The Ken Starr Report on TalkSpot
jr_talk...@my-dejanews.com
then head to http://www.talkspot.com/ where it has been posted.
Also, unique to talkspot will be the *live* breaking coverage on our
interactive internet talk radio channel.
Let's Talk!
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Ernest Fairchild
Clinton:
WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
jr_talk...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<6tbu97$gr7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Hamilton
<ern...@imap2.asu.edu> wrote:
> Personally, here's what I think about all this nonsense about Pres.
> Clinton:
>
>
> WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Me too -- of course I am consumed with curiosity about all those
family values kids like Chenoweth 'my adultery with a married man
was DIFFERENT' and Burton 'my legendary fooling around with everything
that walked in the Indiana legislature and my adultery that led to a
child that I SUPPORT -- but do not every see or parent -- was
DIFFERENT' and we have never really gotten to the bottom of those
reported affairs that Dole had, Bush had, yadda yadda.
I know it is all DIFFERENT from our presidents idiotic lack of
self control.
And I'd like to see a bit more about abuse of power by the
grand inquisitor --
Glen Appleby
<ern...@imap2.asu.edu> wrote:
>Personally, here's what I think about all this nonsense about Pres.
>Clinton:
>
>
>WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Agreed.
At the same time, though, are there any JPGs on the web pages?
You know -- for *historical* reasons.
--
Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss's job.
It is your job to find ways around your boss's roadblocks.
______________________________________________________________
Glen Appleby gl...@got.net <http://www.armory.com/~glena/>
Zarah
>On Fri, 11 Sep 1998, "Ernest Fairchild"<ern...@imap2.asu.edu> wrote:
>>Personally, here's what I think about all this nonsense about Pres.
>>Clinton:
>>WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>Agreed.
>At the same time, though, are there any JPGs on the web pages?
>You know -- for *historical* reasons.
oog, do you REALLY want to see Monica scoring her
Presidential kneepads? yucky.....
--
Zarah <za...@earthlink.net>
Cheryl Malaguti ICQ# 1447943
Gabriel's mom 10-28-97
http://home.earthlink.net/~zarah/malaguti/
Glen Appleby
wrote:
>gl...@got.net (Glen Appleby) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 11 Sep 1998, "Ernest Fairchild"<ern...@imap2.asu.edu> wrote:
>>>Personally, here's what I think about all this nonsense about Pres.
>>>Clinton:
>>>WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>>Agreed.
>>At the same time, though, are there any JPGs on the web pages?
>>You know -- for *historical* reasons.
>
>oog, do you REALLY want to see Monica scoring her
>Presidential kneepads? yucky.....
The desparation of an old man knows no bounds.
Lock up your daughters and farm animals .... and your
grandmothers too, as I think about it.
KL Ussery
president who's a laughing stock?
Kendra
who realized this while watching Leno last night.
Proud to be "Outlandish" !
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My heart's in the Highlands, my heart is not here,
My heart's in the Highlands a-chasing the deer,
Chasing the wild deer, and following the roe;
My heart's in the Highlands whereever I go.
*Robert Burn*
Hamilton
klus...@aol.com (KL Ussery) wrote:
> He really needs to step down. If you think about it, do we really need a
> president who's a laughing stock?
do we really want to live in a country where a millionaire can bankroll
a 'get the president' operation and succeed in overturning an election
and successfully engineering a coup d'etat? If this is successful --
and people like Burton, Chenoweth, Gingrich et al can drive someone
from office for sexual behavior [remember Starr was investigating
an old real estate deal and was unable to find any malfeasance on
Clinton's part -- that is why the focus had to shift to this obsession
with GOP panty sniffing --] we will have taken a big step towards
fascism. The entire investigation has been about overturning the
Clinton election -- nothing else -- the trivia involved [wow -- he
wanted to hide adulterous behavior, well duh --] as well as the totally
unnecessary dwelling on minute details of the petting behavior involved
make the agenda clear. Clinton is a jerk -- but I'd rather be governed
by an elected jerk than by this crowd of puritanical hypocrites.
Glen Appleby
>He really needs to step down. If you think about it, do we really need a
>president who's a laughing stock?
Uh, oh .... the discussion is going to be here, anyway, huh?
DARN!
Oh well, if it has to be,
Why should there have beeen *any* concern of what went on in the
vicinity of his zipper?
Sure, I can see how the Republicans would like to embarass him.
Heck, it's kind of fun to poke at *anybody* in politics. After
all, they *put* themselves in a "superior" position by simply
running for office. The Democrats do exactly the same when
Republicans are in power.
However, when it comes right down to it, what the heck does the
overusage of his zipper have to do with his duties?
Keep in mind that this all started because somebody wanted to
embarass Hillary about Whitewater. Now, what *that* has to do
with Presidential duties is beyond me.
Now, given this newsgroup, if we want to talk about how this
could all be effecting Chelsae (botched *that* spelling, huh?
Oh, well, no spellchecker in Free Agent -- not that it would have
given me the correct spelling for her name, anyway), fine --
except that she is hardly a child anymore.
If we really have to go into this, I really would like JPGs.
Well, given the peope involved, perhaps not -- but it is an
interesting way to try to terminate *this* topic.
Abby Franquemont
>On Fri, 11 Sep 1998 15:27:44 -0700, "Ernest Fairchild"
>
>
>You know -- for *historical* reasons.
From what I understand, the text alone would be reason for congress
to be in rather hot water had the Communications Decency Act passed
(remember that one?).
--
Abby Franquemont "I might have amnesia -- but I'm not stupid!"
J. Random BOFH --Jackie Chan
Glen Appleby
Franquemont) wrote:
>In article <35f9c77d...@news.got.net>, Glen Appleby <gl...@got.net> wrote:
>>On Fri, 11 Sep 1998 15:27:44 -0700, "Ernest Fairchild"
>>
>>At the same time, though, are there any JPGs on the web pages?
>>
>>You know -- for *historical* reasons.
>
>From what I understand, the text alone would be reason for congress
>to be in rather hot water had the Communications Decency Act passed
>(remember that one?).
Ewwww! You mean that, in the report, somebody discussed a topic
as sexually inciteful as .... *breastfeeding*?
Gosh, if the congresscritters are into porn, as you suggest that
they are, perhaps I misjudged them for all of these years.
Fab4Fan99
>He really needs to step down. If you think about it, do we really need a
>president who's a laughing stock?
When's the last time we *didn't* have one?
Frank
KA1WZH GO RED SOX!!!
"Mark's the man in America. I'm the man in the Dominican Republic!"--Sammy Sosa
"That play NEVER works."--Boomer Esiason
"I'd love to turn you on"--Lennon/McCartney
Karine B.
> He really needs to step down. If you think about it, do we really need a
> president who's a laughing stock?
>
> Kendra
> who realized this while watching Leno last night.
> Proud to be "Outlandish" !
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hm, well, from a foreign point of view - its your president who is a
laughing stock - its mr Starr and the entire investigation ;-)
Karine in Norway
Karine B.
kari...@powertech.no (Karine B.) wrote:
(Kendras post snipped for brevity)
> Hm, well, from a foreign point of view - its your president who is a
^^^^^^^^^
> laughing stock - its mr Starr and the entire investigation ;-) ^
Ooopps! I meant to write: "Its *not* your president who is a laughing stock"
Karine in Norway - reminding herself to proofread before posting in a
foreign language
Glen Appleby
I have to say that, for posting in a foreign language, even with
that mistake, you do a better job than I do with English .... and
this is my first language.
If you count my exclusions, typos and misspelled words, I figure
that I am posting at the grade level of about 4.
Darned good thing that my teacher isn't reading this stuff.
She's send a note home to my parents for sure!
Hamilton
> On 12 Sep 1998 16:17:12 -0700, ab...@ucan.foad.org (Abby
> Franquemont) wrote:
>
> >In article <35f9c77d...@news.got.net>, Glen Appleby
<gl...@got.net> wrote:
> >>On Fri, 11 Sep 1998 15:27:44 -0700, "Ernest Fairchild"
> >>
> >>At the same time, though, are there any JPGs on the web pages?
> >>
> >>You know -- for *historical* reasons.
> >
> >From what I understand, the text alone would be reason for congress
> >to be in rather hot water had the Communications Decency Act passed
> >(remember that one?).
>
> Ewwww! You mean that, in the report, somebody discussed a topic
> as sexually inciteful as .... *breastfeeding*?
>
> Gosh, if the congresscritters are into porn, as you suggest that
> they are, perhaps I misjudged them for all of these years.
Oh come on. State legislatures are hotbeds of precisely the behavior
that Dan Burton exhibited -- and that is where most of our politicians
get their start. The sexual behavior of congresscritters is generally
eclipsed only by their hypocricy. Current favorite: Helen Chenoweth
that great 'family values' nag -- who attacked her first opponent because
he had committed adultery and whose campaign slogan is 'character counts'
or something like that. Now it turns out that after her DIVORCE she had
a 6 year long affair with a married man -- some family values. But hey
it was DIFFERENT in her case.
Some of the slimiest pond scum in the country routinely washes up in
the pulpit and in political office -- understandable except for the
sanctimonious hypocricy of it all.
Today's puff piece in the NYT is about George Bush
the younger --- lots of euphemisms for his days of wenching and drinking.
But hey that was then. Doesn't count now. You have to wonder
exactly why Starr felt it necessary to publish -- over and over again --
intimate details of presidential petting. Any description of anyone's
sex life will be pretty raunchy if we have to hear a blow by blow of
exactly where the left hand was and then the tongue and then etc etc.
I'd love to read a history book 100 years hence [assuming we are still
a free country which seems unlikely -- should be corporate fascism by
then] -- about the time period where a president was impeached for
heavy petting. The president has wondered about his historic legacy --
it will probably be as victim of a coup d'etat.
GiJane
On Fri, 11 Sep 1998 15:27:44 -0700, "Ernest Fairchild"
>Personally, here's what I think about all this nonsense about Pres.
>Clinton:
>
>
>WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
So it's ok for the president to break the law? He's a lawyer, He
knows the law and he broke it ANYWAY.
I don't give a s**t the she gave him blow jobs, but I do care that
they were very near the Oval office, and I do care that he lied about
it...
You don;t lie to a federal judge (Clinton knows that) and you don't
lie to the Grand Jury....
Buts as far as the cigar thing, UGH, nasty!
Catherine
mommy to Corin Ashley
six months old today!
to reply use gija...@hotmail.com
Hamilton
> On Fri, 11 Sep 1998 15:27:44 -0700, "Ernest Fairchild"
> <ern...@imap2.asu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Personally, here's what I think about all this nonsense about Pres.
> >Clinton:
> >
> >
> >WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> So it's ok for the president to break the law? He's a lawyer, He
> knows the law and he broke it ANYWAY.
> I don't give a s**t the she gave him blow jobs, but I do care that
> they were very near the Oval office, and I do care that he lied about
> it...
> You don;t lie to a federal judge (Clinton knows that) and you don't
> lie to the Grand Jury....
> Buts as far as the cigar thing, UGH, nasty!
No he shouldn't have lied to the grand jury. But the grand jury
shouldn't have been entertaining questions like 'does the President's
religion include sexual intercourse' [asked of one of his aides] or
questions about his own sex life. This panty sniffing fishing expedition
was mounted because Starr couldn't find ANYTHING wrong after 4 years
of harrassment of Clinton in the Whitewater investigation. There is
NOTHING in his report to suggest that Clinton did ANYTHING wrong in
the matter actually under investigation. This continuous pursuit was
clearly motivated by a desire to get him regardless --- and by
pursuing questions about a matter than is very personal and very irrelevant
to the actual investigation, they basically set him up. I wish he
had simply refused to answer and let them deal with that -- but I can
understand that he didn't want to go into details about his sex life.
We are going to impeach a president for heavy petting? We really think
that descriptions of where his hand was, where her mouth was and what
she did with a cigar are necesssary? The motives and the twisted
hypocricy of this inquisition couldn't be clearer.
Imagine the last sex you had and then imagine that we have to read
a detailed description of everything you did --- how appetizing would
it be to read? It is no one's business. The questions had nothing to
do with Whitewater and should never have been asked.
Glen Appleby
wrote:
>Oh come on. State legislatures are hotbeds of precisely the behavior
>that Dan Burton exhibited -- and that is where most of our politicians
>get their start. The sexual behavior of congresscritters is generally
>eclipsed only by their hypocricy. Current favorite: Helen Chenoweth
>that great 'family values' nag -- who attacked her first opponent because
>he had committed adultery and whose campaign slogan is 'character counts'
>or something like that. Now it turns out that after her DIVORCE she had
>a 6 year long affair with a married man -- some family values. But hey
>it was DIFFERENT in her case.
We have a Senator Swinestein (oops -- Finestein) who is in the
fight to ban handguns. One of the gun nuts in a local newsgroup
said that she admitted in a newspaper interview to carrying a
gun, herself. To justify, she is reported to have said something
like, "But it is only a *little* gun."
>Some of the slimiest pond scum in the country routinely washes up in
>the pulpit and in political office -- understandable except for the
>sanctimonious hypocricy of it all.
Apparently saying the right words will get someone elected faster
than doing the right thing.
>Today's puff piece in the NYT is about George Bush
>the younger --- lots of euphemisms for his days of wenching and drinking.
>But hey that was then. Doesn't count now. You have to wonder
>exactly why Starr felt it necessary to publish -- over and over again --
>intimate details of presidential petting. Any description of anyone's
>sex life will be pretty raunchy if we have to hear a blow by blow of
>exactly where the left hand was and then the tongue and then etc etc.
Not ours. We consider it to be "kinky sex" when we change sides
of the bed at night. [1]
>I'd love to read a history book 100 years hence [assuming we are still
>a free country which seems unlikely -- should be corporate fascism by
>then] -- about the time period where a president was impeached for
>heavy petting. The president has wondered about his historic legacy --
>it will probably be as victim of a coup d'etat.
... is this history book going to have pictures?
[1] I stole that one from some comedian.
Oops -- I mean I *recycled* that from some comedian. Recycling
is a Good Thing(tm), right?
Glen Appleby
wrote:
>So it's ok for the president to break the law? He's a lawyer, He
>knows the law and he broke it ANYWAY.
Which law was it that he broke? Was he actually involved in some
foul scam with Whitewater (long before he was President)?
>I don't give a s**t the she gave him blow jobs, but I do care that
>they were very near the Oval office, and I do care that he lied about
>it...
