Judge Susan Wright covers for Clinton

0 views
Skip to first unread message

R. Wiley

unread,
Jul 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/11/98
to
.

US District Judge Susan Wright granted a request by
Slick Willy's lawyers for an indefinate extension
on the gag order preventing release of evidence from
Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit against the
Slickster.


rw


King Pineapple

unread,
Jul 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/11/98
to
raw...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu (R. Wiley) writes: > .
What's in those piles of evidence that Bubba is trying to keep from
becoming public?

Mary E Knadler

unread,
Jul 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/12/98
to
In <rawiley....@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> raw...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu

(R. Wiley) writes:
>
>.
>
>US District Judge Susan Wright granted a request by
>Slick Willy's lawyers for an indefinate extension
>on the gag order preventing release of evidence from
>Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit against the
>Slickster.
>
>
>rw
>

She's sure a Clinton fan, isn't she? Wonder if she gets that
"swooning" & fainting" or whatever they call that THING that these
Democrat women get over Clinton.

They just lose it completely & "Freak Out". Oh, what power
this man has over SOME women. I think we should demand only male
Judges in any Clinton decisions.

Mary E Knadler

unread,
Jul 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/12/98
to
In <6o86qk$liv$1...@news.monad.net> King Pineapple <crai...@hotmail.com>
writes:
>
>raw...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu (R. Wiley) writes: > .
>>
>> US District Judge Susan Wright granted a request by
>> Slick Willy's lawyers for an indefinate extension
>> on the gag order preventing release of evidence from
>> Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit against the
>> Slickster.
>>
>>
>> rw
>>
>What's in those piles of evidence that Bubba is trying to keep from
>becoming public?


All those affairs he's been covering up for years.

yasmin2

zu...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Jul 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/12/98
to
In article <6o86qk$liv$1...@news.monad.net>,

King Pineapple <crai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> raw...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu (R. Wiley) writes: > .
> >
> > US District Judge Susan Wright granted a request by
> > Slick Willy's lawyers for an indefinate extension
> > on the gag order preventing release of evidence from
> > Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit against the
> > Slickster.
> >
> What's in those piles of evidence that Bubba is trying to keep from
> becoming public?

Ummm, Jones' lawyers _also_ asked that the records be kept sealed.
I have no problem with that. Nothing that was in there is any
of your business or my business. AFAIK, It's mostly scurrilous
stuff dug up by dint of abusive discovery by Jones' lawyers, some
of which they came near to getting slapped for by Wright (but
she seems to have thought that tossing the case was enough punishment
for them). . .

If anyone feels strongly enough that the information obtained from
them in deposition or affidavit is being unfairly withheld from the
public, they may go right ahead and repeate their story in front
of the cameras. The order doesn't prevent this; it simply prevents
material gathered through coerced discovery from being made public
in a case that no longer matters. . . .

Cheers,

-- Arne Langsetmo


-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

R. Wiley

unread,
Jul 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/12/98
to
zu...@ix.netcom.com writes:

>In article <6o86qk$liv$1...@news.monad.net>,
> King Pineapple <crai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> raw...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu (R. Wiley) writes: > .
>> >
>> > US District Judge Susan Wright granted a request by
>> > Slick Willy's lawyers for an indefinate extension
>> > on the gag order preventing release of evidence from
>> > Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit against the
>> > Slickster.
>> >
>> What's in those piles of evidence that Bubba is trying to keep from
>> becoming public?

>Ummm, Jones' lawyers _also_ asked that the records be kept sealed.

Not according to the AP. I quote;

"She gave both sides until today to raise objections. No objection
has been raised by lawyers for Jones"

Do you have other, verifiable, information?

rw

Daryl V. Grier

unread,
Jul 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/12/98
to
The faggot reappears. The truth to a liberal (socialist) is like a cross
to dracula.

zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> In article <6o86qk$liv$1...@news.monad.net>,
> King Pineapple <crai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > raw...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu (R. Wiley) writes: > .
> > >
> > > US District Judge Susan Wright granted a request by
> > > Slick Willy's lawyers for an indefinate extension
> > > on the gag order preventing release of evidence from
> > > Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit against the
> > > Slickster.
> > >
> > What's in those piles of evidence that Bubba is trying to keep from
> > becoming public?
>
> Ummm, Jones' lawyers _also_ asked that the records be kept sealed.

Daryl V. Grier

unread,
Jul 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/12/98
to
Again I ask. What are the chances that one of the 900 illegally obtained
FBI files in on Judge Susan Weber Wright? The truth to a liberal

(socialist) is like a cross to dracula.

Mary E Knadler wrote:

> In <rawiley....@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> raw...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu


> (R. Wiley) writes:
> >
> >.
> >
> >US District Judge Susan Wright granted a request by
> >Slick Willy's lawyers for an indefinate extension
> >on the gag order preventing release of evidence from
> >Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit against the
> >Slickster.
> >
> >

zu...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Jul 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/15/98
to
In article <rawiley....@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
raw...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu (R. Wiley) wrote:

> zu...@ix.netcom.com writes:
>
> >In article <6o86qk$liv$1...@news.monad.net>,
> > King Pineapple <crai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> raw...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu (R. Wiley) writes: > .
> >> >
> >> > US District Judge Susan Wright granted a request by
> >> > Slick Willy's lawyers for an indefinate extension
> >> > on the gag order preventing release of evidence from
> >> > Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit against the
> >> > Slickster.
> >> >
> >> What's in those piles of evidence that Bubba is trying to keep from
> >> becoming public?
>
> >Ummm, Jones' lawyers _also_ asked that the records be kept sealed.
>
> Not according to the AP. I quote;
>
> "She gave both sides until today to raise objections. No objection
> has been raised by lawyers for Jones"
>
> Do you have other, verifiable, information?

I read something about a week ago that the Jones lawyesr were
also asking that some record be sealed. I remember it because
it seemed that both capms had been united on this _against_ the
efforts of newspapers to get the record unsealed. I'll have to
dig through the old papers, and see what I can come up with.

I looked at more recent stuff, and saw an article that said
Jones' lawyers said that any decision on whether to seek to keep
the record sealed was her decision, but the article didn't reporton
whether she had made any decision WRT this. Your article doesn't
dispute this; what is unclear is whether she _has_ taken a position.

I don't know what her position would be; it will be interesting.
One reason for keeping such records sealed, from her perspective,
is that the Clintons had a fair bit on her sexual history as well
(although they didn't use it at trial), which might prove embarrassing
to her. Whether she asks for disclosure in an effort to embarrass
the president though at a price to herself, or choses to keep the
stuff under seal, might go towards showing a bit what her aims were
in undertaking the trial. She _may_ just ask that the records
concerning herself be kept sealed, but I doubt she would prevail on
such a request, if the records on Clinton are unsealed.

Fair enough?

Surfin' Al

unread,
Jul 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/15/98
to
zu...@ix.netcom.com writes: > In article <rawiley....@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>,

The main point though is that Clinton's side doesn't want the stuff
unsealed. What happens if Jones' *appeal* gets thrown out? Will they
be unsealed then? Sure, but by that time Clinton will be out of office
and nobody will care. If he can delay as much as possible with the other
stuff like the Secret Service testifying, he'll be out of there before
any "nasty" revelations come out, and the American sheep, er, public
won't care.

Mary E Knadler

unread,
Jul 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/15/98
to

I thought I read the Jones attorneys were not sure about unsealing the
documents until they had decided whether to appeal or not.

yasmin2

zu...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Jul 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/15/98
to
In article <6oi6nj$bdt$1...@news.monad.net>,
Surfin' Al <ha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> zu...@ix.netcom.com writes: >

[snip]

> > I don't know what her position would be; it will be interesting.
> > One reason for keeping such records sealed, from her perspective,
> > is that the Clintons had a fair bit on her sexual history as well
> > (although they didn't use it at trial), which might prove embarrassing
> > to her. Whether she asks for disclosure in an effort to embarrass
> > the president though at a price to herself, or choses to keep the
> > stuff under seal, might go towards showing a bit what her aims were
> > in undertaking the trial. She _may_ just ask that the records
> > concerning herself be kept sealed, but I doubt she would prevail on
> > such a request, if the records on Clinton are unsealed.
> >
> > Fair enough?
>

> The main point though is that Clinton's side doesn't want the stuff
> unsealed. What happens if Jones' *appeal* gets thrown out? Will they
> be unsealed then? Sure, but by that time Clinton will be out of office
> and nobody will care. If he can delay as much as possible with the other

> stuff like the Secret Service testifying, . . .

