President Clinton Reaps What He Sows

[Brian Carey]

Remember during the 1992 Presidential campaign, when then Governor
Clinton continually referred to President Bush as "old Bush" or "Bush,"
but never as "Mr. President" or a proper term of respect for the office
of the United States Presidency?

Now, just look at the office of the Presidency today. Bill Clinton is
now in office, and he is forced to deal with a host of questions about
his private parts and his sexual predispositions from years gone by.

Mr. Clinton, by ascending to the Presidency, has brought to the office
the type of disrespect, not to mention ridicule and shame, that he
sought to slap on it while campaigning against President Bush.

It is true that what goes around comes around.

--
Brian M. Carey car...@mindspring.com

Religious Freedom Home Page:
http://www.mindspring.com/~careyb/rframe.html
A cool Java game: http://www.mindspring.com/~careyb/intro.html

"The people are absolved from obedience when
illegal attempts are made upon their liberties
or properties." --John Locke

"It is true, that a little philosophy
inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in
philosophy bringeth men's minds about to
religion. For while the mind of man looketh
upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes
rest in them, and go no further; but when it
beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and
linked together, it must needs fly to
Providence and Deity." --Francis Bacon

[L. Smith]

Brian Carey wrote:
>
> Remember during the 1992 Presidential campaign, when then Governor
> Clinton continually referred to President Bush as "old Bush" or "Bush,"
> but never as "Mr. President" or a proper term of respect for the office
> of the United States Presidency?
>
> Now, just look at the office of the Presidency today. Bill Clinton is
> now in office, and he is forced to deal with a host of questions about
> his private parts and his sexual predispositions from years gone by.
>
> Mr. Clinton, by ascending to the Presidency, has brought to the office
> the type of disrespect, not to mention ridicule and shame, that he
> sought to slap on it while campaigning against President Bush.
>
> It is true that what goes around comes around.
>
> --
> Brian M. Carey car...@mindspring.com
>

There was no real secret about this man's sexual pecadillos before he
was elected the first time. Nor the second.

Bush's lack of creativity and avoidance of reality probably beat him
in the first Clinton win.

Dole, bless his little politician mentality, didn't have a clue what
issues were.

Although I don't care for Clinton the man, I would have to say that he
has tried to execute the office to the aid and assistance of the
American people.

He tried to institute heath care reform, but the medical lobby and the
congress convinced Americans that they don't really need affordable
health care. (It is so much easier, quicker and painless if people
would die in silence and quit kicking up such a storm.)

He has made progress in a balanced budget.

He (finally) stepped in and employed America's military might - with
very low losses - to stop the mass murders in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
( After this, I "never again" want to hear people threaten "Never
again! Blood cries from the earth on this one.)

So, he has done better than I ever expected he would. A sexual street
dog - maybe /probably? What does America expect - it voted him in.

[Brian Carey]

L. Smith wrote:

> He tried to institute heath care reform, but the medical lobby and the
> congress convinced Americans that they don't really need affordable
> health care. (It is so much easier, quicker and painless if people
> would die in silence and quit kicking up such a storm.)

I think that most Americans convinced themselves that they didn't need
socialized medicine.

--
Brian M. Carey car...@mindspring.com

Religious Freedom Home Page:

[G. Gordon Weasel, Esq.]

"Chris Nelson" <nelson...@cybersol.com> wrote:

>Wild oats?

Try welfare reform, closing the deficit, downsizing government. This is
what he sowed. What he reaped: good economy, better employment, the hate
of conservatives whose ideas he "stole" (of course, he was a comparatively
moderate, sometimes conservative governor).

As for the so-called wild oats? What do his enemies sow? Rumors and
innuendo. It's NO coincidence that all this crap is coming out at the time
of his deposition (which was apparrently very ugly for the plaintiff and
her lawyers). And I don't give a flying toss about Clinton's personal
life. he's getting the job done; what he does in his spare time is his,
not our, business.

G. Gordon Weasel
Dissing paranoid Luddites throughout America

[Bill Christensen]

L. Smith wrote in message <34C593...@online.no>...

>
>He tried to institute heath care reform, but the medical lobby and the
>congress convinced Americans that they don't really need affordable
>health care. (It is so much easier, quicker and painless if people
>would die in silence and quit kicking up such a storm.)
>

You obviously know nothing about health care. I work in the business and
know that the reason health care is not affordable to most people is because
of government involvement, ie Medicare. Look at a Medicare cost report for a
provider sometime. If you let the market work, health care costs will drop
dramatically.

[John W. Tibbs]

Clinton Denies 'Improper
Relationship' With Former
White House Intern; Starr
Expands Inquiry

Whitewater prosecutors have expanded their
investigation to determine whether President Clinton
had an affair with a White House intern and tried to
cover it up. Presidential aides said Wednesday
Clinton adamantly denies the charges and is
``outraged by them.''

Clinton ``never had any improper relationship with
this woman,'' said the White House press secretary, Mike
McCurry.
``He's made it clear from the beginning that he wants people
to tell the
truth in all matters,'' McCurry said.

President Clinton's lawyer in the Paula Jones sexual
harassment lawsuit
was summoned to the White House and issued a similar denial.
``The
president adamantly denies it. I smell a rat,'' the lawyer,
Robert Bennett,
said.

In a stunning twist to the 3 1/2-year Whitewater
investigation, Kenneth
Starr, the independent counsel, has expanded his inquiry.
Starr is trying to
determine whether Clinton tried to influence the former
intern, Monica S.
Lewinsky, 24, about an affidavit she gave in the Jones
lawsuit, her lawyer
said. Ms. Lewinsky's lawyer, William Ginsburg of Los Angeles,
said
Wednesday his client had signed a declaration in the Jones'
lawsuit
denying she ever had a sexual relationship with the president
and still
stands by that assertion. ``At this time, she stands by her
declaration,'' the
lawyer said.

The investigation was prompted when one of Ms. Lewinsky's
friends,
former White House staffer Linda Tripp, provided tapes to
Starr in which
Ms. Lewinsky apparently discussed an affair and conversations
she
allegedly had with Clinton about denying the relationship,
lawyers said.

The lawyers familiar with the matter, who spoke to The
Associated Press
on condition of anonymity, said the tapes also suggest
longtime Clinton
confidant Vernon Jordan was arranging a new job for Ms.
Lewinsky in
New York.

Tripp's attorney, Jim Moody, declined comment Wednesday.
Jordan did
not immediately return calls to his office seeking comment.

Ginsburg said Ms. Lewinsky has not been formally interviewed
by
prosecutors but that he has met in Washington with Starr's
investigators.
Both the Justice Department and a panel of three federal
judges who
oversee Starr's investigation approved the expansion.

Asked about reports of tape-recorded conversations about the
alleged
affair and purported efforts to conceal it, Bennett said, ``I
know nothing
about that. Before I comment on it, I want to investigate
it.''

[L. Smith]

I probably know a lot more about health care than you would expect. And
the cause is not Medicare. There are serious abuses in Medicare but that
is only a small part of the story.

There is a complicated chain of events that cause healthcare costs to
spiral. They include liability and lawsuits, greed, outright fraud by
many physicians, abuse by patients, fraudulent insurance company
policiey, and a lot more.

Americans were frightened out of any sort of socialized medicine. A
shame because for the taxes you pay, you should really expect something
from your government. You basically get nothing for your money.

I live in a country where socialized medicine is in effect. It is a
great system for the most part. I can choose my physician, contrary to
the misinformation promulgated by the congressmen (under urging from
the AMA and insurance companies).

A regular office visit entails a small surcharge, but hospital stay and
procedures are free. Doctors are, in general, quite good, although
there are certainly some who are losers, just like in the USA.

Doctors still make house calls, and ambulance service is free.
(Well, nothing is free. Our taxes pay for it.)

There can be a waiting period for non emergency procedures in the
hospital. For example, I needed surgery for snoring, and was put on the
waiting list. Three years. But, the fact is that in the USA, my
insurance refused to even pay for the sleep clinic testing and surgery,
so I could never have afforded it there.

If I don't want to wait for three years, I can have this work done in
a private clinic immediately at about 1/3 the cost of the work in the
USA. (The doctors here use a very advanced method that, until recently,
was only available at one very expensive medical center in the USA)

Bottom line.... America, you were lied to. You were sold a bill of
goods.

--
- Larry Smith Sr
Remove NOSPAM for email replies

[Gary Frazier]

In <6a4qut$14e0$4...@ausnews.austin.ibm.com> Brian Carey <th@'s.incredible> writes:

>L. Smith wrote:
>
>> He tried to institute heath care reform, but the medical lobby and the
>> congress convinced Americans that they don't really need affordable
>> health care. (It is so much easier, quicker and painless if people
>> would die in silence and quit kicking up such a storm.)

>I think that most Americans convinced themselves that they didn't need
>socialized medicine.

You misspelled "most lobbyists convinced Congress".

Seeing how much dissatisfaction there is with privatizied socialized
medicine right now, this isn't a dead issue.
--
Gary
http://www.efn.org/~gfrazier
Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! http://www.cauce.org

[NSWPP]

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 15:28:20 -0700 (PDT)

FOR THE RECORD

Today I received yet another threat of violence from
an individual acting on behalf of the National Alliance. I suppose I don't
need to say this---my friends already know it, and my enemies seem
incapable of learning it. However, for the record:

I am an American. As such I was born with certain rights
under the United States Constitution, including the right to say
and to publish commentary on matters of public interest. In theory I have
the right to make such comments without fear of retaliation of any kind
from any agency of the state or private individual. We have seen over the
past year what this previously accepted Constitutional right is worth in
practice.

Over the past year I have been subjected to a campaign
of vicious, malicious harassment and defamation which is without
parallel in living memory among those involved in our kind of
political and social alternative. I have been victimized by a
malicious, frivolous, and baseless nuisance lawsuit. I have been
threatened with every kind of violence up to and including
murder, often in public here on the Internet. I have had my
property vandalized. I have had an entire web page devoted to
defaming and abusing and insulting me. Literally thousands of
threatening, abusive, and defamatory posts have been made to
Usenet, screaming mindless hatred against me.

And not one bit of it will do these people any good.
I am still here. I will remain here, and I will continue to
speak my piece. Specifically, I will speak my piece regarding
Dr. William L. Pierce and the National Alliance. The NA is
a group which engages in public political activity (sort of)
and is entitled to no certificate of exemption from public
scrutiny and comment---from me or anyone else.

There will be no "putting Covington out of business."
And even if they carry out their threats---do they seriously
think that I am not prepared to pay whatever personal price
is required to maintain my Constitutional rights and freedoms,
not just for myself but for everyone?

How little they know me.

I think that's the most insulting aspect of all this,
the arrogant and stupid assumption on the part of these people
that they can frighten me into abandoning my rights and liberties as an
American citizen. I think I can safely assert that over the past year I
have proven them wrong, and I shall continue to do so.

I will not be threatened.

I will not be intimidated into silence.

I will not be shouted down.

And I WILL BE HEARD.

Yours for Victory
-Harold A. Covington

[Woody Brison]

ggorw...@aol.com wrote:
...I don't give a flying toss about Clinton's personal

> life. he's getting the job done; what he does in his spare time is his,
> not our, business.

A man who will cheat on his wife will cheat on his country. That
is a simple relationship among values that seems to elude so many
people. It is hard for a country that cheats on their income tax,
cheats on their wives, cheats in school, cheats in business, to
elect a leader who doesn't cheat. It is hard for them to grasp
the simplest concepts, such as was pointed out in the 96 debates:
there are a humongous number of scandals in the cabinet and the
administration. There used to be a proverb in this country, "You
are judged by the company you keep". It is hard for people who
have abandoned the value of character to judge character. It is
hard for them to feel happy, when they cast the very foundations
of happiness to the wind.

Wood

[Jim.....????]

