Treason In The Government
Nigel Koldheart
Impeachment is the act of formally accusing a public official of crimes or
serious misconduct. Under the Constitution, the power to impeach lies with
the House of Representatives. The Senate conducts any trial that might
result from an impeachment. An official found guilty of impeachable
offenses is subject to removal from office and disqualification from
holding other federal posts.
According to a little piece of paper known as the Constitution:
"Congress shall impeach only for 'treason, bribery or other high crimes and
misdemeanors'."
Can somebody please explain why the issue of impeachment an issue in this
matter. The only thing I got out of the number two bestselling sex novel
simply known as The Starr Report was that sex was heavily involved. Wasn't
Kenny Starr supposed to investigate Whitewater, or didn't he have enough
evidence of wrongdoing to suggest to the Congress? President Clinton (I
said the title of the man unlike everybody else since they call him Mr.
Clinton out of disgust and dislike) has admitted that he had an affair. So
what? A good 75 to 80 percent of the Congress had extramarital affairs,
but I guess that doesn't count since they aren't the ones who's on trail in
the mind of public opinion. Should the President be punished for his
infidelity? Sure. But neither impeachment nor resignation be required,
but censure should be.
And all of those impeachment criers, complete with torches, nooses, and
pitchforks in their hands, keep this in mind. If, by some sad reason,
impeachment is enforced, there will at least be two more years until it is
completed. Two more years of the same old $#!T. You really didn't think
that President Clinton would be impeached in a week now, did you? And even
if he is impeached, you know that President Gore would acquit him of any
charges, so you'll still lose out.
Now all of this talk about treason that I mentioned in the title. It does
have substance. Think about it. Kenneth Starr, the Christian Coalition,
and dozens of unaffiliated conservative types are guilty of treason whether
they'll admit it or not. Treason is a criminal offense involving the
attempt, by overt acts, to overthrow the government to which the offender
owes allegiance. Isn't this what the Independant Counsel doing to the
government currently ran by President Clinton, attempting to overthrow it
by trumped-up, overt acts and spreading them throughout the public? He set
up the President with Lewinsky because why would someone even keep a
semen-soaked dress in the first place. He also wired Tripp's phoneline
which is also a federal offense. So, instead of ostricizing the President,
prosecute the prosecutor with substancial charges of treason.
That's all. Until next time, God bless this stupid country.
Nigel Koldheart.
Cli...@balls.net
but to a grand jury too. You see in this Country that is a serious
offence. So you could ramble on all you want. But the bottom line is
that. That is what is going to hang him by his balls from the rafters
of The White House, in front off us all to see.
If you do not like this "stupid country" as you call it, get your ass
out of it and go to where ever you came from. And if you don't live
here, please do us all a favor and don't come here.
On 20 Sep 1998 19:54:02 GMT, "Nigel Koldheart" <kold...@cbn.org>
wrote:
Donald J. Miller
>
> Can somebody please explain why the issue of impeachment an issue in this
> matter. The only thing I got out of the number two bestselling sex novel
> simply known as The Starr Report was that sex was heavily involved.
Sex isn't the crime. Perjury and obstruction of justice is the crime.
Sex is the evidence.
A crime was, indeed, committed. There was an injured party as well.
The Linda Tripp lead came into play during the Paula Jones (sexual
harrassment) investigation. If Clinton was playing sexual games in the
office, this would have provided ammo for Paula Jones' case. At the
very least, it would have went to character.
Clinton lied and Paula lost her case. Perhaps she would have won if
Willie told the truth. If Paula missed out on her settlement because
Willie lied, then there definately *was* an injured party here, right?
You can't just shake this off as a presidential mid-life crisis.
On the subject of treason, I do feel sorry for the fact that Clinton
may face impeachment for the perjury and obstruction of justice charges
from the Jones/Lewinski matter. He should be impeached for TREASON on
the Chinagate matter. Last count there were 91 individuals that had
either fled the country to hide in China or had envoked the fifth
amendment. Something smells very bad here.
later,
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Donald J. Miller donm...@mindspring.com
----------------------------------------------------------
Nigel Koldheart
<360560e2...@news.concentric.net>...
: "IS PERJURY STUPID" He lied under oath in a deposition not just once,
: but to a grand jury too. You see in this Country that is a serious
: offence. So you could ramble on all you want. But the bottom line is
: that. That is what is going to hang him by his balls from the rafters
: of The White House, in front off us all to see.
A whole lot of people lie in this Country, and people believe them. People
use lies to get them what they want, whether its saying that he or she is
getting rid of taxes or lying under oath that he or she didn't sell weapons
a country that is considered an enemy. Mr. Bush put drugs like crack and
cocaine into this country when he was in the CIA and Mr. Reagan did
absolutely nothing to decrease the number of AIDS-infected individuals
until about 10 years after Patient Zero, even when he knew about it. Now
please compare these acts to what Starr claimed that President Clinton has
done It's sad, I know, but to prosecute only one person rather than the
many others that do the same thing is not only frivilous, but it's also
inane (look it up if you don't know what it mean).
: If you do not like this "stupid country" as you call it, get your ass
: out of it and go to where ever you came from. And if you don't live
: here, please do us all a favor and don't come here.
The country isn't stupid. Just the people running it. Clinton's stupid
for getting himself involved with the planted intern the first place,
Congress is stupid for even considering impeachment for this act, and
Starr's stupid for letting his envious actions blind him in the first
place. And I have the balls to admit that.
Nigel Koldheart
Stephan Anstey
<kold...@cbn.org> wrote:
You make a huge mistake: This isn't relative. Just because Johnny gets
away with putting Katsup under the bus wheels, doesn't mean that Marty can
get away with wiping boogers on Sally. Clinton committed a felony, I think
most people agree that committing a felony is impeachable, regardless what
the felony is. And certainly, many people have done much worse, and many
of them were in office, but most of them weren't caught. So the defense
you present is simply irrelevant.
Sincerely,
STephan
Daniel Rush
sex, it is about cover-up, lies, and breaking oaths. Of course, we're
talking about a bastard who shacked with a whore in the people's house.
fred
Supreme Court ruling that gave Paula Jones the right to have a fair and
speedy hearing of her grievances against Clinton. Whether you love or hate
Paula Jones is beside the point. Once the Supreme Court issues a ruling it
is for the President to see that their rulings are observed by all. Once
you look at it from this angle it becomes fairly easy to see why this is a
constitutional crises. Whenever one branch of government (in this case the
Executive branch) decides to defy another branch (the Judiciary) it leads
to a crisis. It is one thing for a private citizen or even a governor (
George Wallace would be an excellent example of this) to defy the Supreme
Court. It is quite another for the holder of the office which is charged
with upholding the law (and by extension Supreme Court rulings) to, in
essence, defy a court order by deliberately presenting false testimony and
seeking to cover this fact up.
Imagine for a moment. What if that were President Kennedy standing in that
doorway seeking to block desegregation efforts at the University of Alabama
instead of Wallace. Who would have called out the National Guard to enforce
the Courts' ruling. Beginning to get the picture.
Nigel Koldheart <kold...@cbn.org> wrote in article
<01bde4d0$64728840$b892440c@default>...
> The definition of the term impeachment according to CNN:
>
> Impeachment is the act of formally accusing a public official of crimes
or
> serious misconduct. Under the Constitution, the power to impeach lies
with
> the House of Representatives. The Senate conducts any trial that might
> result from an impeachment. An official found guilty of impeachable
> offenses is subject to removal from office and disqualification from
> holding other federal posts.
>
> According to a little piece of paper known as the Constitution:
>
> "Congress shall impeach only for 'treason, bribery or other high crimes
and
> misdemeanors'."
>
> Can somebody please explain why the issue of impeachment an issue in this
> matter. The only thing I got out of the number two bestselling sex novel
> simply known as The Starr Report was that sex was heavily involved.
dars
Stephan Anstey wrote:
> Just because Johnny gets away with putting Katsup under the bus wheels,
> doesn't mean that Marty can get away with wiping boogers on Sally.
Where are you from?
dars
Donald J. Miller wrote:
> On the subject of treason, I do feel sorry for the fact that Clinton
> may face impeachment for the perjury and obstruction of justice charges
> from the Jones/Lewinski matter. He should be impeached for TREASON on the
> Chinagate matter.
YES!! And possibly for his part in the murder of Vince Foster. He could be
cell-mates with Edward Kennedy, the drunken coward. I'm ashamed to say I voted
for Slicko. Sorry!
Cli...@balls.net
wrote:
>Cli...@BALLS.net wrote in article
><360560e2...@news.concentric.net>...
>: "IS PERJURY STUPID" He lied under oath in a deposition not just once,
>: but to a grand jury too. You see in this Country that is a serious
>: offence. So you could ramble on all you want. But the bottom line is
>: that. That is what is going to hang him by his balls from the rafters
>: of The White House, in front off us all to see.
>
>A whole lot of people lie in this Country, and people believe them. People
>use lies to get them what they want, whether its saying that he or she is
>getting rid of taxes or lying under oath that he or she didn't sell weapons
>a country that is considered an enemy.
Does that make it right?
>Mr. Bush put drugs like crack and cocaine into this country when he was in the CIA
>and Mr. Reagan did absolutely nothing to decrease the number of AIDS-infected individuals
>until about 10 years after Patient Zero, even when he knew about it.
(A conspiracy nut)
Where do you get you (FACTS), this we all would like to know. Your
accusations are as ridiculous as Clinton's lawyers saying that he did
nothing wrong.
>Now please compare these acts to what Starr claimed that President Clinton has
>done It's sad, I know, but to prosecute only one person rather than the
>many others that do the same thing is not only frivilous, but it's also inane
>(look it up if you don't know what it mean).
>
HE IS SUPPOSE TO BE THE MORAL LEADER OF OUR COUNTRY AND THE FREE
WORLD. Does that mean that he could do what ever the hell he wants and
all that he has to do is go on T.V. and say forgive me for what I have
done. Tell me of ANY public official that has survived in this type of
situation? If it wasn't good enough for them, it shouldn't be for the
Commander in Chief, who is to abide by all laws of this land.
>: If you do not like this "stupid country" as you call it, get your ass
>: out of it and go to where ever you came from. And if you don't live
>: here, please do us all a favor and don't come here.
