NY Pravda: Ken Starr's Meddling
John McGough
are included.
>The most surprising aspect of the Senate
>impeachment trial is the persistent
>challenges to the senators' constitutional
>right to run it. First came the House
>managers' attempt to call a parade of
>unnecessary witnesses. Now we have an
>apparent effort from the office of Kenneth
>Starr, the independent counsel, to spark
>a debate over criminal prosecution of the
>President at a time when the Senate
>deserves a calm decision-making
>atmosphere and an open field for
>negotiation.
Is this hubris, or what? These scumbags hype a non-story containing
quotes from unnamed people on their front page one day and then lay
blame on Ken Starr the next. Hitler and Stalin are smiling in their
graves. Notice there's no mention of thier and the White House's
interferance in the trial?
>Mr. Starr is already regarded by his
>critics as an obsessive personality.
Read: We think this...
>Now he seems determined to write
>himself into the history books as a
>narcissistic legal crank.
Because an unnamed source says he says a sitting president can be
indicted? Interesting logic...
>Once the Senate started the
>second Presidential impeachment trial in
>American history, that was Mr. Starr's
>cue not only to shut up but to stop any
>activity by his office that would direct
>attention away from the Senate or
>reduce its bargaining room.
Says who? He has a number of ongoing investigations and grand juries
that do not relate directly to Clinton. All criminal prosecution is to
be brought to a halt because the senate is holding a phony impeachment
trial?
>The issue of
>who leaked news of Mr. Starr's
>indictment research to The New York
>Times is a phony one.
Tell that to Bill's shills...
>What is needed
>here is not an investigation of journalistic
>sources, but attention to the substance of
>Mr. Starr's legal mischief.
I get it. The New York Pravda is in shear panic mode. They are about to
be outted as being a propaganda arm of the White House and they are
running for cover. Forget the fact we placed a story dripping with fake
quotes from Starr's office written by and hand-delivered to us from Sid
and Hitlery at the WH. Point the finger at the evil Starr instead...
>It seems
>designed to disrupt these solemn
>deliberations
Solemn???!!! To quote Harkin's description of the articles of
impeachment: The fucking trial has been a pile of dung. More honest
trials take place in Banana Republics!
>into Presidential
>misconduct of a serious if undeniably
>sordid kind.
>The news article highlighted an
>underlying problem. Mr. Starr keeps
>flapping around -- with deliberations over
>indictments and by meddling in the
>House managers' contacts with Monica
>Lewinsky --
The Demo judge Norma Holoway Johnson made the decision, asswipes!
>in ways that complicate
>Senate work that is more important than
>he is. The Senate should rebuke Mr.
>Starr and also appeal to the Federal
>judges who supervise him to restrain him
>from further disturbance of the
>constitutional process.
No innocent until proven guilty for Starr, eh? Fucking hypocrites. You
want the world to bend over backward for your little Hitler KKKlinton,
but give an ounce of reasonable doubt to anyone else? Course not!
>This incident is more serious than Mr.
>Starr's customary blundering.
Customary blundering? What does that make the WH then? Starr has whooped
their ass in every legal argument...
>The
>Constitution clearly allows the indictment
>and prosecution of officials who have
>been impeached by the House and
>removed from office by the Senate. But
>whether such a trial should go forward in
>this case is a complex constitutional and
>civic question that needs to be shaped by
>the wisdom of the Senate rather than by
>Mr. Starr's personal inclinations and his
>idea of prosecutorial duty.
Complex constitutional and civic question to uphold the rule of law?
That is rich.
>If the three
>witnesses being deposed this week do
>not dramatically change the evidence,
>then the Senate is clearly the right place
>to make the final disposition of President
>Clinton's case.
In regards to impeachment. The senate has NO say whether or not a
citizen of the U.S. is to be held accountable to the laws in an American
courthouse.
>For Mr. Starr's office to be talking about
>a trial inhibits the Senate's freedom to
>draft a censure resolution that might
>include some kind of Presidential
>admission. Indeed, virtually everyone in
>the capital except Mr. Starr seems to
>know that censure-plus-admission,
>speedily arrived at, would be a far better
>outcome for the country than a trial for
>either a sitting or former President.
These fuckers have finally lost it. They now claim Clinton shouldn't be
held accountable even AFTER he leaves office! This is one of the largest
newspapers in America announcing they support having a dictatorship!
>To be sure, if the charges were of
>greater criminal magnitude or threatened
>orderly government, such a trial could be
>fitting and constitutional once a President
>was removed.
Will I be extended the same courtesy? Stealing a pack of gum will not
threaten the stability of America. Therefore, it should not be a
punishable crime towards anyone, right?
>While removal is not
>appropriate in this case, the Senate is
>clearly the appropriate venue for
>condemning and finding a proportional
>punishment to offenses like those
>committed by Mr. Clinton.
Here we have the NY Pravda advocating the overthrowing of the
Constitution now, too. The Senate does not have the authority to punish
anyone! That is why we have that third branch of government -- the
judiciary!
>The Senate,
>which is always talking about its potent
>collective probity, needs to find a way to
>slap Mr. Starr back into line.
These editors better not cross my path, because I'd love to slap THEM
back in line.
Welcome to AmeriKKKa...