G. Gordon Weasel, Esq. wrote:
>
> "Chris Nelson" <nelson...@cybersol.com> wrote:
>
> >Wild oats?
>

> Try welfare reform,( a republican plan, idea, issue for many years! His jumping on the band wagon only shows the man is smart!) closing the deficit,( if Congress was responsible for running up spending in the 80's, which it was, than congress is also now responsible for wise spending policy which does in fact lead to the deficit!), downsizing government, ( the fact of the matter is, there are now MORE federal employees than there were in the late 60's! However, it is also true that there is now less employees than there were PROJECTED to be 8 years ago. Cutting projected numbers, of course, is not cutting real numbers!). This is
> what he sowed. What he reaped: good economy,( if we blamed the Congress for excessive spending during the 80's, which I do, than we can give the credit for a godd economy now, also to the Congress, which I must point out, is Not contolled by the demacrats! better employment, ( oohhhh yeah?? Ask anyone working for an hourly wage who good the employment is! In fact, although most government stats show higher employment, they also show lower wages, when ajusted for inflation!), the hate

> of conservatives whose ideas he "stole" (of course, he was a comparatively

> moderate, sometimes conservative governor). (I'll leave this alone, as there is no real point of fact!)

>
> As for the so-called wild oats? What do his enemies sow? Rumors and
> innuendo. It's NO coincidence that all this crap is coming out at the time
> of his deposition (which was apparrently very ugly for the plaintiff and

> her lawyers). And I don't give a flying toss about Clinton's personal

> life. he's getting the job done; what he does in his spare time is his,

> not our, business. (OOohhhh, but the lies he tells, the way he conducts himself is our business. It is very important to have a leader with SOME character. This man obviously does not have any!!

[RHA]

In article <william.w.brison...@fourier.ast.lmco.com>,
Woody Brison <william....@lmco.com> wrote:
>ggorw...@aol.com wrote:
>...I don't give a flying toss about Clinton's personal

>> life. he's getting the job done; what he does in his spare time is his,
>> not our, business.
>

>A man who will cheat on his wife will cheat on his country. That

Ha! Nixon didn't cheat on his wife; yet look at how he cheated
this nation. Dole cheated on his wife. Care to name a politician
you'd want as president that hasn't?

>is a simple relationship among values that seems to elude so many
>people. It is hard for a country that cheats on their income tax,
>cheats on their wives, cheats in school, cheats in business, to
>elect a leader who doesn't cheat. It is hard for them to grasp
>the simplest concepts, such as was pointed out in the 96 debates:
>there are a humongous number of scandals in the cabinet and the
>administration. There used to be a proverb in this country, "You
>are judged by the company you keep". It is hard for people who
>have abandoned the value of character to judge character. It is
>hard for them to feel happy, when they cast the very foundations
>of happiness to the wind.
>
>Wood

--
rha

[Brian Carey]

Gary Frazier wrote:

> In <6a4qut$14e0$4...@ausnews.austin.ibm.com> Brian Carey <th@'s.incredible> writes:
>
> >L. Smith wrote:
> >
> >> He tried to institute heath care reform, but the medical lobby and the
> >> congress convinced Americans that they don't really need affordable
> >> health care. (It is so much easier, quicker and painless if people
> >> would die in silence and quit kicking up such a storm.)
>
> >I think that most Americans convinced themselves that they didn't need
> >socialized medicine.
>
> You misspelled "most lobbyists convinced Congress".
>
> Seeing how much dissatisfaction there is with privatizied socialized
> medicine right now, this isn't a dead issue.

Good point, but I've got a lot more faith in the current system than in
that bureaucratic nightmare that Clinton had to offer. Too much
government involvement and centralized control of resources always comes
at the expense of the people.

[John W. Tibbs]

Andrew Hall wrote:
>
> >>>>> Brian Carey writes:
>
> Brian> Remember during the 1992 Presidential campaign, when then
> Brian> Governor Clinton continually referred to President Bush as
> Brian> "old Bush" or "Bush," but never as "Mr. President" or a
> Brian> proper term of respect for the office of the United States
> Brian> Presidency?
>
> No, I do not remember that. I do remember that he did
> not call Bush "Bozo", so he was one up on Bush in that
> respect.
>
> ah
> (Now reading Usenet in talk.politics.misc...)

Drag an offer of immunity through the White House and one never knows
what they'll snag.
Heehehehehe. Kenneth Starr's had some good fishing lately. Hehehe.
jwt

[Dog]

I think Bill was referring to what he was looking at out in the
crowd....

Check out http://www.geodesk.com/dog.htm for more information on Bill

Dog

[Dog]

No it won't be dead until most everything is socialized...Socialist
Security, Socialist Health Care, Socialist Environmentalism, ad
nausem...then we can all march to the same tune, eh?

Check out: http://www.geodesk.com/dog.htm for a little enlightment...

Dog

[Dog]

Amen brother....check out:

http://www.geodesk.com/dog.htm

for more information on how government can fuck up.

Dog

[Dog]

gee I'm glad you're loving government is taking care of you wimpy little
ass.

Dog

check out http://www.geodesk.com/dog.htm for an education on how its
supposed to be as opposed to where we're heading...unless.....

[Errol Back-Cunningham]

If this turns out to be bullshit and a 60% 40% truth/lie
piece of disinformation that Starr is using taxpayers money
on for partisan politics - the perpertrators should be charged
with treason no less. Everyone expects penalties for the president,
and there should be penalties for failure to prove in this case.

Errol

[Stupendous Man]

Spin, weasels, spin!

Earn your pay, and spin like mad!

Brett
God over weasels.

[Woody Brison]

larrMA...@online.no wrote:
> There was no real secret about this man's sexual pecadillos before he
> was elected the first time. Nor the second.

///

> Dole, bless his little politician mentality, didn't have a clue what
> issues were.

Integrity was the issue and it was raised by Dole. He said the Clinton
administration has more scandals that any previous. The voters should
have taken the hint right there.

> Although I don't care for Clinton the man, I would have to say that he
> has tried to execute the office to the aid and assistance of the
> American people.

Unless you are a young woman. Then, if you are offered a job in the
White House, run. That a nation would sit and allow such is an affront
to every man in this country who calls himself a gentleman.

Wood

[Gary Frazier]

>Spin, weasels, spin!

>Brett
>God over weasels.

This from the spinmeister of the Web from the Reagan administration.

You dickheads are going to look even worse after this one blows over; you
may have dealt Reganist conservatism a blow it will never recover from,
all because you're immature little brats.

[John W. Tibbs]

Yeah...Sure...Ok. Heehehehehe.
jwt

[Roger Shouse]

In article <6a7pj1$h...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> e...@ix.netcom.com(Errol Back-Cunningham) writes:
>From: e...@ix.netcom.com(Errol Back-Cunningham)
>Subject: Re: Charge Starr with treason?
>Date: 22 Jan 1998 15:45:37 GMT

> If this turns out to be bullshit and a 60% 40% truth/lie
> piece of disinformation that Starr is using taxpayers money
> on for partisan politics - the perpertrators should be charged
> with treason no less. Everyone expects penalties for the president,
> and there should be penalties for failure to prove in this case.

> Errol

Now, now. Don't let your anger cloud your rationality! Starr had evidence.
Starr got Justice Department and Judicial Branch approval to follow it.
There's no law against what Starr is doing.

Roger

[Paul Havemann]

Errol Back-Cunningham (e...@ix.netcom.com) sez:
:
: If this turns out to be bullshit and a 60% 40% truth/lie

: piece of disinformation that Starr is using taxpayers money
: on for partisan politics - the perpertrators should be charged
: with treason no less. Everyone expects penalties for the president,
: and there should be penalties for failure to prove in this case.
:
: Errol

Hrm. Let's make one small change in this novel idea:

"If this turns out... that Walsh is using taxpayers money

for partisan politics - the perpertrators should be charged
with treason no less. Everyone expects penalties for the president,
and there should be penalties for failure to prove in this case."

Well, Lawrence Walsh spent nearly a decade, and millions of tax
dollars, trying and failing to get anything solid on Reagan and
Bush.

So -- when will Walsh be brought up on the charge of "treason
no less"? What other "penalties for failure" would your propose?

Or is this just a really stupid idea?

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Paul Havemann,
who regrets the need to remove 'nospam' to reply by email.

"There is nothing so frightful as ignorance in action."
-- Goethe

[Brian Carey]

Gary Frazier wrote:

> >Good point, but I've got a lot more faith in the current system than in
> >that bureaucratic nightmare that Clinton had to offer. Too much
> >government involvement and centralized control of resources always comes
> >at the expense of the people.
>

> Why is it that you think that an oppressive private bureaucracy is somehow
> easier to swallow than an oppressive government bureaucracy?

Why do you think that the current health care system in the US is
oppressive?

> The current
> situation, in which people's health is being compromised for more
> corporate profits WILL lead to a government solution by public demand.
> The current scandals with private outfits like the known-to-be-criminal
> Columbia Health Care Systems will bring this about.

There are scandals in business all of the time. And your solution to
this is more government control of resources?

[NSWPP]

John W. Tibbs <jti...@cei.net> wrote in article <34C7D7...@cei.net>...

> Errol Back-Cunningham wrote:
> >
> > If this turns out to be bullshit and a 60% 40% truth/lie
> > piece of disinformation that Starr is using taxpayers money
> > on for partisan politics - the perpertrators should be charged
> > with treason no less. Everyone expects penalties for the president,
> > and there should be penalties for failure to prove in this case.
> >
> > Errol

Let me get this straight---Kenneth Starr must be charged
with treason for investigating possible felonies committed by the
President of the United States, an investigation specifically
authorized by the Justice Department and a three-Federal-judge
panel lawfully charged with oversight of Starr's activities----but
Billyboy himself is NOT to be charged with treason for taking bribes
from the Communist Chinese to affect U. S. policy? Ditto Algore?

Y-y-y-y-y-e-a-a-a-a-a-a-h-h-h..............

[Errol Back-Cunningham]

In <01bd2805$0d771f20$c5c12399@default> "NSWPP" <ns...@earthlink.net>
writes:

>
> Let me get this straight---Kenneth Starr must be charged
>with treason for investigating possible felonies committed by the
>President of the United States, an investigation specifically
>authorized by the Justice Department and a three-Federal-judge
>panel lawfully charged with oversight of Starr's activities----but
>Billyboy himself is NOT to be charged with treason for taking bribes
>from the Communist Chinese to affect U. S. policy? Ditto Algore?
>
> Y-y-y-y-y-e-a-a-a-a-a-a-h-h-h..............

I'm glad you agree. Starr has used taxpayers money to further
a political, 'legalised' coup attempt and disrupt the proper
functioning of the government in the office of the president.
There have to be penalties for failure.

Errol

[Chris BeHanna]

In article <01bd26c5$af6226e0$3fbf2399@default>, "NSWPP" <ns...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 15:28:20 -0700 (PDT)
>
> FOR THE RECORD
>
> Today I received yet another threat of violence from
>an individual acting on behalf of the National Alliance.
>

> [...snip...]

Don'cha love it when Nazis offer to snuff each other out?

Saves *decent* people the trouble. :-)

Regards,

Chris BeHanna
NJ-RKBA List Administrator PGP 2.6.1 public key available
beh...@syl.nj.nec.com
kore wa NEC no iken de gozaimasen. http://www.users.fast.net/~behanna
Lon Horiuchi, give yourself up! Gungrabbers make rapists safe.

GUNS SAVE LIVES.

The foregoing text is solely the opinion of Chris BeHanna.

[Jeffrey Scott Linder]

e...@ix.netcom.com(Errol Back-Cunningham) wrote:

Joe DeGenove failed to convict any one WRT Clinton's passport files.
What penalty should he suffer?

Walsh never got Reagan or Bush. What should his penalty be? Have
people like you defend him? Shudder....

JSL

[gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com]

Stupendous Man <"root"@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:

>Spin, weasels, spin!

> Earn your pay, and spin like mad!

hey stupe you forgot to mention those tapes were recorded illegally
and hence are inadmissible. In fact since kenny boy used those tapes
to get a wire tap he's already guilty of obtaining a wiretap using
fraudulent means.
Got give that boy credit for living up to his chosen handle, dumber
than a rock.

>Brett
>God over weasels.

==========================================================================
Let The White Rose enlighten you.

http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm

gdy weasel
==========================================================================
McGilvray explaining that he would spit on Vietanm Vets if the differ on his political outlook:

>The vets who went to Vietnam took risk, and if you stop hiding behind the VVAW,
>your little heroes of the days of rage are all phoneys-I spit on them.

==================================================================================

[Carl Purdon]

Bill Christensen wrote:
>
> L. Smith wrote in message <34C593...@online.no>...
>
> >

> >He tried to institute heath care reform, but the medical lobby and the
> >congress convinced Americans that they don't really need affordable
> >health care. (It is so much easier, quicker and painless if people
> >would die in silence and quit kicking up such a storm.)
> >

> You obviously know nothing about health care. I work in the business and
> know that the reason health care is not affordable to most people is because
> of government involvement, ie Medicare. Look at a Medicare cost report for a
> provider sometime. If you let the market work, health care costs will drop
> dramatically.