What the *heck* difference does it make *where* the act took
place? If he and Hillary had done the same thing (oh, geeze -- I
just did it to myself. Now I am going to have to live with
*that* image in my head) in the Oval Orifice^WOffice, would
*that* have gained much press?
>You don;t lie to a federal judge (Clinton knows that) and you don't
>lie to the Grand Jury....
But it is not purgery to lie about something that is irrelevant
to a criminal case. There was nothing criminal (impeachable)
that was even being investigated. If he lied about something in
those hearings, it is not purgery.
>Buts as far as the cigar thing, UGH, nasty!
Yeah -- I have to admit that, since I quit smoking, cigars are
not very appealing to me, either.
Glen Appleby
wrote:
>We are going to impeach a president for heavy petting? We really think
>that descriptions of where his hand was, where her mouth was and what
>she did with a cigar are necesssary? The motives and the twisted
>hypocricy of this inquisition couldn't be clearer.
Like I said before, everytime that there is a party in power, the
other party does its darndest to make them look bad. That's a
given.
In this case, though, the whole process devalues the entire
government. It was just going *way* too far to prove that
Clinton is simply human.
And I say all of that not being particularly fond of his
politics.
>Imagine the last sex you had and then imagine that we have to read
>a detailed description of everything you did
We can *do* that in this newsgroup?
>--- how appetizing would
>it be to read?
Any JPGs included?
>It is no one's business. The questions had nothing to
>do with Whitewater and should never have been asked.
But, further, Whitewater had absolutely nothing to do with the
Presidency. I mean, talk about grasping at straws!
KL Ussery
>>He really needs to step down. If you think about it, do we really need a
>>president who's a laughing stock?
>
>When's the last time we *didn't* have one?
>
>Frank
True, but this is pretty bad. I can't imagine what Chelsea is going through.
Kendra
Proud to be "Outlandish" !
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Glen Appleby
>True, but this is pretty bad. I can't imagine what Chelsea is going through.
I have the *impression* that she is a pretty together person.
True -- that's just an impression and I could be wrong. If I am
wrong ... <shudder>.
GiJane
On Sun, 13 Sep 1998 17:11:39 GMT, gl...@got.net (Glen Appleby) wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Sep 1998 16:50:09 GMT, gija...@hotmail.com (GiJane)
>wrote:
>
>>So it's ok for the president to break the law? He's a lawyer, He
>>knows the law and he broke it ANYWAY.
>
>Which law was it that he broke? Was he actually involved in some
>foul scam with Whitewater (long before he was President)?
Perjury...He committed perjury. (maybe obstruction of justice, that's
the evidence in the Starr report) And if you think you would not be
prosecuted for the same thing that Clinton did, just because it's
something you consider to be personal, you're dreaming!
Clinton was called to be deposed in the Paula Jones lawsuit (which he
appealed to the Supreme Court to get out of, and lost) [don't blame
Starr about this, blame Paula Jones' attorneys]
He lied under oath in that deposition, even after being counseled by
the judge that even though these things (sexual activity) are personal
and somewhat embarrasing, that he must tell the truth. He lied bold
faced to a federal judge. You don't do that! It doesn't matter
whether the evidence was ruled out of the lawsuit. If you swear to
tell the truth, and don't, for whatever reason, while you are under
oath, you are breaking the law, and commiting perjury.
>>I don't give a s**t the she gave him blow jobs, but I do care that
>>they were very near the Oval office, and I do care that he lied about
>>it...
>
>What the *heck* difference does it make *where* the act took
>place? If he and Hillary had done the same thing (oh, geeze -- I
>just did it to myself. Now I am going to have to live with
>*that* image in my head) in the Oval Orifice^WOffice, would
>*that* have gained much press?
It's in the workplace...that's my beef. A hotel? in the private
quarters? you're right none of my business. Do you think you could
get away with having a young intern (or your wife for that matter)
"take care of your needs" in your office, without your boss getting
ticked off? This is the equivalent of a 50 year old college
professor boffing one of his 21 year old students in his office, while
she's taking his class. Tell me that the professor wouldn't get fired
for that. On the other hand, if that same professor were dating a
student, not in his class, but still 21, and all activity took place
off campus, it might be offensive, yet not an abuse of his position,
and nobody's business but theirs. This is the fundamental difference.
Now I know Monica wasn't looking for a good grade, however it's
arguable that she was looking for a good job, and even more arguable
that she was googly eyed over being with the President.
We all, the people, are Clinton's bosses. Why should he be above
the same sort of rules of conduct that we have for ourselves. Why is
it ok to have your intern take care of you in the hall behind your
office?
An impeachment is a trial...It doesn't mean he's guilty. It's an
opportunity for the senate to try a president for crimes he allegedly
committed.. Do you think you'd get that much from your boss? I think
a buh-bye, and a "don't let the door hit you on your way out" would
be all most of us would get for what he's done...
>>You don;t lie to a federal judge (Clinton knows that) and you don't
>>lie to the Grand Jury....
>
>But it is not purgery to lie about something that is irrelevant
>to a criminal case.
Actually it is...And it was a civil case. If you lie under oath...you
commit perjury regardless of the admissabilty of your deposition...ask
any lawyer you know...(and no i'm not a lawyer, but my father was one)
Why bother swearing someone in at all if its ok to lie about stuff
they're embarrased about or stuff they want to keep from their spouse
or their parents or whomever? Why not take it further and say it's
ok to lie to the police about something you're "embarrased" for them
to know about? Did you see the movie "Absolute Power"?
>There was nothing criminal (impeachable)
>that was even being investigated. If he lied about something in
>those hearings, it is not purgery.
So if you lie about anything related to a civil case it's ok because
it's not a criminal investigation? That isn't quite what the law says,
or what your "run of the mill" judge would consider perjury.
It's also outlines in the introduction to Starr's report, that lying
about inadmissible evidence while under oath, is perjury.. and that
Clinton had other ways of avoiding the questions..Like questioning
their admissability in the lawsuit.
>>Buts as far as the cigar thing, UGH, nasty!
>
>Yeah -- I have to admit that, since I quit smoking, cigars are
>not very appealing to me, either.
(Completely off topic here)Hey you know what I've been smoke free for
5 days. Thank you zyban...thank you...and this drug really makes
cigarettes taste nasty...
Glenn I hate to take you on like this. I really do! But I can't let
this go by me here...
Glen Appleby
wrote:
>
>On Sun, 13 Sep 1998 17:11:39 GMT, gl...@got.net (Glen Appleby) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 13 Sep 1998 16:50:09 GMT, gija...@hotmail.com (GiJane)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>So it's ok for the president to break the law? He's a lawyer, He
>>>knows the law and he broke it ANYWAY.
>>
>>Which law was it that he broke? Was he actually involved in some
>>foul scam with Whitewater (long before he was President)?
>
>Perjury...He committed perjury. (maybe obstruction of justice, that's
>the evidence in the Starr report) And if you think you would not be
>prosecuted for the same thing that Clinton did, just because it's
>something you consider to be personal, you're dreaming!
>
>Clinton was called to be deposed in the Paula Jones lawsuit (which he
>appealed to the Supreme Court to get out of, and lost) [don't blame
>Starr about this, blame Paula Jones' attorneys]
>He lied under oath in that deposition, even after being counseled by
>the judge that even though these things (sexual activity) are personal
>and somewhat embarrasing, that he must tell the truth. He lied bold
>faced to a federal judge. You don't do that! It doesn't matter
>whether the evidence was ruled out of the lawsuit. If you swear to
>tell the truth, and don't, for whatever reason, while you are under
>oath, you are breaking the law, and commiting perjury.
There is a term ... and I can't think of it right now ... -- NO,
not deniable culpability! If one lies about something that one
is not charged with (for example lying about adultry in a
no-fault divorce state) it is not purgery. It is simply lying
about something that is irrelevant to the case.
This is the situation, here.
>>>I don't give a s**t the she gave him blow jobs, but I do care that
>>>they were very near the Oval office, and I do care that he lied about
>>>it...
>>
>>What the *heck* difference does it make *where* the act took
>>place? If he and Hillary had done the same thing (oh, geeze -- I
>>just did it to myself. Now I am going to have to live with
>>*that* image in my head) in the Oval Orifice^WOffice, would
>>*that* have gained much press?
>
>It's in the workplace...that's my beef. A hotel? in the private
>quarters? you're right none of my business. Do you think you could
>get away with having a young intern (or your wife for that matter)
>"take care of your needs" in your office, without your boss getting
>ticked off? This is the equivalent of a 50 year old college
>professor boffing one of his 21 year old students in his office, while
>she's taking his class. Tell me that the professor wouldn't get fired
>for that. On the other hand, if that same professor were dating a
>student, not in his class, but still 21, and all activity took place
>off campus, it might be offensive, yet not an abuse of his position,
>and nobody's business but theirs. This is the fundamental difference.
>Now I know Monica wasn't looking for a good grade, however it's
>arguable that she was looking for a good job, and even more arguable
>that she was googly eyed over being with the President.
Um. hang on Buckaroo. Sexual harassement sort of requires a
complaintant.
If you say that Lewenski objected to his advances (assuming that
it was he who made the advances), I would agree with you.
> We all, the people, are Clinton's bosses. Why should he be above
>the same sort of rules of conduct that we have for ourselves. Why is
>it ok to have your intern take care of you in the hall behind your
>office?
Or me taking care of her. Why should it be one-sided? I would
sure hate if that were the case.
As long as it does not impact my work, I don't see why any
employer should car -- unless they were a prude.
If they were a prude, I would tend to know that going in and take
the appropriate measures, should I ever be lucky enough to find
myself in that position.
>An impeachment is a trial...It doesn't mean he's guilty. It's an
>opportunity for the senate to try a president for crimes he allegedly
>committed.. Do you think you'd get that much from your boss? I think
>a buh-bye, and a "don't let the door hit you on your way out" would
>be all most of us would get for what he's done...
... Unless we put on a good show for our boss and he appreciates
it -- as seems to be the case at present.
It has taken out minds off of those "nasty Iraquis and Afganis",
not to mention the stock market.
>>>You don;t lie to a federal judge (Clinton knows that) and you don't
>>>lie to the Grand Jury....
>>
>>But it is not purgery to lie about something that is irrelevant
>>to a criminal case.
>
>Actually it is...And it was a civil case. If you lie under oath...you
>commit perjury regardless of the admissabilty of your deposition...ask
>any lawyer you know...(and no i'm not a lawyer, but my father was one)
Good -- ask him what the term is for lying about something that
is immaterial to the case.
I so hate it when I can't think of a kool term like that.
>Why bother swearing someone in at all if its ok to lie about stuff
>they're embarrased about or stuff they want to keep from their spouse
>or their parents or whomever? Why not take it further and say it's
>ok to lie to the police about something you're "embarrased" for them
>to know about? Did you see the movie "Absolute Power"?
Yikes -- I'm not going to discuss movies when we are discussing
real life. However, if you would like to discuss some kool porno
film in email, I'm all ears.
It is absolutely OK for me, if stopped by a cop for speeding, and
he asks me where I am going, to tell him that I was going to my
mother's wedding and she is about to pop a baby out. See, it is
irrelevant to the fact that I was speeding. Either I was or I
wasn't.
Additionally, talking to a cop carries no possibility of purgery.
My personal preference is to say nothing to cops. They do a good
enough job of making things up to suit their needs.
>>There was nothing criminal (impeachable)
>>that was even being investigated. If he lied about something in
>>those hearings, it is not purgery.
>
>So if you lie about anything related to a civil case it's ok because
>it's not a criminal investigation? That isn't quite what the law says,
>or what your "run of the mill" judge would consider perjury.
If the lies was immaterial to the matter, it is not purgery.
If a "run of the mill judge" considers it so, it is easily
overturned.
>It's also outlines in the introduction to Starr's report, that lying
>about inadmissible evidence while under oath, is perjury.. and that
>Clinton had other ways of avoiding the questions..Like questioning
>their admissability in the lawsuit.
Yeah, he can be quite the weasel -- but that doesn't mean that he
is or isn't doing a fair job as president.
>>>Buts as far as the cigar thing, UGH, nasty!
>>
>>Yeah -- I have to admit that, since I quit smoking, cigars are
>>not very appealing to me, either.
>
> (Completely off topic here)Hey you know what I've been smoke free for
>5 days. Thank you zyban...thank you...and this drug really makes
>cigarettes taste nasty...
I am using Nicorette. Don't know that it is The Best(tm), but I
was surprised to find out how easy it was after more than 30
years of smoking.
I do think, though, that the rool-your-own American Spirit
tobacco made it much easier, too -- there are no additives in
that stuff and it is not doped to maintain a higher nicotine
level. I smoked that for about 2 years before quitting.
>Glenn I hate to take you on like this. I really do! But I can't let
>this go by me here...
Not a problem. I don't *have* to be right, but I sure like to
have fun.
If it is Clinton in office or Gore, my life will be relatively
unchanged.
My concern is only the way that this is happening -- the whole
investigation was a sham -- simply an excuse to embarass the
Whitehouse.
The only result of this that concerns me is that, if this is
pulled off, it sets a presidence that our kids will have to deal
with.
(You like the way that I was able to make this pertinent to
kids?)
Glen Appleby
>Glen Appleby:
>
>>
>>There is a term ... and I can't think of it right now ... -- NO,
>>not deniable culpability! If one lies about something that one
>>is not charged with (for example lying about adultry in a
>>no-fault divorce state) it is not purgery. It is simply lying
>>about something that is irrelevant to the case.
>
>?!???
>
>It's not perjury if it's about something that one is not charged with?
>Wouldn't that apply to just about any witness?
That is my understanding.
Patrick McNamara
<hamilton-130...@host-209-214-114-207.bna.bellsouth.net>,
hami...@DNVN.com (Hamilton) wrote:
> In article <35fdf70b...@news.mindspring.com>, gij...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 11 Sep 1998 15:27:44 -0700, "Ernest Fairchild"
> > <ern...@imap2.asu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >Personally, here's what I think about all this nonsense about Pres.
> > >Clinton:
> > >
> > >
> > >WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > >
> > So it's ok for the president to break the law? He's a lawyer, He
> > knows the law and he broke it ANYWAY.
> > I don't give a s**t the she gave him blow jobs, but I do care that
> > they were very near the Oval office, and I do care that he lied about
> > it...
> > You don;t lie to a federal judge (Clinton knows that) and you don't
> > lie to the Grand Jury....
> > Buts as far as the cigar thing, UGH, nasty!