>
>The country isn't stupid. Just the people running it. Clinton's stupid
>for getting himself involved with the planted intern the first place,
And breaking the laws of this land, by lying under oath in a
deposition, suggesting to others to do the same and repeatedly lying
to a grand jury about it, time and time again.
If you ask me and others that are going to stand in judgement of him,
they are going to come to the conclusion that he obstructed justice
and he will be impeached.
>Congress is stupid for even considering impeachment for this act, and
>Starr's stupid for letting his envious actions blind him in the first
>place. And I have the balls to admit that.
>
You mean the Independent Council that this Administration appointed to
find the truth? and now that it is found all of the king's men do not
want all of us to hear it or see it. But they are not going to be able
to put him back together again. ;-)
>Nigel Koldheart
john q public
has received from the vocal minority of this country. I on the other hand
thank you for your well written point of view. I hope that you will post
many more.I also wish that some of the other users of this group would stop
spouting partisanship long enough to read and possibly learn from what you
have to say.
Nigel Koldheart wrote in message <01bde4d0$64728840$b892440c@default>...
Truckr
>
> Doesn't ANYBODY understand that this President has basically defied a
> Supreme Court ruling that gave Paula Jones the right to have a fair and
> speedy hearing of her grievances against Clinton.
Yes. The Supremes decided it would not be disruptive of the government,
to allow a president to be sued during his term. I'm sure that's a
legal precedent that will have it's effect on every future presidency.
What a gifted bunch of judges we have on the Supreme Court. They will
live in history for their great and wise ruling...
jzo...@my-dejanews.com
Bush is just stupid. You seem to forget that the President lied under oath
before a grand jury. That is not like lying to your momma about stealing
cookies from the jar.You might get your hand slapped but you won't be put in
jail for it.
> A whole lot of people lie in this Country, and people believe them. People
> use lies to get them what they want, whether its saying that he or she is
> getting rid of taxes or lying under oath that he or she didn't sell weapons
> a country that is considered an enemy. Mr. Bush put drugs like crack and
> cocaine into this country when he was in the CIA and Mr. Reagan did
> absolutely nothing to decrease the number of AIDS-infected individuals
> until about 10 years after Patient Zero, even when he knew about it. Now
> please compare these acts to what Starr claimed that President Clinton has
> done It's sad, I know, but to prosecute only one person rather than the
> many others that do the same thing is not only frivilous, but it's also
> inane (look it up if you don't know what it mean).
>
> : If you do not like this "stupid country" as you call it, get your ass
> : out of it and go to where ever you came from. And if you don't live
> : here, please do us all a favor and don't come here.
>
> The country isn't stupid. Just the people running it. Clinton's stupid
> for getting himself involved with the planted intern the first place,
> Congress is stupid for even considering impeachment for this act, and
> Starr's stupid for letting his envious actions blind him in the first
> place. And I have the balls to admit that.
>
> Nigel Koldheart
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Dan Day
>Can somebody please explain why the issue of impeachment an issue in this
>matter. The only thing I got out of the number two bestselling sex novel
>simply known as The Starr Report was that sex was heavily involved.
Then read it again, you fool:
### From the Starr report:
There is substantial and credible information supporting the following
eleven possible grounds for impeachment:
1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a
sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica
Lewinsky.
2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his
sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the
sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being
alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms.
Lewinsky and him.
4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about
his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the
Jones case.
5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had
an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth
about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms.
Jones's attorneys.
6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had
an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of
their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that
included the following means: (i) Both the President and Ms.
Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones
case about their sexual relationship; (ii) the President suggested
to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the
President's purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath
and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about
their relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the
false affidavit; (iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky's false
affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions
about Ms. Lewinsky; and (v) when that failed, the President lied
under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms.
Lewinsky.
7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms.
Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been
a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones
case.
8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about
his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky's
involvement in the Jones case.
9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness
by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal
secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition.
10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand
jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and
lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would
relay the President's false statements to the grand jury -- and
did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury.
11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (i) lying
to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship
with Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with
the grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to
testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive
Privilege; (v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi)
lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 -- all as
part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry
by the Congress of the United States.
### End of Starr report excerpt
--
"Americans don't expect an apostle in the White House.
But they do expect an adult." -- Newsweek, 2/2/98 p.29
Dan Day
>The only thing I got out of the number two bestselling sex novel
>Kenny Starr supposed to investigate Whitewater, or didn't he have enough
>evidence of wrongdoing to suggest to the Congress?
I repeat -- try actually *reading* that Starr report:
#### Excerpt of Starr report starts here
2. Current Status of the Investigation. When the OIC's jurisdiction
was expanded to cover the Lewinsky matter in January 1998, several
matters remained under active investigation by this Office. Evidence
was being gathered and evaluated on, among other things, events related
to the Rose Law Firm's representation of Madison Guaranty Savings &
Loan Association; events related to the firings in the White House
Travel Office; and events related to the use of FBI files. Since the
current phase of the investigation began, additional events arising
from the Lewinsky matter have also come under scrutiny, including
possible perjury and obstruction of justice related to former White
House volunteer Kathleen Willey, and the possible misuse of the
personnel records of Pentagon employee Linda Tripp.
From the outset, it was our strong desire to complete all phases of
the investigation before deciding whether to submit to Congress
information -- if any -- that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.
But events and the statutory command of Section 595(c) have dictated
otherwise. As the investigation into the President's actions with
respect to Ms. Lewinsky and the Jones litigation progressed, it became
apparent that there was a significant body of substantial and
credible information that met the Section 595(c) threshold. As
that phase of the investigation neared completion, it also became
apparent that a delay of this Referral until the evidence from all
phases of the investigation had been evaluated would be unwise.
Although Section 595(c) does not specify when information must be
submitted, its text strongly suggests that information of this type
belongs in the hands of Congress as soon as the Independent Counsel
determines that the information is reliable and substantially complete.
All phases of the investigation are now nearing completion. This
Office will soon make final decisions about what steps to take,
if any, with respect to the other information it has gathered.
Those decisions will be made at the earliest practical time,
consistent with our statutory and ethical obligations.
djmilt
I',m glad you put this in the NG. Now, maybe folks will stop saying
that Starr could find nothing on Whitewater, etc. or it would have
been in the report. I get so tired of hearing that when it's simply
not true and they obviously haven't read this part of the report.
Jeanne
Besq
many who voted for Clinton are coming to their senses. There is hope
for this country yet.
Iconic Thought
Let's go over this one more time because some of you aren't smelling the
coffee,
1. President Clinton lied Under Oath during a sexual harassment case of
which he was the defendant.
2. The question he lied about was pertinant to the case.
3. When Clinton realized that Starr was closing in on finding the truth,
he attempted to hide the truth.
4. Clinton had an affair In The Oval Office, his place of work and a
public building.
5. President Clinton attempted to obstruct justice by getting his friends
to lie for him.
President Clinton can go to Dallas and have a blow out orgy with the Cowboy
Cheerleaders for all I care. But when he lies under oath, attempts to
cover it up, and does so while at work, he is wrong and should leave. As
far as you Starr accusations, that is the silliest and most farfetched
thing I have every heard of.
"A statesman is a politician who places himself at the service of the
nation.
A politician is a statesman who places the nation at his service."
Georges Pompidou - 1973
Paul Lima
Paul Lima
flexable in this country. Every day judges use discretion based on the
facts of an individual case. Please think before you type.
Paul Lima
it makes your point look over reactionary
Paul Lima
and start thinking for your self. question your motives. are you happy?
do you like yourself? Do you feel shame about something? Perhaps that is
why you lash out at Clinton? Remember, we have always elected presidents
that fit the image of ourselves.
Paul Lima
Paul Lima
nas...@ziplink.net
I didn't say it wasn't 'relevant' I said it wasn't 'relative.' There is a
large difference between the two words.
My point is that whether this is worse than other scandals or not as bad as
other scandals doesn't matter. It needs to be taken on its own merit and
judged. Certainly the facts of this individual case will need to be judged,
but not relative to any other scandals; they should be judged relative to the
law.
And that, of course, is what judges do on a daily basis.
Sincerely,
Stephan
Baudouin F. Petit
> Should the President be punished for his
> infidelity? Sure.
I hope it's just a slip of your keyboard. Punishment for sexual
"misconduct" and adultery exists only - for men in theory, in practice
for women - under islamic or other fundamentalism(s) which make no
distinction between religion and state, mublic and private morality and
ignore the meaning of privacy.
I regret that President Clinton may have provided the rope to hang him
there, less because of his weak control over apparently powerful sex
impulses, but through condoning prohibition and waging an
anticonstitutional "War on Drugs". A country which jails people whose
only "crime" is to have used recreational drugs endangers the most basic
of all personal freedoms : the right to be left alone when no harm is
caused to others.
BP
"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance.
It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond
the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite
by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes.
A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our
government was founded".
---Attributed To: Abraham Lincoln, Speech in
the Illinois House of Representatives, Dec 18, 1840. It also appears
on page 544 of the Congressional Record-House for December 22, 1914.
Lincoln was quoted by Rep. Robert L. Henry of Texas.
Raptor
>
> Let's go over this one more time because some of you aren't smelling the
> coffee,
>
> 1. President Clinton lied Under Oath during a sexual harassment case of
> which he was the defendant.
Perhaps.
> 2. The question he lied about was pertinant to the case.
Explain why his tendency, if any, to have consensual extra-marital
affairs is pertinent to the Paula Jones lawsuit.
> 3. When Clinton realized that Starr was closing in on finding the truth,
> he attempted to hide the truth.
Irrelevent unless a law was broken.
> 4. Clinton had an affair In The Oval Office, his place of work and a
> public building.
Irrelevent. The White House is his residence, and I have seen nothing
to indicate that the Oval Office is a public place.
> 5. President Clinton attempted to obstruct justice by getting his friends
> to lie for him.
Irrelevent, since he made no request for others to lie.
--
Lynn Wallace
http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
Reality Check: http://www.xmission.com/~lawall/reality.html
"Stroke of the keyboard, mass hysteria. Kinda cool!"
Raptor
>
> > > 1. President Clinton lied Under Oath during a sexual harassment case
> of
> > > which he was the defendant.
> > Perhaps.
In which statement?
> > > 2. The question he lied about was pertinant to the case.
> > Explain why his tendency, if any, to have consensual extra-marital
> > affairs is pertinent to the Paula Jones lawsuit.
