McCurry Lied Again - WH Team DID hire PIs to Obstruct Justice.

[Michael Zarlenga]

: McCurry Lied Again - WH Team DID hire PIs to Obstruct Justice.

"White House lied."

That could be a permanent headline on every newspaper
in the nation.

--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key

Impeaching Bill Clinton for perjury in a civil case is like
prosecuting Al Capone for income tax evasion.

[Frances Del Rio]

In alt.politics.usa.republican Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
: : McCurry Lied Again - WH Team DID hire PIs to Obstruct Justice.

: "White House lied."

Starr’s losing it, now he’s subpoenaing WH staff just to find out what
they’ve been saying about HIM -- behind his back, to the press, horror of
horrors... who’s subpoenaing STARR for *his* illegal leaks to the press?
He’s the one who should be under investigation here. I’ll note in
passing, in case anyone has forgotten, that it’s not illegal at all for
the WH to talk to reporters. Starr is the one who’s been way out of line
here..

As for the private investigators, they have been looking at the *public*
records of some prosecutors in Starr’s office who’ve been fined for
questionable unethical behavior before.. The WH has a legitimate right to
look into that.. Anybody who wants can get public records regarding
public officials, I guess you hire investigators to expedite the process
of getting the records.

Frances Del Rio

[Eleanor Rotthoff]

Frances Del Rio <f...@shell2.ba.best.com> wrote:

>As for the private investigators, they have been looking at the *public*
>records of some prosecutors in Starr’s office who’ve been fined for
>questionable unethical behavior before..

Well, that's the current story. The previous story was that there
were no private investigators *at all* looking into the backgrounds of
prosectors, witnesses, etc.

>The WH has a legitimate right to look into that.. Anybody who wants
>can get public records regarding public officials, I guess you hire
>investigators to expedite the process of getting the records.

18 U.S.C. 1605 and 371 make it a federal crime (obstruction of
justice) to attempt to "influence, intimidate or impede" a grand jury
investigation -- including any attempt to influence or intimidate a
federal prosecutor conducting a grand jury investigation. Similarly,
it is a federal crime to attempt to dig up dirt on witnesses in order
to try to influence their testimony. Those who believe that "politics
is war" need to remember that we still have a criminal code and that
there are consequences for violating it.

Eleanor Rotthoff

[George Warner]

In article <6d1l8q$81j$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, Frances Del Rio

<f...@shell2.ba.best.com> attempted to change the subject and wrote:

> In alt.politics.usa.republican Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net>
wrote:
> : : McCurry Lied Again - WH Team DID hire PIs to Obstruct Justice.
>
> : "White House lied."
>
> : That could be a permanent headline on every newspaper
> : in the nation.
>
> : --
> : -- Mike Zarlenga
> : finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
>
> : Impeaching Bill Clinton for perjury in a civil case is like
> : prosecuting Al Capone for income tax evasion.
>
>
> Starr's losing it, now he's subpoenaing WH staff just to find out what
> they've been saying about HIM -- behind his back, to the press, horror of
> horrors...

Even though you have completely changed the subject in an attempt to
divert this thread, I will respond. Starr already knows *what* they've
been saying; this is not what the subpoena is for. The problem is
that it is inaccurate and Bill Clinton is using taxpayer funded
staff to disseminate it.

> who’s subpoenaing STARR for *his* illegal leaks to the press?
> He’s the one who should be under investigation here. I’ll note in
> passing,

What evidence do you have that Starr has leaked? Answer: none.
The White House is disseminating this information and they now admit
it but, of course, after they lied about it and denied it.

This seems to be an often repeated procedure at the White House:
first, lie about and later, when the facts come out, admit it?
How often have we seen this?

> in case anyone has forgotten, that it’s not illegal at all for
> the WH to talk to reporters.

Ironically, Bill Clinton will *not* talk to reporters. He merely
hires private investigators to impede investigations on himself
and then dishes out that information, true or not, through his
taspayer funded staff.

> Starr is the one who’s been way out of line here..
>

> As for the private investigators, they have been looking at the *public*
> records of some prosecutors in Starr’s office who’ve been fined for
> questionable unethical behavior before..

That is what the WH says today. What will they say tomorrow?
And, let's face it, you don't hire "private" investigators to
look at public records.

> The WH has a legitimate right to look into that..

Legitimate, my ass! These are public employees paid by
taxpayers to perform a duty which is not investigating prosecutors.
We didn't vote for prosecutor-investigator-in-chief, we voted
for a president!

What could possibly be a legitimate motive for investigating an
independent counsel's staff?

> Anybody who wants can get public records regarding
> public officials,

You are naive, Frances. They weren't merely gathering "public records."

> I guess you hire investigators to expedite the process
> of getting the records.

And then do we get a taxpayer-funded staff to give out that info?

> Frances Del Rio

George Warner
warn...@loveboat.com

[Marc H. Pinsonneault]

Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:

> Frances Del Rio <f...@shell2.ba.best.com> wrote:
>

> >As for the private investigators, they have been looking at the *public*

> >records of some prosecutors in Starr?s office who?ve been fined for
> >questionable unethical behavior before..
>

> Well, that's the current story. The previous story was that there
> were no private investigators *at all* looking into the backgrounds of
> prosectors, witnesses, etc.
>

> >The WH has a legitimate right to look into that.. Anybody who wants
> >can get public records regarding public officials, I guess you hire

> >investigators to expedite the process of getting the records.
>

> 18 U.S.C. 1605 and 371 make it a federal crime (obstruction of
> justice) to attempt to "influence, intimidate or impede" a grand jury
> investigation -- including any attempt to influence or intimidate a
> federal prosecutor conducting a grand jury investigation. Similarly,
> it is a federal crime to attempt to dig up dirt on witnesses in order
> to try to influence their testimony. Those who believe that "politics
> is war" need to remember that we still have a criminal code and that
> there are consequences for violating it.
>
> Eleanor Rotthoff

I can't believe that you're pushing this argument, which has beenridiculed
up and down in a number of articles today.
Privately threatening a prosecutor with blackmail if they don't drop an
investigation? Criminal. Finding old press clippings of previous
prosecutorial
misconduct? Please. I suggest you read the NY Times editorial on the
subject today,
and remember that they have been witheringly critical of Clinton on this
issue. You
could also try the letter column to the NY Times for a large number of
rebuttals about the
argument you posted regarding criminal prosecutions of civil cases. Or read
todays
Washington Post, or LA Times, for a large number of criticisms from
lawyers. You'll be
hard pressed to find anyone defending this, at least outside of Usenet.

Honestly now - Starr blew it in a huge way with this supoena of Blumenthal.
He should
drop it, admit he was wrong, and move on. I try and avoid defending
Democrats at all costs;
you're smart and capable and should resist the same temptation for the GOP.

Marc Pinsonneault

--
Change x to . to get true email address.

[Marc H. Pinsonneault]

George Warner wrote:

> In article <6d1l8q$81j$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, Frances Del Rio
> <f...@shell2.ba.best.com> wrote:
>
> > Starr is the one who?s been way out of line here..

> >
> > As for the private investigators, they have been looking at the *public*
> > records of some prosecutors in Starr?s office who?ve been fined for
> > questionable unethical behavior before..
>

> That is what the WH says today. What will they say tomorrow?
> And, let's face it, you don't hire "private" investigators to
> look at public records.
>

Of course you do; in fact that is most of what P.I.s *do*. They can find
outmost of what they need to for most investigations with public records
alone.

> > The WH has a legitimate right to look into that..
>

> Legitimate, my ass! These are public employees paid by
> taxpayers to perform a duty which is not investigating prosecutors.
>

And your proof that they did this is??????And if the WH found out about
*published* newpaper articles about abuses from
prosecutors on Starrs staff, the crime is????

> We didn't vote for prosecutor-investigator-in-chief, we voted
> for a president!
>

Absolutely. A good reason to abolish the OIC.

> What could possibly be a legitimate motive for investigating an
> independent counsel's staff?
>

> > Anybody who wants can get public records regarding
> > public officials,
>

> You are naive, Frances. They weren't merely gathering "public records."
>

Yup, they're right there on the grassy knoll.

> > I guess you hire investigators to expedite the process
> > of getting the records.
>

> And then do we get a taxpayer-funded staff to give out that info?
>
> > Frances Del Rio
>
> George Warner
> warn...@loveboat.com

Marc Pinsonneault

[George Warner]

In article <34F47C44...@tinsley.mpsxohio-statexedu>, "Marc H.
Pinsonneault" <pin...@tinsley.mpsxohio-statexedu> wrote:

> George Warner wrote:
>
> > In article <6d1l8q$81j$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, Frances Del Rio
> > <f...@shell2.ba.best.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Starr is the one who?s been way out of line here..
> > >
> > > As for the private investigators, they have been looking at the *public*
> > > records of some prosecutors in Starr?s office who?ve been fined for
> > > questionable unethical behavior before..
> >
> > That is what the WH says today. What will they say tomorrow?
> > And, let's face it, you don't hire "private" investigators to
> > look at public records.
> >
>
> Of course you do; in fact that is most of what P.I.s *do*. They can find
> outmost of what they need to for most investigations with public records
> alone.

I guess that is where that story about members on Starr's team
having sex came from. Where was that in the public record?

The Investigative Group Inc., headed by Terry Lenzner, is reknown
for coming up with more information than is found in the public record.

> > > The WH has a legitimate right to look into that..
> >
> > Legitimate, my ass! These are public employees paid by
> > taxpayers to perform a duty which is not investigating prosecutors.
> >
>
> And your proof that they did this is??????

They admitted it. Is that good enough for you?

> And if the WH found out about
> *published* newpaper articles about abuses from
> prosecutors on Starrs staff, the crime is????

Wake up. This is not about *published* newpaper articles.

> > We didn't vote for prosecutor-investigator-in-chief, we voted
> > for a president!
>
> Absolutely. A good reason to abolish the OIC.

When the Ethics in Government Act, the law that establishes the OIC,
lapsed briefly at the end of the Bush administration, Democrats
hankered for its reinstatement. Among the most prominent advocates
was then- candidate Bill Clinton.

Will you still want to abolish it after Bill Clinton goes to
jail and the White House and both houses of Congress are controlled
by Republicans?

> > What could possibly be a legitimate motive for investigating an
> > independent counsel's staff?
> >
> > > Anybody who wants can get public records regarding
> > > public officials,
> >
> > You are naive, Frances. They weren't merely gathering "public records."
> >
>
> Yup, they're right there on the grassy knoll.
>
> > > I guess you hire investigators to expedite the process
> > > of getting the records.
> >
> > And then do we get a taxpayer-funded staff to give out that info?
> >
> > > Frances Del Rio
> >
> > George Warner
> > warn...@loveboat.com
>
> Marc Pinsonneault

George Warner
warn...@loveboat.com

[Joseph R. Darancette]

Frances Del Rio <f...@shell2.ba.best.com> wrote:

>In alt.politics.usa.republican Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>: : McCurry Lied Again - WH Team DID hire PIs to Obstruct Justice.

>: "White House lied."

>: That could be a permanent headline on every newspaper
>: in the nation.

>: --
>: -- Mike Zarlenga
>: finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key

>: Impeaching Bill Clinton for perjury in a civil case is like
>: prosecuting Al Capone for income tax evasion.

>Starr’s losing it, now he’s subpoenaing WH staff just to find out what
>they’ve been saying about HIM -- behind his back, to the press, horror of

>horrors... who’s subpoenaing STARR for *his* illegal leaks to the press?

>He’s the one who should be under investigation here. I’ll note in

>passing, in case anyone has forgotten, that it’s not illegal at all for
>the WH to talk to reporters. Starr is the one who’s been way out of line
>here..

Starr is being investigated. Remember that motion for sanctions made
by Kindell (Clintions Atty) for Grand Jury leaks by Starr? Well Starr
has a right to discover and respond. He is trying to discover where
the leaks are comming from and Bluminthal seems like a reasionable
place to start.

***************************************************************
Joseph R. Darancette
<mhd...@primenet.com>

"Among other evils which being unarmed brings you, It
causes you to be despised."

--Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince
*************************************************************

[Marc H. Pinsonneault]

George Warner wrote:

> In article <34F47C44...@tinsley.mpsxohio-statexedu>, "Marc H.
> Pinsonneault" <pin...@tinsley.mpsxohio-statexedu> wrote:
>
> > George Warner wrote:
> >

> > > In article <6d1l8q$81j$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, Frances Del Rio

> > > <f...@shell2.ba.best.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Starr is the one who?s been way out of line here..
> > > >
> > > > As for the private investigators, they have been looking at the *public*
> > > > records of some prosecutors in Starr?s office who?ve been fined for
> > > > questionable unethical behavior before..
> > >
> > > That is what the WH says today. What will they say tomorrow?
> > > And, let's face it, you don't hire "private" investigators to
> > > look at public records.
> > >
> >
> > Of course you do; in fact that is most of what P.I.s *do*. They can find
> > outmost of what they need to for most investigations with public records
> > alone.
>
> I guess that is where that story about members on Starr's team
> having sex came from. Where was that in the public record?
>
> The Investigative Group Inc., headed by Terry Lenzner, is reknown
> for coming up with more information than is found in the public record.
>

Not according to the LA Times profile, but what do they know?There is a
fascinating train of logic here. You *know* that this information came from
Clinton and from that particular investigator. Just as you know that the
President is
guilty, guilty, guilty. The WH has said that published articles about legal
judgements
about the official conduct of prosecutors are fair game, and they are. Thye have
said they
did not hire people to look at the personal lives of the prosecutors, unlike the
Clinton foes
and the President (hint: Arkansas project). Now you can project your opinions
all you want:
can you provide us with any basis for believing that they are any more real than
the stained dress
or the Secret Service witnesses?

> > > > The WH has a legitimate right to look into that..
> > >
> > > Legitimate, my ass! These are public employees paid by
> > > taxpayers to perform a duty which is not investigating prosecutors.
> > >
> >
> > And your proof that they did this is??????
>
> They admitted it. Is that good enough for you?
>

Of course they did not; they said they did not. Strange world where
accusation=truth.

> > And if the WH found out about
> > *published* newpaper articles about abuses from
> > prosecutors on Starrs staff, the crime is????
>
> Wake up. This is not about *published* newpaper articles.
>

Sure looks that way.

> > > We didn't vote for prosecutor-investigator-in-chief, we voted
> > > for a president!
> >
> > Absolutely. A good reason to abolish the OIC.
>
> When the Ethics in Government Act, the law that establishes the OIC,
> lapsed briefly at the end of the Bush administration, Democrats
> hankered for its reinstatement. Among the most prominent advocates
> was then- candidate Bill Clinton.
>
> Will you still want to abolish it after Bill Clinton goes to
> jail and the White House and both houses of Congress are controlled
> by Republicans?
>

I've hated this "nail people at any cost" mentality since the Reagan
administration,and I thought Thomas got a bum rap. How did you feel about
Iran-Contra?

> > > What could possibly be a legitimate motive for investigating an
> > > independent counsel's staff?
> > >
> > > > Anybody who wants can get public records regarding
> > > > public officials,
> > >
> > > You are naive, Frances. They weren't merely gathering "public records."
> > >
> >
> > Yup, they're right there on the grassy knoll.
> >
> > > > I guess you hire investigators to expedite the process
> > > > of getting the records.
> > >
> > > And then do we get a taxpayer-funded staff to give out that info?
> > >
> > > > Frances Del Rio
> > >
> > > George Warner
> > > warn...@loveboat.com
> >
> > Marc Pinsonneault
>
> George Warner
> warn...@loveboat.com

Marc Pinsonneault

[Jim Ward]

Michael Zarlenga wrote in message <6d1iab$qmt$3...@paperboy.ids.net>...

>: McCurry Lied Again - WH Team DID hire PIs to Obstruct Justice.
>
>"White House lied."
>
>That could be a permanent headline on every newspaper
>in the nation.
>

So, please tell us which Presidents and/or their staffs have not lied.
Please start with George Washington.

You're not exactly giving us a News Flash, you know.

[Jim Ward]

Eleanor Rotthoff wrote in message <35065b70...@news.texas.net>...

>Frances Del Rio <f...@shell2.ba.best.com> wrote:
>
>>As for the private investigators, they have been looking at the *public*

>>records of some prosecutors in Starr’s office who’ve been fined for
>>questionable unethical behavior before..
>

>Well, that's the current story. The previous story was that there
>were no private investigators *at all* looking into the backgrounds of
>prosectors, witnesses, etc.

And who's story was it?

A. The press, who seems to be printing/broadcasting anything that sounds
good?
B. McCurry, who is NOT being briefed by the White House lawyers to keep him
out of legal trouble?

>
>>The WH has a legitimate right to look into that.. Anybody who wants
>>can get public records regarding public officials, I guess you hire

>>investigators to expedite the process of getting the records.
>

>18 U.S.C. 1605 and 371 make it a federal crime (obstruction of
>justice) to attempt to "influence, intimidate or impede" a grand jury
>investigation -- including any attempt to influence or intimidate a
>federal prosecutor conducting a grand jury investigation.

How is obtaining publicly available information an attempt to "'influence,
intimidate or impede' a grand jury investigation"? If I use the Internet to
learn more about the background of a prosecuter on the Independent Counsel's
staff, then am I prosecutable under this law as you are apparently
interpreting it? Of course not!! Because I am using this information for
informational purposes, not to intimidate anyone. Perhaps the two
prosecutors with egg on their face should have owned up to their past
mistakes prior to taking the position with Starr.

>Similarly, it is a federal crime to attempt to dig up dirt on witnesses in
order
>to try to influence their testimony. Those who believe that "politics
>is war" need to remember that we still have a criminal code and that
>there are consequences for violating it.
>
>Eleanor Rotthoff

So what do you think Starr is doing with his tactics of bringing Lewinsky's
mother in front of the Grand Jury?

What do you think Starr did when he put Susan McDougall in jail?

And yes, we do have a criminal code but unfortunately Starr is not
accountable to anyone.

[Jim Ward]

George Warner wrote in message ...

>In article <6d1l8q$81j$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, Frances Del Rio

><f...@shell2.ba.best.com> attempted to change the subject and wrote:
>
>> In alt.politics.usa.republican Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net>
>wrote:

>> : : McCurry Lied Again - WH Team DID hire PIs to Obstruct Justice.

>>
>> : "White House lied."
>>
>> : That could be a permanent headline on every newspaper
>> : in the nation.
>>

>> : --
>> : -- Mike Zarlenga

>> : finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
>>
>> : Impeaching Bill Clinton for perjury in a civil case is like
>> : prosecuting Al Capone for income tax evasion.
>>
>>

>> Starr's losing it, now he's subpoenaing WH staff just to find out what
>> they've been saying about HIM -- behind his back, to the press, horror of
>> horrors...
>

>Even though you have completely changed the subject in an attempt to
>divert this thread, I will respond. Starr already knows *what* they've
>been saying; this is not what the subpoena is for. The problem is
>that it is inaccurate and Bill Clinton is using taxpayer funded
>staff to disseminate it.

The information is inaccurate? How so? Because Starr says so? Because
*you* believe that to be true?

>> who’s subpoenaing STARR for *his* illegal leaks to the press?
>> He’s the one who should be under investigation here. I’ll note in
>> passing,
>

>What evidence do you have that Starr has leaked? Answer: none.
>The White House is disseminating this information and they now admit
>it but, of course, after they lied about it and denied it.

What evidence do you have that Starr and/or his staff did not leak? And
exactly what information is the WH "admitting" that they leaked? Was it the
information in the public domain concerning the two prosecutors who have run
afoul of the law themselves?

>This seems to be an often repeated procedure at the White House:
>first, lie about and later, when the facts come out, admit it?
>How often have we seen this?

Hmmmmm. You're seeing a pattern most Americans don't see. Have you sought
help?

>> in case anyone has forgotten, that it’s not illegal at all for
>> the WH to talk to reporters.
>

>Ironically, Bill Clinton will *not* talk to reporters. He merely
>hires private investigators to impede investigations on himself
>and then dishes out that information, true or not, through his
>taspayer funded staff.

I'll try to make this real simple for you, although it looks as if my task
will indeed be difficult. If you were the subject of a legal probe and/or
investigation, what would your lawyer tell you first? I'll give you a
hint...it involves not discussing the case.

As far as the private investigators are concerned, how exactly have they
"impeded" any investigations? By going to the public library, or using a
legal information database, or using the Internet to search for publicly
available information??

By the way, how do you think Starr's investigation is being funded? Through
private donations, perhaps? It's coming out of your pocket as well as mine,
and after $35 million and three years, enough is enough.

Last I read, the Clintons were paying for their own lawyers. Is there
something you don't understand about this concept?

>> Starr is the one who’s been way out of line here..

>>
>> As for the private investigators, they have been looking at the *public*
>> records of some prosecutors in Starr’s office who’ve been fined for
>> questionable unethical behavior before..

>That is what the WH says today. What will they say tomorrow?
>And, let's face it, you don't hire "private" investigators to
>look at public records.
>

>> The WH has a legitimate right to look into that..
>

>Legitimate, my ass! These are public employees paid by
>taxpayers to perform a duty which is not investigating prosecutors.

>We didn't vote for prosecutor-investigator-in-chief, we voted
>for a president!
>

>What could possibly be a legitimate motive for investigating an
>independent counsel's staff?

So please tell us all, if the taxpayers were paying for this private
investigator, how come the Clintons are nearly $3 million in debt to the
lawyers they are paying to defend themselves? And exactly who do you think
is paying for the private investigator?

>> Anybody who wants can get public records regarding
>> public officials,
>

>You are naive, Frances. They weren't merely gathering "public records."
>

>> I guess you hire investigators to expedite the process
>> of getting the records.
>

[James.P...@solutia.com]

In article <6d1iab$qmt$3...@paperboy.ids.net>,

zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
>
> : McCurry Lied Again - WH Team DID hire PIs to Obstruct Justice.
>
> "White House lied."
>
> That could be a permanent headline on every newspaper
> in the nation.
>

For the last thirty years. Certainly the last 18.

> --
> -- Mike Zarlenga
> finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
>
> Impeaching Bill Clinton for perjury in a civil case is like
> prosecuting Al Capone for income tax evasion.
>

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

[John Alway]

Jim Ward wrote:

> Michael Zarlenga wrote in message <6d1iab$qmt$3...@paperboy.ids.net>...

> >: McCurry Lied Again - WH Team DID hire PIs to Obstruct Justice.
> >
> >"White House lied."
> >
> >That could be a permanent headline on every newspaper
> >in the nation.
> >
>

> So, please tell us which Presidents and/or their staffs have not lied.
> Please start with George Washington.
>
> You're not exactly giving us a News Flash, you know.

Please think.

Though some presidents and people may have lied from time to time,
there is a difference in kind between Clinton and most men. Most men,
when they transgress, attempt to rectify the situation. They try to be
true to their values and principles. The better that man, the more
rational his code of morality, and the more effort he puts into being
good, i.e. morally upright. Clinton doesn't have that. Rather, Clinton
doesn't care about moral uprightness, or lying. He is simply bereft of
any compunction concerning moral uprightness. This is why he can stand
up seemingly proud after lying time and time again. He simply does not
care. A moral man would be slightly shaken, or worse, if he had been
caught in a lie. The problem with men who are not morally upright is
that they are dangerous. The worst dictators have such a character, and
I'm certain that Clinton would have fit in well in Nazi Germany given his
character, or lack thereof.

...John

[Jim Ward]

John Alway wrote in message <34F4E622...@icsi.net>...

You could substitute the names of Bush, Ford, Reagan, Nixon, LBJ, JFK,
Truman, Eisenhower, and FDR for Clinton in the above moral tirade. No
President is going to be elected to that position as a goody two shoes. If
you don't understand that, then you are really naive. I would also state
with absolutely no problem that Clinton is no better and no worse than those
others that I have listed.

Some Americans want to forget that they are all too human, and are sadly
disappointed when some of their own go astray. These same Americans expect
the President to be someone superhuman with no bad traits whatsoever.

Most Americans understand that people ARE human, and will make mistakes in
judgement from time to time.

>
>

[Jim Ward]

Eleanor Rotthoff wrote in message <34f9cce4...@news.texas.net>...

>"Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>Eleanor Rotthoff wrote in message <35065b70...@news.texas.net>...
>>>Frances Del Rio <f...@shell2.ba.best.com> wrote:
>

>>>>As for the private investigators, they have been looking at the *public*
>>>>records of some prosecutors in Starr’s office who’ve been fined for
>>>>questionable unethical behavior before..
>

>>>Well, that's the current story. The previous story was that there
>>>were no private investigators *at all* looking into the backgrounds of
>>>prosectors, witnesses, etc.
>
>>And who's story was it?
>

>The statement was made by WH press secretary Mike McCurry and it was
>an absolutely unqualified denial that anything of this kind had
>happened.
>

So you really think that McCurry is one of the insiders? You really think
that McCurry is being let in on all of the correct information? Come
on...the guy is winging it, and he has stated that he doesn't want to know
what is going on because he does not want to be dragged before the Grand
Jury.

>>A. The press, who seems to be printing/broadcasting anything that sounds
>>good?
>>B. McCurry, who is NOT being briefed by the White House lawyers to keep
him
>>out of legal trouble?
>

>McCurry was questioned by reporters about the basis for his denial at
>the time he made it. He said it was based on what the lawyers had
>told him and, "God help them if it's not true." I would imagine that
>McCurry is now furious that his credibility was trashed in service of
>the lawyers' attempts to hide what they were doing.

McCurry, as I've stated before is not in the know, nor is anyone in the
Inner Circle going to cut him in. Despite all of his earlier comments about
not wanting to know the real scoop, he is actually upset because he DOESN'T
know. So he's lashing out in hopes that someone in the Inner Circle will
tell him something, anything, to allow him to deal with the White House
Press.

>>>>The WH has a legitimate right to look into that.. Anybody who wants
>>>>can get public records regarding public officials, I guess you hire

>>>>investigators to expedite the process of getting the records.
>

>>>18 U.S.C. 1605 and 371 make it a federal crime (obstruction of
>>>justice) to attempt to "influence, intimidate or impede" a grand jury
>>>investigation -- including any attempt to influence or intimidate a
>>>federal prosecutor conducting a grand jury investigation.
>
>>How is obtaining publicly available information an attempt to "'influence,
>>intimidate or impede' a grand jury investigation"?
>

>Judge Starr said today that his office has been flooded by "dozens" of
>telephone calls from reporters seeking to confirm rumors and
>innuendoes about the *private* lives of various members of his staff.
>So much for "publicly available information."

That information is not publicly available?

You apparently think it's great when the President of the United States is
publicly slammed on a daily basis with alleged sexual misconduct, but you
are appalled when the tables are turned!!??

>>If I use the Internet to learn more about the background of a prosecuter
>>on the Independent Counsel's staff, then am I prosecutable under this
>>law as you are apparently interpreting it? Of course not!! Because I
>>am using this information for informational purposes, not to intimidate
>>anyone.
>

>You're quite right. Virtually every criminal offense has two
>elements: 1) the physical act and 2) the mental element -- what the
>law calls the "mens rea." In order to prove a crime, any prosecutor
>has to prove both elements. The fact that information has been
>gathered is only one half of the equation. The mens rea (in this case
>intent to intimidate and impede) would also have to be proven. But
>just as a matter of curiosity, what do you think would be the intent
>of Clinton's defense team in gathering a bunch of dirt on the private
>lives of a whole staff of federal prosecutors in this situation? Do
>you suppose that Clinton's lawyers were simply curious? Are they just
>a bunch of voyeurs?

When Starr made the comment about how professional and experienced his
organization is, he opened Pandora's Box all by himself. The same thing
happened when Gary Hart told the press they couldn't catch him with another
woman.

You simply do not challenge the press in this country...it makes them very
inquisitive. And you don't piss them off, as Starr has done with the
subpoena of Blumenthal...that was REAL dumb.

Now, I want to ask you how the PUBLIC information obtained by the
President's lawyers' private investigators concerning two of Starr's prize
prosecutors has been suddenly transformed in your writings into "Clinton's
defense team...gathering a bunch of dirt on the private
lives of a whole staff of federal prosecutors". You don't think the press
has started to smell Starr's blood in the water, and are starting to do
their own research?

>>Perhaps the two prosecutors with egg on their face should have
>>owned up to their past mistakes prior to taking the position with Starr.
>

>They don't have egg on their faces at all. Even the one prosecutor
>who was fined 13 years ago had his fine paid by the state for which he
>was working and has been described by his former boss there as "one of
>the finest prosecutors who ever worked for me."
>

Are you discussing the prosecutor who was fined $50,000? Evidently they
must have had some form of errors and omissions insurance which actually
ended up paying the fine. I really don't believe that taxpayers in ANY
state would allow that to happen.

And as far as his former boss making such glowing comments, I'm not
surprised. He. or she, probably had no idea what this guy did on a
day-to-day basis to obtain his conviction rate.

>>>Similarly, it is a federal crime to attempt to dig up dirt on witnesses
in
>>>order to try to influence their testimony. Those who believe that
>>>"politics is war" need to remember that we still have a criminal code
>>>and that there are consequences for violating it.
>

>>So what do you think Starr is doing with his tactics of bringing
Lewinsky's
>>mother in front of the Grand Jury?
>

>Questioning a co-conspirator about her involvement in perjury,
>subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice. Tell you what.
>You can give me a bunch of soap opera tears about Marcia Lewis if you
>can produce your post denouncing the prosecution for forcing Timothy
>McVeigh's sister to provide testimony which was used to convict her
>brother and sentence him to death. Or your condemnation of Reagan
>official Timothy Reed's 82-year-old father being forced to testify
>against Reed. If you didn't care about those cases when they
>occurred, then you're just quoting WH spin now.

I didn't like that, either. At least I'm consistent in my personal view of
what an Independent Counsel should be allowed to do, or not allowed to do.

And no, I was not involved in posting to this newsgroup back then to prove
my personal standpoint.

>
>>What do you think Starr did when he put Susan McDougall in jail?
>

>For approximately the 87th time in usenet, Kenneth Starr did NOT put
>Susan McDougal in jail. He has no power to do so. Judge Susan Wright
>of the federal district court in Little Rock put McDougal in jail for
>contempt of court, and Judge Wright keeps her there. Judges take a
>very, very dim view of contempt of court.

Starr had nothing to do with McDougal ending up in jail?

Come on, get real!! The judge is acting on Starr's recommendations, as you
well know.

>>And yes, we do have a criminal code but unfortunately Starr is not
>>accountable to anyone.
>

>You are mistaken. Ken Starr and the OIC are accountable to 1) the
>federal district judge supervising the grand jury investigation (a
>Clinton appointee), 2) the Attorney General who can fire the
>independent counsel for good cause, and 3) the three judge federal
>panel which appointed him.

I) the Federal judge is a personal friend of Starr, and his right-wing
buddies;
2) Reno is boxed-in...she caught so much flak because she refused to appoint
a prosecutor in the campaign funds case, that she is not about to stick her
neck out again;
3) yes, we all know about the three judge panel, particularly the one who is
a buddy with Jessie Helms.

>BTW if these subpoenas are as out of line as you seem to consider
>them, why do you suppose the federal judge supervising the grand jury
>keeps upholding them? In virtually every controversial case, the
>witness goes to court to try to quash the subpoena, and the judge
>keeps sending them back to testify. Why do you suppose that is?
>
>Eleanor Rotthoff

I've already answered this one...see above.

[Jim Ward]

[Jim Ward]

M Soja wrote in message <34ffcc62...@news.newsguy.com>...
>On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 16:21:31 -0600, "Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com>
>posted:

>
>>How is obtaining publicly available information an attempt to "'influence,

>>intimidate or impede' a grand jury investigation"? If I use the Internet

to
>>learn more about the background of a prosecuter on the Independent
Counsel's
>>staff, then am I prosecutable under this law as you are apparently
>>interpreting it? Of course not!! Because I am using this information for
>>informational purposes, not to intimidate anyone.
>

>Do you need private investigators to accumulate "publicly available
>information"?

Not personally, no.

But lawyers who have a case load other than tending to the needs of the
President will use private investigators for a variety of purposes.

Is the practice illegal? Absolutely not.

Is it using the same tactics as Starr's Inquisition is using? You bet.

You do know that's how our legal system really works behind the scenes,
don't you?

>>Perhaps the two

>>prosecutors with egg on their face should have owned up to their past
>>mistakes prior to taking the position with Starr.
>

>How do you know they didn't?

If Starr knew about these two guys before he brought them on board, that's
even worse. The Independent Cousel is supposed to above reproach in how
they conduct their business.

>>So what do you think Starr is doing with his tactics of bringing
Lewinsky's
>>mother in front of the Grand Jury?
>

>Gathering evidence that pertains to allegations that have been made
>concerning the president of the US. Starr isn't the one that's being
>accused of anything, other than in the popular press. If Starr is
>being derelict in his duty, formal charges should be filed and he
>should be removed from the case.

Gathering evidence!!?? What if you were brought before a Grand Jury and
your Mother was forced to come in and testify? Is this a good example of
how American justice works? Is this what we want the rest of the world to
see?

If so, then we should think twice about questioning the legal practices of
other countries.

>>What do you think Starr did when he put Susan McDougall in jail?
>

>Starr didn't "put Susan McDougall in jail". The judge overseeing the
>Whitewater case did, for refusing to answer a simple yes or no
>question. Starr has since made her some very fair offers as to how
>her testimony could be handled, and as of last night, she was still
>playing the martyr, for the love of her I cannot fathom it. She must
>have her very own Cayman Island bank account.

>
>>And yes, we do have a criminal code but unfortunately Starr is not
>>accountable to anyone.
>

>He's accountable to many. The three judge panel. Janet Reno. The
>president of the US. You yourself can write to any of them and
>complain. But Starr is also answerable to the fine tradition of the
>existing body of laws that the rest of us are, including Bill Clinton.
>If Starr breaks the law, a million liberals will swoop. You idiots.
>

As you well know, the three judge and right-wing conservative panel will do
nothing. Reno is boxed-in because she took so much political heat for not
appointing a special prosecutor in the campaign funds case. And the
President is not going to get rid of him because it would be very
inappropriate.

And, when you right-wingers get boxed into a corner, you get personally
abusive.

[pyotr filipivich]

zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) writes:
>: McCurry Lied Again - WH Team DID hire PIs to Obstruct Justice.
>"White House lied."
>That could be a permanent headline on every newspaper
>in the nation.

The worse thing resulting from all this is the perpetuating of
the unfortunate stereotype, that all lawyers are sleeze.

> Impeaching Bill Clinton for perjury in a civil case is like
> prosecuting Al Capone for income tax evasion.

Here richly with ridiculous display
The politician's corpse was laid away
While all of his acquantances sneered and slanged
I wept, for I had hoped to see him hanged.
Hilaire Belloce.

tschus
pyotrt

--
pyotr filipivich aka Nikolai Petrovich.
A herring is a herring, but a good cigar is a cuban.
A stroke of the brush does not guarentee art from the bristles.

[fri...@ix.netcom.com]

Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:
>

....

> Similarly,
> it is a federal crime to attempt to dig up dirt on witnesses in order
> to try to influence their testimony. Those who believe that "politics
> is war" need to remember that we still have a criminal code and that
> there are consequences for violating it.
>

I note:

Why, Eleanor! You seem to be insinuating a motive here, and it's why I
love your posts - so much subtlety. The only people who seem to be
trying to turn politics into war are people like yourself. Who would
allow another to be attacked by a criminal yelling 'stop attacking me!'
at the top of his lungs? Some parents beat and kick their children
while screaming 'You asked for this!'. I've heard this from Republicans
too.

MAF

[Eleanor Rotthoff]

"Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>Eleanor Rotthoff wrote in message <35065b70...@news.texas.net>...
>>Frances Del Rio <f...@shell2.ba.best.com> wrote:

>>>As for the private investigators, they have been looking at the *public*
>>>records of some prosecutors in Starr’s office who’ve been fined for
>>>questionable unethical behavior before..

>>Well, that's the current story. The previous story was that there
>>were no private investigators *at all* looking into the backgrounds of
>>prosectors, witnesses, etc.

>And who's story was it?

The statement was made by WH press secretary Mike McCurry and it was
an absolutely unqualified denial that anything of this kind had
happened.

>A. The press, who seems to be printing/broadcasting anything that sounds

>good?
>B. McCurry, who is NOT being briefed by the White House lawyers to keep him
>out of legal trouble?

McCurry was questioned by reporters about the basis for his denial at
the time he made it. He said it was based on what the lawyers had
told him and, "God help them if it's not true." I would imagine that
McCurry is now furious that his credibility was trashed in service of
the lawyers' attempts to hide what they were doing.

>>>The WH has a legitimate right to look into that.. Anybody who wants

>>>can get public records regarding public officials, I guess you hire
>>>investigators to expedite the process of getting the records.

>>18 U.S.C. 1605 and 371 make it a federal crime (obstruction of
>>justice) to attempt to "influence, intimidate or impede" a grand jury
>>investigation -- including any attempt to influence or intimidate a
>>federal prosecutor conducting a grand jury investigation.

>How is obtaining publicly available information an attempt to "'influence,

>intimidate or impede' a grand jury investigation"?

Judge Starr said today that his office has been flooded by "dozens" of

telephone calls from reporters seeking to confirm rumors and
innuendoes about the *private* lives of various members of his staff.
So much for "publicly available information."

>If I use the Internet to learn more about the background of a prosecuter

>on the Independent Counsel's staff, then am I prosecutable under this
>law as you are apparently interpreting it? Of course not!! Because I
>am using this information for informational purposes, not to intimidate
>anyone.

You're quite right. Virtually every criminal offense has two

elements: 1) the physical act and 2) the mental element -- what the
law calls the "mens rea." In order to prove a crime, any prosecutor
has to prove both elements. The fact that information has been
gathered is only one half of the equation. The mens rea (in this case
intent to intimidate and impede) would also have to be proven. But
just as a matter of curiosity, what do you think would be the intent
of Clinton's defense team in gathering a bunch of dirt on the private
lives of a whole staff of federal prosecutors in this situation? Do
you suppose that Clinton's lawyers were simply curious? Are they just
a bunch of voyeurs?

>Perhaps the two prosecutors with egg on their face should have

>owned up to their past mistakes prior to taking the position with Starr.

They don't have egg on their faces at all. Even the one prosecutor

who was fined 13 years ago had his fine paid by the state for which he
was working and has been described by his former boss there as "one of
the finest prosecutors who ever worked for me."

>>Similarly, it is a federal crime to attempt to dig up dirt on witnesses in

>>order to try to influence their testimony. Those who believe that
>>"politics is war" need to remember that we still have a criminal code
>>and that there are consequences for violating it.

>So what do you think Starr is doing with his tactics of bringing Lewinsky's

>mother in front of the Grand Jury?

Questioning a co-conspirator about her involvement in perjury,

subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice. Tell you what.
You can give me a bunch of soap opera tears about Marcia Lewis if you
can produce your post denouncing the prosecution for forcing Timothy
McVeigh's sister to provide testimony which was used to convict her
brother and sentence him to death. Or your condemnation of Reagan
official Timothy Reed's 82-year-old father being forced to testify
against Reed. If you didn't care about those cases when they
occurred, then you're just quoting WH spin now.

>What do you think Starr did when he put Susan McDougall in jail?

For approximately the 87th time in usenet, Kenneth Starr did NOT put

Susan McDougal in jail. He has no power to do so. Judge Susan Wright
of the federal district court in Little Rock put McDougal in jail for
contempt of court, and Judge Wright keeps her there. Judges take a
very, very dim view of contempt of court.

>And yes, we do have a criminal code but unfortunately Starr is not
>accountable to anyone.

You are mistaken. Ken Starr and the OIC are accountable to 1) the

federal district judge supervising the grand jury investigation (a
Clinton appointee), 2) the Attorney General who can fire the
independent counsel for good cause, and 3) the three judge federal
panel which appointed him.

BTW if these subpoenas are as out of line as you seem to consider

[Eleanor Rotthoff]

"Marc H. Pinsonneault" <pin...@tinsley.mpsxohio-statexedu> wrote:

>Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:
>> Frances Del Rio <f...@shell2.ba.best.com> wrote:

>> >As for the private investigators, they have been looking at the *public*

>> >records of some prosecutors in Starr?s office who?ve been fined for
>> >questionable unethical behavior before..

>> Well, that's the current story. The previous story was that there
>> were no private investigators *at all* looking into the backgrounds of
>> prosectors, witnesses, etc.

>> >The WH has a legitimate right to look into that.. Anybody who wants

>> >can get public records regarding public officials, I guess you hire
>> >investigators to expedite the process of getting the records.

>> 18 U.S.C. 1605 and 371 make it a federal crime (obstruction of
>> justice) to attempt to "influence, intimidate or impede" a grand jury
>> investigation -- including any attempt to influence or intimidate a

>> federal prosecutor conducting a grand jury investigation. Similarly,

>> it is a federal crime to attempt to dig up dirt on witnesses in order
>> to try to influence their testimony. Those who believe that "politics
>> is war" need to remember that we still have a criminal code and that
>> there are consequences for violating it.

>I can't believe that you're pushing this argument, which has been ridiculed

>up and down in a number of articles today.

I've seen a lot of instant analysis which doesn't even begin to hold
water. There were a number of "experts" on TV, for instance, who
insisted solemnly that civil perjury is never prosecuted. One of
those experts, NYU law professor Stephen Gellers, recently wrote an op
ed piece in the NY Times explaining that he had been very, very wrong
when he made such a statement.

>Privately threatening a prosecutor with blackmail if they don't drop an
>investigation? Criminal.

Blackmail (and attempted blackmail) are entirely separate crimes under
the federal criminal statutes. 18 USC 1503 is intended to cover
entirely different conduct.

>Finding old press clippings of previous prosecutorial misconduct?
>Please.

Old press clippings are not the issue. Judge Starr said today that
his office has been flooded with "dozens" of calls from reporters

seeking to confirm rumors and innuendoes about the *private* lives of

various of his staff members. What do you suppose the intent of
gathering such information would be? Do you suppose that the Clinton
defense team is merely curious about the private lives of OIC lawyers?

>I suggest you read the NY Times editorial on the subject today,

I did. It had nothing whatever to do with the legal issues involved.
It was the Times' usual attack on Ken Starr and the OIC.

>and remember that they have been witheringly critical of Clinton on this
>issue.

On the editorial page??? I think what you mean to say is that they
have carried news reports which are not entirely favorable to the
Clinton position.

>You could also try the letter column to the NY Times for a large
>number of rebuttals about the argument you posted regarding
>criminal prosecutions of civil cases.

I looked at the letters published in today's on line edition, and none
of them dealt with either 18 USC 1305 or criminal prosecution of civil
perjury. The last thing I saw in the Times on the latter subject was
the Gellers op ed piece I referenced above -- which cited the number
of prosecutions of civil perjury just by the Clinton Justice Dept.
since 1993.

>Or read todays Washington Post, or LA Times, for a large number of
>criticisms from lawyers. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone
>defending this, at least outside of Usenet.

If you would care to post the arguments which you reference, perhaps
we could discuss them. I did accede to your request that I go look at
today's NY Times. I regularly read the Post and don't recall seeing
what you're talking about.

>Honestly now - Starr blew it in a huge way with this supoena of Blumenthal.
>He should drop it, admit he was wrong, and move on.

Tell me, Marc, if "Starr blew it in a huge way" and should "admit he
was wrong," then why do you think that the federal district judge
supervising the grand jury (a Clinton appointee) refused to quash
Sidney Blumenthal's subpoena? Why did she order him to testify as
requested?

>I try and avoid defending Democrats at all costs;

You do, however, seem to buy into all the current WH spin. Not
surprising, I suppose. Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post is
probably correct in calling it "the greatest propaganda machine in the
history of the nation."

>you're smart and capable and should resist the same temptation
>for the GOP.

I don't defend the GOP at all costs. I don't defend Ken Starr at all
costs. In fact, I'm one of the tiny minority that thinks he should
have stuck to his guns when he tried to resign and leave this case in
the hands of his staff of 20 veteran federal prosecutors -- thereby
denying the WH the opportunity to continue trying to change the
subject by demonizing him personally. He would have been well
advised to at least force them to start over again with someone else.

Eleanor Rotthoff

[M Soja]

On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 16:21:31 -0600, "Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com>
posted:

>How is obtaining publicly available information an attempt to "'influence,
>intimidate or impede' a grand jury investigation"? If I use the Internet to

>learn more about the background of a prosecuter on the Independent Counsel's
>staff, then am I prosecutable under this law as you are apparently
>interpreting it? Of course not!! Because I am using this information for
>informational purposes, not to intimidate anyone.

Do you need private investigators to accumulate "publicly available
information"?

>Perhaps the two

>prosecutors with egg on their face should have owned up to their past
>mistakes prior to taking the position with Starr.

How do you know they didn't?

>So what do you think Starr is doing with his tactics of bringing Lewinsky's

>mother in front of the Grand Jury?

Gathering evidence that pertains to allegations that have been made

concerning the president of the US. Starr isn't the one that's being
accused of anything, other than in the popular press. If Starr is
being derelict in his duty, formal charges should be filed and he
should be removed from the case.

>What do you think Starr did when he put Susan McDougall in jail?

Starr didn't "put Susan McDougall in jail". The judge overseeing the

Whitewater case did, for refusing to answer a simple yes or no
question. Starr has since made her some very fair offers as to how
her testimony could be handled, and as of last night, she was still
playing the martyr, for the love of her I cannot fathom it. She must
have her very own Cayman Island bank account.

>And yes, we do have a criminal code but unfortunately Starr is not
>accountable to anyone.

He's accountable to many. The three judge panel. Janet Reno. The

president of the US. You yourself can write to any of them and
complain. But Starr is also answerable to the fine tradition of the
existing body of laws that the rest of us are, including Bill Clinton.
If Starr breaks the law, a million liberals will swoop. You idiots.

*************************************************
"I'd like to thank my long-time friend John Huang
for being so effective....Frankly, he's been so
effective, I was amazed that you were all cheering
for him tonight after he's been around in his
aggressive efforts to help our cause."
-- Bill Clinton, July 1996 fund-raiser in L.A.

[fri...@ix.netcom.com]

Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:
>
.....

>
> I've seen a lot of instant analysis which doesn't even begin to hold
> water.

I note:

Ditto. Case in point...

> There were a number of "experts" on TV, for instance, who
> insisted solemnly that civil perjury is never prosecuted. One of
> those experts, NYU law professor Stephen Gellers, recently wrote an op
> ed piece in the NY Times explaining that he had been very, very wrong
> when he made such a statement.

Note here:

And you elect to believe his second statement. Why not his first?
Especially when apparently he originally had other 'experts' (your word
and example) agreeing with him?

MAF

[Eleanor Rotthoff]

fri...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:

>> I've seen a lot of instant analysis which doesn't even begin to hold
>> water.

>Ditto. Case in point...

>> There were a number of "experts" on TV, for instance, who
>> insisted solemnly that civil perjury is never prosecuted. One of
>> those experts, NYU law professor Stephen Gellers, recently wrote an op
>> ed piece in the NY Times explaining that he had been very, very wrong
>> when he made such a statement.

>And you elect to believe his second statement. Why not his first?

Because, as Gellers pointed out in his op ed piece, his first
statement was made off the top of his head when some journalist asked
him the question. His second, the written piece in the NY Times, was
the product of his research to determine the facts as revealed in the
reported court decisions. Obviously, as he concedes, his second
statement is supported by the facts; his first was not. Indeed, he
wrote the op ed piece for the specific purpose of pointing out that
his initial statement had been erroneous.

>Especially when apparently he originally had other 'experts' (your word
>and example) agreeing with him?

