=> Quoting Stan Hardegree to Ed Hulett <=-
GL> Question: If a "sleaze" candidate like Clinton can beat the GOP
GL> candidate twice, what does this say about how the voters feel about
GL> the Republican Party and whether the Repubs represent the voters'
GL> desires and interests at the Prez level?
BA> Better question: Why did slightly more 75% of the citizens
BA> who are eligible to vote fail or refuse to do so in the last election?
BA> Source: Half of the voting age citizenry does not register to vote,
BA> Michael Reagan, on his radio show. More than half of the registered
BA> voters did not vote in the 1996 election, various news reports at the
BA> time.
More voters only vote in the Prez election than in the off-year
election. People may feel the two political parties are the same.
... "Scotty, beam me up another Blue Wave message."
___ Blue Wave/386 v2.30 [NR]
Ross Sauer
-=> Quoting Allen Birkholz to Charles Doll <=-
MG>> My favorite talk show starts like this:
MG>> "The only talk radio NOT hosted by a right wing whacko or a
MG>> convicted
MG>> felon....." :)
CD> Yes but starting this May he can't say that on his Saturday
CD> broadcasts.
AB> D<EXON>mn! I have been out of the loop for a
AB> while. What did he do this time?
AB>
AB> Personally, I think that Bill Maher makes for
AB> a better political comedien/commentator/host
AB> than Alan Colmes.
Ever listen to Jim Hightower?
If he got half the hype given to Mr."Half his brain tied behind his back"
Limbaugh, he'd have the talk radio market sewed up!
Ed Blackman
On January 20, 1998, George Rudzinski wrote Stan Hardegree:
EH> Yeah, that's it, He doesn't remember doing anything wrong.
SH> Exactly. If he doesn't remember the encounter how can he
SH> possibly remember the nature of his actions during that
SH> Incompetent lawyers.
GR> Stupid client?
GR> How many women have you flashed your weenie to that you have
That's a double edged sword you're holding there, George. Perhaps Clinton has
flashed so many women that it's hard for him to remember them all.
Ed Blackman
edge...@pobox.com
Ed Hulett
SL> *
EH>>#1 They may get the court to move the deposition proceedings
SL> *
SL>> The "Court" does not SAY where a deposition takes place.
EH>> Where oh where did I say anything of the sort?
SL>> "They may get the COURT to move..." first two lines of
SL>> quotes... Need Glasses...?
EH>> What a feeble attempt,
SL>> There isn't anything FEEBLE about it, unless you count your
SL>> reluctance to recognise your own mistake...
SL> *
EH>> What mistake?
EH>>#2 They DID get the court to move the proceedings to Bob
SL> *
EH>> Bennett's office.
SL> Ok...If you really can't see it I'll walk you through it.
Firstly, do not add ANYTHING to my statements after my initials. That is very
close to a FIDO policy violation.
Secondly, I said NOTHING about the court moving anywhere.
SL> One condition...Please continue to quote the above lines in
SL> your messages in entirity...
If only you were so honest. I never put the numbers in front of those lines.
You could have easily numbered them a different way. But no, you apparently
think you are above FIDO policy.
SL> Just WHAT court are you supposing "MOVED" the site of the
SL> deposition...?
I *SAID*, and you have quoted several times now, that they (meaning the WH)
were able to and got the court (the judge) to move the deposition first to the
WH then to Bob Bennett's office.
SL>> It's not a Biggy...It's Not particularly important...
SL>> But you said what you said...
SL>> And you were wrong...
SL>> The court has NO JURISDICTION over ANY property other than
SL>> that assigned to it for/by judicial functions...
EH>> Where oh where did I say the court had jurisdiction over any
EH>> property?
SL> First you evidently ASSUMED (see EH#1)the court ordered the
SL> deposition to take place in the White House...
I assumed no such thing, *YOU* did.
SL> In order for a court
SL> to make a valid order, it MUST HAVE JURISDICTION...it has no
SL> jurisdiction over the White House....comprende...?
No kidding. You are looking more the fool with every post, Sammy.
SL> Then you ASSERT the COURT *Moved* the location to another site
SL> it has NO JURISDICTION over....
I did *NOT* assert the court moved anything, Sammy. I said they (meaning the
WH again) got the proceedings moved to the WH then to Bennett's office.
SL> Or are you claiming that the court is propogating orders
SL> OUTSIDE it's jurisdiction...?
Nope. You might be in another thread, but I've never claimed any such thing.
EH>> The only thing the court was insisting on was
EH>> that the president would be deposed. They gave Him the
EH>> chioce of where.
SL>> No...they didn't GIVE him anything...
SL>> They have no authority to GIVE him a CHOICE...
SL>> It's HIS perogative.
EH>> You are arguing over NOTHING, Sammy. Do you have such a
EH>> fragile ego that you must make such a big thing about
EH>> semantics?
SL> If I'm arguing over nothing, then I guess you are too...
SL> The difference being...*I'm* right.
No, Sammy, so far you haven't been right about much of anything. You make
yourslef out to be some sort of legal expert but continually make idiotic
legal claims.
SL> Not to mention your misrepresentation of the facts that
SL> would lead people to believe the president is being ordered
SL> about due to some 2 bit lawsuit...
Oh, so you think the President is above "some 2 bit lawsuit"? Where do you
get this loopy claim? I seem to remember that the SC ruled that the lawsuit
could and should proceed -- that there was no Constitutional reason for
delaying
it. For your information, the president answers to the people and is not above
the laws that govern the rest fo us.
Ed Hulett
DB>> Sort of like the woman that taped "conversations" she had in
DB>> secret and in confidence? Then dumped them on Ken Starr
DB>> payer money?
SL> I don't see anything here of any value...such tapes are
SL> inadmissable and only serve to perpetuate the scandal mongering.
Are you now claiming to know more than Ken Starr, Janet Reno, a three judge
panel, AND the FBI?
DB>> From the information I've seen, I don't think there's much
DB>> chance of her getting a Civil Rights judgement against
DB>> Clinton.
SL> Nope...her role is to milk the case along until the next
SL> election heats up, and then try and get it into court
SL> where she can make Clinton look like a Woman Basher and
SL> distract some female voters into "Punishing" the Dems for
SL> Clinton's alleged "CRIMES."...It COULD have an effect...
SL> Look at what Clark did to OJ with her "Wife Beater"
SL> prosecution. But I suspect the DEMS have considerd this
SL> and are ready to counter spin the media to negate the worst
SL> of the female reaction....Hillary can "Stand By Her Man" etc.
So quothe the uninformed...
DB>> If it turns out that Clinton did pressure this young woman
DB>> into doing what Ken Starr is claiming, then he should
DB>> resign.
SL> And how is anyone EVER going to prove that...???
The tapes you said were inadmissable and Monica Lewinski...
DB>> And if Ken Starr can't prove it quickly and cleanly, I
DB>> suggest he resign.
SL> Again???
You are totally clueless, aren't you?
->> I notice tho that the money trail is starting to lead back to
->> GOP type sources....now THERE is a a scanal in the making!
DB>> And when will we see full disclosure from the Republican
DB>> party for the money trail that is leading to them?
SL> Hah...NEVER...
What will this "full disclosure" prove?
DB>> And when will Newt and some other congressmen
DB>> (both Republican and Democrats) get called on the carpet for
DB>> these expensive trips they're taking on behalf of
DB>> private companies?
SL> Not until/if incorporation laws change to return the non-breathers
SL> to the realm of "The PUBLIC good" rather than "Good for PROFIT."
Oh yeah, more government... that's all we need...
Ed Hulett
->> DB>> Perfectly! Perfectly...
DB> Ah, now you're bonding...or crotch sniffing.
Yer a sick puppy, Bosch...
Ed Blackman
On January 20, 1998, Mimi Gallandt wrote Dan Bosch:
DB> Interesting world, isn't it? When an unrepentant ex-convict can
DB> be given a radio program, insult people like there's no tomorrow,
DB> and be considered by many good moral people as entertainment.
MG> "The only talk radio NOT hosted by a right wing whacko or a
It figures that you would like a show that starts out with a lie.
Ed Blackman
edge...@pobox.com
Earl Croasmun
DB> WHich is probably one reason this new allegation has come
DB> these conversations and who was alleged to have had sexual
DB> relations with George Bush was still working at the White
DB> House.
->> Cite please.
DB> It was rumored in some circles that she was involved, one way
DB> or another, with George Bush. Nothing ever came of it but
DB> her name was mentioned. I was watching a CNN discussion when
DB> it was mentioned and read about it the next day in the local
DB> paper.
What show, what day? I'll save you the trouble, and get the transcript off the
CNN web site myself. Unless you are making it up. What local paper, what day?
DB> What I'm wondering is why she would have still been in her
DB> position if this rumor
I already informed you that she had been OUT of the White House for close to
four years. Why are you still pretending she is still working in the same
position?
Assistant Moderator
On January 19, 1998, Ed Hulett wrote DAN BOSCH:
-> > > They have Limbaugh and Liddy...We had Tom and Dick...
-> > > sort of illustrates the difference in attitudes hmmmm...?'
DB> Have a good one, Samuel.
And how this is political? I'll save you the trouble of answering: it isn't.
Take your off-topic conversations elsewhere.
Ed Blackman
Assistant Moderator A-M
edge...@pobox.com
Samuel Lee
SL> *
EH>>#1 They may get the court to move the deposition proceedings
SL> *
EH> Firstly, do not add ANYTHING to my statements after my initials.
EH> That is very close to a FIDO policy violation. Secondly, I said
The Numbers were added as refernce points....
I'm not real interested in whether you like it or not...
Since WHEN did YOU join Fido...?
If & when you ever do, you have a bit to learn about "Policys."
Until then I suggest you take it up with the moderator(s)...
SL> Just WHAT court are you supposing "MOVED" the site of the
SL> deposition...?