> His tendency shows a pattern of behavior that has a great deal to do with
> the case. Just like a murderer who has a pattern of killing people or
> attempting to kill people, Clinton is man who has had frequent sexual
> affairs and, in doing so, has made attempts to find new "companions." Some
> people might see these overtures as sexual harassment.
That's like saying a photographer, who aims mechanical devices at people and
"shoots" them, has the behavioral pattern of a murderer.
It is very risky, IMO, to say that mere propositions (cordial and with no
request to stop, or having received a request, are stopped) are indicative of
sexual harrassment. If the law says they are, then the law should be re-written
or re-interpreted to permit the continuance of the American people.
> > > 3. When Clinton realized that Starr was closing in on finding the
> truth,
> > > he attempted to hide the truth.
> > Irrelevent unless a law was broken.
> It is called obstruction of justice and it is very relevent. If you are
> part of a criminal investigation, you follow the law, tell the truth, and
> hand over what is asked for. To do otherwise is tantamount to saying "I
> did it!"
Re-read what I said. If no law was broken, it's irrelevent to say he obstructed
justice - it's just political rhetoric.
> > > 4. Clinton had an affair In The Oval Office, his place of work and a
> > > public building.
> > Irrelevent. The White House is his residence, and I have seen nothing
> > to indicate that the Oval Office is a public place.
> There are two parts of the White House: the public office and the
> president's private living quarters. The Oval Office is the same as a
> mayor's office or a judge's office or another other office in a public
> building. Yes, the White House is a public building.
No, the OO is not the same as the mayor's office, unless the mayor lives in the
same building. Not only have I seen nothing to indicate the OO is a public
place, but I've seen a blurb that says it's classified private. I can't tell
you any better than that because I didn't take specific note of it.
Having never been on the WH tour, I can't answer whether it ever goes into the
OO, but it doesn't, does it? That's a clue.
The OO is not like the mayor's office, it's more like the study in a governor's
mansion.
> > > 5. President Clinton attempted to obstruct justice by getting his
> friends
> > > to lie for him.
> > Irrelevent, since he made no request for others to lie.
> Bull! The President was calling the shots from the beginning. Maybe not
> verbally, but it doesn't take a rocketscientist to see that the President,
> like all of us, has the ability to imply a course of action. Body
> language, tone, etc.
Well, as I've said to others, you can't make a legal charge stick unless you can
make it stick. Merely lying to others is NOT obstruction of justice until
someone shows otherwise.
> If this man really cared about what this country is going through, he would
> resign. He has caused the whole problem. The reason he won't resign is
> because he wants the pension.
Paula Jones and her political backers started the whole problem.
--
Lynn Wallace
I cannot help it if I think you're funny when you're mad.
B. Naked Ladies
http://www.xmission.com/~lawall/reality.html
Iconic Thought
> > 1. President Clinton lied Under Oath during a sexual harassment case
of
> > which he was the defendant.
> Perhaps.
He did lie and he has admitted it.
> > 2. The question he lied about was pertinant to the case.
> Explain why his tendency, if any, to have consensual extra-marital
> affairs is pertinent to the Paula Jones lawsuit.
His tendency shows a pattern of behavior that has a great deal to do with
the case. Just like a murderer who has a pattern of killing people or
attempting to kill people, Clinton is man who has had frequent sexual
affairs and, in doing so, has made attempts to find new "companions." Some
people might see these overtures as sexual harassment.
> > 3. When Clinton realized that Starr was closing in on finding the
truth,
> > he attempted to hide the truth.
> Irrelevent unless a law was broken.
It is called obstruction of justice and it is very relevent. If you are
part of a criminal investigation, you follow the law, tell the truth, and
hand over what is asked for. To do otherwise is tantamount to saying "I
did it!"
> > 4. Clinton had an affair In The Oval Office, his place of work and a
> > public building.
> Irrelevent. The White House is his residence, and I have seen nothing
> to indicate that the Oval Office is a public place.
There are two parts of the White House: the public office and the
president's private living quarters. The Oval Office is the same as a
mayor's office or a judge's office or another other office in a public
building. Yes, the White House is a public building.
> > 5. President Clinton attempted to obstruct justice by getting his
friends
> > to lie for him.
> Irrelevent, since he made no request for others to lie.
Bull! The President was calling the shots from the beginning. Maybe not
verbally, but it doesn't take a rocketscientist to see that the President,
like all of us, has the ability to imply a course of action. Body
language, tone, etc.
If this man really cared about what this country is going through, he would
Iconic Thought
liar, an oath breaker, and a womanizer. Just one last point, Clinton
admitted during his first speech after the TRUTH came out that he did, "in
fact" have sexual relations with Miss Lewinsky. If anyone thinks that oral
sex, completed or not, does not fall under that terminology, they need to
go back to school.
> > He did lie and he has admitted it.
> In which statement?
Baudouin F. Petit
> HE IS SUPPOSE TO BE THE MORAL LEADER OF OUR COUNTRY AND THE FREE
> WORLD.
He was elected by Americans to run the United States. Period. You are
mistaken if you believe that people can easily view the head of state of
a foreign nation as their moral leader. There are plenty of moral
leaders in the world and among them few politicians.
BP
Baudouin F. Petit
> You seem to forget that the President lied under oath
> before a grand jury. That is not like lying to your momma about
> stealing cookies from the jar.You might get your hand slapped but you
> won't be put in jail for it.
Lying to grandma and risking only a slap on the hand is indeed cowardly
and bad. Lying to shield one's own privacy and - to some extent -
protect the reputation of a sex partner is as honorable as praiseworthy.
And when grand juries, prosecutors and even Congress ignore basic
constitutional rights such as privacy, behave like eastern european
stalinist judges in the fifties, and engage in indecent exposure in
front of the whole world it becomes a civic and moral duty to oppose
them by all means.
BP
Raptor
He admitted to misleading people. Since we're both a little tired of
the discussion, I'll equate "misleading" to "lying" and let it drop for
now.
BTW, that Clinton is a womanizer is something I'm willing to stipulate.
ron shapella
>
> This could keep up forever. I will never convince you that Clinton is a
> liar, an oath breaker, and a womanizer. Just one last point, Clinton
> admitted during his first speech after the TRUTH came out that he did, "in
> fact" have sexual relations with Miss Lewinsky. If anyone thinks that oral
> sex, completed or not, does not fall under that terminology, they need to
> go back to school.
>
in a strict legal sense (which was the context of the jones deposition),
the president most likely did not perjure himself. second is the
question of what he should have said publicly, which proved to be
something less than adequate, as we have found out. it's an important
distinction that so far not a lot of people seem to want to consider.
you guys can't have it both ways. you can't say the president is
splitting legalistic hairs by focusing on the strict definition he was
provided in the jones case, and then say you want him out of office
because of perjury he probably did not actually commit.
r.s.
djmilt
wrote:
If you read Monica's version of the sex, they did much, much more than
just oral sex. That's really where the lying in the Jones matter
comes in. What they did certainly falls in the area of the definition
in the Jones case. You could say she lied, but her immunity was
based on truthfulness so she has a lot to lose if she did that. On
the other hand, the President had a lot to lose if he was truthful.
So we know why he lied at that time and to the Amer. people. When he
got into the Grand Jury he was forced to do the hair splitting routine
to try to save his neck from perjury charges but there are still many
instances in there where he was untruthful. To start with, their
first encounter was Nov. 15, 1995 but the Pres. says not until 1996
when she was no longer an Intern. It's obvious why he chose that
date.
Jeanne
Raptor
>
> I know enough about the law to know that when a grand jury member asks a
> question and calls for a yes or no answer, you say one of two things. "YES"
> or "NO."
Not when the question requires a numerical answer. A nearly-infinite number of
other examples exist. You're smart enough to know this. Aren't you?
> Everyone knows that if it had been anyone else on that stand instead of
> "Mr. Wonderful" that they would be required to answer the questions asked.
> Clinton kept referring to his statement. Answer the damn question, Mr.
> President.
Anyone dumber than the president might have been sunk. As it is, his
performance was adequate.
And no Mr. president, don't answer the damn question if it concerns a consensual
relationsip.
> (BTW, I know several practicing lawyers who think Clinton should leave
> office. They know exactly what game he's playing.)
Right. Ask them if they'd take the case against him pro bono. If they're rich
enough to blow the money, ask them if they'd wager their law degree on it.
> As for ideology, I am ashamed that my fellow countrymen find adultery so
> trival and insignificant. How could anyone do such a thing to the person
> they profess to love? How can you support someone who has betrayed his own
> family? If this was a first offense, I would say forgive and forget, but
> Clinton is a repeat adulterer and should be considered untrustworthy.
It's not the adultery we find trivial. It's the semantic shenanigans to cover
it up and avoid perjury that we find trivial.
Adultery is wrong, but it's also common. Most of us are prone to it, many
aren't. I must have missed your expressions of outrage towards Burton,
Chenoweth and Hyde.
The fact that Clinton is a serial offender actually speaks in his favor. His
family is obviously tolerant of it to some degree. We are not qualified to
instruct them on how betrayed they should feel. It is not appropriate for us to
condemn him further than his family does.
Iconic Thought
truth, so help you God?"
This doesn't mean that you can lie when things get a bit hairy. It is a
clear and direct oath. I could care less of how lawyers decifer it. Any
seven year old can tell you what it means. IMO, anyone who thinks that
lying in court is okay, even if the question is not really related to the
case, is sadly mistaken. It is wrong.
Clinton on that tape couldn't answer a direct question. He wants the
definition of "alone." Where the hell is this guy from?! He is either an
imbecile or an idiot. Do you want someone like that controlling the
country? If he is so innocent and pure, why is he hiding and trying to
"split hairs."
ron shapella <rsha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<360843F9...@worldnet.att.net>...
Matt Pryor
> imbecile or an idiot.
Please explain to me the difference between an imbecile and an idiot. I
don't quite follow your argument.
--
Matt's daily comic strip
Porridge and Fartcakes
http://www.whiterabbit.co.uk/cartoons
Iconic Thought
Matt Pryor <ma...@whiterabbit.co.uk> wrote in article
<36084439...@whiterabbit.co.uk>...
ron shapella
>
snip
>
> If you read Monica's version of the sex, they did much, much more than
> just oral sex.
unfortunately for you, the president was not handed 'monica's version'
to read and testify on in the jones deposition. there was a lot of back
and forth, the president was asked to testify on a certain definition of
'sex,' the jones lawyers neglected to followup and the president, as he
explained, was under no obligation to do their homework for them.
snip
> So we know why he lied at that time and to the Amer. people.
yeah, out of embarassment, not to commit the crime of the century that
you guys on the dark side are trying to concoct.
