allgirlthang/Hostile boyz

1 view
Skip to first unread message

kbrauer

unread,
Nov 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/17/98
to
My guess is there are a few men out there who might have had a little
problem with date rape. Things mighta gotten a little out of hand at
the frat house... Know whut I mean???? A little cognitive dissonance is
going on.

You know why there is so much excusing of Clinton's behavior??? All
those rich boyz (daddies bought 'em off instead of raising them)
remembering their college days, or maybe even their current behavior.
Hard to get down on a guy who is only acting the way that they do...
Love listening to all those liberal lawyers finding excuses for him.

Love listening to the nina-burleighs and rich boyz in the media getting
all over Linda Tripp for turning against a "friend" who was trying to
get her to commit perjury. HA!

Hoosier Pharmer

Hoosier Pharmer's Home http://w3.one.net/~kbrauer/html%20files
Pharmacist's Rant
http://w3.one.net/~kbrauer/html%20files/pharmacistsrant.htm

Alan Keyes! What a guy! http://www.keyes2000.org

caro...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Nov 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/18/98
to
In article <3651FE69...@one.net>,
kbrauer <kbr...@one.net> wrote:

> Love listening to the nina-burleighs and rich boyz in the media getting
> all over Linda Tripp for turning against a "friend" who was trying to
> get her to commit perjury. HA!

Oh, I know. It's ok to try and get someone to lie under oath, it's ok to lie
under oath, but heaven forbid you actually expose someone who is trying to get
you to lie under oath!

I wonder what all these people do if someone was begging them to lie under
oath, and they were worried what would happen if they didn't - I guess they'd
all just lie!


--

http://www.gargaro.com
http://www.rightgrrl.com

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Jennifer M.

unread,
Nov 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/20/98
to

>Oh, I know. It's ok to try and get someone to lie under oath, it's ok to
lie
>under oath, but heaven forbid you actually expose someone who is trying to
get
>you to lie under oath!

It's not ok to lie under oath. Nobody in their right mind says that. But it
puzzles me that just because people are so bent on taking sides they defend
Linda Tripp's actions. Let's face it, what she did was a rotten thing.

Jennifer M.
CyberGrrlz -- http://www.cybergrrlz.com
The e-zine for girls with brains and a sense of humor
(smarter guys will like it too)

stephani...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Nov 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/21/98
to
"Jennifer M." <jmor...@cybergrrlz.comx> wrote:

(was -- allgirlthang/Hostile boyz)

> It's not ok to lie under oath. Nobody in their right mind says that. But it
> puzzles me that just because people are so bent on taking sides they defend
> Linda Tripp's actions. Let's face it, what she did was a rotten thing.

Actually, I'm surprised this hasn't come up more on the NG, but we run a
support page for Linda Tripp on Rightgrrl and we've been asked more than once
to explain why.

While we agree that Linda's actions certainly inspire debate, we don't think
that what she did was "rotten."

Some people have argued that Tripp could have simply refused Monica's request
to commit a felony, dropped the friendship and withdrawn from the situation.
But it's important to know what motivated Tripp not to withdraw, but rather to
tape her conversations with Lewinsky.

Tripp had been interviewed by Michael Isikoff of _Newsweek_ regarding
Clinton's alleged harassment of Kathleen Willey in the Oval Office. In
the statement she gave Isikoff, Tripp did not try to injure the
president. She admitted Willey's clothing was askew, but told Isikoff
she seemed happy about the encounter -- an interpretation that contradicts the
allegation of harassment.

However, in the same _Newsweek_ piece, Isikoff quoted Clinton attorney Bob
Bennett, who claimed that Linda Tripp was a liar. Bennett later called Tripp
into his office, supposedly to threaten her job, though Tripp was advised by
her attorneys not to attend the meeting.

Tripp's motivation in taping Lewinsky was initially to prove that what
she had told Isikoff about Clinton and Kathleen Willey was true. Tripp and
Lewinsky discussed both Willey and Jones, and without that evidence, it was
Tripp's word against Clinton's and Bennett's.

Tripp has been criticized for betraying a friendship with Monica Lewinsky.
But what nobody addresses is the fact that there were several mitigating
factors in this situation, friendship being only one.

Tripp's job obviously meant more to her than the friendship with Lewinsky.
That's a subjective decision, and we could certainly debate whether or not
Tripp was right to value her job over this relationship.

Tripp also obviously felt that 1) Lewinsky's status as a friend was
diminished when Lewinsky asked her to commit a crime, 2) the crimes of both
Lewinsky and Clinton (regarding Jones & Willey) were important enough to
document on tape and were therefore of greater importance than her
relationship with Lewinsky, and 3) if she ever got caught up in the scandal
herself (and she would have, she was subpoenaed to testify in the Jones
case), she would have no proof of her version of events WITHOUT the tapes --
another concern much more important to Tripp than her relationship with
Lewinsky.

Tripp didn't have many options, and any option she chose would bring with it a
unique set of problems for Tripp. But I certainly don't think what she did was
rotten. In fact, I think what she did took incredible chutzpah.

(We make it clear on the site that if it's proven that Tripp did anything
illegal in obtaining evidence via surreptitious taping that we will not
continue to support her actions. Reports so far indicate that she did not
violate Maryland law.)

caro...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Nov 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/21/98
to
In article <734hk6$odn$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>,

"Jennifer M." <jmor...@cybergrrlz.comx> wrote:
>
> >Oh, I know. It's ok to try and get someone to lie under oath, it's ok to
> lie
> >under oath, but heaven forbid you actually expose someone who is trying to
> get
> >you to lie under oath!
>
> It's not ok to lie under oath. Nobody in their right mind says that. But it
> puzzles me that just because people are so bent on taking sides they defend
> Linda Tripp's actions. Let's face it, what she did was a rotten thing.

What puzzles ME are the people wailign about Linda Tripp and excusing
Clinton. Since she did not know the taping was illegal in that state (it is
not illegal in all states), AND, ignorance of the law is a defense in that
case, AND Linda was being asked to break the law! People don't seem to think
that Monica asking her to lie under oath is a problem - why?

No one is saying it is ok for her to knowingly break the law - in fact
Stephanie and I were investigating as to whether Linda Tripp knew of the
legality of her actions when she made the tapes, and if so, we would not
support that.


--

http://www.gargaro.com
http://www.rightgrrl.com

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages