Carville declares war on Starr - it's STARR WARS!!!
Harry Hope
From UPI, 11/24/96:
WASHINGTON, Nov. 24 (UPI) -- Democratic political
strategist James Carville said Sunday he is
organizing a ``full-fledged'' effort to ``bring
the truth about (independent counsel) Kenneth
Starr to the American people.''
Carville said on NBC's ``Meet the Press'' that the
White House is neither sanctioning nor
coordinating his efforts, adding, ``They're not
going to talk me out of it this time.''
Carville was asked about a comment by Senate
Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, who was
quoted as saying, ``I call upon the president to
call off his attack dogs,...and let Mr. Starr do
his job.''
Carville said, ``I'm going to exercise my First
Amendment rights.''
The Louisiana native added: ``We're going to go
forth with this. We're going to take out newspaper
ads. We're going to raise money. It's going to be
a full-fledged thing. We're going to start
recruiting young people on campuses. We're going
to bring the truth about Kenneth Starr to the
American people.''
Starr, who has been investigating the Whitewater
affair as well as the firing of the White House
Travel Office and the FBI files, has been
charged by Democrats with conducting a
``partisan'' probe.
Carville picked up on the drumbeat Sunday, saying
his group, which he said will be called the
education and information project, will educate
the American public about Starr's ``partisan
politics...harassing witnesses...subpoenaing
school children.''
Carville said the White House is neither
sanctioning nor coordinating his actions. ``I'm
doing it myself.''
He said he urged the White House to allow him to
conduct a similar effort when Starr was first
appointed.
``They talked me out of it,'' he said, adding,
``They're not going to talk me out of it this
time.''
Mary Matalin, Carville's wife and Republican
operative for President George Bush's re-election
effort, joined Carville on the program and
said, ``There is no evidence whatsoever that
Kenneth Starr is out to get the president.''
James is a very, very tenacious individual. This
could get extremely interesting.
Harry
Milt
On Mon, 25 Nov 1996, C. L. Williams wrote:
:riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope) wrote:
:
:>From UPI, 11/24/96:
:
:>WASHINGTON, Nov. 24 (UPI) -- Democratic political
:>strategist James Carville said Sunday
<snip>
:
:This is beyond belief! You liberals announce a smear campaign ahead
:of time, and think it's okay. Carville is doing this on his own?
:Right. Who does he work for right now, by the way? If the
:Clintonistas do not agree with this, then they should fire Carville.
:Otherwise, they're paying for it, and are responsible.
:
WE liberals! So, basically all of us liberals got together, and decided to
investigate the investigator, and we channeled our thoughts through James
Carville. And if there is nothing to find on Mr. "GOP Lapdog" Starr, then
they won't find anything, right? Otherwise, don't you agree that the
public should know everything there is to know about the man who is
investigating the president?
BTW, Carville had a minor role in the campaign, but he does not work for
Bill Clinton. He has his own company, and as he stated on "Meet the Press"
this morning, he is exercising his rights as a citizen. There is no reason
why the administration would sanction this. They have a lot to lose if
there's nothing...
So, get back on your conspiratorial broom, and I' sure you'll find a new
one somewhere. Try Montana. They have lots of them up there...
--Milt
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.
--George Bernard Shaw
C. L. Williams
riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope) wrote:
>From UPI, 11/24/96:
>WASHINGTON, Nov. 24 (UPI) -- Democratic political
>Harry
>
This is beyond belief! You liberals announce a smear campaign ahead
of time, and think it's okay. Carville is doing this on his own?
Right. Who does he work for right now, by the way? If the
Clintonistas do not agree with this, then they should fire Carville.
Otherwise, they're paying for it, and are responsible.
C.L. Williams
C. L. Williams
Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Nov 1996, C. L. Williams wrote:
>:riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope) wrote:
>:
>:>From UPI, 11/24/96:
>:
>:>WASHINGTON, Nov. 24 (UPI) -- Democratic political
>:>strategist James Carville said Sunday
><snip>
>:
>:This is beyond belief! You liberals announce a smear campaign ahead
>:of time, and think it's okay. Carville is doing this on his own?
>:Right. Who does he work for right now, by the way? If the
>:Clintonistas do not agree with this, then they should fire Carville.
>:Otherwise, they're paying for it, and are responsible.
>:
>WE liberals! So, basically all of us liberals got together, and decided to
>investigate the investigator, and we channeled our thoughts through James
>Carville. And if there is nothing to find on Mr. "GOP Lapdog" Starr, then
>they won't find anything, right? Otherwise, don't you agree that the
>public should know everything there is to know about the man who is
>investigating the president?
>BTW, Carville had a minor role in the campaign, but he does not work for
>Bill Clinton. He has his own company, and as he stated on "Meet the Press"
>this morning, he is exercising his rights as a citizen. There is no reason
>why the administration would sanction this. They have a lot to lose if
>there's nothing...
>So, get back on your conspiratorial broom, and I' sure you'll find a new
>one somewhere. Try Montana. They have lots of them up there...
>--Milt
>http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
>Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.
> --George Bernard Shaw
Looks like I was accurate in what I wrote, otherwise there wouldn't
have been such an hysterical reaction. There is every reason to
expect a smear campaign, since it has been going on to a limited
degree already. It's not a matter of what anybody will find on Starr,
it sounds like you liberals are worried about what Starr will find on
your icon, Bill Clinton.
C.L. Williams
yon lew
riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope) writes:
>From UPI, 11/24/96:
>WASHINGTON, Nov. 24 (UPI) -- Democratic political
>Harry
>
Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon.
Hey Harry, you've been posting all that stuff from the Nixon archives
recently. Does any of the above sound familiar?
yon lew
Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> writes:
>On Mon, 25 Nov 1996, C. L. Williams wrote:
>:riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope) wrote:
>:
>:>From UPI, 11/24/96:
>:
>:>WASHINGTON, Nov. 24 (UPI) -- Democratic political
>:>strategist James Carville said Sunday
><snip>
>:
>:This is beyond belief! You liberals announce a smear campaign ahead
>:of time, and think it's okay. Carville is doing this on his own?
>:Right. Who does he work for right now, by the way? If the
>:Clintonistas do not agree with this, then they should fire Carville.
>:Otherwise, they're paying for it, and are responsible.
>:
>WE liberals! So, basically all of us liberals got together, and decided to
>investigate the investigator, and we channeled our thoughts through James
>Carville. And if there is nothing to find on Mr. "GOP Lapdog" Starr, then
>they won't find anything, right? Otherwise, don't you agree that the
>public should know everything there is to know about the man who is
>investigating the president?
"GOP Lapdog"? What pray tell has he done to attract your ire? Let's
hear the proof, the paper trail that leads from Starr to the GOP.
Where's the documents, the interoffice memos from Newt Gingrich to his
staff saying "Be sure that Starr looks into this"? I hear a lot of
nonsense about Starr, but I have yet to see one shread of evidance
produced by anyone that he has acted improperly or committed
irregularities in his investigation. Can anyone produce anything?
>BTW, Carville had a minor role in the campaign, but he does not work for
>Bill Clinton. He has his own company, and as he stated on "Meet the Press"
>this morning, he is exercising his rights as a citizen. There is no reason
>why the administration would sanction this. They have a lot to lose if
>there's nothing...
That depends on which campaign you're talking about. He was in charge of
Clinton's first presidential campaign.
Ambrose
In <lewyE1E...@netcom.com> le...@netcom.com (yon lew) writes:
>riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope) writes:
>
>>From UPI, 11/24/96:
>
>>WASHINGTON, Nov. 24 (UPI) -- Democratic political
"James, you are to smear Starr in the press, like I did with Billy Dale
and Larry Nichols. I am tired of these high minded lawyer types like
Reno. You are the man for the job!"
Chris Kevlahan
: >From UPI, 11/24/96:
: >James is a very, very tenacious individual. This
: >could get extremely interesting.
: >Harry
: >
: This is beyond belief! You liberals announce a smear campaign ahead
: of time, and think it's okay. Carville is doing this on his own?
: Right. Who does he work for right now, by the way? If the
: Clintonistas do not agree with this, then they should fire Carville.
: Otherwise, they're paying for it, and are responsible.
: C.L. Williams
This is dumb. This is called obstruction of justice. Carville just
may end up in jail.
Chris K.
scot...@maine.maine.edu
In article <57b7f1$i...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, cl...@ix.netcom.com says...
>Looks like I was accurate in what I wrote, otherwise there wouldn't
>have been such an hysterical reaction.
Er...given that you were hysterically reacting to the news that Carville was
taking on Starr, by your logic, that proves Carville right, given your
hysterical reaction!
In fact, given that people on all sides seem to react hysterically to all
things on the internet, (or they interpret the other side of having reacted
hysterically), this hardly proves anything.
> There is every reason to
>expect a smear campaign, since it has been going on to a limited
>degree already.
But that's Carville's point: Starr is waging a smear campaign against
Clinton, and he wants to get the truth out about Starr. You think that
Carville is smearing, and Starr wants the truth. Which is right?
Well, you can answer that two ways: 1) follow your political biases...if you
don't like Clinton, believe Starr is right, if you like Clinton believe
Carville is right. 80% of the folks out there will follow this option. 2)
you can wait, critically assess evidence from all sides, and see what
happens, always keeping your mind open to the fact that your initial view may
be wrong.
Alas, few seem to be following that option. 20% may be too high a figure.
> It's not a matter of what anybody will find on Starr,
>it sounds like you liberals are worried about what Starr will find on
>your icon, Bill Clinton.
Really? It sounds like you're worried that he won't find anything, and this
will kill Starr's credibility. Why else your hysterical reaction ;)
In any event, time will tell. None of us really knows, we don't have access
to all the material. The internet is mostly innuendo and bravado. It gives
one a sense of power to think he or she really knows and everyone else is a
fool...but that isn't reality.
-scott
scot...@maine.maine.edu
In article <lewyE1E...@netcom.com>, le...@netcom.com says...
>"GOP Lapdog"? What pray tell has he done to attract your ire? Let's
>hear the proof, the paper trail that leads from Starr to the GOP.
Well, THAT is easy to prove, Starr is obviously a Republican. Is Carville
right that his investigation is overly partisan? Let's wait and see if there
is more evidence.
Obviously, Starr hasn't uncovered much on the Clintons yet that can stick,
and there is some evidence suggesting he might be harassing them on partisan
grounds. On the other hand, perhaps something is there. So let Carville
make his case, and wait for evidence on both sides before any of us simply
follow our own particular biases.
-scott
RHA
>>could get extremely interesting.
>
>>Harry
>>
>
>
>Hey Harry, you've been posting all that stuff from the Nixon archives
>recently. Does any of the above sound familiar?
HELL, YES! The whole GOP/Gingrich/Starr constellation sounds like
CREEP re-born. (CREEP, for the politically naive, is the acronym
for "Committee to Re-elect the President," Nixon's rudimentary
attempt to fashion an independent State Security Agency. [Ya
know, I never read that Nixon thought the name "CREEP" distasteful.
Could that have been a freudian-like admission of the obvious?])
--
rha
Milt
On Mon, 25 Nov 1996, yon lew wrote:
:riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope) writes:
:
:>From UPI, 11/24/96:
:
:>WASHINGTON, Nov. 24 (UPI) -- Democratic political
:>strategist James Carville said Sunday he is
:>organizing a ``full-fledged'' effort to ``bring
:>the truth about (independent counsel) Kenneth
:>Starr to the American people.''
<snip>
:Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon.
:
:Hey Harry, you've been posting all that stuff from the Nixon archives
:recently. Does any of the above sound familiar?
Actually, the closest thing you'll find to Nixon these days is Al D'Amato
and Newtie. I'll tell you one thing, though. Archibald Cox was as clean
and honest as they get. That's a major difference from Starr. Cox was
never a lapdog...
Milt
On 25 Nov 1996, Chris Kevlahan wrote:
:C. L. Williams (cl...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
:: riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope) wrote:
:
:: >From UPI, 11/24/96:
:
:: >James is a very, very tenacious individual. This
:: >could get extremely interesting.
:
:: >Harry
:: >
:
:: This is beyond belief! You liberals announce a smear campaign ahead
:: of time, and think it's okay. Carville is doing this on his own?
:: Right. Who does he work for right now, by the way? If the
:: Clintonistas do not agree with this, then they should fire Carville.
:: Otherwise, they're paying for it, and are responsible.
:
:: C.L. Williams
:
:This is dumb. This is called obstruction of justice. Carville just
:may end up in jail.
:
If all he does is investigate Starr, and bring up any possible ethical
breaches Starr may have been guilty of, how is that obstruction of
justice? Sounds more like CONstruction of justice to me...
The GOP has been obstructing justice for three years, by trying to block
a thorough investigation of Newtie. Howzabout going after them?
Milt
On Mon, 25 Nov 1996, yon lew wrote:
:Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> writes:
:
:>On Mon, 25 Nov 1996, C. L. Williams wrote:
:
:>:riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope) wrote:
:>:
:>:>From UPI, 11/24/96:
:>:
:>:>WASHINGTON, Nov. 24 (UPI) -- Democratic political
:>:>strategist James Carville said Sunday
:
:><snip>
:>:
:>:This is beyond belief! You liberals announce a smear campaign ahead
:>:of time, and think it's okay. Carville is doing this on his own?
:>:Right. Who does he work for right now, by the way? If the
:>:Clintonistas do not agree with this, then they should fire Carville.
:>:Otherwise, they're paying for it, and are responsible.
:>:
:>WE liberals! So, basically all of us liberals got together, and decided to
:>investigate the investigator, and we channeled our thoughts through James
:>Carville. And if there is nothing to find on Mr. "GOP Lapdog" Starr, then
:>they won't find anything, right? Otherwise, don't you agree that the
:>public should know everything there is to know about the man who is
:>investigating the president?
:
:"GOP Lapdog"? What pray tell has he done to attract your ire? Let's
:hear the proof, the paper trail that leads from Starr to the GOP.
:Where's the documents, the interoffice memos from Newt Gingrich to his
:staff saying "Be sure that Starr looks into this"? I hear a lot of
:nonsense about Starr, but I have yet to see one shread of evidance
:produced by anyone that he has acted improperly or committed
:irregularities in his investigation. Can anyone produce anything?
How about lead council for the RNC? Is that partisan enough for you?
They could have at least appointed a gop lawyer that wasn't so high up in
the party apparatus...
:>BTW, Carville had a minor role in the campaign, but he does not work for
:>Bill Clinton. He has his own company, and as he stated on "Meet the Press"
:>this morning, he is exercising his rights as a citizen. There is no reason
:>why the administration would sanction this. They have a lot to lose if
:>there's nothing...
:
:That depends on which campaign you're talking about. He was in charge of
:Clinton's first presidential campaign.
He was a campaign consultant for the first one, and a minor advisor on
this one. And he is very loyal to Clinton, which is an admirable trait.
But he hasn't worked for Clinton since November, 1992. He, like Roger
Ailes, who is also a consultant, and very independent, does what he wants,
and does not need someone to orchestrate his actions.
:>So, get back on your conspiratorial broom, and I' sure you'll find a new
:>one somewhere. Try Montana. They have lots of them up there...
--Milt
Zepp
cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L. Williams) caused us all to grin by saying:
[snip article about Carville mounting campaign against Starr]
>This is beyond belief! You liberals announce a smear campaign ahead
>of time, and think it's okay. Carville is doing this on his own?
>Right. Who does he work for right now, by the way? If the
>Clintonistas do not agree with this, then they should fire Carville.
>Otherwise, they're paying for it, and are responsible.
What makes you so sure it's going to be a smear campaign? There are
plenty of problems with Starr being in the position he is in, starting
with the fact that he has very clear partisan ties to the GOP and
continuing with his eagerness to jump in against Clinton in the Paula
Jones thing (he filed an "amicus curie" which the court rejected.)
He's supposed to be independent and non-partisan. There is grave
doubt that he is either.
=====================================================================
As a liberal, I think tolerance and understanding is all fine and
good. But that doesn't mean I have to suffer fools gladly. I
disrespect ignorance. I despise willful ignorance.
And I detest dittoheads.
Novus Ordo Seclorum Volpus de Marina
=====================================================================
Zepp
cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L. Williams) caused us all to grin by saying:
>Looks like I was accurate in what I wrote, otherwise there wouldn't
>have been such an hysterical reaction. There is every reason to
>expect a smear campaign, since it has been going on to a limited
>degree already. It's not a matter of what anybody will find on Starr,
>it sounds like you liberals are worried about what Starr will find on
>your icon, Bill Clinton.
Right, right. And the fact that Joe MacCarthy worried us meant that
we were all Communists...
Zepp
chri...@Sun.COM (Chris Kevlahan) caused us all to grin by saying:
>C. L. Williams (cl...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope) wrote:
>: >From UPI, 11/24/96:
>: >James is a very, very tenacious individual. This
>: >could get extremely interesting.
>: >Harry
>: >
>: This is beyond belief! You liberals announce a smear campaign ahead
>: of time, and think it's okay. Carville is doing this on his own?
>: Right. Who does he work for right now, by the way? If the
>: Clintonistas do not agree with this, then they should fire Carville.
>: Otherwise, they're paying for it, and are responsible.
>: C.L. Williams
>This is dumb. This is called obstruction of justice. Carville just
>may end up in jail.
If he tells the truth, and nothing but the truth, then no law can
touch him. And if simple criticism of the special prosecutor was
really "obstruction of justice" then Rush would STILL be in jail for
his comments on the Iran/Contra investigations.
ericbl
C. L. Williams <cl...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<57b7f1$i...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>...
>
> Looks like I was accurate in what I wrote, otherwise there wouldn't
> have been such an hysterical reaction. There is every reason to
> expect a smear campaign, since it has been going on to a limited
> degree already. It's not a matter of what anybody will find on Starr,
> it sounds like you liberals are worried about what Starr will find on
> your icon, Bill Clinton.
>
>
The bottom line here is that this is another nail in coffin of civility in
public life. At some point, honest Americans are simply going to refuse to
get involve in the political process rather than have their reputation
smeared by some two-bit political hack. Is it any wonder that our system
is becoming more corrupt and partisan every day?
yon lew
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics,alt.activism,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Carville declares war on Starr - it's STARR WARS!!!
References: <57af1m$b...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> <57av16$i...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com> <Pine.A32.3.93.961124...@nevis.u.arizona.edu> <lewyE1E...@netcom.com> <Pine.A32.3.93.961125...@mustique.u.arizona.edu>
Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> writes:
>On Mon, 25 Nov 1996, yon lew wrote:
>:Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> writes:
>:
>:>On Mon, 25 Nov 1996, C. L. Williams wrote:
>:
>:>:riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope) wrote:
>:>:
>:>:>From UPI, 11/24/96:
>:>:
>:>:>WASHINGTON, Nov. 24 (UPI) -- Democratic political
>:>:>strategist James Carville said Sunday
>:
>:><snip>
>:>:
>:>:This is beyond belief! You liberals announce a smear campaign ahead
>:>:of time, and think it's okay. Carville is doing this on his own?
>:>:Right. Who does he work for right now, by the way? If the
>:>:Clintonistas do not agree with this, then they should fire Carville.
>:>:Otherwise, they're paying for it, and are responsible.
>:>:
>:>WE liberals! So, basically all of us liberals got together, and decided to
>:>investigate the investigator, and we channeled our thoughts through James
>:>Carville. And if there is nothing to find on Mr. "GOP Lapdog" Starr, then
>:>they won't find anything, right? Otherwise, don't you agree that the
>:>public should know everything there is to know about the man who is
>:>investigating the president?
>:
>:"GOP Lapdog"? What pray tell has he done to attract your ire? Let's
>:hear the proof, the paper trail that leads from Starr to the GOP.
>:Where's the documents, the interoffice memos from Newt Gingrich to his
>:staff saying "Be sure that Starr looks into this"? I hear a lot of
>:nonsense about Starr, but I have yet to see one shread of evidance
>:produced by anyone that he has acted improperly or committed
>:irregularities in his investigation. Can anyone produce anything?
>How about lead council for the RNC? Is that partisan enough for you?
>They could have at least appointed a gop lawyer that wasn't so high up in
>the party apparatus...
That's it?!??? That's it?!!???
1) The issue is not if he has political affiliations, it's if those
political affiliations are getting in the way of his work or if he
displaying predjudice or bias. By this insane logic, Democrats should
not have been allowed to have any part in the Nixon/Watergate
investigations because they were "partisan". Obviously, only Republicans
would have been objective enough to deliver a just investigation.
1)a) Are you arguing that the lawyer investigating Clinton should be a
Democrat? Is that not partisan to you? Personally, I don't have
anything wrong in principle with a Democrat investigating Clinton, or a
Republican, or a Communist or a Libertarian or a Green or whatever. What
matters is not their political party but their conduct in the course of
the investigation. Who cares if Starr is a high ranking member of the
opposing party? So were a lot of the lawyers advising the Congressional
committees investigating Watergate. "Partisanship" in this sense means
outrageous conduct which demonstrates predjudice or bias. Merely
belonging to one political party or another doesn't by definition mean
that an individual is incapable of being fair or objective. All you've
done is point out that the guy is a Republican. SO WHAT? If you want to
make your case, you've got to show that the guy has been falsifying
evidance or intimidating witnesses into lying or whatever. Let's see
that evidance.
2) So he's not only a Republican, he's a high ranking Republican. Big
deal. Many of the lawyers investigating Watergate were high ranking
Democrats. A low-ranking Republican would be just as capable of running
a smear campaign; in fact he might be better suited for it.
>:>BTW, Carville had a minor role in the campaign, but he does not work for
>:>Bill Clinton. He has his own company, and as he stated on "Meet the Press"
>:>this morning, he is exercising his rights as a citizen. There is no reason
>:>why the administration would sanction this. They have a lot to lose if
>:>there's nothing...
>:
>:That depends on which campaign you're talking about. He was in charge of
>:Clinton's first presidential campaign.
>He was a campaign consultant for the first one, and a minor advisor on
>this one. And he is very loyal to Clinton, which is an admirable trait.
>But he hasn't worked for Clinton since November, 1992. He, like Roger
>Ailes, who is also a consultant, and very independent, does what he wants,
>and does not need someone to orchestrate his actions.
Carville ran Clinton's first presidential campaign. It amazes me that
you would apply specious logic to disqualify Starr on the basis of his
political affiliations, and turn a blind eye to Carville's relationship
with Clinton and his decision to run newspaper ads attacking a special
investigator of the Justice Department.
yon lew
What gets me is that as a direct result of Starr's investigation the
governor of Arkansas, Jim "Guy" Tucker, was forced to resign and was
sentenced to prison. That's the governor, the freaking governor, of the
entire state. If some state prosecutor had been responsible, he'd be a
national hero for nail a corrupt government official. Because it's
Starr, he gets no respect because:
1) Everyone thinks Tucker is just small fry compared to Bill Clinton.
2) Knee jerk partisan apologists for the Clintons are convinced that
Starr is some kind of bogey man, despite the fact that he's convicted
about a dozen close friends and associates of the Clintons. That's a
dozen: doesn't that figure deserve some respect?
yon lew
ri...@praline.no.neosoft.com (RHA) writes:
>In article <lewyE1E...@netcom.com>, yon lew <le...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope) writes:
>>
>>>From UPI, 11/24/96:
>>
>>>WASHINGTON, Nov. 24 (UPI) -- Democratic political
>>>strategist James Carville said Sunday he is
>>>organizing a ``full-fledged'' effort to ``bring
>>>the truth about (independent counsel) Kenneth
>>>Starr to the American people.''
>>
>>>Carville said on NBC's ``Meet the Press'' that the
>>>White House is neither sanctioning nor
>>>coordinating his efforts, adding, ``They're not
>>>going to talk me out of it this time.''
>>
>>> Carville was asked about a comment by Senate
>>>Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, who was
>>>quoted as saying, ``I call upon the president to
>>>call off his attack dogs,...and let Mr. Starr do
>>>his job.''
>>
>>>Carville said, ``I'm going to exercise my First
>>>Amendment rights.''
>>
>>>The Louisiana native added: ``We're going to go
>>>forth with this. We're going to take out newspaper
>>>ads. We're going to raise money. It's going to be
>>>a full-fledged thing. We're going to start
>>>recruiting young people on campuses. We're going
>>>to bring the truth about Kenneth Starr to the
>>>American people.''
>>
>>>James is a very, very tenacious individual. This
>>>could get extremely interesting.
>>
>>>Harry
>>>
>>
>>Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon.
>>
>>Hey Harry, you've been posting all that stuff from the Nixon archives
>>recently. Does any of the above sound familiar?
> HELL, YES! The whole GOP/Gingrich/Starr constellation sounds like
> CREEP re-born. (CREEP, for the politically naive, is the acronym
> for "Committee to Re-elect the President," Nixon's rudimentary
> attempt to fashion an independent State Security Agency. [Ya
> know, I never read that Nixon thought the name "CREEP" distasteful.
> Could that have been a freudian-like admission of the obvious?])
>--
>rha
It does, eh? Why? Do us all a favor and print up all those memos from
the Republican National Committee and Gingrich to Starr telling him what
to do next.
yon lew
scot...@maine.maine.edu writes:
>In article <lewyE1E...@netcom.com>, le...@netcom.com says...
>>"GOP Lapdog"? What pray tell has he done to attract your ire? Let's
>>hear the proof, the paper trail that leads from Starr to the GOP.
>Well, THAT is easy to prove, Starr is obviously a Republican. Is Carville
>right that his investigation is overly partisan? Let's wait and see if there
>is more evidence.
What evidance did they have to inspire them to begin an investigation in
the first place?
And what investigation? From what I heard Carville was just planning to
"bring the truth about Starr" to the American people, whatever that
means. It sounds like his mind's made up already.
>Obviously, Starr hasn't uncovered much on the Clintons yet that can stick,
>and there is some evidence suggesting he might be harassing them on partisan
>grounds. On the other hand, perhaps something is there. So let Carville
>make his case, and wait for evidence on both sides before any of us simply
>follow our own particular biases.
>-scott
"Evidance he might be harrassing them on partisan grounds"?
For the hundredth time:
What evidance? What evidance? What evidance?
Starr has produced about a dozen convictions of close Clinton
associates. Do you think he falsified evidance or bribed juries to get
those convictions?
Milt
On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, yon lew wrote:
:Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics,alt.activism,alt.society.liberalism
:>How about lead counsel for the RNC? Is that partisan enough for you?
:>They could have at least appointed a gop lawyer that wasn't so high up in
:>the party apparatus...
:
:That's it?!??? That's it?!!???
No. How about getting a huge financial break from the RTC. How about
influence peddling from the tobacco industry? How about wasting tens of
millions of dollars of taxpayer money on an investigation that hasn't
produced anything since Web Hubbell wwas indicted in 1993. How about
possible under-the-table payments from the GOP. These are just the few I
can think of off the top of my head...
:
:1) The issue is not if he has political affiliations, it's if those
:political affiliations are getting in the way of his work or if he
:displaying predjudice or bias. By this insane logic, Democrats should
:not have been allowed to have any part in the Nixon/Watergate
:investigations because they were "partisan". Obviously, only Republicans
:would have been objective enough to deliver a just investigation.
:
We're not talking "political affiliation" here We're talking 'party
official'. There are any number of Republicans who could have handled this
impartially. And they would have been honest, and ceased the investigation
when nothing was happening. And no, I don't think the chairman of the DNC
should have been in charge of the Watergate hearings, either.
:1)a) Are you arguing that the lawyer investigating Clinton should be a
:Democrat? Is that not partisan to you? Personally, I don't have
:anything wrong in principle with a Democrat investigating Clinton, or a
:Republican, or a Communist or a Libertarian or a Green or whatever. What
:matters is not their political party but their conduct in the course of
:the investigation. Who cares if Starr is a high ranking member of the
:opposing party?
Lemme ask you a question; How would you feel if Bonior headed a committee
investigating Newt? Or Carol Moseley-Braun headed one investigating Jesse
Helms? It's not about party affiliation; it's about bias. The higher you
go in the party apparatus, the greater the tendency toward bias.
: So were a lot of the lawyers advising the Congressional
:committees investigating Watergate. "Partisanship" in this sense means
:outrageous conduct which demonstrates predjudice or bias. Merely
:belonging to one political party or another doesn't by definition mean
:that an individual is incapable of being fair or objective. All you've
:done is point out that the guy is a Republican. SO WHAT? If you want to
:make your case, you've got to show that the guy has been falsifying
:evidance or intimidating witnesses into lying or whatever. Let's see
:that evidance.
:
That's what Carville will be investigating, dipshit! That's what this is
all about. This guy is getting a pretty substantial paycheck from the
government, and will continue to do so as long as he drags this thing out.
It would be nice to know that the guy is on the up-and-up. If he is, then
you guys have nothing to worry about. Why are all og the conservatives
becoming so shrill? You don't think Carville will find something, do you?
DO YOU? Liberals weren't this shrill about the Whitewater hearing. We got
this way, because it becomes more and more obvious every day that this is
only open for political reasons. If that's the case, then it should end.
If not, then you guys have nothing to worry about...
:2) So he's not only a Republican, he's a high ranking Republican. Big
:deal. Many of the lawyers investigating Watergate were high ranking
:Democrats. A low-ranking Republican would be just as capable of running
:a smear campaign; in fact he might be better suited for it.
There was no one that high up investigating Watergate. Archibald Cox was
one of the most impartial people anywhere. And Sam Ervin wasn't exactly a
flaming liberal, either...
:
:>:>BTW, Carville had a minor role in the campaign, but he does not work for
:>:>Bill Clinton. He has his own company, and as he stated on "Meet the Press"
:>:>this morning, he is exercising his rights as a citizen. There is no reason
:>:>why the administration would sanction this. They have a lot to lose if
:>:>there's nothing...
