What is it about August?
Shelton Garner
(Snarky Spice) wrote:
>On Fri, 31 Jul 1998 00:00:11 -0400, "G. M. Lupo"
><ham...@elsinore.lupo.com> wrote:
>
>>P.J. Gladnick wrote:
>>
>>> Will Monica's dress be the "Smoking Cum" evidence that brings Clinton
>>> down?
>>
>>No. Yet I find it very interesting that after four years and $40
>>million, the best Kenny Starr can come up with is yet another sexual
>>allegation. We could have saved the dough and simply read the Enquirer
>>for that.
>>
>
>Matt, don't be surprised if Starr's final report to Congress has
>OODLES of stuff that makes this shit pale in comparison. Please do
>consider the possibility that he created and/or encouraged the media
>storm around this salacious stuff, just so that he could pursue some
>other more serious charges.
Hmmmm.
We've really reached one of those historical turning points. Our
children will read about this time (actually, they won't--they'll read
about the outcome...not the two weeks of waiting.)
I've not felt this much national anticipation since the first OJ
trial. If there _is_ proof of a relationship then the Prez's goose is
cooked. If not, he can probably fight the charges, be impeached and
eventually be acquitted by the Senate.
If he does a "I have SINNED against you..." kinda thing, he'll
probably last through his term...but he's a fighter and there is a
chance that despite all potential evidence he'll fight into the
Senate, regardless. I mean, being impeached isn't all _that_ bad. Just
'cause Nixon didn't feel like fighting the impeachment charges (as
well he should have) doesn't mean Clinton has to feel that way.
I mean, all the stuff he's accused of (right now at least) pertain to
a dismissed civil suit. I think what's really happening is K. Starr is
out for blood (or maybe a Supreme Court seat) and he's finally found
something that might stick.
No matter how much the fire breathing conservatives may _think_ they
want Clinton out of office...I fear they underestimate how traumatic
such an event could be to the national collective mind. Just look at
America after Watergate...it took six years before we shook the angst
of it all. (Although Vietnam had something to do with it, too.)
If Clinton steps down or is kicked out..we have The Final Question to
worry about..._again_. Would Gore pardon Clinton...his wife...a few
cabinet members...just to get all this crap behind us?
lee
L. Shelton Bumgarner -- Keeper of the Great Renaming FAQ
Nattering Nabob of Narcissism * http://www.nottowayez.net/~leebum/
ICQ#: 9393354 * "Given two unrelated technical terms, an Internet
search engine will retrieve only resumes." -- Schachter's Hypothesis
Russ Allbery
> No matter how much the fire breathing conservatives may _think_ they
> want Clinton out of office...I fear they underestimate how traumatic
> such an event could be to the national collective mind. Just look at
> America after Watergate...it took six years before we shook the angst of
> it all. (Although Vietnam had something to do with it, too.)
Don't *do* that when I have a cold and start coughing when I start
laughing.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Jim Kingdon
>>> down?
Well, it is funny, in that sixtysome percent of the population already
thinks there was a sexual relationship. So I would imagine that
Clinton would be better off coming clean to the grand jury than
risking perjury (if in fact there was a sexual relationship).
On the other hand, it is hard for me to believe that there would be no
risk in this. I mean, she was working for him, after all, which makes
this more than just a matter of sex as such. I guess the
congressmembers who bonked the pages got away with it...
Georg Bauer
<kin...@panix7.panix.com> wrote:
>I mean, she was working for him, after all, which makes
>this more than just a matter of sex as such.
What I always don't understand: what's the fuss about it? Even if he had
sex with here - who cares? Is having sex with another adult actually a
crim in US? What do they need a trial for this?
bye, Georg
Kate Wrightson
Georg Bauer <g...@hugo.westfalen.de> wrote:
>What I always don't understand: what's the fuss about it? Even if he had
>sex with here - who cares? Is having sex with another adult actually a
>crim in US? What do they need a trial for this?
It's not so much the sex as the lying. The evasion. The massive waste of
money on schemes to try to get government employees out of situations
where they'd have to testify, under oath, about things that would tend to
show the President as a liar.
Y'know, I voted for the man. I want my vote back.
--
___________________________________________________________________________
ka...@eyrie.org Kate Wrightson www.eyrie.org/~kate
Jim Kingdon
> sex with here - who cares? Is having sex with another adult actually a
> crim in US? What do they need a trial for this?
Have you ever had a boss require you to have sex with them?
Or have you had sex with a boss hoping to get a promotion.
I haven't myself, but I think of it as a fairly different situation
from the "consenting adult" thing.
I mean, I suppose when you are President it gets tricky, because if he
were bonking a lobbyist then they'd be asking whether any influence
was purchased, and if it were bonking some Chinese woman they'd be
asking the same. And it isn't so easy to just go to a bar or
something. Hmm, how about Church? Now, that would be a good place to
pick up women if you are president of the US.