>
>
> No he shouldn't have lied to the grand jury. But the grand jury
> shouldn't have been entertaining questions like 'does the President's
> religion include sexual intercourse' [asked of one of his aides] or
> questions about his own sex life. This panty sniffing fishing expedition
> was mounted because Starr couldn't find ANYTHING wrong after 4 years
> of harrassment of Clinton in the Whitewater investigation.
Besides 12 convictions of other people other than Clinton himself.
This whole thing is sorta like Al Capone being nailed for tax evasion when
he should have been gotten on much worse. The five hundred some odd FBI
files that were had (didn't Charles Colson go to jail for possessing
*one*?), the travel office getting fired (and siccing the FBI on Billy
Dale, who was acquitted after about an hour of jury time - abuse of
power??), Charlie Trie handing over bags of money and then fleeing to
China, the Chinese getting a sweetheart deal for a decommisioned naval
base in California, the Chinese getting crucial missile technology despite
the warning from other govt departments, renting out the Lincoln Bedroom,
Hillary's spectacular killing in the futures market (really a Tyson Foods
bribe), the alleged Kathleen Willey groping, etc, etc, etc. All this from
someone who promised the "most ethical administration ever." Har har.
> There is
> NOTHING in his report to suggest that Clinton did ANYTHING wrong in
> the matter actually under investigation.
Starr, wisely, wanted to give to Congress the most ironclad proof of
wrongdoing, which was perjury, witness tampering, and obstruction of
justice. The evidence on the other cases wasn't as strong... which doesn't
necessarily mean there was no wrongdoing. Filegate - blame Craig
Livingstone, and gee, no one can remember who hired him (someone had
actually suggested Vince Foster hired him - beautiful, blame the dead guy).
Travelgate - astonishingly, no blame pinned on anyone for that. It goes on
and on....
There's a grand jury still meeting. Hopefully more will come. And Louis
Freeh is still pushing Reno to get an Independent Counsel to look into
campaign finance irregularities - not exactly partisan there.
> This continuous pursuit was
> clearly motivated by a desire to get him regardless --- and by
> pursuing questions about a matter than is very personal and very irrelevant
> to the actual investigation, they basically set him up. I wish he
> had simply refused to answer and let them deal with that -- but I can
> understand that he didn't want to go into details about his sex life.
>
> We are going to impeach a president for heavy petting?
Nope. Perjury, witness tampering, obstruction of justice.
> We really think
> that descriptions of where his hand was, where her mouth was and what
> she did with a cigar are necesssary? The motives and the twisted
> hypocricy of this inquisition couldn't be clearer.
With Clinton's unbelievable skill at twisting words (he didn't have sexual
contact with her, but she did with him, based on his "definition" of sexual
contact), yes, the grotesque detail is necessary. He dissembles better than
anyone in history.
>
> Imagine the last sex you had and then imagine that we have to read
> a detailed description of everything you did --- how appetizing would
> it be to read? It is no one's business. The questions had nothing to
> do with Whitewater and should never have been asked.
Ken Starr was given the go-ahead from Reno and a three-judge panel to
investigate all of this, and some dozen or so roadblocks thrown in his way
were thrown out in court. Take it up with the other branches of govt.
Patrick McNamara, dad to Connor (11/93), Colleen (5/95), Sean (5/97)
pmcn...@enter.net
"If more sheep are cloned, don't be surprised if they come out looking like
modern day journalists." -Mike Royko
Marie Houck
ba...@aol.com (Banty) wrote:
> Glen Appleby:
>
> >
> >There is a term ... and I can't think of it right now ... -- NO,
> >not deniable culpability! If one lies about something that one
> >is not charged with (for example lying about adultry in a
> >no-fault divorce state) it is not purgery. It is simply lying
> >about something that is irrelevant to the case.
>
> ?!???
>
> It's not perjury if it's about something that one is not charged with?
> Wouldn't that apply to just about any witness?
>
It has to do with whether or not the thing one is lying about is relevant
to the case being tried. In this case, the claim is that the Lewinsky
affair was irrelevant to the Jones complaint, so his lying about it was
immaterial. (Is that the word you are looking for, Glen?)
Marie Houck
Banty
>
>There is a term ... and I can't think of it right now ... -- NO,
>not deniable culpability! If one lies about something that one
>is not charged with (for example lying about adultry in a
>no-fault divorce state) it is not purgery. It is simply lying
>about something that is irrelevant to the case.
?!???
It's not perjury if it's about something that one is not charged with?
Wouldn't that apply to just about any witness?
Ba...@aol.com
"It is difficult to distinguish where the feminine ends and nature begins."
- Antonio Carlos Jobim
Cybernanc
> You mean that, in the report, somebody discussed a topic
>as sexually inciteful as .... *breastfeeding*?
Well, sort of........
~~nancy~~
Take the first step in faith. You don't have to see the whole staircase, just
take the first step.– Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Cybernanc
>It is absolutely OK for me, if stopped by a cop for speeding, and
>he asks me where I am going, to tell him that I was going to my
>mother's wedding and she is about to pop a baby out. See, it is
>irrelevant to the fact that I was speeding. Either I was or I
>wasn't.
Who says it's ok? If the cop would offer to escort you to that wedding and
help to deliver a baby and found out that neither was true, you could be
charged with obstructing a police officer! :-)
>As long as it does not impact my work, I don't see why any
>employer should car -- unless they were a prude.
Gives a whole new meaning to "potty break"....I can just see all the couples
scrambling to the "back room" for a quickie on company time and NOT getting
reprimanded or fired for it. ::guffaw::
GiJane
>There is a term ... and I can't think of it right now ... -- NO,
>not deniable culpability! If one lies about something that one
>is not charged with (for example lying about adultry in a
>no-fault divorce state) it is not purgery. It is simply lying
>about something that is irrelevant to the case.
You're confused about something...It's not a criminal investigation
that Clinton was testifiying about. It was a civil case...In a civil
case if you lie under oath, whether it's admissable or inadmissable
it's still perjury [I asked my dad, and my uncle (who is a federal
judge)]
<big snip of my post>
>Um. hang on Buckaroo. Sexual harassement sort of requires a
>complaintant.
>
>If you say that Lewenski objected to his advances (assuming that
>it was he who made the advances), I would agree with you.
Hang on Glen,
In my example of a college porfessor and his student, I didn't say
sexual harrasment either...I was talking about a college professor
banging one of his students (consensually)..He'd get fired if it was
happening on campus in his office...Period...I can remember it
happening, and it will continue to happen...
>
>> We all, the people, are Clinton's bosses. Why should he be above
>>the same sort of rules of conduct that we have for ourselves. Why is
>>it ok to have your intern take care of you in the hall behind your
>>office?
>
>Or me taking care of her. Why should it be one-sided? I would
>sure hate if that were the case.
HAHA
>
>As long as it does not impact my work, I don't see why any
>employer should car -- unless they were a prude.
>
>If they were a prude, I would tend to know that going in and take
>the appropriate measures, should I ever be lucky enough to find
>myself in that position.
Glen you *know* you'd get fired if you got caught boffing someone in
your office...
<another big snip>
>
>>>>You don;t lie to a federal judge (Clinton knows that) and you don't
>>>>lie to the Grand Jury....
>>>
>>>But it is not purgery to lie about something that is irrelevant
>>>to a criminal case.
It's a CIVIL CASE Glen. The Paula Jones lawsuit was (and is cause
it's on appeal) a civil case for damages (money) from the President.
>>Actually it is...And it was a civil case. If you lie under oath...you
>>commit perjury regardless of the admissabilty of your deposition...ask
>>any lawyer you know...(and no i'm not a lawyer, but my father was one)
>
>Good -- ask him what the term is for lying about something that
>is immaterial to the case.
In a CIVIL CASE, it's still perjury...
>I so hate it when I can't think of a kool term like that.
>
>>Why bother swearing someone in at all if its ok to lie about stuff
>>they're embarrased about or stuff they want to keep from their spouse
>>or their parents or whomever? Why not take it further and say it's
>>ok to lie to the police about something you're "embarrased" for them
>>to know about? Did you see the movie "Absolute Power"?
>
>Yikes -- I'm not going to discuss movies when we are discussing
>real life. However, if you would like to discuss some kool porno
>film in email, I'm all ears.
Why didn't you answer my argument here?
Why bother swearing in anyone at all? If the person under oath gets
to decide what he/she will or won't tell the truth about, what's the
point?
>
>It is absolutely OK for me, if stopped by a cop for speeding, and
>he asks me where I am going, to tell him that I was going to my
>mother's wedding and she is about to pop a baby out. See, it is
>irrelevant to the fact that I was speeding. Either I was or I
>wasn't.
We're not talking about a criminal case here, Glen.
>Additionally, talking to a cop carries no possibility of purgery.
>
>My personal preference is to say nothing to cops. They do a good
>enough job of making things up to suit their needs.
>
>>>There was nothing criminal (impeachable)
>>>that was even being investigated. If he lied about something in
>>>those hearings, it is not purgery.
>>
>>So if you lie about anything related to a civil case it's ok because
>>it's not a criminal investigation? That isn't quite what the law says,
>>or what your "run of the mill" judge would consider perjury.
>
>If the lies was immaterial to the matter, it is not purgery.
Wrong...Read the Starr report...and ask your nearest lawyer..
>If a "run of the mill judge" considers it so, it is easily
>overturned.
I meant that most judges would consider it so...
>>It's also outlines in the introduction to Starr's report, that lying
>>about inadmissible evidence while under oath, is perjury.. and that
>>Clinton had other ways of avoiding the questions..Like questioning
>>their admissability in the lawsuit.
>
>Yeah, he can be quite the weasel -- but that doesn't mean that he
>is or isn't doing a fair job as president.
I never said he wasn't...
I just said that we shouldn't let him off the hook when he breaks the
law...
>
>If it is Clinton in office or Gore, my life will be relatively
>unchanged.
Me neither, but I don't like liars...
>
>My concern is only the way that this is happening -- the whole
>investigation was a sham -- simply an excuse to embarass the
>Whitehouse.
Um...I don't know about that...
>
>The only result of this that concerns me is that, if this is
>pulled off, it sets a presidence that our kids will have to deal
>with.
>
>(You like the way that I was able to make this pertinent to
>kids?)
Yeah...hahaha.
I'd hope that our kids would be taught better morals than what Clinton
seems to be practicing...
Catherine
mommy to Corin Ashley
six months old
to reply use gija...@hotmail.com
Jim
>
Agreed. Nor to PJ's lawyers while under deposition, nor to
the American people, nor to his close advisors, cabinet heads
and perhaps most importantly, his wife and child. Most of those
lies are between him, his family and God (and perhaps the
American public). However, some are between him and the law
and it presents him with his current problems.
>questions about his own sex life. This panty sniffing fishing expedition
>was mounted because Starr couldn't find ANYTHING wrong after 4 years
>of harrassment of Clinton in the Whitewater investigation. There is
>NOTHING in his report to suggest that Clinton did ANYTHING wrong in
>the matter actually under investigation.
Again you're partially right. Nothing in this report. That's another
500 pages and 50 boxes still forthcoming. And don't forget Casa
Grande, travelgate, filegate, Asiagate, Chinagate,
Teamstergate, . . . .
>We are going to impeach a president for heavy petting?
>
>Imagine the last sex you had and then imagine that we have to read
>a detailed description of everything you did --- how appetizing would
>it be to read?
I hope someone would find it interesting ;-)
I'd prefer that we elect a President with the morals not to engage
in this type of activity within the whitehouse, but leave that up to
the electoral process. If it's clear that he committed perjury,
obstruction of justice, witness tampering etc., he has lowered
the behavior to the point of impeachment hearings.
Regardless of how it goes, it is now virtually impossible for him
to effectively govern a small town. His party must begin to urge
him out. But it's his call.
Ob Kids: Poor Chelsea. And to think *all* of this could have
been avoided by simply admitting he'd once met Paula Jones and
she behaved perfectly. Really. That's all he had to say.
Jim
Glen Appleby
wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Sep 1998 23:09:30 GMT, gl...@got.net (Glen Appleby) wrote:
>>If it is Clinton in office or Gore, my life will be relatively
>>unchanged.
>
>Me neither, but I don't like liars...
Since this seems (if I am correct) the crux of your argument in
this discussion I have snipped everything else (especially since
I cannot remember the legal phrase that I was looking for). If I
am incorrect on this assumption, let me know and I'll respond to
the whole bloody post. I still have it.
If you don't like liars, you are in for a great deal of
disappointment -- both in life and especially in government.
Most adults are often telling "white lies" -- like that somehow
makes it better. They do it to avoid conflict, they say. Kids
know better, though. Kids can be embarasingly honest.
Embarasing to adults. But adults tell the kids that they should
not lie ... but "white lies" are OK.
Now *that's* good training for politics. The only problem is
that once we allow ourselves to tell those "little white lies"
the next step is not too diffcult.
I think that if most people had even the first clue about what
was behind most of the government secrets ("National Security" my
hinney!) they would not only throw the bums out, they would have
trouble finding enough rope to hang all of the liars and cheats.
The problem is that if you have a problem with Clinton's lies,
then don't look too closley at Gore ... or Newt, or anybody else
in politics.
If you are rally serious about Clinton's lies being a problem and
want to take it to it's logical conclusion, I'm behind you all of
the way. Just be prepared to be totally without government as I
am.
Gwen A Orel
This investigation was supposed to be about *Whitewater*.
When did we get a police state which monitor's the president's
fidelity? Sometime after JFK I guess!!!!
You'd think from the reactions that people can't bear to think of
a president having sex at all, for pity's sake-- if you took a video
camera into the bedrooms of married people and broadcast their
[pillow talk they'd probably look just as silly.
This is a political coup d'etat, and undercuts the American political
system.
Gwen
Hamilton (hami...@DNVN.com) wrote:
: In article <199809121928...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
: klus...@aol.com (KL Ussery) wrote:
: > He really needs to step down. If you think about it, do we really need a
: > president who's a laughing stock?
: do we really want to live in a country where a millionaire can bankroll
: a 'get the president' operation and succeed in overturning an election
: and successfully engineering a coup d'etat? If this is successful --
: and people like Burton, Chenoweth, Gingrich et al can drive someone
: from office for sexual behavior [remember Starr was investigating
: an old real estate deal and was unable to find any malfeasance on
: Clinton's part -- that is why the focus had to shift to this obsession
: with GOP panty sniffing --] we will have taken a big step towards
: fascism. The entire investigation has been about overturning the
: Clinton election -- nothing else -- the trivia involved [wow -- he
: wanted to hide adulterous behavior, well duh --] as well as the totally
: unnecessary dwelling on minute details of the petting behavior involved
: make the agenda clear. Clinton is a jerk -- but I'd rather be governed
: by an elected jerk than by this crowd of puritanical hypocrites.