> When he
> got into the Grand Jury he was forced to do the hair splitting routine
> to try to save his neck from perjury charges but there are still many
> instances in there where he was untruthful. To start with, their
> first encounter was Nov. 15, 1995 but the Pres. says not until 1996
> when she was no longer an Intern. It's obvious why he chose that
> date.
>
a different recollection of time and place is not only not perjury, but
it's also pretty damn picayune. not only that, but we have her word
against his. please try harder.
r.s.
ron shapella
>
snip
> Clinton on that tape couldn't answer a direct question. He wants the
> definition of "alone." Where the hell is this guy from?! He is either an
> imbecile or an idiot. Do you want someone like that controlling the
> country? If he is so innocent and pure, why is he hiding and trying to
> "split hairs."
>
precision in questions and answers. ask the nearest practicing lawyer
when you have a spare moment from your ideology.
r.s.
Iconic Thought
question and calls for a yes or no answer, you say one of two things. "YES"
or "NO."
"Mr. Wonderful" that they would be required to answer the questions asked.
Clinton kept referring to his statement. Answer the damn question, Mr.
President.
office. They know exactly what game he's playing.)
trival and insignificant. How could anyone do such a thing to the person
they profess to love? How can you support someone who has betrayed his own
family? If this was a first offense, I would say forgive and forget, but
Clinton is a repeat adulterer and should be considered untrustworthy.
ron shapella <rsha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<360887CD...@worldnet.att.net>...
Iconic Thought
Raptor <law...@xmission.com> wrote in article
<3608794B...@xmission.com>...
> Not when the question requires a numerical answer. A nearly-infinite
number of
> other examples exist. You're smart enough to know this. Aren't you?
"Did Monica Lewinsky perform oral sex on you, Mr. President? Yes or no."
"Uh - Fifty-eight"
Why don't you give me an example of one of your nearly-infinite number of
other examples.
> Anyone dumber than the president might have been sunk. As it is, his
> performance was adequate.
Yes, President Clinton is a good politician, in that he knows all the
loopholes in the laws. Shame on you, sneaky Willie.
> Right. Ask them if they'd take the case against him pro bono. If
they're rich
> enough to blow the money, ask them if they'd wager their law degree on
it.
They all know that Clinton and his lawyers are going to manhandle the law
to try to get him through. He knows he did something wrong and he will use
any technical manuver to get out of hot water. This is something the best
low-life lawyers and politicians know how to do.
> It's not the adultery we find trivial. It's the semantic shenanigans to
cover
> it up and avoid perjury that we find trivial.
> Adultery is wrong, but it's also common. Most of us are prone to it,
many
> aren't. I must have missed your expressions of outrage towards Burton,
> Chenoweth and Hyde.
> The fact that Clinton is a serial offender actually speaks in his favor.
His
> family is obviously tolerant of it to some degree. We are not qualified
to
> instruct them on how betrayed they should feel. It is not appropriate
for us to
> condemn him further than his family does.
This is like saying that murder is common, so lets just let the murderers
be. Their families don't mind that Billy goes and and kills people so why
bother. And before you say its different because murder hurts other
people, what has Clinton's infidelity done to his family, friends, career,
country, and presidency. It isn't nearly as bad, but it is wrong. He is
responisible for his action and he must pay for them. As for Burton,
Chenoweth and Hyde, my opinion of them has lowered greatly, but at least
they haven't been lying about it for years, in public or in court. Clinton
treats the law like he does his women. Once a liar, always a liar.
"Political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and
murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
George Orwell - 1850
One still stong man in a blatant land,
Whatever they call him, what care I,
Aristocrat, democrat, autocrat -- one
Who can rule and dare not lie.
Alfred, Lord Tennyson - 1855
"A truth that's told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent."
William Blake - 1803
HOOVER
Ron, guys like you make me puke - you've seen the testimony,
you've seen your hero's deceit on videotape, and you continue to
make excuses for him. He's a lying piece of camel shit, and it's his
left wing supporters who see nothing wrong with his actions or lies.
Baudouin F. Petit
> "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
> truth, so help you God?"
> This doesn't mean that you can lie when things get a bit hairy. It is
> a clear and direct oath. I could care less of how lawyers decifer
it. > Any seven year old can tell you what it means. IMO, anyone who
> thinks that lying in court is okay, even if the question is not really
> related to the case, is sadly mistaken. It is wrong.
You reasoning is impeccable but it may point out to something basically
wrong in the American system of justice. Elsewhere in the world, at
least in civilized societies where the law protects privacy, some
"truths" have no place in court.
No judge or prosecutor has or should have the right to interrogate
people about their sexual life, as long as it involves only consenting
adults. The only exception may be divorce cases when the court,
spontaneously or at the defendent's request, may order proceedings to be
held in camera. Individuals have a right over their intimacy. Clinton
lied to protect it as a private person. He did not lie as President to
hide illegal decisions or acts of treason.
This questions the unhealthy belief that you owe the truth to anybody
who asks. False. Some truths are told when and if someone decides to
tell them to freely chosen others. They are not owed to anybody, and
least of all to the State or the People. Otherwise the whole system of
justice drifts towards totalitarianism.
This is probably why Clinton's ordeal elicits so much sympathy in the
world and especially in countries with a recent history of despotism,
notably Eastern Europe. Public opinion there is deeply shocked, not by
Clinton's little games or lies, but by the vicious attack on privacy
perpetrated by an American prosecutor and the US Congress.
BP
Baudouin F. Petit
> As for ideology, I am ashamed that my fellow countrymen find adultery
> so trival and insignificant. How could anyone do such a thing to the
> person they profess to love? How can you support someone who has
> betrayed his own family? If this was a first offense, I would say
> forgive and forget, but Clinton is a repeat adulterer and should be
> considered untrustworthy.
Are you married to Bill Clinton ? Is this Hillary writing in disguise ?
Otherwise I don't see what there is to forgive. As for adultery a recent
survey indicates that it is a rather common activity, involving about 60
percent of your fellow adult Americans.
BP
Docky Wocky
crime of the century".
___________________________
Now the next time you are on trial and pull the same stunt, "out of
embarassment" , be sure to look for great sympathy from the prosecutor,
judge, and jury - especially when they find out you stretched the truth a
bit more than necessary.
Clinton, with malice and forethought, made a mockery of the American
justice system - purely in his own personal interest and to allow survival
of his regime. He might smile nice, whine with the best of them, and bite
his lip convincingly, but he is still little more than a glorified fugitive
from justice.
Raptor
>
> Raptor <law...@xmission.com> wrote in article
> <3608794B...@xmission.com>...
> > Not when the question requires a numerical answer. A nearly-infinite
> number of
> > other examples exist. You're smart enough to know this. Aren't you?
>
> "Did Monica Lewinsky perform oral sex on you, Mr. President? Yes or no."
> "Uh - Fifty-eight"
> Why don't you give me an example of one of your nearly-infinite number of
> other examples.
Be advised, I don't have much time for people intentionally acting
stupid.
"How many times were you alone with Ms. Lewinsky, Mr. President?"
"Yes."
"Where did Ms. Lewinsky touch you on February 24th?"
"No."
> > Anyone dumber than the president might have been sunk. As it is, his
> > performance was adequate.
>
> Yes, President Clinton is a good politician, in that he knows all the
> loopholes in the laws. Shame on you, sneaky Willie.
So sorry. DO try a little harder next time, or hire better help. If
your lawyers knew their shit, the prez might be in real trouble, but not
likely, since this is all about sex.
> > Right. Ask them if they'd take the case against him pro bono. If
> they're rich
> > enough to blow the money, ask them if they'd wager their law degree on
> it.
>
> They all know that Clinton and his lawyers are going to manhandle the law
> to try to get him through. He knows he did something wrong and he will use
> any technical manuver to get out of hot water. This is something the best
> low-life lawyers and politicians know how to do.
There's no "low-life" about it. I guess your lawyer friends are just
incompetent, or maybe they're competent enough to know that Starr fucked
up.
I think Starr tried to bail on the case when he took the Malibu job,
then un-took it. The right wing said, "No you don't! Get in there and
FIGHT!" <Sniff> It's enough to almost make one feel sorry for the guy.
> > It's not the adultery we find trivial. It's the semantic shenanigans to
> cover
> > it up and avoid perjury that we find trivial.
> > Adultery is wrong, but it's also common. Most of us are prone to it,
> many
> > aren't. I must have missed your expressions of outrage towards Burton,
> > Chenoweth and Hyde.
> > The fact that Clinton is a serial offender actually speaks in his favor.
> His
> > family is obviously tolerant of it to some degree. We are not qualified
> to
> > instruct them on how betrayed they should feel. It is not appropriate
> for us to
> > condemn him further than his family does.
>
> This is like saying that murder is common, so lets just let the murderers
> be.
That's like saying Dan Burton vs. Bill Clinton is a fair fight. There's
a world of difference.
Their families don't mind that Billy goes and and kills people so why
> bother. And before you say its different because murder hurts other
> people, what has Clinton's infidelity done to his family, friends, career,
> country, and presidency. It isn't nearly as bad, but it is wrong. He is
> responisible for his action and he must pay for them.
The last two sentences are the first things you've gotten right.
As for Burton,
> Chenoweth and Hyde, my opinion of them has lowered greatly, but at least
> they haven't been lying about it for years, in public or in court. Clinton
> treats the law like he does his women. Once a liar, always a liar.
How do you know they haven't lied about them? I find hypocrisy, that is
lambasting another for something one has done but concealed, to be
precisely as disgusting as simply lying.
> "Political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and
> murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
>
> George Orwell - 1850
Essentially correct. Welcome to the real world.
> One still stong man in a blatant land,
> Whatever they call him, what care I,
> Aristocrat, democrat, autocrat -- one
> Who can rule and dare not lie.
>
> Alfred, Lord Tennyson - 1855
Nice thought. Too bad we've polluted the climate in Washington so much
that such people stay away from public service.