Still, corporate presidents don't go dating people who work for the
company (not anymore, at least not most places), and it isn't clear
this should be different.
Jeff Gostin
: It's not so much the sex as the lying. The evasion. The massive waste of
: money on schemes to try to get government employees out of situations
: where they'd have to testify, under oath, about things that would tend to
: show the President as a liar.
So let me ask you.... who cares if he did sleep with her? (Yes, I know you
don't) Right in the Oval Office? Who gives a crap? Maybe Clinton's a
sleezeball. Maybe he's so crooked he couldn't be trusted to count from 1 to
10 without skipping numbers. Maybe he's lying through his teeth.
My question is: Who cares?
Is he executing the Office properly? That's -all- I care about. The man
could be Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer or (*shhhhhhhhh*) Hitler, and if
he executed the Office properly, his policies were fair, his politics were
"clean", and his issues were agreeable, I wouldn't complain. Elections are
about smearing candidates all over the place. Once the elections are over,
it's a done deal....
.... unless you're a Republican who owes Dole or Gingrich favors and
realizes your party has -no- competant candidates for the current year's
election.
Right or wrong, liar or not, moral or not, I -don't care-. The motivation
for this is politics, not justice, and so the suit loses -any- credibility
with me. It's a waste of my tax dollars, and I resent them being spent for
something that is so -obviously- (to me) election year dick-swinging.
JMHO.
--J
Georg Bauer
<kin...@panix7.panix.com> wrote:
>Have you ever had a boss require you to have sex with them?
This wasn't actually claimed. It was just claimed that he slept with her -
nothing of "require". The latter one would of course be a crime - but as I
said, I don't recall any claims in that direction. Ok, I am a bit off,
since I live in Germany, so we only get a condensed version of the whole
stuff. And the only claim we heard they make is that he slept with her.
>Or have you had sex with a boss hoping to get a promotion.
If she had - who cares? It's not that she was in an influental position or
something like that. What could she have gained through this? And do you
actually believe that politicians get their jobs only because of their
competence and not because big Daddy is Senator or something like that?
>something. Hmm, how about Church? Now, that would be a good place to
>pick up women if you are president of the US.
Ugh. The president sleeping with a nun. Now _that_ would make a story. :-)
>Still, corporate presidents don't go dating people who work for the
>company (not anymore, at least not most places), and it isn't clear
>this should be different.
But they don't get nailed to the office door, if they do.
Georg Bauer
>It's not so much the sex as the lying. The evasion. The massive waste of
>money on schemes to try to get government employees out of situations
>where they'd have to testify, under oath, about things that would tend to
>show the President as a liar.
But what about those people throwing out massive amounts of money just to
prove that the President did sleep with someone nobody cares about? Isn't
his work worth more than where he buries his willy? America seems to have
a better ruling currently than in the years before. People actually seem
to like the way he does his job. So why care about some woman claiming
that the president slept with her? Even if he lies about this - why care?
Actually he is a politician, so you can't trust him in the first place,
just because of his profession (wasn't he some kind of lawyer before? That
would make it even worse).
I would care much more about how he does his job and what benefits the
community get's from him, than be picky about his bed-mates.
Ok, there are borders that a politician shouldn't cross - he shouldn't
commit an actual crime, for example. But all this actually went before a
court without any crime at all.
Kate Wrightson
Georg Bauer <g...@hugo.westfalen.de> wrote:
>Ok, there are borders that a politician shouldn't cross - he shouldn't
>commit an actual crime, for example. But all this actually went before a
>court without any crime at all.
Slight cultural difference here. The President has not been taken to
court. The current proceedings are grand jury proceedings, in which the
grand jury determines whether or not there is sufficient evidence to take
the matter to a court. The result of a grand jury proceeding is either an
indictment or no indictment, whereas the result of a court case is either
conviction or no conviction.
Lars Balker Rasmussen
> I mean, I suppose when you are President it gets tricky, because if he
> were bonking a lobbyist then they'd be asking whether any influence
> was purchased, and if it were bonking some Chinese woman they'd be
> asking the same. And it isn't so easy to just go to a bar or
> pick up women if you are president of the US.
>
> company (not anymore, at least not most places), and it isn't clear
> this should be different.
Sheesh, whatever happened to "It's *good* to be the king!"?
--
Lars Balker Rasmussen "Woo hoo!?"
Jim Kingdon
> dating her. ;-)
Yeah, well, I'm still trying to get used to the notion that nerds
_have_ wives. It is quite common in the linux world, so I am starting
to make the mental adjustment, but it takes a while to unlearn the "I
am at MIT and I have no truck with polite society" paradigm.
Jim Kingdon
Oooh, I like it.