:>:
:>:That depends on which campaign you're talking about. He was in charge of
:>:Clinton's first presidential campaign.
:
:>He was a campaign consultant for the first one, and a minor advisor on
:>this one. And he is very loyal to Clinton, which is an admirable trait.
:>But he hasn't worked for Clinton since November, 1992. He, like Roger
:>Ailes, who is also a consultant, and very independent, does what he wants,
:>and does not need someone to orchestrate his actions.
:
:Carville ran Clinton's first presidential campaign. It amazes me that
:you would apply specious logic to disqualify Starr on the basis of his
:political affiliations, and turn a blind eye to Carville's relationship
:with Clinton and his decision to run newspaper ads attacking a special
:investigator of the Justice Department.
:
I haven't disqualified Starr from anything, and neither has Carville. I am
just all for the investigation. It's time to shit or get off the pot, as
far as this investigation is concerned. And if there's nothing, then Starr
has nothing to worry about. If there is something out there that appears
to affect his judgment, then we should be concerned about it, shouldn't
we?
Milt
On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, yon lew wrote:
:What gets me is that as a direct result of Starr's investigation the
:governor of Arkansas, Jim "Guy" Tucker, was forced to resign and was
:sentenced to prison. That's the governor, the freaking governor, of the
:entire state. If some state prosecutor had been responsible, he'd be a
:national hero for nail a corrupt government official. Because it's
:Starr, he gets no respect because:
It's not the job of a FEDERAL special prosecutor hired to investigate the
president to bring down the governor of Arkansas. That's the job of the
state attorney general. Notice no one has gone after the RTC chairman,
who's a Republican, who allowed all of these creeps to pull this crap...
:1) Everyone thinks Tucker is just small fry compared to Bill Clinton.
:
EVERYONE? Try almost NO ONE! That's kinda why Clinton's getting a second
term, because everybody thinks he's a thief! I'm still wondering how a
"big daddy" in these types of operations loses money over the long haul.
As for "knee jerk", I didn't hear any grumbling when the thing was in its
first year. But now, it's getting into the fourth year (fifth?), and the
best he's had is Hillary's fingerprints on some files that were lost for a
while. They have nothing at all, no matter how much he "widens" the
investigation, and it's getting old, and costing taxpayers way the hell
too much money...
:2) Knee jerk partisan apologists for the Clintons are convinced that
:Starr is some kind of bogey man, despite the fact that he's convicted
:about a dozen close friends and associates of the Clintons. That's a
:dozen: doesn't that figure deserve some respect?
:
A dozen? Try four. And the only one close to the Clintons was Hubbell. The
McDougals and Clintons weren't exactly yachting buddies, and he and Tucker
didn't get along at all. You claim a dozen; name them. (Oh--and by the
way, Susan McDougal is in for contempt of court, not for her Whitewater
dealings; so it's just three.)
scot...@maine.maine.edu
In article <lewyE1H...@netcom.com>, le...@netcom.com says...
>What evidance? What evidance? What evidance?
Well, let's see what Carville puts up. We'll be able to assess it then.
>Starr has produced about a dozen convictions of close Clinton
>associates.
A dozen close associates of Bill Clinton? I think you're exaggerating. In
any event, nothing has come close to touching the President yet, perhaps
because there is nothing there.
Jim Wade
The reason Carville is so frantic is found in his background. As a
fellow native of Louisiana we are aware that the Whitewater affair is
typical southern politics. Louisiana is no stranger to such things, but
Edwin Edwards (our former _very_ crooked governor) did that sort of
thing all the time, but he was so brazen he was able to get by on charm.
Alan Bomberger
In article <Pine.A32.3.93.961125...@nevis.u.arizona.edu>,
Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
> If all he does is investigate Starr, and bring up any possible ethical
> breaches Starr may have been guilty of, how is that obstruction of
> justice? Sounds more like CONstruction of justice to me...
Well, in typical Carville style, he brings no documentation and
no specific charges. He just keeps screaming that Starr is a
Right Wing Hatchetman over and over and over again.
The sad part is that A: The media simply reprints the statement
over and over and over again. B: The public starts to believe
it even though absolutely the only "evidence" is that Starr
is a Republican and has spoken at Pat Robertson's school (Note
that Carville has spoken at Pat Robertson's school so he, too,
must be a Right Wing Hatchetman or ANY Republican who speaks
at Pat Robertson's school is a Right Wing Hatchetman).
--
Alan Bomberger | (408)-992-2748 | al...@oes.amdahl.com
Amdahl Corporation | Opinions are free, worth it, and not Amdahl's
Hypertext Word Processor - <http://www.webcom.com/thinker>
co...@wolfenet.com
Starr was appointed for one reason and one reason only; GET BILL
CLINTON! In achieving that goal, Michael Starr has failed miserably. After
several years and $35 million in investigative costs, Bill Clinton is
still standing fat, rich, powerful and happy. He gets to boink Hillary in
the Lincoln bedroom for four more years and the Republicans are pissed.
All the other small fry caught in the investigative net are meaningless.
Bill Clinton is the target and so far Starr hasn't produced jackshit.
Thirty five million in wasted taxpayers' dollars and counting....
K. Knopp
> Starr was appointed for one reason and one reason only; GET BILL
> CLINTON!
The same reason Archibald Cox was appointed during the Nixon
administration. Get over it.
>In achieving that goal, Michael Starr has failed miserably. After
> several years and $35 million in investigative costs, Bill Clinton is
> still standing fat, rich, powerful and happy. He gets to boink Hillary in
> the Lincoln bedroom for four more years and the Republicans are pissed.
A. Are you forgeting the number of people now with criminal records
because of Mr. Starr's investigation
B. The song's not over until the fat lady (no Susan McDougal pun intended)
sings.
C. I didn't think that the words Bill Clinton, boinking Hillary, and
happy, could be used in one paragraph without an accompanying laugh track.
> All the other small fry caught in the investigative net are meaningless.
> Bill Clinton is the target and so far Starr hasn't produced jackshit.
> Thirty five million in wasted taxpayers' dollars and counting....
Oh yeah....the governor of Arkansas is meaningless. Don't count your
chickens before they hatch....or are you scared of a few rotten eggs?
K. Knopp
In article <329B94...@one.net>, Woody <wbu...@one.net> wrote:
> For two days I have listened to Rush Limbaugh smear and slander Carville
> without once addressing the issues that Carville raised. What does this
> tell you? I guess he is just sticking to what he does best!
What issues has Carville raised?
> BTW, someone please explain why, in four years, have the Clintons never
> been notified that they are the target of a Special Prosecuter's
> investigation. Is it because they are not? Is there no probable cause?
> --
> J. W. (Woody) Burkey
> Cincinnati,Ohio
> <wbu...@one.net>
I didn't think it was necessary to point out the obvious. Kenneth Starr
was appointed by Janet Reno to investigate initially just President
Clinton's Arkansas Whitewater dealings. The President is well aware of
this. After Mr. Clinton had time to allow scandals to occur while he was
in office, the AG also announced that Mr. Starr would be investigating
"Filegate", Vince Foster's death, and the Travel Office firings. Which
part don't you understand?
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
Chris Kevlahan (chri...@Sun.COM) wrote:
: : >From UPI, 11/24/96:
: : >James is a very, very tenacious individual. This
: : >could get extremely interesting.
: : >Harry
: : >
: : This is beyond belief! You liberals announce a smear campaign ahead
: : of time, and think it's okay. Carville is doing this on his own?
: : Right. Who does he work for right now, by the way? If the
: : Clintonistas do not agree with this, then they should fire Carville.
: : Otherwise, they're paying for it, and are responsible.
: : C.L. Williams
: This is dumb. This is called obstruction of justice. Carville just
: may end up in jail.
You are calling free speech "obstruction of justice?" That sounds pretty
totalitarian to me.
--
Buddy K
Woody
For two days I have listened to Rush Limbaugh smear and slander Carville
without once addressing the issues that Carville raised. What does this
tell you? I guess he is just sticking to what he does best!
BTW, someone please explain why, in four years, have the Clintons never
C. L. Williams
"ericbl" <eri...@premier1.net> wrote:
Contrary to liberal opinion, incivility is not defined by Republicans
investigating Democrats. My worry is not that honest Americans will
stop being involved, it's that the dishonest ones won't.
C.L. Williams
smokey
Milt (msh...@U.Arizona.EDU) wrote:
: On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, yon lew wrote:
:
: It's not the job of a FEDERAL special prosecutor hired to investigate the
: president to bring down the governor of Arkansas. That's the job of the
: state attorney general.
If it is the job of the state attorney general to bring down the govenor
of Arkansas, isn't it the job of the US attorney general to bring down the
President? Does that mean Janet Reno should be the one in charge of
investigating her boss, Bill Clinton?
: Notice no one has gone after the RTC chairman,
: who's a Republican, who allowed all of these creeps to pull this crap...
:
Bill Clinton was the one that asked Janet Reno to appoint a special
prosecutor for Whitewater. He should be able to answer your question.
: But now, it's getting into the fourth year (fifth?), and the
: best he's had is Hillary's fingerprints on some files that were lost for a
: while. They have nothing at all, no matter how much he "widens" the
: investigation, and it's getting old, and costing taxpayers way the hell
: too much money...
:
It is always funny to hear liberals whining about how much this
investigation is costing. What isn't funny is how they consider
convictions against a governor and deputy attorney general
"nothing at all". Doesn't abuse of power bother you?
: :2) Knee jerk partisan apologists for the Clintons are convinced that
: :Starr is some kind of bogey man, despite the fact that he's convicted
: :about a dozen close friends and associates of the Clintons. That's a
: :dozen: doesn't that figure deserve some respect?
: :
: A dozen? Try four. And the only one close to the Clintons was Hubbell. The
: McDougals and Clintons weren't exactly yachting buddies, and he and Tucker
: didn't get along at all. You claim a dozen; name them. (Oh--and by the
: way, Susan McDougal is in for contempt of court, not for her Whitewater
: dealings; so it's just three.)
Off the top of my head I can name Web Hubbell, Jim Guy Tucker, Chris Wade,
David Hale, Steve Smith and the McDougall's. All have been convicted or
plead guilty of Whitewater related crimes, and I am sure someone else can
name some more. The investigation is still going strong, and indictments
will probably follow. Do you think we should stop the investigation now?
:
: --Milt
Smokey
Zepp
le...@netcom.com (yon lew) caused us all to grin by saying:
>What gets me is that as a direct result of Starr's investigation the
>governor of Arkansas, Jim "Guy" Tucker, was forced to resign and was
>sentenced to prison. That's the governor, the freaking governor, of the
>entire state. If some state prosecutor had been responsible, he'd be a
>national hero for nail a corrupt government official. Because it's
>Starr, he gets no respect because:
Starr had little or nothing to do with Tucker's eventual fall. In
fact, the state prosecutors were instrumental in getting the goods on
Tucker, not Starr.
>1) Everyone thinks Tucker is just small fry compared to Bill Clinton.
>2) Knee jerk partisan apologists for the Clintons are convinced that
>Starr is some kind of bogey man, despite the fact that he's convicted
>about a dozen close friends and associates of the Clintons. That's a
>dozen: doesn't that figure deserve some respect?
Care to list the dozen who have been convicted? Remember, "close
friends and associates of the Clintons", and convictions, not just
indictments.
yon lew
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics,alt.activism,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Carville declares war on Starr - it's STARR WARS!!!
1....@netcom.com> <Pine.A32.3.93.961126...@kitts.u.arizona.edu>
Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> writes:
>On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, yon lew wrote:
>:Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics,alt.activism,alt.society.liberalism
>:Subject: Re: Carville declares war on Starr - it's STARR WARS!!!
>:References: <57af1m$b...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> <57av16$i...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com> <Pine.A32.3.93.961124...@nevis.u.arizona.edu> <lewyE1E...@netcom.com> <Pine.A32.3.93.961125...@mustique.u.arizona.edu>
>:
>:Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> writes:
>:
>:>On Mon, 25 Nov 1996, yon lew wrote:
>:
>:>:Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> writes:
>:>:
>:>:>On Mon, 25 Nov 1996, C. L. Williams wrote:
>:>:
>:>:>:riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope) wrote:
>:>:>:
>:>:>:>From UPI, 11/24/96:
>:>:>:
>:>:>:>WASHINGTON, Nov. 24 (UPI) -- Democratic political
>:>:>:>strategist James Carville said Sunday
>:>:
>:>:><snip>
>:>:>:
>:>:"GOP Lapdog"? What pray tell has he done to attract your ire? Let's
>:>:hear the proof, the paper trail that leads from Starr to the GOP.
>:>:Where's the documents, the interoffice memos from Newt Gingrich to his
>:>:staff saying "Be sure that Starr looks into this"? I hear a lot of
>:>:nonsense about Starr, but I have yet to see one shread of evidance
>:>:produced by anyone that he has acted improperly or committed
>:>:irregularities in his investigation. Can anyone produce anything?
>:
>:>How about lead counsel for the RNC? Is that partisan enough for you?
>:>They could have at least appointed a gop lawyer that wasn't so high up in
>:>the party apparatus...
>:
>:That's it?!??? That's it?!!???
>No. How about getting a huge financial break from the RTC. How about
>influence peddling from the tobacco industry? How about wasting tens of
>millions of dollars of taxpayer money on an investigation that hasn't
>produced anything since Web Hubbell wwas indicted in 1993. How about
>possible under-the-table payments from the GOP. These are just the few I
>can think of off the top of my head...
Hasn't produced anything since Hubbell was indicted?
1) He was convicted, not just indicted. He's serving time now.
2) Have you forgotten about the McDougals and Jim Tucker? Tucker was
the governor of Arkansas, for Christ's sake. Getting a conviction on him
and forcing his resignation along makes Starr worth whatever amount of
money was spent on him. Or do you think he bribed that jury or tampered
with evidance or whatever.
Possible under the table payments? Where's you read that, the National
Enquirer? I read three newspapers every day and a bunch of magazines,
and I haven't heard squat about this. If I was more suspicious, I would
suspect that you were making it up.
A huge tax break from the RTC? Since Clinton's election in 1992, it's
been run by Clinton cronies, most notably Robert Altman. If you remember
a few years ago the huge fuss was over the suspician that Clinton was
applying pressure on Altman not to recuse himself in the Whitewater
affair. When precisely did this huge payoff take place, under Bush?
Influence peddling for the tobacco industry? Now you're trying to imply
that tobacco is out to get Bill Clinton and that Starr is just their
tool. Bullcrap. The tobacco industry dumped hundreds of thousands of
dollars into the Democrat's war chest this last election, including
donations to Bill Clinton's campaign. And in Micky Cantor, the tobacco
industry has the best friend they've ever had in forcing open the Asain
tobacco market.
> :
>:1) The issue is not if he has political affiliations, it's if those
>:political affiliations are getting in the way of his work or if he
>:displaying predjudice or bias. By this insane logic, Democrats should
>:not have been allowed to have any part in the Nixon/Watergate
>:investigations because they were "partisan". Obviously, only Republicans
>:would have been objective enough to deliver a just investigation.