There are a lot of "experts" these days making all kinds of comments
off the tops of their heads -- some of them busily engaged in spin and
some not. Monica Lewinsky's lawyer William Ginsburg, for example, has
over the last few weeks made some of the most fantastic statements I
have ever heard come out of a lawyer's mouth. No one in the legal
community seems to have any clear idea what Ginsburg's strategy is,
but no one should take what he says at face value.

Eleanor Rotthoff

[Marcel]

Eleanor Rotthoff wrote in message <34f5fe87...@news.texas.net>...

>Eleanor Rotthoff

Like what? I've heard he is a very respected attorney.

[M Soja]

On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 23:21:58 -0600, "Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com>
posted:

>Eleanor Rotthoff wrote in message <34f9cce4...@news.texas.net>...

>>The statement was made by WH press secretary Mike McCurry and it was

>>an absolutely unqualified denial that anything of this kind had
>>happened.

>So you really think that McCurry is one of the insiders? You really think
>that McCurry is being let in on all of the correct information? Come
>on...the guy is winging it, and he has stated that he doesn't want to know
>what is going on because he does not want to be dragged before the Grand
>Jury.

<a lotta snip>

McCurry doesn't want to know the specifics about Lewinsky. Such is
immaterial, as most people here have been saying. The personal
exploits of the man have no bearing on the conduct of the office.
However, the politics and the legalities of the rendering under oath
of falsehoods and alleged falsehoods regarding the specifics of the
Lewinsky affair ARE very pertinent to the public and extremely
importantly to the president's spokesman, McCurry. He doesn't care
what the personal situation is, per se, but he damn well is concerned
about the legal shenanigans coming in the aftermath.

And there isn't that much sand to hide his head in at the White House,
anyway.

[M Soja]

On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 23:37:01 -0600, "Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com>
posted:

>M Soja wrote in message <34ffcc62...@news.newsguy.com>...

>>Do you need private investigators to accumulate "publicly available
>>information"?

>Not personally, no.

>But lawyers who have a case load other than tending to the needs of the
>President will use private investigators for a variety of purposes.

>Is the practice illegal? Absolutely not.

>Is it using the same tactics as Starr's Inquisition is using? You bet.

Starr is investigating people who have been alleged to have committed
crimes. Why does it happen that the people that are the subject of
his investigation are suddenly targeting him as though he were the
subject of various crimes?

jlward:

>If Starr knew about these two guys before he brought them on board, that's
>even worse. The Independent Cousel is supposed to above reproach in how
>they conduct their business.

Is that written in law? I thought Clinton was supposed to be above
reproach.

>>Gathering evidence that pertains to allegations that have been made
>>concerning the president of the US. Starr isn't the one that's being
>>accused of anything, other than in the popular press. If Starr is
>>being derelict in his duty, formal charges should be filed and he
>>should be removed from the case.

>Gathering evidence!!?? What if you were brought before a Grand Jury and

>your Mother was forced to come in and testify? Is this a good example of
>how American justice works? Is this what we want the rest of the world to
>see?

Well, It's an excellent example of how American justice works. If
you'd been paying attention this last week you might have learned that
Bob Bennet, Clinton's personal lawyer, subpoenaed and interrogated
Paula Jones's mother in October of 1997. Before that Larry Walsh
subpoenaed and interrogated Ollie North's wife and pastor. There are
other examples of such in the public sector and it occurs all the time
amongst the "common" people. If you'd care to use your brain for a mo
you might be able to comprehend the underlying logic of it.

>If so, then we should think twice about questioning the legal practices of
>other countries.

pffffffffffffffffffffft.

>>He's accountable to many. The three judge panel. Janet Reno. The
>>president of the US. You yourself can write to any of them and
>>complain. But Starr is also answerable to the fine tradition of the
>>existing body of laws that the rest of us are, including Bill Clinton.
>>If Starr breaks the law, a million liberals will swoop. You idiots.

>As you well know, the three judge and right-wing conservative panel will do

>nothing. Reno is boxed-in because she took so much political heat for not
>appointing a special prosecutor in the campaign funds case. And the
>President is not going to get rid of him because it would be very
>inappropriate.

Why will the panels do nothing? You're copping out. You are full of
shit. That paragraph sucks. Janet Reno doesn't care about the heat.
You Dems would do well to be as wary of her as us 'Pubs (such as we
are) are wary of Ken Starr. Mark my henpecks.

>And, when you right-wingers get boxed into a corner, you get personally
>abusive.

Fuck You. Fuck You Now.

[Steve Gilbert]

Eleanor Rotthoff wrote in message <34f9cce4...@news.texas.net>...

>"Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>Eleanor Rotthoff wrote in message <35065b70...@news.texas.net>...
>>>Frances Del Rio <f...@shell2.ba.best.com> wrote:
>

<snip>

>
>>So what do you think Starr is doing with his tactics of bringing
Lewinsky's
>>mother in front of the Grand Jury?
>
>Questioning a co-conspirator about her involvement in perjury,
>subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice. Tell you what.
>You can give me a bunch of soap opera tears about Marcia Lewis if you
>can produce your post denouncing the prosecution for forcing Timothy
>McVeigh's sister to provide testimony which was used to convict her
>brother and sentence him to death. Or your condemnation of Reagan
>official Timothy Reed's 82-year-old father being forced to testify
>against Reed. If you didn't care about those cases when they
>occurred, then you're just quoting WH spin now.

Or how about Bob Bennett requiring Paula Jones' mother and sister to testify
about Paula? Where was the outrage?

SG

[Christopher Morton]

On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 07:01:33 -0500, "Steve Gilbert" <bho...@ibm.net>
wrote:

>Or how about Bob Bennett requiring Paula Jones' mother and sister to testify
>about Paula? Where was the outrage?

The problem is that you're not understanding the overall philosophy of
the Clinton administration: "We're ABOVE the law because... it's US."

My skin crawls every time I hear Lanny Davis say, "The president is
not above the law, nor is he beneath it."

The plain truth is that from day one, this administration has acted as
though federal law does not apply to it or its actions.

Clinton acts as though he's above the law, but he's beneath contempt.

But say what you might about Clinton, nobody runs an anti-gay
witchhunt the way his Department of Defense does. And oddly enough,
many of these cases involve WOMEN who refused sexual advances by male
service members. I guess they're just taking James Carville's lead,
"You never know what you'll find if you drag $100 through an aircraft
carrier...."

Don't ask, don't tell... well, you don't need to tell because the DoD
will ask AOL.

Jail to the Chief!

---
"Paul Begala: Goebbels without the limp." - C. Morton

Check out http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton

[P.J. Gladnick]

Steve Gilbert <bho...@ibm.net> wrote in article
<34f55...@news3.ibm.net>...
>
> Eleanor Rotthoff wrote in message <34f9cce4...@news.texas.net>...

> >"Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> >>Eleanor Rotthoff wrote in message <35065b70...@news.texas.net>...
> >>>Frances Del Rio <f...@shell2.ba.best.com> wrote:
> >

> <snip>

> >
> >>So what do you think Starr is doing with his tactics of bringing
> Lewinsky's
> >>mother in front of the Grand Jury?
> >
> >Questioning a co-conspirator about her involvement in perjury,
> >subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice. Tell you what.
> >You can give me a bunch of soap opera tears about Marcia Lewis if you
> >can produce your post denouncing the prosecution for forcing Timothy
> >McVeigh's sister to provide testimony which was used to convict her
> >brother and sentence him to death. Or your condemnation of Reagan
> >official Timothy Reed's 82-year-old father being forced to testify
> >against Reed. If you didn't care about those cases when they
> >occurred, then you're just quoting WH spin now.
>

> Or how about Bob Bennett requiring Paula Jones' mother and sister to
testify
> about Paula? Where was the outrage?
>

> SG
>

And lets not forget Billy Dale & his Travel Office associates who had the
FBI sicced on them by the White House just because it wanted to put a
Clintonista friend in charge of the Travel Office.

[Michael Zarlenga]

Jim Ward (jlw...@email.msn.com) wrote:
: >: McCurry Lied Again - WH Team DID hire PIs to Obstruct Justice.

: >"White House lied."
: >That could be a permanent headline on every newspaper
: >in the nation.

: So, please tell us which Presidents and/or their staffs have not lied.

: Please start with George Washington.

All have lied.

None have lied so profusely as this one, not even Richard Nixon.

--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key

Impeaching Bill Clinton for perjury in a civil case is like

[Jim Ward]

M Soja wrote in message <351b00cc...@news.newsguy.com>...
>On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 23:21:58 -0600, "Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com>
>posted:
>

>>Eleanor Rotthoff wrote in message <34f9cce4...@news.texas.net>...
>

>>>The statement was made by WH press secretary Mike McCurry and it was
>>>an absolutely unqualified denial that anything of this kind had
>>>happened.
>
>>So you really think that McCurry is one of the insiders? You really think
>>that McCurry is being let in on all of the correct information? Come
>>on...the guy is winging it, and he has stated that he doesn't want to know
>>what is going on because he does not want to be dragged before the Grand
>>Jury.
>

><a lotta snip>
>
>McCurry doesn't want to know the specifics about Lewinsky. Such is
>immaterial, as most people here have been saying. The personal
>exploits of the man have no bearing on the conduct of the office.
>However, the politics and the legalities of the rendering under oath
>of falsehoods and alleged falsehoods regarding the specifics of the
>Lewinsky affair ARE very pertinent to the public and extremely
>importantly to the president's spokesman, McCurry. He doesn't care
>what the personal situation is, per se, but he damn well is concerned
>about the legal shenanigans coming in the aftermath.
>
>And there isn't that much sand to hide his head in at the White House,
>anyway.

Please, by all means, let us all know what those falsehoods and illegalities
really are. Can you tie the President to any wrongdoing in regards to the
Lewinsky situation? Or are you one of those desperate people that want the
President out of office so badly that you will believe anything the press
has disseminated or that Starr's Inquisition has leaked?

>

[Jim Ward]

Steve Gilbert wrote in message <34f55...@news3.ibm.net>...
>
>Eleanor Rotthoff wrote in message <34f9cce4...@news.texas.net>...

>>"Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>>Eleanor Rotthoff wrote in message <35065b70...@news.texas.net>...
>>>>Frances Del Rio <f...@shell2.ba.best.com> wrote:
>>

><snip>

>>
>>>So what do you think Starr is doing with his tactics of bringing
>Lewinsky's
>>>mother in front of the Grand Jury?
>>
>>Questioning a co-conspirator about her involvement in perjury,
>>subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice. Tell you what.
>>You can give me a bunch of soap opera tears about Marcia Lewis if you
>>can produce your post denouncing the prosecution for forcing Timothy
>>McVeigh's sister to provide testimony which was used to convict her
>>brother and sentence him to death. Or your condemnation of Reagan
>>official Timothy Reed's 82-year-old father being forced to testify
>>against Reed. If you didn't care about those cases when they
>>occurred, then you're just quoting WH spin now.
>

>Or how about Bob Bennett requiring Paula Jones' mother and sister to
testify
>about Paula? Where was the outrage?
>
>SG
>

Different set of circumstances entirely...the Jones case, as you well know,
is a CIVIL proceeding as opposed to the Grand Jury that Starr is conducting
which is a CRIMINAL proceeding.

The outrage is not there concerning the Jones case because most Americans
understand that Jones never had a case until she was "encouraged" to bring
suit. There are no other witnesses, and no evidence of harrassment of any
sort. If it weren't for the Rutherford Institute paying her legal bills,
you can bet this suit would never have happened.

Most Americans understand that nobody is going to jail in regards to the
Jones case, but Starr's Inquisition is another case entirely. Lewinsky's
mother could very easily end up in jail for refusing to complete her
testimony. Is that what you think to be approriate conduct for the Special
Prosecutor's Grand Jury?

[Jim Ward]

Christopher Morton wrote in message <34f55b82...@enews.newsguy.com>...

>On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 07:01:33 -0500, "Steve Gilbert" <bho...@ibm.net>
>wrote:
>

>>Or how about Bob Bennett requiring Paula Jones' mother and sister to
testify
>>about Paula? Where was the outrage?
>

>The problem is that you're not understanding the overall philosophy of
>the Clinton administration: "We're ABOVE the law because... it's US."
>
>My skin crawls every time I hear Lanny Davis say, "The president is
>not above the law, nor is he beneath it."
>
>The plain truth is that from day one, this administration has acted as
>though federal law does not apply to it or its actions.
>
>Clinton acts as though he's above the law, but he's beneath contempt.

Oh, and Clinton is different from all of the other Presidents (except
Carter) that we've had since FDR? Let's discuss a few:

Bush: Lied about Iran-Contra...he was the coordinator for the whole affair.
Has lied about CIA gun and drug smuggling operations. He also had a
girlfriend who he apparently met while in China, and she worked in the State
Department. He also lied about his long-term involvement as an
employee/operative of the CIA where he was involved with a variety of
activities involving Central America, the Caribbean, and Cuba.

Reagan: Lied about hs knowledge of Iran-Contra. Had the most Cabinet
members indicted and prosecuted for a variety of crimes. Also had women on
the side. Was responsible for the largest National Debt numbers of all
time.

Carter: Allowed the economy to get out of control. Lied when he said he
would get the hostages released very quickly.

Ford: Pardoned Nixon for "all current and past crimes". Was J. Edgar
Hoover's eyes and ears on the Warren Commission, helping to establish
Oswald's "guilt" in the killing of JFK. Also involved with a woman on the
side.

Nixon: Starting with falsified evidence prepared by Hoover which Nixon used
against Hiss, Nixon was a creature of Hoover. All of Nixon's campaigns
received Mafia financing. Nixon had a girlfriend in Hong Kong. While Vice
President under Eisenhower, he controlled a group of people including E.
Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, Al Haig, and Bernard Barker that was responsible
for covert operations in Central America to include discrediting and
assassinating foreign leaders. Those names sound familiar? They
should...they show up next with their involvement in Watergate. Nixon was
also in Dallas until the morning of November 22, 1963, JFK's assassination,
when he flew back to New York.

LBJ: His affairs with women are now nearly as legendary as JFK's
activities. LBJ escalated the war in Vietnam, a war which JFK was trying to
the U. S. out of. LBJ appointed the Warren Commission to cover-up the
assassination of JFK. He was known as the "Bag Man" in congress for the
money-stuffed briefcase he carried to conduct payoffs. LBJ was heavily
involved with organized crime through Bobby Baker. He is easily linked to
murders committed in the state of Texas according to Billy Sol Estes.

JFK: We all know the stories involving women. The Mafia contributed to his
Presidential campaign of 1960.

Eisenhower: Also had an extramarital affair during WWII. His farm in
Gettysburg, PA was financed by the Mafia. Was involved in the early
planning for the war in Vietnam, and committed the first troops to that
country. Condoned the activities of Nixon involving foreign assassinations.
Approved Nixon's anti-Castro plans to include the planning for the Bay of
Pigs.

Truman: His campaigns in Kansas City were financed partially by the KC
Mafia.

FDR: Knew about the Japanese plans to attack Pearl Harbor, but needed such
an action to get the U. S. into the war. Also had an affair. Took Truman
as Vice President as a favor owed to the Mafia.

As you can very clearly see, Clinton is no different from any of the other
Presidents we've had in the past.

Most Americans understand that fact.

[Steven H. Findeiss]

Jim Ward wrote:
: What if you were brought before a Grand Jury and

: your Mother was forced to come in and testify? Is this a good example of
: how American justice works?

For Jim and all Clinton lovers out there: While we do have a "privilege"
in the legal system that says a wife can't be compelled to testify against
husband (and v.v.), and that your clergyman and doctor can't be forced
to testify against you, there is *no such immunity* for parents re
their kids, or vice-versa.
Example: if Junior saw dad kill mom, junior is universally compelled to
tell what he saw, even if it means Dad gets executed. Tough deal, eh?
Or suppose Billy Badass robs a bank, then claims he was with his mom
all day. Mom is routinely compelled to give detailed testimony that
could show that BB really wasn't with her. Mom may well not want to
expose her false alibi to close examination, but that's tough. Happens
all the time.
Now: Have you been complaining about cases like those above? No. Did
you not know this was how the law normally and routinely works? Perhaps.
Now that you know, would you like us to *change* this aspect to keep
Clinton's house of cards intact?? Hey, anything to keep him in office,
right? --s

[mike jones]

"Kenneth Starr is ONLY doing his job. He should be left alone and allowed to
continue unfettered." Now, where have I heard this before?

If the White House is so concerned with people being allowed to do their
job, then why are they impeding Starr's investigations to the extent that
they are? You would think that the 'MOST ETHICAL ADMINISTRATION IN HISTORY'
would welcome Starr's investigations in order to prove that this is the most
ethical administration in history, wouldn't you?

Why does the Clinton Administration seek to obfuscate and impede Starr's
investigations? Why do they 'leak' information in order to try to make Starr
look bad? Why do they demonize Starr to the extent they do? Why do they
stonewall like they do? Why do they lie like they do? Why can't they just
tell the truth for once and get it all over with, this is disgusting.

MIke.

[Jim Ward]

Michael Zarlenga wrote in message <6d3se7$hfa$7...@paperboy.ids.net>...

>Jim Ward (jlw...@email.msn.com) wrote:
>: >: McCurry Lied Again - WH Team DID hire PIs to Obstruct Justice.
>
>: >"White House lied."
>: >That could be a permanent headline on every newspaper
>: >in the nation.
>
>: So, please tell us which Presidents and/or their staffs have not lied.
>: Please start with George Washington.
>
>All have lied.
>
>None have lied so profusely as this one, not even Richard Nixon.
>
>--

Oh. please. Do you really expect ANYONE to believe that Clinton has told
more lies than Nixon? You must not have been around during Nixon's Vietnam
and Watergate days, when it was well-known that you believed the opposite of
whatever he said about anything. And Vietnam cost America a lot of lives.
How many lives has Clinton cost us? Nixon was created by J. Edgar Hoover
who fed Nixon information that he used against opponents and those he
considered to be his enemies. Nixon also broke Alger Hiss on falsified
information given to him by Hoover.

Heck, even George Bush lied more often and was quite good at it. And he
lied about MAJOR issues, not those that the President is alleged to have
lied about. Bush lied about the fact that he was in charge of the
Iran-Contra Operation, and the fact that it involved gun and drug smuggling.
He also lied about his relationship with Panama's Norriega, who was a good
friend of Bush until he started to talk about his involvement with the CIA.
Bush also lied about his involvement with the CIA, claiming only to be a
"caretaker Director". Bush was a very long-term employee/operative of the
CIA going back to its earliest days, and was involved with the planning for
the Bay of Pigs operation.

[fri...@ix.netcom.com]

Eleanor Rotthoff wrote: (re: And you elect to believe his second
statement. Why not his first?):

>
> Because, as Gellers pointed out in his op ed piece, his first
> statement was made off the top of his head when some journalist asked
> him the question. His second, the written piece in the NY Times, was
> the product of his research to determine the facts as revealed in the
> reported court decisions. Obviously, as he concedes, his second
> statement is supported by the facts; his first was not. Indeed, he
> wrote the op ed piece for the specific purpose of pointing out that
> his initial statement had been erroneous.

I note:

For whatever reason he turned 180 degrees, he would probably feel the
need to excuse it by saying >something<. Clearly if his initial answer
was erroneous he is neither an expert in the matter, since he had no
familiarity with the issue, nor is his judgement to be relied on since
he shot off his mouth without knowing what he was talking about. If his
first answer was true, then he changed it to a lie for unknown reasons.
Either way, not someone I'd quote, nor appoint to a responsible
position.

E.R. says>>> (re: Especially when apparently he originally had other
'experts' (your word and example) agreeing with him?):

>
> There are a lot of "experts" these days making all kinds of comments
> off the tops of their heads -- some of them busily engaged in spin and
> some not.

I interject:

Amen.

More E.R>>>>

> Monica Lewinsky's lawyer William Ginsburg, for example, has
> over the last few weeks made some of the most fantastic statements I
> have ever heard come out of a lawyer's mouth.

I interject:

So you say! But I know what your biases are...

E.R.continues with...

> No one in the legal
> community seems to have any clear idea what Ginsburg's strategy is,
> but no one should take what he says at face value.
>

I note:

I feel the same way about you, yet you continually make derogatory
statements about your chosen political opponents and evidently expect to
be believed 'at face value'.

MAF

[Wilson]

In article <#A3kpfnQ9GA.49@upnetnews04>, "Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com> wrote:

(rest of standard White House spin snipped)

>As you well know, the three judge and right-wing conservative panel will do
>nothing. Reno is boxed-in because she took so much political heat for not
>appointing a special prosecutor in the campaign funds case. And the
>President is not going to get rid of him because it would be very
>inappropriate.
>

>And, when you right-wingers get boxed into a corner, you get personally
>abusive.

Let me get this straight, Reno is "boxed-in", and the "right-wing" prosecutors
are "boxed" in?

And an innocent President is boxed in and finds it "innapropriate" to fire an
abusive right wing, "McCarthyist", out of control "Nazi like" right
wing prosecutor?

It doesn't compute.

Unfortunately, once again it's liberal logic that is "boxed-in"

They spent the best part of 2 months telling us that Saddam was Hitler
personified, then they shake hands with him crack open the Champagne, and tell
us to rejoice that he has given them a piece of paper.

Wilson

[fri...@ix.netcom.com]

M Soja wrote:
>
......

> However, the politics and the legalities of the rendering under oath
> of falsehoods and alleged falsehoods regarding the specifics of the
> Lewinsky affair ARE very pertinent to the public and extremely
> importantly to the president's spokesman, McCurry.

I note:

Damn! Don't render any 'alledged falsehoods' under oath, even if true!

MAF

[Martin McPhillips]

On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 08:56:53 -0600, "Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com> wrote:

>
>Oh, and Clinton is different from all of the other Presidents (except
>Carter) that we've had since FDR? Let's discuss a few:

*Very* different. Clinton is a *career* *criminal*.

>Bush: Lied about Iran-Contra...

Clinton lies every time he opens his mouth. See the difference?

>he was the coordinator for the whole affair.
>Has lied about CIA gun and drug smuggling operations. He also had a
>girlfriend who he apparently met while in China, and she worked in the State
>Department.

Monica Lewinsky apparently told Linda Tripp that she couldn't
handle the fact that Clinton was having sex with four other
women in addition to her.

> He also lied about his long-term involvement as an
>employee/operative of the CIA where he was involved with a variety of
>activities involving Central America, the Caribbean, and Cuba.

Lied about it to whom?

>Reagan: Lied about hs knowledge of Iran-Contra.

If he did, does that somehow equal lying about everything,
from arranging hush money for Webb Hubbell to soliciting
and receiving illegal campaign money from the People's
Republic of China to renting out the Lincoln bedroom to saying
he never met Paula Jones? Like I said, the guy doesn't do
anything but lie.

[Rest of your nauseating attempt to drag historical figures
down into the same pit of lies and crimes as *your* President
cut and sent to the bullshit incinerator.]

Got any more talking points this morning, or is that it?

[Martin McPhillips]

On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 08:16:21 -0600, "Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com> wrote:

>
>Please, by all means, let us all know what those falsehoods and illegalities
>really are. Can you tie the President to any wrongdoing in regards to the
>Lewinsky situation?

Sure, Lewinsky is caught on tape admitting the affair. Clinton
got her a job and a top-secret security clearance at the
Pentagon. Then he importuned Vernon Jordan to find
her a job. He also attempted to get her another job at the
U.N.

Lewinsky if further caught on tape stating that she is being
asked to say she did not have an affair that she already
admitted having. And that Clinton and Jordan are the ones
asking her to do that.

>Or are you one of those desperate people that want the
>President out of office so badly that you will believe anything the press
>has disseminated or that Starr's Inquisition has leaked?

With Clinton there's no need to "believe anything." The truth
is stranger and more nauseating than any fiction that could
be invented.