What the hay does the Secret Service testimony have to do with the
JOnes case?

> . . . he'll be out of there before


> any "nasty" revelations come out, and the American sheep, er, public
> won't care.

I take it by this that you _do_ care about who the President might
or might not have diddled. . . .

Do you really think it is the province of our courts to go digging
through people's sex lives and hanging all the dirty linen out
in public for all to see? Curious notion you have about what
the government's job is. Maybe we could encourage them to do
the same for you. . . . Oh, forgot, you don't _have_ any dirty
linen. . . .

Surfin' Al

unread,
Jul 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/15/98
to
zu...@ix.netcom.com writes: > In article <6oi6nj$bdt$1...@news.monad.net>,

> Surfin' Al <ha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > zu...@ix.netcom.com writes: >
>
> [snip]
>
> > > I don't know what her position would be; it will be interesting.
> > > One reason for keeping such records sealed, from her perspective,
> > > is that the Clintons had a fair bit on her sexual history as well
> > > (although they didn't use it at trial), which might prove embarrassing
> > > to her. Whether she asks for disclosure in an effort to embarrass
> > > the president though at a price to herself, or choses to keep the
> > > stuff under seal, might go towards showing a bit what her aims were
> > > in undertaking the trial. She _may_ just ask that the records
> > > concerning herself be kept sealed, but I doubt she would prevail on
> > > such a request, if the records on Clinton are unsealed.
> > >
> > > Fair enough?
> >
> > The main point though is that Clinton's side doesn't want the stuff
> > unsealed. What happens if Jones' *appeal* gets thrown out? Will they
> > be unsealed then? Sure, but by that time Clinton will be out of office
> > and nobody will care. If he can delay as much as possible with the other
> > stuff like the Secret Service testifying, . . .
>
> What the hay does the Secret Service testimony have to do with the
> JOnes case?
It doesn't, I just used it as an example of something that is being
used to distract attention from other matters.

> > . . . he'll be out of there before
> > any "nasty" revelations come out, and the American sheep, er, public
> > won't care.
>
> I take it by this that you _do_ care about who the President might
> or might not have diddled. . . .
>
> Do you really think it is the province of our courts to go digging
> through people's sex lives and hanging all the dirty linen out
> in public for all to see? Curious notion you have about what
> the government's job is. Maybe we could encourage them to do
> the same for you. . . . Oh, forgot, you don't _have_ any dirty
> linen. . . .
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Arne Langsetmo
>

If the sex results in commission of felonies by elected officials, sure
as hell *is* the province of the courts. That's exactly what they're
doing. BTW, I did a wash today and used Clorox, my linen is clean.


zu...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
In article <6oj48e$a6b$1...@news.monad.net>,
Surfin' Al <ha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> zu...@ix.netcom.com writes: > In article <6oi6nj$bdt$1...@news.monad.net>,

[snip]

> > Do you really think it is the province of our courts to go digging
> > through people's sex lives and hanging all the dirty linen out
> > in public for all to see? Curious notion you have about what
> > the government's job is. Maybe we could encourage them to do
> > the same for you. . . . Oh, forgot, you don't _have_ any dirty
> > linen. . . .
>

> If the sex results in commission of felonies by elected officials, sure
> as hell *is* the province of the courts.

The sex "results in" the commission of felonies? Huh? Why, did
someone carry out the act for longer than the other party consented
to? What felonies are you talking about here?

This "it ain't about the sex" foofrah really irks me. YES, IT'S
ABOUT SEX! Starr is asking if the Secret Service has any
information as to whether any sex occurred. He grabbed Lewinsky's
dress to see if it had semen on it. He subpoenaed book purchases
of Lewinsky to see if she might be into kinkiness. He had old
lovers of Lewinsky, and even high school chums come to town to
testify as to her personal habits. He wants to know if she had
sex with the President.

Why? Supposedly because Clinton might have lied about it in a civil
deposition. So fr***ing what. . . People lie in civil cases
_all_ the time, and many times about _core_ elements of the case,
where there is no question about materiality (unlike here, where
the materiality of his deposition is _quite_ dubious, IMHO).
No one bothers to go after these people; at the very worst, the
_judge_ in the case might slap them with contempt of court.
Now explain why it's so fr***ing important to you (and the country)
whether Clinton was honest about something that was at most of
concern to Jones and _Jones only_ (although even here I would
say that it wasn't even Jones' business). Who got hurt here,
_even if all allegations are true_?

Face it, Starr's a fr***ing panty-sniffer:

"In the latest travesty, as revealed by the Washington Post,
Starr used prosecutors and FBI agents to interrogate Arkansas
state troopers about women with whom Bill Clinton allegedly had
affairs prior to his presidency. Starr's deputy argues that
they had a duty to find out whether Clinton might have confided
some incriminating statements to these women. Fine--until you
consider the questions Starr's agents actually asked. They
wanted to know whether one woman had borne a child who
resembled Clinton and whether any of the officers had witnessed
Clinton having sex with local women."

(U.S. News and World Report, July 21, 1997)

This was _before_ the Lewinsky matter even came up.

Yes, it's about sex, plain and simple. Starr wants to dig into
Clinton's private _legal_ sexual conduct, and _you_ think that's
his job.

*sheesh*

Togethe...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
In article <6ojt77$45k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,


Please give this message to your wife or girlfriend.

You murdered your best friend, the one who lived next door to you and your
grandmother. Murderers like you are terrible role models for anybody's
child. You are a lustful liar who fondles young people you work with. I feel
so sorry for your son, with such a father as your husband. I honestly don't
see how you've stayed with him for so long! The reason is he supplies you
with the drugs you sniff up your nose. Your husband is a homosexual so your
marraige is just a sham to provide him cover.

Think with me, suppose some honest citizens with a billion dollars told the
whole world the truth about you and your sinful husband every day for say,
six years. Suppose. Now dear, I have known our President and his lady well.
I was his entire staff at the very beginning, typed all his letters (note
the WC/rn on bottom left hand margin of all his earliest campaign letters, rn
is I) and did my very best for him and our country. The President of our
America did not murder his nextdoor neighbor and best friend, Vince Foster.
The President of the United States is no skirt chaser, he's more like a
preacher. He always tells the truth, and his wife, a high spirited,
beautiful filly when I knew them, loves him very much. If anything she loves
him a little too much. (We should all be so lucky in life.)

Now, dear, I will make a deal with you. I am going to believe everything
in the first paragraph if you fail to respond or do not say you are sorry for
being such a silly gullible old fool. In November, vote republican for evil.
Vote Democratic and you will help silence evil. CHOOSE!

Surfin' Al

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
zu...@ix.netcom.com writes: > In article <6oj48e$a6b$1...@news.monad.net>,
Not just *I* think it's his job, the Attorney General and a panel of 3
Federal Judges think it's his job too. How come the Secret Service is
planning on breaking the law over an alleged sexual encounter? When
government officials start behaving like they are above the law, we
should all be a little worried. Make that a lot worried. If the SS
does as they are threatening (not showing up as supoeanaed) they are
sending a message that the laws of this country don't apply to them.

zu...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
In article <6okmla$ha5$1...@news.monad.net>,
> Not just *I* think it's his job, the Attorney General and a panel of 3
> Federal Judges think it's his job too. . . .