Two years ago my daughter was born. Six months later she was diagnosed
with asthma and put on breathing treatments. Our doctor told us the
only place to get the machine and the medicine was from specialized
pharmacies. To make a long story short: This specialized pharmacy
shipped us one month's mixture for the breathing machine at a whopping
cost of $250. They then told us they did not accept our prescription
card, even though we made it clear to them at the onset that if they
didn't accept our card we would find another pharmacy, and billed us. I
called my pharmacy and learned that the medicine was available at any
pharmacy and they sold it for $45 (same brand name, too) and it would
only cost me $10 with my card. I called the "specialized" pharmacy and
was told they had to charge that much because that's what they billed
their medicare patients and they were not allowed to have two sets of
prices. I told her I would not pay and was returning the shipment and
she had the nerve to say, "Do you not care about people on medicare
having access to this medicine?" I sent it back and didn't pay.

A year later, I received a form from them that they wanted me to fill
out because it was required of all of their medicare customers. I
called and was told it was a mistake and that my daughter was not even
in their computer. Obviously she was because she got the form from them
with her name on it. Are they ripping off medicare? Of course they
are. I started to call and report it, and should have, but I recalled a
news magazine story of a few months earlier on medicare abuse. The show
(Dateline or something like that) made it clear that the government does
not investigate such cases.

So, after getting all this off my chest, I agree with you.

Carl

[Carl Purdon]

John W. Tibbs wrote:
>
> Clinton Denies 'Improper
> Relationship' With Former
> White House Intern; Starr
> Expands Inquiry
>
> Whitewater prosecutors have expanded their
> investigation to determine whether President Clinton
> had an affair with a White House intern and tried to
> cover it up. Presidential aides said Wednesday
> Clinton adamantly denies the charges and is
> ``outraged by them.''
>
> Clinton ``never had any improper relationship with
> this woman,'' said the White House press secretary, Mike
> McCurry.
> ``He's made it clear from the beginning that he wants people
> to tell the
> truth in all matters,'' McCurry said.
>
> President Clinton's lawyer in the Paula Jones sexual
> harassment lawsuit
> was summoned to the White House and issued a similar denial.
> ``The
> president adamantly denies it. I smell a rat,'' the lawyer,
> Robert Bennett,
> said.
>
> In a stunning twist to the 3 1/2-year Whitewater
> investigation, Kenneth
> Starr, the independent counsel, has expanded his inquiry.
> Starr is trying to
> determine whether Clinton tried to influence the former
> intern, Monica S.
> Lewinsky, 24, about an affidavit she gave in the Jones
> lawsuit, her lawyer
> said. Ms. Lewinsky's lawyer, William Ginsburg of Los Angeles,
> said
> Wednesday his client had signed a declaration in the Jones'
> lawsuit
> denying she ever had a sexual relationship with the president
> and still
> stands by that assertion. ``At this time, she stands by her
> declaration,'' the
> lawyer said.
>
> The investigation was prompted when one of Ms. Lewinsky's
> friends,
> former White House staffer Linda Tripp, provided tapes to
> Starr in which
> Ms. Lewinsky apparently discussed an affair and conversations
> she
> allegedly had with Clinton about denying the relationship,
> lawyers said.
>
> The lawyers familiar with the matter, who spoke to The
> Associated Press
> on condition of anonymity, said the tapes also suggest
> longtime Clinton
> confidant Vernon Jordan was arranging a new job for Ms.
> Lewinsky in
> New York.
>
> Tripp's attorney, Jim Moody, declined comment Wednesday.
> Jordan did
> not immediately return calls to his office seeking comment.
>
> Ginsburg said Ms. Lewinsky has not been formally interviewed
> by
> prosecutors but that he has met in Washington with Starr's
> investigators.
> Both the Justice Department and a panel of three federal
> judges who
> oversee Starr's investigation approved the expansion.
>
> Asked about reports of tape-recorded conversations about the
> alleged
> affair and purported efforts to conceal it, Bennett said, ``I
> know nothing
> about that. Before I comment on it, I want to investigate
> it.''

I hear some people say how this thing is not important and such a minor
offense. What did all the old gangsters get locked up for? Tax
evasion! Why? Because, even though they knew they committed much worse
crimes, they couldn't make them stick because all the witnesses were
either dead or terrified. I say hang him for whatever they can make
stick because he's done enough already to deserve prison.

Carl

[Carl Purdon]

Errol Back-Cunningham wrote:
>
> If this turns out to be bullshit and a 60% 40% truth/lie
> piece of disinformation that Starr is using taxpayers money
> on for partisan politics - the perpertrators should be charged
> with treason no less. Everyone expects penalties for the president,
> and there should be penalties for failure to prove in this case.
>
> Errol

Why? Is that how our justice system works? What if every prosecuting
attorney was prosecuted for every case he didn't win? Clinton said the
White House would cooperate just like it has in every other
investigation. Well, I guess the paper shedders are running overtime
tonight because that's how he cooperated before. Is he above the law?
Even though he, and some of his 'supporters-at-all-cost' think yes, I
think he should be held to the same laws as you and I.

Carl

[Carl Purdon]

Errol Back-Cunningham wrote:
>
> In <01bd2805$0d771f20$c5c12399@default> "NSWPP" <ns...@earthlink.net>
> writes:
>
> >
> > Let me get this straight---Kenneth Starr must be charged
> >with treason for investigating possible felonies committed by the
> >President of the United States, an investigation specifically
> >authorized by the Justice Department and a three-Federal-judge
> >panel lawfully charged with oversight of Starr's activities----but
> >Billyboy himself is NOT to be charged with treason for taking bribes
> >from the Communist Chinese to affect U. S. policy? Ditto Algore?
> >
> > Y-y-y-y-y-e-a-a-a-a-a-a-h-h-h..............
>
> I'm glad you agree. Starr has used taxpayers money to further
> a political, 'legalised' coup attempt and disrupt the proper
> functioning of the government in the office of the president.
> There have to be penalties for failure.
>

> Errol

And what does Clinton do with our tax money? IMF? COSCO? Traveling
the country doing fundraisers for the DNC then making some short speech
so we have to pick up the tab for the entire trip? How much did it cost
the federal government (taxpayers) to fund the slaughter at Waco even
though the charges against DK were not federal crimes? How much money
is going to the UN to promote world socialism? Treason? Yes, I'd say
Clinton's trying to make this a socialist state would fit that
description.

Carl

[Carl Purdon]

Unless you are a white male. Then, if looking for a job you may be
turned down because of your race and/or gender. He didn't start it but
he supports it.

Unless you are an unborn child. Then, if you are looking forward to
life you may be turned down because you are not convienent. he didn't
start it but he supports it.

Unless you are a gun owner. Then, if you want to exercise your 2nd
amendment rights you may be turned down because liberals decided to
rewrite the constitution. He didn't start it but he supports it.

Unless you are poor. Then you may do without so your tax money may go
to rich bankers who made bad loans and don't want to lose a few billion.
He started that one.

Unless you disagree with Bill Clinton. Then you may be audited by the
IRS at his command. He started that one, too.

Carl

[c36...@sp2n17.missouri.edu]

Gary Frazier (gfra...@efn.org) wrote:

> >I think that most Americans convinced themselves that they didn't need
> >socialized medicine.

> You misspelled "most lobbyists convinced Congress".

> Seeing how much dissatisfaction there is with privatizied socialized
> medicine right now, this isn't a dead issue.

And of course as the most vocal segment of society continues to age
the dissatisfaction will only increase . . . I predict some form of
'socialized medicine' within the next thirty years. Unfortunately,
reality obscenely obtrudes itself upon our demesne's; rationed health
care by whatever criteria one discriminates by will be a reality for
a long, long time. On the flip side, maybe doctors will once again
be the pillars of community they were reputed to be in the days of
yore.

Ike

[xwzi...@concentric.net]

>> Let me get this straight---Kenneth Starr must be charged
>>with treason for investigating possible felonies committed by the
>>President of the United States, an investigation specifically
>>authorized by the Justice Department and a three-Federal-judge
>>panel lawfully charged with oversight of Starr's activities----but
>>Billyboy himself is NOT to be charged with treason for taking bribes
>>from the Communist Chinese to affect U. S. policy? Ditto Algore?

> I'm glad you agree. Starr has used taxpayers money to further
> a political, 'legalised' coup attempt and disrupt the proper
> functioning of the government in the office of the president.
> There have to be penalties for failure.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh. Get everybody on the "enemies list", now where
have we seen THAT strategy before? We could always set whomever
offed VF on Starr's trail, for starters, right?

[Michael Olin]

G. Gordon Weasel, Esq. wrote:

> As for the so-called wild oats? What do his enemies sow? Rumors and
> innuendo. It's NO coincidence that all this crap is coming out at the time
> of his deposition (which was apparrently very ugly for the plaintiff and
> her lawyers). And I don't give a flying toss about Clinton's personal
> life. he's getting the job done; what he does in his spare time is his,
> not our, business.

True. But if his spare time includes coercing people to lie, and
rewarding liars by getting them high paying jobs, then it _IS_ our
business.

--
.__________. http://people.mw.mediaone.net/olinm/ .___________.
|||
Keep up the fight ||| I love my country but
or lose the right / | \ I fear my government

It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone
collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is
someone being served. Make no mistake about it, the man who speaks to
you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters - and he intends to
be the master.
-- Ayn Rand

[H Mohr]

As a Canadian I can only sit back in amazement and watch this crazy story
unfold. Most of us wonder why the most powerful country in the world can be
brought to a political standstill over the sexual daliances of its chief
executive. Other countries seem do have no problem with leaders who stray
from the marital bed, as long as they get the job done.

>>A man who will cheat on his wife will cheat on his country. That
>>is a simple relationship among values that seems to elude so many
>>people.

There is no evidence whatsoever for this assertion. There have been
numerous leaders, dating from antiquity, who have been unfaithful to their
wives, yet have served their country well.

As for how the evidence was gathered, I find that to be very troubling. It
seems we have a system out of control. It's pretty pathetic that a 24 year
old is surreptitiously taped by someone who is pretending to be her friend.
Even more troubling is how those tapes quickly made their way to Kenneth
Starr, who was watching his Whitewater investigation founder due to lack of
evidence.

Then there is the question of Starr himself, looking into using Lewinsky in
a sting operation against the president. This would have been like
Watergate in reverse with the president himself being the subject of
wiretapping. Anyway, as a Canadian I can only shake my head in amazement.
As for the political dirty tricks involved, this would have made Julius
Caesar feel right at home.

[Red Herring]

On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 23:52:17 GMT, hc...@removethis.tiac.net (Hugo S.
Cunningham) wrote:

>Am I the only one troubled by the surreptitious recording of private
>conversations that are nobody's business? By what right should
>Kenneth Starr be able to condone such trickery?

By federal law.

The victim Monica
>Lewinski should have the right to tell Starr and all the rest of his
>prurient snoops to go straight to hell. If Lewinski should face
>prosecution, it would be our legal system, not her, that was really on
>trial.

Another word, you'd want Lewinsky to go to jail - ala Susan McDougal - in
order to protect the first pig who could then continue sexually harassing
his female underlings?

I hope Monica is smarter than that. I think she'll strike a deal with
Starr, tell the truth, write a bestseller and go about rebuilding her life.

Watching the pig squirm,

/RH

[HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.]

H Mohr (hm...@junction.net) wrote:
: As a Canadian I can only sit back in amazement and watch this crazy story

: unfold. Most of us wonder why the most powerful country in the world can be
: brought to a political standstill over the sexual daliances of its chief
: executive. Other countries seem do have no problem with leaders who stray
: from the marital bed, as long as they get the job done.

: >>A man who will cheat on his wife will cheat on his country. That
: >>is a simple relationship among values that seems to elude so many
: >>people.

: There is no evidence whatsoever for this assertion. There have been
: numerous leaders, dating from antiquity, who have been unfaithful to their
: wives, yet have served their country well.

: As for how the evidence was gathered, I find that to be very troubling.

You don't appreciate our Office of the Special Gestapo, with police powers
J. Edgar Hoover would have killed to obtain?