[Jim Ward]

M Soja wrote in message <34f707a...@news.newsguy.com>...
>On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 23:37:01 -0600, "Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com>
>posted:

>>M Soja wrote in message <34ffcc62...@news.newsguy.com>...
>
>>>Do you need private investigators to accumulate "publicly available
>>>information"?
>
>>Not personally, no.
>
>>But lawyers who have a case load other than tending to the needs of the
>>President will use private investigators for a variety of purposes.
>
>>Is the practice illegal? Absolutely not.
>
>>Is it using the same tactics as Starr's Inquisition is using? You bet.
>
>Starr is investigating people who have been alleged to have committed
>crimes. Why does it happen that the people that are the subject of
>his investigation are suddenly targeting him as though he were the
>subject of various crimes?

Because Starr has stepped over the line in regards to how he is conducting
his investigations. Wiring Tripp to record her conversations with Lewinsky
in the state of Virginia (where it is legal to have only one participant
know about the tape recording) was an error in conduct. Calling Lewinsky's
mother to the Grand Jury was a big mistake. Calling Blumenthal was a bigger
mistake, because now he has the press looking in his direction in a big way.

>
>
>jlward:
>>If Starr knew about these two guys before he brought them on board, that's
>>even worse. The Independent Cousel is supposed to above reproach in how
>>they conduct their business.
>
>Is that written in law? I thought Clinton was supposed to be above
>reproach.

So, do you think it's o.k. to have any old scumbag prosecuter appointed to
the role of Special Prosecutor? If you're going to have an Independent
Counsel, you had better make sure that they cannot be attacked on any
grounds...that's just the facts of life in America.

As far as Clinton being above reproach, that appears to be an idealistic
belief held by a small minority of Americans. Most Americans realize that
Clinton is human like the rest of us. Please tell us if you have any past
Presidents who were so pure that they were above reproach in all manners of
behavior.

>>>Gathering evidence that pertains to allegations that have been made
>>>concerning the president of the US. Starr isn't the one that's being
>>>accused of anything, other than in the popular press. If Starr is
>>>being derelict in his duty, formal charges should be filed and he
>>>should be removed from the case.
>

>>Gathering evidence!!?? What if you were brought before a Grand Jury and

>>your Mother was forced to come in and testify? Is this a good example of

>>how American justice works? Is this what we want the rest of the world to
>>see?
>
>Well, It's an excellent example of how American justice works. If
>you'd been paying attention this last week you might have learned that
>Bob Bennet, Clinton's personal lawyer, subpoenaed and interrogated
>Paula Jones's mother in October of 1997. Before that Larry Walsh
>subpoenaed and interrogated Ollie North's wife and pastor. There are
>other examples of such in the public sector and it occurs all the time
>amongst the "common" people. If you'd care to use your brain for a mo
>you might be able to comprehend the underlying logic of it.

As I've said before, I don't condone people with personal relationships with
being brought before a Grand Jury, unless it can be proven that those
individuals were also involved in CRIMINAL wrongdoing. Obviously that was
not the case for North's pastor or wife, nor is it the case with Lewinsky's
mother.

But as to the Jones CIVIL case, that is a different animal altogether, and
civil cases are not bound by the same rules of conduct to which criminal
proceedings are held.

>>If so, then we should think twice about questioning the legal practices of
>>other countries.
>
>pffffffffffffffffffffft.
>

Hmmmmm. Well, I can see that you are running out of things to say, unless
that is a verbatim transcript of an involuntary comment made by the end upon
which you sit.

>>>He's accountable to many. The three judge panel. Janet Reno. The
>>>president of the US. You yourself can write to any of them and
>>>complain. But Starr is also answerable to the fine tradition of the
>>>existing body of laws that the rest of us are, including Bill Clinton.
>>>If Starr breaks the law, a million liberals will swoop. You idiots.
>

>>As you well know, the three judge and right-wing conservative panel will
do
>>nothing. Reno is boxed-in because she took so much political heat for not
>>appointing a special prosecutor in the campaign funds case. And the
>>President is not going to get rid of him because it would be very
>>inappropriate.
>

>Why will the panels do nothing? You're copping out. You are full of
>shit. That paragraph sucks. Janet Reno doesn't care about the heat.
>You Dems would do well to be as wary of her as us 'Pubs (such as we
>are) are wary of Ken Starr. Mark my henpecks.

Ah!! Now you're really going ballistic! Of course the three judge panel
will do nothing! They're guided by their relationships with their
right-wing buddies! Do you deny this?

And yes, Reno does care about the heat...all politicians are guided by that
principal more that any other.

"Dems"? No, I can't say that I am...probably Independent is a better
description.

>>And, when you right-wingers get boxed into a corner, you get personally
>>abusive.
>

>Fuck You. Fuck You Now.
>

Judge, I rest my case. You're way over the edge now, aren't you? No facts,
just trash.

[Jim Ward]

Steven H. Findeiss wrote in message <6d401u$g5h$1...@ionews.ionet.net>...
>Jim Ward wrote:
>: What if you were brought before a Grand Jury and

>: your Mother was forced to come in and testify? Is this a good example of
>: how American justice works?
>

>For Jim and all Clinton lovers out there: While we do have a "privilege"
>in the legal system that says a wife can't be compelled to testify against
>husband (and v.v.), and that your clergyman and doctor can't be forced
>to testify against you, there is *no such immunity* for parents re
>their kids, or vice-versa.

"Clinton lover"? Can't say that I am, but I do like the job he has done as
President.

Yes, I understand the legal issues, but at some point in time a prosecutor
has got to ask whether or not calling somebody's mother is going to be more
help or hindrance to the case he or she is trying to make. Appearances do
count at all levels.

> Example: if Junior saw dad kill mom, junior is universally compelled to
>tell what he saw, even if it means Dad gets executed. Tough deal, eh?

So tell me what Lewinsky's mother knows first-hand. Did she observe any
activity between the President and her daughter? Was she part of any
alleged conversations between those two?

And please, this is hardly a murder case.

>Or suppose Billy Badass robs a bank, then claims he was with his mom
>all day. Mom is routinely compelled to give detailed testimony that
>could show that BB really wasn't with her. Mom may well not want to
>expose her false alibi to close examination, but that's tough. Happens
>all the time.

So tell me what bank Lewinsky robbed. What is it that Lewis is supposed to
know first-hand?

And again, this is not a bank robbery, either.

> Now: Have you been complaining about cases like those above? No. Did
>you not know this was how the law normally and routinely works? Perhaps.

I don't usually complain about cases like the above because of the
seriousness of the cases. Tell me how murder and robbery cases compare to
an alleged sexual affair.

>Now that you know, would you like us to *change* this aspect to keep
>Clinton's house of cards intact?? Hey, anything to keep him in office,
>right? --s

I think Starr is doing a great job making a horses ass out of himself...that
will do more to keep the President in office than anything I could
recommend.

[Steve]

I love it when a raving member of the whacko conspiracy brigade surfaces,
Thanks JIM...
--
"I don't believe you can find any evidence of the fact that I changed
government policey soley because of a contribution"
William Jefferson Clinton
March 7, 1997

Jim Ward <jlw...@email.msn.com> wrote in article
<efcfVfsQ9GA.284@upnetnews04>...

>
> Michael Zarlenga wrote in message <6d3se7$hfa$7...@paperboy.ids.net>...
> >Jim Ward (jlw...@email.msn.com) wrote:
> >: >: McCurry Lied Again - WH Team DID hire PIs to Obstruct Justice.
> >
> >: >"White House lied."
> >: >That could be a permanent headline on every newspaper
> >: >in the nation.
> >
> >: So, please tell us which Presidents and/or their staffs have not lied.
> >: Please start with George Washington.
> >
> >All have lied.
> >
> >None have lied so profusely as this one, not even Richard Nixon.
> >
> >--
>
>
> Oh. please. Do you really expect ANYONE to believe that Clinton has told
> more lies than Nixon? You must not have been around during Nixon's
Vietnam
> and Watergate days, when it was well-known that you believed the opposite
of
> whatever he said about anything.

MOST of us beleive that Bill's lying. MANY of us never believed him, for
1992 on.....

<blame Viet Nam on Nixon snipped>

>Nixon was created by J. Edgar Hoover
> who fed Nixon information that he used against opponents and those he
> considered to be his enemies. Nixon also broke Alger Hiss on falsified
> information given to him by Hoover.
>

So Hiss was innocent? ROFLMAO

> Heck, even George Bush lied more often and was quite good at it. And he
> lied about MAJOR issues, not those that the President is alleged to have
> lied about. Bush lied about the fact that he was in charge of the
> Iran-Contra Operation,

So JIM has PROOF the Walsh couldn't find with 7 years and 100 million
dollars???

>and the fact that it involved gun and drug smuggling.

Source the San Jose Murky News? Bad news JIM.

<more raving snipped>

Come on, JIM. Got footage of Nixon or Bush on the grassy knoll?
>

[Martin McPhillips]

On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 09:09:09 -0600, "Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com> wrote:

>
>Oh. please. Do you really expect ANYONE to believe that Clinton has told
>more lies than Nixon?

Clinton tells more lies while showering in the morning than
Nixon told in his entire life.

Does that answer your question?

[Jim Ward]

Well, well...a right-winger belches forth. Didn't take you long to show
your true colors, did it?

And why don't you leave MY text alone, since you're doing a fine job of
attempting to alter the truth anyway.

And since you cannot answer facts with ANY facts of your own, why don't you
go reread Mein Kampf or some other totalitarian literature?

Steve wrote in message <01bd42cf$50a38880$1060...@swb.awod.com>...

>I love it when a raving member of the whacko conspiracy brigade surfaces,
>Thanks JIM...
>--
>"I don't believe you can find any evidence of the fact that I changed
>government policey soley because of a contribution"
>William Jefferson Clinton
>March 7, 1997
>
>Jim Ward <jlw...@email.msn.com> wrote in article
><efcfVfsQ9GA.284@upnetnews04>...
>>
>> Michael Zarlenga wrote in message <6d3se7$hfa$7...@paperboy.ids.net>...
>> >Jim Ward (jlw...@email.msn.com) wrote:
>> >: >: McCurry Lied Again - WH Team DID hire PIs to Obstruct Justice.
>> >
>> >: >"White House lied."
>> >: >That could be a permanent headline on every newspaper
>> >: >in the nation.
>> >
>> >: So, please tell us which Presidents and/or their staffs have not lied.
>> >: Please start with George Washington.
>> >
>> >All have lied.
>> >
>> >None have lied so profusely as this one, not even Richard Nixon.
>> >
>> >--
>>
>>

>> Oh. please. Do you really expect ANYONE to believe that Clinton has told

[Jim Ward]

Martin McPhillips wrote in message <34f58327...@news.nyct.net>...
>On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 08:16:21 -0600, "Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com>
wrote:
>
>>

>>Please, by all means, let us all know what those falsehoods and
illegalities
>>really are. Can you tie the President to any wrongdoing in regards to the
>>Lewinsky situation?
>
>Sure, Lewinsky is caught on tape admitting the affair. Clinton
>got her a job and a top-secret security clearance at the
>Pentagon. Then he importuned Vernon Jordan to find
>her a job. He also attempted to get her another job at the
>U.N.

No, the question was what proof, what evidence, do you have of any alleged
affair.

All you have is Lewinsky being allegedly taped in a clandestine manner by
Ms. Tripp. That's it. Nothing more.

The tapes recorded in the state of Maryland are illegal because both parties
must agree to the taping, and we have a couple of tapes made in Virginia
prior to Starr gaining permission to do so.

Now, back to the original question. What evidence or witnesses does Starr
have to tie the President directly to Lewinsky while committing an alleged
act that is NOT criminal.

And as far as the President getting Lewinsky a job anywhere...that's pure
fiction, my friend.

>Lewinsky if further caught on tape stating that she is being
>asked to say she did not have an affair that she already
>admitted having. And that Clinton and Jordan are the ones
>asking her to do that.

Yes, interesting isn't it? Yet her deposition which she had already signed
stated that she had no sexual relationship with the President. And even
close friends have indicated that she is prone to flights of fancy.

Sorry, nothing believable here.

>>Or are you one of those desperate people that want the
>>President out of office so badly that you will believe anything the press
>>has disseminated or that Starr's Inquisition has leaked?
>
>With Clinton there's no need to "believe anything." The truth
>is stranger and more nauseating than any fiction that could
>be invented.

Ahhhh! So you're going to be the judge of what's believable or not? And
please tell us all what the truth is in this case since you would have us
believe that you are an insider to the investigation.

Yep, you really are that desparate...no bother me with the facts, just
hang'em!

[d. dias]

Marc H. Pinsonneault wrote responding to a troll:

> > Will you still want to abolish it after Bill Clinton goes to
> > jail and the White House and both houses of Congress are controlled
> > by Republicans?

of course not! my observations: these trollers and attackers are
mostly people *on the payroll*, whose livelihood depend a great deal,
directly or indirectly, upon the prosperity of the Clinton presidency,
and they are now fighting vigorously for their lives! Can you blame a
dog for fighting for his bone? I feel sorry for them and I am sure they
are very, very desperate right now.

[Jim Ward]

Martin McPhillips wrote in message <34f58785...@news.nyct.net>...
>On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 08:56:53 -0600, "Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com>
wrote:
>
>>

It's obvious from the above nonsense that you have absolutely nothing to
say. History has recorded the activities of past Presidents whether you
wish to believe that or not.

Most Americans will not believe the efforts of people like yourself to make
the President's alleged wrongdoings appear to be worse than getting the U.
S. into Vietnam, smuggling guns and drugs under the guise of Iran-Contra,
Watergate, taking money from mobsters, killing foreign heads of state, and
other crimes.

Instead of responding with any factual rebuttals, you have responded with
more of the hate-filled rhetoric that one expects to hear from you extreme
right-wingers. You guys are really desparate to have Clinton leave office,
aren't you? He must be doing a lot right then!

[John W. Tibbs]

 

Frances Del Rio wrote:

In alt.politics.usa.republican Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
: : McCurry Lied Again - WH Team DID hire PIs to Obstruct Justice.

: "White House lied."

: That could be a permanent headline on every newspaper
: in the nation.

: --

: -- Mike Zarlenga
:    finger zarl...@conan.ids.net  for PGP public key

:    Impeaching Bill Clinton for perjury in a civil case is like
:    prosecuting Al Capone for income tax evasion.

Starr’s losing it, now he’s subpoenaing WH staff just to find out what
they’ve been saying about HIM -- behind his back, to the press, horror of
horrors...  who’s subpoenaing STARR for *his* illegal leaks to the press?
He’s the one who should be under investigation here.  I’ll note in
passing, in case anyone has forgotten, that it’s not illegal at all for
the WH to talk to reporters.  Starr is the one who’s been way out of line
here..

As for the private investigators, they have been looking at the *public*
records of some prosecutors in Starr’s office who’ve been fined for
questionable unethical behavior before..  The WH has a legitimate right to
look into that..  Anybody who wants can get public records regarding
public officials, I guess you hire investigators to expedite the process
of getting the records.

Frances Del Rio

Frances, when any action is designed and implemented to delay, undermine, obfuscate and otherwise make it harder to get to the facts in a 'criminal' (Perjury, obstruction of justice,etc.) investigation it can be and is often obstruction of justice and the first amendment cannot be used to obstruct justice.  Check with a lawyer or go to a law library.
jwt
 

[John W. Tibbs]

Steve Gilbert wrote:

> Eleanor Rotthoff wrote in message <34f9cce4...@news.texas.net>...
> >"Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> >>Eleanor Rotthoff wrote in message <35065b70...@news.texas.net>...
> >>>Frances Del Rio <f...@shell2.ba.best.com> wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> >
> >>So what do you think Starr is doing with his tactics of bringing
> Lewinsky's
> >>mother in front of the Grand Jury?
> >
> >Questioning a co-conspirator about her involvement in perjury,
> >subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice. Tell you what.
> >You can give me a bunch of soap opera tears about Marcia Lewis if you
> >can produce your post denouncing the prosecution for forcing Timothy
> >McVeigh's sister to provide testimony which was used to convict her
> >brother and sentence him to death. Or your condemnation of Reagan
> >official Timothy Reed's 82-year-old father being forced to testify
> >against Reed. If you didn't care about those cases when they
> >occurred, then you're just quoting WH spin now.
>

> Or how about Bob Bennett requiring Paula Jones' mother and sister to testify
> about Paula? Where was the outrage?
>

> SG

Here's something fairly new. Of course the WH (or Bob Bennett) has put out a
denial.

Jones Team Describes New Offer

By Lorraine Adams
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 26, 1998; Page A01

Attorneys for Paula Jones said yesterday that they were
approached three
weeks ago by a member of President Clinton's legal team with a
renewed
offer to settle her sexual harassment claim out of court for
around $700,000
and some form of public apology.

Jones's lawyers said in a press release that they had
responded with a
counter-offer of $900,000 -- significantly less than the about
$2 million
Jones's team demanded in early January to keep the case from
going to trial.
They said Clinton's lawyers never answered the counter-offer,
although the
two sides "were less than $200,000 apart on resolving the case
before trial."

Clinton attorney Mitchell S. Ettinger, in his own press
release yesterday,
called the Jones statement "erroneous and misleading in all
material
respects," but did not address its specifics. Instead,
Ettinger said that he had
made no offer to Jones's lawyers "on behalf of President
Clinton, nor did I
have authority to do so. Indeed, I specifically advised them
that I had no
such authority."

The Jones case is pending while a judge decides whether to
grant Clinton's
motion to dismiss. Trial is scheduled for May 27.

The account by Jones's Dallas-based team of recent settlement
talks -- the
first such discussions since Clinton became embroiled in the
Monica
Lewinsky controversy -- was issued to rebut a recent Time
magazine report
that her side was pushing for settlement. The statement said
lead Jones
counsel Donovan Campbell Jr. was approached on Jan. 30 by
Ettinger,
second-in-command to Clinton's lead counsel Robert S. Bennett.

One day before that, federal Judge Susan Webber Wright had
ruled that any
evidence concerning former White House intern Lewinsky would
not be
admissible in the Jones case. Jones's lawyers from the firm
Rader,
Campbell, Fisher and Pyke had hoped to use Lewinsky to
establish a pattern
of rewarding female employees who engage in sexual activity
with jobs,
promotions and other advantages.

Bennett had no comment yesterday. In his own brief press
release, Ettinger
said no settlement offer had been made by him "on behalf of
President
Clinton," but did not elaborate on whether the talks had, in
fact, taken place.

The Jones team said in its statement that Ettinger was
"prepared to make a
public settlement offer of approximately $700,000, and maybe
as high as
$750,000, to be characterized as a payment of 'attorney fees.'
" Jones's
former lawyers, who left the case when a previous settlement
was rejected
by their client, have filed a lien against her for $800,000 in
unpaid legal bills.

The Jones team statement said Ettinger described Clinton as
"also ready to
negotiate mutually acceptable 'apology' language if Mrs. Jones
would give
him a go-ahead signal."

Ettinger, the attorneys said, encouraged them to make a
counter-offer and
they did so on Feb. 6 -- offering to settle for $900,000 and a
mutually
agreeable apology.

Finding apology language acceptable to both sides, however,
has been a
major obstacle. Jones filed her suit because she felt that a
story in the
January 1994 issue of the American Spectator magazine made it
look as if
she had consented to sex with the president during an economic

development conference at Little Rock's Excelsior Hotel on May
8, 1991.

In earlier settlement discussions, Clinton has refused to
apologize for his
conduct that day, although his attorneys have tentatively
agreed to language
that would indicate Jones did nothing wrong during the
encounter.

Clinton has denied that he harassed Jones or made a pass at
her during an
encounter at the hotel.

Jones's attorneys said they believed that Ettinger's offer to
discuss an
apology was endorsed by Bennett. "Mr. Ettinger positively
stated that Bob
Bennett himself had approved this overture and these specific
terms," the
release stated.

But after the Jones team made its counter-offer, with apology
language still
to be developed, their statement said, Ettinger said he would
talk with
Bennett and respond by Feb. 9.

Instead, on Feb. 13, Bennett informed Campbell that Ettinger
"did not have
the authority to make the offer he did," according to the
Jones team
statement. Bennett, it said, also told them that Clinton would
not settle for
even $700,000 and he would not consider "any apology
language."

© Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company

[John Alway]

"Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com> wrote:

>John Alway wrote in message <34F4E622...@icsi.net>...

>> Though some presidents and people may have lied from time to time,
>>there is a difference in kind between Clinton and most men. Most men,
>>when they transgress, attempt to rectify the situation. They try to be
>>true to their values and principles. The better that man, the more
>>rational his code of morality, and the more effort he puts into being
>>good, i.e. morally upright. Clinton doesn't have that. Rather, Clinton
>>doesn't care about moral uprightness, or lying. He is simply bereft of
>>any compunction concerning moral uprightness. This is why he can stand
>>up seemingly proud after lying time and time again. He simply does not
>>care. A moral man would be slightly shaken, or worse, if he had been
>>caught in a lie. The problem with men who are not morally upright is
>>that they are dangerous. The worst dictators have such a character, and
>>I'm certain that Clinton would have fit in well in Nazi Germany given his
>>character, or lack thereof.
>
>
>
> ...John

>You could substitute the names of Bush, Ford, Reagan, Nixon, LBJ, JFK,
>Truman, Eisenhower, and FDR for Clinton in the above moral tirade. No
>President is going to be elected to that position as a goody two shoes. If
>you don't understand that, then you are really naive. I would also state
>with absolutely no problem that Clinton is no better and no worse than those

>others that I have listed.

You most certainly could not substitute those names. Clinton is worse
than even Nixon and possibly LBJ, and that's saying something.

>Some Americans want to forget that they are all too human, and are sadly
>disappointed when some of their own go astray.

I'm sorry, but egregiously immoral people are all to inhuman, and
become more like animals than men. A man behaves as a man to the extent
that he is rational. Unless you live in a prison, the average man isn't so
disgusting as you portray. In fact, most men attempt to be good. Clinton is
well below average morally. Well below.

>These same Americans expect
>the President to be someone superhuman with no bad traits whatsoever.

Washington, Jefferson and others were very human and extremely
morally upright. President Clinton is far below average, and this is
_dangerous_ because he is in _power_. Superhuman? Hell, it'd be nice if
he could rise to the level of being average.

>Most Americans understand that people ARE human, and will make mistakes in
>judgement from time to time.

Most people understand that there is no excuse for being a pathological
liar. Very few of us would tolerate anyone like that around us, and we
certainly wouldn't want them as friends. Now, think about why that is, and
then extrapolate that to the presidency.

...John

[John W. Tibbs]

Jim Ward wrote:

> M Soja wrote in message <351b00cc...@news.newsguy.com>...
> >On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 23:21:58 -0600, "Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com>
> >posted:
> >

> >>Eleanor Rotthoff wrote in message <34f9cce4...@news.texas.net>...
> >

> >>>The statement was made by WH press secretary Mike McCurry and it was
> >>>an absolutely unqualified denial that anything of this kind had
> >>>happened.
> >
> >>So you really think that McCurry is one of the insiders? You really think
> >>that McCurry is being let in on all of the correct information? Come
> >>on...the guy is winging it, and he has stated that he doesn't want to know
> >>what is going on because he does not want to be dragged before the Grand
> >>Jury.
> >
> ><a lotta snip>
> >
> >McCurry doesn't want to know the specifics about Lewinsky. Such is
> >immaterial, as most people here have been saying. The personal
> >exploits of the man have no bearing on the conduct of the office.

> >However, the politics and the legalities of the rendering under oath
> >of falsehoods and alleged falsehoods regarding the specifics of the
> >Lewinsky affair ARE very pertinent to the public and extremely

> >importantly to the president's spokesman, McCurry. He doesn't care
> >what the personal situation is, per se, but he damn well is concerned
> >about the legal shenanigans coming in the aftermath.
> >
> >And there isn't that much sand to hide his head in at the White House,
> >anyway.
>

> Please, by all means, let us all know what those falsehoods and illegalities
> really are. Can you tie the President to any wrongdoing in regards to the

> Lewinsky situation? Or are you one of those desperate people that want the

> President out of office so badly that you will believe anything the press
> has disseminated or that Starr's Inquisition has leaked?
>

"If it walks like a duck and lays duck eggs..........?"

[John W. Tibbs]

Jim Ward wrote:
(Klintonista garbage snipped)

Here's something for you to chew on, Jim. Of course Uncle Bob Bennett has
denied it.

[Electra Angelbyte]

On 26 Feb 1998 15:00:14 GMT, s...@ionet.net (Steven H. Findeiss) wrote:

>Jim Ward wrote:
>: What if you were brought before a Grand Jury and
>: your Mother was forced to come in and testify? Is this a good example of
>: how American justice works?
>
>For Jim and all Clinton lovers out there: While we do have a "privilege"
>in the legal system that says a wife can't be compelled to testify against
>husband (and v.v.), and that your clergyman and doctor can't be forced
>to testify against you, there is *no such immunity* for parents re
>their kids, or vice-versa.
>

Remember, Clinton lovers, to check your history. Lawrence Walsh,
special prosecutor for Iran/Contra, called Mrs. Oliver North, called
his attorney, and called his pastor to try to get them to testify
against Col. North.

And where was the outrage when Clinton's attorneys grilled Paula
Jones' mother?

Electra Angelbyte
You cannot legislate compassion.

[Michael Rivero]

In article <efcfVfsQ9GA.284@upnetnews04>,

Jim Ward <jlw...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>How many lives has Clinton cost us?

_________________________________________________________________

THE MOST RECENT (not counting Hume)
_________________________________________________________________

[Mary Mahoney]

Mary Mahoney

White House Intern

died 7/97

An attractive 25 year old woman, Mary was a former White House Intern
for Bill Clinton working as the Assistant Manager at a Starbuck's
Coffee shop in Georgetown. In the pre-trial publicity surrounding
Paula Jones lawsuit, and mere days after Newsweek's Mike Isikoff had
dropped hints that a "former White House staffer" was about to go
public with her story of sexual harassement at 1600 Pennsylvania,
gunmen entered the Starbuck's while the crew was cleaning up after
closing. Mary's two associates were taken to a room and shot. Mary
herself had five bullets in her. No money was taken.

UPDATE!As of this writing, Mike Isikoff's "former White House staffer"
has finally surfaced and it's NOT Mary Mahoney, but Monika Lewchinsky.
If the killing of Mary Mahoney was to silence a "bimbo eruption", they
got the wrong woman. (Just how many of the interns was Clinton getting
blowjobs from??)
_________________________________________________________________

THE MOST FAMOUS
_________________________________________________________________

[Vince Foster]

Vincent Foster

White House Counsel

died: 7/21/93 - Found dead in Ft. Marcy Park in Washington, DC, of a
supposed suicide by gunshot. A suicide note was supposedly found a
fews days later, torn into several pieces, in his briefcase, after his
office had been entered by WhiteHouse staff and materials removed. The
gun which he supposedly used to kill himself was reported to be still
in his hand, but the person who first found the body reports that
there was no gun at that time. Many irregularities surround the death
and the investigation of it. - Foster was also from Hope, Ark., like
Clinton, and also worked for the Rose Law firm. Foster had intimate
knowledge of the Clintons' personal finances. Foster was involved in
an investigation of their finances, and reportedly made a phone call
to Hillary Clinton, in Los Angeles, just hours before his death.
Recently, the signed report of M.E. Dr. Donald Haut was uncovered at
the National Archives, proving that Foster had a previously unreported
gunshot wound to his neck.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________

DEAD BODYGUARDS
_________________________________________________________________

Maj. Gen. William Robertson

Deputy Commanding General, V Corps, Europe

Col William Densberger

V Corps Chief of Operations and Plans

Col. Robert Kelly

V Corps Chief of Intelligence

Spec. Gary Rhodes

Crew Chief

died: 2/23/93 - All were killed when their helicopter crashed in
Weisbaden, Germany. No cause was ever determined. - V Corps figured
prominently in the US Bosnia-Serbia peacekeeping operations, along
with the carrier Roosevelt. These men, and 8 others associated with
Clinton's visit to the Roosevelt all died within 4 months of each
other.
_________________________________________________________________

Steve Willis

Clinton bodyguard

Robert Williams

Clinton bodyguard

Conway LeBleu

Clinton bodyguard

Todd McKeehan

Clinton bodyguard

died: 2/28/93 - "executed" by gunfire in the Waco, Texas assault on
the Branch Davidians. - All four were examined by a "private doctor"
and died from nearly identical wounds to the left temple, so-called
execution style. According to Linda Thompson, videotapes and other
evidence indicates that none died from guns fired by Branch Davidians.
_________________________________________________________________

Five Navy aviators

Clinton bodyguards/escorts

(names not determined) died: 3/26/93 - all died in a crash of an E-2C
Hawkeye in Italy. The crash occurred shortly after the plane was
"waved off" from a landing attempt on the Carrier Roosevelt, due to a
"foul deck". - All five men had been Clinton's escorts during
Clinton's visit to the Roosevelt 2 weeks prior. Three other men, who
had flown Clinton to the Roosevelt for that visit also died later in a
helicopter crash.
_________________________________________________________________

Staff Sgt. Brian Haney

Clinton bodyguard

Marine Sgt. Tim Sabel

Clinton bodyguard

Maj. William Barkley

Clinton bodyguard

Capt. Scott Reynolds

Clinton bodyguard

died: 5/19/93 - All four men died when their helicopter crashed in the
woods near Quantico, Va. - Reporters were barred from the site, and
the head of the fire department responding to the crash described it
by saying, "Security was tight," with "lots of Marines with guns." A
videotape made by a firefighter was seized by the Marines. All four
men had escorted Clinton on his flight to the carrier Roosevelt
shortly before their deaths.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________

DEAD FUNDRAISERS
_________________________________________________________________

C. Victor Raiser II

National Finance Co-Chairman, Clinton for President Campaign

Montgomery Raiser

Son of C. Victor Raiser II

died: 7/30/92 - Both men died in a private plane crash in Alaska, en
route to a fishing expedition. No cause was ever determined. Five
others not connected to Clinton died with them. - DeeDee Meyers
described Raiser as a "major player" in the Clinton organization.
Victor raiser was also chairman of Mobile Telecomm Technologies Corp.,
whose subsidiary, SkyTel Corp. is an international paging company used
by federal police agencies such as the FBI.
_________________________________________________________________

Paul Tully

Democratic National Committee Political Director

died: 9/24/92 - Found dead in a hotel room in Little Rock Arkansas of
"unknown causes." No autopsy allowed. - Described by Clinton as a
"dear friend and trusted advisor. Tully authored several key
strategies for Clinton and the party.
_________________________________________________________________

Ed Willey

Real Estate Attorney, Clinton Fund Raisor

died: 11/30/93 - Died of gunshot to the head. Body found in deep woods
in Virginia. Ruled a suicide, no note was found, nor was any motive
identified. - Intimately involved in several Clinton fund raising
events.
_________________________________________________________________

Hershell Friday

Attorney and Clinton fund raiser.

died: ??? - Killed when his plane exploded. Cause unknown.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________

DEAD WITNESSES
_________________________________________________________________

Luther Parks

Head of Clinton's Guberntorial security team in Little Rock.

died: 9/26/93 - Gunned down in his car at a deserted intersection
outside Little Rock. - His family reported that shortly before his
death, they were being followed by unknown persons, and their home had
been broken into. Parks had been compiling a dossier on Clinton's
illicit activities. The dossier was stolen.
_________________________________________________________________

James Bunch

Influential Texan

died: ??? - Died from a gunshot suicide, similar to Vince Foster. -
Was discovered to have a "little black book" containing the names of
many influential persons in Texas and Arkansas who visited certain
prostitutes.
_________________________________________________________________

John Wilson

Former Washington DC Council member

died: 5/18/93 - Found dead from an apparent hanging suicide - Suicide
appears suspicious due to an unusual number of reports made to the
media concerning his "depression". Was reported, but not proven, to
have ties to the Whitewater affair.
_________________________________________________________________

Bill Shelton

Arkansas state trooper and fiancee of Kathy Ferguson

died: 6/94 - allegedly committed suicide by shooting himself at the
gravesite of his fiancee - Officer Shelton was the fiancee of Kathy
Ferguson, who was the ex-wife of Trooper Danny Ferguson. Kathy
Ferguson also committed "suicide" 6/94 when she shot herself in her
living room. Oddly, next to the body were her packed bags, as if she
was expecting to be going somewhere. Danny Ferguson is a co-defendant
along with Bill Clinton in Paula Corbin Jones's sexual harassment
suit. His ex-wife was reported as a corroborating witness for Ms.
Jones.
_________________________________________________________________

Kathy Furguson

Ex-wife of Trooper Danny Furguson

died: circa 5/94 - Died of a supposed gunshot suicide in her living
room. There was a suicide note found by the body. However, friends
were surprise at having noticed nothing wrong previously. And even
more curious, found nearby were several packed suitcases, as if she
expected she was going somewhere. She was the former wife (since
changed her name) of Trooper Danny Ferguson, who is the Arkansas State
Trooper alleged to have escorted Paula Corbin Jones to the hotel room
for her alleged episode of sexual harrassment by then-Governor
Clinton. Ferguson's wife was reported as a possible corroborating
witness for Ms. Jones.
_________________________________________________________________

Gandy Baugh

Attorney representing Mr. Lassater in a case concerning alleged financial
misconduct.

died: circa 5/94 - Died in an alleged suicide by jumping out of a
window of a multi-story building. - Mr. Lassater was a close associate
of Gov. Clinton, and was later indicted on drug related charges, among
other things.
_________________________________________________________________

Dr. Ronald Rogers

Dentist from Arkanasas

Killed in plane crash as he was on his way to an interview with a
"London Sunday Telegraph" reporter to reveal some Clinton dirt.
_________________________________________________________________

Stanley Huggins

Partner in Memphis law firm

investigating Madison Guaranty. His 300 page report has never been
released.
_________________________________________________________________

Florence Martin

Accountant subcontracting to CIA

related to the Barry Seal case. Dead of three gunshot wounds to the
head.
_________________________________________________________________

Jim Wilhite

Wilhite was an associate of Mack McClarty's former firm. Wilhite died
in a skiing accident on December 21, 1992.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________

DEAD WOMEN
_________________________________________________________________

Suzanne Coleman

: Had affair with Clinton when he was attorney general. Died of
"suicide" with gunshot wound to the back of her head. No autopsy
performed. Was pregnant at time of her death. Some say it was
Clintons.
_________________________________________________________________

Paula Grober

Clinton's speech interpreter for the deaf

died: 12/9/92 - Died in a one-car accident with no known witnesses.
Her body was thrown 33 feet from the car. A very attractive women,
Paula traveled extensively with Clinton from 1978 until her death.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________

DEAD INVESTIGATORS
_________________________________________________________________

Paul Wilcher

Washington attorney investigating government corruption

died: 6/22/93 - Found dead on a toilet in his Washington apartment. No
cause of death was ever determined. - At the time of his death, he was
investigating connections between the "October surprise" during the
1980 federal election campaign and drug and gun-running out of Mena,
Arkansas, as well as the BATF assault on the Waco, Texas Branch
Davidians. Was planning on producing a television documentary on his
findings. He had delivered a 99-page affidavit to Janet Reno three
weeks before his death.
_________________________________________________________________

Jon Parnell Walker

RTC investigator

Mysteriously fell to his death from an apartment balcony. The same
apartment which was alleged to have been a secret getaway which Foster
may have visited.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________

DEAD COMMERCE DEPARTMENT DEATHS
_________________________________________________________________

[Ron Brown]

Ron Brown

Former Chairman, DNC; Commerce Secretary

died: 5/3/96 - Ron Brown died along with 39 other people when the T-43
(a converted 737 used by the Air Force) carrying the group on a trip
to Bosnia crashed while approaching the Dubrovnik airport. On the
verge of being indicted and having stated publicly his willingness to
make a deal with prosecutors, Ron Brown's death brought to an end the
investigations into the Commerce Department. (NOTE: Also belongs under
dead fundraisers)
_________________________________________________________________

Barbera Wise

Commerce Department Staffer

died: 11/29/96 - As the scandals continued to swirl around the
Commerce Department, and most of all about John Huang, one of Huang's
associates, Barbera Wise, was found dead in her locked office at the
Department of Commerce, partially nude and covered with bruises. No
cause of death has ever been announced. Oddly enough, following the
discovery of her body, Bill Clinton made an unscheduled return to the
White House from Camp David, claiming he needed a book of poetry in
order to complete his inauguration speech.
_________________________________________________________________

Charles Meissner

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for International Economic Policy.

died: UNK - Following Ron Brown's death, John Huang was placed on a
Commerce Department contract that allowed him to retain his security
clearence by Charles Meissner. Shortly thereafter, Charles Meissner
died in the crash of a small plane.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________

THE HENRY IVES DEATHS
_________________________________________________________________

Kevin Ives & Don Henry

Initial cause of death was reported to be the result of falling asleep
on a railroad track in Arkansas on August 23, 1987. This ruling was
reported by the State medical examiner Fahmy Malak. Later it was
determined that Kevin died from a crushed skull prior to being placed
on the tracks. Don had been stabbed in the back. Rumors indicate that
they might have stumbled upon a Mena drug operation.
_________________________________________________________________

Keith Koney

Keith had information on the Ives/Henry deaths. Died in a motorcycle
accident in July 1988 with unconfirmed reports of a high speed car
chase.
_________________________________________________________________

Keith McKaskle

McKaskle has information on the Ives/Henry deaths. He was stabbed to
death in November 1988.
_________________________________________________________________

Gregory Collins

Greg had information on the Ives/Henry deaths. He died from a gunshot
wound to the face in January 1989.
_________________________________________________________________

Jeff Rhodes

He had information on the deaths of Ives, Henry & McKaskle. His burned
body was found in a trash dump in April 1989. He died of a gunshot
wound to the head and there was some body mutilation, leading to the
probably speculation that he was tortured prior to being killed.
_________________________________________________________________

James Milam

Milam had information on the Ives & Henry deaths. He was decapitated.
The state Medical examiner, Fahmy Malak, initially ruled death due to
natural causes.
_________________________________________________________________

Richard Winters

Winters was a suspect in the deaths of Ives & Henry. He was killed in
a "robbery" in July 1989 which was subsequently proven to be a setup.
_________________________________________________________________

Jordan Kettleson

Kettleson had information on the Ives & Henry deaths. He was found
shot to death in the front seat of his pickup in June 1990.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________

MISC DEATHS
_________________________________________________________________

Stanley Heard

Chairman, National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee

Steve Dickson

- Counsel to Mr. Heard died: 9/10/93 - Both died in a plane crash
outside Dulles airport, after their aircraft, rented after Heard's
personal craft developed troubles, crashed while attempting an
emergency landing after reporting a fire on board. - Heard, in
addition to serving on Clinton's advisory council, also personally
treated Clinton's mother, stepfather, and brother.
_________________________________________________________________

Jim Wilhite

Vice Chairman, Arkla, Inc.

died: 12/21/92 - Died in a one-person skiing accident. - Wilhite had
extensive ties with Clinton and Mack McLarty, with whom he visited by
telephone just hours before his death.
_________________________________________________________________

Wounded or attempted murder:
_________________________________________________________________

Gary Johnson

: Not dead, but beaten near death and left for dead. Had videotapes of
Clinton breaking into Gennifer Flowers' apartment. His tapes were
taken.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________

Dennis Patrick

: Court clerk. Had millions of dollars laundered through his account
at Lasater & Co without his knowledge. Four attempts on his life.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________

L.J. Davis

: Reporter investigating Clinton scandals. Attacked at his hotel room
in Little Rock. His notes were stolen.
_________________________________________________________________

Larry Nichols

: Former official at ADFA and author of "The Clinton Chronicles." The
man who broke many of the Clinton scandal stories. Several attempts on
his life.
_________________________________________________________________

Sadly, the list goes on......

--
Mike & Claire - The Rancho Runnamukka http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/
http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/CRASH/TWA/CIAVIDEO/ciavideo.html
Awarded a Lycos "Top 5%" of the web!

[Michael Rivero]

In article <ukVg1BsQ9GA.240@upnetnews04>,

The FBI's own records prove there is a cover up in the death of
Vincent Foster, which in turn proves it's a murder.

Foster was last seen alive inside the White House.

And who has the authority to order the FBI, the Park Police, and
several other government agencies all to cooperate in a cover up?

[Eleanor Rotthoff]

"Marcel" <mh...@nospammindspring.com> wrote:
>Eleanor Rotthoff wrote in message <34f5fe87...@news.texas.net>...

> Monica Lewinsky's lawyer William Ginsburg, for example, has
>>over the last few weeks made some of the most fantastic statements I
>>have ever heard come out of a lawyer's mouth.

>Like what? I've heard he is a very respected attorney.

Ginsburg may very well be an excellent medical malpractice defense
lawyer who is just totally at sea trying to handle a major criminal
defense case. I don't know. But some of his recent statements would
have been unbelieveable coming out of the mouth of a first year law
student. For example (just off the top of my head):

1. The prosecutors haven't been "nice." (Since when is a criminal
investigation ever "nice"? For that matter, since when is *crime*
ever "nice"?)

2. "My client stands by her affidavit for now." (Huh?????)

3. "I would never broach the attorney/client privilege" while he was
in fact probably waiving attorney/client privilege six ways from
Sunday -- an unforgivable sin for any lawyer.

4. "I'm the most famous man in the world." (Oh, brother!)

5. His statement to the newspaper in Jerusalem that he and Monica
fully support Bill Clinton because of Clinton's support for Israel.

6. His continued babbling about how the OIC should not "violate
Monica's privacy" by "intruding into her sex life" while resolutely
trying (with no success at all) to obscure the issues of perjury,
subornation of perjury, and obstruction of justice. (Even Katie
Couric got fed up with him this week and said to him, "With all due
respect, what's your point?")

7. His whine that he is not "being paid appropriately" while he is
jetting from coast to coast first class, staying for extended periods
of time at extremely expensive hotels, dining in expensive
restaurants, and tooling around in limousines, all for the apparent
purpose of getting his face on TV as much as possible.

8. Above all, transforming his client from a sympathetic young woman
who in all probability would never in this world have been indicted
into someone who appears to be an opportunistic liar who probably now
*will* be indicted.

Eleanor Rotthoff

[Eleanor Rotthoff]

"Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>Eleanor Rotthoff wrote in message <34f9cce4...@news.texas.net>...
>>"Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>>Eleanor Rotthoff wrote in message <35065b70...@news.texas.net>...
>>>>Frances Del Rio <f...@shell2.ba.best.com> wrote:

>>>>>As for the private investigators, they have been looking at the *public*
>>>>>records of some prosecutors in Starr’s office who’ve been fined for
>>>>>questionable unethical behavior before..

>>>>Well, that's the current story. The previous story was that there
>>>>were no private investigators *at all* looking into the backgrounds of
>>>>prosectors, witnesses, etc.

>>>And who's story was it?

>>The statement was made by WH press secretary Mike McCurry and it was
>>an absolutely unqualified denial that anything of this kind had
>>happened.

>So you really think that McCurry is one of the insiders? You really think
>that McCurry is being let in on all of the correct information? Come
>on...the guy is winging it, and he has stated that he doesn't want to know
>what is going on because he does not want to be dragged before the Grand
>Jury.

Whether McCurry is or is not "one of the insiders" is totally beside
the point. He was told by the Clinton defense team to categorically
deny to the media and the public that the lawyers had hired a private
investigator to look into the backgrounds of prosecutors. That
statement is now "inoperative."

>>>A. The press, who seems to be printing/broadcasting anything that sounds
>>>good?
>>>B. McCurry, who is NOT being briefed by the White House lawyers to keep
>>>him out of legal trouble?

>>McCurry was questioned by reporters about the basis for his denial at
>>the time he made it. He said it was based on what the lawyers had
>>told him and, "God help them if it's not true." I would imagine that
>>McCurry is now furious that his credibility was trashed in service of
>>the lawyers' attempts to hide what they were doing.

>McCurry, as I've stated before is not in the know, nor is anyone in the
>Inner Circle going to cut him in. Despite all of his earlier comments about
>not wanting to know the real scoop, he is actually upset because he DOESN'T
>know. So he's lashing out in hopes that someone in the Inner Circle will
>tell him something, anything, to allow him to deal with the White House
>Press.

A not unreasonable expectation on the part of a WH press secretary.
But McCurry's attitude (like his status as "in the know" or not "in
the know") is totally irrelevant. He made a public statement which
the Clinton lawyers told him to make, and it turned out to be untrue.

McCurry was merely the conduit for false information provided by the
Bennett/Kendall legal team. In short, they lied when they said they
had not hired a private investigator to check prosecutors'
backgrounds. I see no reason to believe them now when they say that
the private investigator was limited to checking public records --
especially when someone has clearly been trying to peddle dirt about
the prosecutors' private lives.

>>>>>The WH has a legitimate right to look into that.. Anybody who wants
>>>>>can get public records regarding public officials, I guess you hire
>>>>>investigators to expedite the process of getting the records.

>>>>18 U.S.C. 1605 and 371 make it a federal crime (obstruction of
>>>>justice) to attempt to "influence, intimidate or impede" a grand jury
>>>>investigation -- including any attempt to influence or intimidate a
>>>>federal prosecutor conducting a grand jury investigation.

>>>How is obtaining publicly available information an attempt to "'influence,
>>>intimidate or impede' a grand jury investigation"?

>>Judge Starr said today that his office has been flooded by "dozens" of
>>telephone calls from reporters seeking to confirm rumors and
>>innuendoes about the *private* lives of various members of his staff.
>>So much for "publicly available information."

>That information is not publicly available?

Information about people's private lives is not usually publicly
available. Thank goodness.

>You apparently think it's great when the President of the United States is
>publicly slammed on a daily basis with alleged sexual misconduct, but you
>are appalled when the tables are turned!!??

I don't think it's great for Bill Clinton to get slammed about sexual
misconduct. In fact, the entire subject of Bill Clinton's sex life
bores me to tears. As I have said more than once in usenet, Clinton
could have an orgy on the WH lawn with a herd of sheep, and I couldn't
possibly care less. Like most Americans, I DO care about possible

perjury, subornation of perjury, and obstruction of justice.

Similarly, I have no interest whatsoever in the private lives of OIC
lawyers (or even what might have happened in the professional life of
one of them 13 years ago.) If David Kendall's little gumshoe can turn
up "specific and credible" evidence that the OIC lawyers may have
committed perjury, subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice,
then I will take an interest in that too. I won't hold my breath,
however. We're talking about a group of 20 veteran federal
prosecutors led by a man who has, for more than 30 years, built and
maintained one of the strongest reputations for integrity of any
member of my profession.

>>>If I use the Internet to learn more about the background of a prosecuter
>>>on the Independent Counsel's staff, then am I prosecutable under this
>>>law as you are apparently interpreting it? Of course not!! Because I
>>>am using this information for informational purposes, not to intimidate
>>>anyone.

>>You're quite right. Virtually every criminal offense has two
>>elements: 1) the physical act and 2) the mental element -- what the
>>law calls the "mens rea." In order to prove a crime, any prosecutor
>>has to prove both elements. The fact that information has been
>>gathered is only one half of the equation. The mens rea (in this case
>>intent to intimidate and impede) would also have to be proven. But
>>just as a matter of curiosity, what do you think would be the intent
>>of Clinton's defense team in gathering a bunch of dirt on the private
>>lives of a whole staff of federal prosecutors in this situation? Do
>>you suppose that Clinton's lawyers were simply curious? Are they just
>>a bunch of voyeurs?

I note that you don't even try to answer the question. Let me give
you another opportunity: If the intent of the Clinton defense team in
employing a private investigator to gather information on the private
lives of prosecutors is *not* to intimidate or impede, then what do
you suppose their intention is?

>When Starr made the comment about how professional and experienced his
>organization is, he opened Pandora's Box all by himself. The same thing
>happened when Gary Hart told the press they couldn't catch him with another
>woman. You simply do not challenge the press in this country...it makes
>them very inquisitive.

And how does the press being inquisitive have anything whatever to do
with David Kendall hiring a private investigator to check into the
backgrounds of OIC lawyers?