--
"Live as one already dead." --Japanese saying
If one tells the truth one is sure, sooner or later, to be found out.
--Oscar Wilde
Gwen A Orel
immaterial, as it was.
You're advertising your ignorance of the law....
Gwen
Banty (ba...@aol.com) wrote:
: Glen Appleby:
: >
: >There is a term ... and I can't think of it right now ... -- NO,
: >not deniable culpability! If one lies about something that one
: >is not charged with (for example lying about adultry in a
: >no-fault divorce state) it is not purgery. It is simply lying
: >about something that is irrelevant to the case.
: ?!???
: It's not perjury if it's about something that one is not charged with?
: Wouldn't that apply to just about any witness?
: Ba...@aol.com
: "It is difficult to distinguish where the feminine ends and nature begins."
: - Antonio Carlos Jobim
--
Gwen A Orel
the hypocrisy and the idiocy of this persercution. There's Larry King--
married seven times, what a model for fidelity *he* is. Half of the
politicians accusing him have done the same thing. And what did he do?
In essence: had an affair and lied about it. Oh, WHAt a terrible sin!
Not.
Gwen
Karine B. (kari...@powertech.no) wrote:
: In article <karinebos-130...@jmmac3.uio.no>,
: kari...@powertech.no (Karine B.) wrote:
: (Kendras post snipped for brevity)
: > Hm, well, from a foreign point of view - its your president who is a
: ^^^^^^^^^
: > laughing stock - its mr Starr and the entire investigation ;-) ^
:
: Ooopps! I meant to write: "Its *not* your president who is a laughing stock"
: Karine in Norway - reminding herself to proofread before posting in a
: foreign language
--
Timothy J. Butler
> >knows the law and he broke it ANYWAY.
>
> foul scam with Whitewater (long before he was President)?
Not only Whitewater, but Filegate and Travelgate are as yet unreported
on. Starr will be issuing referrals on those matters later on. Stay
tuned.
As for the Lewinsky matter, the report, if confirmed as being true,
indicates that in that situation alone, the President has committed
acts that warrant his impeachment and removal from office.
>
> >I don't give a s**t the she gave him blow jobs, but I do care that
> >they were very near the Oval office, and I do care that he lied about
> >it...
>
> What the *heck* difference does it make *where* the act took
> place? If he and Hillary had done the same thing (oh, geeze -- I
> just did it to myself. Now I am going to have to live with
> *that* image in my head) in the Oval Orifice^WOffice, would
> *that* have gained much press?
No, but the place of the offense is important in that it proves that
this was not a "private matter between two consenting adults." The
adultery took place in the Oval Office WHILE Clinton was conducting
affairs of state. No pun intended.
>
> >You don;t lie to a federal judge (Clinton knows that) and you don't
> >lie to the Grand Jury....
>
> But it is not purgery to lie about something that is irrelevant
> to a criminal case. There was nothing criminal (impeachable)
> that was even being investigated. If he lied about something in
> those hearings, it is not purgery.
So, as long as it's not a criminal case, I can go into court and lie
my head off to a federal judge and not break the law?
Well, Washington is filled with lawyers who disagree with you. While the
matter is far from settled, there is a very strong opinion that the
President's conduct in the Jones case was perjury. The President took
an oath before a federal judge to tell the truth and he knowingly
lied. He then turned around 7 months later and lied to the Starr grand
jury. If true, most people don't seem to have a problem with labeling
both lies as perjury. The only lawyers I've heard arguing that it isn't
are in the employ of our Commander in Heat.
Timothy J. Butler
>
> I AGREE!!!!
>
> This investigation was supposed to be about *Whitewater*.
> When did we get a police state which monitor's the president's
> fidelity? Sometime after JFK I guess!!!!
> You'd think from the reactions that people can't bear to think of
> a president having sex at all, for pity's sake-- if you took a video
> camera into the bedrooms of married people and broadcast their
> [pillow talk they'd probably look just as silly.
> This is a political coup d'etat, and undercuts the American political
> system.
>
> Gwen
>
Read the Starr report. This isn't about the President's fidelity. It's
about the President committing acts of perjury, obstructing justice,
and tampering with witnesses. If true, I would think that allowing a
President like Bubba to remain in office would undercut the political
system.
Twenty-five years ago, a young attorney named Hillary Clinton wrote
that one of the reasons why Richard Nixon could not continue to serve
as President is that he had lied to the extent that he had broken trust
with the American people. Eight months ago, Hillary Clinton stated that
if the President did have an affair with a 21-year-old intern in the
White House, that that was a serious matter that the American people
should be very concerned about. I think that for the first time ever
I can say the following whole-heartedly - I agree with the First Lady.
Jim
>Nope, it's *not* perjury if the subject is deemed
>immaterial, as it was.
>
We really need a score card to track the lies and statements
of possible perjury. I've heard the above defense with regard
to the perjury, err, misleading statements in the PJ deposition
as questioned about the ML affair.
However, Starr's report also contains allegations of perjury
with regard to his grand jury testimony. Regardless of the
validity of the above, *this allegation of perjury* is not
immaterial.
Jim
Christopher Biow
>This investigation was supposed to be about *Whitewater*.
Originally. However, the Attorney General authorized its extension into a
variety of other areas, one of which appears to have found some illegality
on Clinton's part.
>When did we get a police state which monitor's the president's
>fidelity?
...since the current state of sexual harrassment law allows arbitrary
launching of inquisitions into *anybody's* sex life, even on the most
unlikely of he-said/she-said allegations. And since the independent counsel
law essentially created a permanent inquisition. I suppose you could
probably get most of the US population to lie under oath on sexual matters.
(Interesting article a few months ago in the Wash_Post by a former Labor
Relations Board official. He found that the majority of the time, he was
faced with sworn testimony in which at least one of the parties had
committed blatant perjury.)
>Sometime after JFK I guess!!!!
It's quite an exercise to imagine what the current regime would have done
to some earlier presidents.
>You'd think from the reactions that people can't bear to think of
>a president having sex at all, for pity's sake-- if you took a video
>camera into the bedrooms of married people and broadcast their
>[pillow talk they'd probably look just as silly.
No, all that said, this one is remarkably slimy. The Commander in Chief of
a military force which has recently cashiered officers of all ranks for far
less, is caught with a junior employee, in his office, during office
hours... It's not the point, but it's pretty bad, anyway.
>This is a political coup d'etat, and undercuts the American political
>system.
Agreed.
>Hamilton (hami...@DNVN.com) wrote:
>: klus...@aol.com (KL Ussery) wrote:
>: > He really needs to step down.
As someone who supported him since early in the 1992 primaries, I wish he
would.
>: do we really want to live in a country where a millionaire can bankroll
>: a 'get the president' operation...
Like it or not, we do! The legal system has become a tool of almost
unlimited utility for harassment. This could and does happen to average
citizens, even without their doing anything wrong. Wholly bogus civil cases
can bankrupt you. A prosecutor "on a roll" has a fair chance of jailing an
innocent person; if he fails, the result is still bankruptcy and a ruined
reputation. IMO, judges and jurors need to take better control of these
situations.
>: Clinton is a jerk -- but I'd rather be governed
>: by an elected jerk than by this crowd of puritanical hypocrites.
How 'bout *both*--that's what we've got.
OBKids: Not only is this a great challenge to explain to kids (thank the
Lord mine are too young to be asking questions), but the answers are *not*
simple. "Well, Junior, you see, there is the bad guy and then the worse
guy. And then there are the jerks and the bad laws."
Cybernanc
>You'd think from the reactions that people can't bear to think of
>a president having sex at all, for pity's sake
Having sex with his wife in his private quarters is one thing.....but taking
advantage of a "starstruck" employee half his age in the hallway outside the
Oval Office does sound more like a teenager copping a feel!!!!
Cybernanc
>In essence: had an affair and lied about it. Oh, WHAt a terrible sin!
>Not.
And isn't it sad that so many people actually think like this?
Glen Appleby
wrote:
>I AGREE!!!!
>
>This investigation was supposed to be about *Whitewater*.
>When did we get a police state which monitor's the president's
>fidelity? Sometime after JFK I guess!!!!
>You'd think from the reactions that people can't bear to think of
>a president having sex at all, for pity's sake-- if you took a video
>camera into the bedrooms of married people and broadcast their
>[pillow talk they'd probably look just as silly.
>This is a political coup d'etat, and undercuts the American political
>system.
This is very frightening to me. Gwen and I agree on a *second*
topic.
Now that I have this ability to get around her killfile, I'm
faced with a delema -- do it and have fun (well, I *do* consider
the net to be, in part, an entertainment medium) or hang back and
be kool.
Well, I guess that I'll opt for the second one.
Aw come on -- if it turns sour, I can always take the second
option.
Glen Appleby
wrote:
>Banty (ba...@aol.com) wrote:
>: Glen Appleby:
>
>: >
>: >There is a term ... and I can't think of it right now ... -- NO,
>: >not deniable culpability! If one lies about something that one
>: >is not charged with (for example lying about adultry in a
>: >no-fault divorce state) it is not purgery. It is simply lying
>: >about something that is irrelevant to the case.
>
>: ?!???
>
>: It's not perjury if it's about something that one is not charged with?
>: Wouldn't that apply to just about any witness?
>Nope, it's *not* perjury if the subject is deemed
>immaterial, as it was.
>
>You're advertising your ignorance of the law....
Gosh -- agreeing with me again.
Someone said "An enemy of my enemy is my friend." Now, I'm
trying to think of how this would translate into this situation
...
An enemy of my friend is my ...
But the enemy agrees with me.
Oh *please* stop it. I'm starting to get one of those headachs.
It was *so* much easier when we were known to be on opposing
sides of issues.
Marie Houck
cybe...@aol.com (Cybernanc) wrote:
> >From: gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel)
>
> >In essence: had an affair and lied about it. Oh, WHAt a terrible sin!
> >Not.
>
> And isn't it sad that so many people actually think like this?
>
Can you name 5 presidents in the last century who did NOT have affairs
when they were in office?
No, having affairs (assuming your marriage vows included a promise of
monogomy) is NOT a good thing. Lieing is also not a good thing.
However, this particular "sin" is phenominally common among the men (and
possibly women: I don't know) who get elected to high office or otherwise
hold powerful positions. I suspect it has something to do with the kind
of ego it takes to run for and consistently win high offices. If we
decide we want to throw out everyone who has done this, we might, indeed,
have a better government -- but this seems like a pound foolish place to
start.
Marie Houck
GiJane
>On Mon, 14 Sep 1998 07:15:33 GMT, gija...@hotmail.com (GiJane)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 13 Sep 1998 23:09:30 GMT, gl...@got.net (Glen Appleby) wrote:
>>>If it is Clinton in office or Gore, my life will be relatively
>>>unchanged.
>>
>>Me neither, but I don't like liars...
>
Catherine
Cybernanc
>However, this particular "sin" is phenominally common among the men (and
>possibly women:
Common shouldn't mean acceptible.
>s. If we
>decide we want to throw out everyone who has done this, we might, indeed,
>have a better government -- but this seems like a pound foolish place to
>start.
>
>
I don't give a rats heinie what someone does on their own time in their own
private homes. But it sure takes someone without much for brains to do it on
the job in a public place with someone whose name they can't even remember!!!!!
Timothy J. Butler
>
> >From: gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel)
>
> >In essence: had an affair and lied about it. Oh, WHAt a terrible sin!
> >Not.
>
> And isn't it sad that so many people actually think like this?
Yes, it is. It's incredible that Starr could write such a detailed
report where he carefully outlines the case he is making for impeachment
and so many people can't seem to get it through their heads that this is
not about sex. The sex, as bad as that was, was the tip of the iceberg.
What this President did to hide his infidelity is what the Starr report
is about. Dismissing it as "just sex" is ridiculous.
GiJane
Since we seem to be ignoring everyone's arguments here, Glen, I'll
stop wasting so much space.
If you are going to argue with me, please don't assume what I mean. I
say what I mean and when I say I don't like liars, it doesn't mean
that I don't think anyone besides Clinton is a liar. What I really
meant *all along* is that our president, himself a lawyer, and the
chief executive of the land SHOULD NOT GET AWAY WITH BREAKING THE LAW.
The fact that it involves lying, only makes it that much more
abhorrent to me.
I'll repeat myself, with the following FACTS:
The president allegedly lied under oath. The Starr report, sometimes
in graphic detail, has boxes and boxes of evidence for that. (As for
the Whitewater scandal, Travel Office Firings, and FBI file scandals,
Starr says in his report that he's not done with them yet and a report
on those will be coming out soon). If the president DID lie under
oath, it is perjury, whether in the inadmissable deposition or before
the Grand Jury.
These are facts...sometimes disputed, but yet remain facts
The following is my OPINION:
If the president committed perjury, he should be tried (impeached) for
those offenses Notice I didn't say removed from office, or that he
should resign. I think he should have to pay some consequences for
his actions (lying under oath), and not get away scott free without
even a trial. He should also be disbarred (if he ever took the bar)
Thats what I meant. That is what I mean. And I'm done.
Glen Appleby
Nanyy, meet Gwen. Gwen, Nancy.
>>From: gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel)
>
>>You'd think from the reactions that people can't bear to think of
>>a president having sex at all, for pity's sake
>
>Having sex with his wife in his private quarters is one thing.....but taking
>advantage of a "starstruck" employee half his age in the hallway outside the
>Oval Office does sound more like a teenager copping a feel!!!!
Geeze -- you make it sound so .... tawdry.
Since when is "copping a feel", as you put it, an impechable
offense?
Sure it was a Bad Move(tm) -- something that some of us fantacize
about but hopefully would never actually do.
Do you *really* want someone kicked out of office because he did
something that *you* find immoral?
The Indians shoulda killed all of the Puritans hundreds of years
ago. We would all be better off, today.
GiJane
wrote:
sorry i made a big boo boo with just a quoted version of Glen's
post...I didn't mean to....
Glen Appleby
>>From: gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel)
>
>>In essence: had an affair and lied about it. Oh, WHAt a terrible sin!
>>Not.
>
>And isn't it sad that so many people actually think like this?
Don't go bad-mouthing Gwen. We are net.engaged.