Why? I don't give a damn about _who_ thinks what. I want to know
_why_ this is his job. If you're sufficiently leaden-headed that
the government's (or even just some government employee's) say-so
is good enough for you, you're a great candidate for becoming a
totalitarian government's "model citizen". Dittohead, perchance?

> . . . How come the Secret Service is
> planning on breaking the law over an alleged sexual encounter? . . .

Say _what_? How, pray tell, are they planning on "breaking the law"?

> . . . When


> government officials start behaving like they are above the law, we
> should all be a little worried.

Who is behaving as if they were above the law (and how)? There is
little that is happening that I don't think would be every person's
right in a case like this. . . . You will note that I didn't say
aboev that I think it is only when the President's sex life is
put under the microscope that I find it reprehensible. I think it
just as much an abuse of the government's investigatory powers to
do this to _anybody_. . . .

> . . . Make that a lot worried. If the SS


> does as they are threatening (not showing up as supoeanaed) they are
> sending a message that the laws of this country don't apply to them.

Ummm, no, they haven't done any such thing. They have asked that
a court decide if they are required to submit to Starr's subpoena.
Nothing wrong with that. There are any number of reasons for
refusing to answer a subpoena, available to anyone. Why do you think
they are "above the law" here? Why do you think they _should_ be
required to testify in this case? Do you think that _you_, for
instance, should be required to submit to a subpoena if Starr were
to ask you, for whatever reason fit his fancy? Would that be your
"public duty"? If so, I think I might be able to suggest a few
countries that would be glad to have such a fine civic-minded
person as you. . . .

Surfin' Al

unread,
Jul 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/17/98
to
zu...@ix.netcom.com writes: > In article <6okmla$ha5$1...@news.monad.net>,

Moot point now, but what I referred to was a news report that said that
there was a possibility that the SS would refuse to show up at the court
room as required today, i.e. to ignore the supoena. To the Secret Service
agents' credit, they *did* show at the grand jury room. So I hereby
take back what I said about them believing they're above the law, at
least this far. I'm just going to sit back and watch the rest of this
sorry saga play out. So far in the past 48 hours, a veritable plethora
of Federal Judges have sided with Starr on this one. *They* think it's
his job.

Ed Burke

unread,
Jul 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/17/98
to
nob...@nsm.htp.org says...


> >So far in the past 48 hours, a veritable plethora
> >of Federal Judges have sided with Starr on this one. *They* think it's
> >his job.

> So you think the federal judciary does and should have the right to
> authorize prosecutors to interrogate everyone who's ever known Bill
> Clinton about his sex life, all based on allegations of consensual sex
> between adults...

Take it up with Janet Reno. She's the one who authorized investigation
into the Lewinsky angle.

Mark Edward Balcom

unread,
Jul 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/17/98
to
zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> Now explain why it's so fr***ing important to you (and the country)
> whether Clinton was honest about something that was at most of
> concern to Jones and _Jones only_ (although even here I would
> say that it wasn't even Jones' business). Who got hurt here,
> _even if all allegations are true_?
>


Funny.

I don't remember any such defense from you of Packwood.

Do I sence a bit of partisianship here?


Mark


.

Ed Burke

unread,
Jul 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/17/98
to
nob...@nsm.htp.org says...


> >> So you think the federal judciary does and should have the right to
> >> authorize prosecutors to interrogate everyone who's ever known Bill
> >> Clinton about his sex life, all based on allegations of consensual sex
> >> between adults...

> >Take it up with Janet Reno. She's the one who authorized investigation
> >into the Lewinsky angle.

> http://www.ags.uci.edu/~dehill/witchhunt/ccla/pages/fijnje.htm

The woman should be in prison herself.

Mark Edward Balcom

unread,
Jul 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/17/98
to
zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Do you think that _you_, for
> instance, should be required to submit to a subpoena if Starr were
> to ask you, for whatever reason fit his fancy? Would that be your
> "public duty"?


Are you really that ignorant of the law?

A subpoena carries the legal weight of a court order.

The laws of these United States require compliance with such orders.

Contempt of court charges should not be entertained lightly by people. In
many states there is no appeal.

> If so, I think I might be able to suggest a few
> countries that would be glad to have such a fine civic-minded
> person as you. . . .
>

And I doubt very much that you would actually wish to live in a country
where government officials were free to decide which laws they were to
adhere to and which they could ignore.

You, sir, are either,

ill informed,

ignorant,

extremely partisan,

a hypocrite,

or a troll.

Mark

Mark Edward Balcom

unread,
Jul 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/17/98
to
Surfin' Al wrote:
> I'm just going to sit back and watch the rest of this
> sorry saga play out. So far in the past 48 hours, a veritable plethora

> of Federal Judges have sided with Starr on this one. *They* think it's
> his job.


And how could any thinking person think otherwise?

Today's decisions were predicted by Rush.

They were predicted by other conservative observers.

Some liberals had really stuck their necks out with contrary opinions and
predictions.

buddy k even claimed that those with my views had no knowledge of the
pertinent laws. He should read the decisions and consenting opinions
handed down.

Didn't they (the judges)also give Janet Reno a "bloody nose" for her
sillyness?

Mark

Your tax dollars at work ;o)

unread,
Jul 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/17/98
to

Surfin' Al wrote:

> >
>
> Moot point now, but what I referred to was a news report that said that
> there was a possibility that the SS would refuse to show up at the court
> room as required today, i.e. to ignore the supoena. To the Secret Service
> agents' credit, they *did* show at the grand jury room. So I hereby
> take back what I said about them believing they're above the law, at

> least this far. I'm just going to sit back and watch the rest of this


> sorry saga play out. So far in the past 48 hours, a veritable plethora
> of Federal Judges have sided with Starr on this one. *They* think it's
> his job.

I think your overstating what the various courts have indicated. I'd say they
believe that what Starr's doing is within the 'scope' his mandate (because the
paramaters of his mandate are so broadly drawn.) Whether or not "they think its
his job," I'd submit they, to a man/woman, do not believe his job is to range as
far from the sex issue as he has. Many of the persons he's questioned are not
likely to be able to shed any light on whether or not BC and ML were alone together
let alone had sex. Surely, most could only provide hearsay evidence and so their
testimony would never make it through the court house door.

phil


Your tax dollars at work ;o)

unread,
Jul 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/17/98
to

Ed Burke wrote:

> nob...@nsm.htp.org says...


>
> > >So far in the past 48 hours, a veritable plethora
> > >of Federal Judges have sided with Starr on this one. *They* think it's
> > >his job.
>

> > So you think the federal judciary does and should have the right to
> > authorize prosecutors to interrogate everyone who's ever known Bill
> > Clinton about his sex life, all based on allegations of consensual sex
> > between adults...
>
> Take it up with Janet Reno. She's the one who authorized investigation
> into the Lewinsky angle.

Bit of irony there, eh?

phil


Frank Suo

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to
In article <6ojt77$45k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

[...]

> Why? Supposedly because Clinton might have lied about it in a civil
> deposition. So fr***ing what. . . People lie in civil cases
> _all_ the time, and many times about _core_ elements of the case,
> where there is no question about materiality (unlike here, where
> the materiality of his deposition is _quite_ dubious, IMHO).
> No one bothers to go after these people; at the very worst, the
> _judge_ in the case might slap them with contempt of court.

> Now explain why it's so fr***ing important to you (and the country)
> whether Clinton was honest about something that was at most of
> concern to Jones and _Jones only_ (although even here I would
> say that it wasn't even Jones' business). Who got hurt here,
> _even if all allegations are true_?
>

> Face it, Starr's a fr***ing panty-sniffer:

[...]

It's a pretty twisted perversion of law when a person testifying in his
own defense can be charged with perjury. As a general principal, the
proposition makes no sense whatever. Yet, this is exactly what Starr is
trying to do: charge Clinton with perjury based on testimony Clinton gave
in his own defense, in a baseless civil trial where Clinton was the
defendant.