It would be a lot more fun than the story we ended up with.
Remind me to keep this in mind if I am ever President :-).
Mark Atwood
>
> Sheesh, whatever happened to "It's *good* to be the king!"?
We shot / beheaded / disimpowered / desposed and/or disgraced them.
--
Mark Atwood |He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already
m...@pobox.com|earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake,
|since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. -- Einstein
karmic acid
>Y'know, I voted for the man. I want my vote back.
I dunno. Back then i thought that having Quayle one heartbeat away
from the Presidency was actually a bad thing. I still find that, even
though Clinton's a New Democrat, he still represents the conventional
wisdom that Republicans == Evil and Democrats == Incompetent. Quayle,
of course, represents the happy medium, the Incompetent Evil.
Vote Scorched Earth. That's what i say.
rone
--
NASA uses Windows? Oh great. If Apollo 13 went off course today the manual
would just tell them to open the airlock, flush the astronauts out, and
re-install new ones.
- Kibo
Georg Bauer
>Slight cultural difference here. The President has not been taken to
>court. The current proceedings are grand jury proceedings, in which the
>grand jury determines whether or not there is sufficient evidence to take
>the matter to a court.
Ok, I missed that one. But then - what are they actually trying to
construct? Is there anyone who claimes that he commited a crime? It just
looks like some very expensive and massive attack against the president -
because someone doesn't like his way. A very dirty way to remove a
president. Shouldn't that be done by something like our german
"Mißtrauensvotum" (don't know how that would be called in english).
karmic acid
Georg Bauer <g...@hugo.westfalen.de> wrote:
>Ok, I missed that one. But then - what are they actually trying to
>construct? Is there anyone who claimes that he commited a crime? It just
>looks like some very expensive and massive attack against the president -
>because someone doesn't like his way. A very dirty way to remove a
>president. Shouldn't that be done by something like our german
>"Mißtrauensvotum" (don't know how that would be called in english).
SYSTRAN says "Vote of no confidence", which sounds right given the
context. I would imagine it is a simplified version of the
impeachment process. This "dirty war" is just a hopeful buildup to
impeachment by the president's political opponents; it is unlikely it
will get there.
Jeff Gostin
: because someone doesn't like his way. A very dirty way to remove a
: president. Shouldn't that be done by something like our german
: "Mißtrauensvotum" (don't know how that would be called in english).
Welcome to American Politics. If you can't find a legitimate way to get rid
of someone who threatens your job, make something up. And they wonder why
most people don't bother to vote....
--J
karmic acid
Kai Henningsen <kaih=6zNOk...@khms.westfalen.de> wrote:
>If the US people manage to oust a president over the fact he slept with
>something, I'll be laughing about US politics even ten years from now. And
>I suspect I'm not going to be the only one.
This is a country that was founded by Puritans. I don't expect any less.
>It's really, really hard to take *any* US politician seriously right now.
Hey, and you don't even live here!
Kate Wrightson
Marty Fouts <usene...@usa.net> wrote:
>The interesting question isn't "who did he sleep with", but rather
>"did he lie under oath". Not that that changes any of the points you
>are making, except that being blown by a consenting aide is a far less
>serious offense than lying under oath under US law.
Thank you, Marty, for making the point clear.
I don't give a flying fruitcake who blows the President (though I think
it's tacky to wipe off on her dress). I *do* find it highly offensive
that a man sworn to uphold the Constitution would find it prudent and
advisable to lie under oath -- if he's lying about blow-jobs, what the
hell else is he lying to us about?
Jim Kingdon
> context. I would imagine it is a simplified version of the
> impeachment process.
Well, the basic difference is that impeachment is supposed to be for
"high crimes and misdemeanors" and is kind of hard to do (you need a
majority of the house and then 2/3 of the senate). They tried to use
this procedure simply because they didn't like the president once, but
this (narrowly) failed. The President in question was Andrew Johnson,
in about 1867 (plus or minus a few years).
Whereas a vote of no confidence, in a parliamentary system like
Israel's, just means that the prime minister lost a majority (because
of defections or whatever). The parliament doesn't need to invent
crimes, they can do it just because they changed their political
allegiances or whatever.
Kai Henningsen
> In article <gb-050898...@jill.westfalen.de>,
> Georg Bauer <g...@hugo.westfalen.de> wrote:
>
> >What I always don't understand: what's the fuss about it? Even if he had
> >sex with here - who cares? Is having sex with another adult actually a
> >crim in US? What do they need a trial for this?
>
> It's not so much the sex as the lying. The evasion. The massive waste of
> money on schemes to try to get government employees out of situations
> where they'd have to testify, under oath, about things that would tend to
> show the President as a liar.
>
> Y'know, I voted for the man. I want my vote back.
So let me put this bluntly:
If the US people manage to oust a president over the fact he slept with
something, I'll be laughing about US politics even ten years from now. And
I suspect I'm not going to be the only one.
This is so fucking ridiculous, I still have trouble believing it.
That's opera stuff. Banana republic niveau. Completely insane.
If someone had told me it would happen, I'd never believed it.
And comparing this to Watergate - well, you people have obviously lost all
sense of proportion.
It's really, really hard to take *any* US politician seriously right now.
Hey come on, take seriously the country that spends millions to find out
who the president was sleeping with? What's next, arguing about whether he
eats broccoli? (Oops, sorry, had that already.)
Kai
--
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
"... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it."
- Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu)
karmic acid
>I don't give a flying fruitcake who blows the President (though I think
>it's tacky to wipe off on her dress). I *do* find it highly offensive
>that a man sworn to uphold the Constitution would find it prudent and
>advisable to lie under oath -- if he's lying about blow-jobs, what the
>hell else is he lying to us about?
Pardon my cynicism, but do we really want to know?
YoYo
>Pardon my cynicism, but do we really want to know?
Yes. If the Chinese Government was trying to influence the election so
they could get missile technology, I want to know about it.
--
----YoYo------...@tezcat.com------------and stuff------
"Consider this rule of thumb: To the extent that philosophical
positions both confuse and close doors to further inquiry, they
are likely to be wrong." -Edward O. Wilson
partially hydrogenated
YoYo <yo...@huitzilo.tezcat.com> wrote:
>karmic acid <rone+...@ennui.org> wrote:
>>Pardon my cynicism, but do we really want to know?
>Yes. If the Chinese Government was trying to influence the election so
>they could get missile technology, I want to know about it.
Why? What are you going to do about it?
rone
--
The Famous Pedant-o-Sig! | "She reached between his legs,
Suggestions to <pedan...@ennui.org> | only TO find TWO balls TOO many."
Kate Wrightson
partially hydrogenated <rone+...@ennui.org> wrote:
>Why? What are you going to do about it?
What does doing anything about it have to do with it?
partially hydrogenated
>In article <rone.ThuAug6124...@ennui.org>,
>partially hydrogenated <rone+...@ennui.org> wrote:
>>Why? What are you going to do about it?
>What does doing anything about it have to do with it?
What's the point in wanting to know? Just to know? That is, is all
you want the comfort of knowing that your scumbag adulterous president
is honest? If he were honest, why would he be getting blown by an intern?
Shelton Garner
Henningsen) wrote:
>ka...@eyrie.org (Kate Wrightson) wrote on 04.08.98 in <6q8ned$5...@eyrie.org>:
>
>> In article <gb-050898...@jill.westfalen.de>,
>> Georg Bauer <g...@hugo.westfalen.de> wrote:
>>
>> >What I always don't understand: what's the fuss about it? Even if he had
>> >sex with here - who cares? Is having sex with another adult actually a
>> >crim in US? What do they need a trial for this?
>>
>> It's not so much the sex as the lying. The evasion. The massive waste of
>> money on schemes to try to get government employees out of situations
>> where they'd have to testify, under oath, about things that would tend to
>> show the President as a liar.
>>
>> Y'know, I voted for the man. I want my vote back.
>
>So let me put this bluntly:
>
>If the US people manage to oust a president over the fact he slept with
>something, I'll be laughing about US politics even ten years from now. And
>I suspect I'm not going to be the only one.
>
>This is so fucking ridiculous, I still have trouble believing it.
>
>That's opera stuff. Banana republic niveau. Completely insane.
>
>If someone had told me it would happen, I'd never believed it.
>
>And comparing this to Watergate - well, you people have obviously lost all
>sense of proportion.
I actually read a book once that tried to discover what putting "gate"
after every scandal meant. If it meant Watergate was "different" and
thus the "gate" suffix was wrong or if it wasn't.
What really REALLY gets me is how lightly people are talking about
impeachment. While I suspect Clinton isn't going to make it through
his full term (one way or another--an no, NSA people, I'm not talking
about harming him physically) I really don't want to go through the
collective emotional trauma that either a resignation or a
impeachment/conviction would entail. All this for testimony in a
dismissed civil case?
It'll make OJ look like a picnic.
lee
L. Shelton Bumgarner -- Keeper of the Great Renaming FAQ
Nattering Nabob of Narcissism * http://www.nottowayez.net/~leebum/
ICQ#: 9393354 * "Given two unrelated technical terms, an Internet
search engine will retrieve only resumes." -- Schachter's Hypothesis
Jim Kingdon
> after every scandal meant. If it meant Watergate was "different" and
> thus the "gate" suffix was wrong or if it wasn't.
Thus proving that some people are _rather_ too obsessed about
Washington (I mean the people who use the "gate" suffix are bad
enough, but people who write about it???).