Glen (and fight like an old married couple) Appleby
Glen Appleby
Houck) wrote:
>Can you name 5 presidents in the last century who did NOT have affairs
>when they were in office?
You know what -- I can only think of 2. Carter and Ford ... and
I am not absolutely sure about Ford (nor do I want to discover
that I am wrong -- the mental image would kill me).
Cybernanc
>Geeze -- you make it sound so .... tawdry.
It's worse than tawdry when it's being done by the leader of the country who
said this would be the most ethical administration ever.
>Do you *really* want someone kicked out of office because he did
>something that *you* find immoral?
Honestly? Yes. However, it really has nothing to do with whether or not he is
moral or immoral, but the fact that he LIED repeatedly about it....to a grand
jury, which IS an impeachable offense. And if he lied about something that you
think is so unimportant, what else will he lie about to save his skin? Does
travelgate, filegate, loangate, chinagate, lincolnbedroomgate, johnhuanggate
sound familiar? (of course, most of those terms are mine, but you get the
picture....)
Timothy J. Butler
>
> In article <199809141920...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> cybe...@aol.com (Cybernanc) wrote:
>
> > >From: gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel)
> >
> > >In essence: had an affair and lied about it. Oh, WHAt a terrible sin!
> > >Not.
> >
> > And isn't it sad that so many people actually think like this?
> >
>
> when they were in office?
George Bush
Ronald Reagan
Jimmy Carter
Richard Nixon
Gerald Ford
Now it's your turn. Can you name even one president who's done the following:
1) had an affair with an intern half his age in the Oval Office while on the
job
2) lied under oath at least twice to cover up the affair
3) waved his finger in the face of the American people and denied ever
having the affair
4) lied to his wife and child(ren) about the affair
5) lied to colleges about the affair
6) turned his unwitting colleges into liars by turning them lose with his
fabrications knowing that they would repeat them to the press, the grand
jury, and anyone else who would listen
7) obstructed justice by using fabricated executive powers, judicial stall
tactics, witness tampering, and hiding evidence
8) attacked those who were telling the truth about his behavior and his
attempts to cover it up and obstruct justice
9) authorized his colleges to attack those who were telling the truth about
his behavior and his attempts to cover it up and obstruct justice
If you can name one president who got caught engaged in that level of deception
and illegality while in office and was allowed to finish his term, I'll agree
right here and now that Clinton should be allowed to finish his term as well.
>
> No, having affairs (assuming your marriage vows included a promise of
> monogomy) is NOT a good thing. Lieing is also not a good thing.
>
> However, this particular "sin" is phenominally common among the men (and
> possibly women: I don't know) who get elected to high office or otherwise
> hold powerful positions. I suspect it has something to do with the kind
> of ego it takes to run for and consistently win high offices. If we
> decide we want to throw out everyone who has done this, we might, indeed,
> have a better government -- but this seems like a pound foolish place to
> start.
If you can prove that this is common and the prepetrators go to the extent that
Clinton did to cover up their dalliances, I'd agree with you whole-heartedly that
they should get the boot. But until you can back up your assertions with facts
and can name names, you are just blowing hot air.
Timothy J. Butler
>
> On 14 Sep 1998 19:17:37 GMT, cybe...@aol.com (Cybernanc) wrote:
>
> Nanyy, meet Gwen. Gwen, Nancy.
>
> >>a president having sex at all, for pity's sake
> >
> >Having sex with his wife in his private quarters is one thing.....but taking
> >advantage of a "starstruck" employee half his age in the hallway outside the
> >Oval Office does sound more like a teenager copping a feel!!!!
>
>
> offense?
Read the report. Or are you one of those Americans who agrees with
Bubba that it's impossible to have sexual relations without intercourse?
He seems to think there's a few of you around.
>
> Sure it was a Bad Move(tm) -- something that some of us fantacize
> about but hopefully would never actually do.
>
> Do you *really* want someone kicked out of office because he did
> something that *you* find immoral?
And illegal. Don't forget illegal.
>
> The Indians shoulda killed all of the Puritans hundreds of years
> ago. We would all be better off, today.
Yeah. Right. I thought we talked about those mind-altering drugs, Glen.
You told me you'd lay off them.
Helen Arias
}On Mon, 14 Sep 1998 12:51:14 -0700, meh...@netgate.net (Marie
}Houck) wrote:
}
}>when they were in office?
}
}I am not absolutely sure about Ford (nor do I want to discover
}that I am wrong -- the mental image would kill me).
It was also "mildly" mentioned by the press and many and confirmed by many that
President Bush had a mistress during his tenure at the CIA.
If you REALLY want something to knock your socks off, try reading
up on G.Harding. That President had absolutely NO problem boffing
anything in a skirt AT THE WHITEHOUSE. His own wife spent most of
her time viewing his calendar so that she could keep him away
from other women. She even busted him "in the act" in the Oval
Office once. She never divorced him.
H.
L. Raihl
Glen Appleby wrote in message <35fd6cdc...@news.got.net>...
>Since when is "copping a feel", as you put it, an impechable
>offense?
>
>Sure it was a Bad Move(tm) -- something that some of us fantacize
>about but hopefully would never actually do.
>
>Do you *really* want someone kicked out of office because he did
>something that *you* find immoral?
>
Not that the question was directed at me, but...
No, I want someone kicked out of office because he committed perjury. I
don't care if the question was irrelevant (and I have a serious problem with
your assertion that questions about his sexual history with employees were
irrelevant in a sexual harrassment lawsuit).
I supported Bill Clinton through both his campaigns. I saw his face when he
was on television and insisted he "did not have sexual relations with that
woman" and I *BELIEVED* him. I argued with people that there was NO WAY
this affair happened.
Maybe I was extremely naive, maybe I really did inherit my mother's
Pollyanna view of things, but I literally CRIED when I watched the admission
on television. I guess it's the same problem I had with my first
husband... I could forgive an affair. I can't forgive being lied to.
Lori - Mom to Tyler (9/13/95)
Helen Arias
Well, Lori, I'm just like you. I supported Clinton as well through
both campaigns. He's charismatic and I believed he was truly genuine
in his beliefs. I was incredibly saddened by all of this and I don't
mean just with the president. I'm sickened by all of the news media,
the political analysts, the whole STARR camp. It sickens me that
we, as a people, have become the National Enquirer.
Lies have abounded in this whole scenario. I'm completely disheartened
by these events. I just couldn't stand another impeachment. His
place in history is RUINED. Nothing he could do in the next two
years could overshadow his sexual escapades. I think his family
is suffering tremendously and I commend Hillary for her strength
in all of this. Would that more of us had a little of it.
Anyway, I just wanted to say that I appreciated your comments, Lori.
Your last two sentences say it all.
H.
Marie Houck
<tbu...@ford.com> wrote:
> Marie Houck wrote:
> > Can you name 5 presidents in the last century who did NOT have affairs
> > when they were in office?
>
> George Bush
> Ronald Reagan
> Jimmy Carter
> Richard Nixon
> Gerald Ford
According to the reports I've read, at least two of the men you've listed
DID have affairs *while president*. Prior to holding office, Reagan
managed to get one woman pregnant while married to another. And Nixon can
hardly be held up as a paragon of virtue!
>
> Now it's your turn. Can you name even one president who's done the following:
> 1) had an affair with an intern half his age in the Oval Office while on the
> job
Highly likely that Kennedy did; he seemed to boff anything that came
near. Same for Harding.
> 2) lied under oath at least twice to cover up the affair
Irrelevant; we had the decency to not ask the others under oath, so they
weren't presented with the opportunity to lie.
> 3) waved his finger in the face of the American people and denied ever
> having the affair
See above.
> 4) lied to his wife and child(ren) about the affair
I'm guessing most of them lied to their wives, and their children probably
didn't ask.
> 5) lied to colleges about the affair
Irrelevant; they didn't ask
> 6) turned his unwitting colleges into liars by turning them lose with his
> fabrications knowing that they would repeat them to the press, the grand
> jury, and anyone else who would listen
See above
> 7) obstructed justice by using fabricated executive powers, judicial stall
> tactics, witness tampering, and hiding evidence
See above
> 8) attacked those who were telling the truth about his behavior and his
> attempts to cover it up and obstruct justice
See above'
> 9) authorized his colleges to attack those who were telling the truth about
> his behavior and his attempts to cover it up and obstruct justice
See above
>
> If you can name one president who got caught engaged in that level of
deception
> and illegality while in office and was allowed to finish his term, I'll agree
> right here and now that Clinton should be allowed to finish his term as well.
From everything I've read, everyone who carred to know DID know about
Kennedy. And Harding. And Eisenhower. And quite a number of others.
The difference is that no one confronted them, so they didn't HAVE to
engage in that level of deception. Frankly, I have no doubt at all that
most of them would have.
>
> >
> > No, having affairs (assuming your marriage vows included a promise of
> > monogomy) is NOT a good thing. Lieing is also not a good thing.
> >
> > However, this particular "sin" is phenominally common among the men (and
> > possibly women: I don't know) who get elected to high office or otherwise
> > hold powerful positions. I suspect it has something to do with the kind
> > of ego it takes to run for and consistently win high offices. If we
> > decide we want to throw out everyone who has done this, we might, indeed,
> > have a better government -- but this seems like a pound foolish place to
> > start.
>
> If you can prove that this is common and the prepetrators go to the
extent that
> Clinton did to cover up their dalliances, I'd agree with you
whole-heartedly that
> they should get the boot. But until you can back up your assertions with facts
> and can name names, you are just blowing hot air.
There are quite a number of sources for showing how common it has been
among presidents; if you care to look, you won't have any problem finding
it. The coverup question is irrelevant: none of them HAD to cover it up,
because no one was sniffing around about it. Right now, I don't have
names and facts in front of me, but if it really matters to you I'll take
the time some time over the next day or two to look it up.
Marie Houck
Patrick McNamara
A Orel) wrote:
> Timothy J. Butler (tbu...@ford.com) wrote:
>
> : Read the Starr report. This isn't about the President's fidelity. It's
> : about the President committing acts of perjury, obstructing justice,
> : and tampering with witnesses. If true, I would think that allowing a
> : President like Bubba to remain in office would undercut the political
> : system.
>
> Your use of "Bubba" betrays your bias stronger than anything
> else you could write.
> If you find *one* case where a prosecution has been brought for
> perjury in a civil deposition which was not even material, I'll congratulate
> you. You'd be ahead of all the lawyers (even Republican ones)
> discussing it in the news.
There was perjury before the grand jury. And a good case for witness
tampering and obstruction of justice.
>
> This is about sex and an attempt to smear and embarass the president.
> And that is all.
>
The president doesn't need any help to embarass himself. Trying to define
the word "alone", or explaining how Lewinsky can have sexual contact while
he doesn't, does the job. Saying he apologized to the American people, and
Monica Lewinsky, when in fact he never contacted her, is embarassing.
Watching Fox News put up Clinton's quote during the Nixon years of the
necessity of a lying President to step down is embarassing.
New York Newsday newspaper reported that Clinton's cabinet meeting last
week (where supposedly Shalala and Albright layed into him) was his first
since January, when he called the cabinet together to deny the Lewinsky
rumors. Two cabinet meetings in seven, eight months, only to talk about
this scandal. That's embarassing.
I was wrong when I posted earlier that there is still a grand jury meeting.
There are actually two. Being investigated are possible perjury and
obstruction of justice charges regarding Kathleen Willey, misuse of
personnel records of Linda Tripp (sounds rather Nixonian), the firing of
the White House travel office staff (a former presidential aide's memo
contradicts Hillary's pleadings that she had nothing to do with it), and
the use of hundreds of FBI files on appointees from previous Republican
administrations (another Nixonian touch).
Patrick McNamara, dad to Connor (11/93), Colleen (5/95), Sean (5/97)
pmcn...@enter.net
"If more sheep are cloned, don't be surprised if they come out looking like
modern day journalists." -Mike Royko
Gwen A Orel
: Read the Starr report. This isn't about the President's fidelity. It's
: about the President committing acts of perjury, obstructing justice,
: and tampering with witnesses. If true, I would think that allowing a
: President like Bubba to remain in office would undercut the political
: system.
Your use of "Bubba" betrays your bias stronger than anything
else you could write.
If you find *one* case where a prosecution has been brought for
perjury in a civil deposition which was not even material, I'll congratulate
you. You'd be ahead of all the lawyers (even Republican ones)
discussing it in the news.
This is about sex and an attempt to smear and embarass the president.
And that is all.
Gwen
Gwen A Orel
: gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel) wrote:
: >This investigation was supposed to be about *Whitewater*.
: Originally. However, the Attorney General authorized its extension into a
: variety of other areas, one of which appears to have found some illegality
: on Clinton's part.
The latitutde given Starr was an enormous mistake. I hope
in future the leeway of an Independant Counsel will be curtailed.
Obviously, Starr felt that he would have failed if he didn't
find something, anything on Clinton and the result has been a level
of Big Brother monitoring of the president which better befits
a Totalitarian regime than a democratic nation.
: ...since the current state of sexual harrassment law allows arbitrary
: launching of inquisitions into *anybody's* sex life, even on the most
: unlikely of he-said/she-said allegations. And since the independent counsel
: law essentially created a permanent inquisition. I suppose you could
: probably get most of the US population to lie under oath on sexual matters.
Agreed.
I am not condoning the president's affair, but it was consensual,
and I don't find oral sex nauseating-- (see Republican spokespersons
who say the descriptions make them want to "throw up.") Already
some of the people condemning him have been exposed as having been
involved in extramarital affairs themselves.
: No, all that said, this one is remarkably slimy. The Commander in Chief of
I think it's remarkably typical. A lot of men think it's not
"an affair" if it's just oral sex, you'd be surprised. I am sure
that women and men all over America are reading it with recognition.
: a military force which has recently cashiered officers of all ranks for far
: less, is caught with a junior employee, in his office, during office
: hours... It's not the point, but it's pretty bad, anyway.
Oh I don't know. "Commander in Chief" is not the same as being
*in* the army. Clinton is not subject to military law.
And when do office affairs *generally* happen, and where?
During office hours. In the office.
No worse (and no better) than any other office fling.
: >This is a political coup d'etat, and undercuts the American political
: >system.
: Agreed.
: >: > He really needs to step down.
: As someone who supported him since early in the 1992 primaries, I wish he
: would.
And give in to right-wing attempts to undercut the desires of
American *voters*? Not on your life. This is merely an attempt
on the part of Republicans to oust a popular president by using
any tool, no matter how personal and apolitical, they can find.