If Clinton had testified in someone else's trial that he had not, in the
past 10 years, uttered the phrase, "building a bridge to the 21'st
century," and Starr had a campaign video of Clinton saying those very
words, then yes, that perjury would be worthy of prosecution. But the idea
of charging Clinton with perjury for defending himself in court is pure
nonsense.

No prosecutor in his right mind would make such a ridiculous perjury
charge, yet Starr, in his right-wing mind, is doing just that. He's on a
witch hunt, plain and simple. His $40 million investigation is essentially
a failure, and he's trying desperately to pin something, anything on the
President. The IRS pales in comparison to Ken Starr's methods; I wonder
when the hearings will start...

HOOVER

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to
And the point of the title of this post is??

Cad

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to
In <35B04D...@global.net> HOOVER <ho...@global.net> writes:
>
>And the point of the title of this post is??

Starr's perverse obsession with Clinton's sex life makes J Edgar
Hoover's spying on JFK look like a girl scout jamboree.

Surfin' Al

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to
Can you supply us with any quote from Mr. Starr, any legal documents, etc
where he specifically says :"I'm investigating Mr. Clinton's sex life"?
Get back to us with the answer.

zu...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to
In article <35AFD7...@vr-net.com>,
Mark Edward Balcom <ma...@vr-net.com> wrote:

> zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >
> > Now explain why it's so fr***ing important to you (and the country)
> > whether Clinton was honest about something that was at most of
> > concern to Jones and _Jones only_ (although even here I would
> > say that it wasn't even Jones' business). Who got hurt here,
> > _even if all allegations are true_?
>
> Funny.
>
> I don't remember any such defense from you of Packwood.
>
> Do I sence a bit of partisianship here?
>
> Mark

Packwood was accused of unwanted sexual advances, IIRC. . .
But you don't remember any such defence of Packwood from me
because I wasn't saying anything either way here at the time.

Now, tell me. Do _you_ think that Starr's investigation is
about an issue of burning importance to the country? Or is it
a perse-, uh, prosecutor out in search of a "crime", any "crime",
to pin on the President? Isn't the job of a prosecutor to
go out and investigate who committed a crime, rather than go
out and investigate someone to find out what crime they committed?
I'd say that when it gets turned around like that, it starts
to seem kind of personal. . . .

Capt J Tar

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to
Those of you who support Mr. Clinton at any cost, including continued ad
hominem attacks on Mr. Starr, or anyone else who does not get in line do
yourselves and the country a great disservice.


Cad

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to

Read the papers much there, Surfin' Al?

Knopp

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to
In article
<C327BD49B207883A.63EFE110...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>, edmun...@hotmail.com (Ed Burke) wrote:

> nob...@nsm.htp.org says...


>
>
> > >> So you think the federal judciary does and should have the right to
> > >> authorize prosecutors to interrogate everyone who's ever known Bill
> > >> Clinton about his sex life, all based on allegations of consensual sex
> > >> between adults...
>
> > >Take it up with Janet Reno. She's the one who authorized investigation
> > >into the Lewinsky angle.
>

> > http://www.ags.uci.edu/~dehill/witchhunt/ccla/pages/fijnje.htm
>
> The woman should be in prison herself.

Leave it Bill Clinton to appoint a crook to the office of Attorney General.
"Birds of a Feather"...and all that.

--
-Knopp

Ed Burke

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to
zu...@ix.netcom.com says...

> Now, tell me. Do _you_ think that Starr's investigation is

> about an issue of burning importance to the country?...

His line of investigation was regarded as sufficiently serious to impress
Reno, who OK'd it.

Surfin' Al

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to
s...@blueskyweb.com (Frank Suo) writes: > In article <6ojt77$45k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Why? Supposedly because Clinton might have lied about it in a civil
> > deposition. So fr***ing what. . . People lie in civil cases
> > _all_ the time, and many times about _core_ elements of the case,
> > where there is no question about materiality (unlike here, where
> > the materiality of his deposition is _quite_ dubious, IMHO).
> > No one bothers to go after these people; at the very worst, the
> > _judge_ in the case might slap them with contempt of court.
> > Now explain why it's so fr***ing important to you (and the country)
> > whether Clinton was honest about something that was at most of
> > concern to Jones and _Jones only_ (although even here I would
> > say that it wasn't even Jones' business). Who got hurt here,
> > _even if all allegations are true_?
> >
> > Face it, Starr's a fr***ing panty-sniffer:
> [...]
>
> It's a pretty twisted perversion of law when a person testifying in his
> own defense can be charged with perjury. As a general principal, the
> proposition makes no sense whatever. Yet, this is exactly what Starr is
> trying to do: charge Clinton with perjury based on testimony Clinton gave
> in his own defense, in a baseless civil trial where Clinton was the
> defendant.
>
> If Clinton had testified in someone else's trial that he had not, in the
> past 10 years, uttered the phrase, "building a bridge to the 21'st
> century," and Starr had a campaign video of Clinton saying those very
> words, then yes, that perjury would be worthy of prosecution. But the idea
> of charging Clinton with perjury for defending himself in court is pure
> nonsense.

Not just in court, he said it at a photo opp also, so basically he
said it to the whole country.

Jonathan S. Mark

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to
Knopp wrote in message ...
>In article

>
>Leave it Bill Clinton to appoint a crook to the office of Attorney General.
>"Birds of a Feather"...and all that.

Sorry, it is Linda Tripp, Kathleen Willey and David Hale who have the
criminal records. Monica, Janet Reno and Bill are clean as that allegedly
semen-stained blue dress turned out to be.

Jonsweet10

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to
I do not think your position makes sense.

President Clinton was compelled to give a civil deposition in the civil case
brought by Paula Jones. He swore to tell the truth under penalties of perjury.
It seems likely (but not yet proven beyond a reasonable doubt) that he
perjured himself. He may have asked others to commit perjury and alos
obstructed justice.

Truthfulness in civil depositions is neccessary for the sytem to be just.

I agree that it may be a poor public policy to prosecute every case of civil
perjury. It just is not cost effective. All cases of civil perjury deserve to
be prosecuted. A public official who has a position of high public trust
does need to be prosecuted.

Your arguement that others get away with civil perjury is not a serious
arguement. Who would argue that since most murderers don't go to jail that we
should not prosecute any murderers?

I believe that committing a felony is clear grounds for impeachment. The
President is ultimately responsible for the enforcement of our laws. For him
to lie under oath (pejury) to give himself an advantage in a civil case is
absolutely unacceptable. If he did lie under oath, he is unfit to be
President. As Alexander Hamilton made clear in the Federalist Papers, "High
Crimes" does not neccessarily involve the violation of any law. It is a
violation of the public trust.

Danforth Wolfgang Worthlington, III

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to
Surfin' Al <ha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message <6oqkv2$j50$1...@news.monad.net>...

>(Cad) writes:
> In <35B04D...@global.net> HOOVER <ho...@global.net> writes:
>> >And the point of the title of this post is??
>>
>> Starr's perverse obsession with Clinton's sex life makes J Edgar
>> Hoover's spying on JFK look like a girl scout jamboree.
>
> Can you supply us with any quote from Mr. Starr, any legal documents, etc
> where he specifically says :"I'm investigating Mr. Clinton's sex life"?
> Get back to us with the answer.

Starr argued against executive privilege and demanded to question
presidential aide Sidney Blumenthal, among others, in his quest to
prove perjury, subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Once Sidney was eventually forced into Kenny's Kourt, he was asked;

"Have you ever discussed with Mrs. Clinton
whether the President has a sex addiction?"

"Does the President believe that oral sex is sex?"

"Does the President's religion include sexual intercourse?"

If Starr's entire investigation isn't just a panty-raid,
why do you suppose Starr's persecutors Jackie Bennett and
Solomon Wisenberg asked Sidney Blumenthal these questions
in front of their grand jury?

This question:
"Does the President's religion include sexual intercourse?"

...is particularly insane! What the hell's up with that?