>:
>We're not talking "political affiliation" here We're talking 'party
>official'. There are any number of Republicans who could have handled this
>impartially. And they would have been honest, and ceased the investigation
>when nothing was happening. And no, I don't think the chairman of the DNC
>should have been in charge of the Watergate hearings, either.
Starr is not the chairman of the RNC. Impartiality does not equate with
"low party status" or whatever. The issue is their impartiality and
competency, not their political status or whatever.
>:1)a) Are you arguing that the lawyer investigating Clinton should be a
>:Democrat? Is that not partisan to you? Personally, I don't have
>:anything wrong in principle with a Democrat investigating Clinton, or a
>:Republican, or a Communist or a Libertarian or a Green or whatever. What
>:matters is not their political party but their conduct in the course of
>:the investigation. Who cares if Starr is a high ranking member of the
>:opposing party?
>Lemme ask you a question; How would you feel if Bonior headed a committee
>investigating Newt? Or Carol Moseley-Braun headed one investigating Jesse
>Helms? It's not about party affiliation; it's about bias. The higher you
>go in the party apparatus, the greater the tendency toward bias.
So now we're going to convict people simply because they may have a
proclivity towards bias? You ever hear of "presumed innocent"? I have
no problems with the idea of Bonior or Maxine Waters leading an
investigation: I only support dumping them when there is clear evidance
of bias, evidance which is not present in the Starr case.
>: So were a lot of the lawyers advising the Congressional
>:committees investigating Watergate. "Partisanship" in this sense means
>:outrageous conduct which demonstrates predjudice or bias. Merely
>:belonging to one political party or another doesn't by definition mean
>:that an individual is incapable of being fair or objective. All you've
>:done is point out that the guy is a Republican. SO WHAT? If you want to
>:make your case, you've got to show that the guy has been falsifying
>:evidance or intimidating witnesses into lying or whatever. Let's see
>:that evidance.
>:
>That's what Carville will be investigating, dipshit! That's what this is
>all about. This guy is getting a pretty substantial paycheck from the
>government, and will continue to do so as long as he drags this thing out.
>It would be nice to know that the guy is on the up-and-up. If he is, then
>you guys have nothing to worry about. Why are all og the conservatives
>becoming so shrill? You don't think Carville will find something, do you?
>DO YOU? Liberals weren't this shrill about the Whitewater hearing. We got
>this way, because it becomes more and more obvious every day that this is
>only open for political reasons. If that's the case, then it should end.
>If not, then you guys have nothing to worry about...
Why in God's name is a private citizen and a political consultant
investigating Starr in that case moron? Don't you think that's more the
province of the Justice Department if there is evidance of bias? If
there is such a huge problem, then why isn't the Justice Department
investigating?
And what pray tell is the evidance that leads anyone to suspect Starr of
wrongdoing? All that you've presented above is "He's in a position to
profit, therefore he's suspicious". That is so stupid that I won't even
comment on the illogic of that statement. I might also point out that
Starr was making much more in private practice than he is working for the
government.
Next, Starr was not the first investigator assigned to this case. For
unknown reasons, Robert Fiske was bounced from this case and Starr
replaced him, appointed there by a panel of federal judges. If Starr is
so awful, why haven't these judges bounced him? They don't need to
perform an investigation, they can bounce someone at their own discretion
and apparently they had enough concerns about Fiske to do just that. If
Starr is so bad, why isn't he gone then?
>:2) So he's not only a Republican, he's a high ranking Republican. Big
>:deal. Many of the lawyers investigating Watergate were high ranking
>:Democrats. A low-ranking Republican would be just as capable of running
>:a smear campaign; in fact he might be better suited for it.
>There was no one that high up investigating Watergate. Archibald Cox was
>one of the most impartial people anywhere. And Sam Ervin wasn't exactly a
>flaming liberal, either...
>:
Gee, so these guys were Democrats and they were impartial. Great. Now
can't you have Republicans who are impartial?
>:>:>BTW, Carville had a minor role in the campaign, but he does not work for
>:>:>Bill Clinton. He has his own company, and as he stated on "Meet the Press"
>:>:>this morning, he is exercising his rights as a citizen. There is no reason
>:>:>why the administration would sanction this. They have a lot to lose if
>:>:>there's nothing...
>:>:
>:>:That depends on which campaign you're talking about. He was in charge of
>:>:Clinton's first presidential campaign.
>:
>:>He was a campaign consultant for the first one, and a minor advisor on
>:>this one. And he is very loyal to Clinton, which is an admirable trait.
>:>But he hasn't worked for Clinton since November, 1992. He, like Roger
>:>Ailes, who is also a consultant, and very independent, does what he wants,
>:>and does not need someone to orchestrate his actions.
>:
>:Carville ran Clinton's first presidential campaign. It amazes me that
>:you would apply specious logic to disqualify Starr on the basis of his
>:political affiliations, and turn a blind eye to Carville's relationship
>:with Clinton and his decision to run newspaper ads attacking a special
>:investigator of the Justice Department.
>:
>I haven't disqualified Starr from anything, and neither has Carville. I am
>just all for the investigation. It's time to shit or get off the pot, as
>far as this investigation is concerned. And if there's nothing, then Starr
>has nothing to worry about. If there is something out there that appears
>to affect his judgment, then we should be concerned about it, shouldn't
>we?
The point I was trying to make and which you seem incapable of grasping
is this: you state that Starr is suspicious merely because of his
political affiliation. If that's the case, then how is it that you don't
turn that around and say "Carville and his investigation are suspicious
because of _HIS_ political affiliation"? Or are you just so biased that
you don't understand that it works both ways?
And your hypocrisy is evidant in another fashion. You state "And if
there's nothing, then Starr has nothing to worry about". Why don't you
just replace the word "Starr" with "Clinton" in that case? If Clinton's
innocent, what does he have to worry about? Why doesn't he make a grand
gesture and tell Carville, "Don't bother, I am secure in my lily innocence"?
You whine about how Starr's investigation of Clinton is politically
motivated, despite the fact that he's produced about a dozen
convictions. Can't you see that some people might have the same concern
about Carville's investigation of Starr?
As for what makes me shrill. it's this. Bill Clinton is just another
Richard Nixon. They're both scum. They're scum because they abused the
powers they were given. Setting up a hit squad to do a number on a
special prosecutor of the Justice Department is the worst of Fat Cat
politics. Carville's said he's going to run newspaper ads attacking
Starr. Why? If he's got something, why doesn't he give it to Janet Reno
and let her fire Starr? And if there's a problem, why isn't Reno and the
Justice Department doing the investigating? Just more rat-fucking from
Dirty Dick and Slick Willie.
C. L. Williams
ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L. Williams) caused us all to grin by saying:
>[snip article about Carville mounting campaign against Starr]
>>This is beyond belief! You liberals announce a smear campaign ahead
>>of time, and think it's okay. Carville is doing this on his own?
>>Right. Who does he work for right now, by the way? If the
>>Clintonistas do not agree with this, then they should fire Carville.
>>Otherwise, they're paying for it, and are responsible.
>What makes you so sure it's going to be a smear campaign? There are
>plenty of problems with Starr being in the position he is in, starting
>with the fact that he has very clear partisan ties to the GOP and
>continuing with his eagerness to jump in against Clinton in the Paula
>Jones thing (he filed an "amicus curie" which the court rejected.)
>He's supposed to be independent and non-partisan. There is grave
>doubt that he is either.
Of course it's going to be a smear campaign. What do you expect from
Carville, accolades for the special prosecutor? Carville's goal is to
discredit Starr by delving into his background, spinning it to suit
his advantage, and appearing on more talk shows. The next day, the
liberalmedia will echo what he said, while completely ignoring
anything Mary Matalin says in rebuttal. Just like last Sunday.
It doesn't matter if Starr is a Republican. He can't do anything
against Clinton without evidence, since any indictments will
ultimately be decided in a court of law. Carville is playing with
public opinion, and possibly making it harder to find an impartial
jury. In fact, it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling knowing that Starr is
a Republican, since that alleviates my worries that he will overlook
things. Well, of course there is the chance that your liberal fears
will be realized, that Starr will plant a bloody glove on Bubba.
<Stupid sig snipped>
C.L. Williams
mike...@austin.ibm.com
In article <57ds6s$l...@portal.gmu.edu>, hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.) writes:
> : This is dumb. This is called obstruction of justice. Carville just
> : may end up in jail.
>
> You are calling free speech "obstruction of justice?" That sounds pretty
> totalitarian to me.
>
> --
> Buddy K
Carville is not dumb enough to lie under oath. He will blow off on a talk show,
but if he ever has to testify he will tell the truth or say he can't recall the
exact circustances.
--
Michael (Mike) C. Dean
IBM - RISC/6000 Division
Austin, Texas.
Disclaimer - The opinions expressed in this append are mine alone.
Frank R. Hipp
Woody <wbu...@one.net> wrote:
Rush *has* addressed the issues that carville was talking about !!
They know because they're hiding evidence and answering "I don't
recall" to every question asked of them. Heck, even the clintons
aren't so stupid that they don't know. They know because the White
House Task List spells it out very clearly.
Heck yea, there's probably cause.
Frank R. Hipp
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
-- David Hume
Milt
On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Alan Bomberger wrote:
:In article <Pine.A32.3.93.961125...@nevis.u.arizona.edu>,
:Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
:
:> If all he does is investigate Starr, and bring up any possible ethical
:> breaches Starr may have been guilty of, how is that obstruction of
:> justice? Sounds more like CONstruction of justice to me...
:
:Well, in typical Carville style, he brings no documentation and
:no specific charges. He just keeps screaming that Starr is a
:Right Wing Hatchetman over and over and over again.
Well the fact that he's a GOP hatchetman is well known. It's also not
illegal, though. And he has made no specific charges that would be
troublesome. Yet.
:The sad part is that A: The media simply reprints the statement
:over and over and over again. B: The public starts to believe
:it even though absolutely the only "evidence" is that Starr
:is a Republican and has spoken at Pat Robertson's school (Note
:that Carville has spoken at Pat Robertson's school so he, too,
:must be a Right Wing Hatchetman or ANY Republican who speaks
:at Pat Robertson's school is a Right Wing Hatchetman).
:
Gee, they've been repeating all kinds of shit about Clinton for four
years; the same kinds of shit, and worse, that you righties are showing
fear and trepidation over right now. The public believes that Clinton is a
lying, cheating philanderer, based on what? GOP press releases, and little
more.
How's it feel?
Milt
On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, K. Knopp wrote:
:In article <E1Hu3...@eskimo.com>, co...@wolfenet.com wrote:
:
:> Starr was appointed for one reason and one reason only; GET BILL
:> CLINTON!
:
:The same reason Archibald Cox was appointed during the Nixon
:administration. Get over it.
No, not the same thing. Nixon's attorney general oversaw a burglary, and
then Nixon and his inner circle conspired to hide the details from the FBI
and others. There was plenty of evidence BEFORE Cox was hired. In the case
of Starr, he was hired before they had any real evidence. He's still
there, even though thee is NO evidence...
:>In achieving that goal, Michael Starr has failed miserably. After
:> several years and $35 million in investigative costs, Bill Clinton is
:> still standing fat, rich, powerful and happy. He gets to boink Hillary in
:> the Lincoln bedroom for four more years and the Republicans are pissed.
:
:A. Are you forgeting the number of people now with criminal records
:because of Mr. Starr's investigation
:
Four. And only one from the administration...
:B. The song's not over until the fat lady (no Susan McDougal pun intended)
:sings.
:
She claims there's nothing to sing. Essentially, she is being held for not
telling them what they want to hear. I see a serious lawsuit here...
:C. I didn't think that the words Bill Clinton, boinking Hillary, and
:happy, could be used in one paragraph without an accompanying laugh track.
:
I would love to be married to and boinking someone like Hillary. Believe
it or not, Knopp, some of us aren't afraid of strong women...
:> All the other small fry caught in the investigative net are meaningless.
:> Bill Clinton is the target and so far Starr hasn't produced jackshit.
:> Thirty five million in wasted taxpayers' dollars and counting....
:
:Oh yeah....the governor of Arkansas is meaningless. Don't count your
:chickens before they hatch....or are you scared of a few rotten eggs?
:
A federal special prosecutor coming up with a governor of a state is not
exactly a coup. Besides, Tucker was not exactly close to Clinton...
Milt
On Wed, 27 Nov 1996, Frank R. Hipp wrote:
:Woody <wbu...@one.net> wrote:
:
:>For two days I have listened to Rush Limbaugh smear and slander Carville
:>without once addressing the issues that Carville raised. What does this
:>tell you? I guess he is just sticking to what he does best!
:
:>BTW, someone please explain why, in four years, have the Clintons never
:>been notified that they are the target of a Special Prosecuter's
:>investigation. Is it because they are not? Is there no probable cause?
:>--
:>J. W. (Woody) Burkey
:>Cincinnati,Ohio
:><wbu...@one.net>
:
:Rush *has* addressed the issues that carville was talking about !!
Rush hasn't addressed anything. he diatribes against Carville, and Clinton
and Hillary, etc., But he never addresses the issue as to whether Starr is
impartial, or if he is clean as a whistle...
:They know because they're hiding evidence and answering "I don't
:recall" to every question asked of them. Heck, even the clintons
:aren't so stupid that they don't know. They know because the White
:House Task List spells it out very clearly.
:
:Heck yea, there's probably cause.
I agree with that, but this whole investigation is such BS it's
staggering. The crimes being investigated are beyong the statute of
limitations. The only possible thing they could get Clinton on is
obstruction of justice or perjury. But since he hasn't really testified,
they can't do the latter. And the only way they can get him on the first
is if they prove that he purposely didn't give them some information they
asked for, or blocked someone else from giving information. If you knew
the odds of these happening, you'd realize that this is an exercise in
political masturbation, and nothing more. Hell, look at Watergate. If
Nixon hadn't been so crazy with the tapes, he would have made it through
1976, and Jimmy Carter would never have been elected. Maybe...
Mike Jones
I think the point of all this is clear as a bell. Bill Clinton does NOT
want to be caught. He KNOWS he is guilty and is scared of Starr catching
up with him.
IF Bill Clinton were as innocent as he alludes by his comments "there is
no proof..." he would welcome someone as partisan as Ken Starr to go
after the nitty gritty and find nothing there, but the problem is that
there is something there and it is only a matter of time before it is
brought out into the open.
Bill and his cohorts can and will obfuscate and stonewall as long as
they possibly can, but it is only a matter of time before the snowball
starts downhill and catches Bill and Hillary up in its momentum.
I can't say as I am really excited at the prospect of another
constitutional crisis or even crises, but I think the country is plenty
strong enough to withstand the shake-up. We ain't quite so fragile as we
might think we are.
MIke.