> "A truth that's told with bad intent
> Beats all the lies you can invent."
>
> William Blake - 1803
I don't know about that.
djmilt
wrote:
>>
>a different recollection of time and place is not only not perjury, but
>it's also pretty damn picayune. not only that, but we have her word
>against his. please try harder.
>
>r.s.
OK. I'll try harder. Ha!Ha! Monica told 11 people about her affair
and in great detail, I might add. She kept a spread sheet with
meetings, dates, etc. on her computer at the Pentagon. She kept a
diary. She kept a dress with positive Presidential DNA. Starr has her
phone records and records from Clinton calls to her. There are the
White House records of her comings and goings with dates, times, etc.
There is the testimony of Bettie Currie and Sec. Serv. personnel about
their meetings. There is the testimony of the two men who cater the
dining area just off the Oval. Pretty hard to have an affair unnoticed
in the White House. And especially with a young girl so anxious to
keep records of every little thing. There's probably more evidence but
this is what comes to mind quickly. If you're ever elected
President, don't have an affair.
Jeanne
djmilt
wrote:
>>
>precision in questions and answers. ask the nearest practicing lawyer
>when you have a spare moment from your ideology.
>
>r.s.
It's a real loser trying to convince people Clinton didn't have sex
or that he didn't lie under oath. The better approach to support your
guy is to admit he had the affair, lots of sex, etc. and that he
indeed did lie. But, that that isn't enough to boot him out. That's
the road Charlie Rangel has chosen and you all know no one supports
Clinton any more than he does. Anyone who's reads my posts knows I
want the guy out now, too much baggage and we're all tired of it.
It's become the Doctrine of Protracted Conflicts. You get worn down
until you don't care the right or wrong of it anymore. Clinton has
had this trouble with scandal after scandal his whole political life
and there's a reason for it. People didn't just wake up one morning
and decide to go after this guy. There's plenty of corrupt smoke and
they know there's fire there. They will never let up on him. If he
stays in office the next two years, it won't get any better than it is
now and we will have a very weak, almost useless to anybody,
President. (Whew! I think I'll go play Free Cell awhile)
Jeanne
SnowDog75
>Are you married to Bill Clinton ? Is this Hillary writing in disguise ?
>Otherwise I don't see what there is to forgive. As for adultery a recent
>survey indicates that it is a rather common activity, involving about 60
>percent of your fellow adult Americans.
>
>BP
>
So that makes it OK then, eh? What crushing logic.....
Pedophelia was widespread in ancient Greece, do you think that's OK too?
Baudouin F. Petit
>> Are you married to Bill Clinton ? Is this Hillary writing in disguise
>> ? Otherwise I don't see what there is to forgive. As for adultery a
>> recent survey indicates that it is a rather common activity,
>> involving about 60 percent of your fellow adult Americans.
>>
>> BP
>>
>
> So that makes it OK then, eh? What crushing logic.....
I was not trying to make a moral judgment here. Just saying cheating on
one's spouse seems OK for 60 per cent of adult Americans, and remember,
it is legal.
> Pedophelia was widespread in ancient Greece, do you think that's OK
> too?
Slavery too was practised in ancient Greece. In case you have not
noticed some things sometimes change for the better. We view pedophilia
as a violent crime against innocent and immature individuals unable to
defend themselves. Therefore it is illegal and society has every right
to take all possible or reasonable steps to reduce and prevent it. The
law has no such interest in fighting adultery which is a private matter
between adults, a change of partners sometimes (or often) beneficial to
all parties.
BP
Donald J. Miller
>
>
> The fact that Clinton is a serial offender actually speaks in his favor. His
> family is obviously tolerant of it to some degree. We are not qualified to
> instruct them on how betrayed they should feel. It is not appropriate for us to
> condemn him further than his family does.
>
> Lynn Wallace
> I cannot help it if I think you're funny when you're mad.
> B. Naked Ladies
Remember that the Lewinski issue was original brought up during the
Paula Jones case. That was a sexual harrassment case! Proving Clinton
to be a serial offender would have been VERY relevent. If he committed
perjury during the Paula Jones case, there was definately an injured
party. What Hillery thought of Clinton's indescretion should make no
difference.
There is a definate legal basis for us to condemn him more than his
family does if he willfully perjured himself.
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Donald J. Miller donm...@mindspring.com
----------------------------------------------------------
Raptor
>
> Raptor wrote:
> >
> >
> > The fact that Clinton is a serial offender actually speaks in his favor. His
> > family is obviously tolerant of it to some degree. We are not qualified to
> > instruct them on how betrayed they should feel. It is not appropriate for us to
> > condemn him further than his family does.
> >
> Paula Jones case. That was a sexual harrassment case! Proving Clinton
> to be a serial offender would have been VERY relevent. If he committed
> perjury during the Paula Jones case, there was definately an injured
> party. What Hillery thought of Clinton's indescretion should make no
> difference.
Let's keep in mind what "offender" means. In sexual harrassment, the offense is
perpetrated upon a victim directly. In adultery, the offense is indirectly
perpetrated against the "offender's" family.
In the Lewinsky affair, there was no sexual harrassment, so under the law,
Clinton committed no offense by playing with Lewinsky.
> There is a definate legal basis for us to condemn him more than his
> family does if he willfully perjured himself.
I can accept that. The question then becomes what the penalty should be. In
the range of all things perjurious, Clinton's violation, if any, was somewhat
minor.
--
Lynn Wallace
I cannot help it if I think you're funny when you're mad.
B. Naked Ladies
Raptor
>
> It's a real loser trying to convince people Clinton didn't have sex
> or that he didn't lie under oath. The better approach to support your
> guy is to admit he had the affair, lots of sex, etc. and that he
> indeed did lie. But, that that isn't enough to boot him out. That's
> the road Charlie Rangel has chosen and you all know no one supports
> Clinton any more than he does. Anyone who's reads my posts knows I
> want the guy out now, too much baggage and we're all tired of it.
> It's become the Doctrine of Protracted Conflicts. You get worn down
> until you don't care the right or wrong of it anymore.
Not entirely fair of you, is it? If America had that attitude towards Britain
in WWII, there's a chance we'd all be speaking German now.
It's different if you've never liked Clinton, you're just being consistent. But
if you voted for him once, and his administration has been adequate by your
considered judgment, then you should remain loyal in the face of endless
scandals that do not produce any indictments (general sense) of him.
Clinton has
> had this trouble with scandal after scandal his whole political life
> and there's a reason for it. People didn't just wake up one morning
> and decide to go after this guy. There's plenty of corrupt smoke and
> they know there's fire there.
This is not sensical. For example, it's entirely possible that Clinton has toed
the line of the law but taken advantage of many of the loopholes. Another
example is that Clinton's just real good at pissing certain influential people
off, and they won't stop attacking until he surrenders or they run out of
resources. Of course, it's possible that he slipped up one or more times, and
it's truly just a matter of time.
You have to be honest about where your line is drawn. If you don't like someone
who takes advantage of legal loopholes, then apply your scythe
indiscriminately. But if you allow some to commit ethical but legal lapses,
then allow others to do so.
But it's wrong to conclude that constant investigation means some wrongdoing.
They will never let up on him. If he
> stays in office the next two years, it won't get any better than it is
> now and we will have a very weak, almost useless to anybody,
> President. (Whew! I think I'll go play Free Cell awhile)
OTOH, there will not be any more that they can hurt him. If he weathers this
storm, he'll be pretty bulletproof. In fact, it could backfire: he actually
DOES something wrong and illegal, and because of the constant innuendo we the
people just don't believe or care.
Von Jaeger
wrote:
>Iconic Thought wrote:
>>
>snip
>> Clinton on that tape couldn't answer a direct question. He wants the
>> definition of "alone." Where the hell is this guy from?! He is either an
>> imbecile or an idiot. Do you want someone like that controlling the
>> country? If he is so innocent and pure, why is he hiding and trying to
>> "split hairs."
>>
>you have no clue about the law. one of the things it is based on is
>precision in questions and answers. ask the nearest practicing lawyer
>when you have a spare moment from your ideology.
>
>r.s.
I agree completely! Who the hell do these non-lawyer types think they
are? These uneducated, non-Bar Association creatins who think they
have rights when they cannot even espouse them really ticks me off.
If straight talk means "yes = yes" and "no = no" I say burn the
fuckers in a gas chamber! They have no right to live if they don't
know the difference between "limited salivated lippo contact with a
semi-erect projectile that has motives undeterminable without
scientific evidence provided by the plantiff that clearly falls
outside the rules of the definition determined by a court of law,
outside and notwithstanding this proceeding! reguardless of the fact
that I refer to my previous statement!!!!"
You stinking Right wing fanatics are a bunch of illerate racist
redneck southern watermellon eatin' fried chicken suckin', nigger
beatin' buncha racist God lovin, Bible thumpin freaks of nature that
cannot even comprehend the BASIC UNDERSTAND AND LOVE that the
democratic party is gonna eventually have to force on you uneducated
bare foot idiots from backward assed states like Arkansas....
DOH!
Iconic Thought
gather that you are the kind of person who plays the game, no matter what
the rules. Its no wonder the world is a crapped up as it is when sixty
percent of the population have the morality of wild jungle gorillas. You
refuse to discuss this issue with any evidence to back up your claims. It
is also not cool to repeat previous statements, omitting clarifying points
mentioned later. Maybe you should go work for Clinton.
(BTW, Clinton was never ask to answer a question with a numerical answer
using only "yes" or "no". Get real!)
ron shapella
>
snip
>
> Ron, guys like you make me puke - you've seen the testimony,
> you've seen your hero's deceit on videotape, and you continue to
> make excuses for him. He's a lying piece of camel shit, and it's his
> left wing supporters who see nothing wrong with his actions or lies.
wipe the puke off your chin and listen up. my opinion of what clinton
did has not been the issue. I have stated it elsewhere and if you had
read it you might be surprised. at the same time, though, I know a
witch hunt when I see one. especially one that's intended and designed
to accomplish what the dark side was unable to do in two fair, free and
open elections.
it's absolutely absurd to expect to force a president out of office
based on his covering up an extramarital affair in a deposition that was
later ruled irrelevant to a civil case that no longer exists. and for a
preview of how history will judge this, let the perspective of the rest
of the world be your guide. for the most part, it's derisive -- toward
the president, but mostly for the republicans and prosecution in
general.
r.s.
ron shapella
>
snip
>
> Now the next time you are on trial and pull the same stunt, "out of
> embarassment" , be sure to look for great sympathy from the prosecutor,
> judge, and jury - especially when they find out you stretched the truth a
> bit more than necessary.