: It

: seems we have a system out of control. It's pretty pathetic that a 24 year
: old is surreptitiously taped by someone who is pretending to be her friend.
: Even more troubling is how those tapes quickly made their way to Kenneth
: Starr, who was watching his Whitewater investigation founder due to lack of
: evidence.

: Then there is the question of Starr himself, looking into using Lewinsky in
: a sting operation against the president.

And trying to shake her down instead of telling her to get a lawyer.

: This would have been like

: Watergate in reverse with the president himself being the subject of
: wiretapping. Anyway, as a Canadian I can only shake my head in amazement.
: As for the political dirty tricks involved, this would have made Julius
: Caesar feel right at home.

You'll have to excuse our right wing. They don't care a thing in the
world about civil liberties as long as their side wins.

--
Buddy K

[Doomster]

In article <6adp8c$s3t$1...@news.junction.net>, H Mohr <hm...@junction.net> wrote:
|As a Canadian I can only sit back in amazement and watch this crazy story
|unfold. Most of us wonder why the most powerful country in the world can be
|brought to a political standstill over the sexual daliances of its chief
|executive. Other countries seem do have no problem with leaders who stray
|from the marital bed, as long as they get the job done.

It's NOT about what Clinton did with the intern. I am deeply disappointed
with the American media for focusing on the lurid and juicy details of
the sex scandal.

The IMPORTANT issue is WHETHER Clinton committed perjury, Mr. Mohr. If
that is the case, Clinton should be removed from office. No one is
above the law, not even the leader of the Free World.

[...]
|As for how the evidence was gathered, I find that to be very troubling. It

|seems we have a system out of control. It's pretty pathetic that a 24 year
|old is surreptitiously taped by someone who is pretending to be her friend.
|Even more troubling is how those tapes quickly made their way to Kenneth
|Starr, who was watching his Whitewater investigation founder due to lack of
|evidence.

This was because the WHite House was stonewalling. If you think taping
a 24 year old surreptitiously is pathetic, what about those Democratic
activists who illegally wiretapped Newt Gingrich's cellphone conversation
and turned it over to Rep. McDermott? This was the prima facea evidence
used to censure Newt. I didn't hear a whole lot of complaining then.

|Then there is the question of Starr himself, looking into using Lewinsky in

|a sting operation against the president. This would have been like

|Watergate in reverse with the president himself being the subject of
|wiretapping. Anyway, as a Canadian I can only shake my head in amazement.
|As for the political dirty tricks involved, this would have made Julius
|Caesar feel right at home.

Again, I've said it many times, Starr wasn't looking to disclose Clinton's
sexual proclivities and embarrass him. That would do nothing for his
investigation. What I suspect is that he wanted to use Monica to
get incriminating evidence on Vernon Jordan and then turn Jordan to
corroborate his suspicion that Clinton was obstructing justice in the
Whitewater investigation. Now that Monica's ID is known, Starr hit
a dead end.

This might sound sneaky and underhanded (getting associates and friends
to be turned against the defendent) but it's standard operating procedure
in criminal cases. Ask Timothy McVeigh about Michael Fortier.

Doomster

[Greg Wallace]

Hugo S. Cunningham wrote:

> william....@lmco.com (Woody Brison) wrote:
>
> Am I the only one troubled by the surreptitious recording of private
> conversations that are nobody's business? By what right should

> Kenneth Starr be able to condone such trickery? The victim Monica

> Lewinski should have the right to tell Starr and all the rest of his
> prurient snoops to go straight to hell. If Lewinski should face
> prosecution, it would be our legal system, not her, that was really on
> trial.
>

> --Hugo S. Cunningham
>
> [rest deleted]

Cheating in the White House is not the big deal; the big deal is socking it to
the interns. The idea that this is nobody's business is a bunch of baloney.
He wanted the job and he hasn't lived up to it. So he should resign.

Tripp's vendetta is pretty ugly, sure. But Clinton's a very cynical liar and
he's gotten away with it up to now. But he's too stupid and out of control to
keep getting away with it. If you don't like it, move to Canada or France or
wherever socking it to young interns with top security clearance and then lying
about is considered okay. That stuff doesn't go over so big in the States, not
with liberals or conservatives.

--
Greg Wallace

-- "still heading toward the sun, trying to stay out of the joint!"
Bob Dylan 1984

[Hugo S. Cunningham]

william....@lmco.com (Woody Brison) wrote:

>ggorw...@aol.com wrote:
>...I don't give a flying toss about Clinton's personal

>> life. he's getting the job done; what he does in his spare time is his,
>> not our, business.

>A man who will cheat on his wife will cheat on his country. That

>is a simple relationship among values that seems to elude so many
>people.

So we should have excluded George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and
F.D. Roosevelt? (Perhaps Honest Abe behaved himself, but we can't be
sure. Like Augustus Caesar before him, he was deified upon his death,
and gods are traditionally exempt from tittle-tattle.)

[Carl Purdon]

Bill Clinton could walk up to Ken Starr on national tv and blow his
brains out and there would still be some idiots who would swear it was a
right-wing-conspiracists' plot. Or the ranting of
right-wing-haters-of-the-president. As a matter of fact, unless he had
sex with him before he shot him, the media would probably refuse to
acknowledge that it happened.

Carl

[Michael Zarlenga]

: > >He tried to institute heath care reform, but the medical lobby and the

: > >congress convinced Americans that they don't really need affordable
: > >health care. (It is so much easier, quicker and painless if people
: > >would die in silence and quit kicking up such a storm.)

I *have* affordable health care.

The worst and least affordable plans we have are both government-
run. And morons like you wanted to force the entire nationro en-
roll in government-run plans.

No thanks.

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

"Grandpa, didn't you wonder why you were getting checks in the
mail for no reason at all?"

"I figured it was 'cause the Democrats were back in power."

Abe Simpson teaching Bart about Democrats

[***]

they are ALL assholes including you

[Stupendous Man]

Soooooooo many liberal lunatics.

So few comets.

Brett
God over weasels

[Stupendous Man]

HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote:

>
> H Mohr (hm...@junction.net) wrote:
> : As a Canadian I can only sit back in amazement and watch this crazy story
> : unfold. Most of us wonder why the most powerful country in the world can be
> : brought to a political standstill over the sexual daliances of its chief
> : executive. Other countries seem do have no problem with leaders who stray
> : from the marital bed, as long as they get the job done.

In case you haven't been paying attention, it's not about oral sex,
it's about

Perjury
Suborning perjury
Obstruction of justice
Witness tampering

Now, does your country also "not mind" when your PM does this?

...
> : Then there is the question of Starr himself, looking into using Lewinsky in

> : a sting operation against the president.

You haven't been paying attention. Lewinsky is the sperm receptical.
Tripp is the tape delivery device.

> And trying to shake her down instead of telling her to get a lawyer.

She has had a lawyer since day one, as she was deposed in the Paula
Jones case prior to this breaking.

...

> You'll have to excuse our right wing. They don't care a thing in the
> world about civil liberties as long as their side wins.

You'll have to excuse Buddy K, he has a problem with reality and
has numerous fantasies about being a concentration camp guard.

"Look. I will deny it so he will not get screwed in the case, but I'm
going to get screwed personally."--Monica Lewinsky

Brett
God over weasels.

[Hugo S. Cunningham]

Joel <joe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>x-no-archive: yes

>"H Mohr" <hm...@junction.net> wrote:

>>As a Canadian I can only sit back in amazement and watch this crazy story
>>unfold. Most of us wonder why the most powerful country in the world can be
>>brought to a political standstill over the sexual daliances of its chief
>>executive. Other countries seem do have no problem with leaders who stray
>>from the marital bed, as long as they get the job done.

>You don't grasp the real issue which is whether or not the President told
>Lewinsky to lie under oath. It's a felony in the U.S. to encourage another
>person to commit perjury.

But it is a distinctively American dirty-trick to force people to
testify under oath about things that are nobody's business, though
embarrassing.
There were similar dynamics in the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill
hearings before the US Senate. Thomas was asked if he had ever made a
pass at Hill, and he denied it. It was clear that Thomas had not
wronged Hill; she remained his protege for several years after the
supposed "harassment," even though she never offered him any "favors."
Nevertheless, even if Thomas had once made an innocent pass at her, he
had to deny it in the lynch-mob atmosphere of his confirmation
hearing. Of course, political sympathies were reversed in those days:
those who supported Thomas then oppose Clinton now, and those who
opposed Thomas then defend Clinton now (or duck their heads in
embarrassment).
Several years ago, a humorous caller to talk-show host Howie Carr
(WRKO Boston AM 680) suggested a sure-fire way to derail Clinton's
nomination of Stephen Breyer to the US Supreme Court. Breyer, a
former professor at Harvard Law School, was a known bicycle-rider in a
town (Cambridge MA) of notoriously anarchic bicyclists. The caller
went on: "Ask him under oath if he has ever bicycled through a red
light on Massachusetts Avenue. If he says yes, then he's a
lawbreaker, unfit to sit on our highest court. If he says no, then
you have him for perjury!"

--Hugo S. Cunningham

[Hugo S. Cunningham]

r...@gulfstream.org.NOSPAM (Red Herring) wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 23:52:17 GMT, hc...@removethis.tiac.net (Hugo S.
>Cunningham) wrote:

>>Am I the only one troubled by the surreptitious recording of private
>>conversations that are nobody's business? By what right should
>>Kenneth Starr be able to condone such trickery?

>By federal law.

> The victim Monica
>>Lewinski should have the right to tell Starr and all the rest of his
>>prurient snoops to go straight to hell. If Lewinski should face
>>prosecution, it would be our legal system, not her, that was really on
>>trial.

>Another word, you'd want Lewinsky to go to jail

No. I said she "should" have the right to defy Starr, if she wants
to. Obviously, she doesn't have that right under current law.

>- ala Susan McDougal - in
>order to protect the first pig who could then continue sexually harassing
>his female underlings?

The law should be changed so that Lewinski can't be forced to discuss
her private life without her consent. (An analogy can be drawn with
the common-law principle that a wife cannot be forced to testify
against her husband.)
The only person who has moral standing to demand testimony from
Lewinski is Hillary Clinton, should she decide to sue for divorce.

>I hope Monica is smarter than that. I think she'll strike a deal with
>Starr, tell the truth, write a bestseller

That sounds like what Tripp has in mind.

--Hugo S. Cunningham

[cas...@trip.net]

On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 23:03:12 -0600, Carl Purdon <cpu...@netdoor.com>
wrote:

That is a good idea. When it is proven in court that a person is
innocent, the prosecuters and anyone else involved in an official
capacity in making the false charges should be held responsible. How
about the punishment being exactly the same as what it would have been
for the falsly accused. That would stop alot of witch hunts. A
prosecuter would not be able to drag someone that was innocent into
court just to make it look like he got his man.

When it involves a public official, treason should also be tacked on
because it is a disruption of government and a waste of TAX MONEY.

[col-sand...@geocities.com]

On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 15:22:34 GMT, cas...@trip.net "pecked" out,..

Interesting point, except for the fact that "disruption of government" and wasting "TAX
MONEY" do not constitute the legal definition of treason. Not even close.

Colonel Sanders
everything you know could be a lie
--
A Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.
A Republic: The flock gets to vote for which wolves vote on dinner.
A Constitutional Republic: Voting on dinner is expressly forbidden, and the
sheep are armed.

http://tws23.home.mindspring.com
Remove NoSpam from address to reply by e-mail

[col-sand...@geocities.com]

On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 18:35:52 GMT, hc...@removethis.tiac.net (Hugo S. Cunningham) "pecked"
out,..

>No. I said she "should" have the right to defy Starr, if she wants
>to. Obviously, she doesn't have that right under current law.

She has every right not to say a word. She can plead the 5th amendment. However, her
previously given statement can, and will be used against her. As will the photos and the
FBI taped conversations where she admits to perjuring herself in that statement.

This entire case is nothing but the proverbial dog having its proverbial day. For years
the politicians have made laws that make it easier and easier for law-enforcement officers
to hound private persons. Wiretapping, bugging, no knock warrants, sealed warrants,
warrantless searches, seizures of public property without just compensation...etc.

They are finally getting only a meager taste of what many Americans have had shoved down
their throats for years.

Sauce for the Gander.