Brian S. Jenkins
Milt wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Nov 1996, Frank R. Hipp wrote:
>
> :Woody <wbu...@one.net> wrote:
> :
> :>For two days I have listened to Rush Limbaugh smear and slander Carville
> :>without once addressing the issues that Carville raised. What does this
> :>tell you? I guess he is just sticking to what he does best!
> :
> :>BTW, someone please explain why, in four years, have the Clintons never
> :>been notified that they are the target of a Special Prosecuter's
> :>investigation. Is it because they are not? Is there no probable cause?
> :>--
> :>J. W. (Woody) Burkey
> :>Cincinnati,Ohio
> :><wbu...@one.net>
> :
> :Rush *has* addressed the issues that carville was talking about !!
>
> Rush hasn't addressed anything. he diatribes against Carville, and Clinton
> and Hillary, etc., But he never addresses the issue as to whether Starr is
> impartial, or if he is clean as a whistle...
Simple reason for that...there really isn't anything to address. There
is no evidence that Starr has been anything but aboveboard in his
investigation, and he has handled it with considerable- perhaps even
excessive, but better too much than too little- restraint.
The only folks making such accusations are dyed-in-the-wool partisans
and retainers for the Administration. Rush is, of course, a bit of a
partisan himself, but there is no evidence proffered by reputable non-
partisan authorities to back up Carville et al.
> :They know because they're hiding evidence and answering "I don't
> :recall" to every question asked of them. Heck, even the clintons
> :aren't so stupid that they don't know. They know because the White
> :House Task List spells it out very clearly.
> :
> :Heck yea, there's probably cause.
>
> I agree with that, but this whole investigation is such BS it's
> staggering. The crimes being investigated are beyong the statute of
> limitations. The only possible thing they could get Clinton on is
> obstruction of justice or perjury. But since he hasn't really testified,
> they can't do the latter. And the only way they can get him on the first
> is if they prove that he purposely didn't give them some information they
> asked for, or blocked someone else from giving information. If you knew
> the odds of these happening, you'd realize that this is an exercise in
> political masturbation, and nothing more. Hell, look at Watergate. If
> Nixon hadn't been so crazy with the tapes, he would have made it through
> 1976, and Jimmy Carter would never have been elected. Maybe...
Milt, that just isn't so. What about the dismissal of the Travel Office
staff and the trumping up of charges against them? What about the
illegal procurement of 1000 FBI files of prominent members of the
opposing party? What about the distorted statements made by Hillary in
paperwork done for the FDIC? And the statutes of limitations haven't
run out for most of the Arkansas events. Ask Jim Guy Tucker or Webb
Hubbell or Susan McDougal.
And Billy-Boy HAS purposely denied information to the Congress and the
IC on several occasions, twice invoking executive privilege only to
recant when contempt of Congress charges were threatened.
I suspect that you, like most of the people complaining about the
independent counsel, never once stopped to consider before now what kind
of weapon it is. You never thought it would be used against you, and so
used it with reckless abandon (and some success) against Reagan and
Bush.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
> --Milt
> http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
>
> Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.
> --George Bernard Shaw
Agreed. So why do you side with a President who couldn't disagree more?
Brian Jenkins
Zepp
f...@tamu.edu (Frank R. Hipp) caused us all to grin by saying:
>Rush *has* addressed the issues that carville was talking about !!
>They know because they're hiding evidence and answering "I don't
>recall" to every question asked of them. Heck, even the clintons
>aren't so stupid that they don't know. They know because the White
>House Task List spells it out very clearly.
>Heck yea, there's probably cause.
Oh, hey! Well, if RUSH says its so, then there's no room for
argument. I bet you can't understand why we haven't grabbed a rope
and hung the Clintons yet.
>"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
> -- David Hume
yon lew
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.current-events.usa,talk.politics,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Carville declares war on Starr - it's STARR WARS!!!
Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> writes:
>On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, yon lew wrote:
>:What gets me is that as a direct result of Starr's investigation the
>:governor of Arkansas, Jim "Guy" Tucker, was forced to resign and was
>:sentenced to prison. That's the governor, the freaking governor, of the
>:entire state. If some state prosecutor had been responsible, he'd be a
>:national hero for nail a corrupt government official. Because it's
>:Starr, he gets no respect because:
>It's not the job of a FEDERAL special prosecutor hired to investigate the
>president to bring down the governor of Arkansas. That's the job of the
>state attorney general. Notice no one has gone after the RTC chairman,
>who's a Republican, who allowed all of these creeps to pull this crap...
>
In point of fact, the state attorney general did prosecute the McDougals
and Tucker, but with a case that was largely prepared by Starr and his team.
>:1) Everyone thinks Tucker is just small fry compared to Bill Clinton.
>:
>EVERYONE? Try almost NO ONE! That's kinda why Clinton's getting a second
>term, because everybody thinks he's a thief! I'm still wondering how a
>"big daddy" in these types of operations loses money over the long haul.
>As for "knee jerk", I didn't hear any grumbling when the thing was in its
>first year. But now, it's getting into the fourth year (fifth?), and the
>best he's had is Hillary's fingerprints on some files that were lost for a
>while. They have nothing at all, no matter how much he "widens" the
>investigation, and it's getting old, and costing taxpayers way the hell
>too much money...
The guy nailed the governor of Arkansas. He's nailed about a dozen
people. These things take time. It seems to me that Starr has been an
excellent return on the taxpayers investment.
>:2) Knee jerk partisan apologists for the Clintons are convinced that
>:Starr is some kind of bogey man, despite the fact that he's convicted
>:about a dozen close friends and associates of the Clintons. That's a
>:dozen: doesn't that figure deserve some respect?
>:
>A dozen? Try four. And the only one close to the Clintons was Hubbell. The
>McDougals and Clintons weren't exactly yachting buddies, and he and Tucker
>didn't get along at all. You claim a dozen; name them. (Oh--and by the
>way, Susan McDougal is in for contempt of court, not for her Whitewater
>dealings; so it's just three.)
Wrongo. According to an article in the Investor's Business Dailey,
11/04/96, by Matthew Robinson:
"Independant Counsel Kenneth Starr's probe has already chalked up more
than a dozen convictions related to Whitewater."
Off the top of my head, I can name the McDougals, Tucker, Hubbell, Steve
Smith, Chris Webster and David Hale. That's seven, with the other five
escaping my mind. Actually, technically you could argue that Robinson's
statement is wrong, as I recall that before the McDougals and Tucker the
tally from Starr's investigation was nine guilty pleas. If a guy just
pleads guilty, does that actually count as a conviction?
Regarding Susan McDougal, don't you ever get tired of being wrong? She's
in prison _NOW_ for contempt of court, but she was convicted in the
Whitewater trial on four felony counts including fraud and conspiracy.
For those four counts she's been sentenced to two years in prison, which
she'll start serving _AFTER_ she finishes up her jail time for contempt.
Milt
On Thu, 28 Nov 1996, yon lew wrote:
:Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.current-events.usa,talk.politics,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.society.liberalism
:Subject: Re: Carville declares war on Starr - it's STARR WARS!!!
:References: <57af1m$b...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> <lewyE1H...@netcom.com> <Pine.A32.3.93.961126...@kitts.u.arizona.edu>
:
:Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> writes:
:
:>On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, yon lew wrote:
:
:>:What gets me is that as a direct result of Starr's investigation the
:>:governor of Arkansas, Jim "Guy" Tucker, was forced to resign and was
:>:sentenced to prison. That's the governor, the freaking governor, of the
:>:entire state. If some state prosecutor had been responsible, he'd be a
:>:national hero for nail a corrupt government official. Because it's
:>:Starr, he gets no respect because:
:
:>It's not the job of a FEDERAL special prosecutor hired to investigate the
:>president to bring down the governor of Arkansas. That's the job of the
:>state attorney general. Notice no one has gone after the RTC chairman,
:>who's a Republican, who allowed all of these creeps to pull this crap...
:>
:
:In point of fact, the state attorney general did prosecute the McDougals
:and Tucker, but with a case that was largely prepared by Starr and his team.
:
Right. With a case that was LARGELY prepared by Starr. He should have
handed over the evidence and moved on. Period.
:
:>:1) Everyone thinks Tucker is just small fry compared to Bill Clinton.
:>:
:>EVERYONE? Try almost NO ONE! That's kinda why Clinton's getting a second
:>term, because everybody thinks he's a thief! I'm still wondering how a
:>"big daddy" in these types of operations loses money over the long haul.
:>As for "knee jerk", I didn't hear any grumbling when the thing was in its
:>first year. But now, it's getting into the fourth year (fifth?), and the
:>best he's had is Hillary's fingerprints on some files that were lost for a
:>while. They have nothing at all, no matter how much he "widens" the
:>investigation, and it's getting old, and costing taxpayers way the hell
:>too much money...
:
:The guy nailed the governor of Arkansas. He's nailed about a dozen
:people. These things take time. It seems to me that Starr has been an
:excellent return on the taxpayers investment.
:
Bullshit. He's got a governor, one administration mucky-muck, and two
people who have never even worked in government. If they really want to do
something, they would go after the irregularities in the RTC, they might
have something. Instead, they're obsessing over this two-bit land deal,
which is even beyond the statute of limitations. The only possible
indictment of Bill or Hillary would be obstruction, and that'd be tough.
It would require proof that they had something that Starr wanted, that
Starr was entitled to have, and purposely hid it or destroyed it...
:>:2) Knee jerk partisan apologists for the Clintons are convinced that
:>:Starr is some kind of bogey man, despite the fact that he's convicted
:>:about a dozen close friends and associates of the Clintons. That's a
:>:dozen: doesn't that figure deserve some respect?
:>:
:>A dozen? Try four. And the only one close to the Clintons was Hubbell. The
:>McDougals and Clintons weren't exactly yachting buddies, and he and Tucker
:>didn't get along at all. You claim a dozen; name them. (Oh--and by the
:>way, Susan McDougal is in for contempt of court, not for her Whitewater
:>dealings; so it's just three.)
:
:Wrongo. According to an article in the Investor's Business Dailey,
:11/04/96, by Matthew Robinson:
:
:"Independant Counsel Kenneth Starr's probe has already chalked up more
:than a dozen convictions related to Whitewater."
:
:Off the top of my head, I can name the McDougals, Tucker, Hubbell, Steve
:Smith, Chris Webster and David Hale. That's seven, with the other five
:escaping my mind. Actually, technically you could argue that Robinson's
:statement is wrong, as I recall that before the McDougals and Tucker the
:tally from Starr's investigation was nine guilty pleas. If a guy just
:pleads guilty, does that actually count as a conviction?
But you don't understand what a special prosecutor is for, do you? It is a
federal position, to investigate people in the Administration. If he
convicts John Gotti, that's not what he's there for. That's why we have
the FBI. Starr should be investigating whether or not Bill or Hillary, or
others in the administration are involved. And there should be a time
limit. By April, this investigation will be THREE TIMES as long as
Watergate, with ONE conviction of an administration official. He still has
NOTHING on the Clintons, and it's obvious by his hedging. He's looking for
press, and he's looking to indict. In other words, he's not looking for
the truth; he's looking for an indictment. That's wrong. The truth is
known by now. He does an interview in Newsweek this week, in which he's
imploring anyone who knows anything to come forward. This is not a man who
has a lick of evidence...
:Regarding Susan McDougal, don't you ever get tired of being wrong? She's
:in prison _NOW_ for contempt of court, but she was convicted in the
:Whitewater trial on four felony counts including fraud and conspiracy.
:For those four counts she's been sentenced to two years in prison, which
:she'll start serving _AFTER_ she finishes up her jail time for contempt.
:
I'm not wrong. Her conviction is on appeal, and the only reason she's in
jail right now, is because she won't tell them what they claim she knows.
They have obviously never heard of the Fifth Amendment. It's not up to
Susan McDougal to manufacture an answer. It's up to the prosecution to
prove that she's lying, or whatever. This is a bad precedent. Remember;
she's not claiming to hold back because she refuses to answer; she's
claiming that she knows nothing. That's an answer. She's in jail for
contempt, even though she answered the question.
The whole problem with this "investigation" is, it's gone way beyond it's
scope in order to find "anything" to pin on the president. If that's not
the definition of a witch hunt, I don't know what is. This BS has gone on
nearly 3 times longer than Watergate, and 5 times longer than Iran-Contra,
and has produced far fewer indictments than either, and only ONE from
within the administration.
As for Clinton Administration ethics, I would point to you that, if the
number of ethics violations doubled in the second half of the
administration, he would still have less than *one-sixth* of those in the
Reagan/Bush Administrations.
Ask yourself this; Why was there no Special Prosecutor for Bush over the
dealings of his son, Neil. Neil was responsible for millions of dollars in
bad loans at Silverado Savings, and his punishment was never to be allowed
to work in the banking industry again. (wow) Then AFTERWARD, AFTER he
screwed the taxpayers out of millions, he secured a SBA loan for $2.3
million to set up oilfields which were known to contain salt water. Not a
single geologist reporters talked to could confirm that a survey done on
the area in question produced results other than salt water. That means,
either he was given the loan in spite of any geological survey of the
area, or he faked the survey. This loan was made in 1990. To date, not one
dime has been paid back...
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
now nobody was going to indict the whimp and leave danny boy in
charge, my ghad.
Kurt
Did anybody else happen to hear the Carville's own wife (Maddie?, who has
her own radio talk show) even stated that she thinks he has crossed the
line and is obstructing the course of justice and that she is afraid that
if he gets caught, he is going to go away for a long time. God I hope so.
yon lew
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.current-events.usa,talk.politics,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Carville declares war on Starr - it's STARR WARS!!!
Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> writes:
>On Thu, 28 Nov 1996, yon lew wrote:
>:Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.current-events.usa,talk.politics,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.society.liberalism
>:Subject: Re: Carville declares war on Starr - it's STARR WARS!!!
>:References: <57af1m$b...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> <lewyE1H...@netcom.com> <Pine.A32.3.93.961126...@kitts.u.arizona.edu>
>:
>:Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> writes:
>:
>:>On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, yon lew wrote:
>:
>:>:What gets me is that as a direct result of Starr's investigation the
>:>:governor of Arkansas, Jim "Guy" Tucker, was forced to resign and was
>:>:sentenced to prison. That's the governor, the freaking governor, of the
>:>:entire state. If some state prosecutor had been responsible, he'd be a
>:>:national hero for nail a corrupt government official. Because it's
>:>:Starr, he gets no respect because:
>:
>:>It's not the job of a FEDERAL special prosecutor hired to investigate the
>:>president to bring down the governor of Arkansas. That's the job of the
>:>state attorney general. Notice no one has gone after the RTC chairman,
>:>who's a Republican, who allowed all of these creeps to pull this crap...
>:>
>:
>:In point of fact, the state attorney general did prosecute the McDougals
>:and Tucker, but with a case that was largely prepared by Starr and his team.
>:
>Right. With a case that was LARGELY prepared by Starr. He should have
>handed over the evidence and moved on. Period.
Which is largely what he did. The case may have been PREPARED by Starr,
but it was PROSECUTED in court by the state attorney general.