EH> I *SAID*, and you have quoted several times now, that they
EH> (meaning the WH) were able to and got the court (the judge) to
EH> move the deposition first to the WH then to Bob Bennett's office.
And I've pointed out SEVERAL times, that this is NOT what happened...
They did not GET the court to do ANYTHING...Because the court
CAN'T do anything inre: WHERE the deposition is to be done...unless
it chooses to ORDER it done at the courthouse...The court has
NO JURISDICTION to order ANYTHING to be done or NOT be done at the
White House or in the private offices of an attorney.
EH>>#1 They may get the court to move the deposition proceedings
You BLEW IT....
EH> continually make idiotic legal claims.
Nothing Idiotic about BASIC understanding of Judicial Jurisdiction.
EH> No kidding. You are looking more the fool with every post
I think it's pretty evident you don't understand anything about
judicial practice beyond which window to pay the ticket at...
I thought you might have rehabilitated yourself a bit and were ready to
conduct a civilised dialouge...I guess not...
Your error is very simple and is just a minor point of misinformation.
Your vociferous objection to having the point corrected that now extends to
nonsensical objections about "Fido Policy" illustrates
plainly that I was wrong...you're not ready for civilised company yet.
So, I'll leave you to your tail chasing...
]]]SL[[[
... A kid with a hammer will find that everything he sees needs pounding.
George Lagergren
-=> Quoting Stan Hardegree to Samuel Lee <=-
DB>> Sort of like the woman that taped "conversations" she had
DB>> in secret and in confidence? Then dumped them on Ken Starr
DB>> when he couldn't find anything else for $36 million of tax
DB>> payer money?
SL> I don't see anything here of any value...such tapes are
SL> inadmissable and only serve to perpetuate the scandal
SL> mongering.
SH> They won't need the tapes. If the contents of the tapes becomes
SH> important to the case, Linda Tripp can simply tesitfy to what she
SH> heard.
SH> Lewinsky has offered to testify to the affair in exchange for
SH> immunity, an affair that Slick denied under oath.
Ken Starr would be wise to grant Lewinsky immunity in order to
get the full story.
Thomas Yoha
On (26 Jan 98) Stan Hardegree's rejoinder to DAN BOSCH was:
->> DB> WHich is probably one reason this new allegation has come
->> DB> about. What I want to know is why this woman who taped
->> DB> these conversations and who was alleged to have had sexual
->> DB> relations with George Bush was still working at the White
->> DB> House.
->> Cite please.
DB> It was rumored in some circles that she was involved, one
DB> way or another, with George Bush. Nothing ever came of it
SH> You were a little more specific with the original charge. "Sexual."
DB> but her name was mentioned. I was watching a CNN discussion
DB> when it was mentioned and read about it the next day in the
DB> local paper.
SH> Since Wednesday morning, I have been in saturation mode watching this
SH> story develop. I have watched all three networks, MSNBC, CNN (both
SH> broadcasts), read the AJC and the WSJ. I have attempted to keep
SH> abreast of what Matt Drudge is reporting. I have instant access to
SH> the Associated Press wire as well as Reuters and Scripps Howard. I
SH> have seen or read no source, credible or otherwise, mention a sexual
SH> affair of any kind between President Bush and Linda Tripp.
SH> It is a scurrilous, sleazy accusation, but hey, to defend Him, we'll
SH> say anything, won't we?
I don't know Stan, he's probably getting better reception than we
are with that tinfoil hat he wears...
I too have seen no mention of Bush and Tripp as an item of any
kind, or even their names mentioned in the same broadcast...
of course we know _his_ "propensity" for making things up too...
Indians!!!...
TGY
... * Learn to laugh at Dan Bosch... WE HAVE!!!
Thomas Yoha
On (26 Jan 98) Stan Hardegree's rejoinder to Ed Blackman was:
SH> GR>> How many women have you flashed your weenie to that you
SH> GR>> have forgotten?
EB> That's a double edged sword you're holding there, George.
EB> Perhaps Clinton has flashed so many women that it's hard for
EB> him to remember them all.
SH> My wife made the same observation this morning -- after hearing
SH> that Slick may heve been diddling more than one intern. But,
SH> given the number of job recommendations she was offered, Lewinsky
SH> seems to have had Slick and Co's attention.
that vary same thought crossed my mind...
they do seem to be having trouble getting those wagons circled...
TGY
... * NULLUM GRATUITUM PRANDIUM
Samuel Lee
DB> Samuel, the problem with this is that he and she swore under oath
DB> that nothing went on. If he actually pressured her not to tell
DB> the truth, and she later changes her mind (which the latest rumors say),
then
DB> there's deep trouble at the WH.
I disagree....It's just the next step in the never ending string of
accusations...and will run it's course as the rest have...
Under Nixon, we saw "dirty tricks" as concieved by the idealistic
political right...what you are seeing now is the CORPORATE side
of that coin...
DB> If she admits it, there will be a total media stampede
DB> and Congressional investigations
Like I said, buisness as usual...
DB> and Clinton's presidency will be in deep trouble.
With WHO....Stan?....The public are SICK of hearing it...
Some new bimbo, already an admitted liar, and looking at
lining her pockets is not going to bring the white house down.
However...PRINTING that attitude won't sell many papers.
TELEVISING it won't attract many advertisers...
... OFFLINE 1.50 "Teen Lesbian Nazi Hookers Raped by UFO, Next on Geraldo."
Stan Hardegree
SH>> Lewinsky has offered to testify to the affair in exchange
C> Haven't heard if its been granted yet, but I did hear a
C> report that speculated on whether or not she was even
C> eligible for immunity after making that deposition under
C> oath. The implications for charges of perjury and
C> obstruction are obvious, but I don't have any idea how the
C> legal beagles will split this hair.
All the talking heads and their "legal experts" are furrowing their brows over
what Ginsberg meant when he said Starr has a "complete proffer."
I recall that a sticking point in the immunity talks was the subornation
charge, which Lewinsky originally declined to substantiate.
George Rudzinski
-=> Quoting Bob Ackley to George Lagergren <=-
BA> Replying to a message of George Lagergren to Stan Hardegree:
GL> -=> Quoting Stan Hardegree to Ed Hulett <=-
GL> Question: If a "sleaze" candidate like Clinton can beat the GOP
GL> candidate twice, what does this say about how the voters feel about
GL> the Republican Party and whether the Repubs represent the voters'
GL> desires and interests at the Prez level?
BA> Better question: Why did slightly more 75% of the citizens
BA> who are eligible to vote fail or refuse to do so in the last election?
Because 75% of the American public are idiots. Not a difficult concept.
Apparently they didn't care if the government was too big. Apparently they
didn't care that the government doesn't do enough.
If they don't care, why should I care what they do?
If they are willing to let 25% of us run the show, who are we to tell them they
are wrong? They have every opportunity to make their voices known. They
choose not to. That is their right.
Look how old Rush was before he cast his first vote. That rugged
individualist. He only started to vote when he was making money off the
political squeezins.
george
... In God We Trust, but pay me because I don't trust God to feed me.
George Rudzinski
-=> Quoting Ronnie Thompson to DAN BOSCH <=-
-> -> Leading to the denoument of...It wasn't like that when George
-> -> was president...
-> DB> Hey! That was worthy of a book! And so what that he had to admit
-> DB> that his "true account" wasn't all known truth? SO?
-> I get the distinct impression...The clinton Admin agreed to let
-> this guy stay on there until he retired in a couple of years...
-> Then when he proved to be a real pain, discovered they were stuck
-> with him since clinton had BIGGER problems to deal with at the FBI.
DB> Sort of like the woman that taped "conversations" she had in
DB> secret and in confidence?
RT> Hmmmm.....seems like I remember, not too long ago, a couple in Florida
RT> doing ALMOST the same thing. Only in that situation, they were
RT> ILLEGALLY intercepting a cellphone call. Can't exactly remember what
RT> your take was on that. Care to expound on it??
The public airwaves are just that public.
Why did Starr have to use tapes illegally obtained by Tripp? Couldn't he
get a warrant to tap Lewinsky's phones?
What felony charges have been brought against Tripp?
But you bring up a good point. If taping phone calls is illegal on cell
phones, why not over land lines? Does broadcasting speech over radio waves
that get splattered all over the place somehow insure a right to privacy?
Or is just Newt allowed privacy while he broadcasts via radio?
george
... My wife says I should get in touch with my emotions, so "Drop dead!"
George Rudzinski
-=> Quoting Thomas Yoha to Stan Hardegree <=-
TY> On (26 Jan 98) Stan Hardegree's rejoinder to Ed Blackman was:
SH> GR>> How many women have you flashed your weenie to that you
SH> GR>> have forgotten?
EB> That's a double edged sword you're holding there, George.
EB> Perhaps Clinton has flashed so many women that it's hard for
EB> him to remember them all.
SH> My wife made the same observation this morning -- after hearing
SH> that Slick may heve been diddling more than one intern.
May have been diddling? That would be a hell of an offence in a court of law.
But,
SH> given the number of job recommendations she was offered, Lewinsky
SH> seems to have had Slick and Co's attention.
TY> that vary same thought crossed my mind...
Did the very same thought cross your mind for every officer that Clinton
has signed off for on promotions?
TY> they do seem to be having trouble getting those wagons circled...
Why should they? Is that the conservative's intent?
You people are window peaker's. You claim you want less government, yet throw
government around with an iron fist.
You folks love big government. You just love to use it.
You just don't like government when it shines on what YOU DO!
We didn't tape Nixon. We didn't send someone in with a wire to terrify a 24
year old girl.
Nixon taped himself.
And we don't have a clue as to what went on because all of this information is
secret. Supposedly. When is Starr going to clean up his office? When is he
either going to show that none of his people leaked anything, or show that he
has turned over for prosecution, anyone of his people that have leaked
material?