[Hugo S. Cunningham]

elect...@u2.netgate.net (Doomster) wrote:

>In article <6adp8c$s3t$1...@news.junction.net>, H Mohr <hm...@junction.net> wrote:
>|As a Canadian I can only sit back in amazement and watch this crazy story
>|unfold. Most of us wonder why the most powerful country in the world can be
>|brought to a political standstill over the sexual daliances of its chief
>|executive. Other countries seem do have no problem with leaders who stray
>|from the marital bed, as long as they get the job done.

>It's NOT about what Clinton did with the intern. I am deeply disappointed

>with the American media for focusing on the lurid and juicy details of
>the sex scandal.

>The IMPORTANT issue is WHETHER Clinton committed perjury, Mr. Mohr. If
>that is the case, Clinton should be removed from office. No one is
>above the law, not even the leader of the Free World.

Should people be required to testify under oath about consensual
sexual indiscretions? Is natural human embarrassment to be made a
criminal offense? The English "Common Law" provides that a wife
cannot be required to testify against her husband about
a.n.y.t.h.i.n.g. It should be extended in a narrowly limited way to
paramours, so that they do not have to testify about their sex lives,
except perhaps in divorce cases.

>[...]
>|As for how the evidence was gathered, I find that to be very troubling. It
>|seems we have a system out of control. It's pretty pathetic that a 24 year
>|old is surreptitiously taped by someone who is pretending to be her friend.
>|Even more troubling is how those tapes quickly made their way to Kenneth
>|Starr, who was watching his Whitewater investigation founder due to lack of
>|evidence.

>This was because the WHite House was stonewalling. If you think taping
>a 24 year old surreptitiously is pathetic, what about those Democratic
>activists who illegally wiretapped Newt Gingrich's cellphone conversation
>and turned it over to Rep. McDermott? This was the prima facea evidence
>used to censure Newt. I didn't hear a whole lot of complaining then.

I was on Newt's side in that one. You may remember that the
Democratic Congressman who handled the illegal tapes got a
well-deserved black eye, and that Newt suffered little harm. The
whole investigation of Newt was ridiculously overblown and partisan.
(Hmm, sounds a lot like the investigations of Clinton ...)

>|Then there is the question of Starr himself, looking into using Lewinsky in

>|a sting operation against the president. This would have been like
>|Watergate in reverse with the president himself being the subject of
>|wiretapping. Anyway, as a Canadian I can only shake my head in amazement.
>|As for the political dirty tricks involved, this would have made Julius
>|Caesar feel right at home.

>Again, I've said it many times, Starr wasn't looking to disclose Clinton's
>sexual proclivities and embarrass him. That would do nothing for his
>investigation. What I suspect is that he wanted to use Monica to
>get incriminating evidence on Vernon Jordan and then turn Jordan to
>corroborate his suspicion that Clinton was obstructing justice in the
>Whitewater investigation. Now that Monica's ID is known, Starr hit
>a dead end.

>This might sound sneaky and underhanded (getting associates and friends
>to be turned against the defendent) but it's standard operating procedure
>in criminal cases. Ask Timothy McVeigh about Michael Fortier.

Usually, the person being "turned" by threats of prosecution has done
something wrong. Lewinski is entirely innocent with respect to
everyone except Hillary Clinton, who has not, as far as I am aware,
asked for Mr. Starr's assistance.

--Hugo S Cunningham

[Hans Mohr]

:

> Hugo S. Cunningham wrote:

Re: the point regarding sureptitious taping of conversations.

This is an excellent point. One of the things that made Communist Russia, and
still makes Communist China, an odious place to live is the fact that you never
know who may be listening to, and recording your conversations. In both
countries agents of the government were out waiting for citizens to slip and say
something that could land them in jail.

I think the fact that this has occured in this case shows an eerie parallel. Do
we really want to be in a country where self appointed censors could be taping
anything you say. I would think not. Just because Linda Tripp is not a
government agent are her actions any less excusable. This is an outrageous, and
probably illegal, intrusion into someones, in this case Monica Lewinsky's,
private life.

As far as I know, law agents require a court order to tape private conversations,
yet here we have citizens doing the job for their own possible gain. I hope that
I and H. Cunningham are not the only ones who find this very disturbing.

HM

[Glenn N. Carpenter]

There IS no shooting.....

Carl Purdon wrote in message <34CA9C...@netdoor.com>...

[yon lew]

Errol Back-Cunningham (e...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <01bd2805$0d771f20$c5c12399@default> "NSWPP" <ns...@earthlink.net>
: writes:

: >
: > Let me get this straight---Kenneth Starr must be charged

: >with treason for investigating possible felonies committed by the
: >President of the United States, an investigation specifically
: >authorized by the Justice Department and a three-Federal-judge
: >panel lawfully charged with oversight of Starr's activities----but
: >Billyboy himself is NOT to be charged with treason for taking bribes
: >from the Communist Chinese to affect U. S. policy? Ditto Algore?

: >
: > Y-y-y-y-y-e-a-a-a-a-a-a-h-h-h..............

: I'm glad you agree. Starr has used taxpayers money to further

: a political, 'legalised' coup attempt and disrupt the proper
: functioning of the government in the office of the president.
: There have to be penalties for failure.

: Errol

"Penalties for failure", eh? So if he succeeds, what do we do--pat him
on the back?

[Vlntryst]

Hugo wrote:

>
>Usually, the person being "turned" by threats of prosecution has done
>something wrong. Lewinski is entirely innocent with respect to
>everyone except Hillary Clinton, who has not, as far as I am aware,
>asked for Mr. Starr's assistance.

She isn't exactly "entirely innocent" now is she?
The crime is known as sodomy, and is equally
applicable to both parties, willing or otherwise.

[August Giulianelli]

Carl Purdon wrote:
>
> Errol Back-Cunningham wrote:
> >
> > If this turns out to be bullshit and a 60% 40% truth/lie
> > piece of disinformation that Starr is using taxpayers money
> > on for partisan politics - the perpertrators should be charged
> > with treason no less. Everyone expects penalties for the president,
> > and there should be penalties for failure to prove in this case.
> >
> > Errol
>
> Why? Is that how our justice system works? What if every prosecuting
> attorney was prosecuted for every case he didn't win? Clinton said the
> White House would cooperate just like it has in every other
> investigation. Well, I guess the paper shedders are running overtime
> tonight because that's how he cooperated before. Is he above the law?
> Even though he, and some of his 'supporters-at-all-cost' think yes, I
> think he should be held to the same laws as you and I.
>
> Carl

We have to remenber that Klintoon never held a real job, always being in
Government all his life. People in this positon soon start to feel that
they are all powerful and above the law that the peons must adhere to.
Power corrupts, and there is no more corrupt person than our Pres.

[John W. Tibbs]

H Mohr wrote:
>
> As a Canadian I can only sit back in amazement and watch this crazy story
> unfold. Most of us wonder why the most powerful country in the world can be
> brought to a political standstill over the sexual daliances of its chief
> executive. Other countries seem do have no problem with leaders who stray
> from the marital bed, as long as they get the job done.
>

> >>A man who will cheat on his wife will cheat on his country. That
> >>is a simple relationship among values that seems to elude so many
> >>people.
>

> There is no evidence whatsoever for this assertion. There have been
> numerous leaders, dating from antiquity, who have been unfaithful to their
> wives, yet have served their country well.
>

> As for how the evidence was gathered, I find that to be very troubling. It
> seems we have a system out of control. It's pretty pathetic that a 24 year
> old is surreptitiously taped by someone who is pretending to be her friend.
> Even more troubling is how those tapes quickly made their way to Kenneth
> Starr, who was watching his Whitewater investigation founder due to lack of
> evidence.
>

> Then there is the question of Starr himself, looking into using Lewinsky in
> a sting operation against the president. This would have been like
> Watergate in reverse with the president himself being the subject of
> wiretapping. Anyway, as a Canadian I can only shake my head in amazement.
> As for the political dirty tricks involved, this would have made Julius
> Caesar feel right at home.

I thoroughly enjoy seeing all the leftists trying to spin this the best
they can by attempts at denial, justification, explaning away,
diversion, (talking about what a 'wonderful' job he's done[gag]),
obscuring, on and on. It's really funny when challenged the veins stand
out on their heads and their faces turn color. Heehehehehe.
jwt

Reminder: Folks, a prosecutor NEVER relies solely on a witness who
changes their story. Without corroborating evidence it would never fly.
Also a move such as offering or asking for immunity is NEVER made
without solid enough evidence of a crime to cause a witness to change
their testimony. Monica isn't the only ammo Starr's got by far.
jwt

[John W. Tibbs]

HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote:
>

> H Mohr (hm...@junction.net) wrote:
> : As a Canadian I can only sit back in amazement and watch this crazy story
> : unfold. Most of us wonder why the most powerful country in the world can be
> : brought to a political standstill over the sexual daliances of its chief
> : executive. Other countries seem do have no problem with leaders who stray
> : from the marital bed, as long as they get the job done.
>
> : >>A man who will cheat on his wife will cheat on his country. That
> : >>is a simple relationship among values that seems to elude so many
> : >>people.
>
> : There is no evidence whatsoever for this assertion. There have been
> : numerous leaders, dating from antiquity, who have been unfaithful to their
> : wives, yet have served their country well.
>
> : As for how the evidence was gathered, I find that to be very troubling.
>

> You don't appreciate our Office of the Special Gestapo, with police powers
> J. Edgar Hoover would have killed to obtain?
>

> : It

> : seems we have a system out of control. It's pretty pathetic that a 24 year
> : old is surreptitiously taped by someone who is pretending to be her friend.
> : Even more troubling is how those tapes quickly made their way to Kenneth
> : Starr, who was watching his Whitewater investigation founder due to lack of
> : evidence.
>
> : Then there is the question of Starr himself, looking into using Lewinsky in
> : a sting operation against the president.
>

> And trying to shake her down instead of telling her to get a lawyer.
>

> : This would have been like

> : Watergate in reverse with the president himself being the subject of
> : wiretapping. Anyway, as a Canadian I can only shake my head in amazement.
> : As for the political dirty tricks involved, this would have made Julius
> : Caesar feel right at home.
>

> You'll have to excuse our right wing. They don't care a thing in the
> world about civil liberties as long as their side wins.
>

> --
> Buddy K

I thoroughly enjoy seeing all you leftists trying to spin this the best

[John W. Tibbs]

Who stands to gain the most from Slick going down this early in his last
turn?
jwt

[Psycho1810]

>proven in court that a person is
>innocent, the prosecuters and anyone else involved in an official
>capacity in making the false charges should be held responsible. How
>about the punishment being exactly the same as what it would have been
>for the falsly accused. That would stop alot of witch hunts. A
>prosecuter would not be able to drag someone that was innocent into
>court just to make it look like he got his man.
>
>When it involves a public official, treason should also be tacked on
>because it is a disruption of government and a waste of TAX MONEY.

At least Starr is trying to make the country better by cutting out the cancer
of Bill Clinton. No matter whether Clinton is innocent or guilty of this
particular offense, if he is convicted Starr should recieve a medal for helping
save our country. Of all of his treasonous offenses, this is the least
serious. Of Clintons offenses, here is a partial list:

1. Perversion of 1st Amendment Rights held under the Constitution (committed
by signing into law the Communications Decency Act of 1996)

2. Perversion of 2nd Amendment Rights held under the Constitution (by signing
into law various restricts of 2nd Amendment rights such as the assault weapons
ban, the ban on guns for those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, and
the halt of importation of certain foriegn guns).

3. Perversion of the 5th Amendment held under the Constitution (by trying to
disallow the accused from pleading the 5th Amendment for fear of prosecution in
a country other than the USA)

4. Misuse of Presidential Powers, especially to help accomplish a racist
agenda (committed by going over the Senates head in the appointment of Bill
Lann Lee - the racist Civil Rights Attorney General)

5. Obstruction of Justice (as it relates to the current White House Scandal)

6. Sodomy (as it relates to the current White House Scandal)

7. Prejury (as it related to the current White House Scandal)

8. Fraud (as it relates to the Whitewater Scandal)

9. Grand Theft (as it relates to the Whitewater Scandal)

10. Two more counts of prejury for lying in his Presidential Oath to uphold
and defend the Constitution which he has failed to do.

Psycho (or for some, just Jason)
TIP 2939 - POG 91 - WGPOG 55
Team Twilight Zone - NRA Member

Join in the battle to save the 2nd Amendment! (http://www.nra.org)

[gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com]

Stupendous Man <"root"@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:

>Soooooooo many liberal lunatics.