>And you don't piss them off, as Starr has done with the
>subpoena of Blumenthal...that was REAL dumb.

Blumenthal is much too much of an egotistical big mouth for the media
types to have any particular amount of sympathy for him. Moreover, he
is not a journalist. He's a political hatchet man for the WH, and the
media types know that only too well. (Some of them seemed to get a
certain amount of satisfaction at the sight of Ol' Sid having to sit
his little keister on a bench outside the grand jury room for a whole
day.)

>Now, I want to ask you how the PUBLIC information obtained by the
>President's lawyers' private investigators concerning two of Starr's prize
>prosecutors has been suddenly transformed in your writings into "Clinton's
>defense team...gathering a bunch of dirt on the private
>lives of a whole staff of federal prosecutors". You don't think the press
>has started to smell Starr's blood in the water, and are starting to do
>their own research?

The press doesn't give a hoot about the private lives of OIC lawyers
whom most Americans don't either know or care about. Such a story
would not sell one newspaper or boost TV ratings by one point. The
only people who have a vested interest in denigrating those lawyers
are what you refer to as the WH Inner Circle.

>>>Perhaps the two prosecutors with egg on their face should have
>>>owned up to their past mistakes prior to taking the position with Starr.

>>They don't have egg on their faces at all. Even the one prosecutor
>>who was fined 13 years ago had his fine paid by the state for which he
>>was working and has been described by his former boss there as "one of
>>the finest prosecutors who ever worked for me."

>Are you discussing the prosecutor who was fined $50,000? Evidently they
>must have had some form of errors and omissions insurance which actually
>ended up paying the fine. I really don't believe that taxpayers in ANY
>state would allow that to happen.

The state (like many states) has a trust fund which pays such fines
for state employees who are deemed by their employers to have been
fined unfairly.

>And as far as his former boss making such glowing comments, I'm not
>surprised. He. or she, probably had no idea what this guy did on a
>day-to-day basis to obtain his conviction rate.

ROTFL. If his boss says he was an excellent prosecutor, then his boss
must have had no idea what he was doing???????? But you of course
do know that the guy was a real schlock, right? Gimme a break!

>>>>Similarly, it is a federal crime to attempt to dig up dirt on witnesses
>>>>in order to try to influence their testimony. Those who believe that
>>>>"politics is war" need to remember that we still have a criminal code
>>>>and that there are consequences for violating it.

>>>So what do you think Starr is doing with his tactics of bringing
>>>Lewinsky's mother in front of the Grand Jury?

>>Questioning a co-conspirator about her involvement in perjury,
>>subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice. Tell you what.
>>You can give me a bunch of soap opera tears about Marcia Lewis if you
>>can produce your post denouncing the prosecution for forcing Timothy
>>McVeigh's sister to provide testimony which was used to convict her
>>brother and sentence him to death. Or your condemnation of Reagan
>>official Timothy Reed's 82-year-old father being forced to testify
>>against Reed. If you didn't care about those cases when they
>>occurred, then you're just quoting WH spin now.

>I didn't like that, either. At least I'm consistent in my personal view of
>what an Independent Counsel should be allowed to do, or not allowed to do.
>And no, I was not involved in posting to this newsgroup back then to prove
>my personal standpoint.

The McVeigh trial was only completed a short time ago. Are you really
*that* new to usenet?

>>>What do you think Starr did when he put Susan McDougall in jail?

>>For approximately the 87th time in usenet, Kenneth Starr did NOT put
>>Susan McDougal in jail. He has no power to do so. Judge Susan Wright
>>of the federal district court in Little Rock put McDougal in jail for
>>contempt of court, and Judge Wright keeps her there. Judges take a
>>very, very dim view of contempt of court.

>Starr had nothing to do with McDougal ending up in jail?
>Come on, get real!! The judge is acting on Starr's recommendations, as you
>well know.

I'll tell you what I know based on almost 20 years of day-in-day-out
experience with judges. They do what they darn well want to do
(consistent with the law), and my "recommendations" rarely enter into
the picture unless I am providing them a good rationale for getting
them where they want to go. They have the black robes, you know.
And I would really hate to be in the shoes of any prosecutor who tried
to tell a judge, "Well, Your Honor, I know that person is in blatant
contempt of court, but I think we should just overlook it." That
prosecutor would, at a minimum, receive a very public dressing down in
open court by every judge I know.

>>>And yes, we do have a criminal code but unfortunately Starr is not
>>>accountable to anyone.

>>You are mistaken. Ken Starr and the OIC are accountable to 1) the
>>federal district judge supervising the grand jury investigation (a
>>Clinton appointee), 2) the Attorney General who can fire the
>>independent counsel for good cause, and 3) the three judge federal
>>panel which appointed him.

>I) the Federal judge is a personal friend of Starr, and his right-wing
>buddies;

You are mistaken. Judge Johnson is a Clinton appointee. And the OIC
is accountable to her.

>2) Reno is boxed-in...she caught so much flak because she refused to appoint
>a prosecutor in the campaign funds case, that she is not about to stick her
>neck out again;

I think you underestimate her. But that's really beside the point.
The AG has the responsibility for supervising the IC's performance and
has the power, under the statute, to fire him for good cause. That
clearly makes him accountable to her.

>3) yes, we all know about the three judge panel, particularly the one who is
>a buddy with Jessie Helms.

Let's not forget the liberal who was appointed by LBJ. And let's not
forget that all of their decisions have been unanimous. Again, the
OIC is accountable to the three judge federal panel.

>>BTW if these subpoenas are as out of line as you seem to consider
>>them, why do you suppose the federal judge supervising the grand jury
>>keeps upholding them? In virtually every controversial case, the
>>witness goes to court to try to quash the subpoena, and the judge
>>keeps sending them back to testify. Why do you suppose that is?

>I've already answered this one...see above.

I assume that you mean your comment that Judge Johnson is a "personal
friend of Starr and his rght-wing buddies." I assure you that you
could not possibly be more wrong. I assume that Johnson and Starr
know each other; it would be almost impossible for them not to. But I
have no reason to think that they are friends.

Judge Johnson is a Clinton appointee with a quite liberal track
record. To suggest that she is somehow a member of the "vast
right-wing conspiracy" is simply ludicrous! So try again. Why is it
that Ken Starr and the OIC keep winning in court? Do you suppose it
is even remotely possible that they might be *right* about the law and
that the WH spin is nothing more than spin?

Eleanor Rotthoff

[Karl Auerbach]

In article <OdU26JtQ9GA.248@upnetnews04>, "Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com>
wrote:

> Martin McPhillips wrote in message <34f58327...@news.nyct.net>...

> >On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 08:16:21 -0600, "Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Please, by all means, let us all know what those falsehoods and
> illegalities
> >>really are. Can you tie the President to any wrongdoing in regards to the
> >>Lewinsky situation?
> >

> >Sure, Lewinsky is caught on tape admitting the affair. Clinton
> >got her a job and a top-secret security clearance at the
> >Pentagon. Then he importuned Vernon Jordan to find
> >her a job. He also attempted to get her another job at the
> >U.N.
>
>
> No, the question was what proof, what evidence, do you have of any alleged
> affair.

That's what the Grand Jury is trying to find out: if there is enough
evidence that indicates Clinton lied and/or subourned perjury and/or
obstructed justice.

BTW, in this Court of Public Opinion, which is all this NG is, what level
of "proof" is acceptable? How much actual "proof" do any of us have on any
topic?

>
> All you have is Lewinsky being allegedly taped in a clandestine manner by
> Ms. Tripp. That's it. Nothing more.

Lewinsky "allegedly taped?" Is the suggestion that is wasn't Lewinskt, or
am I misreading this?

But the tapes aren't all. We also have Clinton, under oath, swearing he had
no relations with Lewinsky. That's the other side of the coin. It remains
to be seen whether Starr can connect or not. It might all depend on whether
some folks want to take the heat for all this. Does Lewinsky want to be
indicted by Starr for the possible conflict between what she said in her
Paula Jones deposition and what she siad to Tripp? Is Jordan willing to
take a possible rap for obstruction for the Lewinsky job?

Starr has his work cut out, to be sure, but there are many facets to this.

>
> The tapes recorded in the state of Maryland are illegal because both parties
> must agree to the taping, and we have a couple of tapes made in Virginia
> prior to Starr gaining permission to do so.

I beleive they may be illegal for usage in the state in which the offense
occured. I doubt that Maryland or Virginia law is holding on a US Grand
Jury. But I could be wrong...

>
> Now, back to the original question. What evidence or witnesses does Starr
> have to tie the President directly to Lewinsky while committing an alleged
> act that is NOT criminal.

Who cares? What is important is whether or not Starr can convince the Grand
Jury that enough evidence exists that ties Clinton (and Lewinsky and
Jordan) to lies, obstruction, and subourning. Starr doesn't have to
convince the Grand Jury that the actual sex act constitutes a crime; that
is not the issue. Starr will not prosecute CLinton for getting a BJ in the
Oval Office. Rather, charges will involve lying under oath, obstructing
justice, etc.

>
> And as far as the President getting Lewinsky a job anywhere...that's pure
> fiction, my friend.

Could be. You have some evidence to back that up? 8^) Sorry...

Part of the obstruction and subourning involves the Jordan connection to
getting Lewinsky a job. Can Starr connect the Lewinsky job with Jordan?
Sure looks like he can, but I don't know what's going on the GJ. Now, can
Starr connect Jordan's actions with Clinton? That remains to be seen. Would
Jordan take a fall for Clinton? Who knows?

Hey, and then there is that pesky little Talking Points paper. That's gonna
cause some problems. Who do you think will take the fall for that one?

>
> >Lewinsky if further caught on tape stating that she is being
> >asked to say she did not have an affair that she already
> >admitted having. And that Clinton and Jordan are the ones
> >asking her to do that.
>
> Yes, interesting isn't it? Yet her deposition which she had already signed
> stated that she had no sexual relationship with the President. And even
> close friends have indicated that she is prone to flights of fancy.

So it comes down to the tapes, and what Starr can or can't do with them.
But if memory serves, the possible problem with the tapes only involves
those taped by Lewinsky prior to the FBI involvement. The tapes after the
FBI involvement may not have the legal problem you note above, especially
in a US Grand Jury. I would imnagnine that Starr has to be able to show to
the GJ that he has enough legal evidence, in the form of the tapes, to
raise the entire issue of possible lies, etc. He would have had to present
this evidence at the start just in order to continue. He would need this
evidence to justify the subpoenas to the WH gang that is resulting in the
call of Executive Priveledge to avoid testifying, which is sort of strange
if nothing ever happened in the first place.

Now, I could be way off base on this. It happens.

Then there is the Marcia Lewis testimony. Wonder what happened in that?
What if Marcia confirms that Monica was having an affiar of some sort? Does
that verify the tapes?

>
> Sorry, nothing believable here.

Well, since none of us are privy to Grand Jury testimony, except what is
leaked, we just don't know for a certain what evidence is or has been
presented. Certainly, Starr has provided enough to date to keep the Grand
Jury interested. But is it enough to proceed?

>
>
> >>Or are you one of those desperate people that want the
> >>President out of office so badly that you will believe anything the press
> >>has disseminated or that Starr's Inquisition has leaked?
> >

> >With Clinton there's no need to "believe anything." The truth
> >is stranger and more nauseating than any fiction that could
> >be invented.
>
>
> Ahhhh! So you're going to be the judge of what's believable or not?

May I quote from above?

"Sorry, nothing believable here."

You were saying about judging?

Karl

--
The first lady has described the Arkansas land dealings known as Whitewater
as "the never-ending fictional conspiracy" that "reminds
me of some people's obsession with UFOs and the Hale-Bopp comet.

Well Hillary, welcome to the VRWC!

[J G DeBerry]

Jim Ward wrote:
> considered to be his enemies. Nixon also broke Alger Hiss on falsified
> information given to him by Hoover.
>

> Heck, even George Bush lied more often and was quite good at it. And he
> lied about MAJOR issues, not those that the President is alleged to have
> lied about. Bush lied about the fact that he was in charge of the

Speaking of lying you are doing a good job of it be defending
ALger Hiss, one of the greatest liars in our recent history.
He was a convicted felon and guess what he was convicted of?

Why, lying of course!! Not by Nixon either, but by a jury of his
peers. If the statute of limitations had not run out there is little
doubt in anyone's mind that he would have been convicted of espionage
also.

JdB

[Jim Ward]

Michael Rivero wrote in message <6d4a8e$to$1...@blaze.accessone.com>...
> In article <ukVg1BsQ9GA.240@upnetnews04>,

> Jim Ward <jlw...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> >
> >M Soja wrote in message <351b00cc...@news.newsguy.com>...
> >>On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 23:21:58 -0600, "Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com>
> >>posted:
> >>

> >>>Eleanor Rotthoff wrote in message <34f9cce4...@news.texas.net>...
> >>

> >>>>The statement was made by WH press secretary Mike McCurry and it was
> >>>>an absolutely unqualified denial that anything of this kind had
> >>>>happened.
> >>
> >>>So you really think that McCurry is one of the insiders? You really
think
> >>>that McCurry is being let in on all of the correct information? Come
> >>>on...the guy is winging it, and he has stated that he doesn't want to
know
> >>>what is going on because he does not want to be dragged before the
Grand
> >>>Jury.
> >>

> >><a lotta snip>
> >>
> >>McCurry doesn't want to know the specifics about Lewinsky. Such is
> >>immaterial, as most people here have been saying. The personal
> >>exploits of the man have no bearing on the conduct of the office.
> >>However, the politics and the legalities of the rendering under oath
> >>of falsehoods and alleged falsehoods regarding the specifics of the
> >>Lewinsky affair ARE very pertinent to the public and extremely
> >>importantly to the president's spokesman, McCurry. He doesn't care
> >>what the personal situation is, per se, but he damn well is concerned
> >>about the legal shenanigans coming in the aftermath.
> >>
> >>And there isn't that much sand to hide his head in at the White House,
> >>anyway.
> >
> >
> >

> >Please, by all means, let us all know what those falsehoods and
illegalities
> >really are. Can you tie the President to any wrongdoing in regards to
the

> >Lewinsky situation? Or are you one of those desperate people that want

the
> >President out of office so badly that you will believe anything the press
> >has disseminated or that Starr's Inquisition has leaked?
> >
>
>

> The FBI's own records prove there is a cover up in the death of
>Vincent Foster, which in turn proves it's a murder.
>
> Foster was last seen alive inside the White House.
>
> And who has the authority to order the FBI, the Park Police, and
>several other government agencies all to cooperate in a cover up?
>

Yep,...the old Vince Foster case. How many judges have to rule that his
death was a suicide before you'll let this one go? And please, don't *you*
think that this would be ONE case that Starr could pin on the President?

Now, back to the original question...what have you got concerning the
Lewinsky case? Must be absolutely nothing otherwise I'm sure you would have
answered the question.

[Jim Ward]

Karl Auerbach wrote in message ...

Have *you* seen these tapes? Have *you* heard these tapes? How do we know
that Lewinsky, Tripp and Goldberg have not hatched up a scheme to either
sell a book and get rich, or bring down the Clinton Presidency and get paid
under the table. Let's not forget Goldberg's past history with the the
Nixon organization.

>But the tapes aren't all. We also have Clinton, under oath, swearing he had
>no relations with Lewinsky. That's the other side of the coin. It remains
>to be seen whether Starr can connect or not. It might all depend on whether
>some folks want to take the heat for all this. Does Lewinsky want to be
>indicted by Starr for the possible conflict between what she said in her
>Paula Jones deposition and what she siad to Tripp? Is Jordan willing to
>take a possible rap for obstruction for the Lewinsky job?
>
>Starr has his work cut out, to be sure, but there are many facets to this.

Does Starr want to indict Lewinsky for perjury and have her go to jail like
McDougal?

And what she said to Tripp was not said under oath. Additionally, a number
of things that she allegedly said to Tripp on the tapes were not true, for
instance, a dress with DNA from the President. And no phone answering
machine tapes with the President's voice on them.

And personally speaking, Starr needs to get a little more lead in his ass if
he wants to take on Jordan. That's a very tough customer.

>>
>> The tapes recorded in the state of Maryland are illegal because both
parties
>> must agree to the taping, and we have a couple of tapes made in Virginia
>> prior to Starr gaining permission to do so.
>
>I beleive they may be illegal for usage in the state in which the offense
>occured. I doubt that Maryland or Virginia law is holding on a US Grand
>Jury. But I could be wrong...

Why do you think Starr wired Tripp to get additional audio from Lewinsky?
He had to get something he thought he could use before the Grand Jury.

>>
>> Now, back to the original question. What evidence or witnesses does
Starr
>> have to tie the President directly to Lewinsky while committing an
alleged
>> act that is NOT criminal.
>
>Who cares? What is important is whether or not Starr can convince the Grand
>Jury that enough evidence exists that ties Clinton (and Lewinsky and
>Jordan) to lies, obstruction, and subourning. Starr doesn't have to
>convince the Grand Jury that the actual sex act constitutes a crime; that
>is not the issue. Starr will not prosecute CLinton for getting a BJ in the
>Oval Office. Rather, charges will involve lying under oath, obstructing
>justice, etc.

Who cares!!?? That indicates a basic lack of understanding here.

Yes, Starr DOES have to convince a Grand Jury that such an act took place in
order to make a perjury, or subornation of perjury, charge stick. If the
Grand Jury is not made to believe that such an act took place, then there
will be no indictment.

Or are you actually saying that Starr can get an indictment for perjury,
etc. without proving that anything took place?

>>
>> And as far as the President getting Lewinsky a job anywhere...that's pure
>> fiction, my friend.
>
>Could be. You have some evidence to back that up? 8^) Sorry...

Don't be...that's exactly where this case has wound up...no evidence, and
Starr has gotten pissed that he was taken for a ride.

>
>Part of the obstruction and subourning involves the Jordan connection to
>getting Lewinsky a job. Can Starr connect the Lewinsky job with Jordan?

Do you really think that a guy as smart and as well-connected as Jordan has
left any kind of concrete trail to connect would he did for Lewinsky to any
alleged misconduct with the President?

Besides, I'll bet you dollars to donuts that when push comes to shove,
Jordan can produce a dozen former interns that he has helped find jobs. And
some folks were making a big deal out of a $40,000 job in New York City.
That might just pay the rent in that city.

>Sure looks like he can, but I don't know what's going on the GJ. Now, can
>Starr connect Jordan's actions with Clinton? That remains to be seen. Would
>Jordan take a fall for Clinton? Who knows?
>
>Hey, and then there is that pesky little Talking Points paper. That's gonna
>cause some problems. Who do you think will take the fall for that one?

Now why would "that pesky little Talking Points paper" cause any problems
whatsoever? It has yet to be linked to any of the hundreds of White House
computers, and no handwritten notes were on the document.

How do we know that Lewinsky didn't prepare it for her "friend" Ms. Tripp?

>>
>> >Lewinsky if further caught on tape stating that she is being
>> >asked to say she did not have an affair that she already
>> >admitted having. And that Clinton and Jordan are the ones
>> >asking her to do that.
>>
>> Yes, interesting isn't it? Yet her deposition which she had already
signed
>> stated that she had no sexual relationship with the President. And even
>> close friends have indicated that she is prone to flights of fancy.
>
>So it comes down to the tapes, and what Starr can or can't do with them.
>But if memory serves, the possible problem with the tapes only involves
>those taped by Lewinsky prior to the FBI involvement. The tapes after the
>FBI involvement may not have the legal problem you note above, especially
>in a US Grand Jury. I would imnagnine that Starr has to be able to show to
>the GJ that he has enough legal evidence, in the form of the tapes, to
>raise the entire issue of possible lies, etc. He would have had to present
>this evidence at the start just in order to continue. He would need this
>evidence to justify the subpoenas to the WH gang that is resulting in the
>call of Executive Priveledge to avoid testifying, which is sort of strange
>if nothing ever happened in the first place.
>
>Now, I could be way off base on this. It happens.
>
>Then there is the Marcia Lewis testimony. Wonder what happened in that?
>What if Marcia confirms that Monica was having an affiar of some sort? Does
>that verify the tapes?

Executive Privilege may be used to protect the conversations between Clinton
and his advisors. Based on the hostility projected by Starr and his
prosecutorial team, it's no wonder that the President does not want to even
talk to the man.

Heard on MSNBC last night that DC has a wider interpretation of EP than was
in operation during Watergate.

>>
>> Sorry, nothing believable here.
>
>Well, since none of us are privy to Grand Jury testimony, except what is
>leaked, we just don't know for a certain what evidence is or has been
>presented. Certainly, Starr has provided enough to date to keep the Grand
>Jury interested. But is it enough to proceed?
>
>>
>>
>> >>Or are you one of those desperate people that want the
>> >>President out of office so badly that you will believe anything the
press
>> >>has disseminated or that Starr's Inquisition has leaked?
>> >
>> >With Clinton there's no need to "believe anything." The truth
>> >is stranger and more nauseating than any fiction that could
>> >be invented.
>>
>>
>> Ahhhh! So you're going to be the judge of what's believable or not?
>
>May I quote from above?
>
>"Sorry, nothing believable here."
>
>You were saying about judging?
>
>Karl
>

Yes, I did say something about it...it obviously made very little impact
that my response was to a Mr. McPhillips. Why do you feel it necessary to
defend him?

[Jim Ward]

John W. Tibbs wrote in message <34F5C2BA...@cei.net>...

>> Please, by all means, let us all know what those falsehoods and
illegalities
>> really are. Can you tie the President to any wrongdoing in regards to
the

>> Lewinsky situation? Or are you one of those desperate people that want

the
>> President out of office so badly that you will believe anything the press
>> has disseminated or that Starr's Inquisition has leaked?
>>
>

>"If it walks like a duck and lays duck eggs..........?"

I have obviously asked too much of this poster. I asked for facts and
evidence, not rumors, innuendo, and what you obviously want to believe.

[M Soja]

On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 08:56:53 -0600, "Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com>
posted:

<snippation>

>As you can very clearly see, Clinton is no different from any of the other
>Presidents we've had in the past.

>Most Americans understand that fact.

At the shallowest level Bill Clinton is a tabloid president, a
McDonalds-larded Kentucky-fried dimwit, who can't keep his dirty
laundry, and chuckle-headed "mistakes" off the front pages of the
national newspapers. He has the charm of a used car salesman. And
lately he has the charm of a used car salesman from whom no one has
bought a car in a while.

At a slightly deeper level Clinton is an inept bumbler, yet able to
persuade wide swaths of ignoramuses that he is somehow "running the
country." Since the very beginning, hell, even before the
inauguration, Clinton has made misstep after misstep after misstep.

Haitian refugee reversal, Zoe Baird, Kimba Wood, Lani Guinier, $200
dollar haircuts on the tarmac at LA airport, WH Travel Office firings
and accusations, death of Vince Foster, David Watkins, FBI files,
Craig Livingstone, Richard Jewell, Paula Casey, William Sessions,
Webster Hubbell, Charlie Trie, John Huang, Ron Brown, the hole in Ron
Brown's head, Don't ask don't tell, Jorge Cabrera, late payment of
Whitewater back taxes, Hillary's cattle futures windfall, Mike Espy,
Roger Altman, Jean Hanson, Jocelyn Elders (snort), Henry Cisneros,
grazing fees, Bosnia, Somalia, $13.4 Million for Hillary's failed
health care plan, Bernie Nussbaum, Ira Magaziner's lies, welfare
reform, subpoenaed papers mysteriously reappear in private quarters of
the White House, partial birth abortion, Soldier and Sailors Relief
Act defense, Dick Morris, White House security clearances, Anthony
Marceca, White House database (WhoDb), legal defense fund(s), INS
shortcuts, Indonesian gardners donate $425K to DNC, Buddhist temple,
Marcia Hsia, the Lums, Yogesh Gandhi, Grigori Loutchansky, the Danous,
George Psaltis, Pauline Kanchanalak, Johnny Chung, White House
coffees, Lincoln bedroom, Roger Tamraz, Katherine Willey, White House
chef Sean T. Haddon, Larry Lawrence, Monica Lewinsky, and Saddam
Hussein.