They might as well tell us that he cheats on his diet, or picks
his nose. *Anything* they can find they would use.
Clinton has done nothing that makes him a bad leader. And it's
none of my business what kind of husband he is.
Gwen
--
"Live as one already dead." --Japanese saying
If one tells the truth one is sure, sooner or later, to be found out.
--Oscar Wilde
Gwen A Orel
Cybernanc (cybe...@aol.com) wrote:
: >From: gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel)
: >You'd think from the reactions that people can't bear to think of
: >a president having sex at all, for pity's sake
: Having sex with his wife in his private quarters is one thing.....but taking
: advantage of a "starstruck" employee half his age in the hallway outside the
: Oval Office does sound more like a teenager copping a feel!!!!
1) It sounds just like a lot of businessmen to me
2) You miss my point, which is that *any* sex act described
in detail can be made to look silly and sordid
3) So what if he is a bit of a teenager about women? he also likes
junk food. Where is it written that a politician has to be, in private
matters, exemplary? JFK fooled around, and so did FDR. People
say "it's about character" but history shows that many great men
have been somewhat less than exemplary with women, and many evil
men have been entirely faithful.
To me, it is no more a matter of general character whether a man
is faithful than it is that he is slim. Appetites are not necessarily
moral issues.
Gwen A Orel
: Read the report. Or are you one of those Americans who agrees with
: Bubba that it's impossible to have sexual relations without intercourse?
: He seems to think there's a few of you around.
1) He is still the president, not "Bubba."
2) Under the definitions of "sexual relations" in the case
for which he was giving evidence under oath, oral sex was actually
*not* sexual relations. In which case, he did not commit perjury.
That's a simple fact.
I agree that it was *equivocating* but that in itself is not perjury,
and certainly not an impeachable offense.
Many men feel that oral sex doesn't "count." Clinton is not
alone in this belief, though few women share it.
: > Do you *really* want someone kicked out of office because he did
: > something that *you* find immoral?
: And illegal. Don't forget illegal.
Sorry, Tim, infidelity is not illegal.
Gwen A Orel
As someone who was a little girl when Nixon resigned,
I have *never* been starstruck about presidents, expected
to look up to them, or be a moral leader for me. I think they
are no better or worse on the personal level than anyone else.
And *every* politician lies, most about much more serious things
than their private sex lives.
For me, I think it is *much* more frightening that Lewinsky was
*illegally* bugged by a friend (who will probably be prosecuted for
breaking Maryland law) and harassed and harangued into making a deal--
held without lawyers, and subject to emotional blackmail. Ken Starr's
actions are way more frightening about the Democratic process in
this country than Clinton's little fling.
Gwen
L. Raihl (gnlr...@dotstar.net) wrote:
: Glen Appleby wrote in message <35fd6cdc...@news.got.net>...
: >On 14 Sep 1998 19:17:37 GMT, cybe...@aol.com (Cybernanc) wrote:
: >
: >Since when is "copping a feel", as you put it, an impechable
: >offense?
: >
: >Sure it was a Bad Move(tm) -- something that some of us fantacize
: >about but hopefully would never actually do.
: >
: >Do you *really* want someone kicked out of office because he did
: >something that *you* find immoral?
: >
: Not that the question was directed at me, but...
: No, I want someone kicked out of office because he committed perjury. I
: don't care if the question was irrelevant (and I have a serious problem with
: your assertion that questions about his sexual history with employees were
: irrelevant in a sexual harrassment lawsuit).
: I supported Bill Clinton through both his campaigns. I saw his face when he
: was on television and insisted he "did not have sexual relations with that
: woman" and I *BELIEVED* him. I argued with people that there was NO WAY
: this affair happened.
: Maybe I was extremely naive, maybe I really did inherit my mother's
: Pollyanna view of things, but I literally CRIED when I watched the admission
: on television. I guess it's the same problem I had with my first
: husband... I could forgive an affair. I can't forgive being lied to.
: Lori - Mom to Tyler (9/13/95)
--
Gwen A Orel
I firmly believe that history will show that Clinton is the victim
of an attempted coup d'etat by unscrupulous Republican backers and
a very irresponsible Independant Coumsel.
Do you feel "sickened" by the details of FDR, JFK, or Jefferson's
affairs? What about Martin Luther King, Jr.? For me, the
fact that King had an affair *in no way* undercuts his place in
history, and the fact that Clinton fooled around is entirely 100%
*irrelevant*.
What is relevant is the pattern of inquisition like shadowing of
the leader of our country. It is disrespectful, it is disruptive,
it is WRONG.
Gwen
Helen Arias (hel...@merlot.corp.sun.com) wrote:
: In article 0...@edison.dotstar.net, "L. Raihl" <gnlr...@dotstar.net> writes:
: }
: }Glen Appleby wrote in message <35fd6cdc...@news.got.net>...
: }>On 14 Sep 1998 19:17:37 GMT, cybe...@aol.com (Cybernanc) wrote:
: }>
: }
: }>Since when is "copping a feel", as you put it, an impechable
: }>offense?
: }>
: }>Sure it was a Bad Move(tm) -- something that some of us fantacize
: }>about but hopefully would never actually do.
: }>
: }>Do you *really* want someone kicked out of office because he did
: }>something that *you* find immoral?
: }>
: }
: }Not that the question was directed at me, but...
: }
: }No, I want someone kicked out of office because he committed perjury. I
: }don't care if the question was irrelevant (and I have a serious problem with
: }your assertion that questions about his sexual history with employees were
: }irrelevant in a sexual harrassment lawsuit).
: }
: }I supported Bill Clinton through both his campaigns. I saw his face when he
: }was on television and insisted he "did not have sexual relations with that
: }woman" and I *BELIEVED* him. I argued with people that there was NO WAY
: }this affair happened.
: }
: }Maybe I was extremely naive, maybe I really did inherit my mother's
: }Pollyanna view of things, but I literally CRIED when I watched the admission
: }on television. I guess it's the same problem I had with my first
: }husband... I could forgive an affair. I can't forgive being lied to.
: }
: }
: }Lori - Mom to Tyler (9/13/95)
: }
: }
: Well, Lori, I'm just like you. I supported Clinton as well through
: both campaigns. He's charismatic and I believed he was truly genuine
: in his beliefs. I was incredibly saddened by all of this and I don't
: mean just with the president. I'm sickened by all of the news media,
: the political analysts, the whole STARR camp. It sickens me that
: we, as a people, have become the National Enquirer.
: Lies have abounded in this whole scenario. I'm completely disheartened
: by these events. I just couldn't stand another impeachment. His
: place in history is RUINED. Nothing he could do in the next two
: years could overshadow his sexual escapades. I think his family
: is suffering tremendously and I commend Hillary for her strength
: in all of this. Would that more of us had a little of it.
: Anyway, I just wanted to say that I appreciated your comments, Lori.
: Your last two sentences say it all.
: H.
--
Gwen A Orel
have the right to legislate *other people's morality*.
Maybe it's because I'm Jewish, I don't know, but I get
extremely nervous when I see groups of people telling me what kinds of
beliefs I ought to have. This is a *private* matter and Clinton\
did nothing that many, many politicians and businessmen do all the time.
No, that doesn't make it right-- but it does make it not a shocking,
sickening, you-supply-the-rhetoric offense.
This was consensual. Both were of age. Nobody was molested,
beaten, robbed, etc. This was not a crime, and it is not
a national event.
Gwen
Cybernanc (cybe...@aol.com) wrote:
: >From: gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel)
: >In essence: had an affair and lied about it. Oh, WHAt a terrible sin!
: >Not.
: And isn't it sad that so many people actually think like this?
: ~~nancy~~
: Take the first step in faith. You don't have to see the whole staircase, just
: take the first step.– Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
:
Gwen A Orel
affairs? Motel 6? Where do you think Marilyn Monroe
met with JFK? Be realistic, PLEASE.
Gwen
Cybernanc (cybe...@aol.com) wrote:
: >From: meh...@netgate.net (Marie Houck)
: >However, this particular "sin" is phenominally common among the men (and
: >possibly women:
: Common shouldn't mean acceptible.
: >s. If we
: >decide we want to throw out everyone who has done this, we might, indeed,
: >have a better government -- but this seems like a pound foolish place to
: >start.
: >
: >
: I don't give a rats heinie what someone does on their own time in their own
: private homes. But it sure takes someone without much for brains to do it on
: the job in a public place with someone whose name they can't even remember!!!!!
Gwen A Orel
: George Bush
Old when elected
: Ronald Reagan
Iran-Contra is WAY more serious
: Jimmy Carter
"lusted in his heart"
: Richard Nixon
covered up a criminal act of breaking in to a hotel,
bugged people illegally, had to resign in disgrace,
had to be officially pardoned to escape criminal proceedings
: Gerald Ford
was not elected
Your list is biased, and basically sucks. You are clearly a Republican
apologist who does not care about due process, but merely wants
to try to insist that personal morality is more important than public
interest.
Gwen
Gwen A Orel
is *not* an abuse of power. That's called asserting your rights.
If we get to the point where merely *challenging* the prosecution
is a crime, we're no longer a Republic, we're a Totalitarian state.
Gwen
Fab4Fan99
>On Mon, 14 Sep 1998 12:51:14 -0700, meh...@netgate.net (Marie
>Houck) wrote:
>
>>Can you name 5 presidents in the last century who did NOT have affairs
>>when they were in office?
>
>You know what -- I can only think of 2. Carter and Ford ... and
>I am not absolutely sure about Ford (nor do I want to discover
>that I am wrong -- the mental image would kill me).
What about Truman? I'm asking--I can't remember ever hearing anything like that
about him, but I could be wrong.
Frank
KA1WZH GO RED SOX!!!
"Mark's the man in America. I'm the man in the Dominican Republic!"--Sammy Sosa
"That play NEVER works."--Boomer Esiason
"I'd love to turn you on"--Lennon/McCartney
Jill S Ellenbecker
>Timothy J. Butler (tbu...@ford.com) wrote:
>: > Do you *really* want someone kicked out of office because he did
>: > something that *you* find immoral?
>
>: And illegal. Don't forget illegal.
>
>Sorry, Tim, infidelity is not illegal.
However...I'm not sure about the District of Columbia, but in many
states, oral sex _is_ illegal (married or not). It's just not
prosecuted (unless, of course, someone with a little power really has
an ax to grind and needs to get you on something, _anything_.)
Sounds a lot like what Ken Starr is doing, actually. Does he really
think that he's saving the country by dredging up this business? Our
country was better off never finding out about this mess.
--==Jill Schwarze Ellenbecker==--
mama to Eveline Joy, b. 11/9/96
**remove Tricky Dick to reply**
Cybernanc
>To me, it is no more a matter of general character whether a man
>is faithful than it is that he is slim.
I am hoping and praying that most of America doesn't hold views like this.
Sodom and Gomorrah come to mind......
Cybernanc
>Oh come ON Nancy, where do you think presidents *could* have
>affairs? Motel 6?
Yeah, that's almost as classy as a hallway in the White House.....or while on
the phone supposedly discussing important matters regarding the country with
Senators....
Cybernanc
>Sounds a lot like what Ken Starr is doing, actually. Does he really
>think that he's saving the country by dredging up this business?
It wasn't his idea to dredge up anything. He was hired! :-)
Jim
>
>Why should there have beeen *any* concern of what went on in the
>vicinity of his zipper?
Congrats. That's what they want you to believe.
Jim
Jim
>2) Under the definitions of "sexual relations" in the case
>for which he was giving evidence under oath, oral sex was actually
>*not* sexual relations. In which case, he did not commit perjury.
>
>That's a simple fact.
Gwen, you may wish this, but it is utterly false. The definition for
sexual relations was very short and included simple touching of the
genitals -- even through clothing. He was specifically asked if he'd
sexual relations with ML as defined in exhibit A? (it contained the
short definition) to which he replied "no." I can easily post the
definition, and the Q&A, in its entirety, but there is no doubt oral
sex is included.
He also goes on to further state, under oath, that he'd no
recollection of being alone with ML and if he had, certainly nothing
remarkable occurred. I don't think they defined remarkable so he's
some wiggle room here for the apologists ;-)
The lies are endless and the fact that they're under oath, presents
him with some serious problems.
Jim
Timothy J. Butler
>
> and by the way, Tim, merely *trying* to assert privelege
> is *not* an abuse of power. That's called asserting your rights.
> If we get to the point where merely *challenging* the prosecution
> is a crime, we're no longer a Republic, we're a Totalitarian state.
According to Mr. Starr's assertion, trying to assert frivilous, invented
privileges to impede an investigation may be a crime. Congress will have
to decide.
Timothy J. Butler
>
> In article <35FD79...@ford.com>, "Timothy J. Butler"
> <tbu...@ford.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > Can you name 5 presidents in the last century who did NOT have affairs
> > > when they were in office?
> >
> > Ronald Reagan
> > Jimmy Carter
> > Richard Nixon
> > Gerald Ford
>
> According to the reports I've read, at least two of the men you've listed
> DID have affairs *while president*.
Names and sources, please.
Prior to holding office, Reagan
> managed to get one woman pregnant while married to another.
Happened before he was president. I'm not defending it, but it doesn't
meet your original criteria of a sitting president having an affair.
And Nixon can
> hardly be held up as a paragon of virtue!
Irrelevant and immaterial. We were discussing affairs of sitting Presidents.
> >
> > Now it's your turn. Can you name even one president who's done the following:
> > 1) had an affair with an intern half his age in the Oval Office while on the
> > job
>
> Highly likely that Kennedy did; he seemed to boff anything that came
> near. Same for Harding.
Your speculation of what is "likely" is not relevant. I asked for Presidents
who HAD done these things, not your opinion or speculation of who had. And
I notice that you chose to argue the points one at a time rather than as a
group, finding one president who had done all of them. A dead give-away that
Senor Slick is singular in his ability to rack up high crimes and misdemeaners.
>
> > 2) lied under oath at least twice to cover up the affair
>
> Irrelevant; we had the decency to not ask the others under oath, so they
> weren't presented with the opportunity to lie.
Your point is irrelevant. It wasn't decency. It was innocence and trust. We
trusted in the President, so we didn't think to ask such questions. However,
you at least admit that no other President has done this. Therefore, you cannot
meet the test as I originally outlined it.
>
> > 3) waved his finger in the face of the American people and denied ever
> > having the affair
>
> See above.
See above.