When is Starr going to show he is independent and state that the leaks aren't
substantiated and should be ignored?
Yet you will hang a person on unsubstantiated accusations.
Keep waving your arms and claiming flight. I'm sure the Rush crowd will swear
that you were actually airborn.
george
... I only have to deal with Republicans because they don't use condoms.
DAN BOSCH
-> -> I get the distinct impression...The clinton Admin agreed to let
-> -> this guy stay on there until he retired in a couple of years...
-> -> Then when he proved to be a real pain, discovered they were
-> stuck -> with him since clinton had BIGGER problems to deal
-> with at the FBI.
-> DB> Sort of like the woman that taped "conversations" she had in
-> DB> secret and in confidence?
-> Hmmmm.....seems like I remember, not too long ago, a couple in Florida
-> doing ALMOST the same thing. Only in that situation, they were
-> ILLEGALLY intercepting a cellphone call. Can't exactly remember what
-> your take was on that. Care to expound on it??
Yep. I wanted to know what Newt was doing being so dumb as to talk
about such things on a cell phone. On the other hand, look what
happened to McDermott <sp>?
But as I recalled, you guys screamed bloody murder about how he was
abusing his position to pass off that tape.
Yet, now that the shoe is on the other foot, I'd like to know if you'd
care to expand on your take of a FRIEND taping conversations?
(And this is irrelative of whether Clinton is guilty or innocent of
said charges. I'm speaking only on the idea or a friend taping
conversations that a person thought were private and confidential.)
Would you do something like that, Ronnie?
-> DB> Then dumped them on Ken Starr when he
-> DB> couldn't find anything else for $36 million of tax payer money?
-> The FBI spends millions of dollars daily in persuing criminals. Do
-> you gripe about that or is it only when the criminal could turn out
-> to be a man you seem to like??
I've never heard of another case where the FBI spent $36 million
dollars to find out where a couple of hundred thousand went. And when
the FBI is investigating something, even they have limits as to what the
scope of the investigation is. Surely you agree with that, don't you?
->
............. -> -> DB> Every single one but the Ex thought that Paula
would -> -> DB> have a very difficult time making a case
-> -> I'm not at all familiar with the details, but in general
-> -> it's got to be tough...cause all the discrimination is
-> -> 3rd or 4th hand...and I don't think that they can trace
-> -> it back to Clinton...
-> DB> From the information I've seen, I don't think there's much chance
-> DB> of her getting a Civil Rights judgement against Clinton.
-> She might not, however with possible obstruction of justice charges
-> against Clinton and his possible resignation from the presidency, she
-> may not care. Clinton lied to the American public since 1992
-> regarding Gennifer Flowers and has finally (under oath) admitted to
-> doing the same thing that he told the American public he didn't do.
-> Now he is claiming he didn't proposition Paula Jones. In the last
-> few days, he has claimed he didn't have any "impro- per sexual
-> relationship" with a young intern. The young woman claims he didn't
-> screw her but did accept oral sex from her, as he didn't believe it
-> was sex if it was only oral sex. Seems like certain Fan Clubbers
-> were hollaring as loud as they could, when the same thing was said
-> about Newt Gingrich.
I didn't know that Newt Gingrich was accused of asking for or
receiving oral sex from someone.
You don't remember YOUR stance on that one, do
-> you Dan???
I don't even remember the situation you're talking about. When did
this occur?
Anyhow, THINKING PEOPLE know how much of a liar Bill
-> Clinton is. Now it's time for those of you who don't like to think,
-> to do so. Perhaps if you'd take off your rose colored glasses,
-> you'll see the sex pervert for what he is. You can't allow yourself
-> to keep being fooled. It's not nice.
Nice to see that you've got such an open mind, Ronnie.
-> DB> But then, on top of all this, the new allegations of affairs and
-> DB> coverups comes up.
-> DB> If it turns out that he did it (PLEASE: All conservatives
-> DB> attention:) If it turns out that Clinton did pressure this young
-> woman DB> into doing what Ken Starr is claiming, then he should
-> resign.
-> DB> And if Ken Starr can't prove it quickly and cleanly, I suggest he
-> DB> resign. He's ruining the life of a 24 year old woman just to keep
-> DB> investigating. He botched all the rest.
-> You don't know that he's botched ANY of the investigation. You are just
-> HOPING he did. Starr might have a whole wheelbarrow of evidence against
-> Bill Clinton. I don't know and you don't know. Just admit it.
I have. But you've flat out told me that Clinton was guilty of various
things he's never even been charged with. If I don't know it, how can
you?
-> BTW, as far as my own feelings about Clinton resigning.....I think it
-> would be a total disgrace..to the country...to have allowed this man
-> to represent us, both here and abroad. I think it's a disgrace for
-> some many Americans, many of them good, to actually fall for this
-> lying sex pervert, and elect him not once, but twice! I'm sure those
Hold on a second, Ronnie, wasn't you who was just saying " I don't know
and you don't know. Just admit it."? Are you going to wait for the
investigation and follow your own advice about not knowing, or are you
going to jump to conclusions and hope the bottom doesn't fall out?
-> who voted for him are cheering him on now. I don't think he will
-> resign though, as he will feel like this too shall pass as most in
-> the past has done. He is bull headed enough to try to stick it out
-> and basically tell Americans to just stick it up our asses. If he
-> does that, I don't even see him having the backing of his own party
-> in the event that talk of impeachment springs up. I guess we shall
-> see. If I were Iraq, I'd be heading towards my bunker. I predicted
-> a few weeks back that Clinton might try something to deflect away
-> from his deposition in the Paula Jones suit.....I'd not put it past
-> him now, anything to take Ms Lewinsky's picture off of the tv.
Who needs an investigation, right?
And you're saying that all those who voted for him are cheering him
on..Yet I've already said that "If he's guilty, he should resign."
And yes, I'm hoping it's not true. Aren't you? Or are you so stuck on
hurting him, that you'd stoop to anything to hurt him, as some opinion
editors are wondering?
After all, for years, you and others have been screaming bloody
murder, and like weasels in the hen house, have been frothing about for
blood on Clinton. Yet in all that time, I've not heard you say "I hope
he turns out to be a great president and I hope the nation flourishes
under him."
Why?
I hope he's not guilty. Is that so unreasonable? And if he is, he
should promptly resign.
DAN BOSCH
-> DB> Sort of like the woman that taped "conversations" she had in
-> DB> secret and in confidence? Then dumped them on Ken Starr when he
-> DB> couldn't find anything else for $36 million of tax payer money?
-> Are you privy as to what Ken Starr knows? I suspect that he knows
-> a lot more than he has confided it you.
Then why hasn't he presented it?
And while I certainly suspect you're right about him knowing more about
it than I do (hence his search in areas totally unrelated, it seems, to
Whitewater), how many conservatives did I see you chastising when his
investigation determined that Vince Foster committed suicide and they
argued that it was a bad decision?
Or is this only a one way street?
DAN BOSCH
)
-> DB> WHich is probably one reason this new allegation has come
-> DB> about. What I want to know is why this woman who taped
-> DB> these conversations and who was alleged to have had sexual
-> DB> relations with George Bush was still working at the White
-> DB> House.
-> ->> Cite please.
-> DB> It was rumored in some circles that she was involved, one way
-> DB> or another, with George Bush. Nothing ever came of it but
-> DB> her name was mentioned. I was watching a CNN discussion when
-> DB> it was mentioned and read about it the next day in the local
-> DB> paper.
-> What show, what day? I'll save you the trouble, and get the
-> transcript off the CNN web site myself. Unless you are making it up.
-> What local paper, what day?
The show with the two attorneys (the ones who gained prominence in the
OJ Simpson trial) and it was the day after the story broke, I believe.
Local paper was the Snohomish County Herald. Have at 'er.
-> DB> What I'm wondering is why she would have still been in her
-> DB> position if this rumor
-> I already informed you that she had been OUT of the White House for
-> close to four years. Why are you still pretending she is still
-> working in the same position?
I never made that contention. Quit making things up.
DAN BOSCH
-> ->> ->>> They have Limbaugh and Liddy...We had Tom and Dick...
-> ->> ->>> sort of illustrates the difference in attitudes hmmmm...?'
-> ->> DB>> Watch out. We'll be called on to provide answers for that
-> ->> DB>> comment soon enough!
-> ->> DB>> Have a good one, Samuel.
-> ->> EH>> Ah, isn't that cute... they're bonding.
-> ->> TY> is that bonding or a buttsniff...
-> ->> Well, that's how they bond...
-> DB> Ah, now you're bonding...or crotch sniffing.
-> Yer a sick puppy, Bosch...
Did you say the same thing to Yoha? Or are you just hypocritical?
DAN BOSCH
-> ^AMSGID: 1:170/302.2 28e53fac
-> ^ACHRS: IBMPC 2
-> ^AREPLY: 1:343/304 f4393376
-> ^APID: FDAPX/w+ 1.1 EM00019
-> ->> DB> WHich is probably one reason this new allegation has come
-> ->> DB> about. What I want to know is why this woman who taped
-> ->> DB> these conversations and who was alleged to have had sexual
-> ->> DB> relations with George Bush was still working at the White
-> ->> DB> House.
-> ->> Cite please.
-> DB> It was rumored in some circles that she was involved, one
-> DB> way or another, with George Bush. Nothing ever came of it
-> DB> but her name was mentioned. I was watching a CNN discussion
-> DB> when it was mentioned and read about it the next day in the
-> DB> local paper.
-> Since Wednesday morning, I have been in saturation mode watching this
-> story develop. I have watched all three networks, MSNBC, CNN (both
-> broadcasts), read the AJC and the WSJ. I have attempted to keep
-> abreast of what Matt Drudge is reporting. I have instant access to
-> the Associated Press wire as well as Reuters and Scripps Howard. I
-> have seen or read no source, credible or otherwise, mention a sexual
-> affair of any kind between President Bush and Linda Tripp.
-> It is a scurrilous, sleazy accusation, but hey, to defend Him, we'll say
-> anything, won't we?
If you wish. However, I never used the phrase to defend him.
DAN BOSCH
-> DB> Samuel, the problem with this is that he and she swore under oath
-> DB> that nothing went on. If he actually pressured her not to tell
-> DB> the truth, and she later changes her mind (which the latest
-> rumors say), then DB> there's deep trouble at the WH.
-> I disagree....It's just the next step in the never ending string of
-> accusations...and will run it's course as the rest have...
-> Under Nixon, we saw "dirty tricks" as concieved by the idealistic
-> political right...what you are seeing now is the CORPORATE side
-> of that coin...
This is different. This isn't just another tawdry affair, this is
obstruction and perjury, *IF* the charges are true and found to be true.
-> DB> If she admits it, there will be a total media stampede
-> DB> and Congressional investigations
-> Like I said, buisness as usual...
-> DB> and Clinton's presidency will be in deep trouble.
-> With WHO....Stan?....The public are SICK of hearing it...
-> Some new bimbo, already an admitted liar, and looking at
-> lining her pockets is not going to bring the white house down.
-> However...PRINTING that attitude won't sell many papers.
-> TELEVISING it won't attract many advertisers...
I disagree. This one has a different sense to it.
It's too close to home. And people ARE interested, IMO.
Paula Jones was nothing. It's obvious that he didn't violate her civil
rights. This is different. IMO.
*IF* it turns out to be true.
Earl Croasmun
DB> ... this woman who taped these conversations and who was
DB> alleged to have had sexual relations with George Bush was
DB> still working at the White House.
DB>> It was rumored in some circles that she was involved, one
DB>> way or another, with George Bush. Nothing ever came of it
DB>> but her name was mentioned. I was watching a CNN discussion
DB>> when it was mentioned and read about it the next day in the
DB>> local paper.
SH> Since Wednesday morning, I have been in saturation mode
SH> watching this story develop. I have watched all three
SH> networks, MSNBC, CNN (both broadcasts), read the AJC and the
SH> WSJ. I have attempted to keep abreast of what Matt Drudge is
SH> reporting. I have instant access to the Associated Press
SH> wire as well as Reuters and Scripps Howard. I have seen or
SH> read no source, credible or otherwise, mention a sexual
SH> affair of any kind between President Bush and Linda Tripp.
Dan has a problem with the truth, or else he has a problem with the English
language. I pointed this out to him several days ago. He hasn't said anything
relevant yet. The actual comment on Inside Politics (Jan. 21) was:
"KING: But her name is more often associated with controversy.
During the Bush administration, Tripp was known as a source of
never- proven allegations about President Bush's personal life "
She was a SOURCE of rumors, not the OBJECT of them. Evidently Dan doesn't
understand the difference. And nothing in the story about "sexual." That was
too his addition.
So much for the accusations that Tripp is part of a "Vast Right Wing
Conspiracy."
Samuel Lee
DB> Samuel, the problem with this is that he and she swore under oath
refering to Clintons Jones deposition? Keep in mind this is a VAGUE report
LEAKED from a confidential deposition...I've heard THREE different versions of
this already...From earlier depositions I THINK
he only asserted they did not have "AN AFFAIR."....???
DB> that nothing went on. If he actually pressured her not to tell
DB> the truth, and she later changes her mind (which the latest
DB> rumors say), then there's deep trouble at the WH.
RUMORS....of what she will say if granted immunity...
based on a DETAILED LIST presented to STAR by her attorney
just HOW MANY DAYS after this started....? AGAIN LEAKED to the media.
-> under Nixon, we saw "dirty tricks" as concieved by the idealistic
-> political right...what you are seeing now is the CORPORATE
-> side of that coin...
Yep....TRIPP, who has complained previously about Clinton
(with no effect) gets a young girl talking, establishs a dialog,
maybe makes a few suggestions, does a little light brainwashing...
Then goes to a WELL KNOWN sensationalist (goldberg, goldbloom ???)
Who just HAPPENS to be an ACTIVE Clinton Hater AND was an admitted
(paid) Campaign Spy for Richard Nixon...And is advised to make
ILLEGAL TAPES...which she proceeds to do....
NEXT THING we know she takes these tapes STRAIGHT to the ONE person
in a position to USE them...As far as I can tell she doesn'consult
her own council, dosen't consult police or law enforcement, just
makes a BEELINE to star...
The MINUTE Ken Star realised he was listening to ILLEGALY made tape
recordings he should have thrown her out, reported her to the police,
and cooperated in filing a complaint...This is his DUTY as an officer of the
court...didn't happen did it...???
But BOY did it get LEAKED again to the press...
Along with the atrocious, but seemingly logical, explanation that
Starr was "Obligated" to follow up on this ILLEGAL evidence
the production of which was an ESTABLISHED infringment on LEWINSKY'S
Civil Rights.
IF Lewinsky had a Lawyer actually representing HER interests,
He'd tell her to SHUT UP, as the special investigator has NOTHING
to go on but illegal tapes and unsubstantiated conversations.
Just WHO is this Lawyer and where did he come from?
And of course the TIMING is just too perfect falling at JUST the
right time after the Jones deposition and before the SOU speech...
DB> This is different. This isn't just another tawdry affair, this is
DB> obstruction and perjury, *IF* the charges are true and found to be
DB> true.
Allegations are a DIME A DOZEN...
As to obstruction...Not a factor...Clinton & Jordan are BOTH accused,
from what I understand, they were together and will most likely back each other
up...worst case Jordan bites the bullet and accepts the blame...Clinton
walks...PERJURY? They have to prove willfull intent.
In this case the questions we KNOW ABOUT were much to broad and vague
to ever support such a contention...And I'm SURE his lawyers never let him
answer ANYTHING inre: SPECIFIC sexual acts with Lewinsky, at his latest
deposition...
DB> I disagree. This one has a different sense to it.
Yes it's an endgame move...Starr has outlived his usefullness
and could not HOPE to accomplish anything more...They used
the BROWN deat thing just to keep the office open this long.
The Media (some at least) are in on it...They are spininng it like crazy...But
they cannot sustain this frenzy...
In the next week or so, I expect to see Lewinsky get immunity...
The tapes, rumored to be very explicit, will be LEAKED and Bleeped
very artfully by the media, who will play excerpts OVER and OVER for
3 days probably...Ken Starr will ask the grand Jury for an inditement...
(he is ALREADY presenting witnesses to them inre this matter BTW)
If he can GET an inditement, Then the fun REALLY begins...
My guess is he'll try for a STUNNING suprise inditement to
create an assumption of guilt on the part of the public.
I'm not sure what Clinton's boys have in mind...but my immediate
thought is that, if an inditement occurs, RENO will lower the boom on Starr,
and the dems may have a few cards up their sleeve inre: exposing this
conspiracy, with perhaps Starr as a central villan....
Hillary was setting the stage for that this AM...
When the dust settles the only thing to be sure of is that Lewinsky,
Tripp, and Gold(whatever) Will have a VERY sweet publishing Deal
and the PUBLIC will get to read/hear those illegal tapes...
Personally I think the GOP & it's backers KNOW this is going nowhere.
STARR is no longer of much use anyway, so they may be throwing him to the
wolves...Giving him a chance to resign in a huff...Stirring up
S**T...Starting off the 98 campaigns with a real circus act...
You heard it here first...I think...
We shall just have to wait & see...
]]]SL[[[
... As a matter of fact, it IS a banana in my pocket.
Stan Hardegree
SL> Under Nixon, we saw "dirty tricks" as concieved by the idealistic
SL> political right...what you are seeing now is the CORPORATE side
SL> of that coin...
Who ordered the IRS audit of Paula Jones? IBM? McDonnell-Douglas?
SL> With WHO....Stan?....The public are SICK of hearing it...
SL> Some new bimbo, already an admitted liar, and looking at
SL> lining her pockets is not going to bring the white house dow
Note to all: "[L]ining her pockets..." You have to have a certain strange
respect for someone who will say literally anything to defend His Man.
Chauvin would be proud.
Stan Hardegree
EC> Dan has a problem with the truth, or else he has a problem
EC> with the English language. I pointed this out to him
EC> several days ago. He hasn't said anything relevant yet.
EC> The actual comment on Inside Politics (Jan. 21) was:
EC> "KING: But her name is more often associated with
EC> controversy. During the Bush administration, Tripp was known
EC> as a source of never- proven allegations about President
EC> Bush's personal life "
EC> She was a SOURCE of rumors, not the OBJECT of them.
Any idea what they were talking about? One of the nice things about the Bush
administration was almost complete uninterest in his personal life.
Earl Croasmun
->> What show, what day? I'll save you the trouble, and get the
->> transcript off the CNN web site myself. Unless you are making
DB> The show with the two attorneys (the ones who gained prominence in the
DB> OJ Simpson trial) and it was the day after the story broke, I believe.
Some gremlin must have ERASED that part of the Burden of Proof transcript off
of CNN's web site. Convenient for you, huh?
DB> Local paper was the Snohomish County Herald. Have at 'er.
The Herald also has a web site, but does not put up national stories. Again,
convenient for you. And strangely NO other media source and none of the White
House flacks have picked up this story and trumpeted it. Just some little
paper in Snohomish, with a big exclusive. And if I ask if you still HAVE that
issue, you'll probably say you JUST tossed it out? And you don't want to
bother going to The Herald, "at the corner of Grand & California in Everett,"
or "the main Everett Public Library, at 2702 Hoyt," to see what the paper
ACTUALLY said?
DB> I never made that contention. Quit making things up.