All of the above and more have been characterized by the
administration itself as either mistakes, or snafus, or bureaucratic
mismanagement, or errors, or have been in some other way disavowed.
How can anyone look at any single portion of the Clinton's
work-in-progress and not find ineptitude, malfeasance, corruption,
mismanagement, and willful ignorace through and through, and all
larded over with cheap rhetoric and divisive demagoguery?

But at a deeper level still, the bumbling fades away in view of the
more serious implications of national security and international trade
and corruption. Foreign policy suffered under Warren Christopher and
Ms Albright is doing her best to start a war. Meanwhile, the ability
to handle two international trouble spots at the same time is gone,
and despite Al Gore's rhetoric, the armed forces are the least
prepared and the least well trained in decades. The Riadys and their
henchmen were in and out the White House doors on a regular basis.
Clinton has done somersaults to ship vital hardware and technology to
less than democratic nations while attempting to stifle the use of
such hardware and technology within our own borders.

Now, I know you Dems were locked out of the White House for a few
years, but is this really your idea of how it's supposed to be done?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Well, first of all, I didn't know about it. To the
best of my recollection, I didn't know anything about
his having that job until I read about it in the press.
And I can't imagine who could have ever arranged to
do something improper like that and no one around here
know about it.

It's just not -- we -- we did not know anything about
it. And I can tell you categorically that that did not
happen. I knew nothing about it -- no -- none of us
did -- before it happened. And I didn't personally
know anything about it till I read about it in the
press.

So I don't think -- I think when somebody makes a
charge like that there ought to be some burden on
them to come forward with some evidence to substantiate
their charge instead of saying, "We'll make a charge.
See if you can disprove it." That's not the way things
work. And that's a pretty irresponsible charge to make
without knowing -- having some evidence of it. And I
am just telling you it's not so."

- Bill Clinton (Jan 28, 1997)

[Robert Bruns]

<snip everything - this is a side bar>

From reading the recent posts, a lot of the more creative Clinton
defenders are starting to put forth the idea that the tapes are
frauds. Anyone who hasn't actually seen, heard, smelled and
(presumably) dined upon the cassettes will be attacked as a liar.

In the event that someone who has done all the above comes forward
(certain employees of Newsweek come to m;ind), this group of mustelas
will then maintain that Newsweek (accompanied by the rest of the news
media) and the OIC are the actual perpetrators of the fraud.

Some CDers ("Clinton Defenders", no reference to that much discussed
presidential appendage) even seem willing to include loyal democrats
and Janet Reno herself among the "co-conspirators". Any and all new
information will be laid at the door of one or more conspirators, and
any new voice heard will find themselves lumped in with the rest of us
VRWCers, no matter who they are and what their background is.

Do not be surprised when no amount of logic and evidence will dissuade
these legions of CDers from maintaining that "they" are really the
ones behind every accussation - that all evidence, regardless of
source, is false because they wish it to be false.

We're in for some strange times folks...

[Jim Ward]

Robert Bruns wrote in message <34f5da38....@news.mindspring.com>...

Yep, here's a typical poster with a desperate desire to have Clinton driven
from office! He just cannot stand the thought that Goldberg and Tripp may
be in cahoots, and got Lewinsky to participate.

Furthermore, he has absolutely NO proof of what is said to be contained in
the tapes, nor any proof that the tapes are an accurate representation of
alleged events between Clinton and Lewinsky.

But he can certainly rant an rave, can't he?

[Jim Ward]

Eleanor Rotthoff wrote in message <34f9ab5c...@news.texas.net>...

And where did you here or read that? The newspaper? Television? Radio?

Is this a verified statement or just one of those "sources said" statements?

Was it *all* of Clinton's lawyers who told McCurry, or just one faction who
knew nothing about the hiring of a private investigator?

And why is it beside the point?

>>>>A. The press, who seems to be printing/broadcasting anything that sounds
>>>>good?
>>>>B. McCurry, who is NOT being briefed by the White House lawyers to keep
>>>>him out of legal trouble?
>
>>>McCurry was questioned by reporters about the basis for his denial at
>>>the time he made it. He said it was based on what the lawyers had
>>>told him and, "God help them if it's not true." I would imagine that
>>>McCurry is now furious that his credibility was trashed in service of
>>>the lawyers' attempts to hide what they were doing.
>
>>McCurry, as I've stated before is not in the know, nor is anyone in the
>>Inner Circle going to cut him in. Despite all of his earlier comments
about
>>not wanting to know the real scoop, he is actually upset because he
DOESN'T
>>know. So he's lashing out in hopes that someone in the Inner Circle will
>>tell him something, anything, to allow him to deal with the White House
>>Press.
>
>A not unreasonable expectation on the part of a WH press secretary.
>But McCurry's attitude (like his status as "in the know" or not "in
>the know") is totally irrelevant. He made a public statement which
>the Clinton lawyers told him to make, and it turned out to be untrue.

If true, do you really think that is the first time a press secretary was
told something to say that later turned out to be untrue?

And again, was it *all* of the lawyers or just one who allegedly told
McCurry this story?

>
>McCurry was merely the conduit for false information provided by the
>Bennett/Kendall legal team. In short, they lied when they said they
>had not hired a private investigator to check prosecutors'
>backgrounds. I see no reason to believe them now when they say that
>the private investigator was limited to checking public records --
>especially when someone has clearly been trying to peddle dirt about
>the prosecutors' private lives.

Please tell me, have you heard anything about any of the prosecutor's
private lives?

But why should they be immune when the President, his wife, and his staff is
being subjected to an investigation of their private lives?

Is that really obstruction of justice, or just something Starr and his
Inquisition dreamed up?

>
>>>>>>The WH has a legitimate right to look into that.. Anybody who wants
>>>>>>can get public records regarding public officials, I guess you hire
>>>>>>investigators to expedite the process of getting the records.
>
>>>>>18 U.S.C. 1605 and 371 make it a federal crime (obstruction of
>>>>>justice) to attempt to "influence, intimidate or impede" a grand jury
>>>>>investigation -- including any attempt to influence or intimidate a
>>>>>federal prosecutor conducting a grand jury investigation.
>
>>>>How is obtaining publicly available information an attempt to
"'influence,
>>>>intimidate or impede' a grand jury investigation"?
>
>>>Judge Starr said today that his office has been flooded by "dozens" of
>>>telephone calls from reporters seeking to confirm rumors and
>>>innuendoes about the *private* lives of various members of his staff.
>>>So much for "publicly available information."
>
>>That information is not publicly available?
>
>Information about people's private lives is not usually publicly
>available. Thank goodness.

100% agreed. But legal judgements are in the public domain, and that has
come out. If Starr continues to piss off the press, there'll be a lot more,
and a lot more substantiated than what has been dustributed to the public
about Clinton.

And if you're so concerned about private lives all of a sudden, how come you
appear yto have very littl concern about the President, his wife and his
staff? Are they fair game as far as you're concerned?

Please tell me what has been released about any of the prosecutor's private
lives?

>>You apparently think it's great when the President of the United States is
>>publicly slammed on a daily basis with alleged sexual misconduct, but you
>>are appalled when the tables are turned!!??
>
>I don't think it's great for Bill Clinton to get slammed about sexual
>misconduct. In fact, the entire subject of Bill Clinton's sex life
>bores me to tears. As I have said more than once in usenet, Clinton
>could have an orgy on the WH lawn with a herd of sheep, and I couldn't
>possibly care less. Like most Americans, I DO care about possible
>perjury, subornation of perjury, and obstruction of justice.
>
>Similarly, I have no interest whatsoever in the private lives of OIC
>lawyers (or even what might have happened in the professional life of
>one of them 13 years ago.) If David Kendall's little gumshoe can turn
>up "specific and credible" evidence that the OIC lawyers may have
>committed perjury, subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice,
>then I will take an interest in that too. I won't hold my breath,
>however. We're talking about a group of 20 veteran federal
>prosecutors led by a man who has, for more than 30 years, built and
>maintained one of the strongest reputations for integrity of any
>member of my profession.

Please tell us what case Starr has been personally responsible for
prosecuting.

And then tell us why he allowed a couple of prosecutors with marks on their
records on his staff? And if he knew about the problems, that's worse!

>>>>If I use the Internet to learn more about the background of a prosecuter
>>>>on the Independent Counsel's staff, then am I prosecutable under this
>>>>law as you are apparently interpreting it? Of course not!! Because I
>>>>am using this information for informational purposes, not to intimidate
>>>>anyone.
>
>>>You're quite right. Virtually every criminal offense has two
>>>elements: 1) the physical act and 2) the mental element -- what the
>>>law calls the "mens rea." In order to prove a crime, any prosecutor
>>>has to prove both elements. The fact that information has been
>>>gathered is only one half of the equation. The mens rea (in this case
>>>intent to intimidate and impede) would also have to be proven. But
>>>just as a matter of curiosity, what do you think would be the intent
>>>of Clinton's defense team in gathering a bunch of dirt on the private
>>>lives of a whole staff of federal prosecutors in this situation? Do
>>>you suppose that Clinton's lawyers were simply curious? Are they just
>>>a bunch of voyeurs?
>
>I note that you don't even try to answer the question. Let me give
>you another opportunity: If the intent of the Clinton defense team in
>employing a private investigator to gather information on the private
>lives of prosecutors is *not* to intimidate or impede, then what do
>you suppose their intention is?
>

Do you think Bennett or Kendall have the time to pursue information in the
public domain, or do you think that Clinton are the only clients they have?

And why do you think, as you said, this "group of 20 veteran federal
prosecutors" should be concerned about one private investigator even coming
close to impeding or obstructing their prosecutorial activities?

>>When Starr made the comment about how professional and experienced his
>>organization is, he opened Pandora's Box all by himself. The same thing
>>happened when Gary Hart told the press they couldn't catch him with
another
>>woman. You simply do not challenge the press in this country...it makes
>>them very inquisitive.
>
>And how does the press being inquisitive have anything whatever to do
>with David Kendall hiring a private investigator to check into the
>backgrounds of OIC lawyers?

I've already answered this question. Why does a private investigator worry
you so much? Do you think the Special Prosecutor's office does not hire
private investigators from time to time?

>>And you don't piss them off, as Starr has done with the
>>subpoena of Blumenthal...that was REAL dumb.
>
>Blumenthal is much too much of an egotistical big mouth for the media
>types to have any particular amount of sympathy for him. Moreover, he
>is not a journalist. He's a political hatchet man for the WH, and the
>media types know that only too well. (Some of them seemed to get a
>certain amount of satisfaction at the sight of Ol' Sid having to sit
>his little keister on a bench outside the grand jury room for a whole
>day.)

I didn't notice the press on CNN, CBS, MSNBC, NBC, or ABC gloating over
Blumenthal having to appear before the Grand Jury. They appeared to me to
more than a little upset about it. Even the legal shows, which have
normally been quite supportive, have started to turn away from Starr's
behavior of late.

What's at stake here is the right of anyone to talk to the press in regards
to a story...I believe that falls under Free Speech.

>
>>Now, I want to ask you how the PUBLIC information obtained by the
>>President's lawyers' private investigators concerning two of Starr's prize
>>prosecutors has been suddenly transformed in your writings into "Clinton's
>>defense team...gathering a bunch of dirt on the private
>>lives of a whole staff of federal prosecutors". You don't think the press
>>has started to smell Starr's blood in the water, and are starting to do
>>their own research?
>
>The press doesn't give a hoot about the private lives of OIC lawyers
>whom most Americans don't either know or care about. Such a story
>would not sell one newspaper or boost TV ratings by one point. The
>only people who have a vested interest in denigrating those lawyers
>are what you refer to as the WH Inner Circle.

Oh? That's funny. It appears that a LOT of Americans are becoming
increasingly more concerned that Starr is using hatchet men to pursue what
he believes to be a case.

Selling newspapers has very little to do with a growing uneasiness felt by
the general public about our legal/judicial system of which this Special
Prosecutor and Grand Jury are still a part.

>>>>Perhaps the two prosecutors with egg on their face should have
>>>>owned up to their past mistakes prior to taking the position with Starr.
>
>>>They don't have egg on their faces at all. Even the one prosecutor
>>>who was fined 13 years ago had his fine paid by the state for which he
>>>was working and has been described by his former boss there as "one of
>>>the finest prosecutors who ever worked for me."
>
>>Are you discussing the prosecutor who was fined $50,000? Evidently they
>>must have had some form of errors and omissions insurance which actually
>>ended up paying the fine. I really don't believe that taxpayers in ANY
>>state would allow that to happen.
>
>The state (like many states) has a trust fund which pays such fines
>for state employees who are deemed by their employers to have been
>fined unfairly.

The language concerning why the prosecutor was fined was VERY strong...how
could anyone think that he was fined "unfairly"?

>>And as far as his former boss making such glowing comments, I'm not
>>surprised. He. or she, probably had no idea what this guy did on a
>>day-to-day basis to obtain his conviction rate.
>
>ROTFL. If his boss says he was an excellent prosecutor, then his boss
>must have had no idea what he was doing???????? But you of course
>do know that the guy was a real schlock, right? Gimme a break!

That's not what I wrote, just *your* interpretation.

My comment centered around the fact that every prosecutors office is
extremely busy, to include the individual who must manage those activities
day-to-day. The intent, which you obviously misunderstood, was to indicate
that his boss didn't know the details of what he was doing on a day-to-day
basis to obtain his conviction rate. You read something else entirely.

>>>>>Similarly, it is a federal crime to attempt to dig up dirt on witnesses
>>>>>in order to try to influence their testimony. Those who believe that
>>>>>"politics is war" need to remember that we still have a criminal code
>>>>>and that there are consequences for violating it.
>
>>>>So what do you think Starr is doing with his tactics of bringing
>>>>Lewinsky's mother in front of the Grand Jury?
>
>>>Questioning a co-conspirator about her involvement in perjury,
>>>subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice. Tell you what.
>>>You can give me a bunch of soap opera tears about Marcia Lewis if you
>>>can produce your post denouncing the prosecution for forcing Timothy
>>>McVeigh's sister to provide testimony which was used to convict her
>>>brother and sentence him to death. Or your condemnation of Reagan
>>>official Timothy Reed's 82-year-old father being forced to testify
>>>against Reed. If you didn't care about those cases when they
>>>occurred, then you're just quoting WH spin now.
>
>>I didn't like that, either. At least I'm consistent in my personal view
of
>>what an Independent Counsel should be allowed to do, or not allowed to do.
>>And no, I was not involved in posting to this newsgroup back then to prove
>>my personal standpoint.
>
>The McVeigh trial was only completed a short time ago. Are you really
>*that* new to usenet?

No, I'm not new to participating in newsgroups or to using the Internet. As
I stated before, I did not participate in this newsgroup previously.

>>>>What do you think Starr did when he put Susan McDougall in jail?
>
>>>For approximately the 87th time in usenet, Kenneth Starr did NOT put
>>>Susan McDougal in jail. He has no power to do so. Judge Susan Wright
>>>of the federal district court in Little Rock put McDougal in jail for
>>>contempt of court, and Judge Wright keeps her there. Judges take a
>>>very, very dim view of contempt of court.
>
>>Starr had nothing to do with McDougal ending up in jail?
>>Come on, get real!! The judge is acting on Starr's recommendations, as
you
>>well know.
>
>I'll tell you what I know based on almost 20 years of day-in-day-out
>experience with judges. They do what they darn well want to do
>(consistent with the law), and my "recommendations" rarely enter into
>the picture unless I am providing them a good rationale for getting
>them where they want to go. They have the black robes, you know.
>And I would really hate to be in the shoes of any prosecutor who tried
>to tell a judge, "Well, Your Honor, I know that person is in blatant
>contempt of court, but I think we should just overlook it." That
>prosecutor would, at a minimum, receive a very public dressing down in
>open court by every judge I know.

Are you trying to say that it is a lot easier to recommend that somone be
thrown into jail than to keep them out? That worries me, too.

And don't *you* think that a Special Prosecutor carries more weight before a
judge than say your average DA?

It's clear that we have a major difference of opinion on the above several
points...it's no use discussing them.

But I do have a problem with your definition of LBJ as a "liberal". This
guy was in bed with every Defense contractor and oil company in Texas, and
escalated the Vietnam War past the point of no return.

Maybe you meant "liberal" in the old sense of the term, or perhaps your
definition has something to do with his push to pass the Civil Rights Act?

>>>BTW if these subpoenas are as out of line as you seem to consider
>>>them, why do you suppose the federal judge supervising the grand jury
>>>keeps upholding them? In virtually every controversial case, the
>>>witness goes to court to try to quash the subpoena, and the judge
>>>keeps sending them back to testify. Why do you suppose that is?
>
>>I've already answered this one...see above.
>
>I assume that you mean your comment that Judge Johnson is a "personal
>friend of Starr and his rght-wing buddies." I assure you that you
>could not possibly be more wrong. I assume that Johnson and Starr
>know each other; it would be almost impossible for them not to. But I
>have no reason to think that they are friends.
>
>Judge Johnson is a Clinton appointee with a quite liberal track
>record. To suggest that she is somehow a member of the "vast
>right-wing conspiracy" is simply ludicrous! So try again. Why is it
>that Ken Starr and the OIC keep winning in court? Do you suppose it
>is even remotely possible that they might be *right* about the law and
>that the WH spin is nothing more than spin?
>
>Eleanor Rotthoff

I don't recall mentioning a "vast right-wing conspiracy", do you? I stated
that Starr is in cahoots with a number of right-wing individuals, groups and
causes, nothing more.

And as I mentioned before, I have some concern over your use of the term
"liberal".

[Jim Ward]

My, my...if I were an on-the-fence lurker, I would CERTAINLY be convinced by
the following diatribe!

Tell me, do you eat with that mouth?

M Soja wrote in message <34fcc949...@news.newsguy.com>...

[Jim Ward]

J G DeBerry wrote in message ...

And you need to read your history a lot closer...Hoover supplied Nixon with
a lot of fabricated evidence that was used later to convict Hiss of perjury.
Now, can you honestly tell me, or anyone else that Nixon and Hoover were
honest people? Can you honestly tell me that Hoover was not fixated with
finding so-called "Communists" under every bed, to include the actors and
actresses in Hollywood?

Want to guess who was Hoover's chief informant while the witch-hunt went on
on Hollywood? Ronald Reagan.

[David Goldman]

McCurrey is getting to be a little like Ron Ziegler. Remember him?! He
was Nixon's spokesman.

[gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com]

erot...@texas.net (Eleanor Rotthoff) wrote:

But peddling dirt and false rumors about Clinton, when they come from
starr is ok. Funny how the bias of this "lawyer" shines through clear
as a bell.

__________________________________________________
Let The White Rose enlighten you.

http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
gdy weasel
___________________________________________________
Mike Ejercito bumbles another:

>National health care would make little difference. People who can not
>afford it will still not get it.

[Marcel]

Eleanor Rotthoff wrote in message <34f7aae1...@news.texas.net>...

>Ginsburg may very well be an excellent medical malpractice defense
>lawyer who is just totally at sea trying to handle a major criminal
>defense case. I don't know.

Well some are saying the same thing about Starr that he lacks experience in
criminal trials.

>But some of his recent statements would
>have been unbelieveable coming out of the mouth of a first year law
>student. For example (just off the top of my head):
>

<examples snipped>

Well many of these statements I haven't heard him make. We will just have
to wait until the end of this before making any judgments. You seem to
think he has been foolish. I have heard other criminal defense lawyers say
he has been brilliant. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere inbetween?

[J G DeBerry]

Proof of your statement that fabricated evidence was used or else
I would have to conclude that you are trying to get by with a lie
too.

> Want to guess who was Hoover's chief informant while the witch-hunt went on
> on Hollywood? Ronald Reagan.

A lie for sure. Reagan testified so did a lot of other people.

JdB

[C.F. Barr]

Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:
>
> "Marcel" <mh...@nospammindspring.com> wrote:
> >Eleanor Rotthoff wrote in message <34f5fe87...@news.texas.net>...
>
> > Monica Lewinsky's lawyer William Ginsburg, for example, has
> >>over the last few weeks made some of the most fantastic statements I
> >>have ever heard come out of a lawyer's mouth.
>
> >Like what? I've heard he is a very respected attorney.
>

> Ginsburg may very well be an excellent medical malpractice defense
> lawyer who is just totally at sea trying to handle a major criminal

> defense case. I don't know. But some of his recent statements would

> have been unbelieveable coming out of the mouth of a first year law
> student. For example (just off the top of my head):
>

Excellent points Eleanor: Ginsburg is way way out of his league. He needs to
return to the farmland or wherever the hell he came from.

[Eleanor Rotthoff]

"Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>Karl Auerbach wrote in message ...

<massive snippage to clarify a couple of legal points>

>>I beleive [the Tripp tapes] may be illegal for usage in the state in which

>>the offense occured. I doubt that Maryland or Virginia law is holding on
>>a US Grand Jury. But I could be wrong...

You're absolutely right. The fact that the taping might have been
illegal under Maryland law is no bar to the tapes being used in a
federal prosecution, either before the grand jury or at trial.

>Why do you think Starr wired Tripp to get additional audio from Lewinsky?
>He had to get something he thought he could use before the Grand Jury.

You are mistaken. First, the normal rules of evidence do not apply to
grand jury proceedings. Even evidence which would be inadmissible at
trial can be presented to the grand jury. Second, the Tripp tapes are
perfectly admissible even at trial in a federal proceeding. They may
be subject to a hearsay objection if they are introduced for certain
purposes, but they would not be excluded from evidence. To answer
your question directly: the OIC wired Tripp to satisfy themselves
that the tapes were not a complete fabrication, i.e. that Lewinsky had
indeed made the statements which she purportedly made on the tapes.

>Yes, Starr DOES have to convince a Grand Jury that [sexual relations]

>took place in order to make a perjury, or subornation of perjury, charge
>stick. If the Grand Jury is not made to believe that such an act took
>place, then there will be no indictment.

According to Newsweek's Michael Isikoff there were *several*
statements during the course of the Clinton deposition which could be
the source of a perjury charge -- not just the denial of a sexual
relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Any such statement, if shown to be
material, false, and knowingly made, can form the basis for a perjury
indictment.

>Executive Privilege may be used to protect the conversations between
>Clinton and his advisors.

Executive privilege may be invoked to presumptively protect from
disclosure conversations between a president and his advisors when
they are discussing *policy* matters, especially national security
matters. That does not, of course, extend to conversations about how
to protect a president from the consequences of his personal
indiscretions. Moreover, the USSC has ruled that executive privilege,
even when shown to apply, must yield to a demonstrated need for
evidence in a pending criminal investigation. (U.S. v. Nixon) Any
claim of executive privilege in this case would IMO merely delay the
inevitable -- and, with the Nixon precedent sitting out there,
probably not delay it very much.

Eleanor Rotthoff

[Eleanor Rotthoff]

I *saw* McCurry make the statement on TV. I heard any number of
journalists report the Kendall/Bennett statement later.

>Is this a verified statement or just one of those "sources said" statements?

What??????

>Was it *all* of Clinton's lawyers who told McCurry, or just one faction who
>knew nothing about the hiring of a private investigator?

It doesn't matter.

>And why is it beside the point?

Let's take this one step at a time. Frances originally said that
David Kendall's gum shoe is supposedly looking only into the public
records about people he is investigating. I pointed out that the WH
had previously said that no private investigator had been hired at
all. My point, of course, was that when we discover someone has lied
to us once, we are less likely to believe them when they tell us
something else on the same subject.

At that point you interjected that McCurry is not "one of the
insiders", "not in the know," etc., etc., implying I suppose that one
should not hold the WH accountable for the truth and accuracy of the
statements of the presidential press secretary. (I reject that
notion.) Now you want to get into a whole business about whether some
or all of the Clinton defense team gave McCurry the original story.
That's what people in my business call "chasing rabbit trails."