>
a deposition that was ruled irrelevant to a civil case that was thrown
out of court, it would raise nary an eyebrow at our local county
courthouse.
and even if it came to trial, I expect the prosecutor would say
something like this: 'mr. president, in your deposition of
such-and-such you stated blah-blah-blah. is that still your testimony
to this court?' at which time the rubber would meet the road and the
court would take note for the record. it happens all the time.
> Clinton, with malice and forethought, made a mockery of the American
> justice system - purely in his own personal interest and to allow survival
> of his regime. He might smile nice, whine with the best of them, and bite
> his lip convincingly, but he is still little more than a glorified fugitive
> from justice.
oh please, you're going to bust a gasket.
r.s.
ron shapella
>
snip
>
> OK. I'll try harder. Ha!Ha! Monica told 11 people about her affair
> and in great detail, I might add. She kept a spread sheet with
> meetings, dates, etc. on her computer at the Pentagon. She kept a
> diary. She kept a dress with positive Presidential DNA. Starr has her
> phone records and records from Clinton calls to her.
snip
so this is all supposed to prove ... what? that the president committed
perjury because he can't remember their first date. not even he is
disputing that something went on. but like I said, quibbling over
whether he got the right time and place is trivial beyond words.
r.s.
ron shapella
>
snip
> As for ideology, I am ashamed that my fellow countrymen find adultery so
> trival and insignificant. How could anyone do such a thing to the person
> they profess to love? How can you support someone who has betrayed his own
> family?
snip
oh man, cue the violins. by all means, let's abolish adultery and
betrayal from the white house. better yet, let's do it retroactively.
how many presidents does that throw out of office, do you think?
clinton has done a perfectly fine job running the country. he also did
an extremely stupid thing with ms. lewinsky (then again, it was only 10
times in a year and one-half, so it's not like he was sneaking off after
every cabinet meeting). that doesn't mean he should lose his job over
it. far from it.
r.s.
Besq
Did he ever actually say "yes" or "no"? All I heard was "I don't
remember" and "I don't recall". Probably 2 1/2 hours of the testimony
was "I don't remember" etc., and this was after he modestly affirmed he
had had a phenomenal memory since he was young. He can even remember
definitions of "is" and "alone" that I seem to have forgotten. Amazing!
Baudouin F. Petit
> Monica told 11 people about her affair
> and in great detail, I might add. She kept a spread sheet with
> meetings, dates, etc. on her computer at the Pentagon. She kept a
> diary. She kept a dress with positive Presidential DNA. Starr has her
> phone records and records from Clinton calls to her. There are the
> White House records of her comings and goings with dates, times, etc.
> There is the testimony of Bettie Currie and Sec. Serv. personnel about
> their meetings. There is the testimony of the two men who cater the
> dining area just off the Oval. Pretty hard to have an affair unnoticed
> in the White House. And especially with a young girl so anxious to
> keep records of every little thing. There's probably more evidence but
> this is what comes to mind quickly. If you're ever elected
> President, don't have an affair.
At least this clearly indicates that the enterprising Mrs Lewinsky was
not in love with the President, whom she called "the creep" from the
onset of their relationship. Was this a political plot ? Quite possible.
Monica Lewinsky knew Clinton was a womanizer and may have viewed her
job in the White House as a challenge to outperform other women he had
seduced, a typical hysterical outlook and behavior. Not satisfied to
prove to herself the man's poor control over his sex impulses she
gathered evidence to present her prowess to the whole world. Then she
was enlisted by Kenneth Starr and realized her affair could be the
chance of her life, as a source of fame and money.
BP
Baudouin F. Petit
> Clinton lied, yes he did, " yeah, out of embarassment, not to commit
> the crime of the century".
> ___________________________
>
> Now the next time you are on trial and pull the same stunt, "out of
> embarassment" , be sure to look for great sympathy from the
> prosecutor, judge, and jury - especially when they find out you
> stretched the truth a bit more than necessary.
>
> Clinton, with malice and forethought, made a mockery of the American
> justice system - purely in his own personal interest and to allow
> survival of his regime. He might smile nice, whine with the best of
> them, and bite his lip convincingly, but he is still little more than
> a glorified fugitive from justice.
Because this so-called "justice" is increasingly based on principles
foreign to justice, such as accepting confession as evidence, an
innovation introduced by Stalin's prosecutor Vyshinksy for the Moscow
show trials. This was struck down in the USSR even before the Communist
Party's demise. We have basic constitutional guarantees such as the
right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself, but a
prosecutor is allowed to delve deeply into irrelevant details, ignoring
decency and privacy. If you refuse to answer you can be charged with
contempt of court, you may be compelled to speak under oath and if you
lie to protect your personal secrets or the intimacy of a partner, you
can be jailed for perjury. This is why the American system of justice is
gradually becoming the laughing stock of the world.
BP
Raptor
>
> To continue this charade would be unproductive. From our conversation I
> gather that you are the kind of person who plays the game, no matter what
> the rules. Its no wonder the world is a crapped up as it is when sixty
> percent of the population have the morality of wild jungle gorillas. You
> refuse to discuss this issue with any evidence to back up your claims. It
> is also not cool to repeat previous statements, omitting clarifying points
> mentioned later. Maybe you should go work for Clinton.
>
> (BTW, Clinton was never ask to answer a question with a numerical answer
> using only "yes" or "no". Get real!)
I "play the game" because part of my self-described job description is
that of wordsmith. Words mean things. English can be a very precise
language when used correctly, and it somewhat annoys me when those who
are not adept complain about the Unfairness Of It All. Not saying that
you do that; we've probably stumbled into a fundamental misunderstanding
of each other's meaning.
But I insist that I play fair. It's pretty clear that we won't convince
the other of anything significant, but that doesn't mean it's a waste to
discuss things. I don't know what you mean by having no evidence; I
don't recall being asked to produce any. If you think I've broken some
rule of fair discussion please feel free to point it out.
Or not. I can always put the time to other valuable uses.
KSN
<dan...@pdq.net> writes
>This could keep up forever. I will never convince you that Clinton is a
>liar, an oath breaker, and a womanizer. Just one last point, Clinton
>admitted during his first speech after the TRUTH came out that he did, "in
>fact" have sexual relations with Miss Lewinsky. If anyone thinks that oral
yeap, when he said his relationship was "inapproprate", it wasnt merely
inappropriate for his or MissL's families, but also that the
relationship was professionally inappropriate by the nature that it
affected other loyal government employees to the extent that he had to
dismiss some of them.
>sex, completed or not, does not fall under that terminology, they need to
>go back to school.
>
>> > He did lie and he has admitted it.
>> In which statement?
>
---
KSN
KSN
<law...@xmission.com> writes
>Iconic Thought wrote:
>>
>> > > 1. President Clinton lied Under Oath during a sexual harassment case
>> of
..
>> because he wants the pension.
>
>Paula Jones and her political backers started the whole problem.
>
There you go, Paula Jones was simply invoking the employment laws to
query the situations which affected her professional career.
I suppose Clinton should have been arrongant enough have had her
murdered instead.
Note that during the JFK's days, the process of impeachment was not as
well understood.
---
KSN
KSN
an affair over the same sexual conducts at a public place which found
George Michael guilty.
Bill Clinton can always continue his career as a disillusioned pop star.
In article <8912-360...@newsd-223.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, Paul Lima
<Braz...@webtv.net> writes
>nigel, nice try but because he tried to hide AN AFAIR and nothing more,
>it makes your point look over reactionary
>
---
KSN
KSN
be so entertaining, funny, ironic, and tragic when you think about what
the guy might be my doing while tapping his fingers over some nuclear
button.
Any inappropriate affair conducted by a Commander in Chief while sitting
at the desk which has direct links to the armed forces is indeed deeply
shocking.
In article <09980823162814...@village.uunet.be>, Baudouin F.
Petit <bfp...@village.uunet.be> writes
>This is probably why Clinton's ordeal elicits so much sympathy in the
>world and especially in countries with a recent history of despotism,
>notably Eastern Europe. Public opinion there is deeply shocked, not by
>Clinton's little games or lies, but by the vicious attack on privacy
>perpetrated by an American prosecutor and the US Congress.
>
>BP
>
---
KSN
Raptor
> >
>
> There you go, Paula Jones was simply invoking the employment laws to
> query the situations which affected her professional career.
IOW, she filed a law suit. Apparently some rich right-wingers were very
interested in getting those questions answered. It was all just a fair-minded
quest for knowledge, of course. Question answered: If you weren't hurt
objectively by someone's behavior, you cannot claim redress under the sexual
harrassment laws.
> I suppose Clinton should have been arrongant enough have had her
> murdered instead.
That would have been wrong, and ill-advised.
> Note that during the JFK's days, the process of impeachment was not as
> well understood.
I don't see the point in noting this.
Garth Billington
said no -- empatically. But chose right wing groups, and people to come to
her aid. And people like Susan Carpenter MacMillan to be a spokewoman for
family and right wing values. The same women is is anti-abortion but had an
abortion in years past.
Raptor wrote in message <360B12E8...@xmission.com>...
M.J.Minamoto
make quite clear in this article.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/stories/pj011497.htm
If your take on MacMillian is the same as your assertions on Jones, then I'd
have to question the accuracy of everything you posted...
--
Mike Minamoto
Please remove NOSPAM on reply --
Garth Billington
of Jones. Should we look for proof. Should we look for why he comments and
the timetable of obtaining conservative think tanks/lawyers took some time.
Do you have prove that NOW's claims that every harassment case is worth
exploring is fale.
M.J.Minamoto wrote in message <360B203C...@home.comNOSPAM>...
M.J.Minamoto
Cammarata. When told that some women have said that they had not
been given access to Jones or asked to do anything specifically,
Cammarata replied: "They don't need our permission to speak out on an
issue. To say they need an invitation is absurd. Well, they've got an
invitation. Come on in."
That one quote speaks volumes. You may choose to believe Ireland, but
the fact remains that:
1. They never supported Jones in any official way, although they did threaten
to hold the White House on the "nuts-or-sluts" defense unofficially.