You wondered (twice) why Tripp was still in the White House. She left the
White House A YEAR BEFORE LEWINSKY EVEN GRADUATED FROM COLLEGE BACK IN OREGON,
and thus more than a year before Lewinsky came to Washington to "get her
Presidential knee-pads."
Bobby Archer
SL> refering to Clintons Jones deposition? Keep in mind this is a
SL> VAGUE report LEAKED from a confidential deposition...I've heard
SL> THREE different versions of this already...From earlier
SL> depositions I THINK he only asserted they did not have "AN
SL> AFFAIR."....???
Note....the truth is irrelevant. Carville said basically the same thing.
These people don't care that He was diddling some intern his daughter's
age *in* the Oval Office. They don't care if He lies about it.
It's come down to "you can't prove nuttin."
SL> As to obstruction...Not a factor...Clinton & Jordan are BOTH accused,
SL> from what I understand, they were together and will most likely back
SL> each other up...worst case Jordan bites the bullet and accepts the
SL> blame...Clinton walks.
Another FOB tossed from the sled.
Bobby Archer
GR>> But you bring up a good point. If taping phone calls is illegal
GR>> on cell phones, why not over land lines?
SL> It IS illegal in WV where the tapes were made....
WV?
Ed Hulett
->> ONCE AGAIN you have painted yourself into a corner, by
->> establishing that you are (a) a very poor (but shameless)
->> liar, or (b) the ______est, most _____-dead, ________
->> ____-for-brains on this echo. Since it is not a direct insult
->> under the echo rules to describe you as a liar, I choose for
->> now to believe (a) to be true. You can, of course, continue
->> to provide more evidence for the (b) alternative.
->> Lest you forget your claims:
->> 1: DB> What I want to know is why this woman who taped these
->> DB> conversations and who was alleged to have had sexual
->> DB> relations with George Bush was still working at the White
->> DB> House.
->> 2: DB> It was rumored in some circles that she was involved,
->> one way
->> DB> or another, with George Bush.
->> 3: DB> And remember, his accuser is the same person alleged to
->> have
->> DB> had a fling with George Bush.
->> 4: DB> Tripp was RUMORED at one point to have been involved with
->> George Bush.
->> I can find NO ONE, ANYWHERE, AT ANY TIME who has made this
->> claim (or "rumor" or "allegation"). YOU said you heard it on
->> CNN. OOPS. CNN keeps transcripts. I told you it was not
->> there. You were wrong. You had ample time to check the
->> transcripts. YOU did not find it.
->> (Of course, if you were lying all along, you KNEW it wasn't
->> there.)
->> In either event, you did not retract and apologize. You
->> repeated your claim about the allegations. That made you a
->> liar (although you CAN be (a) AND (b) at the same time). You
->> shifted to say it was in a local
->> paper. I asked what the paper said. NOW you make THIS smug
->> response:
->> DB> Hey, Mr. Smug. Tell you what...Go to the Washington Post web
->> site, DB> read David Broder's opinion piece, and you'll see
->> reference DB> to how George's son wrote a letter to the editor to
->> deny his DB> father was having an affair.
->> You are a liar. Again. I read it. Linda Tripp is not
->> mentioned in the column. Everyone on the echo who remembers
->> the 1992 election will remember that the alleged affair
->> pertained to Jennifer Fitzgerald, NOT Linda Tripp.
->> You may have been lying at the outset, but you are clearly
->> lying now. Why? Did you think that a few casual readers would
->> not follow the thread, and forget what you started out
->> claiming?
DB> I never said that it said Linda Tripp, but it still referred to an
DB> affair by Bush. What, do you want, that I record everything
DB> I watch on tv, just to point out what I heard?
Wow, look at the guy backpedal!
->> This is the point at which you should retract your above
->> claims, apologize to all who read them, and vow to be more
->> honest in the future. Are you up to it?
DB> Oh, you can shove it, Earl. I stand by my claims to what I heard. I
DB> never said that she actually did.
It does not appear that he's up to it, Earl.
DB> Settle down before the stroke sets in, ok?
This is especially funny as it appears Dan is the one about to stroke out.
DB> Just stick your accusations in your ear.
I never thought anyone could have less credibility than Doogy or Byrd.
DAN BOSCH
-> DB> Believe me, the way this case is turning and twisting, anything
-> DB> could still happen.
-> I consider it much more likely that, as usual, NOTHING will happen.
Actually, I think something will happen, but it may not be what most of
the people in this conference think will happen...
-> DB> That nothing at all has been verified.
-> Inre: Clinton/Lewinsky...that's probably right...
-> However it HAS been verified that the SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR ignored
-> his duty as an officer of the court, and conspired, without due
-> process, to violate the Lewinsky's legal right to privacy...
-> If Reno wants to push this, she can probably get him disbarred...
I'm really surprised that this information didn't to go to a grand jury
before it was released or leaked to the press. But then, Starr may have
realized it would never get out in the open if he didn't do something
like he did.
-> DB> And Starr listened to these tapes apparently, from reports I heard
-> DB> today, BEFORE he had the authority from Janet Reno to pursue them.
-> That was the way I heard it...And he PURPOSEFULLY sent Tripp
-> back to make MORE illegal tapes.
This is confusing.
-> DB> Isn't that like working as special investigator for Paula Jones?
-> And DB> why is his scope of authority expanded so far?
-> Sort of what Hillary was talking about...Isn't it?
Exactly. Even in the Reno documents, it states that Lewinsky was a
witness in the Jones case. Now, if her testimony is not allowed, where
does that leave Starr?
-> DB> BTW, I heard today on KIRO from Seattle, that a poll was done that
-> DB> showed Clinton's job performance approval rating at 67%. The
-> second DB> highest in history.
-> I think the SOU was pretty well recieved...
I just read that it's up to 73%. Bad news for GOPhers.
-> And, perhaps, Lott will survive and FINALLY be able to
-> restructure the republican party into something more than
-> a mouth organ for multinational buisness interests...
Maybe he can.
-> DB> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the tapes were made in
-> DB> Maryland, where it was legal to record a conversation?
-> DB> Or am I missing the boat on this?
-> Actually we both got it wrong...it IS Maryland not West
-> Virginia. AND it IS illegal in Maryland...Maryland authority's
-> are not likely to pursue the issue unless the offended party
-> complains...But the tapes will NEVER see the evidence box
-> in a perjury trial...
Now, Lewinsky's lawyer is saying that Tripp lied and she didn't
"overhear" any conversation with Clinton.
There's so many twists to this story that it's FAR, FAR from over.
Even in the media, one day you hear something and the next day it's
something totally different. On two separate Denver stations, I heard
to separate bits of news, totally opposite.
There's no consistency but a lot of rumor mongering.
And our resident ClintonHaters can't stand it. They're going bonkers.
Ronnie Thompson
-=> Quoting Earl Croasmun to DAN BOSCH <=-
EC> And then you say:
DB> I stand by my claims to what I heard.
EC> By now it is obvious you heard those rumors nowhere. You just lied
EC> about them.
That brings up another subject: What Clinton is REALLY saying. When he
says he had no "improper sexual relationship with that woman" what is
he really saying?? What are his "talking heads" really saying that they
thought they heard?? His senior advisor, when talking to the CNN crew
last week, said "The president has denied the allegations and I believe it"
Now, is he claiming the president has denied the allegations, yet HE believes
the allegations?? He says it to SOUND LIKE he believes the president, but
does he really??? Even Clintons long time friend, George Stephanopolous, when
asked if he believes the presidents denial, says "all I can say is I hope
the charges aren't true" and that was it. To me, he was saying that he knows
Clinton pretty good and he believes that Clinton would have an intern in to
give him blowjobs. Ole George is not wanting to get in any deeper, regarding
the Clintons, and wouldn't commit himself to a "yes I believe the president"
Wonder why(G).
Ronnie in NC
... Hillary and Bill: You can dodge and duck for only so long!
Ronnie Thompson
-=> Quoting Ed Connell to DAN BOSCH <=-
DB> But Clinton has already totally denied the allegations. What more
DB> do you want?
EC>
EC> He doesn't seem to be answering questions about his relationship
EC> with "that woman".
And Clinton denied the claims of Gennifer Flowers, for years, to us. He
is, simply put, an effing LIAR.
..........
Re: Starr
DB> You know, he's spent $36 million of our money.
EC> A drop in the bucket when it comes to the total law enforcement
EC> bill.
The Dems can't even make their minds up about how much as been spent. On
Meet the Press, Sunday, Carville claimed he has spent $25 million. After the
SOTU speech, another Democrat was claiming he has spent over $50 million. I
guess it just depends on who's talking and how much they want to inflate
the figure. I don't think anyone really knows what's been spent.
DB> Don't you think he owes us something?
EC> A thorough job?
DB> Who's holding him accountable?
EC> Congress? The judiciary?
Sounds like Janet Reno might have a hand in doing so, but I'm sure Dan
already realizes that.
Ronnie in NC
... God must love stupid Liberals. He made so many of them.
Earl Croasmun
You couldn't just 'fess up! You had to lie again.
->> Lest you forget your claims:
->> 1: DB> What I want to know is why this woman who taped these
->> DB> conversations and who was alleged to have had sexual
->> DB> relations with George Bush was still working at the White
->> DB> House.
->> 2: DB> It was rumored in some circles that she was involved, one way
->> DB> or another, with George Bush.
->> 3: DB> And remember, his accuser is the same person alleged to have
->> DB> had a fling with George Bush.
->> 4: DB> Tripp was RUMORED at one point to have been involved with George
Bush.
Your support for this: you saw it on CNN, you saw it in a local paper, you saw
it in a Broder column. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. And now you try to back out
with THIS:
DB> I never said that it said Linda Tripp
And then you say:
DB> I stand by my claims to what I heard.
By now it is obvious you heard those rumors nowhere. You just lied about them.
Ed Connell
-=> Quoting DAN BOSCH to ED CONNELL <=-
-> He's not ready? You know how the Clintonistas have
-> been stalling, letting the evidence dribble in all the
-> while fussing about the slowness.
-> Even now, the White House crew is in a stonewalling mode. They
-> refuse to answer the questions about exactly what was the
-> relationship between Clinton and "that woman" as Clinton called
-> her. (She is more the age of his daughter.)
DB> She's a grown woman.
If so then so is Chelsea.
DB> She's not a little girl. She knew what she
DB> was doing if it really happened.
The most powerful man in the world hitting on a starry-eyed
21 year old? Hmmmm.
DB> So, you're saying that Starr is stonewalling?
What?!
DB> But Clinton has already totally denied the allegations. What more
DB> do you want?
He doesn't seem to be answering questions about his relationship
with "that woman".
-> If you have some evidence that Ken Starr has nothing other
-> than his not telling us what he has, I'm willing to listen.
-> It should be pointed out that public information is not
-> part of Ken Starr's job description - at least not at this
-> point.
DB> You know, he's spent $36 million of our money.
A drop in the bucket when it comes to the total law enforcement
bill.
DB> Don't you think he owes us something?
A thorough job?
DB> Who's holding him accountable?
Congress? The judiciary?
Ed
... Two Soviet Ships Collide, One Dies
Stan Hardegree
DB> I never said that it said Linda Tripp, but it still referred to an
DB> affair by Bush. What, do you want, that I record everything
DB> I watch on tv, just to point out what I heard?
This is what you said:
->> DB> WHich is probably one reason this new allegation has come
->> DB> about. What I want to know is why this woman who taped
->> DB> these conversations and who was alleged to have had sexual
->> DB> relations with George Bush was still working at the White
->> DB> House.
Linda Tripp taped the conversations.
Now, you can issue a "mea culpa" or you can continue to lie. Your choice.
Bob Ackley
Replying to a message of George Lagergren to Bob Ackley:
GL> -=> Quoting Bob Ackley to George Lagergren <=-
BA>> Replying to a message of George Lagergren to Stan Hardegree:
-=>>> Quoting Stan Hardegree to Ed Hulett <=-
GL>> Question: If a "sleaze" candidate like Clinton can beat the GOP
GL>> candidate twice, what does this say about how the voters feel about
GL>> the Republican Party and whether the Repubs represent the voters'
GL>> desires and interests at the Prez level?
BA>> Better question: Why did slightly more 75% of the citizens
BA>> who are eligible to vote fail or refuse to do so in the last
BA>> election?
BA>> Source: Half of the voting age citizenry does not register to vote,
BA>> Michael Reagan, on his radio show. More than half of the registered
BA>> voters did not vote in the 1996 election, various news reports at
BA>> the time.
GL> More voters only vote in the Prez election than in the off-year
GL> election. People may feel the two political parties are the same.
I prefer to think of them as opposite sides of the same big government
coin...
Bob Ackley
Replying to a message of George Rudzinski to Bob Ackley:
GR> -=> Quoting Bob Ackley to George Lagergren <=-
BA>> Replying to a message of George Lagergren to Stan Hardegree:
-=>>> Quoting Stan Hardegree to Ed Hulett <=-
GL>> Question: If a "sleaze" candidate like Clinton can beat the GOP
GL>> candidate twice, what does this say about how the voters feel about
GL>> the Republican Party and whether the Repubs represent the voters'
GL>> desires and interests at the Prez level?
BA>> Better question: Why did slightly more 75% of the citizens
BA>> who are eligible to vote fail or refuse to do so in the last
BA>> election?
GR> Because 75% of the American public are idiots. Not a difficult
GR> concept.
Perhaps it's the other 25% of the public that are idiots - believing
that whoever or whatever they're voting for is going to make any difference at
all in their lives.
GR> Apparently they didn't care if the government was too big. Apparently
GR> they didn't care that the government doesn't do enough.
GR> If they don't care, why should I care what they do?
OK, George. We'll have an election with only two candidates for this
very important public office. The candidates are Jeffrey Dahmer and Charlie
Manson (or Adolf Hitler and Josef Dzhugashvili (look him up), pick any two
abhorrent examples), there are *no* other options. Which one of these sterling
candidates are you going to vote *FOR*?
GR> If they are willing to let 25% of us run the show, who are we to tell
GR> them they are wrong? They have every opportunity to make their
GR> voices known. They choose not to. That is their right.
You do know, don't you, that elections for national office in this
country have been rigged for well over a century.
Bobby Archer (VRWC)
->> Even now, the White House crew is in a stonewalling mode. They
->> refuse to answer the questions about exactly what was the
->> relationship between Clinton and "that woman" as Clinton called
->> her. (She is more the age of his daughter.)
DB> She's a grown woman. She's not a little girl. She knew what she was
DB> doing if it really happened.
I was watching MSNBC the other night and it was mentioned that Starr
would actually indict her and attempt to prosecute, the moderator cried
out incredulously "Are you saying Starr would indict this little girl for
this!"
Oh to be on the panel with the opportunity to re-direct.
Bobby Archer (VRWC)
->> Inre: Clinton/Lewinsky...that's probably right...
->> However it HAS been verified that the SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR ignored
->> his duty as an officer of the court, and conspired, without due
->> process, to violate the Lewinsky's legal right to privacy...
->> If Reno wants to push this, she can probably get him disbarred...
DB> I'm really surprised that this information didn't to go to a
DB> grand jury before it was released or leaked to the press. But
DB> then, Starr may have realized it would never get out in the open
DB> if he didn't do something like he did.
You're assuming that Starr leaked it...which would be self-defeating
as I've already explained.
You ignore also that Isikoff and Newsweek have been sitting on the
story for a year.
DAN BOSCH
-> -> He's not ready? You know how the Clintonistas have
-> -> been stalling, letting the evidence dribble in all the
-> -> while fussing about the slowness.
-> -> Even now, the White House crew is in a stonewalling mode. They
-> -> refuse to answer the questions about exactly what was the
-> -> relationship between Clinton and "that woman" as Clinton called
-> -> her. (She is more the age of his daughter.)
-> DB> She's a grown woman.
-> If so then so is Chelsea.
So? She's over 18. What has that got to do with it? Lewinsky is
over 21. She's a grown woman.
-> DB> She's not a little girl. She knew what she
-> DB> was doing if it really happened.
-> The most powerful man in the world hitting on a starry-eyed
-> 21 year old? Hmmmm.
Did he?
-> DB> But Clinton has already totally denied the allegations. What more
-> DB> do you want?
-> He doesn't seem to be answering questions about his relationship
-> with "that woman".
Why should he? He's already said that he denied those allegations.
-> -> If you have some evidence that Ken Starr has nothing other
-> -> than his not telling us what he has, I'm willing to listen.
-> -> It should be pointed out that public information is not
-> -> part of Ken Starr's job description - at least not at this
-> -> point.
-> DB> You know, he's spent $36 million of our money.
-> A drop in the bucket when it comes to the total law enforcement
-> bill.
Yes, but what percentage is his little case compared to the total law
enforcement caseload.
-> DB> Don't you think he owes us something?
-> A thorough job?
-> DB> Who's holding him accountable?
-> Congress? The judiciary?
Congress, or at least a large part of it, is encouraging him.
The Judiciary has no responsibility to.
Thomas Banks
TY>... * Draft Dodger Bill Clinton: Unwilling to serve, unfit to
TY>lead.
This line amuses me. I know right wingers like to go after Clinton for
his draft dodging. But is there any more courage coming from the far
right? Wasn't it Pat Buchannan, an avid jogger during the Nixon
administration, who got waived from service for whining about his bad
knees? Rush Limbaugh (obviously 4-F just eyeballing his considerable
bloat) who -- depending on which story he's telling at the time -- got
out of the service because of a cyst.
\ /
O O
-----m-( )-m-----
Graffiti by:
tba...@aol.com
1:264/416 (FidoNet)
---
o CMPQwk 1.4 #1270 o "God is dead" - Nietzche "Nietzche is dead" - God
DAN BOSCH
-> ^AMSGID: 1:170/302.93 2980eb0f
-> ->> 3: DB> And remember, his accuser is the same person alleged to have
-> ->> DB> had a fling with George Bush.
-> ->> 4: DB> Tripp was RUMORED at one point to have been involved with
-> Bush.
-> Your support for this: you saw it on CNN, you saw it in a local
-> paper, you saw it in a Broder column. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. And
-> now you try to back out
-> with THIS:
-> DB> I never said that it said Linda Tripp
No. But this is pretty creative editing of posts. I said that the
David Broder column did not mention Linda Tripp. CNN did. And the
paper referred to it.
-> And then you say:
-> DB> I stand by my claims to what I heard.
And I do. I didn't say they were true. I said I heard it.
Thomas Banks
EC> GR>> But you bring up a good point. If taping phone calls is
EC> GR>> illegal on cell phones, why not over land lines?
EC> SL> It IS illegal in WV where the tapes were made....
EC>I hate to make fun of your condition (fact-impaired), but who in this
EC>controversy lives in West Virginia?
Well, believe it or not, parts of West Virginia do serve as a bedroom
community to Washington. The congestion has grown that bad. But you're
right, I understand the tapes were recorded in Maryland.
\ /
O O
-----m-( )-m-----
Graffiti by:
tba...@aol.com
1:264/416 (FidoNet)
---
o CMPQwk 1.4 #1270 o To err is dysfunction; to forgive is co-dependent.
DAN BOSCH
-> Your support for this: you saw it on CNN, you saw it in a local
-> paper, you saw it in a Broder column. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. And
-> now you try to back out
-> with THIS:
-> DB> I never said that it said Linda Tripp
-> And then you say:
-> DB> I stand by my claims to what I heard.
-> By now it is obvious you heard those rumors nowhere. You just lied
-> about them.
You're full of it, Earl.