>:
>:>:1) Everyone thinks Tucker is just small fry compared to Bill Clinton.
>:>:
>:>EVERYONE? Try almost NO ONE! That's kinda why Clinton's getting a second
>:>term, because everybody thinks he's a thief! I'm still wondering how a
>:>"big daddy" in these types of operations loses money over the long haul.
>:>As for "knee jerk", I didn't hear any grumbling when the thing was in its
>:>first year. But now, it's getting into the fourth year (fifth?), and the
>:>best he's had is Hillary's fingerprints on some files that were lost for a
>:>while. They have nothing at all, no matter how much he "widens" the
>:>investigation, and it's getting old, and costing taxpayers way the hell
>:>too much money...
>:
>:The guy nailed the governor of Arkansas. He's nailed about a dozen
>:people. These things take time. It seems to me that Starr has been an
>:excellent return on the taxpayers investment.
>:
>Bullshit. He's got a governor, one administration mucky-muck, and two
>people who have never even worked in government. If they really want to do
>something, they would go after the irregularities in the RTC, they might
>have something. Instead, they're obsessing over this two-bit land deal,
>which is even beyond the statute of limitations. The only possible
>indictment of Bill or Hillary would be obstruction, and that'd be tough.
>It would require proof that they had something that Starr wanted, that
>Starr was entitled to have, and purposely hid it or destroyed it...
"He's got a governor..." To me at least, this is big. Obvious
difference of opinion, and never the two shall meet.
As for obstruction and perjury, that's probably what the Clintons will be
indicted on if they're indicted. The great irony about Whitewater is
that there may have been no criminal behavior on the part of the Clintons
at least in this particular land deal. It may well be that it was in the
attempt to cover up politically damaging, but not illegal, activities
that the law was actually broken.
Given what's being investigated, I don't think a time limit is such a hot
idea. Financial crimes like this are often exceedingly complicated
affairs, and they can take literally years to straighten out. And your
take on the whole "This is a federal issue" matter is a little skewed.
All of this stuff took place long before Bill Clinton ever became
President. The people being investigated and convicted had business
dealings with the Clintons while he was still Governor of Arkansas.
Obviously, not everyone the Clintons were dealing with at that time
became officials in the administration. Therefore, this is NOT a federal
issue--the people being investigated and convicted will not necessarily
be officials in the executive branch. Nothing in the Whitewater land
deal has anything to do with the federal government--it was an Arkansas
real estate deal after all. An independant counsel was appointed because
one of the suspects in the whole affair happens to be president of the U.S.
Of course, there is a caveat to the above statement. Namely, the issue
of whether or not there was obstruction after the Clintons had moved into
the White House.
>:Regarding Susan McDougal, don't you ever get tired of being wrong? She's
>:in prison _NOW_ for contempt of court, but she was convicted in the
>:Whitewater trial on four felony counts including fraud and conspiracy.
>:For those four counts she's been sentenced to two years in prison, which
>:she'll start serving _AFTER_ she finishes up her jail time for contempt.
>:
>I'm not wrong. Her conviction is on appeal, and the only reason she's in
>jail right now, is because she won't tell them what they claim she knows.
>They have obviously never heard of the Fifth Amendment. It's not up to
>Susan McDougal to manufacture an answer. It's up to the prosecution to
>prove that she's lying, or whatever. This is a bad precedent. Remember;
>she's not claiming to hold back because she refuses to answer; she's
>claiming that she knows nothing. That's an answer. She's in jail for
>contempt, even though she answered the question.
Utter nonsense. She's in jail because she's refusing to testify in front
of a grand jury. I doubt anyone seriously thinks you can hold someone in
jail because they're not giving you the right answers. If the
prosecutors think she's lying, that's basis for a perjury charge, not a
contempt charge.
>The whole problem with this "investigation" is, it's gone way beyond it's
>scope in order to find "anything" to pin on the president. If that's not
>the definition of a witch hunt, I don't know what is. This BS has gone on
>nearly 3 times longer than Watergate, and 5 times longer than Iran-Contra,
>and has produced far fewer indictments than either, and only ONE from
>within the administration.
And I think your idea of what the scope of the investigation is is wrong.
Secondly, Kenneth Starr is not just dealing with Whitewater. He's also
been instructed by Janet Reno to expand the scope of his investigations
to include Filegate and Travelgate, and something else that I can't
remember right now.
>As for Clinton Administration ethics, I would point to you that, if the
>number of ethics violations doubled in the second half of the
>administration, he would still have less than *one-sixth* of those in the
>Reagan/Bush Administrations.
Who cares? Do you stop prosecuting criminals because O.J. got away with
it? Or are you suggesting that the Republicans got a few breaks, so now
we should be fair and give the Dems a few? Forget it, I don't care about
what crimes Nixon or U.S. Grant or anybody committed before all this, I
just want to see the guilty punished in the here and now.
>Ask yourself this; Why was there no Special Prosecutor for Bush over the
>dealings of his son, Neil. Neil was responsible for millions of dollars in
>bad loans at Silverado Savings, and his punishment was never to be allowed
>to work in the banking industry again. (wow) Then AFTERWARD, AFTER he
>screwed the taxpayers out of millions, he secured a SBA loan for $2.3
>million to set up oilfields which were known to contain salt water. Not a
>single geologist reporters talked to could confirm that a survey done on
>the area in question produced results other than salt water. That means,
>either he was given the loan in spite of any geological survey of the
>area, or he faked the survey. This loan was made in 1990. To date, not one
>dime has been paid back...
See above.
Zepp
cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L. Williams) caused us all to grin by saying:
>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>>cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L. Williams) caused us all to grin by saying:
>>[snip article about Carville mounting campaign against Starr]
>>>This is beyond belief! You liberals announce a smear campaign ahead
>>>of time, and think it's okay. Carville is doing this on his own?
>>>Right. Who does he work for right now, by the way? If the
>>>Clintonistas do not agree with this, then they should fire Carville.
>>>Otherwise, they're paying for it, and are responsible.
>>What makes you so sure it's going to be a smear campaign? There are
>>plenty of problems with Starr being in the position he is in, starting
>>with the fact that he has very clear partisan ties to the GOP and
>>continuing with his eagerness to jump in against Clinton in the Paula
>>Jones thing (he filed an "amicus curie" which the court rejected.)
>>He's supposed to be independent and non-partisan. There is grave
>>doubt that he is either.
>Of course it's going to be a smear campaign. What do you expect from
>Carville, accolades for the special prosecutor? Carville's goal is to
>discredit Starr by delving into his background, spinning it to suit
>his advantage, and appearing on more talk shows. The next day, the
>liberalmedia will echo what he said, while completely ignoring
>anything Mary Matalin says in rebuttal. Just like last Sunday.
Is it a smear campaign if it's true? I regard Starr as little more
than a Republican mouthpiece. You have an "independent prosecutor"
who once filed an amicus curiae in the Paula Jones case, because he's
so pantingly anxious to nail Clinton. From Clinton's perspective,
it's a bit like discovering that the judge in your traffic case is the
same guy who's suing you because he thinks your kid hit a baseball
through his window. Starr is prejudiced against Clinton. So much so
that his ability to do an honest investigation is suspect.
>It doesn't matter if Starr is a Republican. He can't do anything
>against Clinton without evidence, since any indictments will
>ultimately be decided in a court of law. Carville is playing with
>public opinion, and possibly making it harder to find an impartial
>jury. In fact, it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling knowing that Starr is
>a Republican, since that alleviates my worries that he will overlook
>things. Well, of course there is the chance that your liberal fears
>will be realized, that Starr will plant a bloody glove on Bubba.
Well, that's it. Starr has had several years to produce evidence
against Clinton. He's just dragging it along now. He has no case, as
so he just simply tries to do whatever political damage he can. He's
been awfully busy lately, giving speeches. I'm not worried about a
bloody glove, because like Fuhrman, the Pubs are too stupid to be
really dangerous that way. Fuhrman's mouth put his case in ruins, and
now we have Starr running around the country, telling various groups
how he's going to "get" Clinton.
I don't see him as any danger to Clinton. But he's an embarrassment
to the office of special prosecutor.
yon lew
ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) writes:
>>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
These things take time, especially if you want to be careful and
meticulous, which Starr has a reputation of being. Besides which, as
long as he keeps scoring convictions, (and he's had a dozen so far), I
would think that he was bringing back a healthy return on the investment
of the taxpayers.
Anyway, is he's no danger to Clinton, why worry?
Zepp
le...@netcom.com (yon lew) caused us all to grin by saying:
>These things take time, especially if you want to be careful and
>meticulous, which Starr has a reputation of being. Besides which, as
>long as he keeps scoring convictions, (and he's had a dozen so far), I
>would think that he was bringing back a healthy return on the investment
>of the taxpayers.
Uh huh. Takes a LOT of time to construct a case when there isn't even
evidence that a crime occured. Poor Starr. It must be really rough,
trying to discuss ethical behavior with Republicans. A bit like
trying to discuss quantum mechanics with a fish.
Starr has ONE conviction in the Clinton administration. Dispite your
best efforts, the other Arkansas rubes that you credit to Starr have
no bearing on the White House. There is no case. You are wasting
time and money, and leaving people with the continuing impression that
the only reason the GOP offers this travesty is because they have
nothing else to offer.
>Anyway, is he's no danger to Clinton, why worry?
I'm not worried.
Chris Kevlahan
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. (hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu) wrote:
: Chris Kevlahan (chri...@Sun.COM) wrote:
: : : >From UPI, 11/24/96:
: : This is dumb. This is called obstruction of justice. Carville just
: : may end up in jail.
: You are calling free speech "obstruction of justice?" That sounds pretty
: totalitarian to me.
Intent baby, intent.
While Mr. Carville's freedom of speech is not being disputed, I would
like to point out that his intent is to impede and impugn Ken Starr's
investigation.
I think Ken Starr could possibly get a 'gag order' against Carville.
Anyway .... As to the question of:
Is Ken Starr out to get Clinton?
My answer is:
Ken Starr is a special `Prosecuter`. Appointed exclusively to
look into the misdeads of the Clinton administration.
Doesn't that look like `getting Clinton` is his job?
Chris K.
Alan Bomberger
In article
<Pine.A32.3.93.961127...@mustique.u.arizona.edu>, Milt
<msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
> Gee, they've been repeating all kinds of shit about Clinton for four
> years; the same kinds of shit, and worse, that you righties are showing
You mean like excerpting lies from his speaches and comparing them
to his later actions?
You mean the actual testamony of victims and witnesses to his
philandering?
Carville presented no facts and no evidence credible or otherwise. He
just shouted his opinion.
--
Alan Bomberger | (408)-992-2748 | al...@oes.amdahl.com
Amdahl Corporation | Opinions are free, worth it, and not Amdahl's
Hypertext Word Processor - www.webcom.com/thinker
Alan Bomberger
In article <Pine.A32.3.93.961127...@kitts.u.arizona.edu>,
Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
> Rush hasn't addressed anything. he diatribes against Carville, and Clinton
> and Hillary, etc., But he never addresses the issue as to whether Starr is
> impartial, or if he is clean as a whistle...
It doesn't matter whether Starr is impartial or not. All that matters
is what the Grand Juries think about the evidence he presents.
Impartiality is only a requirement of people doing subjective
analysis of events. Objective analysis is best done by a skeptic.
Christopher Morton
On 27 Nov 1996 03:56:59 GMT, smo...@sky.net (smokey) wrote:
>It is always funny to hear liberals whining about how much this
>investigation is costing. What isn't funny is how they consider
>convictions against a governor and deputy attorney general
>"nothing at all". Doesn't abuse of power bother you?
No, it doesn't.
But then they're about as liberal as a torchlight parade and book
burning in Munich.
You have to understand that they aren't liberals. They're corrupt,
opportunistic authoritarians, just like the corrupt, opportunistic
authoritarian in the Oval Office.
Liberals don't want to INCREASE the power of federal law enforcement,
which is already being massively abused.
Liberals don't want to censor the internet, including prohibiting
posting of abortion information.
Liberals think the Defense of Marriage Act is assinine.
Liberals don't collect massive amounts of privileged information about
people illegally.
These people aren't liberals.
They're the Nixonite undead.
How do you define a Clintonite?
Like his idol, he's got the truthfulness of O.J., the ethics of Roy
Cohn, the thirst for justice of Joe McCarthy and the incorruptability
of Hermann Goering.
"Being raped is not enough to justify killing someone." - I Johnston (ia...@tattoo.ed.ac.uk)
scot...@maine.maine.edu
In article <alan-02129...@129.212.7.98>, al...@oes.amdahl.com says...
>Carville presented no facts and no evidence credible or otherwise. He
>just shouted his opinion.
If so, is that cause to jail him?
Hmmmm...jailing people for shouting their opinion...is that what some of you
want (I'm reacting to the subject head and your post, I'm not sure if you
really advocated sending him to jail...someone obviously did).
I'll wait and hear what Carville says or does to decide. So far, it's not
getting much media play, so it seems to be "off the screen."
-scott
Alan Bomberger
> In article <alan-02129...@129.212.7.98>, al...@oes.amdahl.com says...
>
> >Carville presented no facts and no evidence credible or otherwise. He
> >just shouted his opinion.
>
> If so, is that cause to jail him?
I do not call for jail unless he obstructs justice. If he intimidates
witnesses into no testifing or lying then he should be jailed. At this
point he is probably doing more harm than good.
scot...@maine.maine.edu
In article <alan-03129...@129.212.7.98>, al...@oes.amdahl.com says...
>I do not call for jail unless he obstructs justice. If he intimidates
>witnesses into no testifing or lying then he should be jailed. At this
>point he is probably doing more harm than good.
Well, sure, if someone goes and threatens a witness and tries to get them to
lie, that is a jailable offense. I doubt very much he'll obstruct justice.
I'm sure he knows what is permissible or not.
-scott
RHA
In article <alan-03129...@129.212.7.98>,
Alan Bomberger <al...@oes.amdahl.com> wrote:
>In article <581bi0$2d...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, scot...@maine.maine.edu wrote:
>
>> In article <alan-02129...@129.212.7.98>, al...@oes.amdahl.com says...
>>
>> >Carville presented no facts and no evidence credible or otherwise. He
>> >just shouted his opinion.
>>
>> If so, is that cause to jail him?
>
>witnesses into no testifing or lying then he should be jailed. At this
Oh? You mean like Starr is doing? You know, signaling to Susan
MacDougal her testimony better match the known perjuror David
Hale, if she knows what's good for her.
>point he is probably doing more harm than good.
--
rha
Zepp
chri...@Sun.COM (Chris Kevlahan) caused us all to grin by saying:
>HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. (hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu) wrote:
>: Chris Kevlahan (chri...@Sun.COM) wrote:
>: : C. L. Williams (cl...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: : : riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope) wrote:
>
>: : : >From UPI, 11/24/96:
>
>
>: : This is dumb. This is called obstruction of justice. Carville just
>: : may end up in jail.