2. To this day NOW supports Bill Clinton, despite the fact that what he did
in the White House (even accepting Bill "She had sex with me - but I didn't
with her" argument) would constitute a "hostile work environment" (NOWs term
not mine). In fact, these three words, "hostile work environment", has not
passed Irelands lips when speaking of boy Clinton...
NOW has made themselves the voice of men hating feminists with a liberal
agenda and crosshairs, in the political arena, only for conservatives. They
are two-faced hypocrites...
Baudouin F. Petit
> Note that during the JFK's days, the process of impeachment was not as
> well understood.
Clearly. They certainly did not realize its full potential as a tool for
a coup. Jack Kennedy had determined foes smart enough to dare
assassinate a President of the United States. He was a womanizer and
commonly hid the truth - after all like most politicians. We may
therefore speculate - without excessive cynicism - that a clever
prosecutor could have pushed him to perjury in order to prepare an
impeachment procedure or a forced resignation. And JFK might even be
alive today.
BP
Besq
men? This only points up how reckless Clinton is. With all that he
claims to have accomplished, how stupid he was to risk it all for self
gratification. And, as others have suggested, if she had been some sort
of "agent", is it safe to have such a person as president? A good
question keeps coming up: if Clinton's behavior is so acceptable to the
"vast majority" of Americans, why did he lie about it? If foreigners
find it so admirable, why didn't Clinton install his mistress in the
WH? If "everybody does it", why all this stuggle to avoid the
disapproval of a small insignificant minority who don't? Why are
politicians, so dependant on popular opinion, pursuing this unless the
"silent majority" has spoken, in the form of registered voters writing
to their representatives? If Americans don't care, then why are they
listening to these ridiculous people who actually go out and vote? My
advice to those who are screaming about a "vast right wing conspiracy":
VOTE! After the elections, we will see how much your _opinions_ are
worth.
Besq
>
> an affair over the same sexual conducts at a public place which found
> George Michael guilty.
>
> Bill Clinton can always continue his career as a disillusioned pop star.
>
Hollywood is where he belongs. He will be acceptable and normal because
he will be among his own kind, "Players". You can apply that word in
any of its many definitions.
djmilt
>>
>Indeed. S. Spielberg has offered Clinton a job. Very appropriate,
>Hollywood is where he belongs. He will be acceptable and normal because
>he will be among his own kind, "Players". You can apply that word in
>any of its many definitions.
Jay Leno said something to the effect that if Clinton leaves DC for
Hollywood, both areas will have higher moral standards.
Jeanne
djmilt
Petit) wrote:
>
>Clearly. They certainly did not realize its full potential as a tool for
>a coup. Jack Kennedy had determined foes smart enough to dare
>assassinate a President of the United States. He was a womanizer and
>commonly hid the truth - after all like most politicians. We may
>therefore speculate - without excessive cynicism - that a clever
>prosecutor could have pushed him to perjury in order to prepare an
>impeachment procedure or a forced resignation. And JFK might even be
>alive today.
>
>BP
>
didn't hear anything about his womanizing. That all came out later,
actually much later. The press says they knew, liked him and
protected him. Those days for any Prez. are gone forever. They
wouldn't even photograph JFK smoking his cigar or Jackie smoking and
we know now that she was a chain smoker. They seems to be a lot of
reasons for the assination but womanizing was not one I've ever heard
of.
Jeanne
Baudouin F. Petit
Only spouses murder for womanizing and so far Hillary continues to fight
on her husband's side. But what we are witnessing today is viewed by
many as character assassination within the framework of a conspiracy to
bring down a President enjoying a high approval rate in the US and the
world. Womanizing is a convenient pretext. Some people link this to
growing social conformism, more specifically to an increasingly
one-sided, oppressive and hypocritical political correctness. I agree to
some extent. The war on privacy, commonly called "war on drugs" may be
another, related and more potent factor. The context was very different
in the sixties. So imagining that instead of being shot Kennedy could
have been the victim of a similar scandal is pure speculation but may
throw some light on the Clinton - Starr confrontation.
BP
djmilt
Petit) wrote:
>
>Only spouses murder for womanizing and so far Hillary continues to fight
>on her husband's side. But what we are witnessing today is viewed by
>many as character assassination within the framework of a conspiracy to
>bring down a President enjoying a high approval rate in the US and the
>world. Womanizing is a convenient pretext. Some people link this to
>growing social conformism, more specifically to an increasingly
>one-sided, oppressive and hypocritical political correctness. I agree to
>some extent. The war on privacy, commonly called "war on drugs" may be
>another, related and more potent factor. The context was very different
>in the sixties. So imagining that instead of being shot Kennedy could
>have been the victim of a similar scandal is pure speculation but may
>throw some light on the Clinton - Starr confrontation.
>
>BP
>
Back to JFK. There was a lot of criticizm of him in the news just
prior to his death. The Dallas Morning News had a full page ad
sighting all his misgivings the very morning he was visiting the city
and we all know what happened that lunchtime. I have actually feared
for Clinton (not his fan but don't wish anyone harm) because I know
there are no many crazies out there and I also know there's a limit to
how much the S.S. can protect him.
Jeanne
Dean W. Johnson
They are not the product of thoughtful reflection or even the product of the
evidence included in the report. To believe these is to believe Starr and not
the President. He said/He said. Prosecuting attorneys are notoriously
corrupt and in our system have free reign to destroy lives.
Attacking people rather than ideas is foolish. Why is it that you bigot wing
republicans have to attack people rather than ideas?
Dan Day wrote:
> On 20 Sep 1998 19:54:02 GMT, "Nigel Koldheart" <kold...@cbn.org> wrote:
> >Can somebody please explain why the issue of impeachment an issue in this
> >matter. The only thing I got out of the number two bestselling sex novel
> >simply known as The Starr Report was that sex was heavily involved.
>
> Then read it again, you fool:
>
> ### From the Starr report:
>
> There is substantial and credible information supporting the following
> eleven possible grounds for impeachment:
>
> 1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a
> sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica
> Lewinsky.
>
> 2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his
> sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
>
> 3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the
> sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being
> alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms.
> Lewinsky and him.
>
> 4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about
> his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the
> Jones case.
>
> 5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had
> an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth
> about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms.
> Jones's attorneys.
>
> 6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had
> an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of
> their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that
> included the following means: (i) Both the President and Ms.
> Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones
> case about their sexual relationship; (ii) the President suggested
> to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the
> President's purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath
> and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about
> their relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the
> false affidavit; (iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky's false
> affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions
> about Ms. Lewinsky; and (v) when that failed, the President lied
> under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms.
> Lewinsky.
>
> 7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms.
> Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been
> a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones
> case.
>
> 8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about
> his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky's
> involvement in the Jones case.
>
> 9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness
> by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal
> secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition.
>
> 10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand
> jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and
> lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would
> relay the President's false statements to the grand jury -- and
> did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury.
>
> 11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (i) lying
> to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship
> with Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with
> the grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to
> testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive
> Privilege; (v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi)
> lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 -- all as
> part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry
> by the Congress of the United States.
>
> ### End of Starr report excerpt
> --
> "Americans don't expect an apostle in the White House.
> But they do expect an adult." -- Newsweek, 2/2/98 p.29
--
<HTML>
Dean W. Johnson
<BR>home page: <A HREF="My Home
Page">https://members-central.home.net/deanwj/deanwj.html</A></HTML>
Dean W. Johnson
report. "
Would be prohibitive for you to take just one of the allegations from the
report and then find supporting and non-supporting evidence and let us
compare? You can read the allegations, and quote the allegations all you
want, but the evidence of a crime is not there!
djmilt wrote:
> I',m glad you put this in the NG. Now, maybe folks will stop saying
> that Starr could find nothing on Whitewater, etc. or it would have
> been in the report. I get so tired of hearing that when it's simply
> not true and they obviously haven't read this part of the report.
>
> >
> >2. Current Status of the Investigation. When the OIC's jurisdiction
> >was expanded to cover the Lewinsky matter in January 1998, several
> >matters remained under active investigation by this Office. Evidence
> >was being gathered and evaluated on, among other things, events related
> >to the Rose Law Firm's representation of Madison Guaranty Savings &
> >Loan Association; events related to the firings in the White House
> >Travel Office; and events related to the use of FBI files. Since the
> >current phase of the investigation began, additional events arising
> >from the Lewinsky matter have also come under scrutiny, including
> >possible perjury and obstruction of justice related to former White
> >House volunteer Kathleen Willey, and the possible misuse of the
> >personnel records of Pentagon employee Linda Tripp.
> >
> >From the outset, it was our strong desire to complete all phases of
> >the investigation before deciding whether to submit to Congress
> >information -- if any -- that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.
> >But events and the statutory command of Section 595(c) have dictated
> >otherwise. As the investigation into the President's actions with
> >respect to Ms. Lewinsky and the Jones litigation progressed, it became
> >apparent that there was a significant body of substantial and
> >credible information that met the Section 595(c) threshold. As
> >that phase of the investigation neared completion, it also became
> >apparent that a delay of this Referral until the evidence from all
> >phases of the investigation had been evaluated would be unwise.
> >Although Section 595(c) does not specify when information must be
> >submitted, its text strongly suggests that information of this type
> >belongs in the hands of Congress as soon as the Independent Counsel
> >determines that the information is reliable and substantially complete.
> >
> >All phases of the investigation are now nearing completion. This
> >Office will soon make final decisions about what steps to take,
> >if any, with respect to the other information it has gathered.
> >Those decisions will be made at the earliest practical time,
> >consistent with our statutory and ethical obligations.
> >
> >### End of Starr report excerpt
> >--
> >"Americans don't expect an apostle in the White House.
> >But they do expect an adult." -- Newsweek, 2/2/98 p.29
>
> Jeanne
Dean W. Johnson
its final result the ultimate treasonous act to go along with all the other
treasonous acts of the religious right.
djmilt wrote:
djmilt
wrote:
> To believe these is to believe Starr and not
>the President. He said/He said. Prosecuting attorneys are notoriously
>corrupt and in our system have free reign to destroy lives.
And we all know how honest the President is. Ha.Ha.Ha.
Jeanne
rjbiiilis
>
>
Ron
he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewensky, but had his semen all
over her dress? And later, he indeed said that he did have an improper
(sexual) relationship with Monica?