>
> > 4) lied to his wife and child(ren) about the affair
>
> I'm guessing most of them lied to their wives, and their children probably
> didn't ask.
Agreed. One this point. Slick may not be alone.
>
> > 5) lied to colleges about the affair
>
> Irrelevant; they didn't ask
So? Did everyone who was lied to in the WH ask? I doubt it.
>
> > 6) turned his unwitting colleges into liars by turning them lose with his
> > fabrications knowing that they would repeat them to the press, the grand
> > jury, and anyone else who would listen
>
> See above
>
> > 7) obstructed justice by using fabricated executive powers, judicial stall
> > tactics, witness tampering, and hiding evidence
>
> See above
>
> > 8) attacked those who were telling the truth about his behavior and his
> > attempts to cover it up and obstruct justice
>
> See above'
>
> > 9) authorized his colleges to attack those who were telling the truth about
> > his behavior and his attempts to cover it up and obstruct justice
>
> See above
> >
> > If you can name one president who got caught engaged in that level of
> deception
> > and illegality while in office and was allowed to finish his term, I'll agree
> > right here and now that Clinton should be allowed to finish his term as well.
>
> From everything I've read, everyone who carred to know DID know about
> Kennedy. And Harding. And Eisenhower. And quite a number of others.
> The difference is that no one confronted them, so they didn't HAVE to
> engage in that level of deception. Frankly, I have no doubt at all that
> most of them would have.
Frankly, I have no doubt that you are subscribing to a flawed interpretation of
history in an effort to excuse a President that you like. All of the Presidents
you name had more character than Bill. Even Kennedy. With all the revelations
about him, no has ever been able to come up with an instance where he sexually
harrassed in intern in the Oval Office during business hours.
> >
> > >
> > > No, having affairs (assuming your marriage vows included a promise of
> > > monogomy) is NOT a good thing. Lieing is also not a good thing.
> > >
> > > However, this particular "sin" is phenominally common among the men (and
> > > possibly women: I don't know) who get elected to high office or otherwise
> > > hold powerful positions. I suspect it has something to do with the kind
> > > of ego it takes to run for and consistently win high offices. If we
> > > decide we want to throw out everyone who has done this, we might, indeed,
> > > have a better government -- but this seems like a pound foolish place to
> > > start.
> >
> > If you can prove that this is common and the prepetrators go to the
> extent that
> > Clinton did to cover up their dalliances, I'd agree with you
> whole-heartedly that
> > they should get the boot. But until you can back up your assertions with facts
> > and can name names, you are just blowing hot air.
>
> There are quite a number of sources for showing how common it has been
> among presidents; if you care to look, you won't have any problem finding
> it. The coverup question is irrelevant: none of them HAD to cover it up,
> because no one was sniffing around about it. Right now, I don't have
> names and facts in front of me, but if it really matters to you I'll take
> the time some time over the next day or two to look it up.
No, the cover-up question is not irrelevant. The cover-up question IS the question.
If it weren't, Nixon would not have had to resign. After all, the only reason he
had to lie about the break-ins was because he was asked about them. Other Presidents
probably knew about such things and covered them up. But they didn't have to lie
and deceive because they hadn't been asked about them.
Timothy J. Butler
you snipped - the challenge of naming 5 presidents from this
century who did not have affairs while in office.
Gwen A Orel wrote:
>
> Timothy J. Butler (tbu...@ford.com) wrote:
>
> : George Bush
> Old when elected
Still didn't have an affair.
>
> : Ronald Reagan
> Iran-Contra is WAY more serious
So what? Still didn't have an affair.
>
> : Jimmy Carter
> "lusted in his heart"
Still didn't have an affair.
>
> : Richard Nixon
> covered up a criminal act of breaking in to a hotel,
> bugged people illegally, had to resign in disgrace,
> had to be officially pardoned to escape criminal proceedings
Still didn't have an affair.
>
> : Gerald Ford
> was not elected
But was a sitting president.
>
> Your list is biased, and basically sucks.
I suspect that you feel this way because you cannot impeach (pun
intended) my list. Insults make poor arguments.
You are clearly a Republican
> apologist who does not care about due process,
You clearly are speaking in ignorance.
but merely wants
> to try to insist that personal morality is more important than public
> interest.
Since the Democrats current woes conclusively prove that personal
morality of public officials is in the public interest, I see no reason
to argue this point. If you don't get it yet, you probably never will.
Timothy J. Butler
> : Bubba that it's impossible to have sexual relations without intercourse?
> : He seems to think there's a few of you around.
>
> 1) He is still the president, not "Bubba."
Okay. President Bubba.
> 2) Under the definitions of "sexual relations" in the case
> for which he was giving evidence under oath, oral sex was actually
> *not* sexual relations. In which case, he did not commit perjury.
Read the Starr Report. Read the definition given in the Jones case.
If you read well enough to participate in usenet, you should have
no trouble seeing perjury.
>
> That's a simple fact.
>
> I agree that it was *equivocating* but that in itself is not perjury,
> and certainly not an impeachable offense.
If he did what is alleged in Starr's report, he is definitely impeachable.
As a matter of fact, the House will open formal impeachment inquiries
later this year, and if he doesn't resign, I'd expect that he will be
impeached sometime in early 1999.
>
> Many men feel that oral sex doesn't "count." Clinton is not
> alone in this belief, though few women share it.
I have never, ever met a man who honestly believes that oral sex
does not consitute sexual relations. If you have, I suggest that
you start hanging around with better people.
>
> : > Do you *really* want someone kicked out of office because he did
> : > something that *you* find immoral?
>
> : And illegal. Don't forget illegal.
>
> Sorry, Tim, infidelity is not illegal.
Sorry, Gwen. Perjury, witness tampering, and obstruction of justice
are illegal. And that's what this case is about.
Glen Appleby
>>From: gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel)
>
>>To me, it is no more a matter of general character whether a man
>>is faithful than it is that he is slim.
>
>I am hoping and praying that most of America doesn't hold views like this.
>
>Sodom and Gomorrah come to mind......
So much for "separation of church and state".
BRING ON THE GRAND INQUISITOR. IT SEEMS WE MAY HAVE A WITCH.
Oh, what's that? Do I smell felsh butrning?
YES! HE WAS AN *EVIL* WITCH.
--
Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss's job.
It is your job to find ways around your boss's roadblocks.
______________________________________________________________
Glen Appleby gl...@got.net <http://www.armory.com/~glena/>
Glen Appleby
(Jill S Ellenbecker) wrote:
>Sounds a lot like what Ken Starr is doing, actually. Does he really
>think that he's saving the country by dredging up this business? Our
>country was better off never finding out about this mess.
Actually, I have no problem at all finding out about it. It is
of no more concern to me that finding out about Kennedy's affairs
or anybody else's. It is just information about the human
person. It is apparently pretty irrelevant to how well or badly
they do their jobs.
It is specifically when we try to keep information from others
that the trouble begins.
I would suggest that it is the outdated Puritanical attitudes
that exist in this country that are at fault for causing all of
this concern. People pretending that *they* don't have sex (in
or out of marriage).
It is this reason that caused homosexuals to get so much grief
when they tried to get security clearances -- it was assumed that
if they weren't honest about their homosexuality, someone could
use their homosexuality to blackmail them. It wasn't because the
national policy was that homosexuality was bad.
The same thing happened with Clinton. It's not that getting the
occasional Lewenski in the Oval Office was all that big a deal.
Heck, it's not illegal. He was deceptive because he was
concerned about people finding out and it hurting people.
The act was not a problem -- it was the discovery of the act that
was the problem.
And *that* is just plain silly.
From what I understand, most Americans have or had affairs. This
seems to be OK. Apparently we want a president, though, who does
not even go to the bathroom.
And, to the religious perspective: " ... cast the first stone"
and all of that.
Glen Appleby
(Jim) wrote:
>The lies are endless and the fact that they're under oath, presents
>him with some serious problems.
The lies were admitted to. However, they had nothing to do with
anything that was material to any crime, so they simply are not
purgery.
You may not like it that the President lied, but you had better
get used to it. All Presidents have lied. They call it
"National Security".
"Oh, but *that's* different!"
Really? What happened to "a lie is a lie" from the moralists?
Glen Appleby
wrote:
>For me, I think it is *much* more frightening that Lewinsky was
>*illegally* bugged by a friend (who will probably be prosecuted for
>breaking Maryland law) and harassed and harangued into making a deal--
>held without lawyers, and subject to emotional blackmail. Ken Starr's
>actions are way more frightening about the Democratic process in
>this country than Clinton's little fling.
I couldn't agree more about Starr.
Remember some time ago I had asked if anybody else had seen any
similarities between the Starr hearings and the McCarthy
hearings? I see both as the same out of control, power hungry
sleases who seem to enjoy nothing more than stiring up smelly
yogurt in order to make people scream "Ewwwww!"
Glen Appleby
You mean that *you* are interested in knowing about his penis?
You *pervert*.
Glen Appleby
<tbu...@ford.com> wrote:
>Marie Houck wrote:
>>
>> Irrelevant; we had the decency to not ask the others under oath, so they
>> weren't presented with the opportunity to lie.
>
>Your point is irrelevant. It wasn't decency. It was innocence and trust. We
>trusted in the President, so we didn't think to ask such questions.
Granted.
And for this reason alone, this may be the best thing that has
ever happened to the Presedency.
From this time forward, I defy any person who runs for President
to try to hold the position of moral superiority over the rest of
us mortals.
Everybody who is elected wil be asked if they have ever lied (and
we will know the truth about that going in) and will be asked if
they ever had affairs.
Further, when they are elected, they might as well have a video
camera in their bedrooms and in the Oval Office, so that we can
see exactly what is happening when they decide to have their
orgasms.
The fact is that all elected officals lie to the public. Some
will say that it is justified (National Security), but if, as the
moralists say, a lie is a lie, then where to draw the line?
The stuff that has been classified for "National Security
reasons" but is just personel information that was classified to
prevent embarassement is staggering.
If you can't know what is really happening, how can you trust
them at all? If you know that they are lying about some things,
how can you believe them in other matters?
The sooner that we stop holding The Office in higher regard than
we hold ourselves, the sooner that we will see that almost
anybody can hold that office and it really doesn't matter.
He is a man, just like any other.
Get over it.
L. Raihl
Glen Appleby wrote in message <35fe66af...@news.got.net>...
>
(snip)
>The lies were admitted to. However, they had nothing to do with
>anything that was material to any crime, so they simply are not
>purgery.
>
The lies were while under oath during a civil trial alleging sexual
harassment. How you can say questions pertaining to sexual contact with
subordinates aren't material is totally beyond me.
>You may not like it that the President lied, but you had better
>get used to it. All Presidents have lied. They call it
>"National Security".
>
Under oath?
Lori - Mom to Tyler(9/13/95)
Timothy J. Butler
>
> On 15 Sep 1998 03:57:18 GMT, cybe...@aol.com (Cybernanc) wrote:
>
> >>From: gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel)
> >
> >>To me, it is no more a matter of general character whether a man
> >>is faithful than it is that he is slim.
> >
> >I am hoping and praying that most of America doesn't hold views like this.
> >
> >Sodom and Gomorrah come to mind......
>
> So much for "separation of church and state".
>
> BRING ON THE GRAND INQUISITOR. IT SEEMS WE MAY HAVE A WITCH.
>
> Oh, what's that? Do I smell felsh butrning?
>
> YES! HE WAS AN *EVIL* WITCH.
LOL! Gads this is funny! The left-wing nuts have gone totally
crazy.
Bobby P.
>>On Sun, 13 Sep 1998 23:09:30 GMT, gl...@got.net (Glen Appleby) wrote:
>If you don't like liars, you are in for a great deal of
>disappointment -- both in life and especially in government.
>
>Most adults are often telling "white lies" -- like that somehow
>makes it better. They do it to avoid conflict, they say. Kids
>know better, though. Kids can be embarasingly honest.
>Embarasing to adults. But adults tell the kids that they should
>not lie ... but "white lies" are OK.
This is one of the typical "Baby Boomer" argument tactics - take an
irrelevant statement, convince yourself that it was the "crux" of the
argument, then launch into a philosophical debate/lecture on the
topic. Then, if you win THAT argument, you must have won the entire
argument, which isn't the case. Never even mind that the "white lie"
argument is really more like the "lemming" debate - "well, all my
friends were doing it..." Which of course neither makes it right or
acceptable, just something wrong that a lot of people were doing.
So, regardless of whether GiJane likes liars or abhors them, the fact
remains that Clinton was caught in one. Personally, I kind of like
liars - they tend to make life more interesting and colorful, which
Clinton certainly has done. For the most part, Clinton's lies were
harmless - he did them everyday, smiling at ugly people, talking to
special interest groups, shaking hands with people who have lots of
money and power. For the most part, his lies were perfectly legal,
even protected under the Constitution, and were probably actually
helpful to the Nation. (How's that for condescending!)
However, there was a line that he crossed, one that should be
considered abhorrent not only to people with strong, so-called "moral"
convictions, but especially to people who consider themselves
Patriots, believers in the fundamental structure and ideology of the
United States: Clinton lied under oath.
Now, I've never heard of your so-called "get out of oath free card",
and frankly, I seriously doubt that it exists. It is my understanding
that when one is under oath, you either tell the truth, or you take
the fifth-amendment (or you can refuse to answer, but this choice
usually irritates the judge and he'll probably hold you in contempt).
If you willfully lie, relevant or irrelevant to the case at hand, it
is perjory. (Just a little more condescending lecture, then I'll get
to my point.)
I'm perfectly willing to believe that, for the most part, lies under
oath such as this aren't generally prosecuted, if only because our
country is so deteriorated at the moment that our courts are too busy
with other things to bother. However, this doesn't mean that these
cases shouldn't be prosecuted - it doesn't mean that they aren't
prosecutable, and it especially doesn't mean that nothing wrong was
done. In fact, many such cases are prosecuted each year, and, FYI, are
won.
Currently, Clinton is trying to hide behind the "I didn't know it was
really sex" argument. Not that anyone believes him, but it is a
technicality, that if sustainable, would actually clear him of a
perjory charge, were one to be brought against him. It is doubtful
that such a claim is sustainable in light of the evidence and
testimony (dress, cigar, etc. etc. etc.). Therefore, I wager it is
safe to say that our President commited perjory.
>If you are rally serious about Clinton's lies being a problem and
>want to take it to it's logical conclusion, I'm behind you all of
>the way. Just be prepared to be totally without government as I
>am.