>
>: You are calling free speech "obstruction of justice?" That sounds pretty
>: totalitarian to me.
>
>Intent baby, intent.
>
>While Mr. Carville's freedom of speech is not being disputed, I would
>like to point out that his intent is to impede and impugn Ken Starr's
>investigation.
By pointing out verifyable facts about Starr that indicate that he may bear
prejudicial intent? I don't think so, Homes.
>
>I think Ken Starr could possibly get a 'gag order' against Carville.
>
I doubt it, but it would be fun watching him commit political suicide by
trying.
>Anyway .... As to the question of:
>
> Is Ken Starr out to get Clinton?
>
>My answer is:
>
> Ken Starr is a special `Prosecuter`. Appointed exclusively to
>look into the misdeads of the Clinton administration.
>
>
>Doesn't that look like `getting Clinton` is his job?
So why is everyone so taxed about Clinton agreeing that Starr is out to get
him? Clinton still has the right to expect an honest investigation. Cops are
supposed to get robbers, and that's good. But if cops start framing robbers
for political reasons, that's bad.
>
>Chris K.
Chris Kevlahan
Zepp (ze...@snowcrest.net) wrote:
: >
: >Intent baby, intent.
: >
: >While Mr. Carville's freedom of speech is not being disputed, I would
: >like to point out that his intent is to impede and impugn Ken Starr's
: >investigation.
: By pointing out verifyable facts about Starr that indicate that he may bear
: prejudicial intent? I don't think so, Homes.
Oh, you mean innuendo.
: >
: >I think Ken Starr could possibly get a 'gag order' against Carville.
: >
: I doubt it, but it would be fun watching him commit political suicide by
: trying.
How is Starr going to commit political suicide? He is not a politician.
Carville opens his mouth to much and I bet he will be gagged.
: >Anyway .... As to the question of:
: >
: > Is Ken Starr out to get Clinton?
: >
: >My answer is:
: >
: > Ken Starr is a special `Prosecuter`. Appointed exclusively to
: >look into the misdeads of the Clinton administration.
: >
: >
: >Doesn't that look like `getting Clinton` is his job?
: So why is everyone so taxed about Clinton agreeing that Starr is out to get
: him? Clinton still has the right to expect an honest investigation. Cops are
: supposed to get robbers, and that's good. But if cops start framing robbers
: for political reasons, that's bad.
: >
: >Chris K.
: =====================================================================
: As a liberal, I think tolerance and understanding is all fine and
: good. But that doesn't mean I have to suffer fools gladly. I
: disrespect ignorance. I despise willful ignorance.
: And I detest dittoheads.
: Novus Ordo Stupidium
: =====================================================================
Zepp
chri...@Sun.COM (Chris Kevlahan) wrote:
>Zepp (ze...@snowcrest.net) wrote:
>: >
>: >Intent baby, intent.
>: >
>: >While Mr. Carville's freedom of speech is not being disputed, I would
>: >like to point out that his intent is to impede and impugn Ken Starr's
>: >investigation.
>
>: By pointing out verifyable facts about Starr that indicate that he may bear
>: prejudicial intent? I don't think so, Homes.
>
>Oh, you mean innuendo.
Are you denying that he filed an amicus curiae brief in the Paula
Jones case? Or that he had long-established links with tobacco
industry companies?
>
>: >
>: >I think Ken Starr could possibly get a 'gag order' against Carville.
>: >
>: I doubt it, but it would be fun watching him commit political suicide by
>: trying.
>
>How is Starr going to commit political suicide? He is not a politician.
>Carville opens his mouth to much and I bet he will be gagged.
By getting a gag order for criticism of how he does his job? A public
official? I would call that political suicide. Imagine Clinton
ordering Rush to be arrested, and you'll get the general idea of how
most folk would view Starr trying to slap a gag on Carville.
=====================================================================
As a liberal, I think tolerance and understanding is all fine and
good. But that doesn't mean I have to suffer fools gladly. I
disrespect ignorance. I despise willful ignorance.
And I detest dittoheads.
The Shadow
ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>chri...@Sun.COM (Chris Kevlahan) caused us all to grin by saying:
>
>>HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. (hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu) wrote:
>>: Chris Kevlahan (chri...@Sun.COM) wrote:
>>: : C. L. Williams (cl...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>: : : riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope) wrote:
>>
>>: : : >From UPI, 11/24/96:
>>
>>
>>: : This is dumb. This is called obstruction of justice. Carville just
>>: : may end up in jail.
>>
>>: You are calling free speech "obstruction of justice?" That sounds pretty
>>: totalitarian to me.
>>
>>Intent baby, intent.
>>
>>While Mr. Carville's freedom of speech is not being disputed, I would
>>like to point out that his intent is to impede and impugn Ken Starr's
>>investigation.
>
>By pointing out verifyable facts about Starr that indicate that he may bear
>prejudicial intent? I don't think so, Homes.
>>
>>I think Ken Starr could possibly get a 'gag order' against Carville.
>>
>I doubt it, but it would be fun watching him commit political suicide by
>trying.
>
>>Anyway .... As to the question of:
>>
>> Is Ken Starr out to get Clinton?
>>
>>My answer is:
>>
>> Ken Starr is a special `Prosecuter`. Appointed exclusively to
>>look into the misdeads of the Clinton administration.
>>
>>
>>Doesn't that look like `getting Clinton` is his job?
>
>So why is everyone so taxed about Clinton agreeing that Starr is out to get
>him? Clinton still has the right to expect an honest investigation. Cops are
>supposed to get robbers, and that's good. But if cops start framing robbers
>for political reasons, that's bad.
Considering the historical facts concerning Starr's appointment,
getting Clinton framed is probably a better description of "Starr's
job."
"We dance round in a ring and suppose.
But the Secret sits in the middle...
And KNOWS."
yon lew
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.current-events.usa,talk.politics,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Carville declares war on Starr - it's STARR WARS!!!
ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) writes:
>le...@netcom.com (yon lew) caused us all to grin by saying:
>>These things take time, especially if you want to be careful and
>>meticulous, which Starr has a reputation of being. Besides which, as
>>long as he keeps scoring convictions, (and he's had a dozen so far), I
>>would think that he was bringing back a healthy return on the investment
>>of the taxpayers.
>Uh huh. Takes a LOT of time to construct a case when there isn't even
>evidence that a crime occured. Poor Starr. It must be really rough,
>trying to discuss ethical behavior with Republicans. A bit like
>trying to discuss quantum mechanics with a fish.
>Starr has ONE conviction in the Clinton administration. Dispite your
>best efforts, the other Arkansas rubes that you credit to Starr have
>no bearing on the White House. There is no case. You are wasting
>time and money, and leaving people with the continuing impression that
>the only reason the GOP offers this travesty is because they have
>nothing else to offer.
You seem to be somewhat ignorant of the provisions of the special
prosecutor law. An independant counsel was appointed not because of any
suspicion of abuses of power in the White House, but rather because the
President falls into a small group of individuals defined in the law
whose position is high enough that there would be some concern over
whether or not there could be a fair investigation if things were only
left up to the normal procedures of the Justice Department. Note that
recently Attorney General Janet Reno did not appoint a special counsel to
investigate John Huang--as Asst. Sec. of Commerce he did not fall into
that group of individuals as defined in the special prosecutor law.
White Water is a local case. It's investigating the actions of the
President before he became President. The question of how many
administration officials have been convicted is irrelevant because it is
not (necessarily) an investigation into the administration. (Although I
should point out that Starr has expanded his investigation to cover
things like Filegate and Travelgate at the request of Atty. Gen. Reno).
I find your appropriation of the investigation to me personally, (see the
use above of "you" and "your"), amusing and somewhat telling.
By the way, let's say you've got this Bessel function and you want to
translate it into Cartesian coordinates...
>>Anyway, is he's no danger to Clinton, why worry?
>I'm not worried.
Apparently someone is. Why else set an attack squad led by Carville?
yon lew
yon lew
ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) writes:
>I'm not worried.
Apparently someone is. Why else set up an attack squad led by Carville?
Spark The Heretic
Zepp wrote:
>
> chri...@Sun.COM (Chris Kevlahan) caused us all to grin by saying:
>
[...]
> >
> >While Mr. Carville's freedom of speech is not being disputed, I would
> >like to point out that his intent is to impede and impugn Ken Starr's
> >investigation.
>
> By pointing out verifyable facts about Starr that indicate that he may bear
> prejudicial intent?
Carvile said specifically that he's out to "get" Starr; does that sound
like pointing out verifyable facts?
And speaking fo verifyable facts, do you remember the special prosecutor
for Watergate? He was politically predjudiced against Nixon.
But anyway...
> >I don't think so, Homes.
> >
> >I think Ken Starr could possibly get a 'gag order' against Carville.
> >
> I doubt it, but it would be fun watching him commit political suicide by
> trying.
>
The same could be said for Carville. The poor boy's been getting mighty
shrill in public lately.
[...]
> >
> >
> >Doesn't that look like `getting Clinton` is his job?
>
> So why is everyone so taxed about Clinton agreeing that Starr is out to get
> him? Clinton still has the right to expect an honest investigation.
So this "honest investigation" supposed to occur while Carville runs a
smear campaign against the investigator? You run one hell of a court
there, Zepp.
--
| TJ "Spark" Miller jr.
n Formerly of the 37th TFW, USAF. _\/^\/_
___[(_)]___Now residing in the heart of the Ozarks.___/[]/_\[]\___
o O o * * *
____________________________________________________
"My center gives way, my right is pushed back, situation excellent;
I am attacking." -Ferdinand Foch
____________________________________________________
"War is the realm of chance. No other human activity gives it
greater scope; no other has such incessant and varied dealings with
this intruder. Chance makes everything more uncertain and
interferes with the whole course of events"
-Karl Von Clausewitz
Milt
On Fri, 6 Dec 1996, Spark The Heretic wrote:
:Zepp wrote:
:>
:> chri...@Sun.COM (Chris Kevlahan) caused us all to grin by saying:
:>
:[...]
:
:> >
:> >While Mr. Carville's freedom of speech is not being disputed, I would
:> >like to point out that his intent is to impede and impugn Ken Starr's
:> >investigation.
:>
:> By pointing out verifyable facts about Starr that indicate that he may bear
:> prejudicial intent?
:
:Carvile said specifically that he's out to "get" Starr; does that sound
:like pointing out verifyable facts?
So? Any private citizen is free to investigate any public official's
conduct, and bring whatever he/she finds to the attention of the propr
authorities. And it doesn't matter if the private citizen is impartial, so
long as the court is impartial.
:And speaking fo verifyable facts, do you remember the special prosecutor
:for Watergate? He was politically predjudiced against Nixon.
:
Archibald Cox was as fair a man as there ever was; THAT IS WHY NIXON FIRED
HIS ASS!! Spark, I would think you'd do more reading during your month in
exile. I was a page for someone on the judiciary committee at the time,
and none other than Bob Dole said that Archie Cox was a "fine man"...
:But anyway...
:
:> >I don't think so, Homes.
:> >
:> >I think Ken Starr could possibly get a 'gag order' against Carville.
:> >
:> I doubt it, but it would be fun watching him commit political suicide by
:> trying.
:>
:
:The same could be said for Carville. The poor boy's been getting mighty
:shrill in public lately.
:
carville's always been shrill, but only half as shrill as his wife...
:> >
:> >Doesn't that look like `getting Clinton` is his job?
:>
:> So why is everyone so taxed about Clinton agreeing that Starr is out to get
:> him? Clinton still has the right to expect an honest investigation.
:
:So this "honest investigation" supposed to occur while Carville runs a
:smear campaign against the investigator? You run one hell of a court
:there, Zepp.
Now, wait a minute. His honest investigation of Clinton has been going on
while the GOP has been smearing Clinton for the last 5 years. How can
Starr conduct an investigation amidst all of that smear? How could Starr
have investigated Clinton, while Alfonse the Filthy was running a parallel
investigation, that tainted all of Starr's evidence?
Get real here...
Dan Haskell
In article <32A8C0...@nwark.com>, Spark The Heretic wrote:
>Zepp wrote:
>> chri...@Sun.COM (Chris Kevlahan) caused us all to grin by saying:
>[...]
>> >While Mr. Carville's freedom of speech is not being disputed, I would
>> >like to point out that his intent is to impede and impugn Ken Starr's
>> >investigation.
>>
>> By pointing out verifyable facts about Starr that indicate that he may bear
>> prejudicial intent?
>
>Carvile said specifically that he's out to "get" Starr; does that sound
>like pointing out verifyable facts?
So, were you whining like this when Bush's staff was impugning the
impartiality of the Iran-Contra special prosecutor? Did you complain
when Bush pardoned staff members to stymie further investigation into
Iran-Contra? If not, then it seems like you have a bias problem of
your own.
>And speaking fo verifyable facts, do you remember the special prosecutor
>for Watergate? He was politically predjudiced against Nixon.
Are you saying that an administration has no right to question the
extent to which a Special Prosecutor's politics impact the investigation?
Nixon had every right to question the fairness of both of the prosecutors
that investigated his activities. If he could have made a convincing
argument that their bias had interfered with their work than they should
have been removed.
[snip]
>> >I think Ken Starr could possibly get a 'gag order' against Carville.
>> >
>> I doubt it, but it would be fun watching him commit political suicide by
>> trying.
>
>The same could be said for Carville. The poor boy's been getting mighty
>shrill in public lately.
The Newt (who wields considerably more power and influence than Carville) has
been slinging some pretty wild innuendo lately. Perhaps Starr should
get a gag order against the Speaker of the House?
The Newt has been claiming that Clinton's "crimes" exceed those of Nixon.
Who really believes this crap??? The only president that has come
close to that record, so far, was been The Great Drug Dealer (Reagan).
Dan Haskell
Antirumor
What is so funny about all the liberals yelling about Starr and the length
of time the investigation is taking is that he was appointed by one of
Bill's own people--NOT a republican! Just another case of liberal
hysteria.
Antirumor
No doubt. I feel sorry for his wife. Seeing your husband go crazy in
front of the entire world has got to be quite painful for her. If he
disagrees with Starr, fine; but going nutso over the disagreement is
sucide. There ARE better ways to handle it.
Spark The Heretic
Antirumor wrote:
>
> No doubt. I feel sorry for his wife. Seeing your husband go crazy in
> front of the entire world has got to be quite painful for her.
I must admit, Mary handled it very well though; but I doubt that James
got anything in the way of affection that could be called warmer than,
say, liquid nitrogen once he got home...
> If he
> disagrees with Starr, fine; but going nutso over the disagreement is
> sucide.
Remember the question that was pointed out to him, the one that launched
Carville into the Van Gogh hall of fame? I think it had to do with the
fact that Nixon's prosecutor was a highly partisan democrat (I forgot
who the guy was, though...).
> There ARE better ways to handle it.
Yes, there are. Carville may have just cracked the Clinton Kevlar by his
very rebuke of the press. The press, although liberal at heart, does not
like to be snubbed, and will make a politico's life pure hell should
that transgression occur.