I's supposed to believe and trust in a person that does a complete reversal
of previous statements?
Starr has done his investigation as hired and appointed to do. I have not
once seen him reverse anything he has said, information and evidence
revealed. Until there is another occuppying the White House, I will
definitely not put any trust in the president nor believe anything that he
says.
djmilt wrote in message <360e9a75...@newshost.cyberramp.net>...
Ron
truthful? He condemned himself before the nation and the entire world.
Anyone who still believes that President Clinton is truthful gives a bad
name to idiots and lunatics.
Donald J. Miller
>
> Attacking people rather than ideas is foolish. Why is it that you bigot wing
> republicans have to attack people rather than ideas?
>
I think it's a bad idea for a US political party to accept any, let
alone a large amount of money from a foreign interest. I'd go as far to
say it is illegal and treasonous.
I think it is a bad idea to bomb a sovereign country without being
99.999% sure that the target obliteration is justified.
I think it is a bad idea to cheat on your taxes over a land deal, lie on
loan applications, and help cause a Savings & Loan to go insolvent, thus
making taxpayers pay for the insured funds.
I think it is a bad idea to frame an innocent man for embezzlement, just
to have a bogus excuse for terminating the employment of the whole staff
of the White House travel office.
I think it is a bad idea to allow US technology to be exported to a
foreign country so they can better aim their atomic missiles at us.
Treason is a bad idea.
I think it is a bad idea to store the FBI files of 900 of your political
enemies in the White House. It's illegal.
I think it is a bad idea to consistantly circumvent constitutional
processes by using executive orders to implement policies which have
already been rejected in Congress.
I think it is a bad idea to declare a false budget surplus by
"borrowing" even more funds from the Social Security allocation.
I think it is a bad idea to attempt to expand the powers of the Federal
Government beyond those specified in the Constitution (except by
ammendment). I believe the writers of the constitution and the bill of
rights were wiser than the leaders we have right now, and there are
valid reasons for the tenth amendment.
I think it is a bad idea to use the IRS as a political weapon.
I think it is a bad idea to not take your oath of office seriously.
I think it is a bad idea to raise taxes on the middle class when you
promised not to during your campaign.
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Donald J. Miller donm...@mindspring.com
----------------------------------------------------------
Besq
>
> "Starr could find nothing on Whitewater, etc. or it would have been in the
> report. "
>
> Would be prohibitive for you to take just one of the allegations from the
> report and then find supporting and non-supporting evidence and let us
> compare? You can read the allegations, and quote the allegations all you
> want, but the evidence of a crime is not there!
>
investigation is continuing. If there wasn't some evidence, it would
have ended long ago.
Dean W. Johnson
for integrity or fairness, but then he is a prosecutor. They are all unknown for
fairness or integrity.
We have been waiting for years, constantly for evidence. We have heard a litany
of allegations, but no evidence. Six years is enough. We looked for evidence in
the Monica Lewinsky case and found allegations by one party being denied by
another. We have admission of inappropriate behavior and evidence of
inappropriate behavior but the allegations are not supported. To use evidence of
one thing to support the allegation of another is foolish. It would only wash
with the militant gullible.
KSN
<law...@xmission.com> writes
>KSN wrote:
>>
>> In article <3607129D...@xmission.com>, Raptor
>> <law...@xmission.com> writes
>> >
>> >Paula Jones and her political backers started the whole problem.
>> >
>>
>> There you go, Paula Jones was simply invoking the employment laws to
>> query the situations which affected her professional career.
>
>IOW, she filed a law suit. Apparently some rich right-wingers were very
>interested in getting those questions answered. It was all just a fair-minded
well yes, in order to iron out the irritating and damming
inconsistencies between the testimonies given under oath.
>quest for knowledge, of course. Question answered: If you weren't hurt
>objectively by someone's behavior, you cannot claim redress under the sexual
Any of the reasons that she was disgused and felt injured for herself,
her professional collegaues, or the office of the nation is justify
enough to invoke the rule of law which protects every citizen without
prejudice.
>harrassment laws.
>
>> I suppose Clinton should have been arrongant enough have had her
>> murdered instead.
>
>That would have been wrong, and ill-advised.
>
>> Note that during the JFK's days, the process of impeachment was not as
>> well understood.
>
>I don't see the point in noting this.
>
---
KSN
KSN
>In article <8912-360...@newsd-223.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> Braz...@webtv.net (Paul Lima) wrote:
>> stephan, your wrong. it is clearly relevant. Laws are meant to be
>> flexable in this country. Every day judges use discretion based on the
>> facts of an individual case. Please think before you type.
>>
>
>I didn't say it wasn't 'relevant' I said it wasn't 'relative.' There is a
>large difference between the two words.
>
>My point is that whether this is worse than other scandals or not as bad as
>other scandals doesn't matter. It needs to be taken on its own merit and
This is far worst than any other scandal becasue the guy is arrogant
enough to actually believed he should still continue office when he had
every intent to lie (mischieviously or otherwise) to his voters, on a
matter he felt justified merely because he felt it was personal to him,
but unfortunately and clearly inappropriately and abusively conducted
while at that office.
>judged. Certainly the facts of this individual case will need to be judged,
>but not relative to any other scandals; they should be judged relative to the
>law.
>
>And that, of course, is what judges do on a daily basis.
>
>Sincerely,
>Stephan
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
---
KSN
KSN
could be lead by any cynical dog who happens to be popular becasue he
can keep-up-the-appearances better than alternatives.
In article <360c136d...@newshost.cyberramp.net>, djmilt
<djm...@cyberramp.net> writes
>On 25 Sep 1998 13:50:59 GMT, bfp...@village.uunet.be (Baudouin F.
>Petit) wrote:
>
>>
>>Clearly. They certainly did not realize its full potential as a tool for
>>a coup. Jack Kennedy had determined foes smart enough to dare
>>assassinate a President of the United States. He was a womanizer and
>>commonly hid the truth - after all like most politicians. We may
>>therefore speculate - without excessive cynicism - that a clever
>>prosecutor could have pushed him to perjury in order to prepare an
>>impeachment procedure or a forced resignation. And JFK might even be
>>alive today.
>>
>>BP
>>
>Having been an adullt during JFK's Presidency, I remember that we
>didn't hear anything about his womanizing. That all came out later,
>actually much later. The press says they knew, liked him and
>protected him. Those days for any Prez. are gone forever. They
>wouldn't even photograph JFK smoking his cigar or Jackie smoking and
>we know now that she was a chain smoker. They seems to be a lot of
>reasons for the assination but womanizing was not one I've ever heard
>of.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Jeanne
---
KSN
event
Starr failed to prove what he was hired for and use the president's sexual
affairs to salvage his job. The poor American public who are so obsessed of
sensationalism are being used by Starr to forward his personal agenda.
Sexual affairs of the president. How does this make a case of treason in the
government? think again!!!!!
Ron wrote in message <6um89g$dvc$1...@news.jb.com>...
>Lets see if I have this right. We are supposed to believe Clinton who said
>he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewensky, but had his semen
all
>over her dress? And later, he indeed said that he did have an improper
>(sexual) relationship with Monica?
>I's supposed to believe and trust in a person that does a complete reversal
>of previous statements?
>
>Starr has done his investigation as hired and appointed to do. I have not
>once seen him reverse anything he has said, information and evidence
>revealed. Until there is another occuppying the White House, I will
>definitely not put any trust in the president nor believe anything that he
>says.
>
>
Ron Nicholson
he wasn't in any orifice that girl could have used. Even if they did it dressed
seems the stain would have been on the inside of the clothing, no?
However, the whole investigation was extended because of the idea that a job was
promised for silence, a la Web, once that was discounted Starr SHOULD HAVE
reported this to Reno to end the investigation.
Ron Nicholson
that dollar of your dresser.' 'Sire, I didn't take that penny candy.' And
recently, 'It's okay, you won't die cancer is cured everyday.' Guess you
perfect folks can explain when lying is lying and when it isn't, or when it's
appropriate.
Ron wrote:
> Can any person with one iota of understanding believe that Clinton is
> truthful? He condemned himself before the nation and the entire world.
> Anyone who still believes that President Clinton is truthful gives a bad
> name to idiots and lunatics.
>
Donald J. Miller
>
> Define truthful.
So now we can't debate in even the informal environs of the usenet
community without carefully parsing our language.
For decades, we have told lawyer jokes, poking fun at the ways of
lawyers with their ultra precise, yet designed for incomprehensibility
-- language.
Are we all doomed to be flattened on the road, with no skidmarks?
I, for one, refuse to carry a dictionary around in order to converse in
my native tongue. Idiots that rely on conversation-local definitions
for words like "is", "alone" and "truthful" should be branded as such.
Rationalize your own continued existance by asking society to "define
idiot?".
John W. Hosie III
order to participate in debate, an intelligent man would realize that
it is not worth debating. There is no intelligent discourse with a
person who minces words like that.
This is one of the problems with "The Law". 2000 years ago a man who
was more than just man walked the Earth who showed people the the
worthlessness of "The Law" without heart. Now we have a man in office
who claims to have so much heart it would just about make a grown man
cry. But he has demonstrated by his actions that he has no heart for
anyone but himself.
On Mon, 28 Sep 1998 19:36:59 -0400, "Donald J. Miller"
<donm...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Ron Nicholson wrote:
>>
>> Define truthful.
>
>So now we can't debate in even the informal environs of the usenet
>community without carefully parsing our language.
>
>For decades, we have told lawyer jokes, poking fun at the ways of
>lawyers with their ultra precise, yet designed for incomprehensibility
>-- language.
>
>Are we all doomed to be flattened on the road, with no skidmarks?
>
>I, for one, refuse to carry a dictionary around in order to converse in
>my native tongue. Idiots that rely on conversation-local definitions
>for words like "is", "alone" and "truthful" should be branded as such.
It is not idiocy that is involved here. It is pseudo-intellectual
legalism.
On the other hand, Bill Clinton admitted to having an inappropriate
relationship with Monica Lewinski. If he is a liar, then how do we
know it is true? Of course, if you can answer that, and happen to have
$1.50, you may be able to get a Grande at Starbucks.
Pixie
someone falls into the group where intelligent discourse is impossible. Ala his
stand on "Sexual Relationship". Of course he IS both a politician and a lawyer,
so it's a given that he'd try to hide behind words.