> So few comets.

why did you miss the last one stupe?

>Brett
>God over weasels

==========================================================================
Let The White Rose enlighten you.

http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm

gdy weasel
==========================================================================
McGilvray explaining that he would spit on Vietanm Vets if the differ on his political outlook:

>The vets who went to Vietnam took risk, and if you stop hiding behind the VVAW,
>your little heroes of the days of rage are all phoneys-I spit on them.

==================================================================================

[gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com]

Stupendous Man <"root"@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:

>HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote:
>>
>> H Mohr (hm...@junction.net) wrote:
>> : As a Canadian I can only sit back in amazement and watch this crazy story
>> : unfold. Most of us wonder why the most powerful country in the world can be
>> : brought to a political standstill over the sexual daliances of its chief
>> : executive. Other countries seem do have no problem with leaders who stray
>> : from the marital bed, as long as they get the job done.

> In case you haven't been paying attention, it's not about oral sex,
>it's about

> Perjury
> Suborning perjury
> Obstruction of justice
> Witness tampering

got it wrong stupe, its about illegal taping, using fraudulent means
to get a wiretap. But thats ok stupe, we all know you are dumber than
a rock.

> Now, does your country also "not mind" when your PM does this?

>...

>> : Then there is the question of Starr himself, looking into using Lewinsky in
>> : a sting operation against the president.

> You haven't been paying attention. Lewinsky is the sperm receptical.

>Tripp is the tape delivery device.
>

why is tripp out of jail, after illegally taping phone conservation?

>> And trying to shake her down instead of telling her to get a lawyer.

> She has had a lawyer since day one, as she was deposed in the Paula

>Jones case prior to this breaking.

>...

>> You'll have to excuse our right wing. They don't care a thing in the
>> world about civil liberties as long as their side wins.

> You'll have to excuse Buddy K, he has a problem with reality and

>has numerous fantasies about being a concentration camp guard.

stupe is the one with delusional fantasies, he thinks raygun might
have been a good prez. Oh well guess he has to live up to the name hes
choosen for himself.

>"Look. I will deny it so he will not get screwed in the case, but I'm
>going to get screwed personally."--Monica Lewinsky

>Brett
>God over weasels.

==========================================================================

[mike jones]

gdydiot, once again you validate the old saying "tis better to be silent and
thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt".
Do you honestly believe YOU know more about taping conversations than a
federal prosecutor? You, who can't even discern the difference between your
ass and a hole in the ground would presume to criticize Mr. Starr for doing
his job. You are pathetic.

Your butt-buddy Bubba has been 'boinking' you and all your little faggot
liberal/commie buddies like zeppo, voltless, buttyKKK, and a few others too
irrelevant to mention. Bubba 'boinks' you everytime he spews forth more lies
and you swallow and man do you swallow hard.

It is becoming more and more absurd "Clinton is guilty, lets demonize
Starr".

MIke.

gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote in message
<6ag5f6$gaq$8...@usenet48.supernews.com>...

[Jeff Gaer]

hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.) wrote

> : Then there is the question of Starr himself, looking into using Lewinsky in
> : a sting operation against the president.
>

> And trying to shake her down instead of telling her to get a lawyer.

hardly the case

Might I suggest that anyone interested in the story of what happened rather then
the rhetoric
visit

http://www.ardemgaz.com/today/clinton/zdnyprobe25.html and read the article

"Starr's plan to use Lewinsky in White House sting flops " by STEPHEN LABATON,
DON VAN NATTA JR. AND JILL ABRAMSON NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE, that was
published in the Sunday Arkansa Democrat-gazette.

Apparently they helped Monica get in touch with her lawyer, her mother and anyone
else she thought she would need help from in making the decision and delayed
further action until she had the support she needed.. It also details some of the
reasons that Star brought the matter to Janet Reno's attention, how it was related
to the whitewater investigation, and why Janet approved the wire tap. The NY times
is hardly a conservative source, and it usually is a fairly thorough one.
Her's a sample:

Although she was told that she could walk away at any
time........
Lewinsky had placed her mother at risk of prosecution,
too, but Starr's lawyers assured her they would overlook this
if Lewinsky cooperated.
Lewinsky said the decision was too big for her to make
alone and she wanted to call her mother, Marcia Lewis, a
New York writer.
Lewis took a train to meet them. Because the prosecutors
felt so pressed for time, they offered to meet Lewis halfway,
in Philadelphia, but she preferred to come to Washington.
...Although they were
holding off on questioning Lewinsky until her mother's arrival,
the prosecutors had established a rapport with her,
investigators said. They had fetched coffee from Starbucks,
brought her tissues, and Lewinsky even told them a dirty
joke.
They passed time watching movies on cable television.
They strolled in the mall that adjoined the hotel, ate dinner at a
restaurant and stopped to admire household wares at Crate
and Barrel. Bad weather delayed Lewis' train, and she did not
arrive at the hotel until 10 p.m.
Lewis and Lewinsky asked to talk alone. In a hallway
outside the hotel room, they argued. Starr's team was worried
that Lewinsky might be crumbling from emotional strain.
Lewis told them that she had to call her ex-husband before
she could decide what her daughter should do.
Then, another hitch. Lewinsky's father, Bernard, a
California oncologist, questioned whether Lewinsky should
have her own lawyer before committing to any agreement.
The deal had begun to unravel.
Dr. Lewinsky told the prosecutors that Ginsburg, a
longtime family friend, could be lined up quickly. Lewinsky
seemed reluctant to have him represent her, remarking to her
mother that he was a medical malpractice lawyer. But when
Ginsburg called, Starr's team put him on the line with
Lewinsky, who agreed to retain him.
Ginsburg was wary. He did not know any of the evidence
assembled by the prosecutors. But the prosecutors made
clear that because time was critical, their immunity offer
would expire when Lewinsky and her mother walked out the
door that night.
Ginsburg advised Lewinsky to delay her decision, and she
left the Ritz-Carlton at 11 p.m. Ginsburg suggested to the
prosecutors that they talk the next day, after he arrived in
Washington. But for reasons that are not clear, he didn't
speak with them Saturday. And with Starr's team knowing
that the media was poised to break the story, Lewinsky's
value as an potential undercover agent was about to vanish.
Nonetheless, it was clear that both sides yearned to make a
deal.
On Sunday afternoon, Jan. 18, and continuing until late
Monday, Ginsburg, joined in Washington by Nathaniel
Speights, a former assistant U.S. attorney, talked to Starr's
aides inside the independent counsel's office on Pennsylvania
Avenue, six blocks from the White House.
Lewinsky's lawyers submitted a two-page proffer, a written
statement of what Lewinsky would be willing to tell
prosecutors in exchange for immunity from prosecution.
Ginsburg indicated that Lewinsky might be willing to
acknowledge that she had a sexual relationship with Clinton,
contradicting her Jan. 7 sworn affidavit in the Jones lawsuit.
For that admission alone, Lewinsky was exposed to a
charge of perjury. It also raised new problems for Clinton,
who, during a six-hour deposition in the Jones suit on
Saturday the 17th, had denied having a sexual relationship
with Lewinsky. But in the proffer, Lewinsky was unwilling to
repeat all of the allegations she made on the tapes that Clinton
and Jordan pressed her to lie about the relationship.
There were some discussions about whether Lewinsky
should submit to a lie detector test. These, too, led nowhere.
Because she was so young, some prosecutors were
concerned that they should not be perceived as bullying her.
"If we were to make an adversary out of her and threaten
to indict her," one investigator mused, "people would say,
these goon squads are beating up on her again."
Negotiations ended late Monday night with no deal.

[Scragg]

Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:

>
> e...@ix.netcom.com(Errol Back-Cunningham) wrote:
>
> >In <01bd2805$0d771f20$c5c12399@default> "NSWPP" <ns...@earthlink.net>
> >writes:
>
> >>
> >> Let me get this straight---Kenneth Starr must be charged
> >>with treason for investigating possible felonies committed by the
> >>President of the United States, an investigation specifically
> >>authorized by the Justice Department and a three-Federal-judge
> >>panel lawfully charged with oversight of Starr's activities----but
> >>Billyboy himself is NOT to be charged with treason for taking bribes
> >>from the Communist Chinese to affect U. S. policy? Ditto Algore?
> >>
> >> Y-y-y-y-y-e-a-a-a-a-a-a-h-h-h..............
>
> > I'm glad you agree. Starr has used taxpayers money to further
> > a political, 'legalised' coup attempt and disrupt the proper
> > functioning of the government in the office of the president.
> > There have to be penalties for failure.
>

> Joe DeGenove failed to convict any one WRT Clinton's passport files.
> What penalty should he suffer?
>
> Walsh never got Reagan or Bush. What should his penalty be? Have
> people like you defend him? Shudder....
>
> JSL
Let's see, yeah Star has failed...13 convictions and going to rack up
three more next month. This doesn't include finally going to get
Willie.
Scragg

[cas...@trip.net]

>>>Errol Back-Cunningham wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If this turns out to be bullshit and a 60% 40% truth/lie
>>>> piece of disinformation that Starr is using taxpayers money
>>>> on for partisan politics - the perpertrators should be charged
>>>> with treason no less. Everyone expects penalties for the president,
>>>> and there should be penalties for failure to prove in this case.
>>>>
>>>> Errol
>>>
>>>Why? Is that how our justice system works? What if every prosecuting
>>>attorney was prosecuted for every case he didn't win? Clinton said the
>>>White House would cooperate just like it has in every other
>>>investigation. Well, I guess the paper shedders are running overtime
>>>tonight because that's how he cooperated before. Is he above the law?
>>>Even though he, and some of his 'supporters-at-all-cost' think yes, I
>>>think he should be held to the same laws as you and I.
>>>
>>>Carl
>>

>>That is a good idea. When it is proven in court that a person is

>>innocent, the prosecuters and anyone else involved in an official
>>capacity in making the false charges should be held responsible. How
>>about the punishment being exactly the same as what it would have been
>>for the falsly accused. That would stop alot of witch hunts. A
>>prosecuter would not be able to drag someone that was innocent into
>>court just to make it look like he got his man.
>>
>>When it involves a public official, treason should also be tacked on
>>because it is a disruption of government and a waste of TAX MONEY.
>

>Interesting point, except for the fact that "disruption of government" and wasting "TAX
>MONEY" do not constitute the legal definition of treason. Not even close.

Treason is any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-
being of a state to which one owes allegience; the crime of giving aid
or comfort to the enemies of one's government.

An attack on the president of the United States is an attack on the
United States. Spending TAX MONEY in a barrage of unfounded attacks
on the Commander and Chief thereby disrupting the government certainly
impairs the countries well-being. It is treason plain and simple.

[John Eddy]

Thus spoke hc...@removethis.tiac.net (Hugo S. Cunningham):

>No. I said she "should" have the right to defy Starr, if she wants
>to. Obviously, she doesn't have that right under current law.
>

Of course she does. Susan McDougal is in prison because she refused
to testify before the Grand Jury at all, *not* because she refused to
say what Starr wanted to hear. Lewinski can go before the Grand Jury
and say that the tapes were full of stuff she made up, leading on her
gullible freind, Tripp. As long as there is no outside evidence
contradicting that story she walks. If there is other hard evidence
showing she did have an affair with Clinton in the White House she
gets three squares and a cot for ten years at Club Fed.

If Lewinski was lying on the tapes she is being ill-served by her
lawyers. Remember, they are currently debating with Starr not over
*if* Lewinski gets immunity, but over *how much* immunity she gets.
There is only one reason I can think of for such a tactic.

John Eddy
----
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7438
remove the NOSPAM. from my address to reply by e-mail

[John Eddy]

Thus spoke col-sand...@geocities.com:

>
>They are finally getting only a meager taste of what many Americans have had shoved down
>their throats for years.
>
>Sauce for the Gander.
>
>Colonel Sanders
>everything you know could be a lie
>--

Thank-you. I couldn't have said it better myself. It *is* kind of
satisfying to see Clinton, a professed liberal and one of the worst
Presidents where individual rights are concerned, being hoist by his
own petard. Regardless of the outcome perhaps we will se a
reassessment of these kinds of tactics. Just wishfull thinking, I
suppose.