Jim, I gather you're new among us, and I certainly want to welcome
you. I hope you will continue to participate and that we will have
many interesting exchanges. But as long as you want to chase rabbits,
I'm outta here.

Eleanor Rotthoff

[Mary E Knadler]

In <34f55...@news3.ibm.net> "Steve Gilbert" <bho...@ibm.net> writes:

>
>
>Eleanor Rotthoff wrote in message
<34f9cce4...@news.texas.net>...
>>"Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>>Eleanor Rotthoff wrote in message
<35065b70...@news.texas.net>...
>>>>Frances Del Rio <f...@shell2.ba.best.com> wrote:
>>

><snip>

>>
>>>So what do you think Starr is doing with his tactics of bringing
>Lewinsky's
>>>mother in front of the Grand Jury?
>>
>>Questioning a co-conspirator about her involvement in perjury,
>>subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice. Tell you what.
>>You can give me a bunch of soap opera tears about Marcia Lewis if you
>>can produce your post denouncing the prosecution for forcing Timothy
>>McVeigh's sister to provide testimony which was used to convict her
>>brother and sentence him to death. Or your condemnation of Reagan
>>official Timothy Reed's 82-year-old father being forced to testify
>>against Reed. If you didn't care about those cases when they
>>occurred, then you're just quoting WH spin now.
>

>Or how about Bob Bennett requiring Paula Jones' mother and sister to
testify
>about Paula? Where was the outrage?
>
>SG
>
>
Or Lawrence Walsh compelling Ollie North's wife, Pastor &
Attorney to testify against him.

So what have YOU guys got to complain about. You Dems thought
up this law & thought it was GREAT until your guy got hit with
it. You never thought that could happen now, did you?

yasmin2

[Robert Bruns]

"Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com> wrote:

>
>Robert Bruns wrote in message <34f5da38....@news.mindspring.com>...
>><snip everything - this is a side bar>
>>
>>From reading the recent posts, a lot of the more creative Clinton
>>defenders are starting to put forth the idea that the tapes are
>>frauds. Anyone who hasn't actually seen, heard, smelled and
>>(presumably) dined upon the cassettes will be attacked as a liar.
>>
>>In the event that someone who has done all the above comes forward
>>(certain employees of Newsweek come to m;ind), this group of mustelas
>>will then maintain that Newsweek (accompanied by the rest of the news
>>media) and the OIC are the actual perpetrators of the fraud.
>>
>>Some CDers ("Clinton Defenders", no reference to that much discussed
>>presidential appendage) even seem willing to include loyal democrats
>>and Janet Reno herself among the "co-conspirators". Any and all new
>>information will be laid at the door of one or more conspirators, and
>>any new voice heard will find themselves lumped in with the rest of us
>>VRWCers, no matter who they are and what their background is.
>>
>>Do not be surprised when no amount of logic and evidence will dissuade
>>these legions of CDers from maintaining that "they" are really the
>>ones behind every accussation - that all evidence, regardless of
>>source, is false because they wish it to be false.
>>
>>We're in for some strange times folks...
>>
>
>
>Yep, here's a typical poster with a desperate desire to have Clinton driven
>from office!

Hmmm. Didn't see that in my post anywhere. But then, if I had said
that, you'd be actually addressing a point of logic - something which
you avoid by calling me "desperate". Matter of fact, its my opinion
(expressed elswhere on the usenet should anyone trouble to seek it
out) that it is best for the Republicans that a crippled Clinton
administration remain in office until 2002. It would be a large
strategic error (in purely political terms, of course) to install Gore
in the White House for several years prior to the next presidentail
election. With Clinton powerless, the Republican controlled House and
Senate with esentially assume the leadership role until the next
election.

Then of course there is the entertainment value of discussing this
amazing topic with all these weasels who keep invading this Republican
ng. I was curious as to how long it would take one of them to pounce
on me and start calling me names...

> He just cannot stand the thought that Goldberg and Tripp may
>be in cahoots,

Don't limit your comments to just Goldberg and Tripp. If you're going
to go the VRWC (Vast Right Wing Conspiracy) route, you can't forget
Attorney General Reno, all newspapers and media sources, the 3 judge
tribunal, all the ex-Clinton appointees who are now talking, and the
baker's dozen of ex-Clinton associates doing jail time...

> and got Lewinsky to participate.

"...got Lewinsky to participate." sounds so much nicer than "perjury"
doesn't it? And remember, the conspiracy (to work) must include a
much wider circle. (Approximately 12% of the nation's adult
population, actually, but who's quibbling? How about we just call it
a couple of dozen prosecutors, lawyers, investigators, reporters,
editors, federal judges, loyal Clinton appointees and various
technicians able to produce absolutely seamless and indetectably
altered evidence?)

>Furthermore, he has absolutely NO proof of what is said to be contained in
>the tapes,

How could I, since the VRWC has obviously concocted them from thin
air? Don't lose track of your agenda, Jim. Once you've dismissed
every authoritative report of their content, regardless of source, as
fabricated lies, there's nothing left to talk about, is there? Yes,
those strange times are here at last...

> nor any proof that the tapes are an accurate representation of
>alleged events between Clinton and Lewinsky.
>

I never said they were. The meat of the debate centers around the
various suggestions that this topic is being investigated solely due
to a desire to "get Clinton" and that it should be taboo on the usenet
since none of us has "actually heard/seen/touched/tasted" the physical
tapes. Even then, as I suggest in my post, we will all be silenced
with the devastating news that they are frauds anyway. Reports in
respected national news sources are being dismissed as lies as well,
even when they are from reporters who have listened to the original
tapes! Corroborating details from outside sources are grandly derided
as further evidence of the desperation of conservatives to "get
Clinton".

>But he can certainly rant an rave, can't he?

Is that what you call logic and (amply demonstrated by this post)
successful prediction?

[James Dibenedetto]

Jim Ward <jlw...@email.msn.com> wrote:
: My, my...if I were an on-the-fence lurker, I would CERTAINLY be convinced by
: the following diatribe!

: Tell me, do you eat with that mouth?

Beautiful. Don't bother trying to answer anything in the post, just
attach a snide little comment to show how "superior" you are. Typical of
the Clinton defenders on here.

: M Soja wrote in message <34fcc949...@news.newsguy.com>...

: >

--
James John DiBenedetto | "Remember, there's no problem so
star...@primenet.com | complex it can't be solved by killing
Graduate School of Political | everyone even remotely associated
Management '96 | with it."

[Jason Davies]

guru wrote:
>
> Marcel wrote:
> >
> > Eleanor Rotthoff wrote in message <34f7aae1...@news.texas.net>...

> > >Ginsburg may very well be an excellent medical malpractice defense
> > >lawyer who is just totally at sea trying to handle a major criminal
> > >defense case. I don't know.
> >

> > Well some are saying the same thing about Starr that he lacks experience in
> > criminal trials.
> >

> > >But some of his recent statements would
> > >have been unbelieveable coming out of the mouth of a first year law
> > >student. For example (just off the top of my head):
> > >

> > <examples snipped>
> >
> > Well many of these statements I haven't heard him make. We will just have
> > to wait until the end of this before making any judgments. You seem to
> > think he has been foolish. I have heard other criminal defense lawyers say
> > he has been brilliant. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere inbetween?
>

> He needs a P R PERSON....and he needs to shut the hell up and do what
> he does. period.
I thought he was a PR person, and the Washington lawyer he hired was doing
what he does.
--
Jason Davies

Cream City Traction Club
http://www.execpc.com/~jdavies/cct.html

[Scott Erb]

In article <34F5B0...@earthlink.net>, ba...@earthlink.net says...

>Excellent points Eleanor: Ginsburg is way way out of his league. He
>needs to
>return to the farmland or wherever the hell he came from.

You guys are out of your league. Eleanor's complaints seem political,
sort of an attempt to get even for others smearing Starr. But they were
all based on comments made in public, or statements outside the court.
They were political, not legal, complaints. As to Ginsburg's legal
actions, from what I've seen and heard, he's doing pretty well. We'll see
what the result is.

[Marcel]

Eleanor Rotthoff wrote in message <34f72e73...@news.texas.net>...
>"Marcel" <mh...@nospammindspring.com> wrote:
>
>It is certainly true that Ken Starr does not have a background as a
>criminal prosecutor which is why he required that his 20-lawyer staff
>consist solely of veteran federal prosecutors.

And some of these prosecutors have a history or prosecutorial misconduct.
Should it be illegal to bring these cases to the public's attention?

[pyotr filipivich]

"Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com> writes:

>J G DeBerry wrote in message ...
>>Jim Ward wrote:
>>> considered to be his enemies. Nixon also broke Alger Hiss on falsified
>>> information given to him by Hoover.
>>>
>>> Heck, even George Bush lied more often and was quite good at it. And he
>>> lied about MAJOR issues, not those that the President is alleged to have
>>> lied about. Bush lied about the fact that he was in charge of the
>>
>>Speaking of lying you are doing a good job of it be defending
>>ALger Hiss, one of the greatest liars in our recent history.
>>He was a convicted felon and guess what he was convicted of?
>>
>>Why, lying of course!! Not by Nixon either, but by a jury of his
>>peers. If the statute of limitations had not run out there is little
>>doubt in anyone's mind that he would have been convicted of espionage
>>also.
>>
>>JdB

>And you need to read your history a lot closer...Hoover supplied Nixon with
>a lot of fabricated evidence that was used later to convict Hiss of perjury.
>Now, can you honestly tell me, or anyone else that Nixon and Hoover were
>honest people? Can you honestly tell me that Hoover was not fixated with
>finding so-called "Communists" under every bed, to include the actors and
>actresses in Hollywood?

Does this mean that the Soviet Archives were fabricated by the
FBI? I knew it was A Vast Right Wing Conspiracy(tm), but I didn't know
that it's reach was that far.

>Want to guess who was Hoover's chief informant while the witch-hunt went on
>on Hollywood? Ronald Reagan.

Don't forget Walt Dysney.

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich aka Nikolai Petrovich.
A herring is a herring, but a good cigar is a cuban.
A stroke of the brush does not guarentee art from the bristles.

[Knopp]

Jim Ward wrote:
: What if you were brought before a Grand Jury and
: your Mother was forced to come in and testify? Is this a good example of
: how American justice works?

I don't know. Ask Paula Jones. Her mother and sister were called to
testify by President Clinton.

--
Please remove PEZ from the address to reply via E-Mail. This is a
"Spam-Buster".

[Knopp]

In article <OBXp1qsQ9GA.234@upnetnews04>, "Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com>
wrote:

<SNIP>

> Because Starr has stepped over the line in regards to how he is conducting
> his investigations. Wiring Tripp to record her conversations with Lewinsky
> in the state of Virginia (where it is legal to have only one participant
> know about the tape recording) was an error in conduct. Calling Lewinsky's

Why?

> mother to the Grand Jury was a big mistake. Calling Blumenthal was a bigger

Hey...if it's good enough for Paula Jones mother...

> mistake, because now he has the press looking in his direction in a big way.

So?

> >jlward:
> >>If Starr knew about these two guys before he brought them on board, that's
> >>even worse. The Independent Cousel is supposed to above reproach in how
> >>they conduct their business.
> >
> >Is that written in law? I thought Clinton was supposed to be above
> >reproach.
>
> So, do you think it's o.k. to have any old scumbag prosecuter appointed to
> the role of Special Prosecutor? If you're going to have an Independent

Ad hominem smears will do nothing to strengthen your arguement.

> Counsel, you had better make sure that they cannot be attacked on any
> grounds...that's just the facts of life in America.

Good Luck finding one. Mr. Clinton hires PI's to dig up even the smallest
amount of dirt on people who's job it is to investigate him.

> As far as Clinton being above reproach, that appears to be an idealistic
> belief held by a small minority of Americans. Most Americans realize that
> Clinton is human like the rest of us. Please tell us if you have any past
> Presidents who were so pure that they were above reproach in all manners of
> behavior.

Committing felonies in order to defraud another American from a fair trial,
and being "beyond reproach" are two different things.

[Knopp]

In article <6d4q98$6sr$1...@usenet49.supernews.com>,
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
<SNIP>

> But peddling dirt and false rumors about Clinton, when they come from
> starr is ok. Funny how the bias of this "lawyer" shines through clear
> as a bell.

State one instance of "peddling dirt and false rumors about Clinton" done
by Mr. Starr. He's been relatively quite, except for when he's in the
midst of prosecuting Clinton associates.

[Robert Bruns]

"LShaping" <LSha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>> Hmmm. Didn't see that in my post anywhere. But then, if I had said
>> that, you'd be actually addressing a point of logic - something which
>> you avoid by calling me "desperate". Matter of fact, its my opinion
>> (expressed elswhere on the usenet should anyone trouble to seek it
>> out) that it is best for the Republicans that a crippled Clinton
>> administration remain in office until 2002. It would be a large
>> strategic error (in purely political terms, of course) to install Gore
>> in the White House for several years prior to the next presidentail
>> election. With Clinton powerless, the Republican controlled House and
>> Senate with esentially assume the leadership role until the next
>> election.
>
>

>Not if Hillary is convicted. Bill might be convicted too, but must be
>impeached first, then tried. For the Republicans to drag their feet is
>wrong. It might be politically correct, but it is wrong.
>

Agreed. The hard-boiled reallpolitik of this situation is one thing -
and the ethical thing to do is yet another. As I've stated clearly in
other posts, I applaud the fortitude of the people like Starr (and
even Reno, who authorized this investigation) who are duty bound to
sift to the bottom of this nasty cess pool full of broken glass.

The current strategy of attacking the messenger (while attempting to
avoid the ramifications of the message) has spread to this ng. This
is apparent. I am also predicting the next phase, which will entail a
process whereby the message itself will be attacked as based upon
fraud.

Truth, morality and ethics have no part in this strategy.

Unfortunately, there is the real danger that cold political concerns
(ie, three more years of Clinton rather than Gore) will entice the
Republican leadership to sit on their hands. I sincerely hope this is
not the result...

[Robert Bruns]

Loved your list. Didn't you forget Dick Morris and Kendall's
near-instantaneous production of 15 pages of indignant accussations of
leaks from Starr's office of information, which leaks were about 1
minute old? (Shoot, it's a wonder these guys didn't issue the
reprimand >before< the leaks! :>)

[Deacon]

Actually, Linda Tripp was reportedly the last person to see Vince Foster
alive... Connection?

;-)

/dt

In article <OBFXNPvQ9GA.260@upnetnews04>, jlw...@email.msn.com says...

>> The FBI's own records prove there is a cover up in the death of
>>Vincent Foster, which in turn proves it's a murder.
>>
>> Foster was last seen alive inside the White House.
>>
>> And who has the authority to order the FBI, the Park Police, and
>>several other government agencies all to cooperate in a cover up?
>>
>
>
>Yep,...the old Vince Foster case. How many judges have to rule that his
>death was a suicide before you'll let this one go? And please, don't *you*
>think that this would be ONE case that Starr could pin on the President?
>
>Now, back to the original question...what have you got concerning the
>Lewinsky case? Must be absolutely nothing otherwise I'm sure you would have
>answered the question.
>
>
>
>

[Martin McPhillips]

On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 10:25:21 -0600, "Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com> wrote:

>
>Martin McPhillips wrote in message <34f58327...@news.nyct.net>...
>>
>>Sure, Lewinsky is caught on tape admitting the affair. Clinton
>>got her a job and a top-secret security clearance at the
>>Pentagon. Then he importuned Vernon Jordan to find
>>her a job. He also attempted to get her another job at the
>>U.N.
>
>
>No, the question was what proof, what evidence, do you have of any alleged
>affair.

Proof? You want a videotape of the sex act?

One half of the affair admits to it.

>All you have is Lewinsky being allegedly taped in a clandestine manner by
>Ms. Tripp. That's it. Nothing more.

Hey, pal, people go to jail based on guilty admission that
they make on a wire. But your point is that what physical
"proof" is there. You know as well as I do what evidence
has become public. The real question remains is there evidence
that closes the question? And puts it beyond any question.

That's what everyone is waiting for. But the groundwork is
all there, and we know that the President is a pathological
liar, so...

>The tapes recorded in the state of Maryland are illegal because both parties
>must agree to the taping, and we have a couple of tapes made in Virginia
>prior to Starr gaining permission to do so.

Are you arguing admissibility now?

For that to be true, the tapes would have to be fruit
of a poisoned tree. Why don't you refresh my memory
on the case law regarding tapes made by a private
individual being admissible vis a vis their making
having been against the law. I don't know whether
they are admissible or not. Or whether they would
be admissible simply as corroboration of Linda
Tripp's testimony. I honestly don't know.

BUT, the wire tapes made by the FBI might cover
all that needs to be covered. So the issue of Tripps
telephone tapes might be moot.

>Now, back to the original question. What evidence or witnesses does Starr
>have to tie the President directly to Lewinsky while committing an alleged
>act that is NOT criminal.

Well, putting the sex aside, you have the "talking points" document that
Lewinsky gave to Tripp that suggest that she change her testimony.

It will be interesting to find out where that came from.

And then you have Vernon Jordan. What he tells the grand jury
could change the character of the whole affair.

>And as far as the President getting Lewinsky a job anywhere...that's pure
>fiction, my friend.

Really? So you think it was all Betty Currie's doing, to call Jordan
and ask him to find Lewinsky a job?

Now there's a piece of fiction, pal.

[Roger Henry]

On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 16:21:31 -0600, "Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com>
wrote:

>So what do you think Starr is doing with his tactics of bringing Lewinsky's

>mother in front of the Grand Jury?

He was just doing his job. The evidence in his possession must have
implicated Mrs. Lewis in the alleged wrongdoing.

>What do you think Starr did when he put Susan McDougall in jail?

Actually, Mr. Starr did not put Susan McDougal in jail. The
presiding judge did that and the charge was contempt of court. Susan
refused to answer some, straight forward, yes and no type questions.

>And yes, we do have a criminal code but unfortunately Starr is not
>accountable to anyone.

Mr. Starr is no more above the law than Mr. Clinton is. He is
accountable to the Attorney General and the three judge panel that
appointed him.

It might do you some good to do a little research before you go
spouting off and making a fool of yourself.

>

"Are we in an era of government by Geraldo? Have we created an
atmosphere where no one with any interesting aspects of their
past is going to want to get involved in politics? Are we going
to look back on this time 100 years from now the way we look back
on Salem?...We're going to wind up with government by
goody-goodies, government by people who have done nothing in
their life except walk the straight and narrow, who have no
creative thoughts. We're going to look back on this 100 years
from now and say we drove some of our best people out of
politics. In the 20th century, having an interesting sexual
history is a leading indicator of success in the presidency." --
Newsweek Senior Editor Joe Klein on Face the Nation, May 8, 1994.

[M Soja]

On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 16:06:58 -0600, "Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com>
posted:

>My, my...if I were an on-the-fence lurker, I would CERTAINLY be convinced by
>the following diatribe!

>Tell me, do you eat with that mouth?

BLANK OUT.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
What do all these people and events have in common?

[M Soja]

On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 09:29:44 -0600, "Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com>
posted:

>Because Starr has stepped over the line in regards to how he is conducting

>his investigations. Wiring Tripp to record her conversations with Lewinsky
>in the state of Virginia (where it is legal to have only one participant
>know about the tape recording) was an error in conduct. Calling Lewinsky's

>mother to the Grand Jury was a big mistake. Calling Blumenthal was a bigger

>mistake, because now he has the press looking in his direction in a big way.

You're really worried about Starr, aren't you? Don't worry, he'll be
A Okay. He's been doing this for 3 1/2 years and he's got a lot of
real professional help, along with Sam Dash, the Democrat ethics
adviser. Starr will be fine. Be happy.

>So, do you think it's o.k. to have any old scumbag prosecuter appointed to
>the role of Special Prosecutor? If you're going to have an Independent

>Counsel, you had better make sure that they cannot be attacked on any
>grounds...that's just the facts of life in America.

>As far as Clinton being above reproach, that appears to be an idealistic

>belief held by a small minority of Americans. Most Americans realize that
>Clinton is human like the rest of us. Please tell us if you have any past
>Presidents who were so pure that they were above reproach in all manners of
>behavior.

So prosecutors have to be beyond reproach, while presidents get to be
mere humans. You're really stretching it out there boy.

>As I've said before, I don't condone people with personal relationships with
>being brought before a Grand Jury, unless it can be proven that those
>individuals were also involved in CRIMINAL wrongdoing. Obviously that was
>not the case for North's pastor or wife, nor is it the case with Lewinsky's
>mother.

>But as to the Jones CIVIL case, that is a different animal altogether, and
>civil cases are not bound by the same rules of conduct to which criminal
>proceedings are held.

This must be what's known as "splitting rabbit hares" (compliments to
Eleanor for the inspiration.)

So long, Elmer.

*********************************************************
"Vulgarity in a king flatters the majority of the nation.
-- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
Man and Superman
"Maxims for Revolutionists: Royalty" (1903).

[gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com]

erot...@texas.net (Eleanor Rotthoff) wrote:

>"Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>Karl Auerbach wrote in message ...

><massive snippage to clarify a couple of legal points>

>>>I beleive [the Tripp tapes] may be illegal for usage in the state in which
>>>the offense occured. I doubt that Maryland or Virginia law is holding on
>>>a US Grand Jury. But I could be wrong...

>You're absolutely right. The fact that the taping might have been
>illegal under Maryland law is no bar to the tapes being used in a
>federal prosecution, either before the grand jury or at trial.

you certainly are one of the dumbest lawyers to fall off the turnip
truck in years. You can make an end run around state law by filing in
a federal court.

[Eleanor Rotthoff]

"Marcel" <mh...@nospammindspring.com> wrote:

>Eleanor Rotthoff wrote in message <34f7aae1...@news.texas.net>...
>>Ginsburg may very well be an excellent medical malpractice defense
>>lawyer who is just totally at sea trying to handle a major criminal
>>defense case. I don't know.

>Well some are saying the same thing about Starr that he lacks experience in
>criminal trials.

It is certainly true that Ken Starr does not have a background as a

criminal prosecutor which is why he required that his 20-lawyer staff

consist solely of veteran federal prosecutors. Neither did Archibald
Cox or Leon Jaworski. Both were civil lawyers in private practice
with strong appellate and constitutional law backgrounds. Kenneth
Starr falls into the same category. Indeed, Judge Starr's background
on the federal appeals court bench gives him far more experience with
the nuances of federal criminal law and criminal procedure than either
Cox or Jaworski had.

Eleanor Rotthoff

[wdk]

"Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com> wrote:

>
>Reagan: Lied about hs knowledge of Iran-Contra. Had the most Cabinet
>members indicted and prosecuted for a variety of crimes. Also had women on
>the side. Was responsible for the largest National Debt numbers of all
>time.

Yes, that was a witch hunt. Lawrence Walsh purused him for seven
years and $40 million. Did you complain then, or is it only now when
your ox is getting gored? And Walsh, gee, he got Ollie North
convicted for getting a security fence without paying full $$$ for it.
Boy, that looks serious when compared to the Clintons selling the
White House. At least Starr has gotten some convictions.
- - wdk

[wdk]

"Jim Ward" <jlw...@email.msn.com> wrote:

>
>Different set of circumstances entirely...the Jones case, as you well know,
>is a CIVIL proceeding as opposed to the Grand Jury that Starr is conducting
>which is a CRIMINAL proceeding.
>
>The outrage is not there concerning the Jones case because most Americans
>understand that Jones never had a case until she was "encouraged" to bring
>suit. There are no other witnesses, and no evidence of harrassment of any
>sort. If it weren't for the Rutherford Institute paying her legal bills,
>you can bet this suit would never have happened.
>
>Most Americans understand that nobody is going to jail in regards to the
>Jones case, but Starr's Inquisition is another case entirely. Lewinsky's
>mother could very easily end up in jail for refusing to complete her
>testimony. Is that what you think to be approriate conduct for the Special
>Prosecutor's Grand Jury?
>
There is a spouse privilege, but last I heard there ain't no
parent/child privilege. Parents are called to testify to grand juries
and at trial fairly often. The tears for Monica's mother are
crocodile tears, nothing more.

- - wdk