Yes. I did hear this on CNN. Yes, there were references to an affair
that George Bush was supposed to have had. (AND I NEVER SAID HE DID.)
Finally, if you've watched and listened to and read every single bit of
coverage on this event, then I congratulate you on your tremendous
ability to take it all in but obviously your comprehension of what you
took in is incomplete.
It's interesting that you claim that I lied because you're unable to
validate what I reported, giving both the source and the time. Perhaps
your little world of facts is incomplete.
In the meantime, you can stuff your accusations.
You're upset and you're not pleased, but don't try to pin it on me.
DAN BOSCH
-> DB> I never said that it said Linda Tripp, but it still referred to an
-> DB> affair by Bush. What, do you want, that I record everything
-> DB> I watch on tv, just to point out what I heard?
This in response to an editorial opinion by David Broder.
-> This is what you said:
-> ->> DB> WHich is probably one reason this new allegation has come
-> ->> DB> about. What I want to know is why this woman who taped
-> ->> DB> these conversations and who was alleged to have had sexual
-> ->> DB> relations with George Bush was still working at the White
-> ->> DB> House.
-> Linda Tripp taped the conversations.
Yes. And CNN said that she had been rumored to have had a dalliance
with G. Bush. What's your point?
-> Now, you can issue a "mea culpa" or you can continue to lie. Your
-> choice.
Actually, there's a third choice, the correct one:
CNN said it. There's no lie.
Assistant Moderator
On January 26, 1998, Samuel Lee wrote Ed Hulett:
SL> *
EH> #1 They may get the court to move the deposition proceedings
SL> *
EH> Firstly, do not add ANYTHING to my statements after my initials.
EH> That is very close to a FIDO policy violation. Secondly, I said
SL> The Numbers were added as refernce points.... I'm not real
SL> interested in whether you like it or not... Since WHEN did YOU
SL> join Fido...? If & when you ever do, you have a bit to learn
SL> about "Policys." Until then I suggest you take it up with the
SL> moderator(s)...
===
DO NOT modify somebody else's quotes. If you can't debate against what
somebody actually said, then maybe you shouldn't be here.
===
This rule, as the second sentence makes clear, was intended to stop people from
altering other people's quotes in a way that alters what they said. It could
be argued that your addition of numbers to Ed's quotes doesn't violate the
spirit of this rule, but it certainly violates the letter. Accordingly, I'm
asking you to refrain from taking similar actions in the future. If you want
to number someone's statements, do so without altering their quotes.
Ed Blackman
Assistant Moderator A-M
edge...@pobox.com
Assistant Moderator
On January 25, 1998, Ed Hulett wrote Samuel Lee:
SL> *
EH> #1 They may get the court to move the deposition proceedings
SL> *
EH> That is very close to a FIDO policy violation.
Please leave the moderating to the moderators.
Gary Braswell
EH> DB>> Sort of like the woman that taped "conversations" she had in
EH> DB>> secret and in confidence?
EH> GR>> Why did Starr have to use tapes illegally obtained by Tripp?
EH> GR>> Couldn't he get a warrant to tap Lewinsky's phones?
EH>Bwaaahahahahaha!!!
As I am sure you know, the tapes were not illegal.
EH> SL> Not without *Prematurely* alerting the Justice Dept what
EH> SL> he was up to....
EH>He got DoJ approval BEFORE he had Tripp wired. Don't you pay attention to
EH>ANYTHING?
From what I heard that was not the case. Goldberg<?> got her to do it
and after Tripp got some juicy stuff she went to Starr, who then went to
Reno who then gave him jurisdiction over the investigation.
EH> GR>> What felony charges have been brought against Tripp?
EH> SL> Very Good Point....as an officer of the court Starr had a duty to
EH> SL> Call attention to Tripps illegal activity...he didn't, instead he
EH> SL> encouraged it...and this MAY turn around and bite him in the ass.
EH>Yuh, counsellor!
From what I know Starr did not encourage anything illegal.
EH> GR>> But you bring up a good point. If taping phone calls is
EH> GR>> illegal on cell phones, why not over land lines?
EH> SL> It IS illegal in WV where the tapes were made....
EH>Bwaaahahahaha!!! The tapes were made in Maryland (the original ones)
EH>where Tripp lives. The tapes that were made when Starr had Tripp wired
EH>were not and are entirely legal.
Some were made in VA as well.
---
o OLXWin 1.00a o An amplifier for people who suffer in silence.
Earl Croasmun
TB> But is there any more courage coming from the far right?
TB> Wasn't it Pat Buchannan, an avid jogger during the Nixon
TB> administration, who got waived from service for whining about
TB> his bad knees? Rush Limbaugh (obviously 4-F just eyeballing
TB> his considerable bloat) who -- depending on which story he's
TB> telling at the time -- got out of the service because of a cyst.
Limbaugh is "FAR right?" You don't get out much, do you?
They were not medically qualified. Clinton WAS. He PASSED the physical, and
got two notices to report. He stiffed both of them. Do you see a difference?
No one got out of the draft for "whining." It required a medical exam.
Another difference: they are in the media. Clinton is the President.
One way that all three are similar: none of them would be a decent President.
But what I REALLY liked was the "an avid jogger" comment. In the last six
years this comment about Buchanan has been made in the echo a number of times.
Several of them, as I recall, used exactly the same phrase. When you get this
material, can't you AT LEAST paraphrase it in your own words?
Earl Croasmun
DB> I said that the David Broder column did not mention Linda Tripp. CNN did.
DB> And the paper referred to it.
You just get in deeper with each lie. You mentioned the Broder article to me
in a Jan. 28 message. You did not say that the article DID NOT mention Tripp.
Nor did you quote anything from the article to indicate what it DID say. But
if you HAD told me "this article does not mention Tripp," THAT would have been
extremely odd! You made your claims about Tripp and Bush, I told you it was
NOT in the CNN story, and you claimed that Broder also supported your wild
claim about TRIPP AND BUSH.
You did, however, say of Broder's column: "That story supports my statement."
[There were actually four statements, but they said virtually the same thing.]
You said the same thing in a message (same day) to Ross. In the message to
Ross, you claimed the Broder column supported THIS Boschism:
DB> Tripp was RUMORED at one point to have been involved with George
DB> Bush. Unlikely story and I think out of characters for George. However,
my
DB> question centers less on George than on Tripp.
So you now realize that Broder did not mention Linda Tripp. By your own
admission, then, you were trying to mislead both Ross and me by mentioning the
column. If it does not MENTION Tripp, how in the world can it support you
claim about Tripp?
Earl Croasmun
->> Your support for this: you saw it on CNN, you saw it in a
->> wrong. And now you try to back out
->> with THIS:
DB> Yes. I did hear this on CNN. Yes, there were references to
DB> an affair that George Bush was supposed to have had. (AND I
DB> NEVER SAID HE DID.)
You are once again re-wording in a grossly dishonest manner. You said (and I
won't bother to re-quote the four times you repeated it) that there were
allegations that he had an affair WITH LINDA TRIPP.
DB> It's interesting that you claim that I lied because you're
DB> unable to validate what I reported, giving both the source
DB> and the time. Perhaps your little world of facts is incomplete.
You are lying again. I called you a liar AFTER I checked the CNN transcripts,
FOUND the reference to Bush, SAW that you were completely wrong, and then TOLD
you that you were wrong. But when you continued the story about Tripp and
Bush, claimed two OTHER sources, and continued to claim that it was on CNN,
then it was obviously not just an error on your part. In a message from me to
you, TEN DAYS ago: "As for the Bush sex thing, CNN identified her as a SOURCE
of those rumors, NOT as an OBJECT of them!! What in the world are you talking
about?"
I did not "validate" what you said. A lie cannot be fully validated. I did,
however, INvalidate it.
DB> You're upset and you're not pleased, but don't try to pin it
DB> on me.
WHO is upset?
DB> You're full of it
DB> Oh, you can shove it
DB> Just stick your accusations in your ear.
DB> Hey, Mr. Smug.
Sally Springett
DB> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the tapes were made in
DB> I missing the boat on this?
In Maryland both parties must know the recording is being made.
That's why Starr made her do it over in DC.
___ Blue Wave/386 v2.30
Charles Doll
SL> What I really get a kick out of is watching some of these old
SL> foggys moralise about "taking advantage" of a 21 year old woman...
SL> When you KNOW they'd just DIE for a chance at some of the same....
SL> (G)...I keep picturing charles going "tut tut now, none of that my
SL> dear..." (G)!
I categorically deny rhat I ever said that to yo momma, no matter how much
she begged.
Asst Moderator
In a msg on <Jan 28>, Thomas Yoha of 1:170/302.91 writes:
GR> You folks love big government. You just love to use it.
TY> and your delusional...
Attack the post and not the poster.
Earl Croasmun
EC>> "KING: But her name is more often associated with
EC>> controversy. During the Bush administration, Tripp was known
EC>> as a source of never- proven allegations about President
EC>> Bush's personal life "
EC>> She was a SOURCE of rumors, not the OBJECT of them.
SH> Any idea what they were talking about? One of the nice
SH> things about the Bush administration was almost complete
SH> uninterest in his personal life.
I couldn't find much about this on internet, but it interested me enough to do
a fuller search. It wound up being even more interesting.
Back in 1992, when the George Bush/Jennifer Fitzgerald story came up
(especially via CNN!), Linda Tripp's name does not seem to come up in ANY
story. So IF she was a source she may have been a confidential or background
source.
First mention of this claim was from CNN reporter John King. He repeated the
above story (actually it was taped, and they just ran the tape) on several CNN
shows on the 22nd and 23rd. King was also on CNN's "Early Edition" and "Morning
News" on the 21st, giving a background report on Tripp, but he did NOT mention
the tie-in to the Bush rumors either time. King first brought this into the
Tripp story when he was on "Inside Politics" the evening of the 21st.