Bruce Campbell

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to

Danforth Wolfgang Worthlington, III wrote in message
<6or2nd$m...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...


What is the source of information? Did Starr leak this also?

It certainly is a silly line of questioning just like the silly explanations
that initially came out like the President doesn't believe oral sex is
really sex.


zu...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to
In article
<CF06734F174B3698.0E6CD47D...@library-proxy.airnews.net

>, edmun...@hotmail.com (Ed Burke) wrote:

I didn't ask what Reno thought. I asked for the poster's opinion.
Are you in the habit of saying that everything Reno says is OK is
just fine by you? I don't _think_ so. . . . So why would you cite
Reno as an authority for _your_ position?

zu...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to
In article <35B04D...@global.net>,

HOOVER <ho...@global.net> wrote:
> And the point of the title of this post is??

I dunno. Why don't you read the posts in the thread and see?

And the point of _your_ post was? . . .

Mark Edward Balcom

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to
zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> Now, tell me. Do _you_ think that Starr's investigation is
> about an issue of burning importance to the country?


It is about perjury, bribery, tampering with witnesses, suborning
perjury, violation of campaign finance laws, fraud, and a few others.

Why do you think that they are no big deal just because Clintoon is the
accused?


>Or is it
> a perse-, uh, prosecutor out in search of a "crime", any "crime",
> to pin on the President?


I assume that question to be politically retorical. It is obviously not
meant to be taken seriously.


> Isn't the job of a prosecutor to
> go out and investigate who committed a crime, rather than go
> out and investigate someone to find out what crime they committed?
>

Perhaps you and buddy k should both read the law that empowers, indeed
requires, the "special prosecutor" to investigate alleged criminal
activity by ranking members of the government. It is indeed his job to
determine IF a crime has been committed and to determine the details of
that activity. He is both investigator and prosecutor. The scope of his
investigation is (and was) determined by the Attorney General. Janet Reno
gave him his assignments. Once that has happened he becomes the
investigator and prosecutor who represents the government of the United
States.

I didn't say that I liked the law. But, it is the law. Laws in this
country are to be uniformly enforced. We do not have classes who are
exempt . It is the party which is screaming now about how unfair it is
who is responsible for it's wording and very existence. Sometimes the
chickens come home to roost.


Mark

Jonathan S. Mark

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to
Bruce Campbell wrote in message ...

>What is the source of information? Did Starr leak this also?
>
>It certainly is a silly line of questioning just like the silly
explanations
>that initially came out like the President doesn't believe oral sex is
>really sex.


As with the "semen-stained blue dress" story, the claim that President
Clinton made such a claim is false.

Are there real crimes out that the lawyers in the OIC can investigate? What
is the difference, anyway, if the President or anyone for that matter did
believe that "oral sex was not sex?" Persons who believed that would be
mistaken but that belief would not relate to criminality.

Nor ought government to investigate such a belief.

The meddlesome intrusion that began with the Republican party promoting
"family values" instead of "good government" has now turned on the
Republicans themselves. Newt Gingrich told Republican congressman not to
talk about the Kenneth Starr activities because it will promote a backlash
against the Republicans.

They know that Kenny Baby is unpopular in the hinterlands.


Mark Edward Balcom

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to
Frank Suo wrote:
> His $40 million investigation is essentially
> a failure, and he's trying desperately to pin something, anything on the
> President.


Yeh, and the secret service doesn't have to testify, either.

Failur? About 15 convictions, so far. That sounds pretty fruitful to
me.

>The IRS pales in comparison to Ken Starr's methods; I wonder
> when the hearings will start...

Why don't we wait and see. I wouldn't want to make too many wild claims
without knowing any facts about what evidence has or has not been
uncovered. A person can look pretty silly afterwards. You know, like
those who were so darn sure that the secret service didn't have to
testify.

Did you offer the same defense for Nixon?


Mark

Mark Edward Balcom

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to
Bruce Campbell wrote:
>
> What is the source of information? Did Starr leak this also?
>


Don't you find it interesting that the liberal Clintoon apoloists all
know so much about what goes on behind closed doors? How is it that they
all know so much about secret grand jury proceedings?


Mark

Bruce Campbell

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to

Jonathan S. Mark wrote in message <350f0...@newsprime.tidalwave.net>...

>Bruce Campbell wrote in message ...
>>What is the source of information? Did Starr leak this also?
>>
>>It certainly is a silly line of questioning just like the silly
>explanations
>>that initially came out like the President doesn't believe oral sex is
>>really sex.
>
>
>As with the "semen-stained blue dress" story, the claim that President
>Clinton made such a claim is false.

The claim was floated in the news. Who knows where any of this comes from?

>
>Are there real crimes out that the lawyers in the OIC can investigate?

The biggest mystery is what does Starr have. Like it or not, this isn't
about oral sex with Monica.

What
>is the difference, anyway, if the President or anyone for that matter did
>believe that "oral sex was not sex?" Persons who believed that would be
>mistaken but that belief would not relate to criminality.


I was pointing out the silliness of both sides regarding the whole sex
thing.


>
>Nor ought government to investigate such a belief.
>
>The meddlesome intrusion that began with the Republican party promoting
>"family values" instead of "good government" has now turned on the
>Republicans themselves. Newt Gingrich told Republican congressman not to
>talk about the Kenneth Starr activities because it will promote a backlash
>against the Republicans.


Actually last week they decided not to talk about Clinton because the White
House was drawing enough attention to itself and they didn't need to pile
on.


>
>They know that Kenny Baby is unpopular in the hinterlands.

Of course he is, he can't and shouldn't respond to most of this crap. So
instead we get alot of backdoor stuff like he leaked. Well maybe he did and
maybe he didn't. But if he doesn't have anything then there won't be
anything to leak. Or, if he really isn't leaking, then the spinmeisters have
to work that much harder to convince us he doesn't have anything.

Notice how everybody on the NG wants to come to a quick fast conclusion.
This is simply because nobody knows what Starr has. The evidence, or lack
of, is merely speculation on the part of the public.


Ed Burke

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to
zu...@ix.netcom.com says...


> > > Now, tell me. Do _you_ think that Starr's investigation is

> > > about an issue of burning importance to the country?...

> > His line of investigation was regarded as sufficiently serious to impress
> > Reno, who OK'd it.

> I didn't ask what Reno thought. I asked for the poster's opinion.
> Are you in the habit of saying that everything Reno says is OK is
> just fine by you? I don't _think_ so. . . . So why would you cite
> Reno as an authority for _your_ position?

I'm making the obvious point that a Clinton partisan was presented with
evidence that neither of us is privy to and judged that the line of
inquiry was legitimate. Very persuasive circumstance.

Jonathan S. Mark

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to
Bruce Campbell wrote in message <_L9s1.3927$os4.7...@news.mci2000.com>...


>>As with the "semen-stained blue dress" story, the claim that President
>>Clinton made such a claim is false.
>
>The claim was floated in the news.

Oh yeah? If "floated" by in the news, huh? Well, excrement floats...


>Who knows where any of this comes from?


We live in an era in which a claim being "floated in the news" means as much
as "my astrologer told me..."

For instance, last week Tim Russert of NBC "floated in the news" a claim
from "sources close to Ken Starr' that Starr was investigating whether
members of the Secret Service had acted as pimps.

Starr protested, perhaps one of the few occasions in which Starr was
actually innocent of a leak. Russert backtracked to say it came from
Congress based upon their opinion of what Starr was up to. Then Russert
backtracked some more, mentioning people that the source had spoken to and
NOT EVEN MENTIONING STARR!

Finally Russert's defense was "I do not make this stuff up" meaning perhaps
that SOMEONE had told him that, but maybe not even someone in Congress.

Not much to go on, in my view. "Floated in the news" of and by itself means
as much as "floated in the garbage."


>>Are there real crimes out that the lawyers in the OIC can investigate?
>
>The biggest mystery is what does Starr have. Like it or not, this isn't
>about oral sex with Monica.


The alleged sex with Monica is the first story on a ten-story building.
Once that is gone the edifice collapses.

>I was pointing out the silliness of both sides regarding the whole sex
>thing.


If you admit the "sex thing" is silly then why is Starr investigating who
Monica had sex with?


>Actually last week they decided not to talk about Clinton because the White
>House was drawing enough attention to itself and they didn't need to pile
>on.


Are you saying that Starr's unpopularity has NOTHING to do with it? That
the Republicans are not supporting him in the hinterlands because Starr does
not need it?

It is because Starr is unpopular and politicians are reluctant to support
unpopular causes. That is true of Republican politicians as well.

Knopp

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to
In article <6oqpf0$bgl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> In article <35AFD7...@vr-net.com>,
> Mark Edward Balcom <ma...@vr-net.com> wrote:
> > zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > >

> > > Now explain why it's so fr***ing important to you (and the country)
> > > whether Clinton was honest about something that was at most of
> > > concern to Jones and _Jones only_ (although even here I would
> > > say that it wasn't even Jones' business). Who got hurt here,
> > > _even if all allegations are true_?
> >

> > Funny.
> >
> > I don't remember any such defense from you of Packwood.
> >
> > Do I sence a bit of partisianship here?
> >
> > Mark
>
> Packwood was accused of unwanted sexual advances, IIRC. . .

...and Bill Clinton was accused of improper use of his employees for his
personal sexual gratification. He's said to have lied under oath in order
to make it appear that he hadn't ever asked another female employee to
"kiss it". You do need to find out if he indeed asked another employee to
"kiss it" to determine if Mr. Clinton is guilty of perjury, just as it was
necessary to find out if Bob Packwood slapped a few fannies to determine
whether or not he sexually harassed co-workers.

> But you don't remember any such defence of Packwood from me
> because I wasn't saying anything either way here at the time.
>

> Now, tell me. Do _you_ think that Starr's investigation is

> about an issue of burning importance to the country? Or is it

Yes. Whether or not the chief law enforcement agent of the the United
States feels that he's above the law is of burning importance to the
country.

> a perse-, uh, prosecutor out in search of a "crime", any "crime",

> to pin on the President? Isn't the job of a prosecutor to

No. He was given "specific, credible evidence" to suggest that the
President had committed perjury.

> go out and investigate who committed a crime, rather than go
> out and investigate someone to find out what crime they committed?

> I'd say that when it gets turned around like that, it starts
> to seem kind of personal. . . .

Don't take it personally....you didn't (I don't think) committ perjury.

--
-Knopp

Knopp

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to
In article <350ee...@newsprime.tidalwave.net>, "Jonathan S. Mark"
<csourc...@nicom.com> wrote:

> Knopp wrote in message ...
> >In article
>
> >
> >Leave it Bill Clinton to appoint a crook to the office of Attorney General.
> >"Birds of a Feather"...and all that.
>
>
>
> Sorry, it is Linda Tripp, Kathleen Willey and David Hale who have the

...why is it that Clinton chooses to associate themselves with
criminals...and mostly Democrat criminals at that!

> criminal records. Monica, Janet Reno and Bill are clean as that allegedly
> semen-stained blue dress turned out to be.

It was black, and that's what Monica was said to have claimed on tape. As
far as their being "clean", I was only responding to apparent claim by
another Clinton appologist that Ms. Reno WAS dirty.

--
-Knopp

Jonathan S. Mark

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to
Knopp wrote in message ...

>...and Bill Clinton was accused of improper use of his employees for his
>personal sexual gratification.

Who accused him? Monica Lewinsky has not. Why is Kenneth Starr dragging
her into the now defunct Jones case by Kenneth Starr?


>> Now, tell me. Do _you_ think that Starr's investigation is
>> about an issue of burning importance to the country? Or is it
>
>Yes. Whether or not the chief law enforcement agent of the the United
>States feels that he's above the law is of burning importance to the
>country.


Oh really? So this case is not about sex, it is about "feelings!" Talk
about touchy-feely law enforcement. Starr: "Did you touch it, Mr.
President? Did Monica touch it? Agent Cockrell, did the President touch it?
How about Monica, Agent Cockrell? Did Monica touch it?"


zu...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Jul 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/19/98
to
In article <35AFF1...@vr-net.com>,

Mark Edward Balcom <ma...@vr-net.com> wrote:
> zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > Do you think that _you_, for
> > instance, should be required to submit to a subpoena if Starr were
> > to ask you, for whatever reason fit his fancy? Would that be your
> > "public duty"?
>
> Are you really that ignorant of the law?

No. Are you?

> A subpoena carries the legal weight of a court order.
>
> The laws of these United States require compliance with such orders.

No. There are a number of reasons that you can legally refuse
compliance with such an order:

FRCrP Rule 17:

(c) For Production of Documentary Evidence and of Objects. A
subpoena may also command the person to whom it is directed to
produce the books, papers, documents or other objects designated
therein. The court on motion made promptly may quash or modify the
subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive. The
court may direct that books, papers, documents or objects
designated in the subpoena be produced before the court at a time
prior to the trial or prior to the time when they are to be offered
in evidence and may upon their production permit the books, papers,
documents or objects or portions thereof to be inspected by the
parties and their attorneys.

You may make a motion to quash for any number of reasons.

FRCrP Rule 17:

(g) Contempt. Failure by any person without adequate excuse to
obey a subpoena served upon that person may be deemed a contempt of
the court from which the subpoena issued or of the court for the
district in which it issued if it was issued by a United States
magistrate judge.

Note: "_may_ be deemed a contempt of the court" and "without adequate
excuse". It is up to the judge to decide if there is contempt of court.
There is no automatic "crime" WRT failing to heed a subpoena.

> Contempt of court charges should not be entertained lightly by people. In
> many states there is no appeal.

Yes. Agreed. But you fail to answer the question: Can Starr
subpoena _you_ to testify in the Whitewater investigation? If he
does, can you refuse to go?

> > If so, I think I might be able to suggest a few
> > countries that would be glad to have such a fine civic-minded
> > person as you. . . .
>
> And I doubt very much that you would actually wish to live in a country
> where government officials were free to decide which laws they were to
> adhere to and which they could ignore.

I haven't suggested _anywhere_ that people can or should disobey the
law, either government agents or citizens. I _am_ saying that anyone
who thinks they _have_ to comply with whatever subpoena gets handed
to them should consult a lawyer.

> You, sir, are either,
>
> ill informed,
>
> ignorant,
>
> extremely partisan,
>
> a hypocrite,
>
> or a troll.

And you're a nitwit. Before you assume I'm ignorant of the law,
why don't you bother to check up a little on my posts.

zu...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Jul 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/19/98
to
In article <6omb2m$qe6$1...@news.monad.net>,
Surfin' Al <ha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> zu...@ix.netcom.com writes: > In article <6okmla$ha5$1...@news.monad.net>,
> > Surfin' Al <ha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > zu...@ix.netcom.com writes: > In article <6oj48e$a6b$1...@news.monad.net>,
> > > > Surfin' Al <ha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > zu...@ix.netcom.com writes: > In article <6oi6nj$bdt$1...@news.monad.net>,
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > > > Do you really think it is the province of our courts to go digging
> > > > > > through people's sex lives and hanging all the dirty linen out
> > > > > > in public for all to see? Curious notion you have about what
> > > > > > the government's job is. Maybe we could encourage them to do
> > > > > > the same for you. . . . Oh, forgot, you don't _have_ any dirty
> > > > > > linen. . . .
> > > > >
> > > > > If the sex results in commission of felonies by elected officials,
> > > > > sure as hell *is* the province of the courts.
> > > >
> > > > The sex "results in" the commission of felonies? Huh? Why, did
> > > > someone carry out the act for longer than the other party consented
> > > > to? What felonies are you talking about here?
> > > >
> > > > This "it ain't about the sex" foofrah really irks me. YES, IT'S
> > > > ABOUT SEX! Starr is asking if the Secret Service has any
> > > > information as to whether any sex occurred. He grabbed Lewinsky's
> > > > dress to see if it had semen on it. He subpoenaed book purchases
> > > > of Lewinsky to see if she might be into kinkiness. He had old
> > > > lovers of Lewinsky, and even high school chums come to town to
> > > > testify as to her personal habits. He wants to know if she had
> > > > sex with the President.

> > > >
> > > > Why? Supposedly because Clinton might have lied about it in a civil
> > > > deposition. So fr***ing what. . . People lie in civil cases
> > > > _all_ the time, and many times about _core_ elements of the case,
> > > > where there is no question about materiality (unlike here, where
> > > > the materiality of his deposition is _quite_ dubious, IMHO).
> > > > No one bothers to go after these people; at the very worst, the
> > > > _judge_ in the case might slap them with contempt of court.
> > > > Now explain why it's so fr***ing important to you (and the country)
> > > > whether Clinton was honest about something that was at most of
> > > > concern to Jones and _Jones only_ (although even here I would
> > > > say that it wasn't even Jones' business). Who got hurt here,
> > > > _even if all allegations are true_?
> > > >
> > > > Face it, Starr's a fr***ing panty-sniffer:
> > > >
> > > > "In the latest travesty, as revealed by the Washington Post,
> > > > Starr used prosecutors and FBI agents to interrogate Arkansas
> > > > state troopers about women with whom Bill Clinton allegedly had
> > > > affairs prior to his presidency. Starr's deputy argues that
> > > > they had a duty to find out whether Clinton might have confided
> > > > some incriminating statements to these women. Fine--until you
> > > > consider the questions Starr's agents actually asked. They
> > > > wanted to know whether one woman had borne a child who
> > > > resembled Clinton and whether any of the officers had witnessed
> > > > Clinton having sex with local women."
> > > >
> > > > (U.S. News and World Report, July 21, 1997)
> > > >
> > > > This was _before_ the Lewinsky matter even came up.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it's about sex, plain and simple. Starr wants to dig into
> > > > Clinton's private _legal_ sexual conduct, and _you_ think that's
> > > > his job.
> > > >
> > > > *sheesh*

Noted here: The complete absence of any response to the substance
of what I wrote above. . .

> > > Not just *I* think it's his job, the Attorney General and a panel of 3
> > > Federal Judges think it's his job too. . . .
> >
> > Why? I don't give a damn about _who_ thinks what. I want to know
> > _why_ this is his job. If you're sufficiently leaden-headed that
> > the government's (or even just some government employee's) say-so
> > is good enough for you, you're a great candidate for becoming a
> > totalitarian government's "model citizen". Dittohead, perchance?
> >
> > > . . . How come the Secret Service is

Thanks for indicating the snippage. Courtesy for you. . . .

> Moot point now, but what I referred to was a news report that said that
> there was a possibility that the SS would refuse to show up at the court
> room as required today, i.e. to ignore the supoena. . . .

Who gives a damn whatthe _media_ thinks? By "media", you're probably
referring to "talking heads", in any case. . . . *sheesh*

> . . . To the Secret Service
> agents' credit, they *did* show at the grand jury room. So I hereby
> take back what I said about them believing they're above the law, at
> least this far. I'm just going to sit back and watch the rest of this
> sorry saga play out. So far in the past 48 hours, a veritable plethora
> of Federal Judges have sided with Starr on this one. *They* think it's
> his job.

They have (for the most part) not made any judgement on what his jobs
is. That wasn't the issue at bar.

You _still_ haven't answered why _you_ think it is his job. Please
do so. Do me a favour and explain _why_ Starr was properly panty-sniffing
even before the Lewinsky affair (as reported above).

Thanks.

zu...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Jul 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/19/98
to
In article <35AFF2...@vr-net.com>,

Mark Edward Balcom <ma...@vr-net.com> wrote:
> Surfin' Al wrote:
> > I'm just going to sit back and watch the rest of this
> > sorry saga play out. So far in the past 48 hours, a veritable plethora
> > of Federal Judges have sided with Starr on this one. *They* think it's
> > his job.
>
> And how could any thinking person think otherwise?

I do. Why don't you show me the error of my ways and respond to my
original longish post?

> Today's decisions were predicted by Rush.

Yeah, I checked your posting history. Another DodoHead. Mostly
hot air directed at Henry Kilpatrick. Are you obsessing on him or
something?

> They were predicted by other conservative observers.

I would have bet the same way, but I don't think it's a good
idea. If nothing else, Starr should have tried to work out some
kind of a deal to get whatever information he _really_ needed
voluntarily. These Secret Service people are required, as are
any federal employees, to report any information they have
about the commission of a crime. They did not. That should be good
enough for Starr. Do _you_ think that they _did_ see crimes
being committed, and didn't report them? If so, what crimes
would those be? If not, then why go to all this bother to try
and force them to testify in front of a grand jury? Do you
_really_ think that the interest of justice is served by this?
Is it worth the cost of breaching the trust between the POTUS
and Secret Service?

> Some liberals had really stuck their necks out with contrary
> opinions and predictions.

My opinion still stands. It's a bad idea. Why don't you explain
where your opinion here differs from mine.

> buddy k even claimed that those with my views had no knowledge of the
> pertinent laws. He should read the decisions and consenting opinions
> handed down.

"Consenting opinions"? Is that anything like consensual sex?
Say, weren't you the one claiming to know about the law in another
post?

I'm about to tear into Rehnquist's flight of illogic and sleaziness,
as well as Silberman's strange comments, in another post here. Keep
your eyes open for it.

> Didn't they (the judges)also give Janet Reno a "bloody nose" for her
> sillyness?

Only the right-wing Reagan appointee Silberman, who's been known to have
made some rather partisan comments in the past as well.

STEPHEN J VERMULLEN

unread,
Jul 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/19/98
to
I find it amusing that when ever liberals find them selves on the losing
side of this argument about Clinton ,or whatever the subject, they always
resort to name calling and personal attacks of whoever they disagree
with.It's a sure way to tell that they have no more reasonable arguments to
present. Clinton is as guilty as sin and we all know it. Now lets get him
out of there.


Tony G.

unread,
Jul 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/19/98
to
On 19 Jul 1998 02:50:06 GMT, "STEPHEN J VERMULLEN" <IS...@prodigy.net>
let loose with:

>I find it amusing that when ever liberals find them selves on the losing
>side of this argument about Clinton ,or whatever the subject, they always
>resort to name calling and personal attacks

Really?

>of whoever they disagree
>with.It's a sure way to tell that they have no more reasonable arguments to
>present. Clinton is as guilty as sin and we all know it. Now lets get him
>out of there.

Reagan, Bush, Clinton, pond scum, dog shit, white trash, etc...

You wouldn't know a liberal if one bitch slapped you.


zu...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Jul 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/19/98
to
In article <35B11C...@vr-net.com>,

Mark Edward Balcom <ma...@vr-net.com> wrote:
> zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >
> > Now, tell me. Do _you_ think that Starr's investigation is
> > about an issue of burning importance to the country?
>
> It is about perjury, bribery, tampering with witnesses, suborning
> perjury, violation of campaign finance laws, fraud, and a few others.

Ummm, then could you explain why he started his panty-sniffing in
1997, as I pointed out in my first post? And, BTW, he is not
investigating CFL violations. And not a hell of a lot has come
out of anything else he's looking into.

> Why do you think that they are no big deal just because Clintoon is
> the accused?

I think it's a big deal that private sexual behaviour is becoming
the "legitimate subject" of IC investigations. You don't see a
problem with that?

> > . . . Or is it


> > a perse-, uh, prosecutor out in search of a "crime", any "crime",
> > to pin on the President?
>

> I assume that question to be politically retorical. It is obviously not
> meant to be taken seriously.

That's "rhetorical", my legal-minded friend. No, the question is
not. Do we have an IC out seeking to pin some crime on a person,
or a IC seeking to show that some person committed a specific
crime?