Spark The Heretic
Dan Haskell wrote:
>
> In article <32A8C0...@nwark.com>, Spark The Heretic wrote:
> >Zepp wrote:
> >> chri...@Sun.COM (Chris Kevlahan) caused us all to grin by saying:
> >[...]
> >> >While Mr. Carville's freedom of speech is not being disputed, I would
> >> >like to point out that his intent is to impede and impugn Ken Starr's
> >> >investigation.
> >>
> >> By pointing out verifyable facts about Starr that indicate that he may bear
> >> prejudicial intent?
> >
> >Carvile said specifically that he's out to "get" Starr; does that sound
> >like pointing out verifyable facts?
>
> So, were you whining like this when Bush's staff was impugning the
> impartiality of the Iran-Contra special prosecutor? Did you complain
> when Bush pardoned staff members to stymie further investigation into
> Iran-Contra?
Nope, I didn't whine a bit. I actually watched with amusement, truth be
known. You see, if there was any actual evidence that would have
implicated Bush or Reagan directly, there would have been an
impeachment, and if there was actual evidence of such things being
directed from The White House at the time, I would have cheered on the
impreachment proceedings just as loudly. Gross misuse of Puplic trust is
a matter that should be stamped out, no matter the party lines.
> If not, then it seems like you have a bias problem of
> your own.
>
> >And speaking of verifyable facts, do you remember the special prosecutor
> >for Watergate? He was politically predjudiced against Nixon.
>
> Are you saying that an administration has no right to question the
> extent to which a Special Prosecutor's politics impact the investigation?
> Nixon had every right to question the fairness of both of the prosecutors
> that investigated his activities.
Nixon did, but he also knew where to draw the line. Where was the smear
campaign against the prosecutor at that time? Commercials designed
expressly to unnerve the prosecutor? Did Nixon's advisors promise a
mudfest complete with investigations of the investigator to threaten the
investigation? Carville had done just that on "Meet the Press".
If I recall correctly, Nixon even had J. Edgar Hoover around to make
things hot for the DNC, yet that did not happen. I wonder what Carville
would have done if he had someone like that in the FBI now? Oh, never
mind; there's scores of FBI files in the White House already, dossiers
on Prominent Republicans and such...
> If he could have made a convincing
> argument that their bias had interfered with their work than they should
> have been removed.
Yet they were not. And what evidence is there that Starr's "bias" is
interfering with his work?
>
> [snip]
> >> >I think Ken Starr could possibly get a 'gag order' against Carville.
> >> >
> >> I doubt it, but it would be fun watching him commit political suicide by
> >> trying.
> >
> >The same could be said for Carville. The poor boy's been getting mighty
> >shrill in public lately.
>
> The Newt (who wields considerably more power and influence than Carville) has
> been slinging some pretty wild innuendo lately. Perhaps Starr should
> get a gag order against the Speaker of the House?
Feh, Newt's been quieter than a church mouse lately, and Newt _is_
accountable to his district's voters.
Now, how accountable is Carville, especially when the White House Staff
thinks that they cannot stop Carville from his tactics in the first
place?
>
> The Newt has been claiming that Clinton's "crimes" exceed those of Nixon.
Nixon had two operatives steal a couple of files on certain Democrat
funding activities out of a hotel room (maybe; there was never a trial).
Clinton hoarded, what, over 700 FBI files on his political enemies,
flaunted charges of Sexual misconduct that makes Anita Hill's charges
pale in comparison (Funny how NOW flocked to Hill's side...), and his
earnings record looks almost as bad as Al Capone's. And NOW, The DNC has
to literally admit to the world that they were bought, part and parcel,
by some rich folks in Indonesia. But all of that will either be proven
or dis-proven in a court of law, and if Clinton's innocent, you've
nothing to fear, do you?
> Who really believes this crap???
If it isn't true, then a bi-partisan investigation (Starr was picked by,
get this, _both_ sides of the aisle in Congress to investigate this
whole "whitewater" thing) shouldn't worry you so, should it?
> The only president that has come
> close to that record, so far, was been The Great Drug Dealer (Reagan).
And your proof of Reagan doing such is.....what? If you remember
correctly, he got the great big "Not Guilty" from the investigation
committee.
John W.Tibbs
their 'fool the public' and influence potential jurors machinery
when the trials start to materalize. Anyone who thinks Slick and
Hitlery aren't behind this crusade to demonize Ken Starr let me know.
I'll mail you my catalog of bridges. jwt/ke5p
P.S. Carville has slacked off. Wonder if it was Slick or Hitlery that
told him to cool his heels since the stink was beginning to get out and
people are waking up.
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
Antirumor (anti...@concentric.net) wrote:
: No doubt. I feel sorry for his wife. Seeing your husband go crazy in
: front of the entire world has got to be quite painful for her. If he
: disagrees with Starr, fine; but going nutso over the disagreement is
: sucide. There ARE better ways to handle it.
Carville made the Sunday morning talk shows. Hardly sounds like suicide
to me - it's more like B'rer Rabbit saying to B'rer Fox, "Please don't
throw me in the briar patch."
--
Buddy K
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
Spark The Heretic (tjmi...@nwark.com) wrote:
: Antirumor wrote:
: >
: > No doubt. I feel sorry for his wife. Seeing your husband go crazy in
: > front of the entire world has got to be quite painful for her.
: I must admit, Mary handled it very well though; but I doubt that James
: got anything in the way of affection that could be called warmer than,
: say, liquid nitrogen once he got home...
I suspect they both know very well what is done for the sake of the
audience and what is not.
: > If he
: > disagrees with Starr, fine; but going nutso over the disagreement is
: > sucide.
: Remember the question that was pointed out to him, the one that launched
: Carville into the Van Gogh hall of fame? I think it had to do with the
: fact that Nixon's prosecutor was a highly partisan democrat (I forgot
: who the guy was, though...).
: > There ARE better ways to handle it.
: Yes, there are. Carville may have just cracked the Clinton Kevlar by his
: very rebuke of the press. The press, although liberal at heart, does not
: like to be snubbed, and will make a politico's life pure hell should
: that transgression occur.
Look for last week's column by E. J. Dionne & see what you think of his
analysis of what Carville is up to.
--
Buddy K
Dan Haskell
Spark The Heretic wrote:
>Dan Haskell wrote:
>> In article <32A8C0...@nwark.com>, Spark The Heretic wrote:
>> >Zepp wrote:
>[snip]
>> >Carvile said specifically that he's out to "get" Starr; does that sound
>> >like pointing out verifyable facts?
>>
>> So, were you whining like this when Bush's staff was impugning the
>> impartiality of the Iran-Contra special prosecutor? Did you complain
>> when Bush pardoned staff members to stymie further investigation into
>> Iran-Contra?
>
>Nope, I didn't whine a bit. I actually watched with amusement, truth be
>known. You see, if there was any actual evidence that would have
>implicated Bush or Reagan directly, there would have been an
>impeachment, and if there was actual evidence of such things being
>directed from The White House at the time, I would have cheered on the
>impreachment proceedings just as loudly. Gross misuse of Puplic trust is
>a matter that should be stamped out, no matter the party lines.
You say "No matter the party lines", but you are willing to excuse or
trivialize the misdeeds of Republican presidents while attacking the
Democratic presidents (see below). When Bush's people attacked Walsh
you were amused, but when Carvile attacks Starr you are incensed.
Why the double standard?
[snip]
>> Are you saying that an administration has no right to question the
>> extent to which a Special Prosecutor's politics impact the investigation?
>> Nixon had every right to question the fairness of both of the prosecutors
>> that investigated his activities.
>
>Nixon did, but he also knew where to draw the line. Where was the smear
>campaign against the prosecutor at that time? Commercials designed
>expressly to unnerve the prosecutor? Did Nixon's advisors promise a
>mudfest complete with investigations of the investigator to threaten the
>investigation? Carville had done just that on "Meet the Press".
"knew where to draw the line" - ARE YOU SERIOUS???? He *fired* one
Special Prosecutor for getting to close to the truth.
>If I recall correctly, Nixon even had J. Edgar Hoover around to make
>things hot for the DNC, yet that did not happen. I wonder what Carville
>would have done if he had someone like that in the FBI now? Oh, never
>mind; there's scores of FBI files in the White House already, dossiers
>on Prominent Republicans and such...
We don't yet know what Hoover's role was in the whole mess. We do know
that Nixon used his plumbers to harass the DNC (not to mention Daniel
Ellsberg).
>> If he could have made a convincing
>> argument that their bias had interfered with their work than they should
>> have been removed.
>
>Yet they were not. And what evidence is there that Starr's "bias" is
>interfering with his work?
Wrong! Again, Nixon fired one of the Special Prosecutors. As for evidence of
bias, I didn't say there was any, I said that they have the right to make
the case (you know, like both Nixon and Bush did).
[snip]
>> >The same could be said for Carville. The poor boy's been getting mighty
>> >shrill in public lately.
>>
>> The Newt (who wields considerably more power and influence than Carville) has
>> been slinging some pretty wild innuendo lately. Perhaps Starr should
>> get a gag order against the Speaker of the House?
>
>Feh, Newt's been quieter than a church mouse lately, and Newt _is_
>accountable to his district's voters.
Quieter - like hell! He has been on the news a number times lately asserting
his claims regarding Clinton.
>Now, how accountable is Carville, especially when the White House Staff
>thinks that they cannot stop Carville from his tactics in the first
>place?
How accountable is Rush Limbaugh? Should Newtty be trying to silence him?
Do you complain about Limbaugh's lack of accountability? Why the double
standard?
>> The Newt has been claiming that Clinton's "crimes" exceed those of Nixon.
>
>Nixon had two operatives steal a couple of files on certain Democrat
>funding activities out of a hotel room (maybe; there was never a trial).
Gee, when you put it that way it sounds *so* innocuous. Just - maybe - stole
a couple files. Unbelievable!
>Clinton hoarded, what, over 700 FBI files on his political enemies,
>flaunted charges of Sexual misconduct that makes Anita Hill's charges
>pale in comparison (Funny how NOW flocked to Hill's side...),
Interesting, you give Nixon the benefit of the doubt (despite all the new
revelations regarding his misdeeds in the papers lately) but you hold
Clinton guilty of every charge. Oh, I forgot, you back pedaled away from
these assertions later in the paragraph...
> ...and his
>earnings record looks almost as bad as Al Capone's. And NOW, The DNC has
>to literally admit to the world that they were bought, part and parcel,
>by some rich folks in Indonesia.
Note that you are referring to the same Indonesians who contributed to both
Bob Dole and Jessie Helm's earlier campaigns. Interesting how you choose
to focus on the contributions to Clinton and ignore the others....
> ...But all of that will either be proven
>or dis-proven in a court of law, and if Clinton's innocent, you've
>nothing to fear, do you?
I have nothing to fear. I wasn't involved in Nixon's attempts to fix
an election. I wasn't involved in Nixon's bombing of Cambodia. I wasn't
involved in Reagan and Bush's drugs for arms for hostages (or whatever
the hell it was) deal. And, lastly, I wasn't involved in anything related
to the penny-ante Whitewater deal.
As for the "proven in court of law" argument, if Clinton wants to avoid
prosecution he could try the methods used (with mixed results) by his
predecessors:
1) Use the Nixon approach - fire the special prosecutor, doctor as
much evidence as possible, and then have your successor pardon you
before guilt can be ascertained (the successor can claim he had to do
this "for the good of the country" and the party can claim that "nothing
was ever really proven").
2) Use the Bush approach - pardon anyone who might testify against you,
stonewall the evidence, and have your staff attack the Special Prosecutor
for failing to find the stonewall-ed evidence.
3) Use the Reagan approach - wrap your self in the flag and pretend
you have no memory of the events or players (even if they're part of
your own cabnet).
>> Who really believes this crap???
>
>If it isn't true, then a bi-partisan investigation (Starr was picked by,
>get this, _both_ sides of the aisle in Congress to investigate this
>whole "whitewater" thing) shouldn't worry you so, should it?
Here you have separated a sentence from the paragraph, given it a different
meaning, and then argued against it. Pretty slick (Not!) The "crap" I
was referring to were Newtty's ever-so shrill complaints.
>> The only president that has come
>> close to that record, so far, was been The Great Drug Dealer (Reagan).
>
>And your proof of Reagan doing such is.....what? If you remember
>correctly, he got the great big "Not Guilty" from the investigation
>committee.
Reagan? Reagan who? I don't seem to remember any President named Reagan...
:):):)
Let me see if I have your position straight:
1) Clinton and Carville are guilty of numerous, terrible crimes
against the Republic.
2) Reagan and Bush were the innocent victims of smear campaigns.
3) Nixon was a sensible guy who *may* have done a few things that
were kinda wrong.
4) You believe that misuse of public trust should be prosecuted
"no matter the party lines."
What's wrong with this picture?
Dan Haskell
Mary E Knadler
In <58skfk$g...@herald.concentric.net> da...@danpc.flatearth.com (Dan
agents, Walsh had been investagating this for 6 years. He never seemed
to get finished. And the Weinberger indictment was ridculous! He was
not hiding anything. He sent his diaries to the Achives & Walsh jumped
on them & side he had some kind of case. Everyone knew he was just
milking this thing. All the big cases had already been completed. I
used to think he would be there until his dying day. Now he says he's
going to write a book. Who does he think is going to buy the thing.
Most everyone long ago lost interest in the whole thing. He's just a
nutcase if you ask me. yasmin2
>
Dan Haskell
In article <58tevt$p...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, Mary E Knadler wrote:
>In <58skfk$g...@herald.concentric.net> da...@danpc.flatearth.com (Dan
>Haskell) writes:
>>You say "No matter the party lines", but you are willing to excuse or
>>trivialize the misdeeds of Republican presidents while attacking the
>>Democratic presidents (see below). When Bush's people attacked Walsh
>>you were amused, but when Carvile attacks Starr you are incensed.
>>Why the double standard?
>When Bush left office after he pardoned Weinberger & several CIA
>agents, Walsh had been investagating this for 6 years. He never seemed
>to get finished. And the Weinberger indictment was ridculous! He was
>not hiding anything. He sent his diaries to the Achives & Walsh jumped
>on them & side he had some kind of case. Everyone knew he was just
>milking this thing. All the big cases had already been completed. I
>used to think he would be there until his dying day. Now he says he's
>going to write a book. Who does he think is going to buy the thing.
>Most everyone long ago lost interest in the whole thing. He's just a
>nutcase if you ask me. yasmin2
OK... *you* think Walsh is a nut case, but you think it's wrong for anyone
to question Starr (or so I assume). Now answer the question I posted: Why
the double standard?
Dan Haskell
Roy Lemons
her from Starr. What can he do to her as long as she tells the truth?
She has already been tried, convicted, and sentanced?
Roy
--
NIGHT WEAR is reflective print for runners, bicylist,
and rollerbladers. NFL, NHL, MLB champion hats.
'http://www.rbtees.com'
Our lower prices isn't the only thing new on our
page!!!:)