This comment by King on "Inside Politics" allowed James Carville to repeat the
charge several times that evening (the 21st) on the Larry King show. He did
not claim to know anything ABOUT it; he just cited CNN as an authoritative
source (while on a CNN program).
"KING: Had you heard of Linda Tripp? CARVILLE: Sure. CNN said Linda Tripp
was the one that started the allegations about President Bush"
"KING: Did she accuse President Bush of having a relationship with someone?...
CARVILLE: That was reported on CNN. I am just saying what I saw on this
network. I don't know if she did."
The Washington Times of Jan. 23 said they sought an elaboration from Carville,
"who did not return calls seeking further comment." The John King version was
repeated in the New York Daily News and the Chicago Tribune. The Tribune did
add, though, that "Other White House staffers say they doubt Tripp was the
source."
So CNN was having John King do a rush job digging up info on Tripp as the story
was breaking. Someone fed him the Bush story, evidently some time on the 21st.
Maybe it was a CNN reporter who had covered the Bush story in 1992. If so,
they were selling out a source. Or maybe it was a White House person trying to
smear Tripp as the story was breaking. And maybe the White House source was
feeding the story to reporters, never thinking that it might get on the air but
hoping that they could get reporters to discount Tripp's statements as they did
their coverage of the Lewinsky story.
But evidently John King did not know anything about it first-hand. He seemed
to disavow any personal knowledge of it the next morning after Carville's
statements on Larry King, when he was on CNN-FN's program "Before Hours."
"KING: Well, she was a Bush appointee, but her initial-SHE FIRST CAME TO
OUR ATTENTION back in the Whitewater hearings, when she actually gave testimony
to Congress that helped the Clinton Administration.... The White House says
she's not credible. But when Kathleen Willey was forced to testify under oath
to Paula Jones' lawyers, we're told that she gave an account that backed up
Linda Tripp's." [capitals added]
One other mention that was interesting. The Larry King show one day after
Carville's appearance (the 22nd) had Marlin Fitzwater as a guest.
"[LARRY KING] We'll take a call from Longview, Texas. Hello, it's not
coming down. Let's try this. Port Richie, Florida, hello.
CALLER: Yes, hi, good evening Larry.
KING: Hi.
CALLER: This question is directed to Mr. Fitzwater, is this the same woman,
Ms. Tripp, that tried to start trouble for the Bush administration?
FITZWATER: Well, not to my knowledge. I keep hearing that and I'm not sure
whether the Clinton White House is spreading that around, but I never had any
evidence of that, or never heard of that.
After the 23rd, the story seems to have died out. Except in the unexplored and
unexplained depths of the mind of Dan Bosch.
Stan Hardegree
DB> And Tripp wants $2 million for a book deal. Willey, never
DB> said she had an affair, did she?
What did she say?
Vern Humphrey
CD>SL>> But I don't see any evidence or intelligence to back up these
CD>SL>> claims we are making...I'd like to KNOW more...there has to be a
CD>SL>> logistics trail, personel records, something more than just their
CD>SL>> refusal to allow inspection...
CD> VH> There probably is more, but I suspect the UN does not want to
CD> VH> tell Saddam HOW they know what they know -- because if they
CD> VH> exposed their hand, they'd expose their sources along with
CD> VH> it.
CD> I think they have determined that he has a superior recipe for cous-cous
I think the weasle is pulling every trick in the book -- but if the
nations in the immediate danger zone don't want to fight, why should we
fight for them?
Sally Springett
DB> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the tapes were made in
DB> Maryland, where it was legal to record a conversation? Or am
DB> I missing the boat on this?
SS> In Maryland both parties must know the recording is being
SS> made. That's why Starr made her do it over in DC.
RT> You climb out from under your rock and this is the best you
RT> have to offer?? Where did you come up with "Starr made her"
RT> from any report?? From what I have heard, it was done BEFORE
RT> Starr was even made aware of the tapes. Are you trying to
RT> start another story, regarding the tapes, like so many of the
RT> TV "networks" are doing??? Cites please, if you would.
Tripp made the first recording illegally in Maryland (a state that
requires both parties to be aware that a tape is being made). She
then took the illegally obtained tape to Starr. Starr listened to
the illegal tape and then invoked the FBI and all its wiretaping
expertise and had Tripp invite Lewinsky to a hotel in DC where she
asked leading questions and made a new, _legal_ tape (DC is not a
both parties must know the tape is being made area).
That is the straight goods. I have even heard one person say that
Starr, by knowingly listening to an illegal tape and acting on it,
may be culpable but I'm not sure I believe that. I don't know if
Starr acted illegally but I do know that if such a stunt was pulled
on me I would regard everyone's behavior as exceedingly tacky and I
would not be amused.
I can't imagine how you missed it. Everyone was talking about it
two weeks ago. I guess all the leaks about stuff (dresses and DNA)
that proved to be false overshadowed it for you.
___ Blue Wave/386 v2.30
Bob Ackley
Replying to a message of George Lagergren to Bob Ackley:
GL> -=> Quoting Bob Ackley to George Rudzinski <=-
GR>> If they are willing to let 25% of us run the show, who are we to tell
GR>> them they are wrong? They have every opportunity to make their
GR>> voices known. They choose not to. That is their right.
BA>> You do know, don't you, that elections for national office in
BA>> this country have been rigged for well over a century.
GL> Please inform us on how elections for national office have
GL> been rigged?
The Republicrooks and Democrooks have rigged the game so that one of
their candidates will win virtually all of the elective office at the national
level, and the vast majority of those at the state and local levels. At the
national level, the sole exception to this in recent memory is the Socialist
representative Bernie Sanders, from someplace in New England. Mr. Sanders is,
to all intents and purposes, a Democrook since he votes with them on
everything; the Democrooks do not run a candidate against him, in that district
it's Bernie against the Republicrook.
The nation's third largest political party, the Libertarians, hold
perhaps two or three dozen elective offices out of the thousands of such
offices at the state and local levels. They're effectively non-existent, and
they're the next largest player after the BIG TWO.
Republicrooks and Democrooks are opposite sides of the same oppressive,
big government coin. There's effectively very little difference between them.
DAN BOSCH
-> ^API
-> DB> And Tripp wants $2 million for a book deal. Willey, never
-> DB> said she had an affair, did she?
-> What did she say?
It was my understanding that she denied any type of relationship, other
than a professional and friendship.
Am I wrong on this?
DAN BOSCH
-> DB> I think Clinton deserves a couple of years with a majority
-> DB> legislature...If it works out that way it'll be the busiest
-> DB> 2 years congess has seen since the new deal...
-> DB> Do you really think we'll see that? I wonder...
-> I think it's POSSIBLE...
We'll just have to see. Change happens so quickly these days.
-> DB> I do think that if the current "scandal" turns out to be just make
-> DB> believe, that it will unfortunately effect the GOP, perceived as a
-> DB> publicity ploy. That's not the case, IMO.
-> Publicity Ploy??? The people on the street I talk to seem to see it
-> as a bit blacker than that...IMO they are primed, and will respond to a
-> DEM campaign to END what is percieved as a vindictive, political,
-> prosecution of the president....
If it turns out to be a ploy, I'm SURE it will backfire.
-> SL> In my heart I do believe we are all Woody Allen Fans....
-> DB> Not I. I want no part of it! My ego needs no new boosts...
-> Willing to swear to that under oath are you?
-> (G)....
Well...on this one.
-> I know...you only read playboy for the interviews....
-> (G)...
Actually, I haven't read a Playboy in years.
My taste runs more to Computer Centerfold now! <g>
DAN BOSCH
-> -> -> The most powerful man in the world hitting on a starry-eyed
-> -> -> 21 year old? Hmmmm.
-> -> DB> Did he?
-> -> You think all these women are so anxious to be known as Bill
-> -> Clinton's lover that they all just made it up? Do you claim
-> -> that Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Monica
-> -> Lewinski, Linda Tripp are all lying, but He and Hillary are
-> -> telling the truth?
-> DB> Well, let's see: Jones is living a good life, making much more
-> than DB> she ever did as a state employee. Who's paying for that?
-> DB> Lewinsky has been offered $2 million for the story and a spread.
-> DB> Yet, her own lawyer admits that she exaggerates.
-> DB> And Tripp wants $2 million for a book deal. Willey, never said she
-> DB> had an affair, did she?
-> You do believe everyone is lying except Bill's folks.
No. Actually, I've waited for something to come of the accusations.
So far, nothing has happened. However, please remember that I said in
this conference that *IF* Clinton is found guilty of this issue that he
doesn't deserve the presidency. I've simply not been convinced that all
these allegations are true.
-> And you believe that Lewinski wants immunity because she
-> told the truth in her deposition?
No. I believe that Starr's pressuring her to testify and that she's
scared to death to say something that he will jump on.
What evidence does Starr have that she's committed a crime? A tape
made in secret? She can tell stories to friends all day long. That's
not illegal.
If she perjured herself, that's a different story. But why would
Starr allegedly offer her immunity, then upon finding more about what
she would testify about, refuse to grant it?
DAN BOSCH
-> EC> You are lying again. I called you a liar AFTER I checked the
-> EC> CNN transcripts, FOUND the reference to Bush, SAW that you
-> EC> were completely wrong, and then TOLD you that you were wrong.
-> EC> But when you continued the story about Tripp and Bush,
-> EC> claimed two OTHER sources, and continued to claim that it was
-> EC> on CNN, then it was obviously not just an error on your part.
-> EC> In a message from me to you, TEN DAYS ago: "As for the Bush
-> EC> sex thing, CNN identified her as a SOURCE of those rumors,
-> EC> NOT as an OBJECT of them!! What in the world are you talking
-> EC> about?"
Ed, you've made things up as you go along. I'm not going to
continue in your charade. You're being dishonest.