[Ford]

On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 15:53:57 -0800, "John W. Tibbs" <jti...@cei.net>
wrote:

>Who stands to gain the most from Slick going down this early in his last
>turn?
>jwt
>

I really doubt it would be Gore, he's too close to Clinton. If this
recent scandal is not thoroughly cleared up in the eyes of the public,
the ones who stand to gain the most ( or lose the least) if Clinton
goes down early, are the Democrats in the legislature.

F. Prefect

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Ford wrote in message <6ah2ca$auv$1...@gte1.gte.net>...

Why is that?

[perila]

Stupendous Man <"root"@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
<6aegjj$jeg$2...@pike.dnaco.net>...
>Soooooooo many liberal lunatics.
>
>
>God over weasels

God's supposed to love all animals, remember?

Yes, let's impeach Big Spender Kenneth Starr - we just can't
afford him any more. Just think if his Christian fundamentalist zealotry
forces him to examine the sex life of everyone who holds
responsible positions - senators, governors, mayors, congressman, the list
is endless. If he keeps this up, we can say goodbye to

our social security checks.

perila

[x]

cas...@trip.net wrote in article <34cbd2a2...@news.trip.net>...

[snip]

> Treason is any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-
> being of a state to which one owes allegience; the crime of giving aid
> or comfort to the enemies of one's government.
>
> An attack on the president of the United States is an attack on the
> United States. Spending TAX MONEY in a barrage of unfounded attacks
> on the Commander and Chief thereby disrupting the government certainly
> impairs the countries well-being. It is treason plain and simple.

That is such a stupid argument that I think you don't even
believe it and are just making such oratory not to convince
people, but to win an argument.

We all know what treason is because we've read the constitution,
and I'm sure you have too. And the constitutionally defined
impeachment proceedings are certainly not treason.

The only countries where treason is as you define it are
usually brutal dictatorships.

[Watson Aname]

On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 04:10:01 GMT, gar...@gte.net (Ford) wrote:

> John W. Tibbs <jti...@cei.net> wrote:
>
>> Who stands to gain the most from Slick going down this early in
>> his last turn?
>

> I really doubt it would be Gore, he's too close to Clinton. If this
> recent scandal is not thoroughly cleared up in the eyes of the public,
> the ones who stand to gain the most ( or lose the least) if Clinton
> goes down early, are the Democrats in the legislature.

WHO stands to gain the most from a scandal that explodes into a messy
media morass less than ten months before the 1998 mid term elections?
The Republican Congress that would rule the legislative roost if they
were able to secure a veto-proof two thirds majority in both chambers
would seem the most clear cut beneficiary. DO they have anything at
all to do with the nature or timing of this scandal? I have no idea,
but wouldn't mind seeing a bit of media investigatory energy spent in
asking the question.

Watson Aweasel

[John W. Tibbs]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> Ford wrote in message <6ah2ca$auv$1...@gte1.gte.net>...

> >On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 15:53:57 -0800, "John W. Tibbs" <jti...@cei.net>

> >wrote:
> >
> >>Who stands to gain the most from Slick going down this early in his last
> >>turn?

> >>jwt

> >>
> >I really doubt it would be Gore, he's too close to Clinton. If this
> >recent scandal is not thoroughly cleared up in the eyes of the public,
> >the ones who stand to gain the most ( or lose the least) if Clinton
> >goes down early, are the Democrats in the legislature.
> >
>

> Why is that?

Because more people are waking up to this atrocity by Slick than have
even had a look before. But I think it would be better for repubs if
Slick stayed around. At least until after the November elections. Gore
wants to get this far aspossible behind him. The only way to do that is
for this to go down early.
jwt

[Hugo S. Cunningham]

vlnt...@aol.com (Vlntryst) wrote:

>Hugo wrote:

I hadn't thought of that angle. Is DC one of those jurisdictions that
still has a law against heterosexual sodomy? And, come to think of
it, has Bill Clinton been sneaking any cigars with cronies in the
White House basement when he thought Hillary wasn't around? Now that
would be grounds for divorce!

--Hugo S. Cunningham

[gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com]

"mike jones" <mdj...@imagin.net> wrote:

>gdydiot, once again you validate the old saying "tis better to be silent and
>thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt".
>Do you honestly believe YOU know more about taping conversations than a
>federal prosecutor? You, who can't even discern the difference between your

its a fact that for the tapes to be legal that all people involved in
the conservation agree to the taping by Maryland law.
But thanks for showing us how the goose stomping fascist starr is
stomping on indivual rights in this case.

>ass and a hole in the ground would presume to criticize Mr. Starr for doing
>his job. You are pathetic.

>Your butt-buddy Bubba has been 'boinking' you and all your little faggot
>liberal/commie buddies like zeppo, voltless, buttyKKK, and a few others too
>irrelevant to mention. Bubba 'boinks' you everytime he spews forth more lies
>and you swallow and man do you swallow hard.

whinning because someone kicked your ass good. Let me know which one
of the above I need to congrats.

>MIke.

>>>> : Then there is the question of Starr himself, looking into using
>Lewinsky in
>>>> : a sting operation against the president.
>>

>>> You haven't been paying attention. Lewinsky is the sperm receptical.
>>>Tripp is the tape delivery device.
>>>
>>why is tripp out of jail, after illegally taping phone conservation?
>>

>>>> And trying to shake her down instead of telling her to get a lawyer.
>>

[Jerry Bryson]

dCarl Purdon <cpu...@netdoor.com> wrote:

>
> I hear some people say how this thing is not important and such a minor
> offense. What did all the old gangsters get locked up for? Tax
> evasion! Why? Because, even though they knew they committed much worse
> crimes, they couldn't make them stick because all the witnesses were
> either dead or terrified. I say hang him for whatever they can make
> stick because he's done enough already to deserve prison.
Such as?

--
Nescio ne sum, ergo penso sum.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

John W. Tibbs wrote in message <34CCC7...@cei.net>...

I was asking why the Democrats in the legislature stand the most to gain if
this scandal is not thoroughly cleared up in the eyes of the public.

[wol...@nospamnetvalue.net]

On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 19:58:15 GMT, gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
(gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:

>Stupendous Man <"root"@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
>>HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote:
>>>
>>> H Mohr (hm...@junction.net) wrote:
>>> : As a Canadian I can only sit back in amazement and watch this crazy story
>>> : unfold. Most of us wonder why the most powerful country in the world can be
>>> : brought to a political standstill over the sexual daliances of its chief
>>> : executive. Other countries seem do have no problem with leaders who stray
>>> : from the marital bed, as long as they get the job done.
>
>> In case you haven't been paying attention, it's not about oral sex,
>>it's about
>
>> Perjury
>> Suborning perjury
>> Obstruction of justice
>> Witness tampering
>
>got it wrong stupe, its about illegal taping, using fraudulent means
>to get a wiretap. But thats ok stupe, we all know you are dumber than
>a rock.

No, he got it right

>
>> Now, does your country also "not mind" when your PM does this?
>
>>...
>>> : Then there is the question of Starr himself, looking into using Lewinsky in
>>> : a sting operation against the president.
>
>> You haven't been paying attention. Lewinsky is the sperm receptical.
>>Tripp is the tape delivery device.
>>
>why is tripp out of jail, after illegally taping phone conservation?

Was it illegal ? Starr order it, Reno seemed to have approve it.

>
>>> And trying to shake her down instead of telling her to get a lawyer.
>
>> She has had a lawyer since day one, as she was deposed in the Paula
>>Jones case prior to this breaking.
>
>>...
>>> You'll have to excuse our right wing. They don't care a thing in the
>>> world about civil liberties as long as their side wins.
>
>> You'll have to excuse Buddy K, he has a problem with reality and
>>has numerous fantasies about being a concentration camp guard.
>
>stupe is the one with delusional fantasies, he thinks raygun might
>have been a good prez. Oh well guess he has to live up to the name hes
>choosen for himself.

>>"Look. I will deny it so he will not get screwed in the case, but I'm
>>going to get screwed personally."--Monica Lewinsky
>
>>Brett
>>God over weasels.
>
>==========================================================================
>Let The White Rose enlighten you.
>
>http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
>
>gdy weasel
>==========================================================================
>McGilvray explaining that he would spit on Vietanm Vets if the differ on his political outlook:
>
>>The vets who went to Vietnam took risk, and if you stop hiding behind the VVAW,
>>your little heroes of the days of rage are all phoneys-I spit on them.
>
>==================================================================================
>

Wolf

That's right, join The War On Right Wing Ignorance,
stop being ignorant about the right, the more you
know of the truth the more conservatives there will
be!
===================================================
Mankind believes in something he cannot comprehend
and comprehends something he cannot believe
-----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
The worst inequality, is trying to make something not
equal, equal

Remove the nospam to e-mail

[Carl Purdon]

cas...@trip.net wrote:
>
>
> That is a good idea. When it is proven in court that a person is
> innocent, the prosecuters and anyone else involved in an official
> capacity in making the false charges should be held responsible. How
> about the punishment being exactly the same as what it would have been
> for the falsly accused. That would stop alot of witch hunts. A
> prosecuter would not be able to drag someone that was innocent into
> court just to make it look like he got his man.
>
> When it involves a public official, treason should also be tacked on
> because it is a disruption of government and a waste of TAX MONEY.

All that would do is ensure that the streets were overrun with
murderers, rapists, - you get the picture. Who in their right mind
would attempt to prosecute anyone for murder, for instance, if they knew
they would receive the death sentence if the jury returned a 'not
guilty' verdict? The justice has some serious kinks but it is one of
the better in the world. Now if someone was proven to prosecute someone
when they knew the person was innocent then, yes, they should themselves
be prosecuted. But not if they have reasonable evidence. Ken Star is
not prosecuting anyone at the moment, he is simply investigating.
Something Clinton lovers love to do to republicans but hate to do to the
president.

Carl

[Carl Purdon]

cas...@trip.net wrote:
>
> >>>Errol Back-Cunningham wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> If this turns out to be bullshit and a 60% 40% truth/lie
> >>>> piece of disinformation that Starr is using taxpayers money
> >>>> on for partisan politics - the perpertrators should be charged
> >>>> with treason no less. Everyone expects penalties for the president,
> >>>> and there should be penalties for failure to prove in this case.
> >>>>
> >>>> Errol
> >>>
> >>>Why? Is that how our justice system works? What if every prosecuting
> >>>attorney was prosecuted for every case he didn't win? Clinton said the
> >>>White House would cooperate just like it has in every other
> >>>investigation. Well, I guess the paper shedders are running overtime
> >>>tonight because that's how he cooperated before. Is he above the law?
> >>>Even though he, and some of his 'supporters-at-all-cost' think yes, I
> >>>think he should be held to the same laws as you and I.
> >>>
> >>>Carl
> >>

> >>That is a good idea. When it is proven in court that a person is
> >>innocent, the prosecuters and anyone else involved in an official
> >>capacity in making the false charges should be held responsible. How
> >>about the punishment being exactly the same as what it would have been
> >>for the falsly accused. That would stop alot of witch hunts. A
> >>prosecuter would not be able to drag someone that was innocent into
> >>court just to make it look like he got his man.
> >>
> >>When it involves a public official, treason should also be tacked on
> >>because it is a disruption of government and a waste of TAX MONEY.
> >

> >Interesting point, except for the fact that "disruption of government" and wasting "TAX
> >MONEY" do not constitute the legal definition of treason. Not even close.
>

> Treason is any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-
> being of a state to which one owes allegience; the crime of giving aid
> or comfort to the enemies of one's government.
>
> An attack on the president of the United States is an attack on the
> United States. Spending TAX MONEY in a barrage of unfounded attacks
> on the Commander and Chief thereby disrupting the government certainly
> impairs the countries well-being. It is treason plain and simple.

Just what kind of evidence would someone have to have against Bill
Clinton before you would not deem it "unfounded"? Taped conversations?
Multiple witnesses? White House guest logs? Semen stained skirt?

Carl

[Carl Purdon]

Glenn N. Carpenter wrote:
>
> There IS no shooting.....
>

Duh!

> Carl Purdon wrote in message <34CA9C...@netdoor.com>...