> > . . . Isn't the job of a prosecutor to


> > go out and investigate who committed a crime, rather than go
> > out and investigate someone to find out what crime they committed?
>

> Perhaps you and buddy k should both read the law that empowers, indeed
> requires, the "special prosecutor" to investigate alleged criminal
> activity by ranking members of the government.

28 U.S.C. Section 592:

(1) In general. - A preliminary investigation conducted under
this chapter shall be of such matters as the Attorney General
considers appropriate in order to make a determination, under
subsection (b) or (c), on whether further investigation is
warranted, with respect to each potential violation, or
allegation of a violation, of criminal law.

OK. Sounds to me like they are talking about investigating a crime,
not a person.

> . . . It is indeed his job to


> determine IF a crime has been committed and to determine the details of
> that activity. He is both investigator and prosecutor. The scope of his
> investigation is (and was) determined by the Attorney General. Janet Reno
> gave him his assignments. Once that has happened he becomes the
> investigator and prosecutor who represents the government of the United
> States.

And there are _many_ that feel that he has _far_ exceeded the scope
of the jurisdiction granted him. I think it was a bad mistake to
let him _near_ the Lewinsky stuff, given that she was a witness in
the Jones case, and he had _volunteered_ a brief on behalf of Jones
in her case against the President. What possessed Reno to accede
to _Starr's_ request for the expanded jurisdiction, I haven't the
foggiest. As the saying goes, the _only_ thing that Whitewater and
Lewinsky have in common is that they are both 24 years old. And the
President is the target. Maybe, just maybe, the latter is the _real_
nexus. Which would indicate that my supposition about Starr going
after the _man_, not the crime, is true.

Maybe you can explain why Starr though panty-sniffing was within
his jurisdiction _before_ he was given this authority by the
Special Circuit judges (not Reno, BTW. . .), as reported by
U.S. News in that article I posted a while back. And why Starr
thought he had the authority to wire Tripp _before_ he went to
Reno to ask for jurisdiction.

> I didn't say that I liked the law. But, it is the law. Laws in

> this country are to be uniformly enforced. . . .

Translation: "I don't like the law, but as long as it gets that
c***s***er Clinton before they do away with it and we get a
Republican president, that's just fine with me.

So tell me: If the laws are to be uniformly enforced, then
why would anyone _dream_ of hauling the President up on
perjury charges for a civil case?

> . . . We do not have classes who are
> exempt.

Good. Then you are in agreement that it matters not if the person
is the President or a used car salesman WRT whether perjury charges
should be brought.

> It is the party which is screaming now about how unfair it is

> who is responsible for it's wording and very existence. . . .

I don't think the law is wrong. I think _Mr. Starr_ is wrong.
For the reasons that I have spelled out here and before this.
I do not think he is following the law. In fact, in the one
case he argued before the Supreme Court so far on Whitewater,
_they_ have told him he is over-reaching.

> . . . Sometimes the


> chickens come home to roost.

Glad you're so forthright and honest about your vindictive attitude.

zu...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Jul 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/19/98
to
In article <6oqkv2$j50$1...@news.monad.net>,
Surfin' Al <ha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> bab...@ix.netcom.com(Cad) writes: > In <35B04D...@global.net> HOOVER

<ho...@global.net> writes:
> > >
> > >And the point of the title of this post is??
> >
> > Starr's perverse obsession with Clinton's sex life makes J Edgar
> > Hoover's spying on JFK look like a girl scout jamboree.
> >
> Can you supply us with any quote from Mr. Starr, any legal documents, etc
> where he specifically says :"I'm investigating Mr. Clinton's sex life"?
> Get back to us with the answer.

Why do we need Starr's comments? Can't you figure it out for yourself?
Maybe you can explain why Starr had the FBI check a dress for semen
stains. But, I tender for your consideration once again:

"In the latest travesty, as revealed by the Washington Post,
Starr used prosecutors and FBI agents to interrogate Arkansas
state troopers about women with whom Bill Clinton allegedly had
affairs prior to his presidency. Starr's deputy argues that
they had a duty to find out whether Clinton might have confided
some incriminating statements to these women. Fine--until you
consider the questions Starr's agents actually asked. They
wanted to know whether one woman had borne a child who
resembled Clinton and whether any of the officers had witnessed
Clinton having sex with local women."

(U.S. News and World Report, July 21, 1997)

Note that Starr's deputy didn't deny the behaviour; just defended it.
Let's see _you_ defend it.

zu...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Jul 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/19/98
to
In article <199807182112...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,

jonsw...@aol.com (Jonsweet10) wrote:
> I do not think your position makes sense.
>
> President Clinton was compelled to give a civil deposition in the civil
> case brought by Paula Jones. He swore to tell the truth under penalties
> of perjury.
> It seems likely (but not yet proven beyond a reasonable doubt) that he
> perjured himself. . . .

Nope. Perjury is the false statement under oath of a _material_ fact
to a judicial proceeding. It is quite debatable whether this was a
statement about a material fact, even if false. Aside from whether
it had _anything_ to do with the merits of Jones case had it gone to
trial, since the Jones case was dismissed as a matter of law, any such
deposition could not have affected the outcome. In my read of Kungys
v. U.S., 485 U.S. 759, 108 S.Ct. 1537, 1546 (1988), this would make
it immaterial.

> . . . He may have asked others to commit perjury and alos
> obstructed justice.

Subornation of perjury requires more: You would have to prove that
he "procured a witness to commit perjury", not that he simply tried
to get her to change her story. You might try "intimidation to
influence testimony", but there you would have to prove intimidation,
physical force, or threat, which, AFAIK, no one has alleged.

You might have better luck with the "obstruction of due administration
of justice", as this does away with the problem of materiality, but
here you would have to show that Clinton _intended_ to subvert or
undermine the due administration of justice, and this was done
"corruptly". If all he _intended_ was to keep this stuff off the
front pages, you don't have a charge here.

In all of the above, you have some evidentiary hurdles to cross,
as well as the legal nits.

> Truthfulness in civil depositions is neccessary for the sytem to be
> just.

Ummm, so goes the theory, but people lie in civil cases all the time,
and generally nothing is done about it. Why is it so fr***ing
important to _you_ in _this) case?

> I agree that it may be a poor public policy to prosecute every case of

> civil perjury. . . .

Thank you.

> . . . It just is not cost effective. All cases of civil perjury
> deserve to be prosecuted. . . .

Why? "De Minimis Non Curat Lex": The law does not deal in trifles.

> . . . A public official who has a position of high


> public trust does need to be prosecuted.

Even if it's for the tiniest thing, as long as that guy is someone you
have a visceral idislike for and want to get out of office. Do you
_really_ think Reagan _didn't_ know that he was selling Hawk missiles
to Iran? Contrast that to this case.

> Your arguement that others get away with civil perjury is not a
> serious arguement. Who would argue that since most murderers don't
> go to jail that we should not prosecute any murderers?

Your analogy is flawed. Fix it up and get back to me.

> I believe that committing a felony is clear grounds for impeachment.
> The President is ultimately responsible for the enforcement of our
> laws. For him to lie under oath (pejury) to give himself an advantage

> in a civil case is absolutely unacceptable. . . .

If he did indeed lie, maybe he did it because he didn't want it
splayed across the front pages across the country through abusive
discovery and sleazy filings by the Jones team (which they did).

But you still have a few things to prove in order to make a felony
of it.

> . . . If he did lie under oath, he is
> unfit to be President.

I dunno. It seems you had your mind made up on this issue a while
back, no?

> As Alexander Hamilton made clear in the Federalist Papers, "High
> Crimes" does not neccessarily involve the violation of any law. It
> is a violation of the public trust.

And what "trust" did he violate here? I think we'rew getting to
the nub of the matter. You seem to think he had a _duty_ to disclose
to the world his private sexual behaviour. Bottom line, you're just
one more panty-sniffer. Please explain why you think he has such
a duty.