Well, it's debatable just how much of a government we have right now,
but that's another post (I mean, what good can we say about a congress
that decides [or just didn't know otherwise] that there are six
great-lakes?).
It's not the lies, it's not the sex - it's the perjory that I find,
and everyone should find, unacceptable and wrong. (I could care less
about "moral" and "immoral" - that's irrelevant.) Furthermore, if the
other Lewinsky related charges are shown to be true (obstruction of
justice, especially), then IMHO, the President should be brought to
trial (impeached).
The really sad thing about this entire affair is that all the
President had to do to avoid all of this was say "Yes, I f***ed her,
so what?" under oath, and then lie to the American Public about it, as
was his right to do. Thereby, he could have spared his family and the
nation a whole lot of bother, boost his foreign acceptance (a lot of
foreigners seem to like an adulterous leader - something about
machismo, I think), and avoided the tormenting process which is about
to shake the nation...
On Mon, 14 Sep 1998 14:22:39 GMT, gl...@got.net (Glen Appleby) wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Sep 1998 07:15:33 GMT, gija...@hotmail.com (GiJane)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 13 Sep 1998 23:09:30 GMT, gl...@got.net (Glen Appleby) wrote:
>>>If it is Clinton in office or Gore, my life will be relatively
>>>unchanged.
>>
>>Me neither, but I don't like liars...
>
>Since this seems (if I am correct) the crux of your argument in
>this discussion I have snipped everything else (especially since
>I cannot remember the legal phrase that I was looking for). If I
>am incorrect on this assumption, let me know and I'll respond to
>the whole bloody post. I still have it.
>
>If you don't like liars, you are in for a great deal of
>disappointment -- both in life and especially in government.
>
>Most adults are often telling "white lies" -- like that somehow
>makes it better. They do it to avoid conflict, they say. Kids
>know better, though. Kids can be embarasingly honest.
>Embarasing to adults. But adults tell the kids that they should
>not lie ... but "white lies" are OK.
>
>Now *that's* good training for politics. The only problem is
>that once we allow ourselves to tell those "little white lies"
>the next step is not too diffcult.
>
>I think that if most people had even the first clue about what
>was behind most of the government secrets ("National Security" my
>hinney!) they would not only throw the bums out, they would have
>trouble finding enough rope to hang all of the liars and cheats.
>
>The problem is that if you have a problem with Clinton's lies,
>then don't look too closley at Gore ... or Newt, or anybody else
>in politics.
>
>If you are rally serious about Clinton's lies being a problem and
>want to take it to it's logical conclusion, I'm behind you all of
>the way. Just be prepared to be totally without government as I
>am.
Glen Appleby
<gnlr...@dotstar.net> wrote:
>
>Glen Appleby wrote in message <35fe66af...@news.got.net>...
>>
>(snip)
>
>>The lies were admitted to. However, they had nothing to do with
>>anything that was material to any crime, so they simply are not
>>purgery.
>>
>The lies were while under oath during a civil trial alleging sexual
>harassment. How you can say questions pertaining to sexual contact with
>subordinates aren't material is totally beyond me.
Ah, but that hearing was a civil matter, unrelated to the office
of President. This makes it pretty irrelevant to impeachement.
>>You may not like it that the President lied, but you had better
>>get used to it. All Presidents have lied. They call it
>>"National Security".
>
>Under oath?
You miss the point. Is *any* lying from a public offical OK with
you?
Glen Appleby
Could it be that they have caught it from the insanity of the
Republicans peeking under the sheets in the Whitehouse to see
when the last time was that the President had farted in his
sleep?
Glen Appleby
wrote:
>My, what a condescending post.
>
>>>On Sun, 13 Sep 1998 23:09:30 GMT, gl...@got.net (Glen Appleby) wrote:
>>If you don't like liars, you are in for a great deal of
>>disappointment -- both in life and especially in government.
>>
>>Most adults are often telling "white lies" -- like that somehow
>>makes it better. They do it to avoid conflict, they say. Kids
>>know better, though. Kids can be embarasingly honest.
>>Embarasing to adults. But adults tell the kids that they should
>>not lie ... but "white lies" are OK.
>
>This is one of the typical "Baby Boomer" argument tactics - take an
>irrelevant statement, convince yourself that it was the "crux" of the
>argument, then launch into a philosophical debate/lecture on the
>topic. Then, if you win THAT argument, you must have won the entire
>argument, which isn't the case. Never even mind that the "white lie"
>argument is really more like the "lemming" debate - "well, all my
>friends were doing it..." Which of course neither makes it right or
>acceptable, just something wrong that a lot of people were doing.
You, in your rush to try a good putdown, have missed the point.
Notice that this newsgroup is misc.kids? Notice how I brought
kids into it?
No -- of course you didn't. You don't *want* to discuss how this
might impact kids?
I was not suggesting that it was OK to do it. In fact, just the
opposite. I was saying (re-read the above to verify) that kids
can spot a lie right off, but they are taught that it is OK to
lie sometimes.
When you tell a kid that for the first time, notice that quizical
look on their faces? They know damned well that statement is
full of ca-ca, but they *trust* adults, so simply struggle to
make sense of the BS statement that it is OK to lie sometimes.
>So, regardless of whether GiJane likes liars or abhors them, the fact
>remains that Clinton was caught in one. Personally, I kind of like
>liars - they tend to make life more interesting and colorful, which
>Clinton certainly has done. For the most part, Clinton's lies were
>harmless - he did them everyday, smiling at ugly people, talking to
>special interest groups, shaking hands with people who have lots of
>money and power. For the most part, his lies were perfectly legal,
>even protected under the Constitution, and were probably actually
>helpful to the Nation. (How's that for condescending!)
Seems to be factual.
>However, there was a line that he crossed, one that should be
>considered abhorrent not only to people with strong, so-called "moral"
>convictions, but especially to people who consider themselves
>Patriots, believers in the fundamental structure and ideology of the
>United States: Clinton lied under oath.
So ... are you saying that a lie at any other time, if one has
their fingers crossed, for example, is OK; but the crossed
fingers don't count when under oath?
Sounds like a little kid making up the rules as they go along.
>Now, I've never heard of your so-called "get out of oath free card",
>and frankly, I seriously doubt that it exists. It is my understanding
>that when one is under oath, you either tell the truth, or you take
>the fifth-amendment (or you can refuse to answer, but this choice
>usually irritates the judge and he'll probably hold you in contempt).
>If you willfully lie, relevant or irrelevant to the case at hand, it
>is perjory. (Just a little more condescending lecture, then I'll get
>to my point.)
It seems that you are stating what you would like to see.
When I discussed the point that a lie that is immaterial to the
case is not purgery, I was saying what was said by more than one
lawyer.
Having said that, I clearly recognize that the law is not black
and white -- that any two lawyers may interpret a law as meaning
different things. Even two judges may disagree.
My purpose for stating what I had heard was only to say that it
is not cast in stone that the President committed purgery as so
many are just willing to accept -- prhaps because they don't like
the idea of a Democrat in office, perhaps because they don't like
Clinton, perhaps because they are so deluded that they are simply
offended by a lie.
>I'm perfectly willing to believe that, for the most part, lies under
>oath such as this aren't generally prosecuted, if only because our
>country is so deteriorated at the moment that our courts are too busy
>with other things to bother. However, this doesn't mean that these
>cases shouldn't be prosecuted - it doesn't mean that they aren't
>prosecutable, and it especially doesn't mean that nothing wrong was
>done. In fact, many such cases are prosecuted each year, and, FYI, are
>won.
Again, missing my point.
>Currently, Clinton is trying to hide behind the "I didn't know it was
>really sex" argument. Not that anyone believes him, but it is a
>technicality, that if sustainable, would actually clear him of a
>perjory charge, were one to be brought against him. It is doubtful
>that such a claim is sustainable in light of the evidence and
>testimony (dress, cigar, etc. etc. etc.). Therefore, I wager it is
>safe to say that our President commited perjory.
Seems that you are trying to rationalize when, on one hand, you
discuss him saying "I didn't know.." and on the other had,
discussing the actual physical evidence that something took
place.
>>If you are rally serious about Clinton's lies being a problem and
>>want to take it to it's logical conclusion, I'm behind you all of
>>the way. Just be prepared to be totally without government as I
>>am.
>
>Well, it's debatable just how much of a government we have right now,
>but that's another post (I mean, what good can we say about a congress
>that decides [or just didn't know otherwise] that there are six
>great-lakes?).
>
>It's not the lies, it's not the sex - it's the perjory that I find,
>and everyone should find, unacceptable and wrong. (I could care less
>about "moral" and "immoral" - that's irrelevant.) Furthermore, if the
>other Lewinsky related charges are shown to be true (obstruction of
>justice, especially), then IMHO, the President should be brought to
>trial (impeached).
It's not the lies, it's the purgery -- huh? The only difference
is an oath.
I promise not to lie in the next sentence:
I am a woman.
It was a lie. Was it purgery? Does it matter? Are you going to
file charges against me?
>The really sad thing about this entire affair is that all the
>President had to do to avoid all of this was say "Yes, I f***ed her,
>so what?" under oath, and then lie to the American Public about it, as
>was his right to do. Thereby, he could have spared his family and the
>nation a whole lot of bother, boost his foreign acceptance (a lot of
>foreigners seem to like an adulterous leader - something about
>machismo, I think), and avoided the tormenting process which is about
>to shake the nation...
I addressed this in another post. How *can* we find fault with
him lying about some sex act when, as a culture, we have all been
taught that having sex outside of marriage is a Bad Thing(tm) and
that sex is dirty and disgusting?
It makes more sense to me to address *that* issue than it does to
be concerned with if he lied or not. Of *course* he lied.
*Everybody* lies.
But why?
Timothy J. Butler
>
> On Tue, 15 Sep 1998 10:07:18 -0400, "Timothy J. Butler"
> <tbu...@ford.com> wrote:
>
> >Glen Appleby wrote:
> >>
> >> On 15 Sep 1998 03:57:18 GMT, cybe...@aol.com (Cybernanc) wrote:
> >>
> >> >>From: gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel)
> >> >
> >> >>To me, it is no more a matter of general character whether a man
> >> >>is faithful than it is that he is slim.
> >> >
> >> >I am hoping and praying that most of America doesn't hold views like this.
> >> >
> >> >Sodom and Gomorrah come to mind......
> >>
> >> So much for "separation of church and state".
> >>
> >> BRING ON THE GRAND INQUISITOR. IT SEEMS WE MAY HAVE A WITCH.
> >>
> >> Oh, what's that? Do I smell felsh butrning?
> >>
> >> YES! HE WAS AN *EVIL* WITCH.
> >
> >LOL! Gads this is funny! The left-wing nuts have gone totally
> >crazy.
>
> Could it be that they have caught it from the insanity of the
> Republicans peeking under the sheets in the Whitehouse to see
> when the last time was that the President had farted in his
> sleep?
I doubt it. More likely that have allowed an unprincipled miscreant
to rise the leadership of their political party and are now panicking
at the legal and political fallout.
KL Ussery
>According to the reports I've read, at least two of the men you've listed
>DID have affairs *while president*. Prior to holding office, Reagan
>managed to get one woman pregnant while married to another.
During the presidency?
>> 2) lied under oath at least twice to cover up the affair
>
>Irrelevant; we had the decency to not ask the others under oath, so they
>weren't presented with the opportunity to lie.
The "others" weren't being questioned about sexual harrasment. Clinton was.
I've gone back and forth on this and my husband and I were talking about it.
He brought up a point in this area.... if a man was accused of sexually
harassing a prior secretary, it isn't out of line to question his present
secretary. Now I think that Ken Starr went way overboard in his attempt to
put his name in the history books, but in light of the type of questions that
were coming up, Clinton had to know it would get out eventually that he had an
affair. I'd have a whole lot more respect for the man if he'd seen it coming
and didn't attempt to hide everything.
>From everything I've read, everyone who carred to know DID know about
>Kennedy. And Harding. And Eisenhower. And quite a number of others.
>The difference is that no one confronted them, so they didn't HAVE to
>engage in that level of deception. Frankly, I have no doubt at all that
>most of them would have.
>There are quite a number of sources for showing how common it has been
>among presidents; if you care to look, you won't have any problem finding
>it. The coverup question is irrelevant: none of them HAD to cover it up,
>because no one was sniffing around about it. Right now, I don't have
>names and facts in front of me, but if it really matters to you I'll take
>the time some time over the next day or two to look it up.
>
Again, I can't think of any other president who was investigated for sexual
harassment. That why he was questioned.
Kendra
Proud to be "Outlandish" !
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My heart's in the Highlands, my heart is not here,
My heart's in the Highlands a-chasing the deer,
Chasing the wild deer, and following the roe;
My heart's in the Highlands whereever I go.
*Robert Burn*
Jim
>On Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:03:17 GMT, ji...@ix.killspam.netcom.com
>(Jim) wrote:
>
>>The lies are endless and the fact that they're under oath, presents
>>him with some serious problems.
>
>The lies were admitted to. However, they had nothing to do with
>anything that was material to any crime, so they simply are not
>purgery.
Which lies? I misplaced my scorecard. The lies to the grand jury are
not immaterial. And the one's under the PJ's deposition are not
neccesssary not purjury.
>
>You may not like it that the President lied, but you had better
>get used to it. All Presidents have lied. They call it
>"National Security".
Under oath? When charged with serious - criminal behavior by a
subordinate?
At the least, they were smart enough not to get caught. That in
itself questions his leadership ;-)
Jim
Jim
>You, in your rush to try a good putdown, have missed the point.
Glen, I know you're much brighter than the rest of us so how
many times, and to how many posters, are you going to state that
the respondent "missed the point" before you conclude that you
are just not making it to your audience?
Jim
Gwen A Orel
church and state separate. You know, Nancy, not everyone in this
country even *believes* in that Bible.
Frankly, holier-than-thou morality police turn my stomach.
<M
You seem to have missed my point that his sex life, like his diet,
is a private matter.
And that history demonstrates that many, many great men were
unfaithful.
Gwen
Cybernanc (cybe...@aol.com) wrote:
: >From: gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel)
: >To me, it is no more a matter of general character whether a man
: >is faithful than it is that he is slim.
: I am hoping and praying that most of America doesn't hold views like this.
: Sodom and Gomorrah come to mind......
: ~~nancy~~
: Take the first step in faith. You don't have to see the whole staircase, just
: take the first step.– Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
:
--
"Live as one already dead." --Japanese saying
If one tells the truth one is sure, sooner or later, to be found out.
--Oscar Wilde