> >xwzi...@concentric.net wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Let me get this straight---Kenneth Starr must be charged
> >> >>with treason for investigating possible felonies committed by the
> >> >>President of the United States, an investigation specifically
> >> >>authorized by the Justice Department and a three-Federal-judge
> >> >>panel lawfully charged with oversight of Starr's activities----but
> >> >>Billyboy himself is NOT to be charged with treason for taking bribes
> >> >>from the Communist Chinese to affect U. S. policy? Ditto Algore?
> >>

> >> > I'm glad you agree. Starr has used taxpayers money to further
> >> > a political, 'legalised' coup attempt and disrupt the proper
> >> > functioning of the government in the office of the president.
> >> > There have to be penalties for failure.
> >>

> >> Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh. Get everybody on the "enemies list", now where
> >> have we seen THAT strategy before? We could always set whomever
> >> offed VF on Starr's trail, for starters, right?
> >
> >Bill Clinton could walk up to Ken Starr on national tv and blow his
> >brains out and there would still be some idiots who would swear it was a
> >right-wing-conspiracists' plot. Or the ranting of
> >right-wing-haters-of-the-president. As a matter of fact, unless he had
> >sex with him before he shot him, the media would probably refuse to
> >acknowledge that it happened.
> >
> >Carl

[Carl Purdon]

Hans Mohr wrote:
>
> :
>
> > Hugo S. Cunningham wrote:
>
> Re: the point regarding sureptitious taping of conversations.
>
> This is an excellent point. One of the things that made Communist Russia, and
> still makes Communist China, an odious place to live is the fact that you never
> know who may be listening to, and recording your conversations. In both
> countries agents of the government were out waiting for citizens to slip and say
> something that could land them in jail.
>
> I think the fact that this has occured in this case shows an eerie parallel. Do
> we really want to be in a country where self appointed censors could be taping
> anything you say. I would think not. Just because Linda Tripp is not a
> government agent are her actions any less excusable. This is an outrageous, and
> probably illegal, intrusion into someones, in this case Monica Lewinsky's,
> private life.
>
> As far as I know, law agents require a court order to tape private conversations,
> yet here we have citizens doing the job for their own possible gain. I hope that
> I and H. Cunningham are not the only ones who find this very disturbing.
>
> HM

Where is the evidence that Star violated the law by wiring Tripp? His
statement I saw on CNN said he followed legal guidelines every step of
the way. Now if that turns out not to be the case then he should pay
the consequences for it - just as Clinton should if the allegations turn
out to be true. Btw, were you disturbed when Clinton ordered all those
FBI files on private citizens?

Carl

[Carl Purdon]

gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
>
> "mike jones" <mdj...@imagin.net> wrote:
>
> >gdydiot, once again you validate the old saying "tis better to be silent and
> >thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt".
> >Do you honestly believe YOU know more about taping conversations than a
> >federal prosecutor? You, who can't even discern the difference between your
>
> its a fact that for the tapes to be legal that all people involved in
> the conservation agree to the taping by Maryland law.
> But thanks for showing us how the goose stomping fascist starr is
> stomping on indivual rights in this case.
>

Are you saying that in Maryland, if a judge orders a person to be wired
in an undercover operation, they have to tell the suspect he is being
recorded? Somehow I doubt that's the case but I'll wait and see.

Carl

[cas...@trip.net]

>>The IMPORTANT issue is WHETHER Clinton committed perjury, Mr. Mohr. If
>>that is the case, Clinton should be removed from office. No one is
>>above the law, not even the leader of the Free World.

A jury can decide that no one had a right to ask and therefore there
was no perjury because it was none of anyones business whether he
didled the woman or not. A jury can say not guilty based on their
decision that it was an improper question. No matter what the judge
says.

As long as there was no rape, statutory rape, or any other sex crime
commited, the question of whether two consenting adults had sex is
none of anyone else's business. Except of course the three people
directly involved. A suit for divorce is not a criminal charge.

>>This was because the WHite House was stonewalling. If you think taping
>>a 24 year old surreptitiously is pathetic, what about those Democratic
>>activists who illegally wiretapped Newt Gingrich's cellphone conversation
>>and turned it over to Rep. McDermott? This was the prima facea evidence
>>used to censure Newt. I didn't hear a whole lot of complaining then.

So the White House stonewalling is grounds for illegal taping.

>>|Then there is the question of Starr himself, looking into using Lewinsky in

>>|a sting operation against the president. This would have been like
>>|Watergate in reverse with the president himself being the subject of
>>|wiretapping. Anyway, as a Canadian I can only shake my head in amazement.
>>|As for the political dirty tricks involved, this would have made Julius
>>|Caesar feel right at home.
>
>>Again, I've said it many times, Starr wasn't looking to disclose Clinton's
>>sexual proclivities and embarrass him. That would do nothing for his
>>investigation. What I suspect is that he wanted to use Monica to
>>get incriminating evidence on Vernon Jordan and then turn Jordan to
>>corroborate his suspicion that Clinton was obstructing justice in the
>>Whitewater investigation. Now that Monica's ID is known, Starr hit
>>a dead end.

He was and is undoubtably looking for anything he can get. He is
frothing at the mouth just like the rest of the far right.
>
>>This might sound sneaky and underhanded (getting associates and friends
>>to be turned against the defendent) but it's standard operating procedure
>>in criminal cases. Ask Timothy McVeigh about Michael Fortier.

>
>Usually, the person being "turned" by threats of prosecution has done
>something wrong. Lewinski is entirely innocent with respect to
>everyone except Hillary Clinton, who has not, as far as I am aware,
>asked for Mr. Starr's assistance.
>

>--Hugo S Cunningham
>

[cas...@trip.net]

On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 14:16:09 GMT, "x" <x@x> wrote:

>
>
>cas...@trip.net wrote in article <34cbd2a2...@news.trip.net>...
>
>[snip]
>

>> Treason is any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-
>> being of a state to which one owes allegience; the crime of giving aid
>> or comfort to the enemies of one's government.
>>
>> An attack on the president of the United States is an attack on the
>> United States. Spending TAX MONEY in a barrage of unfounded attacks
>> on the Commander and Chief thereby disrupting the government certainly
>> impairs the countries well-being. It is treason plain and simple.
>

>That is such a stupid argument that I think you don't even
>believe it and are just making such oratory not to convince
>people, but to win an argument.
>
>We all know what treason is because we've read the constitution,
>and I'm sure you have too. And the constitutionally defined
>impeachment proceedings are certainly not treason.
>
>The only countries where treason is as you define it are
>usually brutal dictatorships.

Well I got that definition straight out of Websters Unabridged
Dictionary copyright 1983, Random House Publishing , New York, New
York.

Wait a minute. Maybe we were under a brutal dictatorship during 1983.
I just called it Ronnie's Reich.

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 16:38:21 GMT, freehold@^SNIP!^visi.net (Watson
Aname) wrote:

> WHO stands to gain the most from a scandal that explodes into a messy
> media morass less than ten months before the 1998 mid term elections?
> The Republican Congress that would rule the legislative roost if they
> were able to secure a veto-proof two thirds majority in both chambers
> would seem the most clear cut beneficiary. DO they have anything at
> all to do with the nature or timing of this scandal? I have no idea,
> but wouldn't mind seeing a bit of media investigatory energy spent in
> asking the question.

Nah, this is going down too early for them to be behind it.
--

"People love it when you lose, they love dirty laundry."
Don Henley

[cas...@trip.net]

On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 00:09:52 -0500, Stupendous Man
<"root"@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:

>HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote:
>>
>> H Mohr (hm...@junction.net) wrote:
>> : As a Canadian I can only sit back in amazement and watch this crazy story
>> : unfold. Most of us wonder why the most powerful country in the world can be
>> : brought to a political standstill over the sexual daliances of its chief
>> : executive. Other countries seem do have no problem with leaders who stray
>> : from the marital bed, as long as they get the job done.
>
> In case you haven't been paying attention, it's not about oral sex,
>it's about
>
> Perjury
> Suborning perjury
> Obstruction of justice
> Witness tampering

Perjury concerning what?
Suborning perjury concerning what?
Obstruction of justice pertaining to what?
Tampering with what witness and why?

[Scott Erb]

You know, with all the stuff going on -- allegations that Lewinsky was
obsessed with the President and fantasized about this, to allegations that
Clinton was caught with her by someone else -- it's easy to simply let
one's own political persuasion color one's reaction to events.

However, the facts are unclear. But I suspect the facts will come out in
the next few months.

Perhaps we should keep an open mind on this and see what develops. I
predict that Clinton will probably have another comeback. I mean, his
career has been based on serious problems, and then stunning comebacks.
This would be par for the course. But I really don't know what happened
or who to believe. I'm withholding judgement at this point.
cheers, scott

[Darryl Stephen Roy]

>its a fact that for the tapes to be legal that all people involved in
>the conservation agree to the taping by Maryland law.
> But thanks for showing us how the goose stomping fascist starr is
>stomping on indivual rights in this case.

I was under the impression that Linda Tripp, acting out of
personal greed and resentment and at the bequest of Nixon spy Goldberg
did the phone taping prior to approaching Starr. Can you correct me on
this?

ers...@hal-pc.org

[Markone]

cas...@trip.net wrote:
>
> >>The IMPORTANT issue is WHETHER Clinton committed perjury, Mr. Mohr. If
> >>that is the case, Clinton should be removed from office. No one is
> >>above the law, not even the leader of the Free World.
>
> A jury can decide that no one had a right to ask and therefore there
> was no perjury because it was none of anyones business whether he
> didled the woman or not. A jury can say not guilty based on their
> decision that it was an improper question. No matter what the judge
> says.
>
> As long as there was no rape, statutory rape, or any other sex crime
> commited, the question of whether two consenting adults had sex is
> none of anyone else's business. Except of course the three people
> directly involved. A suit for divorce is not a criminal charge.
>
>

It is Paula Jones business. She has a $2M civil suit against the
President alledging what most would agree to be lewd and possibly
illegal conduct...although the criminal statue of limitations has
expired. The depositions and affidavits in question were done to
gather possible evidence that the President had a pattern of sexual
relationships with subordinates. If the current allegations are true,
then Clinton would be guilty of perjury, obstruction of justice, and it
would put a serious cloud over the Paula Jones case if it was shown that
Clinton felt a need to lie to protect himself.

Markone

[x]

cas...@trip.net wrote in article <34cd3787....@news.trip.net>...

>
>
> Well I got that definition straight out of Websters Unabridged
> Dictionary copyright 1983, Random House Publishing , New York, New
> York.

You need to reference the United States Code and the United States
Constitution. Webster's is a great dictionary but a poor legal reference.

See:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/

Specifically:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2381.shtml

"§ 2381. Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort
within the United States or
elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title
but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

Bringing evidence for impeachment does not constitute treason and
I am sure you are very well aware of it. There is a lawful way to
remove a sitting President.

> Wait a minute. Maybe we were under a brutal dictatorship during 1983.
> I just called it Ronnie's Reich.

I don't think you can make a very plausible case that
the Reagan administration was a "brutal dictatorship",
but you are free to start a thread on the subject. It's
your credibility, after all.

[John Eddy]

Thus Spoke cas...@trip.net:

>So the White House stonewalling is grounds for illegal taping.
>

The tapes were not illegal, at least not at the federal level. Under
Federal law taping is legal as long as one party consents, otherwise a
court order is required. In Maryland, bot must consent; however,
historically such cases are not prosecuted. It's up to the AG's
office in Maryland.

As to perjury, again, it is highly unusual fro a person to be charged
with perjury for lying in a civil case. Given that precedent I cannot
see an impeachment based on perjury alone. If the President urged
Lewinsky to lie under oath, even though it was in a civil case, that
is much, much more serious and could be enough to Launch Bill from
office. That charge depends on the testimony of outside witnesses or
the presentation of outside eveidenc (evidence other than Lewinsky's
testimony). Without that, this is all a waste of time and the most
that will be revealed is that Bill Clinton is a lying, womanizing,
scoudrel... big news, eh?

John Eddy
--

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7438
Remove the NOSPAM. from my address to reply by E-mail

[Walt Snedeker]

Scott Erb wrote:
> You know, with all the stuff going on -- allegations that Lewinsky was
> obsessed with the President and fantasized about this, to allegations that Clinton was caught with her by someone else -- it's easy to simply let one's own political persuasion color one's reaction to events.
> However, the facts are unclear. But I suspect the facts will come out in the next few months.

I think Scott is right.

Here's my prediction: It matters not who he furgled, paid off, got
bought by, executed, or lied to. He will finish his term.

Don't believe that obvious facts will have a tremendous effect. They
will have a tremendous *noise*, but not an effect.

Sheesh. Just look at OJ... He's playing golf in Florida, rather than
making license plates.

Walt